Published March 1, 2009 by

Judge Borene rules in favor of St. Olaf and MPR vs. SaveWCAL

wcallogotn On the 8 am newscast on MPR’s KNOW 91.1 FM yesterday, I heard that Rice County District Court Judge Bernard Borene ruled in favor of St. Olaf and MPR on the SaveWCAL petition to "redress a breach of charitable trust" on the sale of WCAL to MPR. There’s nothing posted to the MPR nor St. Olaf websites about the decision but SaveWCAL board president Ruth Sylte blogged the organization’s response to it yesterday around 10:30 am. I last blogged about this battle in June 2008: SaveWCAL wins another round; Judge Wolf scolds MN Attorney General’s office. Local media coverage: Northfield News story; KYMN story.

Griff Wigley

Griff Wigley

Colleges Media

MPR SaveWCAL St. Olaf

7 Comments

  1. Julie Bixby said:

    So what happens now? Does this mean it is all over?

    March 3, 2009
  2. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Yes, I would also like to know where SaveWCAL goes from here.

    March 3, 2009
  4. Griff Wigley said:

    SaveWCAL had its day in front of the MN Court of Appeals yesterday. Strib: Appeals Court hears WCAL radio trust case.

    “We’re trying to wake up the courts and wake up the public about what donor intent means and what are the rights of donors,” said Ruth Sylte, president of SaveWCAL and a St. Olaf alum.

    The three-judge panel questioned that reasoning during oral arguments Tuesday.

    Both sides agree that there was never any formal documentation of a charitable trust. But Michael McNabb, attorney for SaveWCAL, argued that “the act of writing out a check payable to the station … creates the trust.”

    October 28, 2009
  6. Griff Wigley said:

    Ruth Sylte, president of SaveWCAL, posted to the SaveWCAL blog earlier today: St. Olaf shares the news — but not the whole story:

    Did you notice that St. Olaf points people towards a StarTribune article — but not towards the easily downloadable copy of the actual Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling (pdf)?

    Could it be that they do not want people reading the actual ruling?

    Yes.

    Why? Because the Appeals Court decision has a section at the beginning of the ruling called “Facts” that NONE of the parties dispute and which begins to lift the veil on St. Olaf ‘s true conduct with regards to the sale of WCAL.

    We also note that St. Olaf refers to rulings made by Judge Borene — rulings that the Appeals Court pointedly did not affirm.

     

    December 30, 2009
  7. David Ludescher said:

    The Court of Appeals’ decision is an odd opinion given all the legal complications of the case and the appeal.

    December 31, 2009

Leave a Reply