Opinion ID: 1619192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mandatory direction.

Text: The appellant contends that the action taken by the electors at the annual meeting on April 9, 1974, was only a conditional authorization to the town board to increase the board to five supervisors and was not a mandatory act creating a board of five supervisors. The minutes of that meeting as they pertain to the motion to increase the number of supervisors have been previously set forth herein. The appellant argues that the language of the minutes clearly indicates that the electors had no intention of having the board act upon the motion until such time as the town lawyer was able to research the particular question of law involved and so advise the board of his opinion. We are not persuaded by this argument. A reasonable reading of the minutes indicates that the motion was made and seconded; an amendment to present the matter to all residents by referendum was offered, discussed and defeated; and the original motion was further discussed, voted on and passed. Only after the motion had passed and only after approval was given to increase the budget to provide salaries for the two additional supervisors, was the question of legality of the matter raised. No motion to reconsider or withdraw the vote under the provisions of sec. 60.17, Stats., or to delay the action until the town lawyer had rendered his opinion was ever made. [10] The trial court found that the motion passed by the electors at the April 9, 1974, annual town meeting was legislative in nature and was a mandatory and nondiscretionary direction to the board to increase the number of supervisors to five. The clear import of the official minutes of that meeting indicates that the motion was passed and the questions of legality only arose after passage. The evidence of record fully supports the holding of the trial court. Moreover, once the motion was passed, the duty of the board became clear and thus mandamus was the proper remedy. Morrissette v. DeZonia, 63 Wis.2d 429, 217 N.W.2d 377 (1974); Eisenberg v. ILHR Department, 59 Wis.2d 98, 207 N.W.2d 874 (1973); State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court, 41 Wis.2d 188, 163 N.W.2d 6 (1968). We do not consider the specific question of whether the electors can require the board to take action which the board believes is unconstitutional. That issue was not raised, nor its disposition essential to the outcome of this appeal.