The Role of the Wisconsin Attorney General in Charity Oversight: A Review of Past Practice, Current Law, and Their Implications
“The Role of the Wisconsin Attorney General in Charity Oversight: A Review of Past Practice, Current Law, and Their Implications,” a program co-sponsored by the Law School and the Helen Bader Institute for Nonprofit Management at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, unfolded last Thursday in a packed room with an audience comprised of nonprofit executives, attorneys who counsel nonprofits, and, of course, students. The lunchtime event began with introductions by Dean Joseph Kearney and the Helen Bader Institute’s Executive Director, John Palmer Smith. Next, Barb Duffy, the Program Manager for Research at the Helen Bader Institute, set the stage by highlighting issues addressed in her article published last May in the Exempt Organization Tax Review. The program’s three panelists included two attorneys from the Wisconsin Attorney General’s office, Steven P. Means and Charlotte Gibson, as well as a nonprofit legal scholar, Evelyn Brody. The panelists addressed the Wisconsin Attorney General’s ability to oversee charities under current Wisconsin law, the practices of other state Attorneys General in charity oversight, and the recent Conserve School case. Audio of the program is available on the Law School’s webcast page.


If Congress makes an obvious error in drafting a statute, can a court correct that error by effectively adding something to the statute that is not there? Such was the interesting jurisprudential question the Seventh Circuit confronted last January in United States v. Head, 552 F.3d 640 (2009). Because of a mix-up with statutory cross-references, the statute that lists permissible conditions of supervised release in the federal system does not include assignment to a halfway house. However, the first seven circuits to consider the question held that sentencing judges could indeed order placement in a halfway house, reasoning that a literal interpretation of the statute would produce an absurdity. In Head, the Seventh Circuit bucked the trend and rejected the government’s absurdity argument. (My post on Head is