Laserfiche WebLink
The plain language of the Act does not grant authority to the Board to issue a cease -and- <br />desist order for the violation of a previous Board order. Therefore, the Board exceeded its <br />statutory authority in entering a cease - and - desist order, and the December 10, 2010 Order should <br />be set aside. <br />D. To the Extent the December 2010 Order Is Based on Alleged Statutory <br />Violations, the Board Acted Contrary to Law by Relying on the Identical <br />Facts and Alleged Violations at Issue in the August 2010 Order. <br />The Division and Board apparently contend that the cease - and - desist order is lawful <br />because it is based on a statutory violation as determined by the Board in its earlier August 2010 <br />Order. The Division's counsel stated at the Hearing: <br />MS. LINDEN: I mean, the board in July found violations of the <br />act, set corrective actions. Cotter has failed to comply with them. <br />And under this — under 34 -32 -105 in conjunction with 124, you <br />have the ability to enforce your board orders. <br />AR:0276:14 -19. One of the Board members picked up and continued the same argument: <br />MS. GREEN: But for me I think just personally it all collapses <br />into the fact that the order was issued because we did find a <br />violation of the act and the regulation, and we said, Here's some <br />steps to get you out of that, and those steps — if those steps were <br />not taken, which we would have to still discuss, it would seem to <br />me that in the end what we would be doing is imposing a cease - <br />and- desist order to enforce the statute, because that's the <br />underlying issue and, I think, you know, the kind of tortured <br />reading that you'd have to read to say that's not possible. <br />AR:0289:11 -22. <br />Essentially, the Division and Board argue they can use the December 2010 Order to add a <br />cease - and - desist remedy to address the alleged facts and statutory violations in the August 2010 <br />Order. The Board, however, lacked jurisdiction to grant additional relief in the form of a cease - <br />and- desist order based on the same facts and alleged statutory violations that were the subject of <br />18 <br />