• The appointment of a Special Master and a full investigation is exactly one of the remedies SaveWCAL attorney Mike McNabb requested of the court - first in his February 27, 2007, Letter Brief and later during the hearing itself.  The judge has agreed with SaveWCAL. This is a very important acknowledgment of the strength of SaveWCAL's position regarding the WCAL charitable trust.

• It is not a "new judge" who will look at this matter, it is a Special Master appointed by the court who happens to be a retired judge (as Special Masters often are) and who will report the findings of his investigation back to Judge Wolf of Rice County District Court. Judge Wolf will make the final ruling in the current hearing.
  

• The headline and article body claim that the investigation will deal only with assets and donations received by St. Olaf after the sale. Contrary to St. Olaf's claim and the Northfield News' reporting, there is absolutely no mention of a limitation to investigate only "post-sale" assets/donations in the court's Order. The Order reads:

"1. The special master shall investigate and determine the amount of assets and donations that are attributable to WCAL, including those outlined in the Amended Petition by the Petitioner."

By deciding to omit limitations (i.e., "post-sale"), the judge is completely opening up the scope of the investigation to the entire history of the WCAL charitable trust. This means all assets and donations including, but -- therefore -- not limited to, the ones that St. Olaf included in their post-sale Petition.

• The article reports St. Olaf Associate Vice President for Advancement and College Relations Janet Kringen Thompson '70 as saying:

" 'This court action is typical when programs cease to exist and donations continue to roll in for those programs,' said Janet Thompson, St. Olaf's associate vice president for advancement and college relations."

The appointment of a special master and requiring a full investigation is not a "typical" response to a charitable trust petition if the court is of the opinion that a charitable trust has been handled correctly and lawfully.

• The article goes on to report:

" 'The sale is not part of the matter before the court right now,' Thompson said, trying to clear any confusion with the other lawsuit alleging that the radio station should have been recognized as a charitable trust. '[St. Olaf College] initiated the proceedings.' "

While it is true that the sale is not before the court "right now", it is very likely that the Special Master's investigation will place the handling and sale of WCAL assets squarely and directly before the court for consideration as part of the judge's final decision in this hearing.

SaveWCAL is also intrigued by the report of "[an]other lawsuit" regarding WCAL as a charitable trust. SaveWCAL has never filed a lawsuit regarding the standing of the WCAL charitable trust and is unaware of any other such lawsuits at this time. Is there another lawsuit out there with which St. Olaf is dealing -- or may be expecting?

More to the point, there is no need for a lawsuit since the Minnesota Attorney General (AG), the chief legal officer of the state, has already determined that WCAL is a charitable trust. The AG has requested that the Court reject St. Olaf's interpretation of charitable trust law--and, therefore, St. Olaf's petition to repurpose the funds currently held in the WCAL endowment. On June 20, 2007, the Minnesota Attorney General filed the State's Memorandum of Law and Affidavit clearly delinating that WCAL is a charitable trust. The AG's memo says:

In its April [10, 2007,] memorandum, St. Olaf attempts to circumvent charitable trust requirements for lifting restrictions on its assets by characterizing certain of its assets as not "literally" being charitable trusts and thus not subject to charitable trust principles. St. Olaf's assets, however, are undoubtedly either charitable trusts or held in charitable trusts and thus subject to charitable trust principles. Interestingly, St. Olaf's charitable trust arguments in its April memorandum are directly at odds with the charitable trust principles it sets forth in its original Petition for Release On and Instructions Regarding Administration of Certain Gifts (dated October 6, 2006 [and filed on December 28, 2007]) ("Original Petition").