Are UNC system coaches' employment contracts and the related vendor/sponsorship contracts public records that the school must turn over on request?

Plain-English summary

UNC General Counsel Charles Waldrup asked the AG about public records requests landing at several UNC system schools for two categories of documents: (1) employment contracts between the schools and their head coaches, and (2) contracts between the schools and various vendors or suppliers that involved or benefitted the coaches (e.g., apparel deals, shoe contracts, endorsement agreements).

The AG worked through the public-records framework one document type at a time.

Coaches' employment contracts. These contracts contain standard contract terms, descriptions of institutional athletic policies and standards, and the rights and obligations of school and coach. The only "personal" information is salary. The AG noted that:

• § 126-23 requires every state employer to maintain a public record of each employee's name, age, salary, position, etc., and keep it open to inspection.
• § 126-22 and § 126-24 protect "personnel files," but the definition in § 126-22 is limited to specific categories like applications, promotions, demotions, leave, salary, performance evaluation, disciplinary actions, etc.
• The general policies, standards, practices, and procedures contained in coaches' contracts are not within the personnel-file definition either expressly or by reasonable inference.

So coaches' contracts are public, since no statutory exception removes them from the default openness rule articulated in Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp.: "North Carolina's public records law grants public access to documents it defines as public records absent a specific statutory exemption."

Vendor and supplier contracts. These contracts share four characteristics:
- The parties are the university and a vendor/supplier
- The coaches don't sign them
- Some contract terms benefit the coaches or impose obligations on them
- The university maintains the contracts as part of its records

No statute makes documents like these confidential. So they too are public records, available for inspection and copying.

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

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 college athletics landscape has changed substantially since 2003, including the NIL (name, image, and likeness) reforms, expanded conference media deals, and revised NCAA rules. The basic NC public-records framework remains, but specific document types may now have different treatment. Public records requests at NC system schools should be evaluated against current law.

Common questions

Q: Does this rule cover assistant coaches and support staff?
A: The opinion addresses head coaches but the same analytical framework would apply to assistant coaches and other UNC employees. Their contracts contain similar information, and absent a specific statutory exception, they would also be public.

Q: Are NIL agreements covered?
A: NIL agreements are typically between the athlete and a sponsor, with the school not as a contracting party. The 2003 AG opinion didn't anticipate NIL. Public-records analysis for current NIL deals would turn on whether the school maintains the agreement and whether any statutory carve-out applies.

Q: What about negotiation drafts or working papers?
A: The opinion addresses final contracts. Working drafts may be subject to different analysis, particularly under § 132-1.3 (drafts and working papers exception, sometimes applicable to settlement negotiations). The AG did not opine on drafts in this opinion.

Q: Can a coach object to release of his contract?
A: A public records request runs to the agency, not the employee. The coach has no legal authority to block release of a public record. (Coaches contracting with universities typically know their contracts are public records under NC law.)

Q: What about deferred compensation and incentives?
A: All forms of compensation paid by the university are part of "salary" under the post-2007 amendment to § 126-23 (which post-dates this opinion). Even before that amendment, the AG read coaches' total compensation as inherent to the contract being a public record.

Q: Are buyout or termination provisions public?
A: Yes, they are part of the employment contract that the AG declared a public record.

Background and statutory framework

NC has one of the strongest public-records traditions in the country. Chapter 132 declares the default rule (broad access) and Chapter 126 carves out narrow personnel-file confidentiality. The interaction is read pro-disclosure.

This opinion is part of a broader pattern. The AG's office has consistently read § 126-23 to require disclosure of compensation information, and the carve-out in § 126-22 to be narrow. Subsequent opinions (the 2008 retirement-benefits opinion, the 2009 accrued-leave-balances opinion, the 2010 personnel-information opinion) build on the same approach.

For college athletics specifically, NC's openness contrasts with private universities, which are not subject to public records laws and whose coaches' compensation packages remain largely confidential. Journalists, fans, taxpayers, and academic-side faculty members rely on these public-records rights to follow how athletic department money flows.

Citations

• N.C.G.S. § 132-1 et seq. (Public Records Law)
• N.C.G.S. § 126-22 (personnel files confidential)
• N.C.G.S. § 126-23 (information required to be public)
• N.C.G.S. § 126-24 (additional confidentiality)
• Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp., 350 N.C. 449 (1999)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/

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