Opinion ID: 1874114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guidance

Text: ถ 144 This case involves a pure question of statutory interpretationโnamely, determining the meaning of quasi-governmental corporationโso that certain private entities will know whether their actions are subject to Wisconsin's open meetings and public records laws. It is deeply troubling that the majority opinion offers no clear test, no determinative factor (or even a set of enumerated factors), for interested parties and courts to apply to determine whether a particular entity is a quasi-governmental corporation. Instead, the majority advises that [i]f an entity does not want to be subject to the open meetings and public records laws, then it should change the circumstances under which it operates. Majority op., ถ 7. This phantom guidance is bound to have a chilling effect on entities who seek lawfully to avoid the constraining requirements of these statutes. [9] ถ 145 The majority opinion claims to recognize the need . . . for flexibility and confidentiality in the conduct of municipal economic development initiatives. Majority op., ถ 4. However, it does not provide crucial guidance required by those engaged in the development, management, and day-to-day operation of entities created to serve such policy goals. Instead, the majority cryptically sets forth only  some of the factors to be examined in determining what constitutes a `quasi-governmental corporation' subject to open meetings and public records laws, majority op., ถ 8 (emphasis added), leaving no usable test with which one might determine what is meant by this term in Wis. Stat. งง 19.32(1) and 19.82(1). ถ 146 Although it might be easier to ask the legislature to clarify the scope and meaning of quasi-governmental corporation, this course is not available in the instant litigation. Hence, it is our duty to make our best judgment of what the term means. The majority's answer fosters uncertainty by empowering judges to impose penalties on people, on a case-by-case basis, with virtually no guidance of who will get whacked. ถ 147 The majority was given options, and it has attempted to meld different tests together to reach a desired outcome. The briefs of the parties and amici set forth several choices to give meaning to quasi-governmental corporation. Two primary options (based on formal Attorney General opinions) were suggested. A third vaguer option (based on a noted treatise) was also submitted, and the majority seems at least partially to embrace it. [10] See majority op., ถถ 9, 35, 79 (discussing function, effect, or status). In essence, however, the majority chose none of the above. Any of the suggested options would be preferable to the majority's open-ended, non-specific test: In sum, we determine that an entity is a quasi-governmental corporation within the meaning of Wis. Stat. งง 19.82(1) and 19.32(1) if, based on the totality of circumstances, it resembles a governmental corporation. Majority op., ถ 99. This test requires the public to traverse dense fog without any fog lines. ถ 148 One option the majority could have selected would limit quasi-governmental corporations to those entities created expressly by government under statutory authority. A 1977 Attorney General opinion discussing whether the Palmyra Volunteer Fire Department was subject to the open meetings law interpreted Wis. Stat. ง 19.82(1) and concluded that [e]ven though a corporation may serve some public purpose, it is not a `governmental or quasi-governmental corporation' under [Wis. Stat. ง 19.82(1)] 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) (emphasis added). The Attorney General opined that the volunteer fire department in question did not meet the definition in Wis. Stat. ง 19.82(1) because it was not created directly by the legislature or another governmental body. Id. at 114-15. ถ 149 The created-directly-by-government test may be too easy to skirt, but it is clear. BDADC could not be classified as a quasi-governmental corporation if this test were applied. ถ 150 The second potential option comes from a 1991 Attorney General opinion, 80 Wis. Op. Att'y Gen. 129 (1991). The majority opinion tries to utilize this opinion, but it fails to explicitly enumerate the factors that are important or worthy of consideration. By embracing an open-ended totality test, the majority aggravates the ambiguity in the 1991 opinion. ถ 151 The 1991 Attorney General opinion focused on several factors to determine whether two private corporations resembled a governmental corporation enough to be a quasi-governmental corporation. Id. at 136. It favored an analysis on a case by case basis, in light of all the relevant circumstances. Id. The opinion was candid that adopting a fact-based test to determine whether a corporation is a `quasi-governmental corporation' . . . creates some uncertainty as to the applicability of the open meetings law in particular cases. Id. at 137. ถ 152 Using the 1991 opinion, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) subsequently compiled the following non-exclusive list of six factors: (1) whether the corporation serves a public purpose; (2) the extent to which the corporation receives public funding for its operation; (3) whether the bylaws of the corporation either reserve positions on the board of directors for government officials or employees, or give a government actor the power to appoint government officials and employees to the board of directors; (4) whether the government in fact appointed government employees or officials to the corporation's board of directors; (5) whether government employees served as officers of the corporation; and (6) the extent to which the corporation was housed in government offices, used government equipment and was staffed by government employees. Wisconsin Open Meetings Law: A Compliance Guide (2007) 4 (citing 80 Wis. Op. Att'y Gen. 129, 136 (1991)), available at http://www.doj.state.wi.us/A WP/2007 OMCG-PRO/2007_OML_Compliance_ Guide.pdf (last visited June 27, 2008). ถ 153 It should be noted that the DOJ list does not include the factor that was dispositive in the 1977 opinion: namely, the corporation's creation by government. [11] Moreover, it begins with the elusive question whether the corporation serves a public purpose, a question that could be debated at length in a class on political philosophy. ถ 154 The State's brief recognizes that the 1991 Attorney General opinion is not free from ambiguity and that the multitude of factors applied make it cumbersome as the basis for a general standard that yields a predictable result. This evaluation of the 1991 Attorney General opinion is consistent with the DOJ's prior commentary on the guidance in that opinion. In 1996 the DOJ's open meetings compliance guide stated, with regard to 80 Wis. Op. Att'y Gen. 129 (1991): There is no clear-cut test for determining whether a particular corporation resembles a governmental corporation closely enough to be considered `quasi-governmental.' Wisconsin Open Meetings Law: A Compliance Guide (1996) 2. [12] It is ironic that the 1996 DOJ open meetings law compliance guideโa guide that someone in the position of organizing a private, non-profit economic development corporation in early 1997 might referenceโconcluded that there was no clear-cut test to determine whether a particular entity was subject to Wisconsin freedom of information laws. ถ 155 The 1991 Attorney General opinion dealt with two private corporations whose boards, employees, and day-to-day operations were effectively controlled by the City of Milwaukee. Thus, the result of the opinion is understandable. However, the analysis is murky, and is based far more on policy than legislative intent. ถ 156 The third option presented to define quasi-governmental corporation is that found in 1 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations ง 2.13 (3d rev.1999). The McQuillin treatise discusses quasi-public corporations, which could be viewed as similar, although not identical, to quasi-governmental corporations. Id. The 1991 Attorney General opinion quoted the 1990 version of the McQuillin treatise: The term `quasi-public [or quasi-governmental] corporation' is not per se public or governmental. On its face, the term connotes that it is not a public corporation but a private one. But `quasi' indicates that the private corporation has some resemblance to a public corporation in function, effect or status. 80 Wis. Op. Att'y Gen. at 135 (quoting McQuillin, Municipal Corporations ง 2.13 (3rd ed. rev. 1987 & Supp. 1990)). ถ 157 The function, effect or status test in McQuillin presents an enumerated list of three factors to consider to determine whether an entity is a quasi-governmental corporation subject to open meetings and public records laws. These three factors, although rather vague, present a clearer starting point than the totality of circumstances and resembles a governmental corporation standards provided by the majority. Majority op., ถ 99. However, the function, effect or status test is easily manipulated based on what one characterizes as a governmental function, an entity's effect, or an entity's status. ถ 158 I disagree with the majority's conclusion that BDADC is a quasi-governmental corporation for purposes of Wisconsin open meetings and public records laws. However, the majority's conclusion is less troubling than the lasting negative impact of the imprecision in the majority's holding. Had the majority chosen to enumerate specific factors to direct the public, today's decision might contain some redeeming value as a guide. In my view, it does not.