Laserfiche WebLink
statute to deny the applicant's gaming license, finding that the applicant had failed to meet his <br />burden of proving he was qualified to hold a license, and that he was not a suitable person to <br />hold a license. Id. at 624. Here, the statutory- required finding for assessing civil penalties was <br />not made. Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel v. PUC, 786 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1990), is <br />inapposite, because the court was reviewing the "absence of some specific findings of the <br />Commission regarding objections to the Staff study," Id. at 1096 (emphasis added), and not <br />whether statutory- required findings were made. Moreover, the decisions there at issue — whether <br />to reject criticisms of the study as minor — were an "intermediate" and a "relatively small part" of <br />the case. Id. The issue before this Court is not "intermediate," and goes to the threshold <br />question of whether the Board can impose substantial penalties without first making the findings <br />required by law. <br />Under these circumstances, no finding that Cotter violated its permit may be implied <br />from the record. See Caldwell, 613 P.2d at 332 (where agency purports to make implied <br />findings, they must be discernable to the reviewing court). Moreover, since the record does not <br />include Cotter's permit, it is inadequate to support any finding that Cotter violated its permit. <br />Widder v. Durango School District No. 9 -R, 85 P.3d 518, 528 -29 (Colo. 2004) (school district's <br />decision reversed where, inter alia, the record did not include the conduct and discipline code <br />that was applied by the district). The civil penalties ordered by the Board are therefore in excess <br />of statutory jurisdiction and authority, and should be set aside. <br />B. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- 124(7) Is Clear and Unambiguous That the Board <br />May Assess Civil Penalties Only for Permit Violations; Accordingly, This <br />Court May Not Defer to the Board's Contrary and Inconsistent <br />Interpretation of That Statute. <br />The Defendants' alternative contention that this Court should defer to the Board's <br />interpretation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- 124(7) is also without merit. To support this <br />35 <br />