Opinion ID: 1802438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Multiple Payments

Text: We thus reach the matter of the payments to Olson for acting both as gaming manager and as caller-cashier. At the relevant time, § 9-243 (Reissue 1991) provided: Any member designated responsible for the proper utilization of gross receipts shall not receive any compensation greater than an amount equal to five dollars per hour for each hour such person acted as such. Any person conducting bingo and any designated supervising member shall not receive any compensation greater than thirty dollars per bingo occasion or limited period bingo occasion, except that any person whose primary duty is calling bingo or acting as a cashier shall not receive any compensation greater than an amount equal to sixty dollars per bingo occasion or limited period bingo occasion. A gaming manager shall not receive any compensation greater than an amount equal to one hundred dollars per bingo occasion or limited period bingo occasion regardless if such compensation is paid entirely from the licensed organization's bingo account or in part from other gaming activities authorized or regulated under Chapter 9 and conducted by the licensed organization. At the relevant time, a gaming manager was defined in § 9-209.01 (Reissue 1991) as any person who is responsible for the supervision and operation of a bingo game on behalf of a licensed organization, including the conduct or operation of any lottery by the sale of pickle cards or any other kind of gambling activity at a bingo game which is authorized or regulated under Chapter 9. He or she shall be the authority on the premises where the bingo game is conducted and shall supervise and direct other people working at such bingo game. The gaming manager's duties are described in 316 Neb.Admin.Code, ch. 35, § 216.04 (1992), as follows: A licensed gaming manager shall be present for the duration of each bingo occasion he or she manages. The gaming manager shall be the ultimate authority on the premises of the bingo occasion. The gaming manager shall have the following duties: 216.04A To supervise and direct all bingo workers as well as other individuals assisting in the conduct of gaming activities at the bingo occasion; 216.04B Ensuring that no one under the age of 18 years of age participates in the conduct or playing of bingo ... or lotteries ... and that ... no alcoholic beverages are served in the area of the premises in which bingo is conducted; 216.04C Resolving any disputes which may occur during the conduct of the bingo occasion; 216.04D Ensuring that the organization awards at least fifty percent of its gross receipts from the conduct of bingo in prizes and that ... the total prizes awarded for a bingo occasion do not exceed $4,000.00; 216.04E Ensuring that all receipts received from the conduct of gaming activities at the bingo occasion are turned over to a supervising member or utilization of funds member of the licensed organization for deposit into the appropriate bank account of the organization; 216.04F Ensuring that complete and accurate records of all gaming activities conducted at the bingo occasion are kept; and 216.04G Ensuring that all gaming activities at the bingo occasion are conducted in accordance with the Nebraska Bingo Act, Nebraska Pickle Card Lottery Act ... or any rules or regulations promulgated under those Acts. The terms caller and cashier are not defined in the statutes, and we have not been directed to any regulation defining them. In resolving this issue, we recall that in construing a statute, a court must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Van Ackeren v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 251 Neb. 477, 558 N.W.2d 48 (1997); Rauert v. School Dist. 1-R of Hall Cty., 251 Neb. 135, 555 N.W.2d 763 (1996); Village of Winside v. Jackson, 250 Neb. 851, 553 N.W.2d 476 (1996). Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning; in addition, the courts will, if possible, try to avoid a construction which would lead to absurd, unconscionable, or unjust results. Kuhlmann v. City of Omaha, 251 Neb. 176, 556 N.W.2d 15 (1996); Nichols v. Busse, 243 Neb. 811, 503 N.W.2d 173 (1993). Moreover, in construing a statute, a court must look to the statutory objective to be accomplished, the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose to be served, and then must place on the statute a reasonable or liberal construction that best achieves the statute's purpose, rather than a construction that defeats the statutory purpose. CenTra, Inc. v. Chandler Ins. Co., 248 Neb. 844, 540 N.W.2d 318 (1995). Finally, when a challenged statute is susceptible of more than one reasonable construction, a court uses the construction that will achieve the purposes of the statute and preserve the statute's validity. Callan v. Balka, 248 Neb. 469, 536 N.W.2d 47 (1995); Ehlers v. Perry, 242 Neb. 208, 494 N.W.2d 325 (1993). With these rules in mind, we note that there is no language in the statutes, and we are directed to none in the regulations, which expressly states one person cannot perform the duties of both gaming manager and caller-cashier. However, as neither is there any express language that one person can do both jobs, the department argues that the language stating [a] gaming manager shall not receive any compensation greater than an amount equal to one hundred dollars per bingo occasion means that $100 was the maximum that a person acting as gaming manager could be paid no matter what duties such a person performed. See § 9-243 (Reissue 1991). However, the plain and ordinary meaning of this language is that $100 was the maximum allowed for performing the gaming manager's duties. The statute did not provide that a gaming manager called upon to also perform other nonlicensed duties must perform them without pay. Had the Legislature so intended, it could easily have so provided.