*1 al., Appellants, Roger et GREENE STATE OF IOWA COUNCIL
ATHLETIC al., Appellees. et
UNIVERSITY 2-57593.
No.
Supreme Court of Iowa. 16, 1977.
March Norman G. LeTourneau and
Lawrence Jesse, Moines, appellants. Des Gen., Turner, Atty. and Eliza- Richard C. Gen., Nolan, appel- Atty. Asst. A. beth lees.
McCORMICK,Justice. question here is whether subject council of statute, chapter it not. held therefore reverse. it is and We hold here material At the times University and at Iowa were students Iowa. taxpayers of citizens judgment action declaratory brought this and members against the athletic to establish in an effort law. council is stipulated tried on evidence The case was nature, showing function *2 560 against of 3.Any the council. ruled committee
of
contention,
appeal.
plaintiffs’
they
council, commission,
body.
ing
statute,
meetings
open
Our
mento
statutes. See Arkansas Gazette Co. v. Pick
753
liberal construction
ens,
strued most
Sacramento
ing
therein.”
sions
“is to
N.W.2d
man v.
chapter
We
be
said in
258
prohibit
Open
open
County
837,
McCord,
unless
public
public
Ark.
This
Newspaper Guild, etc. v. Sacra
840-841
Dobrovolny
favorably
meetings
became
bodies,
within the exceptions
secret or
69,
benefit and
Board
principle
245
522
permit
(1970),
Ark.
to
statutes are enacted
S.W.2d 350
‘star chamber’ ses
require
v.
is reflected
Supervisors,
401,
are
Reinhardt,
accorded such
July
public
432 S.W.2d
to be con
1,
(1975);
stated
meet
to be
1967.
263
La
173
including
require institutional
gram
cials
laws of this
National
is a
(NCAA)
present
an
We
The record
entity
control the
“council,
of the
[*]
Iowa
case is
established
ten faculty
Collegiate Athletic
State
[*]
university. Regulations
state”,
Big
shows
consists
State University to
whether
* *
controlling
8 athletic
[*]
control
within the
representatives,
*
administrative
[*]
fifteen
athletic council
conference,
is a
issue in
Association
[*]
members,
member,
manage
of the
three
[*]
offi-
pro-
representatives
alumni
and two student
Cal.App.2d 41,
(1968);
69 Cal.Rptr.
Bag
480
representatives.
faculty represent-
The ten
428,
1,
by v.
District No.
186 Colo.
School
atives include six
elected
(1974);
We hold that the athletic council is a their claim the athletic “council” which is the laws council is authorized statute. state,” That sec- of this and therefore to the permits tion the board appoint open meetings 28A.1(1), statute. See § committees, offices and to serve the board of But holding erred in other- appointed the athletic council is not wise. agree I do not REVERSED. expressed belief majority’s council could not pow- justices HARRIS, J., concur except if it were ers authorized to do so MOORE, J., LeGRAND, J., C. who dis- under 262.12. I do not understand that sent, REES, J., part. who takes no prohibit setting up section to boards and HARRIS, (dissenting). Justice in with university committees connection administration. Rather I understand respectfully I dissent in the belief the merely 262.12 to authorize the legislature did not open meetings intend the to create offices and apply law to to the athletic council. I disa- agencies for purposes. its own gree the athletic council exercises powers. mental “Authorized” is defined to “permitted.” mean Black’s Law Diction- agree Neither do I the council essentially Rev.Ed., ary, p. Fourth 169. The definition represents in and ad- in susceptible interpretations. turn is to two ministering intercollegiate athletics at the might Authorized be interpreted to mean I think the record is clear the (1) expressly permitted, (2) either not council represents the university adminis- prohibited. The activities of the athletic and, tration administration, council are not expressly permitted by any attending students the university in main- statute. taining institutional control over the athlet- ic It follows then for rely on 28A.1(1)the term “authorized” has to be I do not read the record to show state interpreted to mean illegal.” “not I do not appropriations are a source of revenue for legislature believe the intended to extend intercollegiate athletics at the university. boards, councils or One basis for holding by majori- such a merely operation commissions because their ty seems to paid be salaries appropria- illegal. is not tions to physical some depart- education employees ment spend a of their inapplicable time coaching intercollegiate track, golf, situation because it refers legislature I do intended cities, counties, town- bodies governing open meetings law to what extend the subdivi- corporations, ships, school essentially administrative staff meet- The ath- districts. sions, supported or tax legislature Rather the intended the ings. in of these included is not letic by groups of recommendations formulation categories. administration and ath- section, provision relevant The last councils of universities need not be letic “any commit- the law to 28A.1(3), extends on in carried commission, any such tee affirm. I would body.” Significantly governing the law did not extend boards, appointed by such committees MOORE, J., LeGRAND, J., join C. governing cils, this dissent. “any committee I the words believe bodies. 28A.1(3), mean committees of”, as used statutory organizations’
comprised council is not The athletic members.
own statutory or- up of members members Rather
ganization. statutory organization. a appointed
