*1 288 has if the been established market particular piece personal property restricted, as is case, can nonexistent, this or even assessor is property considering still value the next such best available, i.e., information listed all those other factors bearing above which have value. did on The assessor testimony considering here, so and even of Aero’s appraisers, ample two there was credible evidence support record to that valuation. property prima
The assessor’s valuation of facie producing correct. The burden of evidence overcome presumption of correct valuation rests with Aero. (1937), 593, State ex rel. Collins v. 225 Brown Wis. p. supra, 455; Rosen, 275 N.W. 661. has failed Aero pre-1971 to meet that burden both leasehold as improvements improve- and as to “old firehouse” offering contrary ments, no evidence as to former unconvincing judgment evidence latter. The of the trial court is affirmed.
By Judgment affirmed. Court.— University Student Association of Wisconsin- Appellants others, v. Milwaukee, Baum, Respondents. others, Argued September 7, 1976. No. 75-406. Decided 3, 1976. November (Also reported 622.) 246 N. 2dW. *4 Curry First by appellants there For the were briefs argu- Perry First, Milwaukee, oral & S. C. and Cwrry First. by ment LeRoy argued by respondents the cause was
For the Dalton, attorney general, whom on the L. assistant with general. Follette, attorney Bronson La C. brief was BEILFUSS, of the issues is C. J. Basic to a resolution (5), the construction of sec. 36.09 Stats. legislature merged July
In all of the state 1974 the university system universities into one one board with regents, with the chancellor of each several campuses regents. responsible to the board of
One of the enacted effectuate sections statutes merger (5). It is sec. 36.09 is as follows: “(5) Students. of each or institution campus subject responsibilities powers faculty board, president, the chancellor and the governance participants active the immediate shall be policy development such, of and for such institutions. As primary responsibility students shall have for the formu- concerning life, policies lation services and review of the to the final confirmation of the interests. consultation with Students subject chancellor and responsibility which constitute substantial disposition shall have the for the board of port sup- fees those student campus student activities. The students of each institution themselves in a manner shall have the determine to select their participate govern- in institutional ance.” April plaintiff-
In of 1974 the constitution of the by student association was certified the election com- provides currently mission. that all students enrolled University at the of Wisconsin-Milwaukee are members (student association); legislative of SA power that all large is vested in a student senate to be elected at *5 288 members; president and and the vice-
president large. powers are to at be elected president, duties of the senate, various other power officers are forth and also set of recall retained by the members. legislative body. delegated
The student senate is the president, to the DeLonay, power Michael J. appoint university student members committees in September of 1974.
areWe here appointment concerned with the of stu- dent university Physi- members three committees —the cal Environment Committee, Merger Guidelines Committee, Segregated and the Advisory Fee Committee. August 29, 1974,
On DeLonay, president association, appointed the two students allotted Physical Environment Committee. About two weeks later Baum, Werner the Chancellor of the Mil- campus, waukee wrote to the ap- student association pointees and appointments advised them their il- were legal, appointed two of opinion his own choice. His upon was based Regulations Law UW provision of provided 1969 which this committee should have thirteen members, including appointed two the chan- DeLonay cellor. then advised appointed the two students by the chancellor appointments illegal were because in 86, violation of ch. Stats. 4, regents adopted guide-
On October 1974, interim implement Stats., lines to 36.09(5), sec. and issued in- develop structions to each implementation plans:1 delegated Chancellor Baum his in this Spaights. matter to Assistant Chancellor Chancellor Spaights up consisting set a committee of administra- 1 “B,” paragraph guidelines, following In appears: 3 of primary faculty “The and students them selves and select in the manner choose shall recognized plan. . . .” faculty tion, and student Five students were members. *6 five, appointed. Spaights appointed Chancellor all be including Wright, DeLonay Michael Vice- Elizabeth DeLonay President of Both the student association. Wright claiming serve, declined to had chancellor no appointments. to make the student standing
The Interim Committee not a Guidelines was continuing guide- committee. was to formulate regents specified lines to be within a submitted period time limited of and was to be after disbanded performed. this function had been plaintiffs dispute also the manner which Segregated student were members selected for the Fee Advisory requests Committee. This committee reviews program support for financial and recommends allo- segregated cations from the student fees for various campus activities. The final allocation of must fees approval have the of the chancellor. This committee was up faculty made of ten student one members, member and one administrative member. August 21,
On 1974, DeLonay the chancellor wrote to president advising of the student he, association that the chancellor, appointing defer would the committee beginning until However, of the second semester. early 1974, November, the chancellor issued a directive setting up procedures and classifications the nomina- tion and election of the student by committee members body. the student The directive called for election of eleven students in nine classifications, including two from the student association.2 2 (1) (2) Student Association must of be elected —Students Association; (2)
ficials (1) of the Student Resident Halls —Stu Sandburg Hall; (1)— dent must a (3) be resident Athletics Captain’s Council; (4) must a Student be member Publi (1) cations be a staff must member of Post; the UWM —Student (5) (1) Policy Union must be member the Union —Student DeLonay President and Brad Bloch were elected as student association but members refused serve be- of their that not the cause belief the students and chan- had the cellor determine how the students were (5), selected under sec. 36.09 Stats. plaintiffs association, that assert the student through president, its the exclusive has to select appoint university various com- representation mittees with student virtue of sec. 36.09(5), Stats. support they argue
In of this assertion that the student only campus organization association is the members; University includes all students as administration, primarily Wisconsin-Milwaukee *7 chancellor, recognized has the student association as representing the students and has not extended that recognition any group; other student and that no student groups challenged or student have position, this at least since the enactment of the statute. plaintiffs argue
The the final sentence of sec. 36.09(5), Stats., plain unambiguous is upon its face and that no of construction the statute to determine legislative%itent necessary permissible. is or question
The sentence in is aisfollows: “The of campus each institution or shall have the to or- ganize in a manner themselves determine and to participate their select in institutional governance.”
If regard this sentence could be considered without to the rest of the section 36, and balance of Stats., ch. if there ambiguity it, is in fact position no in — Board; (6) Day Board or the (1) Union Activities Care Center currently must have a child Day Student enrolled at the UWM Center; (7) Undergraduate (1) Care Part-Time must —Student part-time undergraduate student; (8) be Full-Time Under- graduate (2) undergraduate must be full-time stu- —Students dents; (1) (9) graduate Graduate must be a student. —Student 291 the sentence However, conclude we would correct.3 be of to the balance reference construed without cannot be chapter whole because and the entire the section university governance of the chapter deals with un- is not the sentence system. conclude further We apply and the not ambiguous. rule does Therefore the court must construe statute. Stats., fol- is as 36.09(5), of sec.
The first sentence
subject
“The students of each institution
lows :
board,
powers of the
responsibilities
faculty
active
shall
president,
chancellor
policy
governance of and
participants
in the immediate
rights
The
of
development for such institutions.”
qualifications.
subject
to some
are therefore
rights
subject
responsibili
are
The student
regents.
responsibility
primary
The
ties
board
system,
governance
36.09
as outlined
sec.
for
Stats.,4
To do this
(1) (a),
is
board.
vested
gov
policies and rules for
to enact
board is mandated
system.
with the
erning
chancellor
vested
The
administering
policies.5
In
responsibility
board
3
Supp. 261,
(W.D.
1972), 336
States
Cihal
Pa.
Fed.
United
v.
Ginsberg
Sup.
Popkin (1932),
204,
267;
& Sons v.
286
62
U.S.
Corp.
(1974),
43,
704;
Allis-Chalmers
Ct.
76
Ed.
Schlosser v.
L.
163, 161,
65
We now turn to a consideration of the three committees question and a Stats., construction of sec. 36.09(5), in relation to them.
As set forth above, the students were allotted two Physical members Environment Committee. In July 1974, Stats., sec. 36.09(5), became effective and gave the students the representa- to select their DeLonay, president tives. association, of the student appointed the August allotted two members in of 1974. However, appoint his them at time challenge. open The senate of the student associa- tion did not him authorize to make appoint- committee September ments until of 1974. The chancellor refused recognize DeLonay’s appointments and personally appointed two of September, his own choice in 1974. opinion, guidelines It was his until interim were estab- lished, Regulations UW Law and 1969, as promulgated by regents, appointment controlled the representatives. of student report president accountable and oper- and the hoard on the
ation and administration of their institutions. . . .”
293 Stats., 86.09(5), conclude that when sec. We 1974, July, in chancellor lost his au became effective gave thority appointments. to make these The statute It to the students as of that time. is well this if that a rule or of an administrative settled directive body newly or officer is in conflict with a enacted precedence.6 statute, take statute must students Physi right on the had to select cal Environment Committee. appointments
For the same reasons Interim Guidelines Committee the assistant chan- question However, cellor were invalid. is now moot only advisory the committee because was on an ad hoc basis and is now disbanded. question determining
A more difficult arises wheth- er the method used for the selection of the student mem- Segregated Advisory of the Fee bers Committee inwas compliance 36.09(5) emphasizes with the statute. Sec. right provides: the student in this area. “Students subject consultation with the chancellor and to the final confirmation of the responsibility board shall have the disposition for the of those student fees which constitute support campus substantial activities.” The chancellor, reasons, for reasonable and laudable that concluded the eleven student members of this com- representative organiza- mittee should in fact variety tions and interests of the activities eligible segregated were for an allocation of the funds. question no
There is but had “the themselves in a manner determine.” The student association is a student or ganization. All students are association, members all have a to vote for the president, vice-president legislative and the body, members the student 6 Irany County ex State Milwaukee rel. v. Civil Service Comm. 132, (1962), 18 118 Wis.2d N.W.2d 137. *10 appearing procedures Upon election
senate. their face the fair com- constitution are student association challenge plete. the assertion There is no substantial to campus organiza- only is the student association represents the students. If we con- tion that all of were organizations competing all fronted students with organization, eligible membership were not for in this board, chancellor, and this court be faced would problem. with a different The facts revealed as competing campus-wide record are that there are no organizations and all are The members. student association, recognized facts, under these must be as the organized representative of the students. question still remains whether associa- the student through
tion, its select representatives, elected can stu- by appointment dent committee members or whether general require the chancellor a could student election specific qualifications with for for nomina- candidates tion and election. again set statutory
We forth the sentence: “The stu- dents of right each institution or shall have the organize to they a themselves in manner determine and representatives to select their participate to in institu- governance.” right tional Is the to select students’ their representatives integral part right organize an of their to they in a separate rights manner determine or is it two organize —one to representatives? and the other to select accepted interpreta are
There two methods for first, legislative tion determining of statutes. The intent, looks to extrinsic factors for construction of the statute. determining The second, means, what the statute looks punctuation to intrinsic factors such as or common mean ing of words construction of the statute. 2A Suther land, Statutory (4th 1973), 45.05, Construction ed. secs. 45.07 and 45.14. Whichever used, these methods is interpreting the cardinal rule in statutes is that sought favored and is purpose of whole is to act object manifest will defeat over construction which 56-57, supra, Statutory Construction, pp. at of the act. 46.05. sec. general to student election select
aWhile university does representatives committees various legis- statute, it intention of the not offend the was require to it? lature give legislative intent of this section was organize statutory themselves
students the through organization determined and select governance. representatives participate institutional If the select *11 integral rights an relation as distinct without seen two nega other, possible ship the effect could be the to each rights. example, if a chancellor tion of one of these For right to dictate shall be selected retains the students organization one or election two from this with organizations, persons special other or with two from here, right organize the to interests, as was done be meaningless. right students retain their comes While organize, to the administration can thwart the organization and deal with other students more liking. with students to its can deal two from dorms, may from This publications, and others. be two present in much easier. those motives are not While case, interpretation recognize the an which does not this right organize integrally representatives to as and select in a In related result such situation in future. could direct, addition, power to if chancellor retains organization or be elected from some students shall another, say power par he also to does not have the requires upper committee ticular students be power percent of their academic if this ten class. And is right representatives to present, the students’ select their right If only an or- could be illusion. students’ to representatives ganize select their themselves and rights, purpose statute viewed as two different give may not In order to effect be carried out. section, right organize legislative to intent of this right, representatives one select must be seen as if it free of interference which must be administrative right. is, reality, in to abe construing
In also look this section we should grammatical construction of the Our statute. reading of this indicates that there are two sentence entirely meanings in could found different which grammatically these words which are both correct. first is that the statute should be read as follows: students of each institution or shall have the right organize they themselves in a manner determine right] representatives par to select their [the ticipate governance. reading sup institutional This plies right” use second “the words and one argue could implicit these words are understood in the sentence it omit now reads. The second is to insertion right.” of the second use of the words “the inserting Without these words have one right rather than two. This is the themselves a manner determine select governance. to institutional Both in terpretations grammatically are correct but we believe *12 interpretation the second is a better reflection of what legislature intended. The say statute does not “the rights.” students shall have did, If it this would suggest rights two rather than if one, or the sentence “right” contained the word immediately before “to select representatives,” their it would be clear that the students rights. have two This is not only the case. The statute says “right.” right. the students have right One organize to and to select. interpre Because these two possible, tations are we must ask which conforms more closely legislature. the intent to of the We believe it is give second. This construction will students right without interference from the In- administration. terpreting way this final sentence not create this does a conflict preamble with of this section. This first merely says rights sentence participate that students’ to subject are responsibilities powers to the and board, president, faculty. chancellor and Where there specific general provision and statute, in the same specific provision must control.
We conclude that the student had association statutory authority to select the student members Segregated Pee Allocations Committee and that the chancellor exceeded his under the facts of this action.
By Judgment reversed. Court. — (conewring). ABRAHAMSON, today J. The court directly appoint holds that the Chancellor not could choosing Physical students his to the Environment unilaterally Committee and that the Chancellor could not determine the structure mode of selection of student representation Segregated Advisory on the Fee Commit- tee. I concur in 36.09(5), Stats., results. these Sec. grants students, right administration, not the representatives gov- to select student in institutional precludes ernance thus unilateral determination the Chancellor of the manner which the students’ However, selection is to exercised. be I write this concurring opinion majority opinion lest be mis- thought understood it endorse —which not does complete power —the appoint Student Association’s students to committees.
The last 36.09(5), Stats., provides: sentence sec. “. . . The each institution or shall have the in a themselves manner determine select par- ticipate governance.” in institutional
298 agree reasoning majority
I cannot of the that with the single right, it this sentence a which characterizes creates “right organize they as students’ to themselves as organization through determined and select representatives participate govern- to in institutional meaning plain ance.” The of the that sentence is two rights upon are conferred are both conferred the students: right organize
1. The students . . . shall have the they determine; in a manner themselves 2. The . students . . shall have the to . . . se- representatives lect their participate in institutional governance. ambiguity
There is no here. The briefs Student Association rights concede that there are two student given and both are to the students not to student or- ganizations. legislature easily provided have could by for the majority, result reached it but did not rights do so. The of selection of organization no are doubt However, interrelated. two rights are students, created in the and both must be protected. problems formulating policy on “student
rights” are difficult, by report as demonstrated Merger Implementation Study Committee which drafted 36.09(5), secs. Stats.1 That section awas com- 1 relating 36.09(5) “Section recognizes students new and growing concern both for and in the educational processes. provides subject powers students, responsibilities board, president, the chancellors and faculty, shall participants a role have as gov active policy development ernance and of the institutions and shall have primary responsibility for policies the creation and review of relating to student life and activities. Students in consultation with the responsibility chancellor shall also have dispo for sition of student fees where such fees sup constitute substantial port student activities such sports, as intra-mural theater, government and the like. Students shall also have themselves determine. *14 left demonstrates, case the instant promise, which, as organization con- rights of problems. unresolved the crea- contemplated more than by ferred the statute in- government. Some all-campus student tion of an govern- university system no have such the in stitutions plaintiff in this case. Students ment, comparable to the campus-wide associa- clearly into a can their guarantees also they the statute tion if desire but so along size, organizations, in other smaller to create interest, or academic particular of areas the lines of Study Implementation [Merger Com- “It is the intent of MISC their provide students have areas where that in those mittee] they primary interest, not exclusive primary but that also have participation responsibility for responsibility. Thus, students’ the subject by governance that role is the fact is limited in president faculty, chancellors, responsibilities the of to the regents. disposition for student student fees Likewise in support provides for fee most the student activities where large re- given activity, a share of the students are operate they sponsibility. However, in consultation with must funds, budget process these the allocation chancellor in the finally such allocations. confirm and the board must scope particular “Many questions relating of this section implementation been con- been raised. There has and its have holding problem relating to the discussion siderable way employees may that actions in the same accountable for their relating Questions of a im- to student control state so held. be segregated also discussed posed were and state collected fee strong- During depth. this entire discussion student rights they given ly expressed position in re- be more pay segregated only disposition gard fees that to not process. development of the educational but also in argu- questions, positions all of the considered “MISC formulating proposed brought section it ments before compromise clearly represents position deals in that it a which objectives many of the students but also of the desired with proposed represent as does not limitations. section contains adopted it members of MISC and was unanimous view of the represents very adopted, by However, as the section close a vote. legislative consideration.” Re- of MISC for recommendation Study Committee, January 31, Merger Implementation port of the 1973, p. 8.
otherwise, upon residence, any or based common or for might group other reason that unite a of students. too participating So the nature of committees in institu- representation tional governance, on which student would appropriate required, vary widely. will will Some body affect the whole, interests of the student as a while only segment thereof, others will relate to a limited such one school department. or academic argument In oral this court, before the Student Asso- position ciation took the if govern- there is a student entity mental campus, on and if it is all elected *15 recognized students and as the student government, then it power appoint has the students to committees. delegated Student Association to its the President power appoint “to all to all committees on cam- pus” and “in the department case of committees on the or college level, department college organ- where student exist,” organizations izations may then the re- “submit appointment commendations to the President to said On committees.” the other side, University the adminis- argued tration it has the unilaterally to adopt by the method which repre- students select their sentatives position committees. I find neither ac- ceptable under the statute.
The administration’s would view make mockery a out rights statutory organization students’ of and representatives. selection of
Yet if the Student Association is usurp allowed to power to all representation determine on all com- campus, mittees on the of students to up would swallow representatives. to select A rights reasonable organization accommodation of the of sought of and selection must be instance; in each what may appropriate be an method of selection for one com- may mittee not be so for another. The nature of the responsibilities powers committee’s segment and and the affected interests are population whose of the student guiding prin- by the committee considered. must be are affected ciple most students who should be entity by particular or other committee the decisions of a the re- represented have on are should which students and for selecting sponsibility for those determining be the manner in selection which made. a representatives must selected be
When student committee, and particular the mode selection participate in segment body which should the student determined, threshold will have to the selection be will determinations question to make these of who is stated, reject already I presented. For the reasons place questions in the hands these solutions which would the Administration. Association or of either Student legislative overall specific direction, Absent more committing these statutory is best served scheme pur- for this to a committee created initial decisions students, faculty ad- composed pose which is process representatives, perhaps similar ministrative Merger composition Guidelines selection majority opinion. Committee discussed opinion notes, majority reflect As the statutes persons to for different share broad scheme entities *16 governance primary power institution. system governance of the rests responsibility for overall problems and if cannot be Regents, Board of with the Regents level, at the institutional review resolved sought. should be
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Heffernan concurring joins opinion. in this