Bureau responds to Laskaris
By Andy Steinke, Dells Events
The Wisconsin Dells Visitor and Convention Bureau responded to Nick Laskaris’ letter last week through its attorney and stated it would like to work with Mt. Olympus to make the Dells more prosperous.
In a letter dated Dec. 16, attorney Doug Flygt, of DeWitt, Ross & Stevens, wrote, “As the bureau looks to the future, it would, of course, like MTO (Mt. Olympus) to become more involved with the bureau. As the bureau sorts through the issues that you have raised, we should be looking to see how the bureau and MTO could work together to make the Dells area even more successful.”
The bureau’s board of directors plan to discuss at its January meeting what can be done with non-bureau businesses and their relationship with the bureau.
Bureau Executive Director Romy Snyder declined further comment on Flygt’s letter as the situation is still a pending legal matter.
Before the bureau’s meeting on Jan. 19, Flygt wrote that it would be useful for Laskaris to sit down with Snyder to “see if there is common ground as to working through some of the bureau policies that MTO has a problem with.”
The bulk of the letter was a response to the demands and allegations Laskaris and his attorney Dale Peterson, of Stroud, Willink & Howard, made.
The following are the concerns raised by Mt. Olympus and the bureau’s responses:
Concern: The bureau’s use of room tax revenues violates village and state laws because the bureau is using the money to promote only members.
Response: “MTO’s allegations are without merit,” Flygt wrote. “The village’s room tax revenues are used to promote tourist businesses for the village.”
The bureau’s purpose, according to its by laws, is to promote the Wisconsin Dells-Lake Delton area as a major recreational/tourist destination. To that end, it engages in some marketing that promotes the area without referring to specific bureau members.
It also has programs that solely benefit bureau members, but such programs are largely self-funded through advertising, membership dues or other program revenues.
Also, because so many Dells area businesses are bureau members — 518 in 2009 — there is a strong “identity of interest” between promoting the area and promoting bureau members.
Concern: The village has unlawfully delegated its authority to spend room tax dollars to the bureau. The money must be spent “directly” by the village.
Response: “MTO’s argument is at odds with both the practical and legislative history of the room tax and activities of (local tourism entities) in Wisconsin,” Flygt wrote. “The current arrangement whereby the village pays 90 percent of the room tax revenues to the bureau for use in tourism promotion is lawful and in accordance with accepted practice in Wisconsin.”
The long-standing interpretation of the state’s room tax law, which went into effect in 1968, has been that municipalities could give public money to a local tourism entity for tourism promotion.
As for the wording in the statute that says a municipality must spend the money “directly,” that language wasn’t adopted until 1993, and there is no indication that the wording was intended to change the long-standing practice of having local tourism entities spend room tax money, Flygt wrote.
Concern: The bureau’s actions violate equal protection laws by spending room tax dollars to exclusively benefit bureau members.
Response: As stated above, Flygt said this argument is incorrect because the bureau promotes the whole Dells area, and the benefitting parties are all Dells businesses, not just bureau businesses.
“Additionally, membership in the bureau is open to all who meet the criteria set forth in the membership organizational documents,” Flygt wrote. “Such criteria are logical and rational for nonprofit organizations of this type...(Mt. Olympus) is the only person whose membership application was denied for the calendar year 2009.”
Equal protection laws, he wrote, don’t erect a shield against private conduct, even if that conduct is discriminatory.
“Even if (Mt. Olympus) characterizes itself as a ‘class’ which is being ‘discriminated’ against because of some portion of the room tax revenues may benefit less than all businesses in the village, a court is going to defer to the judgment of the village and the bureau as to the spending of the room tax revenues,” Flygt wrote.
Concern: Mt. Olympus’ application to become a bureau member was denied, withholding from Mt. Olympus the benefits of room tax revenue.
Response: “It is our understanding,” Flygt wrote, “that MTO chose not to apply for membership in 2010 because it did not want to follow bureau policies and did not want to pay the dues.”
The bureau has the right, legally, to chose its own members because it is a voluntary organization, which means it can exclude anybody it deems unfit for membership.
“When a prospective applicant indicates that it does not want to comply with policies that are designed for the betterment of the tourism industry in the Dells area, the only logical outcome is for the board to deny membership,” Flygt wrote.
Concern: The bureau’s marketing and advertising policies violate federal and state antitrust laws by prohibiting members from advertising prices and discounts.
Response: “To the contrary,” Flygt wrote, “the bureau’s policies are designed to promote a code of conduct which reduces false or misleading advertising and promotes the quality of the member’s service.”
Because visitors often patronize more than one Dells area business, it is important that there aren’t any bad experiences that could spoil the goodwill efforts by other businesses to make someone’s stay a good one, he wrote.
“The bureau feels that the prevention of false and misleading advertising is an important way to promote customer satisfaction,” Flygt wrote.
As for use of the word “discount,” Flygt wrote, “An entity’s price is, and always shall be, its own price set independently by the entity. But trying to sway tourists with the tactics and urgency best reserved to door-to-door salesman can be misleading to tourists and does not assist them in their decision making.”
Laskaris and his attorney maintain that the bureau is wrong, but Laskaris said he is willing to meet with Snyder before the board’s January meeting to discuss the issues at hand.
Peterson said the bureau’s decision doesn’t just affect Mt. Olympus, “It’s for all other businesses that are in the village that are deprived the benefit of the room tax and the expenses made by the bureau.”
He went on to say, “If you aren’t a visitor bureau member, you are invisible. There is no promotion. There is no identification...Anyone who says differently is not being candid.”
Laskaris said some area businesses aren’t members simply because they can’t afford the dues. “Why shouldn’t they be included in the community?” he asked.
Laskaris said the minimum he’d like to see done is have non-bureau members listed on the bureau’s Web site, over the phone and in their advertising pieces with an e-mail address, phone number and a link to the business’ Web site.
“We all have to be treated equally,” Laskaris said. “It’s unfortunate that an individual or business must go this far, and spend the money I’ve spent, to try and negotiate a deal that should be there anyway.”