Opinion ID: 1874114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statutory History, Legislative History, Intent

Text: ถ 177 The court of appeals' certification to this court indicated a problem with the methodology of the 1991 Attorney General opinion. It stated that the 1991 opinion does not address the legislative intent behind the inclusion of `quasi-governmental' corporations in the scope of the open meetings and public records laws. Unfortunately, this problem essentially persists in the majority opinion, even after the court of appeals' plea to this court that any set of factors used to determine whether a corporation is `quasi-governmental' should flow from a developed discussion of legislative intent.  (Emphasis added.) [18] ถ 178 Because key terms in the statutes are not defined and are capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in different senses, a court interpreting these terms needs to employ all the tools of statutory interpretation. ถ 179 The analysis should begin with the text in the sections embodying the term quasi-governmental corporation. ถ 180 For example, Wis. Stat. ง 19.32(1) reads: Authority means any of the following having custody of a record: a state or local office, elected official, agency, board, commission, committee, council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, law, ordinance, rule or order; a governmental or quasi-governmental corporation except for the Bradley center sports and entertainment corporation; a local exposition district under subch. II of ch. 229; a family care district under s. 46.2895; any court of law; the assembly or senate; a nonprofit corporation which receives more than 50% of its funds from a county or a municipality, as defined in s. 59.001(3), and which provides services related to public health or safety to the county or municipality; a nonprofit corporation operating the Olympic ice training center under s. 42.11(3); or a formally constituted subunit of any of the foregoing. ถ 181 There is a common characteristic to most of the entities listed in the definition of Authority: they are indisputably government entities, including elected officials, or they are entities created by constitution, law, ordinance, rule or order. Id. Local exposition districts are authorized by statute and created by a sponsoring municipality. Wis. Stat. ง 229.42. Family care districts are authorized by statute and created by a county board. Wis. Stat. ง 46.2895(1). By contrast, BDADC is not a local office or local agency or public body corporate and politic created by a government entity. ถ 182 BDADC is a non-profit corporation. The legislature applied the public records law to a nonprofit corporation which receives more than 50% of its funds from a county or a municipality . . . and which provides services related to public health or safety to the county or municipality. Wis. Stat. ง 19.32(1) (emphasis added). BDADC is not covered by this language. The legislature went out of its way to reach another non-profit corporation: the non-profit corporation operating the Olympic ice training center. But BDADC is obviously not covered by that provision either. ถ 183 There is a familiar canon of statutory construction that the enumeration or expression of certain things implies the exclusion of other things. See C.A.K v. State, 154 Wis.2d 612, 621, 453 N.W.2d 897 (1990). While this canon is not infallible, it may be used as a means of discovering legislative intent. State ex rel. Sielen v. Cir. Ct. for Milwaukee County, 176 Wis.2d 101, 112, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993). Implicit in the majority opinion is the principle that an entity's status as a non-profit corporation, even when the corporation is not created by government, does not exempt the corporation from public records law. The majority has failed to demonstrate that the legislature intended this result. ถ 184 The only phrase left in the definition of authority is a governmental or quasi-governmental corporation except for the Bradley center sports and entertainment corporation. Wis. Stat. ง 19.32(1). Reference to the Bradley Center is significant. The Bradley Center corporation is a public body corporate and politic. It is the subject of an entire chapter of the Wisconsin Statutes. See Wis. Stat. ch. 232. It was authorized by the legislature. ถ 185 Admittedly, the Bradley Center corporation is a non-profit corporation, Wis. Stat. ง 232.03(1), but six of its nine board members are appointed by the governor, Wis. Stat. ง 232.03(2)(a), implying a significant degree of state influence on the Bradley Center's statutorily defined mission. ถ 186 The phrase a governmental or quasi-governmental corporation has legislative history. Wisconsin's current open meetings laws have their origin in the Anti-Secrecy Law of 1959. See ch. 289, Laws of 1959, creating Wis. Stat. ง 14.90. ถ 187 Wisconsin Stat. ง 14.90 (1959) reads in part: Open meetings of governmental bodies. (1) In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of the state that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of governmental business. (2) To implement and insure the public policy herein expressed, all meetings of all state and local governing and administrative bodies, boards, commissions, committees and agencies, including municipal and quasi-municipal corporations, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, shall be publicly held and open to all citizens at all times, except as hereinafter provided. No formal action of any kind shall be introduced, deliberated upon or adopted at any closed executive session or closed meeting of any such body. (Emphasis added.) ถ 188 Wisconsin Stat. ง 14.90 was amended and renumbered in 1969 to Wis. Stat. ง 66.77. ง 62, ch. 276, Laws of 1969. The municipal or quasi-municipal corporation language was continued in this new statute. ถ 189 Consequently, we may be able to discern the meaning of municipal corporation and quasi-municipal corporation by examining the cases and statutes in place at the time the Anti-Secrecy Law was adopted, as well as contemporary interpretation. [19] ถ 190 In Iverson v. Union Free High School District, 186 Wis. 342, 353, 202 N.W. 788 (1925), this court stated: [The Union Free High School District of the Towns of Springfield and Curran] is not a municipal corporation. It is very grudgingly accorded the rank of a quasi -municipal corporation. 1 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. ง 113. . . . It is but the agent of the state for the sole purpose of administering the state's system of public education and has only such powers as are conferred expressly or by necessary implication. This ruling was affirmed in Schaut v. Joint School District No. 6, Towns of Lena and Little River, 191 Wis. 104, 107, 210 N.W. 270 (1926). These decisions show quasi-municipal corporations performing essential governmental functions. ถ 191 More than 60 years later, the court of appeals described the Metropolitan Milwaukee Sewerage District (MMSD) as a quasi-municipal corporation: MMSD is a quasi-municipal corporation which provides sewerage treatment and disposal services to approximately twenty-eight Milwaukee area municipalities. MMSD is currently engaged in a fifteen-year water pollution abatement program designed to upgrade and rehabilitate the district's sewerage system. In an effort to recover the capital cost for the project, MMSD sought to levy property value-based capital charges against Mequon and the other municipalities which MMSD services outside Milwaukee county. State ex rel. Lank v. Rzentkowski, 141 Wis.2d 846, 849, 416 N.W.2d 635 (Ct.App. 1987). In 2000 the court of appeals observed in another decision that [a]gencies, municipal corporations and quasi-municipal corporations are all creatures of the state and their powers are only those ascribed to them by the state. Silver Lake Sanitary Dist. v. DNR, 2000 WI App 19, ถ 8, 232 Wis.2d 217, 607 N.W.2d 50 (footnote omitted). All these decisions portray quasi-municipal corporations as essentially government entities. ถ 192 The legislature revised and renumbered the open meetings laws in 1976. See ch. 426, Laws of 1975. This enactment saw a municipal or quasi-municipal corporation changed to a governmental or quasi-governmental corporation. The majority has produced no legislative history showing an intent to seriously expand the scope of the law with the substituted language. This is why Attorney General La Follette said in 1977, the year after the law was passed, that [e]ven though a corporation may serve some public purpose, it is not a `governmental or quasi-governmental corporation' under sec. 19.82(1), Stats., unless it also is created directly by the Legislature or by some governmental body pursuant to specific statutory authorization or direction. 66 Wis. Op. Att'y Gen. 113, 115 (1977). This is why he added in a 1985 opinion that the term `quasi-governmental corporation' is limited to nonstock body politic corporations created by the Legislature to perform essentially governmental functions. 74 Wis. Op. Att'y Gen. 38, 43 (1985). Inasmuch as the relevant portion of the law has not been changed since 1976, it is hard to fathom how a quasi-governmental corporation now includes a non-profit economic development corporation, not created by the government and completely without power to bind the government, that has a cooperation agreement to perform services for the government through a voluntary board and a single employee. [20] ถ 193 There is authority for citizens to gain information about the work submitted to the City by BDADC without denominating this small non-profit corporation as a quasi-governmental corporation. See Wis. Stat. ง 19.36(3). ถ 194 A Special Committee on Applicability of Open Meetings Law to Quasi-Governmental Bodies (Special Committee) recently studied the issue before this court, and, although making no recommendation to the Wisconsin Legislature, the committee's proposed report indicated that a bright-line test, such as requiring compliance with the Open Meetings Law for an economic development corporation that uses public funds for a specific percentage of its budget or that has a specific number of public officials on its board, might be favorable. Wisconsin Legislative Council Proposed Report to the Legislature, PRL 2007-01, Feb. 22, 2007, at 5, available at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/publications/prl/PRL2007-01.pdf (last visited June 27, 2008). [21] ถ 195 The Special Committee reviewed several proposed amendments to Wis. Stat. งง 19.32(1) and 19.82(1) that would have included or excluded an economic development corporation from or within the reach of Wisconsin's open meetings and public records laws. These proposals were based on bright-line criteria. ถ 196 One Wisconsin Legislative Council proposal would have defined economic development corporation and excluded such an entity if both of the following were satisfied: (a) The corporation receives less than 50% of its funds in cash or through inkind contributions, such as the use of governmental buildings, equipment, or staff, from the state or from a county, city, village, or town; and (b) Less than onehalf of the corporation's board and less than onehalf of the corporation's officers consist of public officials or public employees. Special Committee on Applicability of Open Meetings Law to Quasi-Governmental Bodies, WLC 0047/01, 4 available at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/committees/study/2006/QGOV/files/0047_1.pdf (last visited June 27, 2008). ถ 197 Another proposal would have defined economic development corporation and included such an entity in the definition of governmental body in Wis. Stat. งง 19.32(1) and 19.82(1) if either of the following criteria were satisfied: (a) The corporation receives at least 50% of its funds in cash or through inkind contributions, such as the use of governmental buildings, equipment, or staff, from the state or from a county, city, village, or town; or (b) At least onehalf of the corporation's board or at least onehalf of the corporation's officers consists of public officials or public employees. Special Committee on Applicability of Open Meetings Law to Quasi-Governmental Bodies, WLC 0048/01, 2 available at http://www. legis.state.wi.us/lc/committees/study/2006/QGOV/files/0048_1.pdf (last visited June 27, 2008). ถ 198 The fact that the Special Committee signaled that bright-line criteria are needed to determine the treatment of economic development corporations for purposes of Wisconsin open meetings and public records laws is evidence that the present statutes do not dictate the result announced by the majority. ถ 199 The majority has failed to convincingly utilize statutory history, legislative history, or other evidence of the intent behind use of the phrase quasi-governmental corporation in Wis. Stat. งง 19.32(1) and 19.82(1). The majority has left the public with a test that provides no definitive guidance.