Opinion ID: 864451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the commission has authority to

Text: PENALIZE KOENIG FOR THE ALLEGED ACTIONS. ¶14. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Division (ABC) is a division of the Mississippi State Tax Commission (Commission). The Commission is the exclusive wholesaler for alcoholic beverages in Mississippi. Miss. Code Ann. § 67-1-41. The Legislature has prescribed various permits for alcoholic beverage related businesses. In order to sell unopened alcoholic beverages, not to be consumed on the premises, in a store at retail, a 7 package retailer's permit must be obtained. Id. § 67-1-51(b). Liquor manufacturers or producers send sales persons to retail stores to promote their brands and convince the retailers to carry their products. This practice requires a solicitor's permit. Id. § 67-1-51(d). Koenig has had a solicitor's permit since 1982. ¶15. The Commission has the power and duty [t]o revoke, suspend or cancel, for violation of or noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter or the law the production and sale of native wines, or any lawful rules and regulations of the commission issued hereunder, or for sufficient cause, any permit issued by it under the provisions of this chapter. Id. § 67-1-37(b). Before a permit is issued the commission shall satisfy itself. . . that . . . each of its principal officers and directors, is of good moral character and, in addition, enjoys a reputation of being a peaceable, law abiding citizen of the community in which he resides, and is generally fit for the trust to be reposed in him... Id. § 67-1-57(a) (emphasis added). ¶16. The Commission submitted in its second order that if the permittee fails to maintain the qualifications set forth in § 67-1-57(a), the Commission is authorized to revoke, suspend or cancel the permit pursuant to § 67-1-37(b) which was the Commission's original stated basis for the suspension of Koenig's permit. Koenig argues that the trust reposed language of § 67-1-57(a) applies to those applying for a permit. The Chancellor noted this argument in his order and held that this section did not apply to Koenig's actions at issue. The statute is clear; it begins with the phrase, [b]efore a permit is issued. Additionally, no other provision of the Code states that § 67-1-57(a) applies to maintaining the permit. It only 8 states that it applies to seeking a permit. That is not to say that a permittee is no longer accountable for his actions, but the actions at issue here do not fall under that statutory section. ¶17. Koenig also argues that the Commission stated no violation of law or regulation of which Koenig was guilty and that to suspend Koenig's permit under the sufficient cause language of § 67-1-37(b) is unconstitutional. Legislative power may not be vested with an arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion. State v. Allstate Ins. Co., 231 Miss. 869, 882, 97 So.2d 372, 375 (1957). The Chancellor affirmed the suspension on this basis in the second appeal. This argument requires a closer look. ¶18. The Commission argues that Koenig violated the trust reposed as set forth in § 67-1- 57 (a) and was, therefore, subject to suspension under § 67-1-37(b). As noted above, we find that § 67-1-57(a) does not apply to the actions at issue here. Therefore, the question is, can Koenig be suspended under § 67-1-37(b) alone? We find that the “sufficient cause language within the statute is an express grant of power that does not give arbitrary or capricious discretion to the Commission. ¶19. We have stated that government agencies have only such powers that are expressly granted to them, or necessarily implied in their grant of authority. Any acts which are not so authorized are void. Farrish Gravel Co. v. Miss. State Highway Comm'n, 458 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Miss. 1984) (citing Strong v. Bostick, 420 So.2d 1356 (Miss. 1982); Golding v. Salter, 234 Miss. 567, 107 So.2d 348 (1958)). The Mississippi Legislature has been adamant about the strict controls over alcoholic beverage sales and consumption. The 9 intention of the Legislature has been to maintain that strictness of controls via the Commission and its ABC division. The Legislature gave an express grant of power to the Commission to suspend, revoke or cancel permits. We find that the Legislature intended for that power to extend to actions for which the Legislature could not or did not account in drafting the statute. The Commission is given authority under § 67-1-37 to revoke, suspend or cancel a permit for either non-compliance or for other sufficient cause. ¶20. Therefore, as long as there was sufficient evidence before the Commission to suspend the permit, we will not disturb that finding. The Chancellor has twice reviewed the evidence and ultimately ruled that there was sufficient evidence. Upon our own review of the evidence in the record, we agree that there was sufficient evidence under § 67-1-37(b) to support a suspension of Koenig's permit. ¶21. The record contains testimony and affidavits supporting both sides. The Commission and the Chancellor found the evidence against Koenig, specifically the witness testimony as to the misrepresentations by Mrs. Koenig, to be convincing. Most importantly, even after the cease and desist letter was sent, Koenig continued to sell the items even after the ABC put it on notice that they were not proper items to sell. Koenig totally disregarded the authority and power of the ABC. Koenig is not new to dealing with the ABC or its regulations. Koenig has pushed the envelope in the past. As noted previously, Koenig was in a situation quite similar to the instant case in 1997. While Koenig was not found to be in violation of any regulations at that time, it was put on notice as to the proper procedures 10 to follow. The 1997 matter dealt with Regulation No. 54, the same one at issue here. Regulation No.54 clearly states that [a]ny questions regarding the permissibility of products intended for sale by package retailers governed by this regulation should be submitted, in writing, to the Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division. ABC Reg. No. 54. Koenig did not do this. Moreover, Dave Koenig testified that he and his employees had discussed the sale of cherries, olives and beans and had determined for themselves that they were legal. A red flag should have gone up, especially in light of the previous dealings with the ABC, that this was not the proper way to proceed. At the minimum, Koenig should have followed the mandate given in the cease and desist letter until further review was had. For this reason, we affirm the Chancellor. We find a detailed analysis of Regulation No. 54 at this time to be unnecessary. ¶22. Koenig also asserts that ABC Regulation No. 31 does not apply to it in this action. Regulation No. 31 states as follows: The manufacturer's registered representative shall be held responsible for all activities, including the personal conduct, of all employees of the manufacturer in connection with the representation of their business in this state. Every employee or representative of a manufacturer shall observe state laws and the rules and regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division of the State Tax Commission. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., Reg. No. 31 (emphasis added). The Commission charged Koenig with failure to maintain responsibility over the personal conduct of its employees by permitting them to solicit orders for and to sell said items. Regulation No. 31 is directed at the employees of the manufacturer, not at a solicitor's employees. Our common law 11 pertaining to agency deals sufficiently with the responsibility Koenig has with regard to his employees and obviously is not at issue here as it is the actions of the employees of Koenig that are at issue. Those actions, in this case, are imputed to the employer. Koenig has admitted responsibility for the actions of its employees. Therefore, this issue is without merit.