This is (at least) the third time The Princeton Packet has run a statement by Steve Sweeney, D-Gloucester, and president of the New Jersey state Senate on the topic of governance at Rutgers.
Dave Saltzman, Princeton
This is (at least) the third time The Princeton Packet has run a statement by Steve Sweeney, D-Gloucester, and president of the New Jersey state Senate on the topic of governance at Rutgers. That is your privilege, but I hope it does not connote agreement with Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Sweeney recommends “eliminating (Rutgers) Board of Trustees, and placing full and total responsibility and accountability with its publicly appointed Board of Governors (9th paragraph).” He notes that the Board of Governors would be appointed by the governor, and accountable to the taxpayers. How?
This board could certainly become a patronage pit. Not with this governor of course, but some future governor could load up the Rutgers Board of Governors with people who could do very well affiliating with the multi-billion-dollar enterprise that is Rutgers. And the governor gets to appoint the entire board? Replace free thinkers with those who toe the party line at whim? Consider the intransigent way this governor appointed or refused to appoint judicial candidates. Politics is deal-making, and if some future governor wants a law passed unrelated to Rutgers, might some horse-trading put Rutgers future at stake? Universities look ahead decades. Why tie our state university to the latest election and pressures of the day? It is no secret to why Trenton wants to control Rutgers: it offers money, prestige and power. I have never heard a cogent argument that having a second board is inherently bad. Rutgers is a far-flung enterprise that was big and is now huge. How can having more people manage it be bad? One reason Rutgers likely retained the dual structure back in 1956 when a Board of Governors was forced upon them by Trenton was to avoid having all power over the university emanate from any one place. It is like they could foretell the future. See the value of looking ahead decades?
If “New Jersey suffers from way too much government” (16th paragraph), wouldn’t it be more prudent for the state to back away from anything other than minimal governance, and let Rutgers run its own affairs? Let’s not change “Rutgers, the State University” into “Rutgers, the State Agency.” If Mr. Sweeney is merely reacting to a foolish coach, bungling and potential conflicts of interest, well, Rutgers cannot hold a candle to New Jersey’s illustrious history of greed, scandal, incompetence and mismanagement. But if the desire to chop off the Board of Trustees is some sort of retribution for crossing a powerful politician by not cooperating in the split-up of the territory that is Rutgers-Camden, well, that is even more reason to discount the idea.
It is particularly ironic that Mr. Sweeney is decrying “too much government.” He has held multiple public sector jobs simultaneously, and is a double-dipper for state benefits. I take with many grains of salt the words of a man who if a Martian spaceship landed in North Jersey would immediately demand that one land in South Jersey, too. I hope The Princeton Packet and its readers do, too.
Dave Saltzman
Princeton