Rutgers boards to strategize on bill to add political appointees

Rutgers University's two governing boards will meet tonight for a closed-door session to discuss their ongoing fight of a bill that would expand the number of political appointees to the university's main governing body.

Both boards meet tonight at 7:15 p.m. for a special joint meeting in Winants Hall on the Rutgers–New Brunswick campus. After some formalities, they are expected to vote to go into closed session "to discuss the legal implications of Senate Bill 1860," according to a Rutgers notice sent last week. "The boards will not resume in open session."

Critics say the bill, introduced by State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester), would set a precedent of political interference, undermining the university's ability to govern itself. (More info here.)

The bill, S1860, would expand the Rutgers University Board of Governors to 19 members, from 15; 12 of the 19 members would be political appointees. The Board of Governors is the more powerful of the university's two governing bodies, with responsibility for overseeing the running of the university, including setting tuition and approving the establishment of new programs.

The 59-member Board of Trustees would continue to appoint the remaining seven members of the Board of Governors. The trustees have a largely advisory role, along with responsibility as the ultimate stewards of vast swaths of Rutgers' land.

According to the meeting notice, no public action is to be expected tonight. The boards will likely discuss the possibility of suing to block the legislation if it passes; the trustees vowed to go to court last year, after an emergency closed session meeting when Sweeney introduced legislation to abolish their board.

John J. Farmer Jr., Rutgers' general counsel, is expected to speak during the meeting.

For his part, Sweeney has said he's ready for a legal battle.

At a meeting last week of the Senate's Higher Education Committee, Senate Minority Leader Thomas H. Kean (R., Union), a committee member, asked Sweeney: "How in the world is this at all constitutional?"

Sweeney answered that he didn't know, but "we'll see what happens in court."

— Jonathan Lai