73 Op. Att'y Gen. 53 | Wis. Att'y Gen. | 1984
RICHARD A. ERNEY, Director State Historical Society
You have requested my opinion as to whether the Historic Sites Foundation, Inc. (HSF), is a governmental body subject to the requirements of the open meetings law.
The answer to your question is no.
Section
Accordingly, under section
From the above definition it is obvious that the only classifications relevant to your question are: (1) a public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or order, and (2) a quasi-governmental corporation. The answer to your question is based on the conclusion that the HSF does not fall within either classification.
In order to more fully appreciate the rationale of this opinion, some understanding of the history of the HSF is necessary.
During the fall of 1959 a special committee of the Board of Curators of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin (Society), known as the Sites Management Committee, met to consider the creation of an organization to manage the Circus World Museum at Baraboo. The Board recognized that the Society itself had no statutory authority to create a corporation. Instead, a corporate foundation was created *55 in the manner passed upon and described in 46 Op. Att'y Gen. 83 (1957). That opinion stated in part:
Your first question reads as follows: "Does the act of incorporating the proposed nonprofit corporation require any act on the part of `The Regents of The University of Wisconsin'?"
The answer is "No." The corporation would be formed by friends of the university and not by any act on the part of the regents. The regents in their official capacity have no statutory authority to create a corporation. If individual members of the board wanted to be incorporators, it would have to be done in their individual capacities.
46 Op. Att'y Gen. at 84.
Thus, the HSF was patterned after the corporate foundations created by the University of Wisconsin System. The creation and use of such foundations have been recognized, accepted and approved by the court. Glendale Development v. Board of Regents,
This court has repeatedly held that nonstock, nonprofit corporations organized by friends of the university for its benefit, could do things which neither the state nor the university could do directly, that such corporation is not an arm or agency of the state and does not engage the state in work of internal improvement or create a state debt. Loomis v. Callahan (1928),
196 Wis. 518 ,220 N.W. 816 ; State ex rel. Wisconsin University Bldg. Corp. v. Bareis (1950),257 Wis. 497 ,44 N.W.2d 259 ; State ex rel. Thomson v. Giessel (1953),265 Wis. 185 ,60 N.W. (2d) 873 ; State ex rel. Thomson v. Giessel (1954),267 Wis. 331 ,65 N.W. (2d) 529 ; and State ex rel. Thomson v. Giessel (1955),271 Wis. 15 ,72 N.W. (2d) 577 . As to creating a state debt, see State ex rel. Thomson v. Giessel (1955),271 Wis. 15 ,72 N.W.(2d) 577 .
Glendale,
Since Glendale it has become increasingly clear that foundations, building corporations and independent bodies politic and corporate are not considered by the court as state governmental bodies. See Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Auth. v.Earl,
The issue presented, then, is whether the Legislature intended to include within the open meetings law, by its definition of the term "governmental body," corporate entities that heretofore have not been treated by the court as governmental bodies.
The reference in section
The HSF and, apparently, the numerous foundations of the University of Wisconsin System, as noted in 46 Op. Att'y Gen. 83 (1957) and as discussed in Glendale, were not created by the Legislature but were created by private citizens under the general corporation laws. Moreover, the HSF could not possibly be considered a body politic. See Watkins v. Milwaukee County CivilService Comm.,
Accordingly, it is my opinion that nonstock corporations created by statute as bodies politic, such as the Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority and the Wisconsin Housing Finance Authority, clearly fall within the term "governmental body" as defined in the open meetings law and are subject to the provisions of the open meetings law. The HSF and similar nonstock corporations do not fall within the classification under discussion because: (1) they were not created by the Legislature or by rule, etc., but were created by private citizens, and (2) they are not bodies politic.
Section
In Rocap v. Indiek,
The activities of the Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority and Wisconsin Housing Finance Authority are largely controlled by statute. Thus, these corporations and similar entities fall within the definition of a quasi-governmental corporation.
In contrast, the functions of the HSF cannot possibly be considered governmental. It exercises no sovereign power and does not engage in activity that is dependent on or controlled by delegation from the Legislature. The functions pursued by the HSF under its articles and by-laws are the same functions that any private nonstock corporation could engage in. Its powers are derived from the general laws of the state. The HSF is a private corporation with no governmental attributes. While the members of the Board of Curators are also directors of the HSF, they hold and administer the position of director as private citizens not as state officials.
It is therefore my opinion that the HSF is not subject to the requirements of the open meetings law.
BCL:CAB *58