Are NC public university athletic coaches' employment contracts and related vendor contracts public records subject to disclosure?

Plain-English summary

UNC's Associate VP for Legal Affairs asked the AG whether a series of contracts involving athletic coaches at UNC constituent institutions had to be released under public records requests. The contracts fell into two groups: (1) employment contracts between universities and their coaches, and (2) contracts between universities and vendors or suppliers that involved or concerned coaches. The AG concluded both groups were public records.

The guiding principle was simple. The Public Records Act gives public access to documents that are public records, "absent a specific statutory exemption" (Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp., 350 N.C. 449, 465 (1999)). The question was whether the legislature had expressly made the information in these contracts confidential.

For the coaches' employment contracts: the AG looked at three statutes that address public-employee record confidentiality.

• § 126-22 and § 126-24. Make "personnel files" of state employees confidential.
• § 126-23. Requires agencies to maintain a public record of basic employee information (name, age, salary, position, etc.).

§ 126-22 defines "personnel file" by enumerating types of information: application, selection or nonselection, promotions, demotions, transfers, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation, disciplinary actions, and transaction of employment. That list is broad, but it does not, "either expressly or by any reasonable inference," cover information about an institution's policies, standards, practices, procedures, or descriptions of an employee's duties.

The coaches' employment contracts contained mostly that kind of information. They outlined institutional policies and standards on athletics, and described the rights and obligations of the institution and the coach. The only personal information in those contracts was the coaches' salaries, which were already disclosable under § 126-23. Applying the rule that all information not expressly made confidential by the legislature is public, the AG concluded the employment contracts were public.

For the vendor contracts: the parties were the institutions and the vendors. The coaches were not signatories but received benefits or had obligations. Institutional property or resources were affected. The originals or copies were maintained by the universities. No statute made contracts with those characteristics confidential. The AG concluded they were public records too.

The AG was careful to note that the opinion addressed only the documents UNC had submitted for review. It expressed no opinion on contracts or documents not provided.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The personnel-file statutes in Chapter 126 have been amended several times since 2003 (notably by Session Law 2007-508, which expanded the public-salary definition to include benefits). Anyone responding to a current request for athletic-coach contract information should pull current versions of §§ 126-22, 126-23, and 126-24.

Common questions

Q: At the time of the opinion, could a sports journalist get a UNC football coach's contract?
A: Yes. The AG concluded employment contracts containing institutional policies, standards, and coach duties were public records. Salary terms within those contracts were also public under § 126-23.

Q: Were the universities' vendor contracts (apparel, shoes, etc.) covered?
A: Yes. The AG concluded those were not within any statutory exception, so they were public records and had to be released on request.

Q: What part of a coach's contract could be redacted?
A: The opinion did not identify anything in the reviewed contracts that was confidential. Things like personal identifying details (home address, SSN), if present, would be covered by the personnel-file exception. The opinion treated the underlying contract terms (policies, standards, duties, salary) as public.

Q: How does this interact with the 2007 salary-definition amendment?
A: The 2007 amendment expanded "salary" to include benefits, incentives, bonuses, deferred compensation, and other compensation. So under current law, even more compensation-related contract terms would be unambiguously public than in 2003.

Background and statutory framework

The Public Records Act framework:

• § 132-1. Defines public records broadly: documents made or received pursuant to law in connection with the transaction of public business.
• Virmani. Public access "absent a specific statutory exemption."

The personnel records framework:

• § 126-22 and § 126-24. Personnel files of state employees are confidential.
• § 126-22 definition. Personnel file = information about application, selection, promotion, demotion, transfer, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation, disciplinary actions, and transaction of employment. Broad but enumerated.
• § 126-23. Required public record of name, age, hire date, contract terms, position, salary, salary change history, etc. Carves out a public-information layer from the otherwise confidential personnel file.

The AG's interpretive move was to treat the § 126-22 list as defining the universe of personnel-file confidentiality. Information not falling within the enumerated categories was not personnel-file information and was not confidential. Coaches' employment contracts contained mostly policy/standard/duties information, which is outside the personnel-file scope.

The opinion was signed by Chief Deputy Attorney General Edwin M. Speas, Jr.

Citations

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-22 (personnel file confidentiality and definition)
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-23 (required public record of basic employee information)
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-24 (personnel file confidentiality)
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1 (Public Records Act)
• Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp., 350 N.C. 449 (1999)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/public-records/

Original opinion text

REPLY TO: Edwin M. Speas, Jr.

(919) 716-6400 FAX: (919) 716-0135

February 6, 2003

Charles J. Waldrup
Associate Vice President for Legal Affairs
The University of North Carolina
Office of the President
Post Office Box 2688
Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2688

Re: Advisory Opinion: Public Records Request; Coaches' Contracts; G.S. 132-1 et seq.

Dear Charles:

Several of the constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina have received requests pursuant to the Public Records Law, G.S. 132-1 et seq., to inspect and copy a series of contracts between or involving those institutions and the coaches of their athletic teams. You have identified the documents that would be responsive to this request and have forwarded them to us for our review and opinion as to whether those documents are public records which must be released.

We have now completed our review of these documents. They can be divided into two groups: (1) the contracts under which the institutions employ the coaches and (2) contracts between the institutions and certain vendors or suppliers which involve or concern those coaches or other documents related to those contracts. For the reasons explained below we conclude that each of the documents forwarded for our review is a public record.

The employment contracts between the institutions and their coaches are similar in form and content. In addition to standard or typical contract terms, those documents outline the institutions' policies and standards regarding athletics and describe the respective rights and obligations of the institutions and coaches with respect to those policies and standards. The only information in these particular documents that could reasonably be described as personal to the coaches is their salaries.

The guiding principle for determining whether records maintained by public entities are subject to public inspection or not is that all such records not expressly made private or confidential by an act of the legislature are public. See, e.g., Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp., 350 N.C. 449, 465 (1999) ("North Carolina's public records law grants public access to documents it defines as public records absent a specific statutory exemption."). The question therefore is whether the legislature has expressly provided for the confidentiality of the information in the contracts in question.

There are three statutes that address the confidentiality or public status of documents related to state employees. G.S. 126-23 expressly requires all state agencies and institutions to maintain a record listing certain personal information such as name, age, salary and position for each of its employees. The statute requires agencies and institutions to keep this record of basic employment open to public inspection during normal business hours. In contrast to G.S. 126-23, G.S. 126-22 and 24 expressly state that the "personnel files" of all state employees are confidential and exempted from inspection and examination under the Public Records Law. However, G.S. 126-22 defines that confidential "personnel file" to consist of information relating to an employee's

"application, selection or nonselection, promotions, demotions, transfers, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation forms disciplinary actions and transaction of employment wherever located and in whatever form."

Though this definition is quite broad, it does not include within its scope, either expressly or by any reasonable inference, information relating to an institution's general policies, standards, practices and procedures or to descriptions of an employee's duties. These are the types of information contained in the contracts we have examined. Applying the principle that all information contained in the records of public agencies and institutions that has not expressly been made private or confidential by an act of the legislature is a public record, we are of the opinion that the coaches' employment contracts we have examined are available for inspection and copying upon request.

The other category of contracts and related documents you provided for our review and opinion have the following characteristics, at least on their face: (a) the parties to the contracts are the institutions and various vendors or suppliers; (b) the contracts are not signed by the coaches though the contracts do provide some benefits to the coaches or impose some obligations on them; (c) institutional property or resources are affected by implementation of the contracts; and (d) the original or copies of the documents are maintained by the universities. There is no statute that makes documents with these characteristics private or confidential. Thus, in our opinion they are public records and should be made available for inspection and copying by citizens upon request.

In sum, in our opinion each of the documents you forwarded for our review is a public record under the Public Records Law. We, of course, express no opinion regarding any contracts or documents other than those you provided for our review.

Very truly yours,

Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General

EMSjr/sf