1 BEFORE THE MISSOURI GAMING COMMISSION
2 STATE OF MISSOURI
3
4
5
6
7 In Re:
8 Missouri Gaming Commission Hearing
9
10
11
12 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
13
14
15 3417 Knipp Drive
16 Jefferson City, Missouri 65109
17
18 June 14, 2006
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 MISSOURI GAMING COMMISSION:
4 Noel J. Shull, Chairman
5 Floyd O. Bartch, Commissioner
6 Ralph Biele, Commissioner
7 Samuel J. Hais, Commissioner
8 Darryl T. Jones, Commissioner
9 Steve Johnson, Acting Executive Director
10
11
12 TRANSCRIBED BY:
13 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
14 711 N 11th Street
15 St. Louis, Missouri 63101
16 By: Ms. Amanda Grasher
17 (314) 644-2191
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
2 **************************************************
3 MR. SHULL: I believe it's nine
4 o'clock, and we can go ahead and start the meeting
5 if everyone would be seated. Would you call the
6 roll, please.
7 MS. ANGELA FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
8 MR. SHULL: Present.
9 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
10 MR. BARTCH: Present.
11 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
12 MR. BIELE: Present.
13 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
14 MR. JONES: Present.
15 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
16 MR. HAIS: Present.
17 MR. SHULL: Good morning. Before we
18 start the official business, it's my pleasure to
19 introduce Commissioner Samuel Hais from Clayton,
20 Missouri. Commissioner Hais is an attorney, a
21 former Judge of the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit
22 of St. Louis County and a former prosecuting
23 attorney.
24 Commissioner, welcome to the Gaming
25 Commission. If any of the other Commissioners have
1 any comments.
2 MR. BARTCH: Welcome.
3 MR. JONES: Welcome.
4 MR. SHULL: Mr. Hais.
5 MR. HAIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
6 and Commissioners. I want to thank all of you for
7 your help in getting up to speed on the current
8 matters before the Commission, and also the acting
9 Executive Director, thank you very much and
10 Mr. Bushmann for your help. I want to thank the
11 Governor for expressing his confidence in
12 appointing me to this Commission. It's very good
13 to be here. Thank you.
14 MR. SHULL: Thank you. The next
15 item is we need to consider the minutes for April
16 26th.
17 MR. BARTCH: Make a Motion we
18 approve those minutes.
19 MR. JONES: Second.
20 MR. SHULL: Any discussion? Call
21 the roll.
22 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
23 MR. SHULL: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
25 MR. BARTCH: Approve.
1 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
2 MR. BIELE: Approve.
3 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
4 MR. JONES: Approve.
5 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
6 MR. HAIS: Approve.
7 MS. FRANKS: By your vote, you've
8 adopted the minutes of the April 26, 2006
9 meeting.
10 MR. SHULL: In addition, we need to
11 consider the minutes of May 23, 2006.
12 MR. BIELE: Approved.
13 MR. JONES: Second.
14 MR. SHULL: Any discussion? Call
15 the roll.
16 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
17 MR. SHULL: Approve.
18 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
19 MR. BARTCH: Approve.
20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
21 MR. BIELE: Approve.
22 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
23 MR. JONES: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
25 MR. HAIS: Approve.
1 MS. FRANKS: By your vote, you've
2 adopted the minutes of the May 23, 2006 meeting.
3 MR. SHULL: The next issue that we
4 have is consideration of the state auditor's
5 report.
6 MR. STEVE JOHNSON: Good morning,
7 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission and
8 welcome Mr. Hais to the Commission. I'll make an
9 observation. I noticed that you had your name
10 plate up there. When staff comes on, it usually
11 takes about four months to get those name plates.
12 It's not surprising that a Commissioner would have
13 one in short order.
14 The first item that I have this
15 morning, of course, is the consideration of the state
16 auditor's findings. It's my pleasure to advise the
17 Commission that we had an exceedingly clean audit
18 from the state auditor signed by Auditor McCaskill.
19 The only finding that we -- that was made in regard
20 to our operation would have been a finding
21 suggesting that we do not have a comprehensive
22 performance audit plan and that was absolutely
23 correct. We agreed with the state auditor that we did
24 not.
25 That was brought about by the fact
1 that I had very limited staff. At the time, two
2 auditors on the west side of the state and four out
3 of our potential staff of twelve. The bottom line
4 is that it's very difficult to follow an audit plan
5 when you are responding to forensic issues and spot
6 audit issues and it renders the plan -- it
7 virtually nullifies the plan.
8 However, as a result of this
9 observation and the fact that you should,
10 irrespective of whether you follow it or not, have a
11 comprehensive audit plan, we do. One was generated
12 within days of the finding being provided to us, is
13 on file, and I can say that that issue is no longer
14 a factor. The audit plan is on file.
15 Beyond that, it was exceedingly
16 clean. I'd like to commend the staff for their
17 diligence in following the protocols, the
18 procedures, the operations protocols and
19 procedures. It's clearly evident that they have a
20 keen understanding of the regulations at the state
21 level, particularly in regard to budgeting,
22 procurement of equipment and those sorts of things.
23 Their diligence is not unnoticed.
24 In looking back, this is the
25 cleanest audit that we have seen at the Commission.
1 Since '92 we have not seen a cleaner audit, and
2 that certainly is a tribute to the maturity and the
3 skills of the staff. I'd welcome any questions you
4 might have about that audit.
5 MR. SHULL: That's a very good
6 report. Are there any follow-up questions?
7 MR. JONES: Steve, did you increase
8 the staff to handle the audit plan?
9 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. What we are
10 up against, Commissioner, is quite simply a salary
11 issue. We are able to attract folks out of college
12 with prerequisite audit hours to come to work for
13 us. There is a minimum audit hour requirement in a
14 Bachelor's Degree. They come to work for us and
15 gain that experience either here or at the state
16 auditors level, and this is particularly valuable
17 experience at the Gaming Commission and they move
18 to industry in typically six months to a year.
19 Ninety percent of our turnover is as a result of
20 this. It's higher salaries.
21 We do have the ability to move on
22 the grids, and I would propose at some point in
23 time in the near future that I prepare for you a
24 salary consideration. There has been a four
25 percent pay raise for state employees that goes
1 into effect July the 1st, which is the first in
2 five years. We probably need to tag onto that pay
3 raise with adjustments on the grid, which would be
4 permitted, but it would take your approval to do
5 so. We have not drafted that as of yet. We wanted
6 to wait and make sure that the four percent raise
7 was going to be in effect and has been approved and
8 budgeted and all those things have happened. We
9 need to look at that issue if we're to retain
10 competent staff.
11 Now, having said that, some of the
12 folks that we have are exceptional. Our audit
13 supervisors are exceptional, particularly on the
14 east side of the state, somewhat inexperienced on
15 the west side of the state. Our audit manager is
16 an aggressive individual who runs a very tight
17 program and keeps people moving on a tight
18 schedule. With that we are blessed. We need to
19 look at the working level and salaries in order to
20 up the retention level.
21 MR. JONES: So this is more of an
22 entry level as opposed to a seasoned auditor, a CPA
23 or something like that?
24 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. What we are
25 attracting are entry level. We can't attract the
1 seasoned folks because we simply can't compete.
2 MR. JONES: Okay.
3 MR. SHULL: Are there other
4 questions, comments?
5 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. The next item
6 on our agenda under Section IV would be the
7 consideration of the Hearing Officer
8 Recommendations, and we have Mr. Gary Jenkins, our
9 Hearing Officer, to make those presentations.
10 I should like to note that normally
11 if there are questions that would be directed to
12 the Attorney General, that Jane Rackers would
13 handle those. She is not able to be here. I
14 believe Ms. Sharon Euler is here should we have
15 questions as we work through this and Mr. Jenkins
16 makes his presentations. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.
17 MR. GARY JENKINS: Good morning,
18 Commissioners.
19 MR. SHULL: Good morning.
20 MR. JENKINS: First one is Diana L.
21 Stanley. It's Resolution 06-029, Gaming Case No.
22 05-166. This is a case -- Ms. Stanley was an
23 employee at the -- Ms. Stanley was an employee at
24 the Ameristar Casino.
25 On June the 14th, a shuffle master
1 malfunctioned. A shuffle master is a machine that
2 shuffles cards. I believe there's six decks of
3 cards at a Blackjack table. A shuffle master
4 malfunctioned and she called her supervisor and
5 advised him that the shuffle master had
6 malfunctioned. She wanted to close the game down,
7 and he ordered her to keep the game going and to
8 hand shuffle. She kept the game going and hand
9 shuffled. She was there at that pit on relief.
10 She left that pit when the person came back to run
11 that game.
12 Unbeknownst to him, there were four
13 cards left in the shuffle master. The game
14 continued for a period of time from 10:37 p.m.
15 until 1:07 in the morning. That Blackjack table
16 was open for play and short these cards. That's a
17 violation of the internal controls if a -- if
18 there's a malfunctioning automatic shuffler, the
19 device will be inspected for additional cards. If
20 they continue, which they're supposed to continue
21 with a hand shuffle, they are supposed to count the
22 cards down to make sure all the cards are in play,
23 and Ms. Stanley failed to do that.
24 I recommend that -- I concur with
25 the Gaming Commission's recommendation and
1 recommend that she receive a two consecutive day
2 suspension of her Level II occupational license.
3 MR. SHULL: Is the company
4 responsible for anything or is the supervisor
5 that's her supervisor when they order her to go
6 ahead and keep the game open and she was
7 recommending that it be closed down because of
8 the --
9 MR. JENKINS: That was not brought
10 to my attention. That was not in the record. This
11 was just a case against her. I don't know what
12 happened to the supervisor if there were any charges
13 brought against the supervisor or not.
14 MR. JONES: That's almost the same
15 question I have. Why isn't the supervisor
16 responsible since that was a directive to her to
17 keep the game going?
18 MR. JENKINS: In my opinion it was
19 that he was not there. She called him on the phone
20 and that she didn't tell him that there were cards.
21 Her procedure was to count down the cards. So he
22 tells her -- and the internal control states that
23 you will continue with a hand shuffle and count
24 down the cards. He didn't order her to count down
25 the cards, but the internal control required her to
1 count down the cards and make sure they were all on
2 the table, and she didn't do that.
3 MR. BARTCH: I understand that she
4 still has a problem because she didn't follow the
5 rules. I understand that. But I also feel like
6 that that's why you have supervisors. Supervisors
7 have a responsibility to do more than just talk
8 on the telephone and tell her, okay, do XYZ and
9 then not follow it up, not check on it, not go and
10 look at it and several hours later something that
11 should not have happened of course did happen.
12 That's why we have supervisors and
13 that's why we have sergeants. If nothing has been
14 done to that supervisor, something probably should
15 be. The fact that she did make the call meant that
16 she was trying to do what was right, but then she
17 didn't follow it up and do the rest of what she did
18 and because of that something happened to her.
19 Steve, can you talk about that some.
20 You understand our problem with that --
21 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, I can. I'm
22 kind of hesitant to address it because I'm really
23 not sure what went into the record and what did
24 not. Perhaps Ms. Euler would be better suited to
25 comment.
1 I can see by the look on her face
2 that maybe not.
3 MS. SHARON EULER: I'd be happy to comment
4 if the Commission --
5 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I think that
6 would be appropriate. We need to stay within the
7 record. I'm hesitant to get off the record at this
8 point.
9 MS. EULER: What was presented in
10 the record was that, yes, she did contact her
11 supervisor, which was the proper procedure, and her
12 supervisor told her to hand shuffle. She was the
13 person in the pit at that time. She had an
14 obligation to look into the shuffle master to
15 ensure that there were no cards remaining and she
16 did not do that. She did not inform her supervisor
17 that there were bent cards left in the shuffle
18 master.
19 The red light on the shuffle master
20 was blinking, and when the red light is blinking,
21 it's that there's a malfunction. She should have
22 looked in the shuffle master to see that there were
23 cards left in the shuffle master and informed her
24 supervisor of that fact. She did not do that.
25 In fact, it's in the record that she
1 did not do that and that's what the violation is.
2 She was the person on the pit. She had an
3 obligation to inform her supervisor that the decks
4 were not complete. She should have hand counted
5 the decks to make sure that the decks were complete
6 because if there was a problem with the decks, then
7 she should have notified her supervisor who then
8 may have made a different decision.
9 MR. BIELE: I think we're
10 talking about two different things here. I think
11 the point's well made that she understood the
12 supervisor has some responsibility. To me, it's a
13 whole separate issue. It's a whole separate case.
14 What we're talking about here is did this
15 particular person, did they do what they were
16 supposed to do, and undoubtedly they did not.
17 Whether there should have been something further
18 done with the supervisor to me is a whole other
19 issue.
20 MR. JOHNSON: If I might add, in the
21 record she testified that she didn't have time to
22 count them down, which of course is not
23 excusable.
24 I might add, too, Mr. Chairman, that
25 if the Petitioners are here and wish to make a
1 comment, we should recognize that at some point in
2 time on each individual.
3 MR. SHULL: All right. Do you have
4 any other comments?
5 MR. JENKINS: I have no other
6 comments other than just I guess my observation.
7 My opinion was it was kind of like the employee --
8 that when the supervisor says, go ahead and do
9 this, and they know that they probably shouldn't,
10 they don't say anything, they say, yeah, boss, I'll
11 do that. That was my opinion on that. That's not
12 really in the record, that's what I used to draw my
13 decision on why I agreed with the discipline.
14 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Is Diane
15 Stanley in the audience? Is there a motion?
16 MR. BIELE: I move for the motion on
17 Resolution No. 06-029 -- approval of that motion.
18 MR. HAIS: Second it.
19 MR. SHULL: Any further discussion?
20 Call the roll, please.
21 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
22 MR. SHULL: Approve.
23 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
24 MR. BARTCH: Approve.
25 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
1 MR. BIELE: Approve.
2 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
3 MR. JONES: Approve.
4 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
5 MR. HAIS: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: By your vote, you've
7 adopted Resolution No. 06-029.
8 MR. BARTCH: Steve, for the record,
9 I'd like to know what we did to the supervisor.
10 MR. JOHNSON: All right, sir.
11 I'll ascertain that and make sure the Commission's
12 apprised.
13 MR. JENKINS: All right. My second
14 case is Christine Burleson, Resolution No. 06-030.
15 That is Missouri Gaming Case No. 06-045. In this
16 case, Ms. Burleson was an employee, a long term
17 employee of the Ameristar Casino. She was
18 convicted of felony DUI in Clay County.
19 The state statute says that a license shall
20 not be granted to an applicant if an applicant has
21 plead guilty to or been convicted of a felony. Ms.
22 Burleson was convicted of a felony. For that
23 reason, I concur with the Missouri Gaming
24 Commission and recommend a revocation of her Level
25 II Occupational License.
1 MR. SHULL: Do you know if she was
2 represented by counsel at her hearing --
3 MR. JENKINS: Yes, she was.
4 MR. SHULL: (continuing) -- at her
5 trial?
6 MR. JENKINS: Yes, she was. At her
7 trial and at this hearing. I'll take that back. I
8 don't know at her trial. She was represented by
9 counsel at this hearing.
10 MR. JOHNSON: It indicates that she
11 was represented by counsel in the record in the
12 Circuit Court of Clay County. The defense
13 attorney's name was Eric Burns, sir.
14 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Is
15 Ms. Burleson here? Is there a motion?
16 MR. BARTCH: Make a Motion to
17 approve Resolution 06-030.
18 MR. BIELE: Second.
19 MR. SHULL: Any discussion? Call
20 the roll, please.
21 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
22 MR. SHULL: Approve.
23 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
24 MR. BARTCH: Approve.
25 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
1 MR. BIELE: Approve.
2 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
3 MR. JONES: Not approve.
4 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
5 MR. HAIS: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: By your vote, you've
7 adopted Resolution No. 06-030.
8 MR. JENKINS: My third case is
9 Rhonda Young, Resolution No. 06-031. That's Gaming
10 Case No. 06-047. This case, Ms. Young was a Level
11 II Occupational License holder working at a casino.
12 She was arrested and charged with felony stealing.
13 She plead guilty to a two year suspended imposition
14 of sentence for felony stealing and was required to
15 make restitution for that charge.
16 Again -- this is slightly different,
17 I guess. She wasn't actually convicted of the
18 felony. It was a suspended imposition of sentence.
19 But the Commission may refuse or revoke an
20 Occupational License to anyone who has been
21 convicted of a crime or entered a plea of suspended
22 imposition of sentence.
23 For that reason, I concur with the
24 Missouri Gaming Commission and recommend that the
25 Petitioner's Level II Occupational License be
1 revoked.
2 MR. SHULL: Is Ms. Young here? Is
3 there a motion?
4 MR. JONES: I want a discussion
5 unless you want to put a motion up.
6 MR. SHULL: No.
7 MR. JONES: In the statute, does it
8 also state that if there's a SIS, that's also
9 grounds for revoking a license?
10 MR. JENKINS: Correct. Wait a
11 minute, the statute -- it's in the Code of State
12 Regulations. That's in the Code of State
13 Regulations.
14 MR. JOHNSON: The operative
15 language, sir, is plead guilty. If they have
16 actually plead guilty.
17 MR. JONES: Okay. So even though it
18 was SIS, she plead guilty and that's it.
19 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.
20 MR. JONES: Okay.
21 MR. SHULL: Any questions?
22 MR. BARTCH: Make a Motion we
23 approve Resolution No. 06-031.
24 MR. HAIS: Second.
25 MR. SHULL: Discussion? Call the
1 roll.
2 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
3 MR. SHULL: Approve.
4 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
5 MR. BARTCH: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
7 MR. BIELE: Approve.
8 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
9 MR. JONES: Approve.
10 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
11 MR. HAIS: Approve.
12 MS. FRANKS: By your vote, you've
13 adopted Resolution No. 06-031.
14 MR. STARK: Do you want --
15 MR. JOHNSON: I was reading the
16 case, I apologize. Mr. Stephen Stark will present
17 the next case, Daniel Christoff. My apologies, Mr.
18 Stark.
19 MR. STEPHEN STARK: That's fine. Good
20 morning, Commissioners. The next case on your
21 agenda is F -- identified as letter F, Daniel
22 Christoff. Mr. Christoff had a Level II Gaming
23 License and worked as a card dealer.
24 On April 22, 2005, it's alleged
25 that he violated some rules of the game with regard
1 to being a dealer for Blackjack.
2 First of all, let me identify the
3 rules of the game that are part of the internal
4 control standards of the casino. Again, this is
5 with regard to the game of Blackjack.
6 A player may elect to double down,
7 that is, make an additional wager not in excess of
8 the amount of the original wager on the original
9 two cards when those original two cards total ten
10 or eleven. A second rule, whenever the initial two
11 cards dealt to the player are identical in value,
12 the player may elect to split the hand into two
13 separate hands. The second wager then must be an
14 amount equal to the original wager.
15 The applicable rule number three, a
16 player may not double down on a split hand. Those
17 three particular rules applied in the situation on
18 April 22, 2005 when Mr. Christoff was dealing as
19 a Blackjack dealer.
20 On one occasion he allowed a player
21 to split two cards that showed -- the two cards
22 being each the number three and that was okay.
23 Then he dealt the cards for the second round to
24 accommodate the splitting of those cards, and he
25 allowed the player to double down on each of their
1 two hands.
2 The second card on one hand was an
3 ace and the second card on the other hand was a
4 five. The rules being with regard to doubling down
5 is only when the original cards are ten or eleven.
6 So action for doubling down on those two hands was
7 not appropriate because it did not add up to ten or
8 eleven. Secondly, this was a case where it was a
9 split hand. The third rule I read to you is that
10 you can't double down on a split hand.
11 Later that same evening, he allowed
12 another player to double down on a fifteen, when
13 the two original cards were fifteen. Again, not
14 being a ten or eleven, not permissible by the rules
15 for doubling down.
16 Those rules of the game were
17 violated allegedly by Mr. Christoff. Through the
18 hearing there was competent, convincing, cogent
19 evidence that he did indeed violate those internal
20 standards with regard to his dealing of the cards
21 that evening. He basically admitted that that was
22 true.
23 He had some training, but he was
24 kind of new at the game, I guess. His main concern
25 was that there were other dealers in the casino
1 that have had similar problems before, and he felt
2 that he was being specially treated with regard to
3 his alleged violations. However, that was not
4 clear and convincing evidence to overrule the
5 recommendation or the proposal by the Commission,
6 and as such, the one day suspension that is being
7 proposed, I would recommend as being affirmed.
8 MR. SHULL: Any questions for
9 Mr. Stark?
10 MR. JONES: Has the casino engaged
11 in any type of retraining if he -- if Mr. Christoff
12 alleges that this is a -- I'm not going to say a
13 pattern -- but this has happened before, has the
14 casino been engaged in any type of retraining to
15 assure the Commission and everyone that it's not
16 going to happen in the future?
17 MR. STARK: That was not brought up
18 as part of the evidentiary hearing, so I would have
19 no answer to that really.
20 MR. BARTCH: Steve, have we had any
21 other incidents like this where it's been a -- do
22 we have a training problem out there?
23 MR. JOHNSON: No, I don't believe
24 that we do. The dealers are typically trained
25 extensively and then made to pass a competency exam
1 prior to going onto the floor. The problem with
2 this particular type of a case is it may seem
3 innocuous, but it is these sorts of omissions and
4 violations that can, and I am certainly not
5 suggesting that this is the case in the Christoff,
6 it may well not be, but it can lead to collusion
7 and theft, improper betting and an advantage either
8 to the house or the individual. That's why the
9 strict control is necessary.
10 I cannot, Mr. Jones, speak to any
11 additional training that they may have. I don't
12 know. We would have to ask a representative from
13 that particular company what they do in terms of
14 ongoing training. Normally these dealers are very,
15 very competent. When they are out there, the pit
16 bosses and pit supervisors are charged with the
17 responsibility of ensuring compliance and that they
18 are adhering to the rule.
19 MR. JONES: Just one more. They
20 have to pass a competency test --
21 MR. JOHNSON: Prior to going onto
22 the floor, they must demonstrate their competency
23 in a formal training setting and they do that.
24 MR. JONES: So the fact he's
25 claiming that this is new to him, was a new game,
1 he still had to pass --
2 MR. JOHNSON: Even if it's a new
3 game, he passes a competency test with him, a
4 competency review with -- before being turned loose
5 on a table. They do have formal table games
6 training. However, I can't speak to the quality of
7 each particular property's training or each
8 company's training. I know it exists and I can
9 assure you he had been trained prior to being
10 turned loose.
11 MR. SHULL: I believe his testimony
12 was that he had been trained on it, but there'd
13 been quite a bit of time that had lapsed since he
14 was originally trained.
15 MR. HAIS: Steve, did Mr. Christoff
16 identify any specific others who had --
17 MR. JOHNSON: Is that in the record,
18 sir?
19 MR. STARK: No. He did not name
20 names, no.
21 MR. HAIS: Was that inquired of him?
22 MR. STARK: No. Actually, he
23 brought it up. One of the witnesses presented by
24 the Commission was an employee from surveillance
25 that was monitoring the cameras. The question was
1 posed by Mr. Christoff to the surveillance manager,
2 and she basically said that she had not
3 participated in any disciplinary hearings before,
4 but apparently had been aware that problems had
5 occurred before. She didn't tell how many or the
6 names of anybody else.
7 MR. SHULL: I thought I read where
8 she said about five hundred times. That's what I
9 thought I read.
10 MR. JOHNSON: Then it would be
11 incumbent upon that surveillance record to notify
12 the Commission if she's detecting activity like
13 that.
14 MR. SHULL: Is Mr. Christoff here?
15 Any further discussion? Is there a motion?
16 MR. JONES: I move to accept
17 Resolution No. 06-032.
18 MR. BIELE: Second.
19 MR. SHULL: Call the roll, please.
20 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
21 MR. SHULL: Approve.
22 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
23 MR. BARTCH: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
25 MR. BIELE: Approve.
1 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
2 MR. JONES: Approve.
3 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
4 MR. HAIS: Approve.
5 MS. FRANKS: By your vote, you've
6 adopted Resolution No. 06-032.
7 MR. STARK: The next case is
8 identified by the letter G, Keith Jones. Mr. Jones
9 was an applicant for a Level II Occupational
10 License.
11 The application process requires the
12 disclosure of any arrests, convictions with regard
13 to any criminal activity. It is alleged that
14 Mr. Jones did not disclose on the application two
15 prior arrests for a crime of battery that occurred
16 in the State of Louisiana and also a crime of theft
17 in the State of Indiana.
18 The application process is a written
19 process and then there's an interview with one of
20 the investigators who goes over the questions
21 face-to-face with the individual applicant.
22 Mr. Jones had basically a second
23 opportunity to disclose any criminal history. He
24 failed to do that at the second time. There was a
25 third opportunity in which the investigator asked
1 for court records from Louisiana, and Mr. Jones at
2 that time did provide some records with regard to
3 the guilty plea on the battery in the State of
4 Louisiana.
5 However, the rules are clear that
6 you need to disclose on your written application,
7 and then of course the second time in the interview
8 with the investigator, Mr. Jones failed as well to
9 disclose his criminal history. For that reason, I
10 would concur and recommend that Mr. Jones be denied
11 the license to work in the gaming industry.
12 MR. SHULL: Are there any questions?
13 MR. BIELE: I move to approve
14 Resolution No. --
15 MR. SHULL: Excuse me for a moment.
16 Is Mr. Jones here?
17 MR. BIELE: I move to approve
18 Resolution No. 06-033.
19 MR. JONES: Second.
20 MR. SHULL: Call the roll.
21 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.
22 MR. SHULL: Approve.
23 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bartch.
24 MR. BARTCH: Approve.
25 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Biele.
1 MR. BIELE: Approve.
2 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.
3 MR. JONES: Approve.
4 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.
5 MR. HAIS: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: By your vote, you've
7 adopted Resolution No. 06-033.
8 MR. STARK: The next case is
9 identified with the letter H, John Shields.
10 Mr. Shields was employed in a supervisory capacity
11 with the casino having a Level II Occupational
12 License.
13 He is alleged to not have reported
14 that a sensitive key was taken off of the premise
15 of the casino. Actually, it's a critical sensitive
16 key. The factual situation was that he and another
17 employee were working in the casino. Mr. Shields
18 himself had a critical sensitive key in his
19 possession. His co-employee also had a critical
20 sensitive key in her possession.
21 A supervisor above them comes and
22 tells them that they need to leave the premise to
23 go tour a new hotel that's in the vicinity, and
24 that they should immediately leave their position
25 in the casino to go to this hotel for a tour.
1 Mr. Shields rightfully and correctly
2 turned his key in locking it up in the appropriate
3 fashion, and he made mention of this to the
4 supervisor that that was necessary and that the
5 other co-employee needed to do the same. However,
6 this co-employee did not do the same. She actually
7 took the critical sensitive key with her off the
8 premise of the casino to take this tour of this
9 hotel.
10 The allegation is that Mr. Shields
11 failed to report the fact of a critical sensitive
12 key being removed from the premises. There are
13 several applicable rules that apply to the handling
14 of critical sensitive keys. There's a reporting
15 requirement that -- actually there's three
16 individuals that should be reported -- to whom a
17 person should report if they have knowledge of the
18 removal of a critical sensitive key from the
19 premises. Mr. Shields failed to report the removal
20 of this critical sensitive key by a co-employee.
21 Later on, there was a discussion
22 that he had with a supervisor about this particular
23 situation, and he did write up a report identifying
24 the facts of what happened on July 30, 2005.
25 That was the next month later. But again, he had
1 his own obligation as a licensee to report any
2 alleged violation to the casino security, the
3 casino department head and to the Gaming Commission
4 itself. He failed to do that.
5 Again, this is another situation
6 where you have a supervisor overlooking, and I can
7 appreciate the dilemma that an employee at the
8 practical matter would have when a supervisor is in
9 a rush to do something, get something done, and
10 apparently the supervisor is not being very
11 conscientious of the rules. Nevertheless, each
12 employee as a licensee has their own duty to comply
13 with the laws.
14 For that reason, I would concur with
15 the proposal of the suspension of two calendar days
16 as being appropriate for this violation.
17 MR. BARTCH: Let me get clear in my
18 mind. This individual -- there's two individuals
19 that had sensitive keys, two employees.
20 MR. STARK: Correct.
21 MR. BARTCH: Equal status.
22 MR. STARK: That's my
23 understanding, both supervisory level.
24 MR. BARTCH: This individual here,
25 Mr. Shields, had a sensitive key, and he put his
1 sensitive key where it should go.
2 MR. STARK: That is correct.
3 MR. BARTCH: And the other employee
4 apparently did not.
5 MR. STARK: That is correct.
6 MR. BARTCH: Mr. Shields told his
7 supervisor that this other employee should put
8 their sensitive key away.
9 MR. STARK: That is correct.
10 MR. BARTCH: But the supervisor did
11 not act on that and do anything about that.
12 MR. STARK: That is correct.
13 MR. BARTCH: And we're charging
14 Mr. Shields because he didn't carry it further
15 and notify gaming or there was another level in
16 there that he should have --
17 MR. JOHNSON: To the department
18 head, yes, sir.
19 MR. BARTCH: To the department head.
20 MR. BIELE: Where does Ms. Wallace
21 (phonetic) fit into all this? She's the one that
22 kept the key after she was told to put it in there.
23 MR. STARK: None of that evidence
24 was brought into this particular case. Again, this
25 case just dealt with Mr. Shields, so I don't know
1 what happened to the --
2 MR. JOHNSON: General counsel may be
3 able to speak to this case, Mike.
4 MR. BUSHMANN: Commissioners, I can
5 comment on that because it's a separate issue from
6 this case so it would be appropriate for me to give
7 you information about that. Ms. Wallace was
8 actually suspended for three days for her part in
9 this. The staff did not take any action against
10 the supervisor because at the time the case was
11 considered, there was conflicting evidence in front
12 of the staff about whether or not the supervisor
13 actually knew th