and enjoining the Board from raising taxes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that by needless over-spending of taxpayer money, the school board abused its discretion and did not perform its duties “intelligently.” Id. at 24, 6 A.2d at 295. McLaughlin is inappo-site. This Court routinely examines the power of government agencies when their actions are challenged. An administrative agency is a creature of statute and “ ‘can only exercise those powers which have been conferred upon it by the Legislature in clear and unmistakable language.’ ” Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Insurance Department, 536 Pa. 105, 118, 638 A.2d 194, 200 (1994) (quoting Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Transit Casualty Insurance Company, 478 Pa. 430, 438, 387 A.2d 58, 62 (1978)) (<HOLDING>). This paradigm of analysis does not work when
recognizing that it is within authority of rehabilitator to establish claims bar date to effectively manage distressed insurers estate holding that insurance department does not enjoy the openended authority to infringe upon insurers ability to manage their business holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that department does not have independent authority to impose device in absence of court order