Opinion ID: 1394336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Case Number 35300The Elks

Text: The Elks currently holds licenses to operate as a private club and to sell beer in the City of Parkersburg, West Virginia. The Elks additionally seeks to obtain a limited video lottery license to permit it to operate licensed video lottery machines at its lodge in downtown Parkersburg, which is located less than 300 feet from two churches, namely Saint Francis Xavier Catholic Church and Trinity Episcopal Church. Therefore, the Elks applied for a limited video lottery license, which application was rejected by the Commission because of the lodge's proximity to the aforementioned churches. In this regard, W. Va.C.S.R. § 179-7-2.2.b requires that a licensed limited video lottery establishment be at least three hundred feet from a church, school, daycare center, or the perimeter of a public park. Following the denial of its application, the Elks requested the Commission to review its application, which denial was upheld. The Elks then appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. By order entered June 3, 2009, the circuit court upheld the Commission's decision to deny the Elks a limited video lottery license based upon the restrictions contained in W. Va.C.S.R. § 179-7-2.2.b. In this regard, the circuit court ruled [f]irst, the Petitioner [the Elks] has no right to a license or to the granting of the approval sought. Any license issued or other commission approval granted pursuant to the provisions of this article is a revocable privilege and ... [,] [t]he licensing, control and regulation of limited video lottery by the state does not create ... the accrual of any value to the privilege of participation in any limited video lottery activity.... W. Va.Code § 29-22B-203(1) & (2)(D).... Second, the Limited Video Lottery Act provides that [v]ideo lottery terminals allowed by this article may be placed only in licensed limited video lottery locations approved by the commission[,] W. Va.Code § 29-22B-1201(a), but does not detail what a licensed limited video lottery locations approved by the commission is. Under the West Virginia Code, an interpretive rule may be used to establish the conditions for the exercise of exclusive agency discretion. W. Va.Code § 29A-1-2(3) [sic]. A statute which provides for a thing to be done ... by a prescribed person or tribunal implies that it shall not be done ... by a different person or tribunal; and the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, applies to such statute. Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State ex rel. Battle v. Hereford, 148 W.Va. 97, 133 S.E.2d 86 (1963). The only body empowered to approve locations is explicitly the Respondent [the Commission]; the exclusive right to approve locations is vested with the Respondent which brings ... Rule 2.2(b) [sic] clearly within the ambit of the agency discretion portion of West Virginia Code § 29A-1-2(3) [sic]. And, in so doing, the interpretive rule is limited only when such conditions are ... prescribed by statute or by legislative rule[.] Thus, West Virginia Code § 29A-1-2(c) creates not a negative limitation on agency authority, but imposes ... an affirmative obligation on the Legislature. That is, the Legislature must specifically and explicitly speak to create conflict between a positive statute and the interpretive rule to invalidate the interpretive rulean interpretive rule cannot be invalidated (in the agency discretion sphere at least) by Legislative silence. Indeed, the very purpose of administrative agency authority is to provide an agency with the flexibility and authority necessary to protect the public. Quesenberry v. Estep, 142 W.Va. 426, 446, 95 S.E.2d 832, 844 (1956). (Emphasis in original). From this adverse ruling, the Elks appeals to this Court.