State ex rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva, 88-1808
| Decision Date | 12 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1808,88-1808 |
| Citation | 151 Wis.2d 608,445 N.W.2d 689 |
| Parties | , 16 Media L. Rep. 2262 STATE of Wisconsin ex rel., JOURNAL/SENTINEL, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and Bruce Gill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald E. PLEVA, James A. McCann, Lyle A. Stern, William R. Drew, Frederick Stratton, James L. Roberts, G. Frederick Kasten, Jr., and Milwaukee World Festival, Inc., Defendants- Respondents. d |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Meissner & Tierney, S.C. by Susan J. Marguet and Dennis L. Fisher, Milwaukee, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Quarles & Brady by L.C. Hammond, Jr. and Jeffrey O. Davis, Milwaukee, for defendants-respondents.
Before MOSER, P.J., and SULLIVAN and NETTESHEIM, JJ.
The Journal/Sentinel, Inc. (Sentinel) and Bruce Gill (Gill) appeal from a judgment dismissing their claims against Milwaukee World Festival, Inc. (Festival) and seven of its finance committee members. We conclude that through the decision of its finance committee to close certain budget- Festival is an organization which orchestrates public festivals and events held on the Milwaukee lakefront festival grounds. In December of 1985, Festival entered into a lease agreement with the City, whereby Festival leased the lakefront property for a rent of one dollar per year plus two percent of the annual net revenue Festival derives from the events and festivals held on the leased land. The lease term is for twenty years, commencing December 31, 1985.
planning meetings pursuant to sec. 19.85(1)(e), Stats., Festival violated its lease agreement with the City of Milwaukee (City). The lease requires Festival to open its meetings to the public, pursuant to the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, secs. 19.81-19.98, Stats., and we hold that there is no basis for Festival's blanket approach in closing said budget-planning meetings. Furthermore, we conclude that by requiring open meetings, the lease evidences a primary purpose of protecting the public interests it affects. Thus, members of the benefited public may be characterized as third-party beneficiaries of the contract, having standing to protect those public interests. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Paragraph 29 of the lease provides as follows: "By-Laws FESTIVAL shall, at its 1986 annual meeting, amend its By-Laws in a manner consistent with the letter attached hereto as Exhibit 'F' and shall maintain such amendments in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement." The letter referred to as Exhibit F was written on December 20, 1985, from the president and chairman of Festival to the president of the Milwaukee Common Council. The letter required that Festival amend its bylaws to allow for a board of directors which consisted of twenty-five persons, including six designated City officials. The letter also required that Festival's board meetings be conducted openly according to the dictates of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. The required amendments were enacted by Festival on or about April 13, 1986.
The lease also requires Festival to deliver to the city comptroller: yearly audited financial statements; annual budgets; operating or management plans; the minutes of all board and committee meetings; its articles of incorporation and its bylaws. Furthermore, the lease states that the city comptroller has the right to inspect all records "which relate to the operation of Milwaukee World Festivals." It also reserves other rights of the City to control the use and improvement of the lakefront festival grounds.
On December 2, 1987, Festival's finance committee convened to discuss the operating budget for the upcoming year. Festival provided public notice of the meeting, but the notice stated that the meeting would be closed to the public pursuant to the Open Meetings Law exemption contained in sec. 19.85(1)(e), Stats. A Milwaukee Sentinel (Sentinel) reporter and a Sentinel attorney appeared at the meeting and objected to its closure. The committee postponed the meeting, and sought legal advice. Through letters from its attorney, Festival was advised that according to sec. 19.85(1)(e), it could hold a closed session "whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session." The letters suggested that budget discussions involve a review of competitive purchasing and hiring decisions which could not be reviewed in isolation. Thus, the budget discussions could not be broken into specific parts which would allow for open meetings discussing only those issues which do/did not fall within the Open Meetings Law exemption. However, the letters did not suggest that Festival should engage in a blanket approach in closing its budget-planning meetings.
On December 7, 1987, the finance committee reconvened its meeting after posting another public notice, which was much like the first. At that meeting, Gill and the Sentinel attorney protested to its closure. Committee members voted to have the session closed, and Gill and the attorney were not allowed to attend.
On December 10, the finance committee reconvened after giving public notice that A full Festival board meeting was subsequently held, and it was open to the public. The proposed budget for 1988 was approved, and a printed version of that budget was disseminated to Gill, the Sentinel attorney, and others. Sentinel and Gill sued Festival and the seven finance committee members who were present at the meetings and voted for closure. They alleged that Festival, through its finance committee, had violated the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, and thus had breached the terms of the Festival/City lease agreement. They brought their claims as third-party beneficiaries of the lease.
it might resume a closed budget-planning session to continue its discussions. Again, committee members voted for closure, and Gill and the attorney were barred from admission. In neither instance did the finance committee provide a reasoned basis for its closure decision.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 5, 1988, alleging that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Based upon the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss in a judgment entered on June 30, 1988. The judgment reflected the court's written decision of June 13, 1988. The court had determined that the basic purpose for the Festival/City lease "is precisely what that term implies." And, "[t]he open meeting provision is incidental to that purpose."
In its decision, the court also held that Furthermore, the court determined that "Milwaukee World Festival, Inc. is not a governmental body as defined in sec. 19.82, Stats., and, further, that the plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries under the lease between the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee World Festival, Inc."
Gill and Sentinel now appeal from the trial court's judgment. Appellants raise the following issues: (1) whether it was proper for the trial court to require that the lease be for the sole benefit of the public in order to confer standing to enforce only the open-meetings provision; (2) whether it was erroneous for the court to require that the open meetings clause contain a more specific provision for enforcement in order to confer standing upon the public; and (3) whether Festival is properly bound by the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. Oral argument was heard by this court on May 8, 1989.
Our resolution of this case involves an interpretation and application of the terms of a written lease agreement. Construction of the terms of a written contract is generally a question of law, which appellate courts independently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha
...causation in the present case is a case in point. See supra note 7.11 A third case, State ex rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva , 151 Wis. 2d 608, 616, 445 N.W.2d 689 (Ct. App. 1989), aff'd , 155 Wis. 2d 704, 456 N.W.2d 359 (1990), stands for the principle that the public entity may not "......
-
Amplicon, Inc. v. Marshfield Clinic, 91-C-0462-C.
...itself. The construction of language in a written contract is generally a question of law. State ex rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva, 151 Wis.2d 608, 614, 445 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1989). "The language of a contract must be understood to mean what it clearly expresses, and the courts may not......
-
Schilling by Foy v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co.
...party belonged when they agreed to the contract or the provision sought to be enforced. In State ex rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva, 151 Wis.2d 608, 616-17, 445 N.W.2d 689, 692 (Ct.App.1989), the court held that a newspaper and members of the public could enforce a provision in a lease......
-
Sussex Tool & Supply v. Mainline Sewer & Water
...See id. at 894, 569 N.W.2d at 783. ¶ 6. In contrast, the court held that the plaintiff in State ex rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva, 151 Wis. 2d 608, 445 N.W.2d 689 (Ct. App. 1989), aff'd, 155 Wis. 2d 704, 456 N.W.2d 359 (1990), did have standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary. The......