we feel like two questions the first question being whether or not the illinois look at control commission correctly ruled that my client did not prove that she was a school for purposes that look of control act within one hundred feet registration from illinois state board of education as a school was the head of the registration letter is dated april thirtieth probably two thousand and eight but it was after evidence that wasn't available at the time of the hearing and now you have an opportunity if you feel that that evidence somehow would change the decision could you have that or well that's one of the points that is raised by the respondents and quite frankly there's nothing in the record that says you know what the state's process was for registering my client the fact is it did occur before their ruling we alerted them to the fact that this had occurred before the ruling and we petition to now rehear the case so that we could put on that evidence and i think one of the reasons why that was so keen is during the hearing the respondents all took the position that the illinois state board of education is who decides who that same train of thought we don't know that for sure because there was nothing put in the order did say is writing rule the way they did there were no facts no conclusions that long but we can kind of glean from the questioning that some of the commissioners may or that's an excellent question i don't know that they're necessarily synonymous with accreditation for the creation implies that the state itself has somehow put as a stamp on you but the registration is is very significant in that they associate you with the local public school district in this case the local coppa school district is in south holland the registration also allowed my client down even further access to public funds just like other public schools and i think what was t was the fact that the illinois state border education is now recognizing or registering my client as a school was the very fact that the respondents claimed was missing from my client to have a successful appeal and we obtained that that status and now as you see from the briefing their arguments completely changed as to what they now feel is appropriate is the beginning of this recession process take place before after the initial here that's not in the record again as i mentioned earlier we're not sure what the length of the stay process was that's probably a fact that we would have been able also key here is a user and associated school district code in the school district name so this letter at least that way to read it she's now a part of that local school district there been granted we would have had the opportunity then to present evidence that we could place in the record about what the registration meant what the process was so on and so forth but the parties in the courts are being denied the ability of having that true the letter does say that but i think clearly it's registering her as a school by the fact that he gives her school code i'm not sure what else they be registering her for if they're going to give her code it also talks about towards the bottom of the letter the person who writes this we hope we will work together for the excellence of cake and twelve education illinois again another reference to the fact that this she's be needed in order to now qualify as a school under that act and therefore the prohibition for having a liquor store for one hundred feet kick you now we disagree with their position because frankly we don't believe you have to be registered as a school and hence we went forth with the hearing and we believe that we but that act doesn't require actual registration by by easy but nonetheless once this evidence was obtained we couldn't you know i would never refer to it as a daycare center i think that was one of the problems before i'll c c is though her status when it was simply referred to as a daycare center and can a daycare center now be seek the protection under the liquor control act prohibition against the sale of liquor within one hundred feet i think the question here is is she also a school and i believe that we proved that for the i o c seat that she operates a school that also has facilities beyond that such as those that might be considered a daycare center so we believe we've proven that there's been virtually no contest to the fact that there are state certified teachers if there are segregated classrooms for these students that they're following the curriculum and that this learning standards that they're applying of those required by the state for any public or private school of who are teaching children of this age so that the in th case there's nothing to distinguish my client for all intents and purposes but between any other private school or public school for that matter and there's nothing about that act that would suggest that she has any say in elementary school or well i think that those references certainly have been spun by the responders to me see this is just a daycare center because that's what she responded how she responded of those documents but the term childcare is broad enough to include a school as well and certain does conduct child care services both as a daycare center as the way i think everyone traditionally thinks of it some place where parents can bring their children to have a safe place whether either at work or way versus a school which is considered to be much more instructive with certainly both of them are child care and in this particular instance the response also i think pointing in the record where there were yellow page references to my client under the heading of daycare center well those are references which my client testified she didn't place those ads she's not sure how they got there were the ones who were picked up some other way so my client is not characterized herself as simply is the access school it does not say daycare center so clearly if my client was only a daycare center she would not be included we're not saying that the legislature has included daycare centers within that definition what we're saying is our client meets the definition of a school not because she's a daycare center but because she's much more than that so if there was a case before the court where there was someone who merely was a daycare center put there with the with no educational component then they would not be able to take advantage of the ex prohibition in fact that case there's been a case that cited in our brief best of prosecco case it wasn't under the liquor control act but that was a decision where the illinois  had an opportunity to segregate daycare center from the school and in that case the decision clearly says didn't daycare center can have edging camping with or without mitch cation all purpose and that decision made it clear that  because he established me in that case did not have any evidence in the record that it had any educational purpose he could not qualify as a school well this is the exact opposite here are the record is full of references to my clients educational purposes her staff and the requirements that the state places on her in order to keep her position in that program to those all male so that my client has that educational purpose and  t if if i made it there is one issue that i think is pretty important here it's related to the law of the petition for rehearing one of the issues we have with the illinois liquor controls decisions is of a licensee there was no finals of fact there were no conclusions of law stated one of the issues we have here is now that sets up a quandary i believe for the parties and the courts as to what the purpose standard of review needs to be for this case had they said my client was in within one hundred feet well that's a pure finding of fact one of which i think is clear would be a manifest way the evidence standard that would be on us but that's not set forth we don't know if that's what the decision was he could have been we don't know i think it certainly would have been against the manifestly the evidence but nonetheless we don't even know that we don't know if the i o c see reached a conclusion that you need to be a secondary or elementary school which is what the response position is now for this court we don't know if that's what they reached they didn't say that that would be a pure question of law which i believe would be good to know for all standard there could have been a mix of facts and law they couldn't decide if they will you need to have a certain amount of your operations be dedicated to education versus state here in order to be a school and you didn't meet that standard that would be a mixed question of fact and law we don't know if that's what the i o c see reach the conclusion of so one of the issues we have before this that's a question of law it's no i don't believe that's what the act imposes that is the standard instead the access in the school it couldn't be any broader than that i think in response each as a response to kind of tak  governed that that term to be and i think one of the concerns i believe raised by the attorney general's office was well now you can open the door to study groups saying you know a cultural activities now being determined schools will best first  was not the case before the court we've got a particular case for the court that we're asking to be decided we're not asking about study groups or cultural activities but i think even more than that here we have we're following what's actually in the with respect to this being a traditional school in the sense that there are state certified teachers teaching minors the kind of material that we would expect of children at age arts and sciences and  decision of the aisle c c was appropriate should clearly be answered no it was not my class is not required to be a secondary or a public school in order to qualify under the act for your honour's crisper kelleher on behalf of the local liquor control commission learning is a worthy goal but miss bailey is argument is better suited for the legislature there are three points that i would like to make each supporting  ms the first is deference to administrative agencies second the evidence concerning the n d l seen regarding its filing its monitoring its advertising which demonstrate and you'll see in its own words is a daycare and third that a learning component does not necessarily make something a school as the point one deference is the touchstone of agency appeals whether the end you'll see is a school is a question effect that should be reviewed under the manifest weight standard even if considered a mix question the clearly erroneous standard applies this was the standard used by the circuit court finally even if the court considers this a question of stash for interpretation deference is still appropriate courts  the agency's interpretation of its operative statute so in reviews in law we would ask for the first which is that this is a question of fact and therefore under the manifest weight standard if the court again disagrees then we would ask as the circuit court used the clearly erroneous standard whether the end you'll see as a school we submit again is a question of fact or at the least is is a mix her tunnel vision of the facts considered holly and you'll see here itself before this litigation began its business license so it's childcare it's in real domestic corporation reports say discovered in this letter was created after the hearing obviously was before the room was issued but it was created after the hearing itself so the commission did not consider it did not was not aware of the additionally there was a letter from the i asked the which says that the n d l seat is not recognized for a credit there's a school and i think bad writer that piece of evidence  diminishes any import from the prior letter i received from the from the later letter of april thirtieth so i simply don't don't think that this after the fact would a geisha driven writer has has any agree is a mix question of one fact again or that under the clearly erroneous standard so the record supports the commission or the commission and the circuit court it was reasonable to schools would you think they would probably say you know that it's that's not something that's good pm one person ok so but but again if the legislature there is the remarks that the one hundred feet limitation applies to elementary and secondary schools that is there is straight from this no exceptions no not a met uneconomic that straight from representative during  recognize the accredited as a school where over the n b a c is not funded by d s p so i think those are those are important with the factors change that i'm sorry with this letter that children walking to and from school do not essentially walk past work or stores and may be tempted or there may be patrons a liquor store tempting the students i think that's the main concern and that is the record is clear is not the case in this instance because all the children attending in india all see are dropped off by their parents so the concerning net children walking past work or stores to and from school but it's my understanding because these children vary from six weeks to six years old they're not given too much leeway in terms of walking around self and i know i'm putting in a cold on society so if there's any further questions thank you i  appeal from the issuance of the local liquor license which was issued december seventeenth of two thousand and seven and the question is was the issuance of that license in violation of the law at the time and that the issue about the letter from the illinois state board that was procured by appellant in this matter did not occur until april over four months later they were in business for many years i don't think that that is at all determinative or reason three manda to the state liquor commission because i believe very strongly that it is newly created evidence that was within their power to go to the state at any time and ask whatever it is they asked and we don't know what it means to be registered because there is no record as to that which they could have done at the time of the local hearing and my client to invest in the business and the local liquor commissioner who issues does that mean that they are recognised as a school that says your institution is registered first to file for a cake through twelve which was not relating to the facts of the record at all the record was only that they had children ages three to five years old there and the only educational or learning component that they argued about was that there was a preschool program nat that it was anything more than the preschool for all program wh i think the legislative intent was scared about certain places where they felt children work especially vulnerable and exposed to alcohol sales which are primary not resit restaurants but i disagree with your comments that the legislature if they were asked would definitely include this type of a facility because they haven't included it here and they have included it in many other pieces of legislation and could this i don't believe so for instance in the sex offender act they specifically name schools and daycare centers so to me that would mean that the school did not include a daycare center and they could easily that the normally recognized chander definition for a school is not something that people would normally walk by this type of facility and say hey that's a school and i think that that's what the legislature means we here well i suppose theoretically school could in compass those things but i don't think based upon the facts of his record that it does and i think that it's important that there are that what the commission had to look at and what the local liquor commissioner had to look at at the time that they made the decision and there was no appeal filed from the issuance of the subsequent state license which was issued after the state commission made their decision so the only issue here is the issuance of the local liquor license and there are provisions in the act that if a school moves next door to a place that has a legal license and let's say that they would later be deemed to be a school because of definition seems to include this that's due to she says school but i think if you look at the program that they put into the record it's a preschool program right and i have also cited in my brief a definition of what a preschool is that's getting with you that but i think that the difference is whether it's learning or something structured as a school and recognised as a school and i do want to say correct counsel little bit in that and my position didn't never took the position that an i b s the ruling one way or the other would be determinative in this case i think as far as his argument that the standard of review required to they made findings on the necessary legal and factual points that would determine this case it is just to say yes to some questions about where the children are dropped off i think the record says that they are they they want and this is typical of preschools they line up the cars teacher comes out gets them brings them into the school they don't let the children walk around and there are other types of places where children are prominent that are not covered in this section as well pipes where there are a lot of children libraries they're not covered by the section section so although in some instances the legislature meant to protect those individuals i don't think that you can make that leap that it applies here and  i think first of all the standard of review is clearly erroneous and that the court should not overturn the decision of the liquor commission unless it finds that opposite decision is clearly eviden which i don't think is a finding that can be made in this case secondly i don't think that under the facts of this case that this entity is a school within the meaning of the liquor control act and  think that there is no merit to the petition for rehearing argument because this is new he created that evidence and not newly discovered evidence with due diligence they could have done this and i think the standard on that is clear here because the standard is really whether the decision is one that permits intelligent additional review which is the case here the decision also refers to the evidence in the hearing kno there was a hearing on a certain day and says that the apple and did not prove base or preponderance of the evidence so it's referring to the evidence of the hearing and the evidence at the hearing is all in the record and so that can be reviewed by the court and when decisions are capable of intelligent review and therefore a preschool program the registration letter talks about k through twelve education k through twelve which is not what the point does and looking trying to look at the school code and the only registration that i saw did apply to elementary and secondary school so there is no mayfield to prove that registering changes anything about the nature of their services is there is another letter that was also presented in opposing re hearing that specifically from the early childhood division this traitor of the only state board of education that makes clear that the facility is not recognized for accredited to school so it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the rehearing and with respect to the original decision the arguments have been presented the commission essentially felt that this type of very broad definition of a  school really was an expansion of a more common traditionally understood meaning of school where we distinguish between a preschool and a school that this was an expansion of legislative intent and therefore that it was a question that was best left to parties conceded before the commission that in fact they could not far in another case like this one of the commissioners themselves also stayed on the record that they believe this was the first part of this particular i should have been presented there's certainly been no cases brief on the table but there is an illinois supreme court decision cited in my brief on that issue that in fact because this is a novel issue one of the first impression that agency which normally might be given some deference because they have a lot of experience in dealing with licensees look at control add would not be given to them on this particular issue because in fact this is the first time they've had to deal with it so the public policy behind giving deference to  the agency is not present and for that reason no deference is required that also links into again the standards of review which again we believe is the no vote either because there's no contest about the fact statute be interpreted in such a manner as to foster intemperance and intemperance obviously is the opposite of drinking alcohol it's the faster the or in this case i guess the best way to to read is to prohibit the drinking of alcohol an obviously it's all it's legal to do so but when interpret in that act if there is a question about how that actually be interpreted it should be decided in favor of not allowing the sale of alcohol so in that sense it would be lead liberal with respect to the prohibition and i think maybe that's not just the students referring to is if there's a close call here all right then the prohibition one hundred foot prohibition against sales about oh near a school should be interpreted in the more liberal sense such that it prohibits the sale as opposed to fostering it there was also some reference by the will compulsory attendance laws are not a pickle with respect to determining whether or not something has a school in fact in the he can do or case it was also a school program for very young children who were not required to attend school by state law yet yet in that decision the illinois appellate court determined that they were a school for purposes of tort immunity act so clearly the fact of my client's students  young enough that their parents could not be compelled to force them to go to school is not determinative of the issue just for the court the going back to the issue about denying the petition for repairing there's being a lot of discussion about a second letter that existed that was written by the illinois state board of education and i think what's most important point out is that letter was written weeks before my client o registration so of course when they wrote the first time they were going to say my client is not a school my class not credited as a school that's because the letter was obtained before she was registered so what the effect of that letter is nullified by the second letter which now acknowledges that she obtained registration so although the response would like to harp on the first letter it really doesn't get them anywhere because it was written before the registration opinion opinion in it should be remanded back for that and there is citation to the illinois administrative review law on that point or secondly it gets remanded because it was abuse of discretion for them to deny the petition for rehearing in very there's authority for that i'm not off the top of my head sure exactly what point i was making on page twenty two but there are numerous references to my client seeking to have the remanded and we certainly do cite authority for what basis this court could use to remain a case back to the liquor commissioner if that was what you term it was appropriate liquor license she was wrong and we believe that standard is the no and secondly should dischord decide that whatever standard may have been set appropriately for what is or isn't a school and i read it that is the question here what is or this matter will be taken under advice cour