*1 † Pеtitioner-Appellant, High Thomas More School, v. Superintendent, Elizabeth Burmaster, State Department Wisconsin of Public Instruction, Respondents-Respondents. Appeals
Court of 5, No. 2004AP2511. May Submitted on briefs August Decided 2005 AppWI (Also 349.) reported N.W.2d † Petition to review denied 11-11-05. *3 cause was of the
On petitioner-appellant, behalf Haskin of of Lawrence J. on briefs submitted Book of Oak Creek. Haskin & cause On respondent-respondent, behalf Lautenschlager, Peggy was on the brief of A. submitted Hunter, M. assistant at- and Robert attorney general, general. torney Kessler, Fine, JJ. Curley
Before School CURLEY, High Thomas More J. (More) affirming court from trial order appeals *4 Burmaster, Superinten- the State of Elizabeth deсision of Instruction Public Department dent of the Wisconsin eligible More not to determined that (DPI), who 223 participate Program the in Milwaukee Parental Choice (Choice), (2003-04),1 § pursuant to Wis. 119.23 City because the school is not located in the of Milwau- appeal, plain kee. On More that, contends under the 119.23(2)(a), § language City of it is in of located § and PI Milwaukee, that Wis. Admin. Code 35.03 does apply not to More it because is in conflict with 119.23(2)(a) § authority exceeds of the DPI. 119.23(2)(a) § ambigu- Because we conclude that is not properly private ous, PI 35.03 clarifies the requirements including requirement statute, of the eligible Choice, that to be a of certificate City must be obtained from the Milwaukee, correctly ineligible Burmaster determined that More is program, in the we affirm. Background.
I. Program 2. The Milwaukee Parental Choice private was created in 1989 to subsidize education for underprivileged City in students of Milwaukee.2 high primarily More is a Catholic school located sought participation of St. Francis. When it first ineligible partici- Choice in More was declared pate because school was not located approximately While Milwaukee.3 of the school 20% grounds, comprised green space, parking a lot,
1All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless noted. otherwise 119.23; See Wis. Wis. PI 35.01. Admin. Code Section provides, part: "[A]ny pupil grades kindergarten to who city [of resides within the Milwaukee] may attend, charge, any at no city school located all following if applyf]" 3 John T. Superintendent Benson was the State when More ineligible was declared to participate in Choice first time. *5 in the driveway, located areas, field are and track buildings are located City none of More's Milwaukee, City of Milwaukee. in the portion attempted to have
¶ More In 3. City annexed property Francis in of St. located of its Francis voters However, St. Milwaukee. to the More have allowed that would the referendum defeated land.4 its to detach petitioned Following the DPI
¶ vote, More eligible ruling declaratory to seeking was that More a pending, the participate a decision was While Choice. informing legal More to counsel wrote DPI's chief eligible Choice, it needed for in order to be that "clearly a recent denial the most the Dissent labels Although Burmaster," she was appears it by Elizabeth decision political deny participation More to Superintendent not the first State located was not because the school Choice Dissent, See Milwaukee. unambiguous, is that the statute conclude Although we to sources not refer to extrinsic not and will and thus have note, for back to it relevant meaning, perhaps its discern еxecu have been unsuccessful only, that there ground purposes language of the attempts to amend legislative tive and declaring More in the letter explained As Burmaster statute. ineligible participate: to
It have eligible recently addition, schools provision is the provision to he modified. located Milwaukee for vetoed department's [Choice], his was Assembly proposed removed Governor Former Governor the statutes opinion Bill 260 which 2001-03 by County Doyle. governing in order for biennial McCallum would have budget (2001 your did include such bill; [Choice] school to be Act however, allowed 16). would was In ad- been both attempts have though such, appears it as As legislative executive by both the and defeated vanced branches. timely application. proceeded
to submit a More application participation submit an in Choice for the year. applica- 2004-05 school After More submitted its stating tion, the DPI sent a letter to More that rather declaratory ruling eligibility, than issue a *6 on More's the eligibility school's would be determined based on More's application. day, submitted informed The next the DPI application More that its had been denied because the City school was located in the of St. Francis. In its reasoning, the letter noted that More could not obtain a occupancy City certificate of frоm the of Milwaukee as required by promulgated by the administrative rule the 119.23(2)(a)5.'s carry DPI to out Wis. mandate. explained: The letter
Wisconsin statutes governing program the provide that private a school in [Choice] must be located in City the addition, of Milwaukee. In program's the administra- tive require rules the administrator of participat- each ing school to copy submit a of its current certificate of occupancy issued from City the of Milwaukee.5 The map of the Thomas More property, obtained from the provides, in part: relevant Wisconsin Stat. Subject par. (b), any pupil grades kindergarten in to 12 who city may attend, resides within charge, any private the at nо school city following apply: located the if all of the private safety 5. The school meets all health and laws or codes apply public schools. Wisconsin Admin. Code PI provides, 35.03 part: relevant (3) safety requirements. The administrator of a Health and parental school in the Milwaukee choice shall ensure that meeting requirements the school is (2), Stats., of s. 119.23 regarding safety health by and filing laws and codes for schools department copy private with the a school's current of certificate occupancy by city issued private Milwaukee .... A of of Milwaukee, of the percent of that over 80 City shows City Francis, including is located St. property Second, all of the academic and administration facilities. City (covering School District of St. the St. Francis Francis) High historically has listed Thomas More its district boundaries private School as school within federally has offered funded services to the attending More. school based on students Thomas Milwaukee, Third, City we have been advised Center, that the of Mil- Development Milwaukee authority not to issue a certificate waukee does have More because its school build- Thomas ings jurisdiction are under the of St. Francis. of a Finally, you your support as note affidavit Declaratory Ruling, peti- for a Thomas More Petition by Tho- occupied tioned St. Francis to detach the land petitioned Milwaukee to mas More from St. Francis lands into Milwaukee and the voters of St. annex said Francis, by referendum, rejected petition. *7 added.)
(Footnote Thereafter, judicial More filed a for petition ¶ The trial court affirmed the of the DPI's ruling. review that More did not fulfill finding DPI's ruling, ineli- and was therefore occupancy permit requirement More now appeals. Choice. gible Analysis.
II. that, More contends under 6. On appeal, ¶ 119.23(2)(a), the is § of language Wis. plain Stat. Milwaukee, and of Wis. located Admin. Code to More because it is § PI 35.03 does not apply may requirements this subsection not that to meet of fails program. participate in the choice аdded.) (Emphasis 119.23(2)(a) §
conflict with exceeds of authority 119.23(2)(a) the DPI. Specifically, § More insists that important is as it say what does not as it what does say. The statute does say not that a school must be entirely, located wholly, completely,or exclusively in the City of Milwaukee. say That statute does not that the school building or must be located in Milwau- kee. brief.)
(Emphasis such, As More argues that "[t]he answer to this case is found in the very simple question: [I]s More located in of Milwaukee? The answer yes." is It asserts that because a school includes all of its property including parking lots, driveways, athletic — fields, fences and green space because a portion —and More's lot, parking athletic driveway, fields, fences and green space is located in Milwaukee, then More is located in the In City Milwaukee. the absence of more restrictive language, More it argues, must be concluded that the school is located Milwaukee. 7. Moreover, More asserts that Wis. Admin. Code
PI§ 35.03 does not to More apply because it is in 119.23(2)(a) conflict with Wis. Stat. and exceeds the authority the DPI: 119.23(2)(a)
Wis. requires only [. ..] that a private school be located in a city, first class not that the school be required to occupancy obtain an permit from Therefore, Milwaukee. there is a conflict between the statute and the administrative rule. Requiring a school authority since obtain an permit clearly [5] requires that within DPI's school meet all safety health and laws or codes apply to public However, schools. DPI cannot *8 administrative rule exclude from Choice those schools has eligible determined to be Choice. Resolving a conflict between a statute and an interpretive requires rule statutory interpretation.
228 Here, DPI, by promulgation of an administrative attempts inapplicable rule to make the Choice law to City More because the of Milwaukee will not issue it an authority DPI in occupancy permit. has exceeded its excluding More from in Choice .... participation [T]his § court should rule thаt Wis. Admin. Code PI 35.03 is inapplicable to More. More can insure that it meets the (2) (a) regarding § of Wis. 119.23 requirements Stat[.] by filing DPI safety health and codes with an certificate from St. Francis. omitted.)
(Citations Furthermore, that, More contends event, § PI 35.03 should not control the outcome any 1989, of this case because Choice first became law and PI was not created after More 35.03 until first sought participation program.6 The DPI contends that 119.23(2)(a), terms of as to what consti- Wis. city," ambiguous tute[s] [are] a school "located 119.23(2)(a)5., conjunction and that in with Wis. 35.03(3) § PI promulgation of Wis. Admin. Code (requiring participating Program in the Choice schools an from the of Milwau- occupancy permit to obtain kеe) necessary appropriate and within the was granted Superintendent by discretion State Legislature. petition
It notes More's unsuccessful attempts to detach the land which More's upon of St. Francis annexed by are located so that it be may Bill Milwaukee, Assembly to the veto of 2003 points does not concern the denial of More's appeal Because this in the Choice and More has first effort to authority specific of this any legal support not cited to argument, we will not consider it. *9 support
260, in of its contention that both More and the legislature recognized plain meaning have that the the statute leads to the inevitable conclusion that More eligible is not in Choice. The DPI also that had insists intended for Choice to apply "any part grounds to schools of whose are located city," language within the it could have inserted indi- cating as much the statute.
¶
Further,
9.
DPI
asserts that Wxs. Admin.
§ PI
35.03 does not conflict with the statute in
Code
question
city"
that it is without
that "the
referred to in
is the
of Milwaukee,
119.23(2)(a)5.
requires
that the
school meet
safety
apply
public
all health and
law or
that
codes
119.23(2)(a)5.
reasonably
schools, and
"can
be under-
require
participating
stood to
schools
Program
(i.e.,
compliance
Choice
demonstrate
obtain
occupancy permit)
safety
an
with all health and
codes
city'
from 'the
of Milwaukеe."
considering
appeal
agency's
¶
In
an
from an
agency's
[trial]
decision, "we
decision,
review
not the
Employe
court's." Kozich v.
Trust
Bd.,
Funds
203 Wis.
(Ct.
1996).
App.
363,
2d
agency's
368-69,
¶ interpretation Moreover, is a question of law that novo, we review de and such, as we agency's interpretation." are not bound an Hutson v. Comm'n, 97, State Wis. Pers. 2003 WI 31, 263 Wis. degree Yet, 2d 665 N.W.2d212. some of deference is genеrally given agency's statutory interpretation, to an degree "[t]he depends upon but of deference... agency's experience, extent to which the 'administrative competence, specialized knowledge technical aid agency interpretation application in its *10 (citation omitted). supreme statute.'" Id. The court has great identified three distinct levels of deference: weight, weight, "[w]hich due and review; de novo level is appropriate 'depends comparative on the institutional capabilities qualifications and of the court and the agency.'" administrative UFE Inc. LIRC, v. 2dWis. (1996) (citation omitted). 274, 284, 548 N.W.2d57 weight ¶ appropriate 12. The due standard "is agency experience when the has some area, an but developed expertise necessarily has not places the which position judgments regard- init a better to make ing interpretation the of the statute than a court." at Id. employ weight 286. If we standard, the due we will not agency comports overturn "a reasonable decision that purpose [we determine] with the of the statute unless interpretation that there a is more reasonable avail- weight able." Id. at 287. Due deference "is not so much [the upon agency's] knowledge based or skill as it is on charged agency the fact that has question." with the enforcement of the statute in Id. at "[u]nder wеight However, standard, the due 'a agency's interpretation court need not defer an interpretation which, while reasonable, is not the which the court considers and best most reasonable.'" Id. (citation omitted). On hand, the other the de novo "applicable standard of review is when the issue before agency clearly impression, is one of first or when an agency's position so on an has been so inconsistent issue (citations guidance[.]" provide at real Id. as to omitted). no disagree parties The as to which standard required DPI here. The of deference is review and level question a mixed of law that we are faced with asserts question before thе State fact, and in that the "essential Superintendent, Court, hence now before this and city [of Milwau- 'located within the whether More is 119.23(2)(a)[,]" required kee],' as Wis. clearly requires "[t]hat determination insists that application applicable statute to the State findings Superintendent's case[,]" of fact this findings upheld. Moreover, should we that her must be purely question law, DPI determine this to be weight urges employ standard, due deference us to Superintendent the "State submits that she has as experience' and, the head of the 'some agency charged by the area as Legislature with the enforce- question, her construction and ment of the statutes *11 119.23(2)(a) (2)(a)5. application аre of Wis. Stat. deference[.]" hand, to due On the other More entitled findings case, that there were no of fact this insists only application a statute to an and it involves of undisputed novo, de facts, set of which we should review Superinten- impression of and "the as it is case first experience on dent has no this issue." essentially presented, ¶ 14. involves As this case interpretation statute, of a the determination statute, conflicts with a whether an administrative rule application and an and the of a statute administrative Though argues rule to a set of facts. More that "the Superintendent experience issue," has no on this we weight appropriate, that the standard is conclude due charged as the DPI has been with the enforcement and question. administration of Choice and the statute in 119.23(11). e.g., See, agree While we with the DPI's conclusion, ultimate we determine that there statutory interpretation is a more reasonable available adopted by than that the DPI.7 ¶ 15. "An administrative rule that conflicts with unambiguous an authority statute exceeds the agency promulgated it[,]" Seider O'Connell, v.
¶76,WI
28, 236
2d 211,
Wis.
659,
N.W.2d
and as
begin
by considering
such, we
our review
whether Wis.
ambiguous,
is
see id. The rules of
statutory interpretation are as follows:
When interpreting statutes,
goal
give
our
is to
effect to
language
begin
the statute.
by looking
We
to the
language of the statute becаuse we "assume that
legislature's
expressed
intent
is
statutory
lan-
guage." Technical
legal
terms or
appearing
terms of art
given
statute are
their accepted technical
legal
or
definitions while nontechnical
phrases
words and
are
given
common,
their
everyday meaning. Terms that are
specifically defined in a statute are accorded the defi-
addition,
nition the
provided. In
we read the
language
specific statutory
of a
section in the context of
Thus,
the entire statute.
we interpret
light
a statute in
textually
of its
context,
manifest scope,
and purpose.
Volkswagen Am.,
Peterson v.
Inc.,
61,
19,
2005 WI
(citations omitted).
281 Wis. 2d
However, a statute meaning. parties Seider, 236 2d its Wis. differ as to ¶ 30. ambigu- ¶ is not 16. Wisconsin part: provides, in relevant The statute
ous. (a) (2) program.... choice parental Milwaukee (b), grades kindergarten in Subject any pupil to par. attend, charge, city may at no resides within who city in the if all of the any school located private following apply: safety all health and The school meets рrivate apply public that schools.
laws or codes 119.23(2)(a)5. reading plain A of the statute Section succinctly any pupil within a certain
indicates any region may "private geographic located attend school things, city" among private school if, other safety apply to laws or codes that meets all health and public The title of the statute is "Milwaukee schools. Clearly, parental program." lan- then, from the choice city" guage statute, "the referred to is and context of the quite language from It also clear Milwaukee. must be located statute that the "school" statute, not defined but Milwaukee. "School"is generally everyday common, sense, the word "school" building to the or within which refers operated. The educational institution is must be located Milwaukee. itself plausible interpre- Indeed, there is no other one reads the entire statute context. For tation when (d) 119.23(7) example, states, relevant part:
By August 1 before the participation first school term of in program private the .. . each school participating in the under this section shall submit to the department following: all of the A copy
1. of the school's current certificate of by city issued the .... Just as "the in the city" previous section clearly refers to Milwaukee, the of City so too does "the refer city" to the of City Milwaukee here. Had the legislature intended for
schools buildings whose are not located in physically the of City Milwaukee to in the it program, surely would not them require to submit of copy "[a] the school's current certificate of occupancy issued by c/fy[,]" for added).8 it would impossible be to do so (emphasis 119.23(6) Moreover, ¶ requires "Ct]he board" to "provide transportation pupils at- a tending private school under this section ...." Within a 8The questions Dissent this "impossibility" suggests and City could, that the of should, Milwaukee or perhaps "issue a join 'certificate of in occupancy,' or a certificate of occupancy overlapping jurisdiction, facility with a for Mil straddles cоmmunity[.]" Dissent, Here, waukee and another how ever, occupied straddling they facilities are not are line— City Francis, located of St. and an to the question answer of what would or if happen should the school were located in both cities is better left to be determined a case with that any regarding factual scenario. Without information City Milwaukee, whether such a scenario even exists it perhaps a futile predict happen exercise to what should case, especially light such a likely of the distinct and possibility that the had far more information before drafting enacting now, it in the statute than we do potentially considered that scenario was mindful of its and/or potential during Moreover, the enactment of the statute. follow ing logic, any school, anywhere, Dissent's can become a by buying Choice school a plot small of Milwaukee. program," parental choice entitled "Milwaukee statute clearly to the Milwaukee Board "the refers board" Board of School Directors. As the Milwaukee School only districts the school within Directors oversees eligible participa- Milwaukee, presumably fall would have to within tion Choice governance geographic of a district under the boundaries clearly Board of School Directors. This of the Milwaukee supports *14 unambiguous plain and intent of the the private located in the statute —the school itself must be City of Milwaukee. reading plain such, a 19. As statute although por-
applied that, the facts here indicates to property in Milwaukee, of are located the tions More's Although argues is not. More that the school itself language require not that the school of the statute does entirely, wholly, completely, or "must be located exclu- sively in the of Milwaukee" or that "the school building in Milwaukee," or must be located a 119.23(2), § plain reading of when read the Wis. Stat. supports opposite statute, context of the entire interpretation. Accordingly, that the we determine stat- unambiguous regard. ute in that is Finally, broadly requires ¶ 20. the statute private safety school to meet "all health and laws or apply public to codes that schools." Wis. Stat. 119.23(2)(a)5. clarify § required, To what is Wis. Admin. 35.03(3), § promulgated using language PI was Rulk almost identical to that found Wis. Stat. 119.23(7)(d)'s requiring a mandate certificate of occu- pancy from the of Milwaukee:9
9 The DPI that the administrative rule promul asserts was gated clarify phrases city" all to "located and "meets safety health and laws or codes." (3) safety The adminis- keqtoRements. Health and parental trator of a school the Milwaukee choice meeting shall ensure that the school is (2), Stats., requirements regarding of s. 119.23 health safety by filing laws and codes for with schools department copy private school's current of certifi- by city cate issued Milwaukee.... A private requirements school to meet the this fails may not program. subsection the choice added.) 119.23(11) ("The (Emphasis See Wis. department promulgate implement shall rules to section."). erroneously argues, administer this More specifically require however, that the statute does not occupancy permit an school obtain from Milwau- kee and claims that there is a conflict between the Although statute and the administrative rule. More "[r]equiring concedes that a school to obtain an occu- pancy permit clearly authority within DPI's since requires that a safety apply meet all health and laws or codes that public schools[,]" it insists that the "DPI cannot administrative rule exclude from Choice those schools *15 legislature eligible that the has determined to be for Choice." analysis
¶ above, however, It is clear from our legislature the that did not intend for schools like More eligible Choice, to be requires for in that the statute itself occupancy permit
schools to obtain an from City the of Milwaukee. The administrative rule has not any eligible participating excluded schools from in merely requirement Choice. It has clarified the set forth 119.23(2)(a)5. in An administrative rule requires occupancy a a thаt school to file certificate of by City in issued the of Milwaukee order to hardly parental program" in the choice "Milwaukee contradictory. clarification of It is a reasonable seems broadly requirements There forth in the statute. set the no conflict here. is City
¶ refused to issue the 22. The of Milwaukee occupancy requisite it determined certificate of because City Milwaukee, and located in the that More was not rejected request partici- accordingly, DPI More's to the noting part: program, pate "we have been in the Develop- City by Milwaukee, City Milwaukee advised the not have Center, the of Milwaukee does ment that authority а certificate of the to issue are under Thomas More because its jurisdiction City the of St. Francis." Without the ineligible. requisite file, More More did certificate on challenge to of Milwaukee's refusal issue not by not, DPI has administrative certificate, and the those schools that rule, "excluded from Choice eligible for Choice." has determined to be Accordingly, we affirm.
By affirmed. the Court.—Order (dissenting). Majority permits ¶ The FINE, J. clearly political perceive Eliza- I as a decision what trump legislature's command Burmaster to beth poor living of Milwaukee be children city" to attend schools "located able Accordingly, respectfully I dissent. Milwaukee. legislative clear: 24. The command is (2) (a) (b), Subject par. any pupil grades city may kindergarten to 12 who resides within attend, charge, any private school located at no following city apply: if all of the family of a that has a total pupil 1. The is member family equal income that does not exceed an amount level determined accordance poverty 1.75 times *16 238 the federal director of by the criteria established with budget. management and office was en- year pupil school previous 2. In the chap- under this operating district school rolled section, this under attending a school ter, private was private to 3 in a kindergarten grades enrolled was under this section city other than in the located school in school. not enrolled or was superinten- the state notified The school private 3. under program intent to of its dent year. previous 1 school February this section pupils partici- the number of specify The notice shall for which under this section in the pating space. has school 2000d. USC complies with private The school safety all health and meets The school private public schools. apply to
laws or codes key recognizes, Majority As the § 119.23.1 flow, of its decision all aspects from which phrase, 119.23(2)(b) It here. applicable is not Wisconsin provides: may membership attend the school district's more than 15% of
No year any are there If private under this section. schools than the participating schools spaces available more department participate, the pupils to number of allowed maximum participating spaces each available at prorate number of shall private school. reifying the here, except as apply also does not 42 U.S.C. 2000d child every Milwaukee give intent behind provides: It education. quality equal access race, color, shall, ground of on the person in United States No in, participation be denied the origin, excluded from be or national any program or of, subjected under to discrimination or hе benefits activity receiving financial assistance. Federal *17 "any private city."According is: school located in the Majority, High Thomas More School is not "located city" only twenty in the percent of Milwaukee because some grounds
of its are in Milwaukee, and all of the buildings City respectfully are in the of St. I Francis. disagree.
¶ 25. More than bricks and mortar do a school person make. Athletics are essential to the whole experience enhance the school of all students, even cheer, those who sit and as did I I when was a student. beyond Majority
But that, where would the draw the say line? It seems to order to under (The parental Wis. program") 119.23 "Milwaukee choice (bolding original), a school's City Ninety- must inbe of Milwaukee. All of them? eight percent Fifty percent? percent? of them? Two In my view,a school is where is, it and if it straddles two or municipalities, more it is "located" in each of them. Indeed, both the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association and the Woodland Conference consider High Thomas More School a of Milwaukee school. Majority opines ¶ 26. The also that Thomas More High comply School cannot with 119.23(7)(d)l (schools participating in the voucher program "copy must a submit of the school's current occupancy by city") certificate of issued because "it impossible Majority, would be to do so." 17. The Majority explain, does not and I do not understand, (a) why either: Milwaukee cannot issue a "certificate occupancy," join occupancy or in a certificate of with jurisdiction, overlapping facility for a that straddles (b) community; why, Milwaukee and another or under statute, a certificate of issued of St. point, Francis should not suffice. As to the latter regulation, the statute, unlike Burmaster's uses the establishing safety-based requirement "city"in word participating choice have that schools occupancy. one ascribe more than We can certificate meaning necessary that is same word when to the legislative reify Citizens Con- intent. See Wisсonsin Dep't Natural & Doves v. Wisconsin Cranes cerned 338-342, ¶¶ 318, 19-24, 270 Wis. 2d Res., 2004 WI (mourning "game," doves are 612, 622-624 677 N.W.2d though they are not birds," even defined as "wild... *18 "nongame category "game the of and are within birds" 412, species"); 2d Milwaukee, 193 Wis. Turner v. of (when (Ct. 1995) App. statutes 15, 17 420, 535 N.W.2d subject are inconsistent with conflict or on the same attempt harmonize them another, must to one courts intent). legislature's Assume order to effectuate High were More School's some of Thomas that Majority's ratio- would, under the Milwaukee, who occupancy for build- those nale, the certificate of issue ings in Francis?2 St. clearly legislature that commanded The has city" be of Milwaukee "located in the schools parental pаrticipate choice in the Milwaukee
allowed to safe, be program. that the schools concurrent desire Its occupancy, not be should a certificate of and thus have qualifying deprive Milwaukee those as a device to used 119.23(7)(d)l only provision is not Wisconsin may property needed for of a certificate where adjoining municipalities. Wisconsin more in two or be 823.114(l)(d) order closure circuit court to authorizes building code "until all to be nuisances buildings deemed occupancy is certificate of and a new are corrected violations which village or within by city, town required if issued makes "located" Majority's definition of The is located." property or more two nullity that straddle properties provision this government. units of local parents give
children whose want to them an education High opportunity at Thomas More School the to do so (absent, any course, evidence, and there is none this unsafe). High record, that Thomas More School is In- Majority recognizes, deed, as the at- tempted clarify High that Thomas More School could participate parental program, in the Milwaukee choice legislation Doyle. but the was vetoed Governor Jim Majority, ¶ argue See I8. wonder how Burmaster can legislative that we should discern intent from a governor's legislation passed by vetо of both houses of legislature. Majority's reprinting part Further, the rejecting High of Burmaster's letter Thomas More application School's in the choice questions raises more than First, it answers. 2001 Wis. budget August Act 16 was the biennium enacted on slip together gubernatorial In form with vetoes, it pages. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2001/data/ is 789 acts/01Actl6.pdf. See Majority
Neither Burmaster nor the explains why unspecified provision relating an to Tho- High mas More mélange. School did not make it into that Many may including reasons swim below the surface, legislators' get early Day desire to an start on Labor having budget adoption process without bill's *19 riven weight give Second, debate. we cannot assess what (and, agаin, to what was done we do not know what was why) knowing proposal done or proposals without or may referring which Burmaster have been and the specific language. All we have is Burmaster's letter purporting legis- to relate what the or some may may my lators or not have done. In view, that is a watery meringue supports weight. no
¶ 28. I'm reminded of how Gertrude Stein ex- pressed futility trying to return to her Oakland changed California roots because so much had "there is years home: left her childhood she had since Autobiog- Everybody's there there." no Stein, Gertrude 1993) (1937). (Exact Majority Change The raphy for Thomas says, no "there" that there is essence, Majority's rationale, Tho- High School; under More respectfully High dis- I is nowhere. More School mas sent.