Kean Fed'n of Teachers v. Morell
187 A.3d 153
N.J.2018Background
- Kean University Board of Trustees held periodic public meetings and used a subcommittee to prepare faculty reappointment recommendations; the Board voted in public on reappointments at a December 6, 2014 meeting.
- Two professors (and the faculty union) challenged Board actions, alleging failure to provide Rice notices under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) before personnel matters and failure to make closed-session minutes "promptly available."
- The Law Division held that Rice notices were required when a personnel matter is discussed in closed session but declined to void the Board's actions; it also found minutes were not promptly released and suggested a 30–45 day guideline.
- The Appellate Division reversed on the Rice notice issue (expanding Rice), affirmed that minutes were not promptly available, and ordered the Board to adopt a schedule promoting 30–45 day release of minutes and voided the December personnel actions.
- The Supreme Court granted certification and reviewed (1) the scope of Rice/N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) notice obligations and (2) what "promptly available" means for meeting minutes and the proper remedy for delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rice notice is required whenever personnel matters appear on a public agenda, including when discussion and vote occur in public | Plaintiffs: employees must get notice to decide whether to demand public discussion; Rice protects employees' chance to force a public forum | Defendants: Rice applies only when the body intends to meet in closed session and would unduly burden public bodies if extended | Held: Rice is limited to situations where the public body intends to meet in closed session and employees would be adversely affected; no Rice notice required where discussion/vote occurs in public |
| Whether the Board violated OPMA by not making closed-session minutes "promptly available" | Plaintiffs: long delays (months) undermine transparency; a deadline (30–45 days) is appropriate | Defendants: inflexible deadlines intrude on managerial discretion; meeting frequency should remain for boards to decide | Held: Minutes must be "promptly available" assessed case-by-case; Board's delays here were unreasonable, but no fixed statutory deadline imposed |
| Whether personnel actions taken at Dec. 6, 2014 meeting are void for OPMA violation | Plaintiffs: Board failed to give required Rice notices; actions should be voided | Defendants: No Rice obligation here because action occurred in public; voiding is unnecessary and intrusive | Held: Voidance reversed — personnel actions valid because Board held public discussion and vote |
| Proper remedy and scope of judicial relief for OPMA minutes violations | Plaintiffs: courts may impose schedules/deadlines to secure transparency | Defendants: Courts should not micromanage internal board operations or force increased meeting frequency | Held: Courts should avoid micromanagement; require reasonable, fact-sensitive relief and encourage procedural remedies (e.g., more meetings, technology) rather than fixed universal timelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Union Cty. Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 155 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 1977) (established requirement to give notice to employees when personnel matters will be discussed in closed session so they can request public discussion)
- Matawan Reg’l Teachers’ Ass’n v. Matawan-Aberdeen Reg’l Bd. of Educ., 212 N.J. Super. 328 (Law Div. 1986) (fact-sensitive factors for when minutes are "promptly available")
- S. Jersey Publ’g Co. v. Expressway Auth., 124 N.J. 478 (1991) (closed-session minutes remain subject to promptly-available requirement; disclosure may be modified to protect privacy)
- Payton v. Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524 (1997) (balancing public interest and confidentiality when deciding disclosure of closed-session minutes)
- McGovern v. Rutgers, 211 N.J. 94 (2012) (courts should not impose greater burdens on public bodies than Legislature requires under OPMA)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (statutory interpretation principles; courts must enforce clear legislative language)