[brief] At bottom, this is an easy case.  The individual plaintiffs, residents of Middlesex and Camden County, respectively (together with the [...] faculty union), learned that two members of the [...] Board of Governors (“BOG”) had ceased to meet the county residency qualifications imposed on them by law.  Despite being unqualified and illegally holding their offices, these members would appear and vote at monthly meetings of the BOG to decide on matters relevant to [...] as a whole and to the counties from which they were appointed and where the individual Plaintiffs resided.  Plaintiffs’ suit was very much in the public interest.  [...] has an annual budget of $5.3 billion, $1.1 billion of which comes from state appropriations.  Billions more are collected from tuition, room, and board paid by state residents, from donations by state residents, and for healthcare services rendered to state residents.  The question of who decides how those monies are allocated stand at the apex of matters that are in the public interest.  Add to that the fact that these choices are not ancient, stand-alone pronouncements that happen to have current effects, but are instead dynamic ones, made periodically at monthly meetings.  For ineligible people to make these decisions is a continuing violation of the residency statute in every sense of the word.  For both reasons, the action is timely.  The procedural vehicle Plaintiffs used – a complaint with one count of quo warranto and another count for prerogative writs – was eminently appropriate.  The quo warranto statute, for starters, is not limited to public office, but has been applied to unincorporated associations, religious groups, for-profit corporations, state-created professional boards, and indeed, is appropriate for not just public office, but “to test the title to office in a corporation, public or private. ”  Even so, [...] is not some sort of private corporation and is, by statute, “an instrumentality of the state. ”  Accordingly, quo warranto is still the appropriate method to test the validity of [...]’s ongoing eligibility to her office.  The fact that the BOG is an “office” subject to examination in a quo warranto proceeding rings out clearly in precedent, the [...] statutes, and common sense.  Lastly, the trial court was thoroughly correct in understanding the legal and policy reasons why the BOG members, who have a county-residency qualification, must maintain that residency throughout that term.  If the Legislature wanted to provide that county residency was only required at the beginning of a six-year term, it had the tools and knowledge to provide for that.  In the case of Appellant [...], the statutory language is especially compelling: aside from the language interpreted by the trial court, another statute talks about [...] as “the member of the board of governors of [...], The State University who is appointed by the board of trustees and who is, pursuant to N.J.S. 18A:65-14, required to be a resident of Middlesex County. ”  That language does not sound at all like it’s speaking if a person who needs to be a county resident only on the date of appointment, but rather, indicates an ongoing residency obligation through the term of office.  The legislature provided for residential diversity in the BOG.  The Law Division’s ruling implementing that mandate should therefore be affirmed.