In the Matter of the Applicability of Certain Statutes and Regulations to Rutgers, Etc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3160-23 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATUTES AND REGULATIONS TO RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY. ________________________ Argued September 29, 2026 – Decided October 21, 2026 Before Judges Firko and Bergman. On appeal from the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education, Docket No. 23-01. Peter G. Verniero argued the cause for appellant Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Sills Cummis & Gross, PC, attorneys; Peter G. Verniero and Michael S. Carucci, of counsel and on the briefs; Stephen A. Moran, on the briefs). Melina M. Meneguin Layerenza, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Higher Education (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Colin Klika, Ryan J. Silver, and Matthew Lynch, Deputy Attorneys General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Appellant Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Rutgers), appeals from the August 3, 2023 final administrative decision and the August 9, 2024 final administrative determination of the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education (OSHE), holding that Rutgers must comply with N.J.A.C. 9A:1-2.10 to -2.14. These regulations, which the OSHE adopted in March 2022, pursuant to the authority granted under L. 2021, c. 27, require review of institutions' proposed new academic degree programs by the New Jersey Presidents' Council (NJPC) and authorize the OSHE to reject a proposed new academic degree program based upon the consideration of specified criteria—sufficient academic quality, evidence of labor market demand, duplication with comparable programs of study in the State, and whether the proposed new program will require significant additional State resources. Rutgers objects to application of the regulations on the grounds that it is statutorily and constitutionally exempt from State control over its academic programs as a matter of law. We agree and reverse. A-3160-23 2  I. Factual Background Rutgers is a public research university, which educates more than 69,000 students and employs more than 27,000 faculty and staff. See Rutgers, By the Numbers, Rutgers, The State Univ. of N.J., https://www.rutgers.edu/about/by- the-numbers (last visited Oct. 7, 2026). Rutgers was founded in 1766, as a private institution governed by a board of trustees. In 1889, the Legislature provided that "any college in this [S]tate founded or hereafter to be founded under and by virtue of the provisions of any general act of the legislature," shall have "the right, power and privilege . . . to give diplomas and confer degrees upon those who shall successfully complete the prescribed course of study," with the exception of "any degree or diplomas authorizing the practice of medicine, dentistry or law." L. 1889, c. 116. The 1912 Act In 1912, the Legislature passed L. 1912, c. 315, providing that "[n]o school or institution of learning conducted within this State shall hereafter confer any degree or degrees until the terms and conditions of such degree or degrees shall first be submitted to and approved of by the State Board of Education of the State of New Jersey." Id. § 1. The statute also provided "that A-3160-23 3 nothing in this section contained shall apply to any school or institution of learning which shall have been established and conducted within this State for a period of twenty-five years prior to the passage of this act" (1887). Ibid. The 1916 Act In 1916, the Legislature passed a law requiring the licensing of all new and continuing institutions of higher education. L. 1916, c. 152. The 1916 law also provided for the State Board of Education to review and approve the bases for the conferring of degrees, as follows: No . . . institution of learning conducted within this State . . . in recognition of the attainment or proficiency of any member thereof, scholar, student, subscriber or other person, in pursuing or graduating from any course or courses of study, arts or learning conducted by it or another such school, corporation, association or institution, shall admit any such person to the grade of a degree by conferring . . . any degree upon any such person or persons, without first submitting the basis or conditions thereof to the State Board of Education of the State of New Jersey, and obtaining therefrom its approval of the basis or conditions thereof so submitted and of the practice of conferring and bestowing of such degrees upon such persons . . . . [Id. § 2.] This section of the statute did not apply to institutions that had been established and operating in the State "for a period of twenty-five years prior to the passage A-3160-23 4 of this act, nor to any school or schools conducted under the public school systems of the State." Ibid. Thus, Rutgers was considered exempt and could award new degrees without prior approval from the State Board of Education. See Shelton Coll. v. State Bd. of Educ., 48 N.J. 501, 519-23 (1967);1 Formal Op. No. 12-1951, 1951- 53 Op. N.J. Att'y Gen. at 24.2 The 1917 Act In 1917, the Legislature passed a statute, L. 1917, c. 32, designating the "Rutgers Scientific School" as the "State University of New Jersey," as follows: The Rutgers Scientific School, being the State Agricultural College, the State College for the Benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts, maintained by the "Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey," and under the general powers of supervision and control of the Board of Visitors of the State Agricultural College, be and hereby is also designated the State University of 1 In Shelton, 48 N.J. at 516-19, decided in 1967, our Supreme Court upheld the authority of the State Board of Education to regulate the issuance of degrees. In the course of its discussion, the Court suggested that even as of the 1960s —i.e., post-1945 and 1956 Rutgers Acts—the State Board of Education recognized Rutgers as exempt from such regulation. Id. at 512 n.2, 521 n.4. 2 The Attorney General, responding to a query from the State Commissioner of Education, opined that "a college which conferred degrees in course prior to March 17, 1891," had the "authority generally, without approval from the State Board of Education, to award other degrees in course not given by said college prior to the aforesaid date." Formal Op. No. 12-1951, 1951-53 Op. N.J. Att'y Gen. at 24. A-3160-23 5  New Jersey under the same general powers of supervision and control of the same board of visitors. [See Richard P. McCormick, Rutgers: A Bicentennial History 15 (1966).] The First Rutgers Act In 1945, the Legislature passed the first Rutgers Act (the first Rutgers Act), L. 1945, c. 49, under which the entirety of Rutgers was "collectively designated as the State University of New Jersey to be utilized as an instrumentality of the State for providing public higher education and thereby to increase the efficiency of the public school system of the State." Id. § 1. The First Rutgers Act in effect, provided for a purely contractual arrangement between the Trustees and the [S]tate whereby the [S]tate bought collegiate educational services from the Trustees in return for annual appropriations to the institution by the Legislature in an amount to be agreed upon each year, with the Trustees given full operational responsibility, as well as custody and control of [S]tate property in the university complex, under visitorial general powers of supervision of the State Board of Education. [Rutgers, The State Univ. v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 155 (1972).] Specifically, under the terms of the first Rutgers Act, the government agreed to appropriate funds for Rutgers's facilities and services, including the A-3160-23 6 acquisition of lands and the erection and equipping of buildings, in exchange for the Board of Trustees agreeing to utilize the facilities as an instrumentality of public higher education, L. 1945, c. 49, §§ 6-7; the Board of Trustees was expanded to include more government and government-appointed representatives, id. § 8; the "general powers of supervision and control" of the Board of Visitors were "transferred to the State Board of Education," as well as "extended to the State University of New Jersey as hereinbefore designated ." On the same day as the first Rutgers Act, the Legislature passed a second statute, L. 1945, c. 51, restructuring the State's management of public education. That statute established a State Department of Education (Department), consisting of a State Board of Education and a Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner was designated as the head of the Department and the official agent of the State Board of Education. Id. §§ 7, 11. The State Board of Education was "vested" with "[t]he general supervision and control of public instruction in this State," and "charged with the duty of planning and recommending respecting the unified, continuous and efficient development of public education including public higher education." Id. § 1. However, the Department's supervision and control of Rutgers was limited, as set forth in the first Rutgers Act, which did not allow the State to A-3160-23 7 exercise any control over Rutgers's conferral of degrees or development of academic programs for new degrees. As for Rutgers in particular, L. 1945, c. 51, provided that the State Board of Education was required to [i]nvestigate and recommend respecting the needs for facilities and services at the State University of New Jersey as an instrumentality of the State for providing public higher education and thereby to increase the efficiency of the public school system of the State, advise with the State University of New Jersey regarding its annual budget for services, lands, buildings, and equipment and jointly with the State University make recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature in support of such budget, and make with the State University contracts in behalf of the State in accordance with legislative appropriations. [Id. § 2(r).] Also, consistent with the language of the first Rutgers Act, the Board of Education was granted the right to [e]xercise visitorial general powers of supervision and control over such institutions of higher education as may be utilized by the State. Its visitorial general powers of supervision and control are hereby defined as visiting such institutions of higher education to examine into their manner of conducting their affairs and to enforce an observance of their laws and regulations and the laws of the State; [Id. § 2(t).] A-3160-23 8  Thus, "Rutgers had now achieved legal recognition as the State University of New Jersey, seemingly bringing to a culmination an evolutionary process that had begun in 1864 with its designation as the land-grant college of New Jersey. It had also succeeded very largely in preserving its autonomy." McCormick, at 265. "But the question that remained to be answered was whether an autonomous university controlled by a Board of Trustees only a minority of whom were public appointees could, in fact, win support as a state university." Id. at 265-66. Consistently with the legislative contract, the Rutgers Board of Trustees exercised "supervision and control of the conduct of the University," maintained "a general oversight of the curricula of the institution in all of its divisions and establishe[d] ordinances, orders and laws for the University to be executed by the President"; and the State Board of Education annually made contracts with the university. Trs. of Rutgers Coll. v. Richman, 41 N.J. Super. 259, 275-76 (Ch. Div. 1956). As previously discussed, as our Supreme Court recognized in Shelton, 48 N.J. at 512 n.2, 521 n.4, the State Board of Education deemed Rutgers to be exempt from regulations relating to its issuance of degrees. A-3160-23 9  The Second Rutgers Act – 1956 In 1954 and 1955, the Rutgers Board of Trustees engaged two committees to study how to reorganize the university's management. Committee members met with the Governor and State officials, and prominent citizens. They also met with legal counsel in order to address "the intricate legal problems involved in transferring authority from the Trustees to a [proposed] [S]tate-appointed board [of governors]." In 1956 the Legislature passed a second Rutgers Act (the second Rutgers Act), L. 1956, c. 61, titled "Rutgers, The State University Act of 1956." As explained by our Supreme Court in the 1970s: The 1956 Act provided for the creation, by contract between the Trustees and the [S]tate, of an entirely different kind of entity and arrangement [than the 1945 Act]. At the time of the adoption of the statute the institution represented an even greater and more complex conglomeration of public and private assets, physical and financial, than existed when the 1945 statute was enacted. The large investment of [S]tate monies both previously and in the eleven[-]year interim dictated the need for public rather than private control. At the same time the private properties and funds held by the Trustees were so intermixed, in the operation of the entire institution, with those derived from [S]tate appropriations that the university could not be conducted without the use of both the public and private assets. Separation was practically impossible. And there was a general demand for a true state university, with financial and other potentialities sufficient to meet A-3160-23 10  present and future needs of the [S]tate. Also the Trustees could not, consistent with their general and special trust obligations with respect to the private assets, simply turn them over to the [S]tate. The solution provided by the statute, which became a consummated contract by the acquiescence of the Trustees . . . was a unique one. A Board of Governors was created, with the majority of its members [S]tate[-]appointed, and was given full authority and control over all aspects of the conduct and operation of the university, subject to collaboration in budget aspects with and to the general visitorial powers of the State Board of Education (now the State Board of Higher Education). The old Board of Trustees remained, augmented by the [S]tate[-]appointed Governors as additional members, but with practically no powers as far as the running of the institution is concerned . . . [T]heir principal function is to retain title to and to control, pursuant to general or special trust obligations, properties, funds and trusts vested in them at the effective date of the new institution (then valued at approximately $50,000,000) or subsequently vested in them by specific designation. The overall result of the legislative contract therefore is an autonomous public university – not merely a contractual relationship or an institution both public and private at the same time. [Rutgers, 60 N.J. at 155-57 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).] Accord Fine v. Rutgers, 163 N.J. 464, 467-68, 471-72 (2000) (holding the second Rutgers Act created a hybrid, "public, but autonomous, institution"); see A-3160-23 11 also Trs. of Rutgers, 41 N.J. Super. at 278-82, 287 (discussing the second Rutgers Act and proposed reorganization of the university under the statute). The second Rutgers Act explicitly repealed section three of the first Rutgers Act, "all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this Act," and stated that "all provisions of the Charter and resolutions of the Board of Trustees of the Corporation inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall be of no further force or effect on and after September 1, 1956." L. 1956, c. 61, § 38(c). The preamble of the second Rutgers Act explained its purpose, stating: Whereas, the Trustees control and administer properties and funds of great value, derived from private sources, which are utilized in furtherance of public higher education of the people of the State of New Jersey and its further and continuous development in conjunction with the support of the State, and it is deemed advisable in the interest of the State University and of the people and the increasingly efficient and productive utilization of its educational facilities and services that the name of the State University be changed and that the Board of Trustees of Rutgers College be reorganized as is hereinafter provided, and that a Board of Governors be established, having supervision over and vested with the conduct of the University, a majority of whom shall be appointed by the Governor of the State with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that the Board of Trustees shall continue in an over-all advisory capacity, retaining control over the private properties and funds vested in it, subject to the application thereof to the purposes of public higher education as hereinafter provided, and the enactment of this Act is deemed and A-3160-23 12  declared to be in the public interest, and thereby to increase the efficiency of the public school system; . . . [Id.] Further, the second Rutgers Act created a Board of Governors, id. § 5, consisting of two non-voting members (the Commissioner of Education and the president of the university) and eleven voting members, six of whom were to be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and five of whom were to be appointed by the Board of Trustees from among its members. Id. § 7. Finally, the second Rutgers Act required that the Board of Trustees be "reorganized and reconstituted" and "have and exercise the powers, authority, rights and privileges" as set forth and expressed in the Act. Id. § 6. See also Id. § 19 (setting forth authorities of Board of Trustees). As for government interference with the Boards, the second Rutgers Act provided: The Boards shall have and exercise the powers, rights and privileges that are incident to their respective responsibilities for the government, conduct and management of the Corporation, and the control of its properties and funds, and of the University, and the powers granted to the Corporation or the Boards or reasonably implied, may be exercised without recourse or reference to any department or agency of the State, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act or other applicable statutes. The provisions of R.S. A-3160-23 13  52:17A-11 and 13 shall not be deemed or construed to be applicable to the Corporation or the University. [Id. § 21 (emphasis added).] The second Rutgers Act also declared to be the public policy of the State of New Jersey that (i) the University shall be and continue to be given a high degree of self-government and that the government and conduct of the corporation and the University shall be free of partisanship, and (ii) that resources be and continue to be provided and funds be and continue to be appropriated by the State adequate for the conduct of a State University with high educational standards and to meet the cost of increasing enrollment and the need for proper facilities. [Id. § 20 (emphasis added) (currently codified as amended at N.J.S.A. 18A:65-27).] See also In re Determination of Exec. Comm'n on Ethical Standards, 116 N.J. 216, 223 (1989) ("[T]he absorption of Rutgers University within the framework of State-supported education has been marked by an overriding concern for the academic freedom of one of the nation's oldest and greatest universities."). The second Rutgers Act also stated: This Act being deemed and hereby declared necessary for the welfare of the State and the people of New Jersey to provide for the development of public higher education in the State and thereby to increase the A-3160-23 14  efficiency of the public school system of the State, shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and intent thereof. [L. 1956, c. 61, § 36.] The statute established a Board of Higher Education, within the Department, which was assigned specific tasks. Relevant here, the Board of Education was to "[e]stablish minimum standards for all public institutions of higher education for degree granting, approve new programs and degrees and approve discontinuance of degrees and educational programs as required." L. 1966, c. 302, § 4(e) (emphasis added). The second Rutgers Act provided, however, that [n]othing . . . in this act shall be construed to prevent individual institutions from establishing higher minimum standards for degree granting "programs" as used in this subparagraph means areas or fields in which degrees or nondegree certificates might be granted and shall not include individual courses nor course content nor shall it include the course composition of areas or fields already in existence; [Ibid.] In addition, the statute tasked the Board of Higher Education with "review[ing] periodically existing programs of instruction, research, and public service in the public institutions of higher education, and advis[ing] them of desirable change." Id. § 4(k). A-3160-23 15  With respect to Rutgers in particular, the statute provided: All of the duties, functions and powers of the existing Department of Education pertaining to Rutgers, the State University, are hereby transferred to and vested in the Department of Higher Education established hereunder and, notwithstanding any provision of this act, the Department of Higher Education shall have no duties, functions or powers with respect to Rutgers, the State University, except for those transferred as aforesaid. [Id. § 13 (emphasis added).] The 1966 statute further provided, in relevant part: 42. This act being deemed and hereby declared necessary for the welfare of the State and the people of New Jersey to provide for the development of public higher education in the State and thereby to increase the efficiency of the public school system of the State, shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and intent thereof. 43. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with any of the provisions of this act are, to the extent of such inconsistency, hereby repealed; provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed as expressly or impliedly repealing any provision of the "Rutgers, The State University Act of 1956," P.L. 1956, c. 61. [L. 1966, c. 302, §§ 42-43 (emphasis added).] See also N.J.S.A. 18A:65-9.1 (saving the second Rutgers Act from repeal). A-3160-23 16  The 1984 Regulations In 1983, the Board of Higher Education (the Board) proposed new regulations to replace those that had expired. 15 N.J.R. 1418(a) (Sept. 6, 1983). When adopting the regulations in 1984, 16 N.J.R. 543 (Mar. 19, 1984), the Board prefaced the regulations with the following statement: In developing and administering the rules for licensure, the Board and Department are mindful of the responsibilities vested in the trustees of individual institutions and of the institutional autonomy that is characteristic of American higher education. These rules delineate the Board's expectations for degree granting institutions of higher education; in the case of institutions already licensed and accredited, they do not contemplate that, in the absence of compelling reason, the Board will substitute its review processes. (N.J.A.C. 9:1-2.1) for those of the institutions themselves or for those of the established accrediting agencies. [Id. at 537.] The Board also recognized that institutions whose charters antedated 1887 were "exempt from approval of the basis or conditions for awarding the degree as stipulated in N.J.S.A. 18A:68-6." Ibid. Rutgers was not included in the Department's list of exempt, pre-1887 institutions. Id. at 543. The Department included a number of "assumptions" that "governed the drafting of these regulations and serve[d] to define their scope and intention." A-3160-23 17  The 1984 regulations specifically addressed the approval of new degree programs, stating: The basis or conditions for the conferring of degrees not previously approved by the Board of Higher Education with respect to a particular institution, shall be submitted for prior approval in accordance with law. The Board will examine the quality of the proposed program, the institution's ability to offer the program and the extent to which the program unnecessarily duplicates or supplements existing programs offered by other institutions. [Id. at 543 (N.J.A.C. 9:1-2.4) (emphasis added).] The 1984 regulations also provided for periodic review of existing graduate programs, although the reviews would be by the institutions themselves, and cooperatively with regional and professional accrediting agencies. Id. at 544 (N.J.A.C. 9:1-4.2(b)). The regulations provided for standards of review of doctoral degree programs. Id. at 545 (N.J.A.C. 9:1- 4.7(e)). The Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994 The Legislature adopted the Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994 (the 1994 Act). L. 1994, c. 48. The Legislature found that: "the elimination of unnecessary State oversight and its accompanying bureaucracy will serve to unleash the creativity and innovation of" institutions of higher education; and A-3160-23 18 "in order to provide institutions with the ability to fulfill their mission and Statewide goals, greater decision making and accountability must be placed at the institutional level and structures must be established to ensure cooperation among institutions and coordination at the State level." Id. § 2(b), (e). The Department of Higher Education was abolished, id. § 4. The Commission on Higher Education (the Commission), codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:3B-13, and the New Jersey Presidents Council (NJPC), codified as amended at N.J.S.A. 18A:3B-7 to -12, were created. The NJPC would consist of "[e]ach president of a public institutional of higher education in the State and of an independent institution which receives direct State aid." Id. § 7. The president of Rutgers was designated as a member of the NJPC's executive board. Id. § 12(a). Relevant here, the NJPC was granted responsibility, "consistent with State and federal law," to "review and make recommendations to the Commission concerning proposals for new programs that exceed the programmatic mission of an institution or that change the programmatic mission of an institution." Id. § 8(b). "Programmatic mission" was defined as "all program offerings consistent with those levels of academic degrees or certificates that the institution has been authorized to grant by the State Board of Higher Education A-3160-23 19 prior to the effective date of this act or approved thereafter by the commission." Id. § 3. In addition, the NJPC was granted responsibility to review and comment on proposals for new programs that demand significant added resources or raise significant issues of duplication but do not exceed the programmatic mission of the institution or require a change in the programmatic mission. If the council determines that a proposed new program is unduly expensive or unduly duplicative, the council shall refer that proposal to the commission for review; however, unless the commission disapproves of that program within [sixty] days of its referral, the program shall be deemed approved. [Id. § 8(c).] The Commission was granted responsibility for "final administrative decisions over new academic programs that go beyond the programmatic mission of the institution and final administrative decisions over a change in the programmatic mission of an institution," id. § 14(f), and "exercising any other power or responsibility necessary in order to carry out the provisions of this act." Id. § 14(l). The Commission also was tasked with adopting rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the 1994 Act. Id. § 15. The Commission was not granted "general authority to render final administrative decisions on matters A-3160-23 20 arising under the laws governing higher education except as otherwise specifically provided" in the statute. Id. § 29. As for institutions' governing boards, the Legislature provided: The governing board of each public institution of higher education shall have the following general powers and duties to fulfill its mission and the State wide goals in cooperation with other institutions and the State coordinating structures: a. To develop an institutional plan and to determine the programs and degree levels to be offered by the institution consistent with this plan and the institution's programmatic mission; . . . [Id. § 6 (emphasis added).] As for construction of the 1994 Act in regard to Rutgers, the Act provided: This Act shall not be construed to impair any vested rights, grants, charter rights, privileges, exemptions, immunities, powers, prerogatives, franchises or advantages continued, granted or obtained by Rutgers, the State University under the "Rutgers, the State University Law," N.J.S.A. 18A:65-1 [to -103] nor shall this act be construed to impose additional powers, duties or responsibilities upon Rutgers, The State University not contained within N.J.S.A. 18A:65-1 [to -103]. [Id. § 26.] A-3160-23 21  The 1994 Act amended the second Rutgers Act, as well as L. 1967, c. 271, to amend the authority and responsibility of the Board of Governors to state that it had the power to: Authorize any new educational department or school consistent with the institution's programmatic mission or approved by the Commission on Higher Education. [L. 1994, c. 48, § 181 (amending N.J.S.A. 18A:65- 25(j)).] The 1995 Regulations In 1995, the extant regulations were proposed for readoption, 27 N.J.R. 1381(b) (Apr. 3, 1995), and readopted, 27 N.J.R. 2396(b) (June 19, 1995), pending amendments consistent with the Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994. The regulation addressing new degree programs, N.J.A.C. 9:1-2.4, which had not been altered since 1984, was listed as "reserved." 27 N.J.R. at 1385; 27 N.J.R. at 2399. The 1997 Regulations In 1997, the regulations were amended in order to address the Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994 and the creation of the Commission on Higher Education to replace the former Board and Department of Higher Education. 29 N.J.R. 4602(a) (Nov. 3, 1997). There was no regulation addressing the review of new degree programs, except for a regulation A-3160-23 22 addressing institutions wishing to exceed their programmatic mission, for which Commission approval was required. See 29 N.J.R. at 4608. The NJPC's Academic Issues Committee (AIC) reviewed proposed new academic programs pursuant to the authority granted under the Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994. The documents of record reflect the NJPC's understanding that it was responsible for "reviewing and commenting on proposals for new degree programs that demand significant added resources or raise significant issues of duplication but do not exceed the programmatic mission of the institution or require a change in the programmatic mission ." The AIC's standards and procedures are set forth in a manual (AIC Manual), which was regularly updated. With respect to initiating new academic degree programs, the AIC Manual required institutions to submit several analyses (including a consultant's report) that addressed specified factors, including, for example: the objectives of the program; an evaluation and learning outcomes assessment plan; the relationship of the program to the institution's strategic plans, and other programs. The AIC Manual also addressed "possible outcomes" of the AIC's review. Prior to 2022 the manual stated if a concern was identified, it would review and A-3160-23 23 comment on the program, and if necessary, seek to resolve the differences through informal mediation or a hearing. The NJPC acknowledged that certain institutions were exempt from the review of new academic programs due to the date of their charters, prior to April 1, 1887. However, the NJPC did not recognize Rutgers as one of the exempt institutions. After adoption of the 1994 legislation, and through 2021, Rutgers participated in the NJPC as a member of the Board and as a member of the AIC. It participated in reviewing proposed new degree programs submitted by other institutions, and it submitted proposals for new Rutgers degree programs, without claiming to be an exempt institution. Replacement of the Commission with the OSHE In 2011, then-Governor Chris Christie abolished the Commission and transferred its functions, powers, and duties to the Secretary of Higher Education. See Reorganization Plan No. 005-2011, A Plan for the Abolition of the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education and Providing for the Tran