Before Fox and Romano, C.JJ., Collins, VC.J, Wang, S.J.
On Appeal from a panel decision, Collins VC.J and Fox, S.J. present.
CHIEF JUSTICE EMERITUS ROMANO delivered the unanimous Judgment of the Court.

NATHANIEL ROMANO, Chief Justice emeritus. Robbie Earl For ASM, a Registered Student Organization (RSO), appeals the finding of a panel of this Court that they violated election rules and improperly spent segregated fees allocated from the Open Fund. Student Election Commission v. Robbie Earl For ASM, 2005 ASM SJ 4. We granted appeal to resolve the question of whether a RSO is bound by provisions of ASM pertaining to the use of segregated fee funds which are incorporated by reference in a contract. Grant of Appeal, 2005 SJ Ord. 10.

The primary basis for Appellant's argument is that RSOs and students seeking to use ASM resources should not be bound by ASM laws and policies unless there is specific reference and incorporation. To hold otherwise, it argues, is to bind students to an archaic and byzantine labyrinth of rules and policies difficult to navigate.

While we sympathize with Appellant's difficulty, it is clear to us that RSOs who seek to use the resources of the ASM must be bound by the ASM's rules and policies. ASM is not an institution separate from the student body; rather, ASM is the student body. ASM Const. Art. III §1 ("all students enrolled in the University of Wisconsin-Madison…are members of the ASM.") Further, all RSOs, to the extent that they are made up of registered students, are likewise members of the ASM. ASM serves as the voice of students, recognized by state statute as the primary governing body for the student body. Wis. Stat. §36.09(5) (2003-2004).

Under the state statute, it is the student body, in corporate form, that will establish the rules and procedures-the laws-which will govern student life. Id. The rules established by ASM through its official organs and consistent with the ASM Constitution are the laws that govern student life, drafted by students, enacted by students, enforced by students, and binding on all students. While Appellant may assert that it does not like those rules, or that it does not believe ASM adequately represents the student body, it is the institutional structure that exercises authority under the ASM Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has long recognized that the state statute gives to the institutional corporate structure, not the students individually, the authority to set rules for the regulation of student life. See, Student Ass'n of UW-Milwaukee v. Baum, 74 Wis. 2d 283; 246 N.W.2d 622 (1976).

With that in mind, we think it clear that Appellant was bound by the laws established by ASM to govern the distribution and use of segregated fees. The Finance Committee, under the supervision of the Student Council, established the rules for distribution. ASM Const. Art. VII §1(a) et seq. The Student Election Commission, using the authority delegated to it by the Student Judiciary, established the election rules. ASM Const. Art. X §§3(a), (b); cf. ASM By-laws §6.01 et seq. (2005). Appellant alleged nothing in its original defense to the extent that these policies were enacted in an unconstitutional manner; nor do we believe that there is any evidence to support such an allegation. The policies were valid, and binding, on Appellant.

Nor are we dissuaded from this conclusion by Appellant's reliance on American and Wisconsin interpretations of the common law of contracts. Appellant contends that the Anglo-American common law requires an exacting level of reference before incorporation into a contract. We do not find Appellant's argument to be persuasive.

We have long held that we will use the common law where appropriate, but modify it to apply to the needs and actual situation of ASM. See, e.g. Gordon & Halamish v. Leonard, 2005 ASM SJ 3 (applying common law of agency); Legal Information Center v. Werner Appeal 2003 ASM SJ 18 (en banc) (applying common law requirements of notice). We note that Wisconsin has literally thousands upon thousands of pages of regulations, from the Wisconsin Statutes to the Administrative Code, to various ordinances and municipal regulations. These may very well be cause to require specific reference.

However, those two public policy goals are not present in ASM's situation. ASM has relatively little documentation that must be reviewed. Approximately 50 pages of statutory law, and a few guidelines that have been established by various committees that apply only to those committees are all that an RSO need review. All are subject to open records requests and accessible via the ASM website at no cost to students. In such a case, we will not import a highly technical, highly archaic form of contract law into the ASM common law. To do so is not only imprudent, but gives rise to disrupting the very funding system that the Constitution has as its primary goal to protect.

In this matter we find no reason to disturb the judgment below that Appellant did indeed violate the election and funding laws of ASM. Judgment for Petitioner-Appellee will be affirmed.

However, we must note the fact that the situation presented is disturbing. While Appellant is undoubtedly bound by the rules, it seems that, apparently through neglect, the various ASM bodies involved failed to fully explain the extent of the rules Appellant was to be bound by. While the policies and procedures guide of the Open Fund specifically stated that all ASM rules and laws were to be followed, the only rules that were directly available to Appellant were those on that page itself. Those rules failed to mention the ASM Constitution, the ASM By-laws, or the election rules.

Further, despite being clearly an election-related group, Appellant was given no information regarding the ASM elections at any point. Appellant's name is clearly of the type used by political campaigns. The mission statement used by Appellant clearly stated that it was organized for the sole purpose of electing Robbie Earl to the ASM Student Council. Appellant listed as the uses of the funds the purchase of materials for direct use in the Spring 2005 election. Yet, at no point did any member of ASM think to mention the possibility of violating the law by using the funds inappropriately. At no point was Appellant directly and actually notified of this important rule.

For almost two years now, it has been the explicit and mandatory law of the ASM that officers and appointees of the ASM must provide actual notification of applicable rules to any person who will be bound by that provision. Legal Information Center v. Werner Appeal, supra. The LIC case was an en banc case and so is mandatory authority; it is the law.

In LIC, we reversed a decision of the Student Services Finance Committee on the grounds that due process was violated because the Chair of the committee failed to actually notify the Legal Information Center of the applicable legal rules. Due process requires that ASM actually set forth a procedure, and follow that procedure without fail; it also requires that affected individuals be notified of the laws that may impact them. In LIC we stated "[n]otification does not mean merely sending out information into the vast abyss of human knowledge, but instead requires a person to be given real and true knowledge of the information that is to be offered. Anything less would be no notification." Id. at 4. Without actually notifying individuals of what might be binding, we give them no chance to conform their actions to the law.

Here, we cannot say that actual notification occurred. Actual notification is tested by a four-part analysis. "To be actual notification, there must be (1) information of the fact, (2) that is actually communicated, (3) by an authorized person, and (4) the recipient should reasonably have received it." Id. It is the second and fourth facets that are lacking here.

Given the manner in which the various rules and procedures were putatively communicated, we cannot say that they were "actually communicated" in the legal sense. True, the information was published and is freely accessible, but Appellant, and those similarly situated, were not told where the information was, or even of its existence. This is the classic case of "merely sending out information into the vast abyss of human knowledge" that we rejected in LIC. Id. In order to actually communicate, the Appellee would have to insure that Appellant knew of the existence of the various legal commands, and knew how to access them.

Further, we cannot say that either the Finance Committee or the Student Election Commission should reasonably have believed that Robbie Earl For ASM received such information. If information is not actually communicated, it is not unreasonable to say it was not received. Indeed, it would be bordering on the unreasonable to say that Appellant received information that was not actually communicated.

Given that Appellee and other ASM bodies failed to provide actual notification, we cannot, consistent with the Constitution, inflict any punishment directly on Appellant. We are convinced that Appellant did violate the laws of the ASM. Yet, we are also convinced that various ASM bodies failed to act consistently with the due process clause. To punish Appellant under these circumstances would mean not only that we have voided our own mandatory precedent, but also would make us complicit in due process violation. We will do neither.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment, but we will reverse the specific remedies, exercising our plenary power on appeal under Rule 22(c), Student Judiciary Rules of Procedure (2005).

Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein:

IT IS ORDERED that the Judgment of the Panel below, entered at 2005 ASM SJ 4, is AFFIRMED

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fine entered against Appellant, in the amount of $88.00US and payable to the Finance Committee, is REVERSED

IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that the permanent injunction entered against Appellant, prohibiting the distribution of any further Open Fund monies, is REVERSED

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Stay of Judgment entered by this Court pending appeal, located at 2005 SJ Ord. 10, is hereby VACATED and the Judgment of the Court is to be executed forthwith.

By the Court,
IT IS SO ORDERED.

* * * * *

TIMOTHY LEONARD, Student Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

* * * * *