Francis J. McGovern, Jr., v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Francis J. McGovern, Jr., v. Rutgers, the State

University of New Jersey (A-113-10; 067787)

The Board’s resolution adopted at the special meeting

satisfied N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 by advising of “the general

nature” of what was to be discussed at the closed

session. The notice of that meeting was not adequate

under N.J.S.A. 10:4-8 because it did not include the

proposed agenda for the meeting “to the extent known”

at the time the notice was prepared. OPMA does not

permit excluding the public from discussion of issues

such as policy recommendations and rule formulation.

However, OPMA affords no remedy for these violations

because the Board took no action that could be voided

and there was no showing of a pattern of noncompliance

or of a knowing violation. Finally, OPMA does not

require that a public body complete the open portion

of its meetings before going into closed session. 7-25-12

FRANCIS J. McGOVERN, JR., ESQ v. RUTGERS, ET AL. A-2531-09T1

FRANCIS J. McGOVERN, JR., ESQ v. RUTGERS, ET AL. A-2531-09T1

Construing the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21, we conclude: 1) a public body violates the requirements of the Act by routinely scheduling a five-minute public session, followed by a closed session of indeterminate duration, followed by another public session; 2) the Rutgers Board of Governors is not a "board of education" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(a), and is therefore not required to set aside a portion of its meetings for publiccomment; and 3) the notice issued to advise the public of an upcoming special meeting contained an insufficient description of the matters that were expected to be discussed in closed session. 2-18-11