Laserfiche WebLink
and, despite Cotter's repeated protest, did not vacate any substantive corrective actions pending <br />judicial review. <br />The August and December Orders are clear. The Board's orders must be sufficiently <br />clear so as to be understandable to a person of ordinary intelligence. If the evidence indicates <br />that a party knew it was violating an order, that party cannot then claim that the order was <br />impermissibly vague. The Board's Orders are understandable to a person of ordinary <br />intelligence. Furthermore, the Division offered additional clarification to Cotter regarding the <br />process required for compliance. Cotter knew that it was violating the orders and made a <br />strategic decision not to comply. The Board's orders are not voidable for vagueness. <br />The Board's decision to bar Cotter's additional evidence on impossibility was a reasonable <br />exercise of its discretion. Fact - finding is reserved to the discretion of the agency. The Board heard <br />significant testimony from Cotter regarding impossibility over the course of the two -day <br />November Hearing. The Board determined that Cotter's impossibility argument misrepresented <br />the corrective actions and ultimately decided not to allow further evidence on the matter. The <br />record contains substantial evidence to support's the Board's exercise of its discretion. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. Standard of Review <br />The State Administrative Procedure Act, C.R.S. § 24 -4 -101 to 108 (2010) ( "APA ") <br />governs judicial review of agency action such as the Board's decision to issue a cease and desist <br />order and assess civil penalties in this case. Under the APA's prescribed standard of review, an <br />administrative agency decision is presumptively valid. C.R.S. § 24 -4- 106(7) (2010); Colorado <br />Div. of Ins. v. Auto - Owner's Ins. Co., 219 P.3d 371, 376 (Colo. App. 2009). A court may reverse <br />