The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | March 2017 Continued from previous page
employees or their employment (which the Appellate Division seems to discourage), it must provide each of these employees with a Rice notice. Since Kean University only sent a letter informing certain employees that the President would not be recommending to the Board their reappointment (instead of notifying them of their right to have the matter discussed publically), the Court found that the employment actions taken at the December meeting were null and void.
Meeting Minutes The OPMA also requires that meeting minutes be made “promptly available” to the public.7 However, prior to the Court’s decisions in Kean I/II, “promptly available” had never been specifically defined. To provide clarity to this ambiguous language, the Court concluded that “promptly available” requires a public entity to release its minutes within 30 to 45 days of
its last meeting, unless extraordinary
circumstances (such as extreme weather, public emergencies, or other unforeseen circumstances) prevent the Board from meeting. To ensure the Kean University Board of Trustees complied with this requirement, the Court required it to adopt a meeting schedule for the 2017-2018 school year that would enable it to make its minutes publically available within this timeframe (even if doing so would require the Board to meet an additional five times per year).
Takeaways To avoid unnecessary litigation that may invalidate its actions, public entities must become familiar with the more stringent requirements under the OPMA. Unfortunately, Kean I and II will
likely have
unintended consequences, including an increased burden being placed on administrative offices (due to the greater number of Rice notices that will need to be prepared) and requiring all public entities to hold a minimum of nine meetings per year that occur no greater than 45 days apart (as any fewer number would prevent a public entity from approving and making “promptly available” its meeting minutes).
[1] Kean Fed'n of Teachers v. Ada Morell, A-5481-14T3 (App. Div. Feb. 8, 2017);
Kean Fed'n of Teachers v. Bd. of Trs. of Kean Univ., No. A-2332-14 (App. Div. Feb. 8, 2017). [2] N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8). [3] Rice v. Union Cty. Reg'l High Sch. Bd. of Ed., 155 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 1977). [4] Notably, the Appellate Division held that when "a public body acts on a personnel matter without prior discussion of any kind, the silent unexplained vote cast by the Board mem-
bers reduced the event to a perfunctory exercise, devoid of both substance and meaning." [5] The trial judge upheld the traditional interpretation of the OPMA that "absent any discussion of [the employee's] employment status during closed session, or any stated intention to
engage in such discussion, the OPMA does not require the Board to issue a Rice notice." Kean Fed'n of Teachers v. Ada Morell, A-5481-14T3 (App. Div. Feb. 8, 2017) at *4. [6] According to the Appellate Division, this will create "an environment in which the members of public bodies are free to carry out their responsibilities in a manner that guarantees to
the public that their ultimate decisions are the product of a thoughtful and deliberative process." [7] N.J.S.A. 10:4-14.
12
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
