NEW BRUNSWICK — Rutgers University's board of governors discussed public business behind closed doors and created an atmosphere that kept the public largely in the dark during a meeting in 2008 about the school's athletic department, a state appellate court ruled Friday.

In a decision that puts public entities on greater notice about what information they must provide at public meetings, the three-member panel said Rutgers ran "afoul" of the state’s Open Public Meetings Act, dubbed the "Sunshine Law" because of the light it is supposed to shine on governmental bodies.

The court also criticized the board’s practice of "sequencing" — holding long closed-door sessions between public sessions — saying it "subverts the very purposes the ‘Sunshine Law’ was designed to achieve."

"So clear is the right of access to public meetings that ‘strict adherence to the letter of the law is required,’" Judge Linda Baxter wrote, partially quoting a previous court ruling.

Friday’s unanimous decision focused on a Sept. 10, 2008, meeting on the New Brunswick campus. The Rutgers board — which includes 11 voting members and the university president — held the session to review the school’s athletic department after questions were raised about spending on the football program.

During that time, The Star-Ledger threatened legal action against the school to gain access to documents related to the university's $102 million stadium expansion. The paper's request was one of the subjects of the closed-door discussions.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:



• Rutgers board members mum after four-hour, closed-door meeting

• Irked by AD's firing, senator calls for Rutgers president to go



• Rutgers OKs stadium work, faces backlash over firing

• Rutgers board approves scaled-back stadium expansion

• Rutgers' board grapples with football-stadium expansion

• Rutgers completes panel for athletic department probe

Without citing specific topics, the board said it was holding the meeting to discuss "contract negotiations" and "attorney-client privilege."

Rutgers alumnus Francis McGovern Jr., an attorney and regular attendee of the board gatherings, challenged the legality of that meeting, saying the notice wasn’t specific enough and that the board discussed matters in closed session that should have been handled publicly.

McGovern also challenged the structure of the board’s meetings. Under the "sequencing" practice, board members regularly convene a public meeting, then immediately go into closed session. The public is left waiting, often for an hour or more, for board members to return and continue the public portion of the meeting.

In October 2009, Superior Court Judge James Hurley, who has since retired, sided with Rutgers and dismissed McGovern’s complaint. But the judge cautioned the board to be more specific in describing the purpose of its closed-door sessions.

The appellate panel said two of the three discussions McGovern insisted should have been in public — naming rights for the stadium and the construction contract — were rightfully conducted in executive session. However, the court said discussions about new policies for the athletic department should have been held in public.

McGovern had also asked for a full copy of the minutes of the closed meeting, but the appeals judges declined to rule on that because he didn’t ask Hurley for the documents in his original complaint. The judges also refused McGovern’s request to require the board of governors to devote a portion of all meetings to public comment.

The appellate panel sent the case back to Superior Court to handle remedies for the violations. The court could require Rutgers to stop its sequencing practice.

Rutgers spokesman E.J. Miranda said the university is reviewing the decision.

McGovern said he was pleased with the ruling.

"It’s a victory for openness in government. The more openness in government, the better, as far as I’m concerned," McGovern said.

Bruce Rosen, a Florham Park-based media attorney, said the decision is a clear victory for the public.

"The message here is make sure what’s public is public and what’s private is private," he said. "Don’t try to mix the two. These boards have to be sensitive to the public."

Staff writer Kelly Heyboer contributed to this report.