Laserfiche WebLink
<br />requirements of the rule are in accord with state policy <br />underlying the enactment of the rule, the Court "need not look to <br />agency practice." Shea v. Vialpando, 94 S. Ct. at 1754-55, <br />n. 11. Moreover, neither the Board nor Battle Mountain should be <br />allowed to benefit from past misconduct. The ill-founded past <br />policies of the Board must be corrected. The Board anc! all <br />applicants must be required to fulfill their statutory and <br />regulatory obliga=ions. <br />B. The Board Does Not Bave Unbridled Discretion 7"o Approve <br />cation. <br />The Board argues that it <br />an incomplete application because <br />grounds for which the Board "mom" <br />at 10-11.) The word "may" does n <br />language of the statute. Rather, <br />More importantly, if the <br />has the discretion to approve <br />the statute merely lists the <br />deny an application. (Board <br />~t appear in the operative <br />the term used is "shall." <br />Board has the discretion to <br />approve an incomplete application, here must be rules or <br />statutes in place to guide the Board's exercise of sucF. <br />discretion. See, Section III of CES's.Opening Brief. The Board <br />cannot have it both ways. Either it must deny all incomplete <br />applications as the rule and statute clearly require, car it must <br />establish adequate standards by which to evaluate and approve <br />incomplete applications, and which permit a reviewing court to <br />evaluate the Board's exercise of discretion. <br />-14- <br />