Opinion ID: 1815835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the committee abuse its discretion in ruling the ordinance provided a mandatory prohibition against issuing a permit for sheltering a dangerous animal as a pet?

Text: Relying on the rules adopted by the board to enforce the ordinance, the committee found there was a mandatory prohibition against issuing permits for pet purposes, and it thus had no discretion in the matter. Kent argues the committee did have such discretion and abused the discretion by failing to exercise it. The argument is without merit. Rule 4(H)(1)(b)(4) clearly states that [p]ermits are not to be issued to persons who merely wish to possess a `dangerous animal' as a pet. (Emphasis added.) The prohibition is mandatory. The director or body reviewing the permit application does have some discretion in determining whether the assertion of a permissible purpose is in fact bona fide. The rule states that the evaluation in this respect shall be guided by the following definitions [of research, education, and reproduction,] and considerations. (Emphasis added.) Kent focuses on the words guided by in arguing the committee had the discretion to issue a permit that would allow him to keep Holmes as a pet. In construing ordinances, as with statutes, we do not give undue importance to any single portion. See Cernetisch, 376 N.W.2d at 600. We give a practical construction to the legislative enactment and view the enactment as a whole. Viewing rule 4(H) as a whole, it is clear the words guided by only give the issuing body discretion in determining if the asserted permissible purpose was bona fide. The discretion did not allow the committee to expand the permissible purposes to include pets. Kent further contends the mandatory prohibition illegally discriminates against him. He asserts a person who obtained a research permit could possibly keep the animal for a pet after the research concluded. Kent points to the rules on revocation, which state the permit may be revoked upon the occurrence of certain events, not that it must be revoked. This argument ignores the plain language of rule 4(H)(5), which states: The Permit shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance or upon completion of the research, education, or reproduction purpose for which the Permit was issued, whichever is sooner. (Emphasis added.) The rule does not illegally discriminate against Kent.