Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 92-CH-422. Honorable Peter M. Trobe, Judge, Presiding.
PECCARELLI, Woodward, Quetsch
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PECCARELLI
JUSTICE PECCARELLI delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff, Janet Munch, appeals the order of the circuit court of Lake County dismissing her declaratory action against defendant, the Village of Vernon Hills. We affirm.
On May 14, 1992, plaintiff was arrested with a complaint and summons with notice to appear for failing to register for a Beverage Alcohol Sellers and Servers Education and Training Program (the BASSET program) as required by Vernon Hills Ordinance Number 92-08. Plaintiff filed a declaratory action alleging (1) that the Village of Vernon Hills did not have the legal authority to enact the ordinance under the Liquor Control Act; and (2) that the ordinance only applied to the owner of the liquor license and did not apply to the employee. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory action. On August 17, 1993, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding in relevant part:
"1. The defendants are authorized to regulate liquor licenses by non-discriminatory provisions consistent with the public good and convenience.
2. The challenged regulation does not deny a license to a person or class not specified in the enabling statute and is facially intended to promote public good and convenience.
3. It appears that § 3-32A(3) of the ordinance applies to the plaintiff in this case.
WHEREFORE IT IS hereby ordered that Defendants['] Motion to Dismiss is granted."
Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, plaintiff argues (1) that the trial court erred in failing to find that the ordinance improperly created a parallel system of licensing; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to find that the ordinance improperly prohibits a person or class from receiving a liquor license for a reason not specified in the Liquor Control Act; and (3) that the trial court erred in finding that the ordinance applied to plaintiff.
The Illinois Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependency Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111 1/2, par. 6351-1 et seq. (now codified, as amended, at 20 ILCS 305/1-101 et seq. (West 1992))) in the Legislative declaration (20 ILCS 305/1-102 (West 1992)) directs that the Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives and purposes of the Act. The Liquor Control Act (235 ILCS 5/1-2 (West 1992)) directs that the Liquor Control Act shall be liberally construed.
The Liquor Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 43, par. 93.9, et seq. (now codified, as amended, at 235 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. 1992 (West 1992))) was amended by Public Act 84-272, section 6, effective January 1, 1986, by adding section 144c, Identification Programs-Certification (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 43, par. 144c, (now codified, as amended, at 235 ILCS 5/6-27 (West 1992))). The amendment provided for programs designed to educate or train employees and for employees who sell or serve alcoholic beverages at retail to be certified. Section 144c, Identification Program - Certification, was further amended by Public Act 84-1394, section 4, effective September 17, 1986, which substituted the word "licensed" for "certified" and renamed section 144c, Identification Programs-License. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 43, par. 144c (now codified, as amended, at 235 ILCS 5/6-27 (West 1992)).
The Liquor Control Act does not specifically include or specifically exclude programs designed to educate or train employees who sell or serve alcoholic beverages at retail by licensing. (235 ILCS 5/4-1 (West 1992)) When the legislature enacted Public Act 84-272, as amended by Public Act 84-1394, it is presumed to have known the existing statutory declarations for a liberal construction of the Illinois Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependency Act and the Liquor Control Act and all other provisions of the Liquor Control Act.
In resolving the issues presented in this case, this court must reconcile and give meaning to all statutes, not inconsistent with each other, bearing upon the questions raised. The necessary Conclusion in this case is that the legislature intended to confer upon the municipal authority the power to require those persons who serve and sell alcoholic beverages to register and have proof of their education and training in a BASSET program and the education, training, registration and proof ...