Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service
Public Charity Status and Public Support
Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section
4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. See separate instructions. Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2013
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY INC
Employer identification number
45-1606079
Part I
Reason for Public Charity Status
(All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.
The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 11, check only one box.)
1
2
3
4
5
section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)
6
7
8
9
receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of
its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses
acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)
10
11
e
By checking this box, I certify that the organization is not controlled directly or indirectly by one or more disqualified persons other than foundation managers and other than one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2).
f
If the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, or Type III supporting organization, check this box
..................................................
g
Since August 17, 2006, has the organization accepted any gift or contribution from any of the following persons?
(i) A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in (ii)
Yes
No
and (iii) below, the governing body of the supported organization?
................
11g(i)
(ii)
A family member of a person described in (i) above?
......................
11g(ii)
(iii)
A 35% controlled entity of a person described in (i) or (ii) above?
................
11g(iii)
h
Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).
(i) Name of supported organization
(ii) EIN
(iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions))
(iv) Is the organization in col. (i) listed in your governing document?
(v) Did you notify the organization in col. (i) of your support?
(vi) Is the organization in col. (i) organized in the U.S.?
(vii) Amount of monetary support
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990EZ.
Cat. No. 11285F
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013
Page 2
Part II
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the
organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to
qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2009
(b) 2010
(c) 2011
(d) 2012
(e) 2013
(f) Total
1
Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") ....
505,000
653,128
906,928
2,065,056
2
Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.......
3
The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
4
Total. Add lines 1 through 3
505,000
653,128
906,928
2,065,056
5
The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included
on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)..
1,808,051
6
Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.
257,005
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2009
(b) 2010
(c) 2011
(d) 2012
(e) 2013
(f) Total
7
Amounts from line 4..
505,000
653,128
906,928
2,065,056
8
Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...
364
247
204
815
9
Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..
10
Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.)..
11
Total support (Add lines 7 through 10).
2,065,871
12
Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions)
..................
12
42,108
13
First five years.
If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here.................................................
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
14
Public support percentage for 2013 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f))
.........
14
15
Public support percentage for 2012 Schedule A, Part II, line 14
...............
15
16a
33 1/3% support test—2013.
If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
.......................
b
33 1/3% support test—2012.
If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
.....................
17a
10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2013.
If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part IV how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization
.....................................................
b
10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2012.
If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part IV how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
................................................
18
Private foundation.
If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions
.....................................................
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013
Page 3
Part III
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2) (Complete only if you checked the box on line 9 of Part I or if the organization
failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under
the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2009
(b) 2010
(c) 2011
(d) 2012
(e) 2013
(f) Total
1
Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2
Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose......
3
Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513..
4
Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5
The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
6
Total. Add lines 1 through 5.
7a
Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons...
b
Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c
Add lines 7a and 7b..
8
Public support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)
(a) 2009
(b) 2010
(c) 2011
(d) 2012
(e) 2013
(f) Total
9
Amounts from line 6...
10a
Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b
Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c
Add lines 10a and 10b.
11
Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12
Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.)
..
13
Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.)..
14
First five years.
If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here.............................................
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
15
Public support percentage for 2013 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f))
.........
15
16
Public support percentage from 2012 Schedule A, Part III, line 15
...............
16
Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage
17
Investment income percentage for 2013 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f))
......
17
18
Investment income percentage from 2012 Schedule A, Part III, line 17
.............
18
19a
33 1/3% support tests—2013.
If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
........
b
33 1/3% support tests—2012.
If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
.....
20
Private foundation.
If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions
.....
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013
Page 4
Part IV
Supplemental Information.
Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; and Part III, line 12. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).
Facts And Circumstances Test
Explanation
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013
Additional Data
Software ID:
Software Version:
-
TIN:
SCHEDULE O (Form 990 or 990-EZ)
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service
Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ
Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or to provide any additional information.
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at
www.irs.gov/form990.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2013
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY INC
Employer identification number
45-1606079
Return Reference
Explanation
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE:
AGGREGATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT CHALLENGES: MCCUTCHEON V. FEC; YOUNG V. GAB THESE TWO CASES CHALLENGE AGGREGATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL. AGGREGATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS PREVENT CITIZENS FROM SUPPORTING CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN MULTIPLE RACES BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT. THE LIMITS ARE SO LOW IN WISCONSIN THAT A SINGLE MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION TO ONE CANDIDATE, FOR EXAMPLE THE GOVERNOR, WOULD PREVENT THE SAME PERSON FROM GIVING AS LITTLE AS $100 TO ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. IN THE CASE CHALLENGING FEDERAL LIMITS, MCCUTCHEON V. FEC, WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, URGING THE COURT TO START TREATING ALL EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT FOR A CANDIDATE WHETHER VIA MONEY OR INDEPENDENT SPEECH EQUALLY. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE AGGREGATE LIMITS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE YOUNG CASE IS STAYED PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF MCCUTCHEON. AFTER THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MCCUTCHEON, THE STATE AGREED TO A STIPULATION DECLARING WISCONSIN'S AGGREGATE LIMITS VOID. COYNE V. WALKER: 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 21 CHANGED THE LAW RELATING TO STATE AGENCY RULEMAKING IN VARIOUS WAYS THAT LIMIT THE POWER OF STATE AGENCIES TO REGULATE WISCONSIN CITIZENS, INCLUDING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT, IT ALLOWS THE GOVERNOR TO VETO PROPOSED RULES FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. LAST OCTOBER, THE DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HELD THAT ACT 21, AS APPLIED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, VIOLATED THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE X, SECTION 1, WHICH GRANTS THE SUPERINTENDENT THE DUTY OF SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. ON BEHALF OF FORMER SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY SCOTT JENSEN AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE JASON FIELDS, WILL FILED AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ACT 21, ARGUING THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT DOES NOT HAVE INHERENT RULEMAKING AUTHORITY. PROPERTY DISBUTE IN GREEN BAY: WE ARE REPRESENTING A WOMAN IN GREEN BAY WHOSE BEAUTIFUL NATURAL LANDSCAPED YARD WAS DESTROYED BY THE CITY WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE AFTER A NEIGHBOR COMPLAINED THAT IT WAS "UNSIGHTLY," A VAGUE TERM THAT PURPORTEDLY ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO ENTER PRIVATE LAND AND DESTROY PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE ARE PARTNERING WITH A GREEN BAY LAWYER TO INVESTIGATE AND BRING POSSIBLE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY FOR DEPRIVING HER OF HER PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. SEVERAL GROUPS AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE BRINGING SIMILAR CHALLENGES TO LOCAL ORDINANCES AND ACTIONS, AND WE HOPE TO MAKE THIS PART OF A LARGER PICTURE PUSH FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. FIREFIGHTERS DISPUTE FAIR SHARE PAYMENT AMOUNT: TWO LOCAL FIREFIGHTERS RESIGNED FROM THEIR UNION BUT ARE NEVERTHELESS STILL REQUIRED TO PAY SO-CALLED "FAIR SHARE" DUES. THE FIREFIGHTERS HAVE DISPUTED THE AMOUNT OF DUES DEMANDED BY THE UNION. WE ARE REPRESENTING THE FIREFIGHTERS IN AN ARBITRATION PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF DUES THE FIREFIGHTERS CAN BE REQUIRED TO PAY DESPITE THEIR DESIRE NOT TO BELONG TO THE UNION. PENDING 2013 CASES: CHALLENGES TO ACT 10 BY UNIONS: WEAC V. WALKER; LABORERS LOCAL 236 V. WALKER; MADISON TEACHERS, INC. V. WALKER, WLEA V. WALKER THESE CASES ARE ALL CHALLENGES BY UNIONS TO GOVERNOR WALKER'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CHANGES. WILL, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, REPRESENTS SEVERAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SUPPORT ACT 10 AND HAS FILED SEVERAL AMICI BRIEFS. THE TWO FEDERAL CASES, WEAC AND LABORERS, HAVE RESULTED IN VINDICATION FOR ACT 10, WITH THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING THE LOWER COURT AND UPHOLDING THE LAW. ALTHOUGH THE COURTS DENIED OUR REQUEST TO INTERVENE IN THESE CASES AS PARTIES, THEY DID CONSIDER OUR AMICI BRIEFS, AND THE ARGUMENTS WE MADE SHOW UP IN THE REASONING OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. MADISON TEACHERS IS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, PENDING AN APPEAL OF DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE JUAN B. COLAS'S DECISION DECLARING MUCH OF ACT 10 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WILL WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN CONVINCING THE SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE COLAS' CONTEMPT ORDER, WHICH HAD FORCED THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION TO APPLY HIS RULING STATEWIDE TO ALL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYERS. SINCE THAT TIME, WILL HAS CONVINCED JUDGES IN TWO CIRCUIT COURTS (MILWAUKEE AND KENOSHA) THAT JUDGE COLAS'S OPINION DOES NOT BIND THEM, AND THEY ARE FREE TO REACH THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACT 10 (THE LACROIX AND MARONE CASES). WLEA WAS FILED SHORTLY AFTER JUDGE COLAS'S DECISION IN MADISON TEACHERS, BY UNIONS HOPING TO COPY THEIR SUCCESS IN MADISON TEACHERS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES. JUDGE MARKSON, DISAGREEING WITH HIS COLLEAGUE JUDGE COLAS, RULED THAT ACT 10 WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. MACIVER V. ERPENBACH: STATE SENATOR JON ERPENBACH HAS REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS WHO EMAILED HIM ABOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. WILL FILED AN OPEN RECORDS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THAT REFUSAL. WHILE THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE RULED IN SENATOR ERPENBACH'S FAVOR, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ORDERING ERPENBACH TO TURN OVER THE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND USING VERY STRONG LANGUAGE SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO LEARN WHO IS SEEKING TO INFLUENCE ELECTED OFFICIALS. CHALLENGES TO VOTER ID: NAACP V. WALKER; LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS V. WALKER; FRANK V. WALKER; LULAC V. DEININGER THESE CASES ARE CHALLENGES TO WISCONSIN'S NEW VOTER ID LAW. THE FIRST TWO CASES ARE STATE CASES THAT RESULTED IN PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE LAW FROM DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES AND EACH IS ON APPEAL. ON BEHALF OF A DIVERSE GROUP OF CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT VOTER ID, WILL FILED AMICI BRIEFS SUPPORTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REQUEST TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT TAKE THE CASE UP IMMEDIATELY, BUT THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED. WILL HAS ALSO FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE. THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE LOWER COURT IN LWV, AND THE SUPREME COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BOTH NAACP AND LWV IN FEBRUARY. THE SECOND TWO CASES ARE FEDERAL CHALLENGES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. ONE ARGUES THAT VOTER ID VIOLATES SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE IT HAS A DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT ON MINORITIES. THE OTHER ARGUES THAT IT VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND CONSTITUTES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLL TAX. AFTER A LENGTHY JOINT TRIAL, JUDGE LYNN ADELMAN STRUCK DOWN THE VOTER ID LAW, AND THE STATE HAS APPEALED TO THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. DOE V. ELMBROOK SCHOOL DISTRICT: THIS CASE CHALLENGED THE ELMBROOK DISTRICT'S DECISION TO HOLD ITS GRADUATION CEREMONY IN A SPACIOUS AND COMFORTABLE CHURCH INSTEAD OF A CRAMPED AND UN-AIRCONDITIONED GYMNASIUM. RICK ESENBERG REPRESENTED ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM AS AMICUS ON THE SIDE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. IN SPLIT DECISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT USE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HAS BEEN PENDING FOR A VERY LONG TIME (WELL OVER A YEAR).
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE:
CASES RESOLVED IN 2013: ROSNO V. SCOTT: WHEN JUDGE COLAS HELD WERC IN CONTEMPT FOR ENFORCING ACT 10 AGAINST PARTIES THAT WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THAT DANE COUNTY CASE, WE KNEW A STRONG RESPONSE WAS WARRANTED. IMMEDIATELY, WE COBBLED TOGETHER A GROUP OF FOUR TEACHERS FROM AROUND THE STATE AND FILED A LAWSUIT IN WAUKESHA COUNTY SEEKING AN INJUNCTION THAT WOULD REQUIRE WERC TO HOLD RECERTIFICATION ELECTIONS BEFORE DECEMBER 1. WE INTENDED TO SEEK A RULING FROM THE JUDGE THAT WOULD FORCE WERC TO HOLD RECERTIFICATION ELECTIONS IN OUR TEACHERS' DISTRICTS, TO CREATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS THAT A HIGHER COURT WOULD HAVE TO RESOLVE. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SUPREME COURT VACATED COLAS'S CONTEMPT ORDER, WERC AGREED TO A STIPULATED JUDGMENT THAT IT WOULD HOLD THE RECERTIFICATION ELECTIONS. OVER 70 UNIONS WERE DECERTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THOSE ELECTIONS. LAUR V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE: A LOCAL STREET PREACHER WAS CITED WITH TRESPASS FOR STANDING ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OUTSIDE OF MILLER PARK, GIVING A SERMON, AND HANDING OUT CHRISTIAN LITERATURE. HE WAS NOT AGGRESSIVE, LOUD, OR BLOCKING TRAFFIC. WE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED HIM IN MUNICIPAL COURT, CONVINCING THE JUDGE THAT HE HAD A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO USE THE SIDEWALK AS A "TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM" TO SPREAD HIS MESSAGE. JERUSALEM EMPOWERED AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH V. MILWAUKEE: WILL FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING A DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE THAT A PORTION OF A SMALL MILWAUKEE CHURCH'S 4.4-ACRE LOT WAS "EXCESS" AND THEREFORE TAXABLE. FIRST, WILL CONVINCED THE JUDGE THAT A STATE LAW PREVENTING LANDOWNERS FROM CHALLENGING A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION DENIAL IN COURT UNLESS THEY PAID THE TAXES FIRST WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT APPLIED TO JEAMEC, A NON-PROFIT CHURCH WITHOUT THE RESOURCES TO PAY THE UNLAWFUL TAX BILL. WILL ALSO CONVINCED THE JUDGE, WITH HELPFUL TESTIMONY FROM THE CITY'S OWN ASSESSORS THAT THE PROPERTY MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE TAX EXEMPT, TO GRANT THE CHURCH A RETROACTIVE TAX EXEMPTION. IBRAHIM V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE: ON BEHALF OF LOCAL TAXI-CAB DRIVERS, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE SUED THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE SEEKING TO OVERTURN AN ORDINANCE CAPPING THE NUMBER OF CAB LICENSES AVAILABLE AT AN ARBITRARY NUMBER. THIS CAP CREATED A MASSIVE BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO START THEIR OWN CAB BUSINESS (AS OPPOSED TO DRIVING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS), BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THOSE PERMITS SOARED TO APPROXIMATELY $150,000. JUDGE JANE CARROLL AGREED WITH IJ, STRIKING DOWN THE ORDINANCE AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF ECONOMIC LIBERTY. THE CITY APPEALED, AND WILL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER GROUP OF TAXI-CAB DRIVERS. HOWEVER, THE CITY AMENDED ITS ORDINANCE, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 100 PERMITS, AND THEN DISMISSED ITS OWN APPEAL. WE ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING WHETHER THE NEW ORDINANCE COMPLIES WITH CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE ALSO CLOSELY WATCHING A NEW LAWSUIT BY PERMIT-HOLDERS SEEKING TO STRIKE DOWN THE ORDINANCE CREATING THE NEW PERMITS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER QUALITY V. UW BOARD OF REGENTS: VARIOUS UW SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION REFUSED TO RELEASE COPIES OF SYLLABI USED IN THEIR TEACHER TRAINING COURSES. WILL FILED AN OPEN RECORDS LAWSUIT IN CHALLENGING THAT REFUSAL, WHICH LED TO A VERY FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT FOR OUR CLIENTS. THE RECORDS WERE TURNED OVER WITH ONLY MINIMAL RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR USE, AND NCTQ WILL BE ABLE TO USE THE DATA IN THEIR UPCOMING REPORT, TO BE PUBLISHED IN CONJUNCTION WITH U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, ON THE QUALITY OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA. FEES SOUGHT IN 2012 AND PAID DURING 2013 WERE $9,600. RICE V. MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD: IN OUR FIRST CASE AND OUR FIRST VICTORY WE PROVED THAT THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD VIOLATED OPEN MEETINGS LAWS WHEN THEY FAILED TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE THAT THE BOARD WOULD BE ADOPTING A REDISTRICTING PLAN. HOEKSTRA V. CITY OF BAYFIELD: THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGED ANTI-COMPETITIVE BED & BREAKFAST REGULATIONS IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN. WE SETTLED THE CASE WHEN THE CITY AGREED TO AMEND ITS ORDINANCE TO REMOVE THE OFFENDING PROVISIONS. VANDEN BOOGART V. CHRISTENSEN: THIS CASE WAS A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE OF A SMALL TOWN NEAR GREEN BAY THAT PLACED A NEAR-BLANKET PROHIBITION ON ALL SIGNS PLACED ON PERSONAL PROPERTY IN RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ZONES. TOWN OFFICIALS USED THE ORDINANCE TO SILENCE THEIR CRITICS WHILE IGNORING VIOLATIONS BY THEIR SUPPORTERS. THE TOWN AMENDED ITS ORDINANCE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY IN RESPONSE TO OUR LAWSUIT, AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY FEES AGAINST THE TOWN IN A SETTLEMENT. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED IN 2013 WERE $19,621. BALDWIN-WOODVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT OPEN MEETINGS COMPLAINT: WE FILED AN OPEN MEETINGS COMPLAINT WITH THE ST. CROIX COUNTY DA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL ALLEGING THAT BWSD VIOLATED OPEN MEETINGS LAWS WHEN THEY WENT INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS AND VOTE ON AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD CHRISTMAS BONUS FOR ALL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES. WE DECIDED NOT TO BRING A LAWSUIT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE GOAL OF BRINGING ATTENTION TO THE MATTER HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; WE HAD NO DESIRE TO TRY AND RECOVER THE CHRISTMAS BONUSES FROM TEACHERS. MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD OPEN MEETINGS COMPLAINT: WE FILED AN OPEN MEETINGS COMPLAINT WITH THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY DA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL ALLEGING THAT THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VIOLATED OPEN MEETINGS LAWS WHEN THEY USED A "WALKING QUORUM" (A SERIES OF MEETINGS BETWEEN MEMBERS DESIGNED TO AGREE ON A COURSE OF ACTION WHILE AVOIDING THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW) TO AGREE TO FIRE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KIMBERLY WALKER. ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT BRING A LAWSUIT IN THIS CASE, WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN BRINGING ATTENTION TO THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD'S LAX ATTITUDE TOWARD THE REQUIREMENTS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT. WISCONSIN PROSPERITY NETWORK V. GAB: THIS CASE, AN ORIGINAL ACTION IN THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, CHALLENGED GAB RULES PURPORTING TO REGULATE INDEPENDENT POLITICAL EXPENDITURES OF AS LITTLE AS $25. RICK ESENBERG ARGUED THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE COURT SPLIT 3-3, WITH THE LIBERAL JUSTICES WANTING TO HOLD FOR THE GAB AND THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES WANTING TO DISMISS THE CASE AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11
FORM 990 IS REVIEWED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND BOARD PRESIDENT PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C
BOARD MEMBERS AND KEY PERSONNEL COMPLETE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. DISCLOSURE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE REVIEWED BY THE ENTIRE BOARD.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15
COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND KEY PERSONNEL IS REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY THE BOARD. COMPARATIVE DATA IS USED TO REVIEW COMPENSATION LEVELS FOR ALL STAFF.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 18
THE ORGANIZATION'S FORM 990 IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AT THE ORGANIZATION'S LOCATION DURING BUSINESS HOURS. COPIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19
ALL GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.