Opinion ID: 1374852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Scope of the Commission's Authority

Text: Petitioners next argue that the Commission lacks the authority or jurisdiction to enforce the UCRA. To make this point, they rely on our decision in Williams v. Public Service Commission, 754 P.2d 41 (Utah 1988), wherein we stated that a commission can only assert those [powers] which are expressly granted or clearly implied as necessary to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities imposed upon it. Id. at 50. Moreover, we stated, To insure that the administrative powers of the [commission] are not over extended, `any reasonable doubt of the existence of any power must be resolved against the exercise thereof.' Id. (quoting Public Serv. Comm'n v. Formal Complaint of WWZ Co., 641 P.2d 183, 186 (Wyo.1982)). Again, because this issue was recently decided by this court in Beynon, we can quickly dispose of petitioners' claims. In making its determination that it could suspend petitioners' liquor licenses for failing to comply with the UCRA, the Commission relied on Utah Code Ann. §§ 32A-5-103(7), 32A-5-102(3)(a) and (b), and 32A-5-105(2)(c). Those statutes give the Commission the power to suspend the license of any club that does not comport with all of the prerequisites set forth in the statutes for obtaining a license. [12] This power is not disputed by petitioners. However, they deny that the UCRA applies to private clubs and, hence, argue that even if petitioners were not comporting with the UCRA, the UCRA does not provide the Commission with a basis for suspending their licenses because that Act is inapplicable to them. In Beynon, however, we specifically held that the Elks is an enterprise regulated by the State under the [UCRA]. Id. at 515. This would likewise apply to the Moose. Therefore, on the basis of Beynon and the authorities cited therein, if the Commission finds that any of the Elks or Moose clubs are violating the UCRA, it has the authority to suspend the liquor licenses issued to those organizations. Id.; see also Annapolis Lodge, 635 A.2d at 423-24 (holding that City of Annapolis has authority to enact ordinance conditioning grant or renewal of liquor license upon proof that club does not discriminate by gender in its membership policies).