Toggle sidebar

Delete

Z

Zak57

Heisman
Jul 5, 2011
11,086
11,194
113
Haha I was waiting for this. What I don't get is Lesniak co-speared one of these bills a few years ago and then all of a sudden started throwing support to Rutgers. As usual something is fishy in NJ politics.
 
R

RUJohnny99

All-American
Nov 7, 2003
64,666
5,961
113
Education credentials of the sponsors:

Prieto
Middlesex County College
Bergen County College

Jiminez
Hudson Area School of Radiologic Technology

Burzichelli
Paulsboro High School
 
e5fdny

e5fdny

Heisman
Nov 11, 2002
114,295
53,370
102
Zak57 said:
Haha I was waiting for this. What I don't get is Lesniak co-speared one of these bills a few years ago and then all of a sudden started throwing support to Rutgers. As usual something is fishy in NJ politics.
Click to expand...
He was given a script, soap box and mic from an office inside a building on Rockafeller Road.
 
S

scarletrat

All-Conference
Aug 28, 2003
10,990
1,048
0
I know there has been ample discussion in the past about remit and responsibilities for BOG and BOT, but BOT is not politically appointed and is to protect RU's assets, especially after RU became the state U in 1950s? BOG has a few political appointees, correct? If true, I didn't think the stupid state assembly has the authority to touch the BOT, which I'm sure pisses them off that they can't turn this into another UMDNJ patronage mill...

So glad I moved out of NJ.
 
I

imbazza2

Junior
Jul 9, 2009
612
276
0
Sorry for the large paste but this is from our $25 million tax credit signed by our NJ crooks.
So they want to do away with BOT let's throw it back at them
Just who is getting to distribute the $250 000,000 tax credit in the south Jersey counties and ad it is public tax credit who is getting it and why. We need some good political connect people to start stirring the pot so the crook feel some heat
see attached

4704 bill

The value of all credits approved by the authority pursuant to 9 [paragraph] paragraphs (2) [or] and (3) of this [paragraph] 10 subsection shall not exceed [$600,000,000] $625,000,000, of 11 which: 12

(a) $250,000,000 shall be restricted to qualified residential 13 projects within Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, 14 Cumberland, Gloucester, Ocean, and Salem counties, of which 15 $175,000,000 of the credits shall be restricted to the following 16 categories of projects: (i) qualified residential projects located in a 17 Garden State Growth Zone located within the aforementioned 18 counties [,]; (ii) mixed use parking projects located in a Garden 19 State Growth Zone or urban transit hub located within the 20 aforementioned counties [,]; and (iii) $75,000,000 of the credits 21 shall be restricted to qualified residential projects in municipalities 22 with a 2007 Municipal Revitalization Index of 400 or higher as of 23 the date of enactment of the "New Jersey Economic Opportunity 24 Act of 2013," P.L.2013, c.161 (C.52:27D-489p et al.) and located 25 within the aforementioned counties; 26

(b) $250,000,000 shall be restricted to the following categories 27 of projects: (i) qualified residential projects located in urban transit 28 hubs that are commuter rail in nature that otherwise do not qualify 29 under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph [,]; (ii) qualified 30 residential projects located in Garden State Growth Zones that do 31 not qualify under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph [,]; (iii) mixed 32 use parking projects located in urban transit hubs or Garden State 33 Growth Zones that do not qualify under subparagraph (a) of this 34 paragraph, provided however, an urban transit hub shall be 35 allocated no more than $25,000,000 for mixed use parking projects
 
Knight Shift

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
88,627
86,625
113
IMARUFAN said:
Right?

Maybe the BOT should eliminate the NJ Assembly instead of the other way around.
Click to expand...
You sound like Moe Greene.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLewis1968, cicero grimes and IMARUFAN
R

RUhasarrived

All-Conference
May 7, 2007
8,035
2,037
0
Nebraska has only chamber in their Legislature.They're still in business.Perhaps it's because it's non-partisan.
 
P

pmvon

All-American
Jan 30, 2007
7,614
7,169
0
RU31trap said:
One day you guys are going to listen to me. When Rutgers were in lock step with Christie and embraced that merger democrats were furious. You should have said no thank you like you did 8 years earlier with Jim Mcgreevy. But it was a double edged sword for RU, because many in the know said you needed the medical school to legitimize your invite into the Big Ten as an elite institution.

A very large percentage of Democrats were enraged over this merger and promised that there would be serious retaliation once Christie was out. Both North Jersey and South Jersey Democrats are united on this issue. The few Democrats who openly supported the merger are on a political hit list. In the next 6 to 8 years I envision serious and nasty infighting to strip Rutgers of their autonomy. Now we sit back and watch.
Click to expand...
Why would they be enraged with RU merger? That's just dumb. Not you, them.
 
R

RUScrew85

Heisman
Nov 7, 2003
30,054
16,939
0
Zak57 said:
Haha I was waiting for this. What I don't get is Lesniak co-speared one of these bills a few years ago and then all of a sudden started throwing support to Rutgers. As usual something is fishy in NJ politics.
Click to expand...
Cash? and Yes.
 
S

scarletrider

Junior
Sep 24, 2012
849
302
0
BOT exists to protect it's assets. A private property. Last time I checked that is a constitutional right.
 
Upstream

Upstream

Heisman
Jul 31, 2001
35,284
10,251
113
Pretty sure they can't eliminate the BOT without consent of the BOT. Doubt this bill would hold up in court.
 
J

jellyman_rivals307848

All-Conference
Jul 25, 2001
15,252
2,926
0
Sounds like Sweeney to benefit his owner Norcross ... the RU BOT, by law and contract, controls RU's ASSETS, including huge real estate assets.

Sweeney and his crew made a play to try to transfer assets to Rowan (I think it was Rowan) through agreeing to a deal with Chrisite to approve the merger with the Med school (which Christie desperately wanted, so Christie could saddle RU with maybe $150 million of State debt, and get that debt off the State of NJ books - making Christie look good by reducing debt without raising taxes). In exchange, Christie agreed to get the Board of Governors (which he was able to change how the BOG was appointed to pack it with the Governor of NJ's appointees) to try to shift assets to Rowan.

BUT ... Christie screwed Sweeney, almost certainly intentionally. Because the NJ law in 1956 which gave the Board of Governors primary governance over the Board of Trustees, and relegated the BOT ot mainly an advisory role, DID preserve the fiduciary responsibility of the BOT to have full control over all assets RU controlled prior to 1956 ... which was essentially most of the real estate.

The BOG now has 8 members appointed by the Governor and 7 appointed by the BOT ... I think until a few years ago the majority were appointed by the BOT, not the Governor of NJ, but Christie got that law changed.

But only the BOT can make decisions are large amounts of RU's assets, and the investment of those funds.

The BOT has 45 members - 24 of which serve by "charter" (of these 24, 3 must be women, and 3 must be students) I am not sure what that means, except I suspect with little control by the politicians. Only 5 of 45 are appointed by the Governor of the State of NJ. Plus 16 members are selected by the Nominating Committee of the BOT - and have to be alumni. Plus 2 seats are faculty and 2 are students, elected by the University Senate.

Also, I am not sure the NJ legislature has the constitutional authority to eliminate the BOT. I believe the authority of the BOT over the assets was established BY A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT in 1956, not merely by legislative act. And I think you cannot abrogate a contract through legislative act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruready07, JoeRU0304 and SanFranRutgers
R

RU31trap

Senior
Sep 30, 2010
3,143
959
0
I'll say this until I turn blue in the face. The UMDNJ merger created major division within the Democratic Party. With less then 2 years left in Christies Administration some are beginning to smell blood. Face it, they will want something back! I said this was a bad idea in 2003 when Rutgers decided to walk away and I said it was a bad idea in 2013 when you went through with the merger. I strongly suggest paying very close attention to what transpires here at Rutgers as we approach the 2017 Gubernatorial election.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ruready07
T

T2Kplus10

Heisman
Feb 24, 2010
28,180
17,566
0
I will say this again. This is what you all get for electing the same group of corrupt Dems to the legislature for the past 15 years and counting. Many whine and complain about Christie, but just wait until Sweeney becomes Governor and see what happens.
 
V

vkj91

Heisman
Feb 7, 2007
188,326
49,450
98
RU31trap said:
I'll say this until I turn blue in the face. The UMDNJ merger created major division within the Democratic Party. With less then 2 years left in Christies Administration some are beginning to smell blood. Face it, they will want something back! I said this was a bad idea in 2003 when Rutgers decided to walk away and I said it was a bad idea in 2013 when you went through with the merger. I strongly suggest paying very close attention to what transpired here at Rutgers as we approach the 2017 Gubernatorial election.
Click to expand...
I'm not up to date on the politics but you stated it was bad when we walked away and bad when we didn't? Was lingering the best option?
 
R

ruready07

All-American
Apr 15, 2003
43,484
6,455
0
Any chance the politicians actually want the university to be successful ? I think many do. If we're talking power and money, then what would be better for these people than a powerful Rutgers?
The pols want control of RU because it's a huge asset that does a lot for the books and brings in a ton of business to the state. It's a low risk move with very high potential.

(With all due respect to high point solutions, its awesome that some Rutgers guys got a business big enough to name their alma mater's stadium after it, but we have the market potential to have some huge, huge businesses throw their name behind our brand.
I wish the high point solutions founders all the success possible.)
 
S

Scarlet Jerry

All-Conference
Jul 30, 2001
4,208
2,457
0
Thanks for providing a link to their websites, Madhat. It was like a trip down memory lane, with graphic design that pays tribute to the 80's. I especially like how the sites contain links to their "electronic mail!"

-Scarlet Jerry
 
C

cowbellknight

Redshirt
Dec 28, 2006
234
5
0
This is an old (pre-filed) bill from a few years back. It never made it out of committee at the time but was also never officially withdrawn so it automatically rolls over. There are thousands of pre-filed bills like this in the legislature.

Thankfully the BOT has moved on from that contentious period and is now at peace with the state and has a much better relationship than just a few years ago.

No matter which political party is in power, Rutgers needs a good relationship with New Jersey lawmakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 66 college avenue
Upstream

Upstream

Heisman
Jul 31, 2001
35,284
10,251
113
jellyman said:
The BOG now has 8 members appointed by the Governor and 7 appointed by the BOT ... I think until a few years ago the majority were appointed by the BOT, not the Governor of NJ, but Christie got that law changed.
Click to expand...

The size of the BOG has increased, as well as the requirements for the political appointees. But since the BOG was established, it has always had one more political appointee than BOT appointees.

And in actuality when the size of the BOG was increased, the result was actually to dilute the influence of the political appointees. When political appointees held 6 of 11 seats, they controlled 54.5% of the BOG. Now that they hold 8 of 15 seats, they control only 53.3% of the BOG. In practical terms, if there really is a fight between the political and BOT members of the BOG, it is easier to find one political member to give the BOT side the majority when there are 8 political appointees rather than 6.


jellyman said:
.

Also, I am not sure the NJ legislature has the constitutional authority to eliminate the BOT. I believe the authority of the BOT over the assets was established BY A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT in 1956, not merely by legislative act. And I think you cannot abrogate a contract through legislative act.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the legislature does not have the authority to eliminate the BOT, or change its role without consent of the BOT. This was the finding of the NJ Legislative Services office when the Legislature tried this move in 2013. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20..._legislation_to_eliminate_historic_board.html

If the current bill passes and is signed, it is almost certain to be struck down in state or federal court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom