Supplemental Brief — Beatty v. Ellings

FILE COPY

MAY

Fr wr

erat

~ DAVIS, CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

October Term, 1969

No. 1874

MARTIN A. BEATTY,

Petitioner,

vs.

RANDOLPH K. ELLINGS, CITY OF WINONA, HOUSING AND REDE-

VELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF WINONA, GEORGE M. a ey

BRIESA’

LOM, JIM D. MOHAN, HAROLD THIEWES, JAMES V. STOLTMAN,

NEIL SAWYER, BARRY NELSON, DAVID L. JOHNSTON, DONALD

KLAGGE, aa BORZYSKOWSKI, ALLYN S. MORGAN, jR., L. W.

Cg ites FISCHER, “ys E. KRIER, «WM. J. THUROW,

FRANK C WM. O. FINKELNBURG, E. J. SIEVERS,

PHILIP BAUMANN, JAN JAMES T. SCHAIN, NORMAN E. INDALL, WM.

ES FOSTER, JERRY PAPENFUSS, FRANK G. MERTES,

LISHING COMPANY, JAMES B. GOETZ, RADIO STATION KAGE,

GEM RADIO STATIONS CO., JAMES B. GOETZ, MERLIN . MEY-

THALER and REX N. EYLER, co- ers, doing business as ONA

BROADCASTING CO., KWNO BROADCASTING CO., CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE OF WINONA, DONALD STONE, and ‘ARNOLD STOA,

Respondents.

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, Minnesota 55101

Winona, Minnesota 55987 Phone: 612-224-7505

Phone 507-454-1504 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 338-5078

as Sa ee ae a aa

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitution end Statutes: Page

u. S. Constitutionel Amendment I... 1

Nu. S. Constitutional Amendment V... 1

U. S. Constitutional Amendment IX... 1,10

U. S. Constitutional Amencment X... 10

N. S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. 1,135

Administrative Procedure Act of 1946,

5§ U.S.C.A. Sec. BGGBoccocoeceeooes

Freedom of Information Act,

5 U.S.C.A. Sec. SEB ococecoceceeeeee 4

Cases:

Acord v. Booth, 33 Utah 279, 93 P.734 1

Alphen v. Shadman, 350 Mess. 69, 116

N.E.2d PT TTTTTrrTrrrry+eyfrTrs 3

Barnes v. City of New Haven,

140 Conn. 8, 98 A.2d ees 2

Beecon Journel Publishing Co. v. Akron,

3 Ohio St.2d 191, 209 N.E.2d 399.. - g

Boerd of Public Instruction of Broward

County v. Doren, 224 Sc.2d 695,

(Fle. IP PrrrrerrrTTTrTTiTT rT 2

Boyd v. United Stetes, 116 U.S. 616

635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746, 752

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964),

376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710,11 L.Ed.2d

686, \:' Pe erererrrrrrrrrer;rririry 17

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct.

1213, 18 L.Ed.2d BOScccccecececese 6

Providence Journal v. McCoy, 94 F. Supp.

166, 90 F.2d 760, cert. den. 342 U.S.

894; 72 S.Ct. 200, 96 L.Ed. 119... 12

Turk v. Richard, 47 So.2d 543

(Pls. PTT TTT rTTT Ty 1

Rey v. Pierson 3&6 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct.

1213, 18 L.Ed.2d BOB. ccccceccocecsé 6

The Associated Press v. National Labor

Reletions Board, (1937) 301 U.S. 103;

57 S.Ct. 650; 81 L.Ed. 953, 965... 7

I.

Pege

Times Publishing Company v. Williams,

222 So.2d 470 Fle. 1969). .ccces l, 8

Turk v. Richerd, 47 So.2d 545

(Fle. ee nee

Texts:

Gillmor and Barron, Mass Communica-

tion, 1969, West Pub. Co., Ch. V,

Sec. 1, po 45S.ccccccsecsscsccses

Siebert, The Rights and Privileges of

the Press, 1934, D. Appleton-Century

Coe, BBccoeceoceeseeeesoecesece

Swindler, Problems of Lew in Journal-

ism, 1955, The MacMillan Co., Chapt.

III - Freedom to Gather News.... 4, 5

Thayer, Legal Control of the Press,

1956, 3rd ed., The Foundetion

Press, Sec. Beococceeececeoecoeoe 3,

Secondary Authorities:

16 Americen State Trials, 17 et seq.

Trial of John Peter Zenger, 1755. 6,

Open Meeting Statutes, The Press

Fights for the Right to Know,

75 Herverd L.R. 1199, 1200...

9 Writings of James Madison 105,

Hunt Ed. WlLO. ccccccsccccsccecece 7, 8

It.

-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summery of Argument:

1.

2.

4.

Page

Respondents have feiled to meet

petitioner's arguments supporting

the position that whether or not

a Citizen may attend ell meetings

of the local public bodies raises

a federsl constitutional question.. 1

Respondents' argument concerning

access to public documents is

contrary to the factsS....ccccece 9

Respondents' argument that peti-

tioner is a "public figure" within

the federal rule is untenable... 135

The respondents distorted sup-

plementery fact summaries ere not

helpful to an understanding of the

facts nor in the isolation of the

federal 1ssueS..cccccccccvecsece 20

Appendix PPYeTEPTeTTErrrerrrrrrrr App. Cel

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF PURSUANT

T0 U. S. SUPREME COURT RULE 24, SUBSEC. 5, & 4.

ARGUMENT

1. Right of a Citizen to attend all meet-

ings of the local public body.

Respondents while chiding petitioner

for 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 relste to the asserted

right of the people to attend the meetings

of the local public bodies.

The five state court decisions respond-

ents cite (R.4) interpret state statutes.

In Acord v. Booth (1908) 33 Utah 279,

93 P 734 the Citizen plaintiff who was re-

moved by e marshal from a "committee of the

whole," recovered nominal dameges for humi-

liation and for being deprived 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. Williams,

iin

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

222 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1969) and in Board of

Public Instruction of Broward County v.

Doren, 224 So.24¢ 693, (Fla. 1969), follow-

ing the subsequent enactment of Florida's

"sovernment in the Sunshine Law." Both of

the 1969 decisions ruled against secret

executive sessions. In the later case the

Florida Supreme Court enjoined (p. 700)

"any meeting or conference session

4% 4 at which ere held any discus-

sions on matters pertaining to the

duties and responsibilities of the

Board + #."

As distinguished in petitioner's

Reply Brief before the Minnesota Supreme

Court, Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Akron,

3 Ohio St.2d 191, 209 NE2d 399 was con-

cerned primarily with the origin of the

powers of the different public bodies.

In Sarnes v. City of New Haven,149 Conn.8,

98 A2d 523 "the fundamental question

=2e=

!

for decision" as stated at p. 527 was

"whether the perking project is a legiti-

mate public purpose.” There no one was

prevented from attending any meeting, and

it appears doubtful thet the cause was a

truly adversgry proceeding. Alphen v.

Shadman, 330 Mass 60, 116 NE2d 252 was

about money, a commission, not about

civil rights.

Whether by premising eae Citizen's

right to ettend all of the meetings of

the local public bodies upon sections of

the federal Bill of Rights constitutes

the novel approach to the problem that

respondents suggest, is immeterial. Pee

titioner's position is merely an appli-

cation of the so-called "Right to Know,"

espoused by James Madison, and other

authorities following:

Thayer, Legal Control of the Press,

1956, Srd ed., The Foundetion Press,

Sec. 30:

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

"The right to report is of course

dependent upon the ability to gather

news. Obviously, the United States

Constitution goes not give one the —

specific right to collect news, how-

ever, there is no prohibition; the

several state constitutions give no

more than the freedom toc speak and

write what one pleases; the right

to gather end report news, so vitsl

to the press, is grented inferen-

tislly. Legelly, the rights not

granted to the Federal Government

are reserved to the states or to the

people, and so the right to gather

news remains with the people."

Gillmor and Barron, Mass Communica-

tion, 1969, West Pub. Co., Ch. V,

Sec. 1, p.- 45353

"In a preceding section the point

was made that government like the

privately owned media had en obliga-

tion to provide a structure for dia-

logue in the continually increasing

sector of nationel life which is un-

der government control. Such a goal

relates to what is sometimes called

the people's right to know. # #.

Recently bee. 3 of the Administra-

tive Procedure Act of 1946, 5 U.S.C.A.,

Sec. 1002 was amended and the Freedom

of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.A.

Sec. 522 (1967), was enacted. Here

the focus is not on access for opi-

nion but an eccess for information.

The latter, like the former, may

someday be vredicated on e nositive

constitutional Cuty of government.”

(Emphasis added).

Swindler, Problems of Lew in Journalism,

1955, The Mecifillan Co., Chept. III -

—

Freedom to Gather News @ p. 77:

"The freedom to publish news and

comment is of little velue without

the corollary freedom to gather the

news."

Siebert, The Rights end Privileges of the

Press, 1954, D. Appleton-Century Co.,

Inc.?

(Under his clessification of mu-

nicipelities) "where there is neith-

er statutory nor charter provision

requiring the council to conduct its

meetings in public,"

the author states et p. 66:

"The point has never been ad judi-

cated in the United States, # #,"

"If the point comes up for deci-

sion in the courts of the United

States, consideration will probably

be taken of the peculier character

of a municipal corporation as com-

pared with other governmental units.

The corporation is composed of the

corporete electors who have a right

to be informed of the activities of

the elected representatives."

Siebert comments upon the municipal go-

vernmental unit @ p. 64, es follows:

"The organization and opersetion

of the municipal unit is probably

the most complicated problem of mo-

dern government. The entire public

participeted in the original town

meeting, but in lerge metropolitan

cities the government must be car-

ried on through delegated author-

ities. In those centers the Press

serves es the sole medium of public-

ity. Nt. 25 - The procedure of city

councils differs from thet of other

a

-5<-

—

legislative bodies chiefly in the

degree to which they admit pertici-

pation by persons not members of the

sounti la? ihe

€

See also Pierson v. Ray (#79) and Ray

v. Pierson (#94) 386 U.S. 547, 8&7 SCt.

1213, 18 L.Ed 2d 288, re: conspiracy to

deprive one of civil rights.

Thet, es noted by respondents, the

Minnesote Supreme Court thought little

concerning the U. S. Constitutional basis

of Citizens' rights, is regrettable. It

is perticularly so in this new era of

awareness of individual constitutional

rights.

In the case at bar, with no unlewful

conduct by petitioner, the clean civil

rights issue should have been considered

by the Minnesota Courts. Here the jury

plea of Andrew Hamilton is germane.

"But to conclude; the question be-

fore the court end you, gentlemen of

the jury, is not of small private con-

cern, it is not the csuse of e poor

printer, nor of New York elone,

which you are now trying; no! it may, f

in its consequences, affect every

freeman that lives under a 3ritish

government on the main of Anerica.

> ae _

ONT > Ma Mae wee

It is the best cause; it is the

cause of liberty; + # the liberty

both of exposing end opposing arbit-

rary power #% +, by spesking and

writing the truth." (Trial of John

Peter Zenger, 1753, 16 American

State Triels, 17 et seq.)

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616,

635, 6 SCt. 524, 29 Led 746, 752:

"% 2 unconstitutional prectices

get their first footing + # by

silent approeches end slight devia-

tions from legal modes of procedure.

% # It is the duty of the courts

to be watchful for the rights of the

citizen, end egsainst the stealthy

encroachments thereon."

The Citizens too must challenge the in-

vasion of their civil rights.

"Por the saddest epitaph which can

be carved in memory of a vanished

liberty is that it was lost because

its possessors failed to stretch

forth a saving hend while there was

time." Dissenting opinion of Justice

Sutherlend in The Associated Press

v. Nationel Lebor Relations Board,

(1937) 301 U.S. 103; 57 SCt 650;

81 Led 953, 965.

James Iiadison's observetions would seem

to be as pertinent to the local public

bodies es to the state end nationel bod-

ies.

"A popular government, without popu-

_ lar information, or the meens of ace

quiring it, is, but a Prologue to a

Farce or Tregedy; or perhaps, both!"

(9 Writings 6f Jemes Madison 103,

Hunt Ed. 1919, letter to W. T. Barry,

Aug. 4, 1822).

% % %

Open Meeting Statutes, The Press

Fights for the Right to Know,

75 Harvard LR. 1199, 1200:

"The people must be able to go be-

yond and behind the decisions reach-

ed and be appraised of the pros snd

cons involved if they are to make

sound judgments on questions of

[1201/policy end to select their rep-

resentatives intelligently. The pre-

sence of outside observers is an in-

valuable sid in meking such inform-

ation available, for official reports,

even if issued, will seldom furnish

e@ complete summary of the discussion

leading to a particular course of

action.

Times Publishing Co. v. Williems, supra,

(Fla. 1969) 222 So.2d 470, 473:

" #. This act is a declaration

of public policy, the frustration

of which constitutes irrevsrable ine

jury to the public interest. «+ #,"

(p. 699)

"The right of the public to be

present end to be heard during all

vheses of enectments by boerds and 4

commissions is a source of strength

«Qe

to our country. During pest years

tendencies tcward secrecy in public

oeffairs have 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 'hanky panky' in the

minds of public spirited citizens.

One purpose of the Sunshine Law was

to maintain the faith of the public

in government sgencies. Regardless

of their good intentions, these spe-

cified boards end commissions,

through devious ways, should not be

ellowed to deprive the public of

this inalienable right to be present

and to be heard et all deliberations

wherein cecisions effecting the pnub-

lic ere being mace."

2. Right of a Citizen to see the let-

ters, papers end documents of the

local public bodies.

Respondents contend this issue is

not raised in the pleadings, and not con-

sidered by the state Courts.

Petitioner.omitted to specifically

quote Complaint per. 24, which alleges:

"24, That in furtherence of such plan

such public bodies have been conduce-

ted in such manner that from tine to

time pleintiff hes been wrongfully

denied access to public infornstion, ;

reports end writings, end his com- P

-9-

municetions to such bodies have been

disposed of irregularly."

However, the Petition notes thet en alle-

ged right to bed bias letters, pepers and

documents is included within Complaint

per. 10 among the "lewful rights and pri-

vileges as a citizen, + #."

Said Par. 24 was specifically denied

in the Separate Answer of Randolph K. Fl-

lings and others, end was denied by a

generel deniel in the Separate Answer of

WHRA end other defendants.

In the 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 Minnesota ‘anbubet % %

l. % #.

2. a freedom of access to pudlic

informetion, # 7."

Petitioner then cited U. S. Constitutional

Amendments IX and X as well as Constitu-

\. -10- E

id

*

&

|

tional and statutory provisions and case

lew of Minnesota.

Respondents have never refuted peti-

tioner's evidence thet public information

was denied him. Some illustrations of

such withheld documents are mentioned in

the Petition at p. 9.

Also illustrative are the letters

ceted 7/27/65 ond 8/4/65 noted in respon-

dents' appendix (A.28).

Petitioner's letter to WHRA demon-

strates that by the device, (clearly e-

vesive, and likely conspiratorial) of

directing the Citizen to the private

planning firm, which owes no duty to

the Citizen, the public body successful-

ly cenied to the Citizen the public's

information. Paraphrased, the letter of

8/4/65 reads:

"At a meeting of the # # (WHRA)

on the evening of July 20, 1965

I made a request for a copy of a

preliminary draft of a downtown

generel neighborhood renewal plan

:

snschhdeeiieainbiiiiniiiiinapeaaal

Me WI: Prey

presented that evening by Mr. Chap-

men. Copies thereof were handed to

members of the Authority that eve-

ning. I madé“my request as a citi-

zen end texpayer.

"ee ae,

"% a, (WHRA member) lr. Morgan

stated my demend would be referred

to the Attorney for the Authority.

"I received a comnunication from

Mr. C. Stenley Nelishon Fsq. dated

July 27, 1965. He stated in wnart

os follows: ‘This dreft + + is the

property of Nason, Law, Wehrmen ond

Knight, Inc. (a private planning

firm) end if, for some reason, you

wish copies of their materiels, the

request should be addressed to them,

attention lir. Chapman.'

"I have made my demend to the

Authority. I hereby renew that de-

mend, and I respectfully decline

the suggestion that I seek the pre-

liminery plan elsewhere." (?Peren-

thetical phrases added).

(Paulson ceposition p. 94, 95)(7),

Although most of the determinetions

concerning access to records sre found

in state court decisions, it wes held in

Providence Journal v. ticCoy, 94 F Supp

Pt. it. #7- Petitioner's correspondence

in 7 menile envelopes marked Defend-

ents' Exhibits 8 throuszh 14 wes copied

and filed with the deposition of veti-

tioner. The indivicual letters were

not separately numbered es Fxhibits.

-12-

-—

186, 90 Fed 760, cert. den. 542 U.S. 894;

72 SCt. 200, 96 LEd. 119, that a Pawtucket

ordinance prohibiting eny official to make

public the records of tax ebatement viola-

ted the equal protection clause of the

14th Amendment.

3. Public Figure.

In discussing "public figure" respond-

ents point out thet plaintiff was a prac-

ticing attorney in a small city.

But attorneys are people too, and

like doctors, teachers and candlestick

mekers, they velue their reputations.

It is suggested thst one's trade or pro-

fession provides neither a valid nor fair

criterion for branding one a “public fi-

gure."

Respondents affirm that the term

"nublic figure" should be viewed in the

context of the area concerned. This con-

sideration immediately renders imnaterial

“hfe

—_—

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

=

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

letter 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 one

for the mantle of "public figure."

In citing the motion for change of

venue as indicating that petitioner is a

"public figure" respondents ignore the

fact thet the reesons supporting the mo-

tion were principally the esserted wrongs

of respondents including: (1) the al-

leged conspiracy to "publicly vilify and

discredit plaintiff vy word and deed,"

(Complaint par. 10c end a), (which in-

cluded an editorinl campaign) and to

"thereby ruin the plaintiff's reputation

as an attorney and as a citizen," and

-14-

a, FORER FRG Ry PRO NY: C8 Stee yas

(2) the subsequent and unprecedented pub-

litation of selected portions of the pre-

triel oral deposition of petitioner by

the respondent newspaper. Over neither of

these circumstances had the petitioner any

control. Over neither such vilifications

ner over his triel by newspeper, hed the

. petitioner eny control.

Does a moiton for chenge of venue

. distinguish a defemation suit plaintiff

as e "public figure"? At least this con-

cept permits a choice. The plaintiff can

elect between a dismissal or a biased

jury.

| But respor“ents!' next proposal in-

|

sures dismissal!

Seemingly less than convinced them-

selves that the evidence casts petitioner

as a "public figure," respondents in all

seriousness submit:

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

"that even without any evidence,

the mere fact that petitioner has

commenced two lawsuits ageinst numee

rous # * prominent figures # «+ in

the community, including the meyor,’

councilmen, end members of the Hous-

ing and Redevelopment Authority,

% % would require a holding es a

matter of law thet he wos e public

figure «+ +." (Res. Br.8).

Ergo! The perfect defense for public

officials; - - es well as the end of de-

famation suits egainst them.

Actually respondents propose that

by commencing only one lawsuit the plain-

tiff becomes a "public figure," for it is

unlikely that they mean that the defama-

tion suit itself insures the plaintiff's

Gefeat. Or do they mean it?

Fortunately for this petitioner and

other plaintiffs, respondents cite no le-

gel authority for their absolutist posi-

tion. ;

The more respondents strain to ma-

nufacture a cufense upon the issue of

"public figure" the more they lose sight

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

of the essence of the Sullivan doctrine,

es steted at 11 Led 2d ‘708:

"Madison seid + + the 'censorial

power is in the veople over the

governnent, and not in the govern-

ment over the people.'"

Tt is further contended by respond-

ents that, other considerations aside,

petitioner became a "public figure" by

his letter of 1144/64. (Resp. A-69),

(Petition 10).

The letter recited the difficulty

that Petitioner encountered in seeking

out the meeting and in attending it.

As steted therein:

"I exploined that ir. Donald E.

Stone, the Chamber lNianeger, had

Cenied me the right to attend a

prior ond secret City Council

weeting held at the Chamber Build-

ing." (Resp. A-70).

To the end that those truly respon-

sible might know thet, as therein stated,

"this was of course a violation

of my civil rights by the Chamber

and its membership," (Resp. A-79),

coptes were sent to "all iinona resi-

aiVe

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

dent members of the Winona Chamber of

Commerce." (Cerney, Reporter, deposi-

tion 20), (See @i-tes, Petition,A-5).

Having encountered a skein of evsesion by

the public officials and Chamber offi-

cials ebout the meeting, petitioner

could anticipate an evasion of responsi-

bility by the Chamber Members for thei!:.

ects of their officers, or even a lack

of knowledge thereof; and surely no

change in policy, until apprized in

writing of their individual and collect-

ive responsibility.

Having pointed out in the letter

that the “abuse has reached a point just

short of violence," (Resp. Br. A-75) pe-

titioner also sent copies to "the other

public and civic bod'tes (thet) were rep-

resented eat the cavtive meeting." (Resp.

Br.A-75).

If a Citizen is to be branced a

"nublic figure" and be thereby made

atin

Ricoen THRO nn PCHMmR COpDY

oe

feir game for libel and slander by the

public officials and the news media be-

cause he confronts, with a signed letter,

, the individuals directly responsible for

the interferences with his civil rights;

then indeed the Citizen hes been put ine

to a box. The Citizen is thereby punish-

ed for the acts of those who defame him.

Respondents' contention that if "pe-

tioner were not a public figure" before

the 11/14/64 letter “he certainly was

efter" (Res.7) overlooks the fact that

two alleged defamations had already oce

curred, thet of respondents Meyor Ellings

on about 6/15/64 (Compleint par. 20) and

Joseph E. Krier on 7/21/64, (Complaint

pars. 16 and 21).

Respondents are left then with the

two bere facts. First, thet some of

plaintiff's lewful questions of snd state-

ments to the public bodies were reported

by the news mecia. Over this circumstance

#196

petitioner had no control; and it does

not provide a fair criterion where the

Citizen sought ¢o lawfully oppose the

taking of his building. Secondly, the

"yortex" concept would appear to be

even less definitive under such cire-

cumstences.

4. Inaccuracies in respondents!

Appendices require clarification.

Asserting that despite the fact

thet "petitioner's statement of the case

covers 18 pages," it is inadequate,

(Res.Br.1), respondents have attached to

their Brief a "Summary of Beatty Corres-

pondence” as Appendix B, and a "Summery

of Beatty Depositions” as Appendix CG.

In some instances the condensation

of the material has left e record which

is not accurate. For brevity, only two

exemples will be set forth.

Respondents! summary (Res.A-32) of

the letter of 3/3/66 to City Council

-20-

reads: —

"Asking that the minutes be amended

to show the problem of leasing the

City's Merine and the question of a

referendum were discussed, eee

no action was teken thereon."

This letter, s respondents! exhibit,

is attached to this Supplementary Brief

as Appendix C.

Respondents! summary states? |

(87)-He (petitioner) has not gone to

a psychiatrist since 1964. (Resp.A-65).

Since about the time of the signing of

the transcript of the oral deposition on

about 4/6/67 respondents have known that

petitioner hase "never gone to a psychia-

trist." (Carney Deposition 87, line 9).

(Emphasis added).

Yet, es shown in the Reply Brief be-

fore the Minnesota Supreme Court, at

pages 58-40, respondents have repeatedly

foisted upon the Judges of the Minnesota

Courts, end now upon the highest Court,

a diemetrically opposite and false im-

-2le

er henithiones

pression with the guote: "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.

In petitioner's view the summaries

are not helpful in either an understand-

ing of the facts, nor in the isoletion

of the federsl questions.

Respectfully submitted,

L

Nartin A. Beatty

Petitioner, pro se

116 Center St.

Winona, Minnesota

Ph. 507-454-1818

ameammeam eee 6 om 426 6 428 & on ae 4a ee Ae 4 ame

APPENDIX C

(For Appendices A and B see Petition)

Merch 3, 1956

President and Members

of the Winona City Council

Winona, Minn.

Sirss

As a resident and taxpayer I wish to

point out certain important omissions in

the minutes of the Special Council Meete

ing held on January 31, 1966.

In the minutes as avproved at a Coune

cil Meeting held on Feb. 7, 1966 there

is no mention of two msetters which were

discussed at great length. These mate

ters were as follows:

1. The problem of leasing the City's

Mevina in the event that the pre-e

sent lessee, Mr. Jack Zywicki,

does not continue as a lessee

thereof, and

2. The problem of the failure of the

City of Winona to be prepared to

hold a referendum on Feb. 7, 1966

on the question: "Do you want

federal eid for urban renewal?"

The grossly peculiar circumstances of

the 3-pert Council Meeting of Jan. Sl,

1966 were as follows:

At 7:37 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 Jaye, Neil Sawyer, Donald Klagge,

Jemes Stoltman, Jerry Borzyskowski, and

Barry Nelson were present. Aldermen

App. C-l.

BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY

er

Thiewes and Parks were absent. The an-

nounced purpose of the meeting was to dis-

cuss the Urban Renewal Plen for Winona

with members of the Housing and Redevel-

opment Authori th.

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 WHRA, end 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-caeh credits" computed upon the ba-

sis of construction work that has been

completed et Winona State College.

This "Act I" of the 3-part Council Meet-

ing was in itself amazing, for the WHRA

delegation not only errived with answers

for the Council Members, but they pro-

vided the questions as weil! Dr.

Finkelnburg cheracterized the urben re-

newal plan as the City's "wishbook"s

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™. Mr.

McMahon on his part complained that

"there has been more heat then light"

shed upon the urban renewal question.

Attorney iicMahon diagnosed the city's

core area es "stricken with coronary

disease needing treatment".

(p.2.)

At about 8:40 Ald. Stoltman moved ‘

for adjournment, Ald. Johnston 2nced,

motion carried, all voting aye. Kem-

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

eround; there was putting on of wraps

end other deperture activity, including

going down the stairs by some Aldermen,

presumably to leave the building. After

about 15 or more minutes the Council

Members returned to the Court Room, say=

ing they would have a "Committee meet-

ing", altho the returning group consist-

ed of all 7 Council Members who had par-

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. Zywicki.

Ald. Neil Sawyer stated, "Mr. Zywicki

owns a lot of property. in town. When

his tenants don't pay their rent, they

get put out.” Some Council Members fav-

ored having ea Mr. Dick Kanz for a new

operator. It is not known when this

public business wes discussed or devel-

oped, or where. There was no indication

thet 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 Wayne Valentine

returned for pert of this discussion.

The preliminaries to "Act III" were

elmost the seme as those preceding "Act

II". There wes no motion for ad journ-

ment at the conclusion of “Act II".

For “Act III" two aldermen entered the

Court Room wearing their outer wraps,

and there removed them. They went

through the same phantasy of calling it

App. C-3.

a"committee meeting", altho egain it was

the same 7 Council Members who returned

for the concluding act.

"sas

This third patt of the Council IMeeting

dealt with efforts to have e meeting of

minds, and present e united front et 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

Merch, 1965. Ald. Briesath held out for

standing behind the Attorney General's

opinion which, he steted, holds that the

referendum could not be held. "Act III"

enced shortly before 10:00 P.M.

To my mind, this bizzare performance

is further evidence of the determined,

celiberate, celculeted effort of the 7

Members then present to deal with the

public business in secret, instead of in

open meeting as required by law.

I hereby request thet this account of

the Council Meeting of Jan. 31, 1966 be

incorporated into the present incomplete

minutes of same.

Mertin A. Beatty |

App. C-4.