Board of Trustees to talk about lawyering up

[srru86]

to fight latest Norcross takeover attempt via Sweeney.

Newark Star Ledger
Rutgers trustees looking for legal advice on governance overhaul after Sweeney ultimatum

Hopefully they will go big like they did successfully last time.

To repeat I am not opposed to streamlining the Trustees and its size.

But changing the balance of power on the BOG to allow political appointees unfettered control like they had at UMDNJ is a no go for any fan of RU, or public higher education in NJ.



This post was edited on 8/12 11:04 AM by srru86

 

[derleider]

The problem for Sweeney is that he has nothing to offer RU other than not being a thorn in our side. At least with the attempted RU-Camden takeover he could hold UMDNJ under our nose to get some concessions, now what does he have?

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by derleider:
The problem for Sweeney is that he has nothing to offer RU other than not being a thorn in our side. At least with the attempted RU-Camden takeover he could hold UMDNJ under our nose to get some concessions, now what does he have?

He has leverage over our budget.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by derleider:
The problem for Sweeney is that he has nothing to offer RU other than not being a thorn in our side. At least with the attempted RU-Camden takeover he could hold UMDNJ under our nose to get some concessions, now what does he have?

He has leverage over our budget.

Somewhat - the grand effect of reducing it every year is to have less and less leverage.

 

[NotInRHouse]

There are some theories

- That he could prevail in court. I doubt it. The NJ Supreme Court has bucked the "establishment" many times. And there is just no legal basis whatsoever. The court also has at least 2 RU undergrad alums (LaVecchia and Albin).

- That he could make the budget worse. Likely would do that anyway.

- That he could come up with more hairbrained schemes to take control. Well he would do that in most cases and then you come back to court again.

I look at it like this. The BOT needs to "weather the storm". Basically right now you have an alliance between Christie and Sweeney, and they basically need to wait out being rid of one, if not both of those parties.

I really don't think the replacements for either from both parties care enough about this. It's all personal for RU stopping the earlier Norcross flim-flam.

If Fulop or a new Republican takes over, it's pretty likely that Norcross' power will be eroded. It's also possible that Norcross can get snared in the plethora of federal investigations into Christie.

The problem for all us is god forbid that Sweeney gets elected governor. I really doubt it but you may as well kiss the state of NJ goodbye if it does.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by derleider:
The problem for Sweeney is that he has nothing to offer RU other than not being a thorn in our side. At least with the attempted RU-Camden takeover he could hold UMDNJ under our nose to get some concessions, now what does he have?

He has leverage over our budget.

Somewhat - the grand effect of reducing it every year is to have less and less leverage.

I really like the idea that the number of seats on the BOG appointed by the Governor should equal the percentage of our budget that is provided by the State. I think that should be Rutgers opening position if we every get into actual negotiations on what might satisfy Norcross. Sweeney will sputter and deflect because of course that would mean a serious decrease in political appointees.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by srru86:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by derleider:
The problem for Sweeney is that he has nothing to offer RU other than not being a thorn in our side. At least with the attempted RU-Camden takeover he could hold UMDNJ under our nose to get some concessions, now what does he have?

He has leverage over our budget.

Somewhat - the grand effect of reducing it every year is to have less and less leverage.

I really like the idea that the number of seats on the BOG appointed by the Governor should equal the percentage of our budget that is provided by the State. I think that should be Rutgers opening position if we every get into actual negotiations on what might satisfy Norcross. Sweeney will sputter and deflect because of course that would mean a serious decrease in political appointees.

srru - from a PR/politics point of view it cant get any better. Totally flips the narrative on its head.

 

[pmvon]

Originally posted by srru86:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by derleider:
The problem for Sweeney is that he has nothing to offer RU other than not being a thorn in our side. At least with the attempted RU-Camden takeover he could hold UMDNJ under our nose to get some concessions, now what does he have?

He has leverage over our budget.

Somewhat - the grand effect of reducing it every year is to have less and less leverage.

I really like the idea that the number of seats on the BOG appointed by the Governor should equal the percentage of our budget that is provided by the State. I think that should be Rutgers opening position if we every get into actual negotiations on what might satisfy Norcross. Sweeney will sputter and deflect because of course that would mean a serious decrease in political appointees.

Yes, I have been saying this for some time. To the extent, they are requested to change the governance structure, it would be to reduce the government involvement to be commensurate with the % of funding received from the state. In addition, you reduce the number of Trustees and number of government appointed trustees accordingly. One professor brought this up in hearings but I haven't heard it at any other time.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

While that percentage linked to state funding might sound appealing... you'd have to be sure to cap it at 33% or something like that. This is New Jersey, and you'd hate to give Sweeney and the machine and opportunity to take power just by over-funding Rutgers for one year. Once in power, they could change any rules they want.

 

[NotInRHouse]

It should be the governor or maybe a panel in the statehouse, it shouldn't be Sweeny and it's should be based on geography either. It has to be something to stick in the machine craw.

The idea that someone who never even went to college could appoint someone is mind boggling.

 

[retired711]

This just isn't going to happen. Rutgers does not have the political or economic power to bring it about, and anyway it would be illegal without the state's consent under the 1956 contract. And why the state would agree, I have no idea. Stick to reality, fellow posters.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
This just isn't going to happen. Rutgers does not have the political or economic power to bring it about, and anyway it would be illegal without the state's consent under the 1956 contract. And why the state would agree, I have no idea. Stick to reality, fellow posters.

I don't think it is a real way forward. It is more about changing the public message to State budget miserly-ness rather than defending an awkward board structure.

We know in reality the 1956 compact is near legally unassailable. But many reporters that cover state politics can't/don't grasp that. And for those that do it is much more attractive to write about tales of conflict among powerful people and groups. If you read the press they largely only talk about, really just parrot, Sweeney's unfounded nonsense. Unless we put out some countervailing story that is all the public will hear. Sweeney is hoping we'll blink despite our legal standing. RU has to push back, alter the message.

Silence is a good defense strategy in a criminal court. In the face of accusations, even scurrilous ones, silence is read as an admission of guilt in public affairs.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
There are some theories

- That he could prevail in court. I doubt it. The NJ Supreme Court has bucked the "establishment" many times. And there is just no legal basis whatsoever. The court also has at least 2 RU undergrad alums (LaVecchia and Albin).

- That he could make the budget worse. Likely would do that anyway.

- That he could come up with more hairbrained schemes to take control. Well he would do that in most cases and then you come back to court again.

I look at it like this. The BOT needs to "weather the storm". Basically right now you have an alliance between Christie and Sweeney, and they basically need to wait out being rid of one, if not both of those parties.

I really don't think the replacements for either from both parties care enough about this. It's all personal for RU stopping the earlier Norcross flim-flam.

If Fulop or a new Republican takes over, it's pretty likely that Norcross' power will be eroded. It's also possible that Norcross can get snared in the plethora of federal investigations into Christie.

The problem for all us is god forbid that Sweeney gets elected governor. I really doubt it but you may as well kiss the state of NJ goodbye if it does.

Good points. And I think Fulop will win a primary against Sweeney in 2017 rather easily. There are just so many more folks, especially Democrats, in Northern NJ. And of course, Sweeney cut a deal with Christie to cut pension and healthcare benefits. This was the right decision for the state, but obviously, many Democratic primary voters are still not happy about it.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by GoodOl'Rutgers:
While that percentage linked to state funding might sound appealing... you'd have to be sure to cap it at 33% or something like that. This is New Jersey, and you'd hate to give Sweeney and the machine and opportunity to take power just by over-funding Rutgers for one year. Once in power, they could change any rules they want.

Not without the BoT approving they couldn't.

But srru is right - its all about moving the conversation back to where it should be. Instead of this nonsense Sweeney is putting out about how RU is mismanaged (presumably because it doesnt heel to his call), it would make the legislature defend why they should even get half the votes given their continuously reduced funding.

The end result would be a stalemate, which is a victory for RU.
This post was edited on 8/13 10:30 AM by derleider

 

[pmvon]

Originally posted by srru86:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
This just isn't going to happen. Rutgers does not have the political or economic power to bring it about, and anyway it would be illegal without the state's consent under the 1956 contract. And why the state would agree, I have no idea. Stick to reality, fellow posters.

I don't think it is a real way forward. It is more about changing the public message to State budget miserly-ness rather than defending an awkward board structure.

We know in reality the 1956 compact is near legally unassailable. But many reporters that cover state politics can't/don't grasp that. And for those that do it is much more attractive to write about tales of conflict among powerful people and groups. If you read the press they largely only talk about, really just parrot, Sweeney's unfounded nonsense. Unless we put out some countervailing story that is all the public will hear. Sweeney is hoping we'll blink despite our legal standing. RU has to push back, alter the message.

Silence is a good defense strategy in a criminal court. In the face of accusations, even scurrilous ones, silence is read as an admission of guilt in public affairs.

this

 

[NotInRHouse]

Camden

I think if RU is going to play the "negotiation" strategy it needs to present its best case situation first...which would be what srru posited. Think of RU like the defendant making a counteroffer on demand.

But I think the reality is RU has to try the case. Which will likely leave the status quo.

And- if a Sweeney versus anyone but the ghost of Hitler primary occurs, in NJ you can register your affiliation the day of a primary...RU supporters will need to be out in full force.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by T2Kplus10:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
There are some theories

- That he could prevail in court. I doubt it. The NJ Supreme Court has bucked the "establishment" many times. And there is just no legal basis whatsoever. The court also has at least 2 RU undergrad alums (LaVecchia and Albin).

- That he could make the budget worse. Likely would do that anyway.

- That he could come up with more hairbrained schemes to take control. Well he would do that in most cases and then you come back to court again.

I look at it like this. The BOT needs to "weather the storm". Basically right now you have an alliance between Christie and Sweeney, and they basically need to wait out being rid of one, if not both of those parties.

I really don't think the replacements for either from both parties care enough about this. It's all personal for RU stopping the earlier Norcross flim-flam.

If Fulop or a new Republican takes over, it's pretty likely that Norcross' power will be eroded. It's also possible that Norcross can get snared in the plethora of federal investigations into Christie.

The problem for all us is god forbid that Sweeney gets elected governor. I really doubt it but you may as well kiss the state of NJ goodbye if it does.

Good points. And I think Fulop will win a primary against Sweeney in 2017 rather easily. There are just so many more folks, especially Democrats, in Northern NJ. And of course, Sweeney cut a deal with Christie to cut pension and healthcare benefits. This was the right decision for the state, but obviously, many Democratic primary voters are still not happy about it.

Sorry, but I just don't "see" it with this guy.

He comes across as a Dennis Kucinich type without the hot wife.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by T2Kplus10:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
There are some theories

- That he could prevail in court. I doubt it. The NJ Supreme Court has bucked the "establishment" many times. And there is just no legal basis whatsoever. The court also has at least 2 RU undergrad alums (LaVecchia and Albin).

- That he could make the budget worse. Likely would do that anyway.

- That he could come up with more hairbrained schemes to take control. Well he would do that in most cases and then you come back to court again.

I look at it like this. The BOT needs to "weather the storm". Basically right now you have an alliance between Christie and Sweeney, and they basically need to wait out being rid of one, if not both of those parties.

I really don't think the replacements for either from both parties care enough about this. It's all personal for RU stopping the earlier Norcross flim-flam.

If Fulop or a new Republican takes over, it's pretty likely that Norcross' power will be eroded. It's also possible that Norcross can get snared in the plethora of federal investigations into Christie.

The problem for all us is god forbid that Sweeney gets elected governor. I really doubt it but you may as well kiss the state of NJ goodbye if it does.

Good points. And I think Fulop will win a primary against Sweeney in 2017 rather easily. There are just so many more folks, especially Democrats, in Northern NJ. And of course, Sweeney cut a deal with Christie to cut pension and healthcare benefits. This was the right decision for the state, but obviously, many Democratic primary voters are still not happy about it.

Sorry, but I just don't "see" it with this guy.

He comes across as a Dennis Kucinich type without the hot wife.

I agree. I think Fulop is a fraud and would be a poor Governor, but I just think that he (and any reasonable candidate from Northern NJ) would defeat Sweeney in a primary election. That's all.

I believe the only way Sweeney wins in a primary is if there are multiple strong Northern NJ candidates that will spilt the vote and allow him to win with 35-38%.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Fulop has been a good mayor here, and he's not the type that's in with the unions and has pissed off quite a few public workers in Jersey City. He canned a bunch of ineffective cops and teachers and that won't be forgotten. That's what's going to mobilize Sweeney.

Remember too that whoever goes against Sweeney will have the entire Norcross machine and media empire against them. It will be ugly and should the opponent, Fulop or anyone else, lose, that person will be politically ruined by the time they're done.

Like I said, regardless of your affiliation, anyone who lives in NJ, if you care about RU, be sure to vote in that primary. Sweeney in charge of NJ will bankrupt the state and destroy RU's independence.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Camden

I think if RU is going to play the "negotiation" strategy it needs to present its best case situation first...which would be what srru posited. Think of RU like the defendant making a counteroffer on demand.

But I think the reality is RU has to try the case. Which will likely leave the status quo.

And- if a Sweeney versus anyone but the ghost of Hitler primary occurs, in NJ you can register your affiliation the day of a primary...RU supporters will need to be out in full force.

As a lawyer, you know full well that implausible starting positions -- and I'm being nice, actually it's a ridiculous position -- are not a good strategy. And as a way to draw attention to Rutgers' funding plight, it is a non-starter. Maybe it gets a day's coverage in the Star-Ledger and Trenton Times.

I do not see Sweeney as a plausible candidate for governor -- he looks far too ugly on TV. And as Rob Andrews found out when he ran in the gubernatorial primary against McGreeney, South Jersey is not an adequate base for a state-wide run.

 

[T2Kplus10]

"Sweeney in charge of NJ will bankrupt the state and destroy RU's independence."

Definitely in agreement here.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

He comes across as a Dennis Kucinich type without the hot wife.

I know this is not the football board, do we enforce the "Must Post Pictures" rule over here?

 

[retired711]

here you go. But why anyone thinks that Sweeney is like Dennis Kucinich is beyond me.

This post was edited on 8/13 6:41 PM by camdenlawprof

picture of Elizabeth Kucincih

 

[NotInRHouse]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Camden

I think if RU is going to play the "negotiation" strategy it needs to present its best case situation first...which would be what srru posited. Think of RU like the defendant making a counteroffer on demand.

But I think the reality is RU has to try the case. Which will likely leave the status quo.

And- if a Sweeney versus anyone but the ghost of Hitler primary occurs, in NJ you can register your affiliation the day of a primary...RU supporters will need to be out in full force.

As a lawyer, you know full well that implausible starting positions -- and I'm being nice, actually it's a ridiculous position -- are not a good strategy. And as a way to draw attention to Rutgers' funding plight, it is a non-starter. Maybe it gets a day's coverage in the Star-Ledger and Trenton Times.

I do not see Sweeney as a plausible candidate for governor -- he looks far too ugly on TV. And as Rob Andrews found out when he ran in the gubernatorial primary against McGreeney, South Jersey is not an adequate base for a state-wide run.

Says you- have you consulted with the Plaintiff's bar recently?

I think a day in the paper is good thing with this- probably more people think they paid a lot of taxes for the stadium then know that RU's funding was sent to 1994 levels when Christie started.

I guess looks do matter. I wouldn't argue Sweeney isn't ugly, but I do think he has more backers than a lot of others because of Norcross and his union history. But I hope you're right.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
here you go. But why anyone thinks that Sweeney is like Dennis Kucinich is beyond me.

This post was edited on 8/13 6:41 PM by camdenlawprof

Once again Hollywood proves dreams can come true

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Camden

I think if RU is going to play the "negotiation" strategy it needs to present its best case situation first...which would be what srru posited. Think of RU like the defendant making a counteroffer on demand.

But I think the reality is RU has to try the case. Which will likely leave the status quo.

And- if a Sweeney versus anyone but the ghost of Hitler primary occurs, in NJ you can register your affiliation the day of a primary...RU supporters will need to be out in full force.

As a lawyer, you know full well that implausible starting positions -- and I'm being nice, actually it's a ridiculous position -- are not a good strategy. And as a way to draw attention to Rutgers' funding plight, it is a non-starter. Maybe it gets a day's coverage in the Star-Ledger and Trenton Times.

I do not see Sweeney as a plausible candidate for governor -- he looks far too ugly on TV. And as Rob Andrews found out when he ran in the gubernatorial primary against McGreeney, South Jersey is not an adequate base for a state-wide run.

Lawyering is not politics. Especially in this case, because RU only needs a draw, Sweeney needs a win. And RU holds all of the cards - any changes that are made need RUs approval.

See - you are assuming the general public KNOWS its implausible. But think of it as a low information person - it sounds pretty reasonable to say that the states share in governance should be equal to its share of funding. That the state would never consider caving is besides the point - because the point isnt to actually get this deal - its only to make Sweeney's poisition look like the ridiculous power grab that it is.

As for coverage - roll it out every time Sweeney comes out with some new proposal. Put out some ads and statement via friendly politicians - hey Sweeney, if you want more say, give us more money.
This post was edited on 8/14 9:55 AM by derleider

 

[pmvon]

given Sweeney's links to the unions, are there any to the mob? just thinking with all the money they may be losing due to AC gambling going down, there is going to be more pressure to find revenue elsewhere.....too much conspiracy?

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

here you go. But why anyone thinks that Sweeney is like Dennis Kucinich is beyond me.

Scroll up professor and checked what was bolded in my post.

I was talking about Fulop, not Sweeney.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

here you go. But why anyone thinks that Sweeney is like Dennis Kucinich is beyond me.

Scroll up professor and checked what was bolded in my post.

I was talking about Fulop, not Sweeney.

sorry for misreading!