Oshkosh Student Ass'n v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System
| Decision Date | 18 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-348,78-348 |
| Parties | OSHKOSH STUDENT ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Curry First and Perry, First & Reiher, S. C., Milwaukee, submitted briefs for plaintiffs-appellants.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and Leroy L. Dalton, Asst. Atty. Gen., submitted brief for defendants-respondents.
Before GARTZKE, P. J., and BABLITCH and DYKMAN, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. The circuit court found that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Section 36.09(5), Stats., enacted by ch. 355, Laws of 1973, provides:
The students of each institution or campus subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the chancellor and the faculty shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions. As such, students shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services and interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities. The students of each institution or campus shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance.
On December 9, 1977, the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin authorized recruiting a chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Board of Regents' Resolution No. 325, dated November 3, 1972, authorized the president of the University of Wisconsin to appoint a Search and Screen Committee for chancellor vacancies, and President Edwin Young did so. He decided that the committee should be comprised of six faculty members, two members of the student body, two members of the administration, and one member of system administration. 1 He requested that the Oshkosh Student Association submit a list of four students from which he would choose two to be on the Search and Screen Committee. The student association refused to do so and instead submitted two names. The student association took the position that sec. 39.09(5), Stats., gave it the right to appoint the student representatives to the Search and Screen Committee.
President Young refused to appoint the two students to the Search and Screen Committee and directed the committee to proceed without student representation. The Oshkosh Student Association commenced this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Oshkosh Student Association has the right to directly appoint representatives to the Search and Screen Committee, and also seeking an injunction preventing defendants from continuing to refuse the two student appointees' admittance to the Search and Screen Committee. The circuit court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and plaintiffs appeal.
The threshold question is whether this case is moot because the Search and Screen Committee has finished its work, and a chancellor has been selected for the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. 2 As a general rule, this court will not consider questions which have become moot due to a change in circumstances. We will, however, decide a moot question if it is of great public importance. State ex rel. Waldeck v. Goedken, 84 Wis.2d 408, 413, 267 N.W.2d 362 (1978). Where a problem is likely to recur and it is of sufficient importance to warrant a holding from this court to guide trial courts in similar instances, we may consider an appeal of this nature on the merits. Carlyle v. Karns, 9 Wis.2d 394, 397, 101 N.W.2d 92 (1960).
The University of Wisconsin System serves a substantial number of Wisconsin residents. The rights of residents who are students are of great public importance. It is unlikely that the issue raised by this case can ever be resolved by an appellate court by the time a chancellor is chosen because the delays inherent in our judicial system would probably allow a chancellor to be chosen before this court or the supreme court could decide the issue. In a similar case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that the issue of the validity of specific student appointments made by an assistant chancellor to a committee was moot, but did decide the issue. Student Asso., U. of Wis.-Milw. v. Baum, 74 Wis.2d 283, 293, 246 N.W.2d 622 (1976). Further, the problem is one which is capable of repetition and yet may avoid review. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n. 8, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). The issue presented in the case before us is of sufficient public importance to warrant our deciding the case on the merits.
Plaintiffs first argue that any committee established by a chancellor, the president, or the regents must have any positions designated for students filled by designees chosen by the students or their representatives. It contends that the entire University of Wisconsin System is an institution and that sec. 36.09(5), Stats., requires that the students themselves select their representatives to participate in institutional governance.
Section 36.05, Stats., defines "institution" and "system:"
"Institution" means any university or an organizational equivalent designated by the board. Sec. 36.05(9).
"System" means the university of Wisconsin system. Sec. 36.05(12).
If "system" had the same meaning as "institution," the legislature would have given those two words the same definition. The first argument of plaintiffs is without merit.
The more difficult question is whether sec. 36.09(5), Stats., requires committee vacancies designated for students to be filled with students appointed by the students or their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Office of Com'r of Transp., MAR-REN
...denial of the motion to dismiss would fall within a well-recognized exception to the mootness rule. Oshkosh Student Asso. v. Board of Regents, 90 Wis.2d 79, 82, 279 N.W.2d 740, 741 (1979). V. PAYMENT OF COSTS It has been held that an appeal is not moot where reversal would absolve the appel......
-
State ex rel. Tarney v. McCormack, 79-1786-W
...is of sufficient importance to warrant a holding which will guide trial courts in similar circumstances, Oshkosh Student Assoc. v. Bd. of Regents, 90 Wis.2d 79, 279 N.W.2d 740 (1979), we will decide the issue.3 The statutory predecessors of sec. 801.58, Stats., for substitution of judge in ......
-
Wisconsin Ass'n of Mfrs. and Commerce, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
...is of sufficient importance to warrant a holding which will guide trial courts in similar circumstances, Oshkosh Student Asso. v. Board of Regents, 90 Wis.2d 79, 279 N.W.2d 740 (1979) ...." State v. Cramer, 98 Wis.2d 416, 420, 296 N.W.2d 921 The case presently before the court presents ques......
-
State v. Cramer
...is of sufficient importance to warrant a holding which will guide trial courts in similar circumstances, Oshkosh Student Asso. v. Board of Regents, 90 Wis.2d 79, 279 N.W.2d 740 (1979); where reversal would absolve appellants from payment of costs, Smith v. Whitewater, 251 Wis. 306, 29 N.W.2......