¶ 45. (dissenting). The issue in this case is whether Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d)2. requires a class 2 notice of a public hearing for any legislative proposal to amend an existing zoning ordinance before that proposal may be approved. The court of appeals concluded that such a notice is required. The *23majority concludes otherwise. Because I agree with the court of appeals, I respectfully dissent.
FACTS
¶ 46. On September 23, 1997, two "files" were introduced in the Milwaukee Common Council. One file, Number 970857, removed from the existing zoning ordinances two planned developments at a particular site in the 6th aldermanic district and established in their place a general planned development to be known as Humboldt Yards. A second file, Number 970859, changed the new zoning at that site from a general planned development to "a detailed planned development known as Humboldt Yards (Commercial Parcel) Phase 1." Both files were referred to the zoning, neighborhoods and development committee of the common council. The zoning committee, in turn, sent the files to the city plan commission which recommended their approval on January 7, 1998, and then returned them to the zoning committee.
¶ 47. Thereafter, the City published class 2 notices on January 20 and January 27, 1998, advising the public of a hearing on the two files to be held February 3, 1998.
¶ 48. The zoning committee held its hearing and received extensive testimony on the two files. Then, over the objection of committee member Marlene Johnson-Odom, the alderwoman who represented the project site, the committee voted to hold the files to the call of the chair. The zoning committee met again on February 24,1998, and again it held the files.
¶ 49. Council President John Kalwitz reacted immediately. In a letter to all members of the common council, Kalwitz indicated that he would introduce duplicate files, refer them to a different committee of *24which he was chair, and cause his committee to act on the new files if the zoning committee did not send the old files to the common council at its March 17, 1998 meeting. On February 26, Kalwitz introduced the new files, Numbers 971743 and 971744, and referred these new files to the steering and rules committee.
¶ 50. As Kalwitz feared, the zoning committee did not act. Consequently, the steering and rules committee met on April 1, 1998, held a hearing, approved the two new files, and sent them to the common council, which approved them on May 5, 1998. There is no dispute that the April 1 hearing on the new files was not preceded by a class 2 notice.1
ANALYSIS
¶ 51. As the majority correctly notes, the controlling statute is Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d)2., which reads in part:
The council may adopt amendments to an existing zoning ordinance after first submitting the proposed amendments to the city plan commission, board of public land commissioners or plan committee for recommendation and report and after providing the notices as required in subd. l.b. of the proposed amendments and hearings thereon. . . .A hearing shall be held on the proposed amendments by, at the council's option, the council, the plan commission, the board of public land commissioners or the plan committee. If the council does not receive recommendations and a report from the plan commission, board of public land commissioners or plan committee within 60 days of submitting the proposed amendments, the council may hold hearings *25without first receiving the recommendations and report.
¶ 52. File Numbers 970857 and 970859 were sent to both the plan commission and a council committee and were the subject of a public hearing in the committee after publication of the class 2 notice required by Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d)2. In every respect, the treatment of these files complied with the statute. By contrast, File Numbers 971743 and 971744 were referred to a council committee and were the subject of a public hearing before that committee, but the hearing was not preceded by a class 2 notice identifying the new files by number.
¶ 53. The two sets of files may have been identical in substance. Nonetheless, these files were separate legislative proposals. They had different file numbers. They could, in theory, have had different sponsors. They were, in fact, introduced at different times. They were, in fact, referred to different committees. The evidence of this is in the record. The Master Report on File Number 970857, as printed on April 3, 1998, shows no action on this file subsequent to February 24, 1998. The Master Report on File Number 970859, as printed on April 3, 1998, shows no action on this file subsequent to February 24, 1998. Yet, these two files were the very files approved by the Milwaukee Common Council on April 11, 2000, two years after the steering and rules committee had completed action on the other files.
¶ 54. A citizen who carefully monitored the progress of File Numbers 970857 and 970859 could have been blindsided by council action on File Numbers 971743 and 971744, because the latter files were completely separate proposals. As the court of appeals put it:
*26Persons alerted by the publication that preceded consideration of File Numbers 970859 and 970857 (the old files) by the zoning committee would have no reason to suspect that a parallel effort was being started before a new committee. . . . Indeed, as the City candidly admits in its brief before us: "The Original Files were not 'taken from committee' but, as acknowledged in Appellant's Second Amended Complaint, remain pending before the Zoning, Neighborhoods and Development Committee." (Capitalization in original, record reference omitted.) Thus, anyone checking with the zoning committee would find that File Numbers 970859 and 970857 were still on hold — at the very time a public hearing on new files before a different committee was setting the stage for the rezoning of the land.
Oliveira v. City of Milwaukee, 2000 WI App 49, ¶ 12, 233 Wis. 2d 532, 608 N.W.2d 419.
¶ 55. The arguments before the steering and rules committee may have been essentially the same as the arguments before the zoning committee, but that is beside the point. The make-up of the second committee was substantially different from the make-up of the first committee. The members of the second committee could not be expected to know what was said to the first committee any more than they could be expected to hear a tree fall in a forest if they were not there.
¶ 56. The issue in this case transcends the parties. It must be acknowledged that the plaintiffs cannot complain that they were uninformed about the proceedings in the steering and rules committee. Individual notices were sent to interested parties. Both Shawnette Smart and Robert Klavetter testified at the second hearing. Moreover, the alderpersons on the zoning committee who blocked action on the old files *27represented a clear minority of the full council. Hence, the council majority should have had some means to take action on the old files.
¶ 57. The means selected, however, is too susceptible to abuse to pass muster. It did not comply with either the letter or the spirit of Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d)2.
¶ 58. The majority holds that two distinct common council files, or, more specifically, two distinct sets of council files, are to be treated as indistinguishable if they are identical in substance. The impact of this amazing conclusion is that as long as one file, or one set of files, receives the requisite class 2 notice and hearing, any identical file or set of files may be approved by the common council without a new class 2 notice or hearing. The controlling statute, Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d)2., allegedly requires nothing more.
¶ 59. This holding undermines fair notice to the public and invites legislative gamesmanship. To illustrate, the statute clearly authorizes the common council to act on a zoning amendment after there has been a class 2 notice and hearing. If the notice and hearing do not have to relate to a particular file, then one committee could approve File A before notice is given on File B in a different committee; the common council would be authorized to act on File A at any time after a class 2 notice had been given and a hearing had been held on File B. Moreover, duplicate files could be introduced and referred to every committee of the council. A class 2 notice and hearing would be required for only one of these files, diverting attention from the file that was eventually taken up and approved. Finally, if a file were given proper notice and hearing and then defeated in committee, multiple other files would remain eligible for approval. Because of these *28disturbing possibilities, the court has created a blueprint for mischief.
¶ 60. The judiciary should not invade the inner workings of a legislative body to forestall or redress these potential abuses. Instead, this court should interpret Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d)2. to create a bright line rule: Each legislative proposal to amend a zoning ordinance must receive a class 2 notice and hearing before it may be approved by the common council.
¶ 61. This is not unreasonable. In the present case, the common council could have acted to withdraw the old files from the zoning committee by suspending the rules or otherwise forcing release of the hostage files. Under these circumstances, the public would have received all the notice the statute requires. In the alternative, the new files could have been given the proper class 2 notice and a prompt hearing before the plan commission or the steering and rules committee, with plenty of time for council approval.
¶ 62. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.
The term "class 2 notice" is explained in ¶ 24 of the majority opinion.