*1 Camplin, Henry Haslach N. Philip D. Ball, William Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, Young, Rebecca
v. Vocational, Technical Board of No. Area District Respondent/Defendant-Re Education, Adult & spondent-Petitioner.
Supreme Court Argued 1, 1984. March March No. 83-503. 1984. Decided 389.) (Also reported N.W.2d *2 For the respondent-petitioner by were there briefs Thomas Ragatz, G. Sicklen, Michael B. Van Gordon Dav- enport III, Foley and Lardner, Madison, argu- & and oral by Ragatz. ment Mr. by
For petitioners-appellants there was a brief Gruber, Robert L. Reynolds, Gruber, Scott Herrick and argument Kasdorf, Madison, and oral Flesch & Herrick, L. by Gruber. Robert Jablonski, filed Frank
Amicus curiae brief was Decade, Madison, Inc. for Wisconsin’s Environmental Calhoun, W< John filed Amicus curiae brief general, on the brief was attorney with whom assistant general, Follette, attorney Edward S. C. La Bronson Vocational, Alsehuler, counsel, for the Stаte Education. Technical Adult the court DAY, review of decision This is a J. reversing judgment court for of the circuit appeals1 Pekowsky, circuit county, Robert R. Honorable Dane judgment summary in favor of judge. court The circuit *3 Vocational, Adult Technical and 4 Board of District No. Board to (Board) authorized the Education effect discharged existing building program; proceed with its construction; stop mandamus to plaintiffs’ writ of judgment. declaratory petition their for and dismissed 38.15, sec. Stats. 1981- on this review is: Does The issue requires approval by of 82, referendum which voter by “building approved program actions [State 1980,” apply to the January after VTAE] College (MATC) project. Area Technical We Madison by conclude that the MATC prior meaning State Board within the of the statute 31, 1980, January the effective date of and is therefore exempt requirement. from the referendum therefore We appeals reverse the decision of the court of and reinstate judgment of the trial court. step decade-long This case marks the latest a effort by the District 4 for VTAE Board build new facilities College. the Madison Area Technical Board’s au- Education, 555, 341 Ball District No. Bd. v. 115 Wis. 2d of (Ct. App. 1983). N.W.2d 707
thority vocational, technical and adult to construct new chapter of the Wis- education facilities derives from chapter That a statewide Statutes. establishes consin system vocational, and adult education with technical of policy responsibility overall direction and administra- single system tion of in a the VTAE vested State VTAE system di- Board. Sec. Stats. This statewide regional vocational, into sixteen technical and vided adult by education districts. Each district is administered statutorily Among created District Board. Sec. 38.08. powers granted power the District Boards is the money levy purchase, borrow and taxes to used be for the enlargement buildings construction or of and for the acquisition equipment. of 38.16(2). sites Sec. Dis- proposals acquisition, trict Board for land or additional new remodeling facilities and rental existing facilities must be the State Board. Sec. 38.04(10). legislature chapter require
In amended 38 to approval by capital expendi- voter referendum certain Boards. Laws ch. 221. That tures District 1979 Wis. provision, 38.15(1), at which is codified sec. states: (1) capital expenditures. Financing Sub- “38.15 ject to make (3), intends if board sub. the district acquisi- capital expenditure $500,000 for the in excess buildings, sites, purchase
tion of or construction *4 lease/purchase buildings $500,000 for if costs exceed enlarge- lease, or the lifetime of the additions any purchase relating equipment or to ments such of fixed activity, stating in- adopt it shall a resolution identifying anticipated tention to so do and source project revenue for each resolution and shall submit the approval. to the electors of district for The referen- noticed, dum shall be called s. 67.05 and conducted under (b) (6m) (e) applicable. purposes to insofar as For the section, projects single campus of this all located on a site concurrently within or one district which are bid approved by 38.04(10) which are the board under s. 2-year period capital within a expenditure project.” shall be considered as one Stats, expressly subject 38.15(1), made is Section (3). sec. That subsection states: 38.15 building program “(3) applies actions This January This after 1980. sec- the board capital expenditures apply in excess of tion not does fully by gifts, grants or fed- $500,000 which are funded building remodeling improvement eral projects.” or funds or to question presented by The this case is: Did the State approve January project prior Board of the MATC did, project exempt 1980. If it from the ref- requirement 38.15(1). erendum of see. sequence the Board claims of events which began approval of the State Board MATC
find meeting on November 1973. with a Board held meeting reflect the State The minutes of that discussed Facilities and Finance Committee had Board’s facility location the District District and minutes Board had looked into a number of sites. The pressure District Board was under from state separate various individuals to establish from facilities integrated campus. each rather than other an The Board informed was that the Facilities and Finance Committee had recommended to the State Board that it was inter- integrated campus requested plan ested an from developing campus. ques- them for such a There was a integrated tion campus as to what was meant an response setting that it is a where can students move freely A between educational motion made was activities. notify and carried to District 4 that State Board integrated campus. interested in an eight years Over the next followed a number there proposals re- State Board actions District 4 *5 534 facility. 15, 1974, the
gаrding the On October MATC from Dis- Board met and a resolution State “regarding locating trict Board Madison Area Technical Washington College Avenue site. . . .” On at the East passed November the district’s voters referen- authorizing up dum District Board borrow $30 expanded million to construct facilities. The referendum sought necessary voter the funds borrow specifying facility layout the new without the location or campus. The referendum asked: Vocational, “Shall the Area Technical and Adult Education District No. 4 borrow sum of not to exceed purchase million for the or $30 construction buildings additions, enlargements improvements buildings acquisition to ment and for the equip- of sites and general issuing obligation promissory notes pursuant 67.12(12), to S. Wis. Stats.?” passed The voters referendum. At its November meeting Board notеd that the District successfully Board had obtaining conducted a referendum voter passed of the bond issue and motion “go on commending the record District on their efforts getting passed.” million bond referendum $30 January On 25, 1975, adopted the State Board a resolu- approving request tion the District Board’s to borrow expanded million for construction of $30 facilities. proceeded necessary District Board to issue the Washington bonds. The East Avenue site was abandoned city after the attorney opinion stating Madison issued an authority the District Board lacked the condemnation necessary procure Washing- property for an East ton campus. Avenue facility
The next State Board action on MATC August 10, came on 1976. At time the State Board proposal a District Board to lоcate the new *6 by adopted facility Field. The resolution at Truax Board stated: RESOLVED, BE IT “NOW, THEREFORE by area district
petition the Madison board approved and that the district the Truax Field site be of board be advised ap- proceed on of that to the basis proval.” subsequently con- removed from was The Truax Field site held that a court decision after circuit sideration until proceed with construction could not District Board satisfactory impact state- environmental it obtained ment. in the proposed Board was
The next site the District proposal and town of Burke. This was heard 21, abandoned also on 1978. This site was November ruling following of the that construction a circuit court satisfactory proceed environ- campus until could not impact mental statement obtainеd. subsequent
Finally, 16, 1981, the effec- on October adopted Board tive date of State proposal approving Board’s a resolution the District existing expanded North locate the facilities at the MATC and to con- Carroll and Avenue sites Street Commercial at Truax. The Board’s resolu- struct new facilities tion stated: request “WHEREAS, Director at the the District Vocational, and Educa-
Area Board of Technical Adult Statutes, 4, 38.04(10), pursuant tion No. Wisconsin S. requests permission expanded at facilities to site their 2125 Street, at 211 North Technical Center Carroll Airpark, . . and. Commercial Avenue and the Truax Vocational, Technical “WHEREAS, Board of the Area by the granted permission and Adult Education No. was Edu- Vocational, and Adult Technical Board of Wisconsin cation, pursuant 38.04(10), Statutes Wisconsin to S. by the January 28, 1975, the funds to borrow and held November a referendum voters facilities, expanded construct IT RESOLVED BE THEREFORE “NOW Adult Education Vocational, Technical Area Board expanded facili- site their granted permission to No. 4 be at the Technical Street Carroll at North ties Air- Avenue, Truax and at the Center, 2125 Commercial park, and Board the Area RESOLVED IT “BE FURTHER 4 sub- Education No. Vocational, Adult Technical and specifications for each educational mit revised prior com- for State three locations planning.” mencing schematic with detailed plaintiffs on June initiated lawsuit was
This *7 taxpayers in the 1982, capacity voters and in their as alleged applicability complaint the Their area. District plan 38.15(1), Stats., MATC to the of section complaint 16, The 1981. Board on October the State form of a writ in the prayed for alternative relief a de- compel compliance the statute or to mandamus declaring applicability claratory judgment of section the 38.15. mo- on the Board’s decided the case
The circuit court February 3, summary judgment 1983. On tion for on evidentiary sub- documents the basis of briefs and the 38.15, mitted, the determined that section court apply the the Board had did not because January prior plan new MATC facilities to construct 31,1980. plaintiffs order court for an
The moved the circuit halting pending appeal. construction of the facilities That motion was denied. plaintiffs appealed
The the trial court’s decision appeals. requested this the court of That court that bypass pursuant appeals court to section the court of (Rule) 809.61, request That was denied. Stats. appeals issued 13, 1983, the court of
On October grounds that reversing the court on trial decision Stats., applies plan and that section to MATC requirements had met. that section not been This granted petition court the Board’s for review. approval
At issue in this court what constitutes of a is “building program (3), Stats., action” under section 38.15 given project such an of the MATC prior 31, January except project so as that requirements from the statute. building plaintiffs’
The contention is that action on a program specific proposal which is is action a cost, configuration. campus as to definite location argue They there was no State Board plan the current MATC and there- until October proposal fore the voters. must be submitted to argues plaintiffs The Board misconstrue essential character of The is 38.15, Stats. statute not, impose requirement argues, intended specifics precise approve voters district such as the layout building project. location or Rather general requires approval by statute referendum of the funding. plan and mere fact that source of facility upon the location MATC was not settled January 31, 1980, until not In after determinative. proj exempt refer- order for the MATC to be from the ect requirement endum there must an initial have been *8 building plan prior of an overall to effective of date the statute. un- application only of law
This case involves questions of law disputed facts. This court must decide of the independently the decisiоns without deference to Corp. Leasing First appeals. Nat. trial court and court of 205, 208, (1977). Madison, 260 251 v. 81 Wis. N.W.2d 2d statutory con- rules of of settled a number There are 38.15, Stats. analysis guiding of section our struction of purpose among rule that Principal them is 538 give and effect
statutory interpretation to ascertain is County legislature. Columbia v. of the the intent of (1980). 164, 129 288 N.W.2d 153, 2d Bylewski, 94 Wis. intent, determining legislative first resort must be In meaning of the language If the the statute itself. of face, will not look outside court clear on its this statute is Public Elec. Power Co. v. applying it. Wis. the statute 534, 329 178 Comm., 110 2d N.W.2d Wis. Service ambiguous language or (1983). If of statute is the intent unclear, will to ascertain this court endeavor legislature scope, con- history, as disclosed subject object text, Midland matter and of the statute. Corp. Department Rev., 2d v. Wis. Fin. (1983). N.W.2d reading “building аrgument for plaintiffs’ first including specific plan location
program” to mean a capable themselves are type campus is the words general plan argue meaning. They that a of no other a build- location cannot be as to is not definite which build program in ing the word program. do not understand We International Third New a sense. Webster’s so definite plan procedure: Dictionary “program” as “a defines may be taken system or under which action a schedule goal: proposed project or scheme.” a desired a toward suggests be there must definitions None of these qualify necessary in order to minimum of detail some Moreover, for “program.” no basis as there is sound a classifying plan “program” the basis a as a having campus rather structure a definite site than, example, on a definite architectural basis “building design program ac- term or brick color. The reasonably tion,” may standing be unclear. It alone, general signifying plan a new to build understood as specific particular campus plan or build a structure particular on a site. *9 argue meaning- plaintiffs
The if next that even the phrase face, is on its clear not clear it when read is argue They the context of the entire section. that the phrase program 38.15(3), action used Stats., synonymous “capital expendi- phrase is with the expenditure “capital project” ture” or used in section 38.15(1). legislature expected, however,
It would had the be that Stats., 38.15(1), applicable intended to make section capital expenditure January projects approved after explain plaintiffs it would said so. The have legislature’s “building program introduction the term by arguing repetition phrase “capital action” that expenditure project” (3), in section 38.15 would have been expression “awkward” and that the alternative English.” chosen in the of “smoother interest We find explanation unsatisfactory. this not It reasonable to is legislature presume elegance preferred that over wording precision in its of the statute. The reason- more legislature presumption chose able is its terms carefully express meaning. precisely its sig- apparent any importantly,
More it not what if is establishing equivalence nificance there would be in argue plaintiffs capital two terms. expenditure project is a awith known site and plan construction that it is that the this voters must approve. not, 38.15(1), however, That is what section requires requires. if It rather the District capital expenditure Board determines to make a in excess $500,000 any purposes, of a number it of stated adopt stating so, must a resolution to do intention identifying anticipated revenue, source of and sub- approval. mit that resolution to the The lan- voters for guage precisely of the statute is inconclusive as to what the approve voters must it Board’s intention —whether expenditure $500,000 to make an in excess of and the *10 funding particulars under or the source “building program” Even if is deemed consideration. project,” synonymous “capital expenditure it does with requires approval of the statute voter not follow that layout. campus spеcifics and such as location argue Finally, plaintiffs that when section the chapter context of the entire is read in the meaning “building program approved” actions be- only They point formal out comes evident. approval of District Board for mechanism State 38.04(10),2 proposals and conclude under section is 38.15(3), must be to in section referred give authorized to under that which the Board is it is 38.04(10). bolstered, section This conclusion is argued, by specific 38.04(10) mention of section pro- 38.15(1). 38.04(10) Since does not section section general argued concept approval for vide for the sort of Board, have there could not been given project prior specific approval on MATC to the 16,1981. October argument plaintiffs’ ar-
This has the same flaw as gument equating program capital expendi- with legislature ture; if intended to make the referendum requirement applicable to actions under section accounting 38.04(10), Stats., there is no for its failure say expressly. Furthermore, reference to section so 38.04(10) purpose 38.15(1), de- in section for the single fining capital expenditure projects as one “all education; vocational, “38.04 Board of technical and adult powers (10) . . and duties. . Additional Facilities. board approve any proposals by shall district land review boards for acquisition, facilities, remodeling of additional or new rentals and letting construct, existing facilities, prior to the of contracts remodel, acquisition rent or incur or land. debt such facilities capital building encourage district to finance The board shall boards through promissory proposals long bonding term or benefits obligations.” note campus are one district which bid concurrent- site within ly or are the board under section which Stats, (10), year period.” 38.04 within a two It is not used approve. what it is the voters must The mention define any- 38.04(10) 38.15(1) proves, of section if provision thing, that the were aware of the drafters strongly suggests they would have made reference (3) to it in section 38.15 had that their intent. been expressly statutory It no defined is true that there is *11 approve mechanism for State Board to a District the building general go plans pro- Board’s gram. Although to ahead a authority expressly mentioned, not such reasonably implied general powers is in the State Board’s organization, plans scope develop- to “detеrmine the vocational, ment of technical and adult under education” certainly 38.04(1), section Stats. It is reasonable to con- vesting authority strue this section as in the Board State approve general plan a to new construct educational thereby facilities and District Board to authorize the obtaining proceed step approval to the next voter funding plan developing par- the and source of the ticulars of the Board be submitted the State approval (10). for under section 38.04 argues legislature intentionally The Board that “building phrased applicability provision in terms of program 38.04(10), actions” rather than section approvals in order to make it clear that what the statute requires general approval plan voter of a for the con- support position, In struction of new facilities. of its argues adopting plaintiffs’ interpretation Board of that yield re- the statute would an absurd and unworkable sult. argued urged by interpretation
First, it is that the plaintiffs super- 38.04(10), Stats., would render section by creating require- approval fluous an final identical 38.15(3). Requiring ment under is not section This so. approved approval of all matters referendum negate 38.04(10), would not Board under section State simply significance would Board but State plain- process. impose two-step Under interpretation, submitted to and matters tiffs to the have Board also to be submitted would the State voters. argument point to re- Board’s
More to the is the particulars proj- quire approve of a the electorate to approvаl under ect which are submitted for State Board process 38.04(10), Stats., would render the so interpretation unwieldy as to Plaintiffs be unworkable. single multiple ap- project requiring in a could result 38.15(3). provals under section A more reasonable legislative interpretation of scheme contained the entire chapter require approval of a 38 is referendum funding general plan source and the Approval plan. implementation of the of the details of plan is then left to the Board. State
The Board that the contends general meeting plan facility build a new MATC meeting of November 1973. The minutes from state that the mittee had Facilities and Finance Com- State Board’s *12 facility of a 4
discussed location for District recommended and that the State Board inform Dis- campus integratеd that it in trict Board is interested an request plan developing campus. and a for a In such conformity recommendation, committee’s notify Board voted “to Board District that the is State integrated campus.” interested in an stating expressly action, This while not of a request, only Board can be understood as an District go authorization to District Board ahead with development particular facility plans of for an MATC and plans an invitation to Board the District those submit approval. subsequent Board The of State actions both that the the view 4 Boards bear out and District State go proceed MAT'C on the received a ahead to District had 1976, 1978 and project. 1974, The Board actions proposals to approvals of District Board 1981 were all implica- facility рarticular The clear a site. build campus tion a new somewhere is build already given. had been legisla- proffers of items of
The also number position that history support which are said to tive facility legislature except from the MATC intended to plaintiffs requirements The of section Stats. of those object some consideration to this court’s of documents as unreliable. legislative history our offered for
The first item of Lang, report prepared by consideration is a Bob Director Elementary Legislative Bureau, Fiscal for the Secondary Group Com- Education Discussion of the Joint February report, mittee on Finance. which is dated This question public approval 21, 1980, of addresses the capital by vocational, adult expenditures technical and recommеnding five and concludes education districts existing statutory scheme to the alternative amendments accountability. an of- is to increase District Board This report legislatively committee as ficial created clearly legislative In re intent. valid evidence such is Haese, 297, Estate 259 N.W.2d 80 Wis. 2d (1977). Dr.
The second item a memorandum from Robert is Board, Rep- Sorensen, P. Director of VTAE the State Lingren. subject the memo- resentative The Ronald “suggested randum, which is dated March changes February 28, 1980— Motion of to Joint Finance Capital Construction.” Referendum Limitation on VTAE challenged document plaintiffs the use of this Judge challenge denied the trial court and ques- Pekowsky. appeals not The court of did reach the *13 544 Pekowsky’s Judge agree reliability. We
tion of its conclusion. memoran- position the Sorensen support thаt
In consideration, plaintiffs from excluded dum should be Corp., 2d Freightways 72 Wis. cite State v. Consolidated Southern 738, (1976) and Wisconsin 242 192 N.W.2d 643, 652, Comm., 2d 205 v. 57 Wis. Gas Co. Public Serv. proposition that neither (1973) for the N.W.2d testify as permitted to legislator private nor citizen is passage legislature in the to what the intent though accurate, statement, particular This of a statute. Dr. bearing memorandum. Were has no Sorensen applicability of testify on the as to his views Sorensen testimony facility, would 38.15 to the MATC not it is However, as unreliable. have to be discounted legislature intended of what views Dr. Sorensen’s is a At issue have considered. seeks to state of a contemporaneous from the head document advising legislative agency submitted to a committee provision applicability inclusion of an committee on the using language incorporated into the very stat- later ute. argue not the courts should plaintiffs also beyond legislative intent to extend
permit the search for legislatively advisory com- reports created official the extent cases, however, not defined have Our mittees. narrowly. legislative intent so of reliable evidence evi- considered this court has circumstances Under some non-legislative com- legislative from intent dence Haese, e.g., In re Estate See sources. mittees and other Payer v. Public 297; Co. Nekoosa-Edwards 2d at Wis. (1959). Comm., 99 N.W.2d 2d 8 Wis. Serv. nonlegislative do Ordinarily from sources statements statements. carry probative as official value not much as *14 Statutory Construction, 2A Sutherland section 48.11 (1973). Therefore, cautiously. aids such should be used When, contemporaneous report however, a or other docu- nonlegislative agency ment private from a or even a party legislative history forms a vital link in the chain of particular statute, of a report such unofficial or other may legislative document be used to determine the intent Folsom, Legislative History, p. behind the statute. G. (1972). 31-32
The Board Ward, also offers the affidavit of Judith program supervisor Legislative for the Bureau. Fiscal plaintiffs objections raise the same to this document regarding as were raised use the Sorensen memoran- dum. present tending
Were the Board to the affidavit as legislature’s enacting show the intent section clearly it would is, be however, unreliable. It purpose reliable for offered, the limited for which it is is, provide surrounding chronology of events рassage of section 38.15. Therefore consideration of proper. the document this court is The evidence from these reveals that three documents consideration 38.15, Stats., of an amendment to requiring voter expenditures of District Board began Lang report with the submission of the Febru- ary Shortly thereafter, Elementary of 1980. Secondary Group Education Discussion of the Joint Com- Legislative requested on mittee Finance Fiscal Bureau greater to draft a require motion to amend the statutes to public accountability expenditures by VTAE district boards. A motion was drafted and submitted to the Joint Finance first Committee for consideration. This motion, exemption which contained no effective date or provision, was tabled back without action and referred group. tо the discussion 3, 1980, March Dr.
On Sorensen submitted memo- his group. randum to the discussion That memorandum con- suggestions including suggestion tained a number that the statute be amended to state that “[a] program actions State Board or be- January subject fore not 31, 1980 shall be refer- *15 requirement. endum ...” Attached to the memorandum “Projects Approved by was a list labeled: State Board Pending Approval Nearing Stage Construction and/or (January 31, 1980).” heading the “AREA Under FOUR approved was —MADISON” notation: ref- the “Voters November, campus.” erendum in for a new Legislative subsequently The Fiscal Bureau drafted a approved reported motion second which was out of the Joint Finance Committee on March 1980. This building motion program recommended “all that actions approved by January 31, the State on Board or before subject requirements shall not be to the included under motion.” proposed this A draft of first the statute prepared by Legislative was Bureau Fiscal in con- formity approved with the This draft second motion. was Legislative sent to the Reference Bureau where the stat- given present ute was form. plaintiffs argue legislative
The that this evidence of intent, supports if allowed, their that contention section 38.15(3), Stats., approval approval is identical with under 38.04(10). Lang section In reference to the re- port, they continually state: “In detail this document dis- approval granted cusses State Board as that which is 38.04(10)” under building programs and that “[t]he be upon are projects those construction which ‘a resolution Board’ district has made and a been request aрproval by for the state Board has been made.” report
The approval does discuss Board State Dis- proposals. trict Policy Board The An- State Board’s procedures nouncement 79-13 which outlines State report. approval However, the attached Board report which must be sub- that nowhere states matters approval should be submitted also mitted for Board State report project point notes that At one to the voters. approval “at various Board staff State must receive stages development” project’s as minute matters building design, materials, main- as schematic requirements, and contract documents. tenance argued seriously these matters be that because It cannot subject under 38.04 are to State Board review placed they (10), Stats., before voters. should also be argue plaintiffs memorandum, the As to the Sorensen projects attachment lists both January projects approval pending for which regarding argue They 1980. further that the statement suggests facility referendum of the MATC pending. Board was still State heading “Projects to the fact attachment — Pending Approval Approved by and/or Stage” Nearing the dis- Construction both *16 —contains junctive conjunctive “or” the “and” demonstrates projects which received that were had State there some nearing pending approval approval Board con- were cmd stage. evidently projects which have struction These are awaiting of initial and were received some form beginning approvals construction. This additiоnal before project precisely the of the of MATC at time status the passage of the statute. heading awas the AREA
Under FOUR—MADISON approval of a a statement there had been referendum campus” “new is consistent in 1974. This statement prior approval of the view that there was general plan consistent It is not for MATC. approvals only approvals were with the view that the specific of sites. leading chronology up that the conclude of events
We passage the of the statute —the initial Finance Com- containing mittee motion date, no effective the submis- memorandum, sion the Sorensen and the second motion containing applicability provision together the with the — similarity wording between the Sorensen memorandum and both the finance committee motion and the final strongly suggests statute that the memorandum the exemption provision. source of the The inclusion project District 4 on a list attached to the memorandum suggests legislature exempt further that the intended to project requirements from the of section Stats. including
Based wording on all the evidence of the statute, relationship 38.15, Stats., of section to the chapter 38, legislative history rest of provi- and the sion, we conclude there was an the MATC project prior January exempting it from the requirements (1). purpose section 38.15 The evident including 38.15(3), providing an effective date requirement for the permit projects referendum is to already go which had been ahead without having to be ratified voters. The fact provision limitation is stated in terms of inclusion rather significant. than Furthermore, exclusion is not if the project approved prior January 31, 1980, had been fact that may have taken additional ac- trigger tion on the after that date does not application requirement. of the referendum legislature's generic choice of the term broad “building program legis- actions” demonstrates that *17 lature exemption provision that intended be construed expansively restrictively. interpretation rather than An requires referendum statute which public money provide spend to District Board decisions to vocational, needs in the technical and adult education project specifics and which leaves the district campus layout to Board under such the State as site general (10), comports scheme 38.04 with by chaрter The course of events established 38. whole through meeting October, from Board the 1973 State meeting approved the cur- in which the single rent site the existence of evidences thing dispute during period program. only The this Finally, facility was where the new would located. be legislative history that 38.15, of section demonstrates legislature recognized there was an facility except plan build a new and intended MATC requirement. from the referendum building pro- therefore the MATC We conclude that gram January 31, 1980, prior and is requirement of section exempt from the referendum 38.15(1), Stats.
By appeals of the court of Court. —The decision reversed.
Abrahamson, J., part. took no BABLITCH, (dissenting). A unan- J. WILLIAM A. appeals re- court of concluded that the referendum imous Stats., apply quirements No. District sec. campus plan split new MATC for a for the 4’s current requirements facilities, of that statute have and that the agree that conclusion. not met. I been very importantly appeals’ serves court of decision legislature’s passing carry intention out the court, majority a cardinal of this law. noted As *18 550 statutory purpose of
rule construction is that of statutory interpretation give is to ascertain and effect legislature. County to the intent of the Columbia v. Bylewski, 153, 164, (1980). 94 2dWis. N.W.2d legislative intent, why
To understand the the court appeals’ correct, important decision is it to under- background surrounding passage stand of this law. The members of the VTAE Board as well as They appointed. the district VTAE boards are all are addition, elected one. no In the district boards have power to tax. clearly legis- record The reveals the frustrations of the attempting greater lature in public accountability to force system. on the budget VTAE biennial 1977-79 in- provision requiring cluded a district VTAE boards to public approval through seek process the referendum capital expenditure projects all in $500,000. excess of Specifically, 67.05(6m) (a), Stats., sec. amended provide pertinent part: “. adopted . All . resolutions (1) money under sub. in an amount excess of $500,000 specified purposes or more for 38.16(2) in s. shall ap- be submitted to the electors the district for proval. July . 1, . .” From 1977, mandatory when this process effective, through referendum became June eight remodeling projects new construction and exceeding $500,000 estimated costs were Despite mandatory the State Board. referendum only requirement, prоjects one of those was submitted to approval. remaining projects voters for All seven process by structuring avoided the referendum their financing plans mandatory so that referenda were not required. eight project The one that was submitted for approval. referendum failed voter to receive Nevertheless, went ahead after the because failed, referendum the State Board local authorized the financing plans to avoid district to structure their so as the need a referendum. Lang, February 21,
In a memo from dated Robert *19 Legislative Bureau, Director of Fiscal to the Joint the language Finance, of Committee on which the drafted 38.15, Lang Stats., advised the Committee: sec. July 1, 1977, summary, appear “In that it since would structuring capital vocational project financing not рossibility have their districts been mandatory plans that referenda are so required. Presumably the the districts wish to avoid rejection proposed capital project public of of expenditures direct was to insure amended mandatory most If seems the ... referenda accountability, be the statutes could building remodeling projects require to all subjected $500,000 to with in excess of ... be costs approval. elector . . .” passage in The end result 1980 of sec. 38.15. The was having past, de- was tried but failed legislature, accountability public termined to force Board. legislative by parties intent
It is conceded all that the 38.15, Stats., more of sec. to make those boards was by providing taxpaying public accountable to building program approved the State aсtions subject voter $500,000 would that cost excess of be referendum. give 38.15, Stats., purpose obvious: The sec. by way public opportunity and decide to debate costly proposed of referendum kinds involving 38.15(1) program enunciated in sec. actions site; b) purchase or acquisition or a) an either c) lease/purchase of build- buildings; or construction of enlargements; e) the d) building or ings; or or additions relating activi- equipment above purchase fixed split campus project involves proposed ties. The MATC of these. several
In borrowing the voters project for a far different from the in this case with respect scope, cost, integrated to: split, vs. new construc- tion vs. rehabilitation construction, and effect on students, area, on the and on the electоrs of the district.1 environmental, social, questions and economic involv- ing split campus this site are far different, far more com- plex, reaching and far more than the 1974 project. public Public consciousness and attitudes re- garding sprawl, decay, urban urban and downtown de- velopment today are much different than in 1974. The purpose of the obviously statute enacted in 1980 was provide public opportunity to debate and types questions. decide They these merit debate. The decision majority opportunity. forecloses that I conclude that interpreted sec. must be in a way fully legislative most effectuates the intent of *20 providing public debate and I decision. therefore dissent.2 concerning The evidence legislature in this record whether exempt any intendеd building project of District No. 4 from requirements decidedly the referendum note, however, I mixed. legislature passed that at the time the 38.15, Stats., sec. only project of District 4No. that had received State Board and that had not been struck down court action was single project Washington only site at East Ave. One can speculate legislature what action the would have taken had it proposed split known campus plan. about the project already delayed This years. has been more than ten Another few appear months to allow a referendum does not onerous or unreasonable. A fear District 4No. the district voters may certainly understandable; defeat the in a referendum is
however, possibility very is in the nature of the democratic process.