# Supplemental Brief — Beatty v. Ellings > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1413%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Supplemental Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 398 U.S. 904 ## Text SUPREME COURT, U. S. FILED - | MAY 13-1970 JOHN F. DAVIS, CLERK Fi eowyoise wees ee e seemed In The Supreme Court of the Anited States October Term, 1969 No. 1374 MARTIN A. BEATTY, : Petitioner, ; VS. 5 RANDOLPH K. ELLINGS, CITY OF WINONA, HOUSING AND REDE- VELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF WINONA, GEORGE M. ROBERTSON, JR., JAMES BRONK, MARLOWE BROWN, JAMES McCABE, HAROLD BRIESATH, DANIEL BAMBENEK, HENRY V. PARKS, MURIEL |OL- LOM, JIM D. MOHAN, HAROLD THIEWES, JAMES V. STOLTMAN, NEIL SAWYER, BARRY NELSON, DAVID L. JOHNSTON, DONALD KLAGGE, JERRY BORZYSKOWSKI, ALLYN S. MORGAN, JR., L.| W. GOLDBERG, N. J. FISCHER, JOSEPH E. KRIER, WM. J. THUROW, FRANK CUNNINGHAM, WM. O. FINKELNBURG, E. J. SIEVERS, PHILIP BAUMANN, JAMES T. SCHAIN, NORMAN E. INDALL, WM. F. WHITE, JAMES FOSTER, JERRY PAPENFUSS, FRANK G. MERTES, DONALD ‘GRAY, HOWARD KELLER, REPUBLICAN HERALD PUB. . LISHING COMPANY, JAMES B. GOETZ, RADIO STATION KAGE, GEM RADIO STATIONS CO., JAMES B. GOETZ, MERLIN J. M Y- THALER and REX N. EYLER, co-partners, doing business as WINONA BROADCASTING CO., KWNO BROADCASTING CO., CHAMBER | OF COMMERCE OF WINONA, DONALD STONE, and ‘ARNOLD STOA, bse PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF PURSUANT TO U.S. SUPREME COURT RULE 24, SUBSEC. 5 «. 4 Of Counsel for Respondents: JOHN A. COCHRANE C. STANLEY McMAHON ‘Suite 830, Minnesota Building ‘Professional Building St. Paul, Minesota 55101 Winona, Minnesota 55987 ; Phone: 612-224-7505 Pye ef Phone 507-454-1594 _ Attorney for Respondents R. P. BROSNAHAN MARTIN A. BEATTY, Pro Se 68 East Fourth Street 116 Center Street Winona, ‘Minnesota 55987 ‘ Winona, Minnesota 55987 Phone 507-454-2925 Phone: 507-454-1818 1970—Northwest Brief Printing Co., 322 S. Fourth St., Minneapolis 55415 & TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Constitution end Statutes: Page 1, S. Constitutionel Amendment I... 1 4. S. Constitutional Amendment V... 1 ",. S. Constitutionel Amendment IX.. 1,10 U., S. Constitutional Amencment X... 10 N, S. Constitutional fmendment AIV. 1,13 ‘Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, ' © BS Ceks Sec. LOOZ +e veeeeseeeeee 4 Freedom of Information Act, : 5 7 =~ ¥ Ges Sec. basse bs £068 oon A ‘Cases: | Acord v. Booth, 33 Utah 279, 93 P.734 ANlphen v. Shadmen, 339 Mess. 69, 116 barnes. v. City of New Haven, -140 Conn. 8, 98 A.2d S25... eeevee Seecon Journel Publishing Co. v. Akron, 2 Ohio St.2¢ 191, 209 N.&.2d 399.. hae Boerd of Public Instruction of Broward ' County.v. Doran, 224 So.2d 695, (Fla. nD RPS rare aetee arena re as 2 Boyd v. United Stetes, 116 U.S. 616, 635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746, 752 7 New ‘York Times’ v. "Sulliven (1964), “$76 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 719,11 L.£d.2d 686, Tai eR aa Mange pier eee ts ae 17 Pierson v. Ray, $86. U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 2213; 16 L.8d.2¢ LBB. ccrcepevsccce 6 Providence Journal v. 'cCoy, 94 F. Supp. °166, 99 F.2¢ 769, cert. den. 342 I'S. 694; 72 S.Ct. 299, 96 L.Ed. 119... \ 12 Turk v. Richerd, 47 So.2d 543 1 N.E.2d _ Spe ioreiyre ies : 2 "2 2 (Fls * 1950) ere ° ee i 2.6 .82.2.9 : *- ’° . , ee l Rey v. Pierson J¢6 1.5, 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 16 L. &d 2a ROG, cccevestecerst 6 The Lssociated Press v. National Labor Heleations Board, (1937) 301 U.S. 103; 57 S.Ct. 650; 61 L.Ed. 958, 968.n- a : a . . —— 4 pelt, A ls ne oe ee Seen Pege ‘ial ‘Publishing eeaas v. Williams, '« 222 So.2d 470. (Fle. 1969)....+5- dy Turk v. Richare, 47 So.2d 543 : (Fla. MAEO)s «sate seresevareries | acted G41 l1mor and Barron: Mass Communica- tion, 1969, West Pub. Co., Ch. V, BOG. 2, Pe BBSecccpecscvvercrcce Siebert, The Rights and Privileges of the Press, 1934, D. Appleton-Century Co., i ES wer ree Peer eer ; * Swindler, Problems of Law in Journal- ism, 1955, The MacMillan Co., Chapt. III - Freedom to Gather News.... 4, Thayer, Legel Control of the Press, 1956, Srd ed., The Foundation PPOBB, SOC. SO. cccciccocsvcvcsetceos, 5, Secondary Authorities: .16 Americen State Trials, 17 et seq. . Trial of John Peter Zenger, 1753. 6, Open Meeting Statutes, The Press Fights for the Right to Know, 75 Wervard L.R. 1199, 1200...c.6. 9 Writings of James Madison 103, Hunt Ed. 1910. Trerrereee ee cece 7 8 1 Ae END GTN - Summery of Arguments . 1. s.) "ABLE OF CONTENTS fe Page Respondents have feiled to meet petitioner's sargunents supporting the position thet whether or not a Citizen may attend ell meetings of the local public bodies raises ae federsl constitutional question.. 1 Respondents! argument. concerning access to public documents is contrary to the factsS.....cceccee 9 Respondents! argument that peti- tioner is a "public figure" within the fecéral rule is untenable... 13 . The respondents distorted sup- . plementery fact summaries ere not. helpful to an understanding of the facts nor in the isoletion of the. fecerel ey | errr rr reo ee re 20 Appendix Ge ere eveeee Ser rr ere App. Cel ve f: PETITIONER'S SUPPLE: ENTAL BRIE PURSUANT TO U. S. SUPREI® COURT RULE 4, SUBSEC. 5, & 4. ARGUMENT pf 1. Right of a Citizen to _ettend all meet- ings. of the local public body. Hespondents while chiding petitioner en framing "His Own Definition of What a Public Meeting Is," have cited no case dis- cussing U. S. Constitutional Amendments I, V, IX or XIV as they relate to the asserted right of the people to attend the meetings of the local public bodies. | The five state court decisions resvond- "fl ents: cite (R.4) interpret state statutes. In Acord v. Booth (1208) 33 Uteh 279, .93 P 754 the Citizen pleintiffwho wes re- moved by 6 mershel from a “committee of the whole," recovered nominal deweoee for humi- ifation and for being Geprivedc of his right to ettend. The holding in Turk v. Richard, 47 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1950) has been explained in Times Publishing Company v. Jilliams, a 222 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1969) and in Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doren, 224 $0.24 693, (Fla. 1969), Siien ing the subsequent enactment of Florida's "Jovernment in the Sunshine Law." Both of the 1969 decisions ruled egainst secret executive sessions. In the later case the Florida i cen Court enjoined (p. 700) "ony meeting ab canieoalne session + 4+ at which ere held any discus- sions on matters pertaining to the Cuties and responsibilities of the Boerd # 2%." Ns distinguished in petitioner's tepiy Brief before the Minnesote Supreme Court, Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. fkron, 3 Ohio St.2d 191, 209 NE2d 399 was con- cerned crimerily with the origin of the powers of the different public bodies. . In Barnes v. City of New Haven,140 conn.8, 98 A2d 523 "the funderental question for heoteien as stated at p. 527 was Mehether the perking project. is a“ legiti-— mate public purpose.” There no one was “ prevented from attending eny nesting, and it aphetirs doubtful thet the cause was a truly adversgry proceeding. Alphen v. Shelia Mae: Mane 60; 116 NE2¢ 252 was about money, 8 comission,’ not about “civil rights. Whether by premising e Citizen's right to ettend ell of the meetings of the.1acal public bodies upon sections of the federal Bill of Rights constitutes the novel approach to the problem that respondents suggest, is immeterial. ‘Pe- titioner's position is merely an appli- 7 cation of the so-called "Right to Know,". | espoused by James Madison, and other euthorities following: . Thayer, Laxe?: Control of the Press, 1956, Srd ed., The Foundetion Press, | Sec. 30: ae . . . . . P . . . . * . . s . , * . . . é oe . — . . . . * a . >. ® . . .J . . . . . . . —eeeeeeeeeeeeeee . . eA ™ . . then | rhe rijht to report {s of course dependent. upon the abtlity to rather news, Obviously, the United Stetes Constitution ¢oss pot ¢iye one the ~ spectf@*l?¢ riyht to collect news, how- ever, there 1s no prohibition; the severel stote censtitutions give no more than the freedom to speak ‘and write what one pleases; the right’ to pathor end report news, so vital to the press, {ts yvrented {uferen- tlally. Leyelly, the rights not Tak: Satine Erented’ to the Fedéral Governnent “are reserved to the states or to the pyople, end so the right to pather news renains with the people," W11limor aud Parron, Mass Communtea- tion; 1969, Vest Pub. Co., Ch. V; ° Sec. 1, p. 4533 -. ae "In # précedine section the point ‘wees made that , overnnent like the - ‘privately ouned media had en. ooliva- | tion to provide o structure for. dle- lorue in the continually Ancreasing: - pector’of netflonel riffe “hich fa un- dor severnnent control. Such ap goal relatem to what. 4s rone¢tines called tlie people's rivht- to KNOW, # 4H, “"Necently Sec. 3 of the /duinistra- tive Procedure Agt of oar , 6 U.6.C.A Sec. LOO? was mmended, and “the poedon of Informatton fet, 5 U.S.C.A, Sec: HE V1lu67), wih enacted, ere the -focus ts Mot on a#@cessn for opt, * ton but on nods f&% for infor attain, “The Letter, Thin Ahe former, may ‘yor oily be nredloated on oo settive eoustitutlonal ttity Of savern ont." (i prea: ; ts ti ded), ‘WinihLler, ‘Mite e } 73 4 4 le r i 1 , vat if } WHS, The MeeihVlen Co., Cert. LL - 7 News (. Pp. acd nubl' sh news and tle velue without om to gather the rreedom to Gather “he Cpeedom td comment is of lf the corolla ry Ire ! news, y otebert, The Hishts end Privileyes of the Press, 1954, DL: fppleton-Ceontury Co., - Ines , ~ | . (Underm his clesst{fication of mu- nmicitpelities) "Where there ts neith- or statutory nor charter proviston requiring, the counetl to conduet {ts meotings tn- public," the author states et ps OB: : “The point hag never been od judt- »cuted tn the Untted vtates, «," : "If the: potnt comes ‘up for deact- ston tn the courts of: the Untted States, constceration-will probably be token of the peculfer character of oe nuntefpal corporation as com- , peared with other povernmental untts. The ex oe | ratlon {: Cpmposaed of the CoPrpopete electors Who have a right {o bel lrformed of the netivities of the elected roprosentat tves," ener “Stebert coyunents upon the unfetpal KO, veynnente | Minit Gop. O64, af followss \ “The orpantzeeation end. operation nunletpol untt ds probably the complicated problem of. mo- ders Wernuent., The entire publie porrdie{ ted iy thie ortytual town meeting, but’ tno larve cetropolt{tan files th Orpaent mart be oar. ried Ny throu Te Ley nied nuthor- ities, in tl eo ite aH {hie Prose i oarye od thea: le mecdtun of publle- it ieee eh oO pay ia of otty connetls @Mfors ti thot of other 7 os -leytslative bodies chiefly in the Coyree to which they admit partdct- pation by persons not members ofthe sounctis? he - . | Seo utso Plerson v. Ray (#79) and Ray v. Flerson (#94) 386 U.S. 547, 87 SCt. 1/18,. 16. L.d ed 288, res conspiracy to- Ceprive one of civil rights. aA) ‘ hart, oe noted by respondents, the Vinnesote Supreme Court thought little. concerning the U, 5, Constitutional basts of Citizens! rights, 1s regrettable. It is portieulbardly go .in this new era of awareness of tndividuel constitutional , elyhte, in the case «at ber, with no unloewful . Oonduct by petitioner, the clean ciyil Miyiite Lasue should have bean constdered — by the i'tnnesota Courtea. Here the Jury ples of Andrew Hantiton is sernane. "Hut ti cone ] Ta “the quigt tion be- ore he es uit pry you, Pe jutlemen of ad Le 4 1s Py 1 “not oft tt " } } ; yp! \ nm? oe COTY cern, ft tsa not the eerwae of a poor ) Listes » OOF of Now ‘eee j lone, (hie inre now tt ! Shae [Aa% Av, -e i {1 Cm pence » Orte t every It 1s the best cause; it is the - C&use of Liberty; + + the liberty both of exnosini: end Oopposins arbit- vary power % %, by speaking and writing the truth.” (Trial of John Peter Cenrer, 1753, 16 American vtate Trtéls, 17 et seq.) ', Boyd vs United otetes, 116 U.S, 5616, 655, 6 SCt. 524, 29 Led 746, -752: 7 unconstituttonel preetices vet their first footing = # by Silent approeches-end sliyprt Cevia- tions from lege) modes of procedure, + @ It is the Cuty of the courts to be watehful for the rights of the citizen, end esvsinst the Stealthy encroachments -Lhereon," she Citizens too’ must chellence the in- vastion of their ctvil rivhts. "For the saddest epitaph which can be carved {n memory of a vantshed liberty is that it was lost because [ts possessors failee to stretch forth a sSevin head While there ws time," Diesenting opinton éf Justice rit erlend in. The Assoct, ted Press ¥. National ws bor Relations Monard, (1957) S01 1.8. LO": 6&7 Sct O503 il Led 953% 65, ‘Janes ‘adi son's Ooservattfons would seom . 4 Lo be rs pewet DTryernt Lo Lie Loe] pnolite f bodles ns to life state Hnd neat { mel bod- Bios —— Times Publishing Co. vs Williems, supra, | (F Ps * We: sil is saith ha Saal Era atin wai ipa 2 Binsad te Bires RLS GL Ad "A populer governnent, without popu- lar informetion, the meens of ac-- quiring it, is, bat @ Prologue to a. . Farce or Tragedy 3 or perhaps, both!" (9 Jritings of Jemes Medison 103, Hunt Ed. 1910, letter to W. T. Barry, ‘Aug. 4, 1622). a | to } % x 4 . Open Meeting Statutes, The Presse ights for the Right to Know, — 75 Harvard LR. 1199, 1200: "The pegple must be able to go be- yond an Sake the decisions reach- ed anc be eporsised of the pros end cons involved if they are to mseke sound judgments on questions of . L1201/policy end to select their rep- resentetives intelligently.. The pre- sence of outside observers is an ins- valueble aid. in meking such informe ation availeble, for offictal reports, even if issued, will seldom furnish e ‘complete summery of the disctission leading to a psrticuler course of action. ey | la. 1969) 222 So.2d 470, 473: 4. This act is a Cecleretion of public policy, the frustration ef which constitutes Lrreverable ine jury to the public interest. = #," (p.-629) f . "The richt of the public to be present end to be heerd Curing all nheses of enectnents by borrds and commissions is a source of strength om “T] wv to our country. During pest years tendeneies tcward secrecy in public: feirs havea been the: subject of extensive criticism. .Terms ‘such as managed news, secret meetings, closed records, executive sessions, and study sessions have become syno- nymous with 'thanky panky' in the minds cf public spirited citizens. One purpose of the Sunshine Law was to meintein the faith of the public in government aggncies. Regardless of their gooc intentions, these spe-. cified boards end commissions; through devious ways, chould not be allowed to ceprive the public of this inalieneble rircht, to be present and toe be heard st gl1l:deliberations wherein Cecisions et “fecting a al ub- lic ere being mace." 2. Pight.of a Citizen to see. the let- cers, papers end documents of the Local. public bodies...” Res poncents contend ‘this issue’ is. ; . not reised in the pleadings, and not. con- idered by the state Courts. Petitioner omitted.to specifically | quote Complaint per. 24, which alleges: , : , , "24. That in furtherence of such plen such public bodies have been conduc- ted in such manner that from tine to time pleintiff hes .been wrongfully denied -access to piblic information, | reports end writings, end his con- a ; z , -9- munications. to such bodies have been disposed of irregularly." « Bier, | ged right to see the letters, pepers and However, the Petition notes that en alle- a documents is included within Compleint per. 10 smong the "lewful rights and pri- vileges as a citizen, % a" Seid Par. 24 was’ specifically denied -4n the Separate Answer of Rendolph K. El- lings and others, end wes denied by a E generel deniel in the Separate Answer of JHRA end other defendants.. . In vhe first-.section of his Brief in the ‘Minnesota Supreme Court petitioner ‘Spe- cified the alleged right as follows: "T, The rights and privileges of a citizen of iWinnesota include: « * l. a, | 2. a freedom of iat ine to pudlic | informetion, * +." Petitioner then cited J. S. Constitutional Amendments IX and X as well as Constitu- -10- geecsoar tional and statutory provisions and. case lev of Minnesota. : Respondents jhave never refuted peti- _tioner's evidence that public information was denied him. Sone illustretions of “such withheld cocuments are mentioned in .. the Petition at p. 9. Also illustrative are the letters ceted 7/27/65 end 8/4/65 noted in reéspon- Gents' appendix (A.28). ? Petitioner's letter to WHRA demon- strates that by the device, (clearly e- ventue: and likely conspiratorial) of directing the Citizen to the private planning firm, which owes no duty: to the Citizen, the public body successful- ly denied to the Citizen the public's information. Paraphrased, the letter of 2/4/65 reads: 3 "At a meeting of the % «+ (HRA). on the evening of July 20, 1965 .- I rede a request for a copy of a prelininary draft of a downtown © generel neighborhood renewal plan -ll- . presented that evening by Mr. Chap- men. Copies thereof were handed to members of the Authority thet eve- ning. I madé“ny fYequest es a citi-- - gen end texpayer. hy, Me , : "x 3, (HRA member) lr.. Morgan stated my cemend would be referred — to the Attorney for the Authority. "I-received e communication from Mr. C. Stenley Nciiahon Fsq. dated July 27, 1965. He statec in vart as follows: ‘This dreft + + is the property of Neson, Law, vehrman snd Knight, Inc. (s private planning firm) end if, for some reason, you wish copies of their materiels, the. request should be sdcressed to them, attention ifr. Chapyen.! "T have made my Wemend to the Authority. I hereby renew thet de- mend, and I respectfully decline the suggestion that I seek the pre- liminery plan elsewhere." (Peren- thetical phrases added). (Paulson Ceposition n. 94, 95)(7), Although most of the determinations concerning ‘access to records are found in state court decisions, it wes held in Providence Journal v. ticCoy, 94 F Supp Ft. Nt. #7- Petitioner's corresrondence in 7 menile envelones marked Defend- ents' Exhibits 8 throussh 14 «es copted end filed with the ceposition of veti-. tioner. The indivicual letters were not separately numbered es Txhibvits. -12- ce we ra e . s . . . . ay ° ‘ - - ® ° 7 ) . . . © . . ‘ . / - fs » r 3 . . , . a 3 . 2 . a ; . ; ¥ s . . * . . . . . ° . ° . e . . . . . a ¥ . 1e6, 90 F2d 769, cert. den. 342 U.S. 8945 72 SCt. 200, 96 LEd. 119, that a Pawtucket ordinence cavitit WAS Sra eny official to make nudlic the records of tax ebatement viola- . ted the equal protection clause of the 14th Amenéenent. S. “adlic Figure. - In discussing "public figure® respond- ents voint out thet plaintiff wss @ prac- ticing Attorney in e smell city. But attorneys are pecple too, and like doctors, teachers end candlestick’ mekers, they velue their reputations. It is susgested thet one's trade or pro- fession provides neither-a valid nor fair “eriterion for branding one a "public fi- gure." | Resroncents affirm that the term "oublic figure" should be viewed in the _ context of the arec concerned. This con- sideration immedistely renders. imneterial “ aie nae yee ° , ee duce” Sete Se Se engin ast - ARR 6 mca ll a RRR ‘ . . petitioner's correspondence with state and federal officials. It also favors the critic of n&tional policy over the critic of the village! council, for the latter earns the title instantly. It is suggested that neither the . private and innocuous activity of clip- ping news stories, nor attending meetings of public bodies; properly qualify oun for the mentle of "public figure." In citing the motion for change of. . venue as indicating that petitioner is a "public figure" respondents ignore the fact that the reespns supporting the mo- tion were principally the asserted wrongs of respondents ineludines (1) the al- leged conspirecy to "publicly vilify and discredit plaintiff by word and deed," (Complaint par. 10¢ end a), (which in cluded an editorial campaign) and to *ihebeby ruin the plaintiff's reputation ' and as an attorney and as a citizen,’ * A . e . . . . . . . * : . a . . 7" ‘ . : * . . . . . . . , ° . . e * . . ; . . . . . . . . 2. °. oe a eee: . 3° 3 ' . .? é : . e . : erie . . . TP A : \« . . bd fa : * 4 : : “. . . = ; . = . : e . an en . . . . s . , ‘ . ® A ? . . se . 5 A 4 . . . . ; : : . . S > C . ® * : : e : - : . : : ; . . ~ . . : ‘ - . oa . » % . 5 3 : . . . . ° . . % : . r ~ ‘ 7 ; . . .- 7 . 3 - . : : ; . . e e . : . s . . s : . . = . . . — by . . ; . . . 2 : . > i , - . . . * s ‘ . i. ' . ° * . : id ’ . z . . . ? ai S . . es e 7 7 . . » 44, . : . . p : . . ; : ; . . . e . . 8 ' . bg ; . ¢ . . e . 8 4 “4 6 . . 2 ** i : s . » . ‘ , , e %. 5 . Wes we = - ee RR ar we on OR De foie eel = *~ (2) the’ subsequent and unprecedented pub- , lication of selected portions of the pre- triel oral deposition of petitioner by | the resnonéent, news peper. over neither of these cireunstuaces had the. petitioner any control. Over neither sich vilifications ‘oie over his tricl by newspaper, hed the. petitioner eny control. | Roes a motion fot chenge of) venue’ “Gistinguish e, defemation suit pleintiff as # "oublic figure"? At least this con- , cept earalte a choice. The pleintirr can elect between a dismissal or a biased. jury. : Bat respon¢éents! next proposal in- sures dientasail | * Seemingly less than convinced them-_ selves that the evidence casts petitioner as a "public figure," respondents in all seriousness subdmits: @1$ Ct CA Te? Pe ee ec so.) Me gett) Soe ae Pak eT I ce Cat . . "WS nel aakas GTA, CIM pression with the quote: "He has not gone to a psychiatrist since 1964." Such distortions amount to a presente. ation of new non-facts not found in the evidence. | te petitioner's view the summeries ie ae eked 26 eSther on understend- ing of the facts, nor in the isolation of the federsl questions. Respectfully submitted, Kida. G, CMe Nartin A. Beatty. Petitioner, pro se 116 Center St. Winona, Minnesota Ph. 507-454-1818 ae APPENDIX C (For Appendices A end B see Petition) March 3, 1966 Presicent and Members of the ‘Winona City Council Vinona, Minn. Sirs: As a resident and taxpayer I wish to . point out certain important omissions in the minutes of the Special Council Meete- ing held on Jemary 51, 1966. In the minutes as avproved at a Coune cil Meeting held on Feb. 7, 1966 there is ho mention of two matters which were discussed at greet length. These mate ters were as follows: 1. The problem of leasing the City's Jerina in the event that the pre- “sent lessee, Hr. Jack Zywicki, does not continue as a lessee thereof, and 2. The problem of the failure of the City of Winona to be prepered to hold a referendum on Feb. 7, 1966 on the question: "Do you want federal aid for urban renewal?" The grossly peculier circumstances of the S-part Council Meeting of Jan. = 1966 were as follows: At 7:57 P.M. the City Council met in Special Session in the Court Room in the City Building. Aldermen Herold . Briesath, David L. Johnston, also known as Dave Jeye, Neil Sawyer, Donald Klegge, Jemes Stoltmsn, Jerry Borzyskowski, and Barry Space were present. Aldermen App e C-l. at Ae “ree 2 Cap aie Al £5 a ON Pim 0S onan AED patel a ASS Aa Thiewes and Parks were absent. The an- nounced purpose of the meeting was to dis- cuss the Urban Renewal Plan for Winona with members of the Housing and Redevele- opment Authority. Council President Brieseth presided. | Several members of the public were in ate tendance as well as 3 representatives of the news media. The meeting was turned over to Dr. Wm. Finkelnburg, Cheirman of NHRA, and to C. Stanley McMahon, the Attorney for WHRA. These men discussed the progress of the urban renewal plans. Both men dwelt on the probebility of securing so-called "non-cash credits" computed upon the ba- sis of construction work that has been completed et Winone State Golepe. This “Act I" of the 3-part Council Meet- ing was in itself amazing, for the WHRA delegation not only arrived with answers for the Council Members, but they pro- vided the questions as well! Dr. Finkélnburg characterized the urban re- newal plan as the City's "wishbook" 5 he likened the non-cash credits to ‘a pot full of green stamps", and also as our little goodies" which Winona can secure "by legal hocus pocus™. Nr. McMahon on his part complained that "there has been more heat then light" shed upon the urban renewal question. Attorney itci!ehon diagnosed the city's core area es "stricken with coronary disesse needing treatment". (p.2.) | : At ebout 8:40 Ald. Stoltman moved for adjournnent, Ald. Johnston ended, motion carried, all voting eye. KMem- bers of the public left, except myself. App. C-2. The 3 press representatives also left. Then the estonishing preliminaries for "Act II" of the Council Meeting were put in motion. The Council members stood . 2 eround; there was putting on of wraps pe | end other deperture activity, including : going down the.stairs by some Alderrien, : presumably to leave the building. After about 15 or more minutes the Council - Members returned to the Court Room, saye= ing they would have a “Committee meet- ing", altho the returning group consist- ed of all 7 Council Members who had pare ticipated in "Act I" of the evening's. fantastic performance. "Act II" of the Council Meeting dealt with the municipel marina end the Coun- cil's difficulties with Mr. cywicki. Ald. Neil Sawyer stated, "Mr. Zywicki owns a lot of property in town. When his tenants con't pay their rent, they ‘get put out." Some Council Members fav- ored having e Mr. Dick Kanz for a’new operator. It is not known when this public business wes discussed or devel- opec, or where. There was no indication that members of the public would have opportunity to apply for the lease, should it become sveileble, or that it would be let on open bids. Thus ended "Act II". KAGE Reporter ‘layne Valentine returned for part of this discussion. The preliminaries to "Act III" were | elmost the seme as these preceding "Act II". There wes no motion for adfourn- ment at the conclusion of "Act II". For "Act III" two eldermen entered the Court Room wesring their outer wraps, and there removed them. They went through the seme phantasy of calling it App. C-3. Date coor SSA GT aOR NAA nA at ai aC Nb BEB Net ihe ant * ; t g sis e. ‘ a"committee meeting", altho again it was the same 7 Council Members who returned for the concluding act. This third patt of the Coune4l Meeting dealt with efforts to-have e meeting of minds, and present e united front at the | Council Meeting to be held on Mon. Feb. 7, 1966 to deny to the Voters of the City the referendum on renewal. The Voters hed been promised the Referendum in March, 1965. Ald. Briesath held out for standing behind the Attorney Pigs de ago opinion which, he stated, holds that tl referendum could not be held. "Act IIf enced shortly before 10:00 P.M. ° .-*. To my mind, this bizzare performance is further evidence of the determined, deliberate, Ccelculated effort of the 7 Members then present to deal with the | public business in secret, instead of in open meeting as required Dy law... I hereby request thet this account of the Council Meeting of Jan. 31, 1966 be ° incorporated into the present incomplete minutes of same. : | | Martin A. Beatty -App. C4. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1413%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.