Bill threatens Rutgers’ independence, prof says

Some Rutgers activists are worried that legislation introduced in March could set a precedent of political interference.

The bill (S1860/A3046) would increase the number of political appointees to the powerful Board of Governors, expanding the board to 19 voting members, from 15.

Under the proposed bill, the university's Board of Trustees would continue to select seven Board of Governors members, but the governor's selections would increase to 10, from eight. The Senate President and Assembly Speaker would each fill one of the two remaining spots.

State Senate President Steve Sweeney (D., Gloucester) and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D., Hudson) sponsored the bill. No action has been taken in either house.

Andrew Shankman, a Rutgers-Camden history professor who has been vocal about university issues in the past, said in an e-mail blast that the Legislature doesn't have the authority to make such governance changes.

"Obviously, this bill is a serious change of governance, and it cannot happen without the consent of the [Board of Trustees]," Shankman wrote. "To seek to change governance without [Board of Trustees] consent is a violation of the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution and of the [Board of Trustees'] Fifth and 14th Amendment rights."

The issue hinges on Rutgers' history and the continued existence today of two governing boards: the powerful Board of Governors at the center of the legislation and the 59-member Board of Trustees, which has limited power in regular governance.

Rutgers, which began as Queen's College, became the state university in 1945, but remained a private institution. In 1956, the trustees entered into a contract with the Legislature, creating the "Rutgers compact," according to activists, including New Jersey Constitutional law expert Robert Williams, a professor at Rutgers-Camden's law school.

"So now you say, 'It's a law, passed in 1956, why can't it simply be amended by a new law? Like almost all the other laws on the books, you can change them!' That's why we say the 1956 Rutgers Compact was no ordinary law, it's a contract," Williams said last June, explaining the school's history when a similar issue arose. "It happens that the United States Constitution says no state may impair the obligation of contract, or in effect breach a contract."

The trustees agreed in 1956 to cede the vast majority of their power to a newly created Board of Governors, responsible for regular governance of the university. Among the Board of Trustees' remaining responsibilities, Shankman wrote, is to "continue to have their consent required for changes to the contract and over governance changes to the university."

Because of the contract, and the trustees' consent to changes to it, the argument goes, the proposed legislative changes to the Board of Governors could not be passed without trustee approval.

Shankman also sees a larger issue than a governance change. Calling it "a pretext for an effort by Sweeney et. al. to take control of Rutgers," Shankman decried the move in his email because of the precedent it could set for Rutgers:

"While, in and of itself, increasing the BoG as the bill calls for won't bring a huge change to Rutgers governance, if they manage it, it will establish that the state government can change Rutgers governance at will. As we've seen over the last two years, with the effort to sever Rutgers-Camden and hand it over to Rowan in 2012, and the effort to abolish the Trustees outright in 2013, there is not much Sweeney and company won't dream up if they can establish that they can alter Rutgers governance without consent. So the relatively limited nature of this bill (and irrevocably seizing control of the BoG isn't really all that limited) is not the primary point at issue here."

— Jonathan Lai