McGovern v. Rutgers
211 N.J. 94
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Rutgers Board of Governors is subject to OPMA; plaintiff McGovern, an alumnus, regularly attended meetings.
- A 2008 special meeting on Sept. 10 began with an immediate move to close to the public and lasted about 4 hours.
- The Board adopted a resolution to close on topics including contract negotiations, naming rights, stadium construction, employment terms, and attorney-client matters; minutes discussed related subjects in redacted form.
- Appellate Division found notice inadequate for Sept. 10, held some topics outside exemptions, and found a problematic open/close meeting sequence; remanded for remedy.
- Trial court granted dismissal; appellate panel reversed in part and then the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and remanded for dismissal of McGovern's complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice for the Sept. 10, 2008 meeting complied with OPMA. | McGovern argues notice lacked the agenda; not enough detail. | Rutgers contends notice complied with 10:4-8(d) by stating general topics. | Notice inadequacy not grounds for remedy; dismissal affirmed on procedural basis. |
| Whether the closed-session topics fell within OPMA exemptions. | Topics included president’s policy remarks outside exemptions. | Some topics (Nelligan contract, stadium, naming rights) fit 10:4-12(b)(7). | Some topics validly closed; remarks about policy did not fall within exemptions. |
| Whether the Board’s open-then-closed-then-open meeting sequence violated OPMA. | Sequence diminishes public access and violates OPMA. | No textual support for mandatory sequencing; discretion to proceed. | Remedy of requiring open session completed before closing is unwarranted; no order entered. |
| What relief, if any, is available for OPMA violations here. | Remedial relief including voiding actions and injunctive relief. | No action voided occurred; no pattern of noncompliance; no knowing violation. | Remanded to dismiss complaint; no prerogative-writ voiding or injunction ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Jersey Pub. Co. v. N.J. Expressway, 124 N.J.478 (N.J. 1991) (public participation policy cited in OPMA context)
- Polillo v. Deane, 74 N.J.562 (N.J. 1977) (public participation and liberal construction principles)
- Greater N.J. incipient public involvement cases, N.J. 570-571, 379 A.2d 211 (—) (tradition of public involvement in government (context))
- State v. Shelley, 205 N.J.320 (N.J. 2011) (statutory interpretation framework; liberal construction directive)
- Burnett v. Gloucester Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 409 N.J.Super. 219 (App.Div.2009) (pattern of noncompliance as basis for injunctive relief)
- Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc., 198 N.J.511 (N.J. 2009) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- D’Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 192 N.J.110 (N.J. 2007) (interpretive framework for statutory text)
- Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J.543 (N.J. 2009) (interpretation and liberal construction principles)
- Pizzullo v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 196 N.J.251 (N.J. 2008) (statutory interpretation and intent)