By Lev D. Zilbermints
Part Two of Two
In last week’s issue, July 22, Local Talk covered the circumstances of the February 26 and June 22 online meetings of the Rutgers Board of Governors. Part One showed how the Board Chairman, Mark A. Angelson, repeatedly ruled both Charlie Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today and Troy Shinbrot, an elected University Senate faculty representative. No justification was given as to why the two men, who spoke on agenda items, were out of order.
Part Two will focus on what the law states about the Open Public Meetings Act; responses from Charlie Kratovil and Dr. Troy Shinbrot. Also, the personal opinions of key members of the University Senate, which is on summer recess, will be cited.
Definition of the Open Public Meetings Act
According to the Digital Media Law Project, the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) does not apply to government officials acting in an individual capacity, like a governor or a mayor when they meet their subordinates. The act applies to officials if they sit on a board, commission or other multi-member bodies that makes decisions on public business. That is first.
Second, the act covers bodies that vote on public matters or spend public funds. These bodies that are purely advisory boards or committees are not covered. Also not covered is any private group or body not created by a New Jersey statute, ordinance, or regulation or federal government bodies.
Under the OPMA, all members of the public can attend meetings of public bodies, except for closed sessions. New Jersey law states that anyone can attend. However, attendance of a public meeting does not necessarily include the right to comment or participate. Most public bodies in New Jersey may decide for themselves whether to allow public participation and may impose rules limiting or regulating participation.
Local Talk reached out to Jon L. Oliver, a part-time faculty and assistant dean, who is the other faculty member on the Board of Governors, for comment. Oliver told Local Talk by email that he forwarded the questions to University Media Relations. There has been no response from University spokeswoman Dory Devlin despite questions sent by email and messages left on voice mail.
Board of Trustees Bylaws and Rules
At its December 17, 2020 meeting, the Board of Governors revised its bylaws. The number of speakers was increased from five to twelve. Furthermore, speakers were given only two minutes to speak on a topic that was on the agenda. Unlike in the past, other speakers could not cede or substitute their time, to somebody who had signed up.
There is a process for putting an item on the meeting of the Board. However, this process has to go through a five-stage reviewal from the Dean or Director of a Department and up to the University President before making it to a Board agenda.
The Bylaws of the Board of Governors mention the Open Public Meetings Act at least seven times. However, there is little to no public input at Board of Governors meetings.
Under Section I. B2, the agenda is prepared by the President of the University in consultation with the chair and transmitted to each Governor at least five days before the meeting. The Board may remove or add agenda items in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. The agenda is available at the office of the University Secretary, usually 48 hours before the meeting.
Even the Committee on Academic and Student Affairs is devoid of student input. The Bylaws, under Section IV, Subsection 3, Committees of the Board, state that “student complaints grievances and petitions are addressed by the University through established institutional policies and are not within the scope of duties for which this committee is responsible.”
According to Karen Thompson, Part-Time Lecturer for English Writing Program and Robert S. Boikess, Professor of Chemistry, what is happening is that “colleges and universities are being transformed more and more from academic institutions governed by academic principles and imperatives into corporate institutions governed by business management principles. The imperious conduct of the Rutgers Board of Governors, a group of non-academics, is a symptom of this transformation.”
The two professors stated that since the University Senate does not meet in the summer, it has not yet addressed the issues raised in Local Talk’s questions. Both professors agreed to give their personal answers. Boikess and Thompson stated that they do not speak for the University Senate.
In their responses, Boikess and Thompson wrote, “our position is that it is never appropriate for a legitimate attendee at a meeting to be ruled out of order without stated cause.”
Both professors said that “we certainly support voting student representatives on the BOG and are confident that the Senate would, as well.”
Asked about conflicts of interest, by the BOG, Boikess and Thompson wrote, “Given that Rutgers is the State University of New Jersey and given that virtually all of its financial authority are under the authority of the BOG, we would expect that not just the Senate, but also the state government would be concerned about personal conflicts of interest on the part of members of the BOG.”
Local Talk will keep its readers informed about personal conflicts of interest by the Rutgers Board of Governors. These, as well as history about Rutgers students’ past struggles with the BOG, could appear in future Local Talk issues.
