1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 NOVEMBER 29, 2006
14
15
16
17
18
19 BEFORE:
20 Noel J. Shull, Chairman
21 Darryl T. Jones, Commissioner
22 Samuel J. Hais, Commissioner
23 Larry W. Plunkett, Sr., Commissioner
24 Gene McNary, Executive Director
25 Angie Franks, Secretary
1 MR. SHULL: First item is to call the roll.
2 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
3 MR. SHULL: Present.
4 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
5 MR. JONES: Present.
6 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
7 MR. HAIS: Present.
8 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
9 MR. PLUNKETT: Present.
10 MR. SHULL: The next issue Mr. McNary will call for
11 the presentation on the hearing officer's recommendation.
12 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, item II
13 on the agenda is -- concerns hearing officer recommendations.
14 And I'd like to call on the hearing officer, Steve Stark, at
15 this time.
16 MR. STARK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
17 Commissioners. We have four cases to present to you this
18 morning with regard to applicants for Level II licensure.
19 The first item, A, is the case of Byron Redus.
20 Mr. Redus made an application for the Level II occupational
21 license earlier this year and after an investigation with
22 regard to his application it was learned that he failed to
23 disclose some items.
24 The question on the application requires a full
25 disclosure of all arrests, convictions, guilty pleas, anything
1 dealing with a criminal offense. There's no time limit on
2 that question and no requirement on a conviction. What
3 Mr. Redus failed to disclose on his application was an arrest
4 when he was with the United States Navy.
5 He indicated in his testimony that he was not
6 convicted, that he was told that that particular offense would
7 not be part of his record and that it occurred over ten years
8 ago.
9 So his conclusion was, I suppose, that it was not
10 necessary to disclose it upon the application. However, our
11 regulations do require full disclosure.
12 The burden is upon the applicant to prove his
13 suitability for licensure and the Commission in its
14 preliminary order made the denial for licensure.
15 My recommendation is that that was appropriate to
16 deny the application based on the Statutes and that would be
17 my recommendation that the decision of the Commission dated on
18 March 6th, 2006 be affirmed as a proper denial of the license
19 on Mr. Redus.
20 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Is Mr. Redus here? Is there
21 a motion? Is there anyone here that represents Mr. Redus that
22 would like to speak?
23 MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion
24 to approve Resolution 06-059.
25 MR. HAIS: So seconded.
1 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
2 roll.
3 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
4 MR. SHULL: Approve.
5 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
6 MR. JONES: Approve.
7 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
8 MR. HAIS: Approve.
9 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
10 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
11 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
12 06-059.
13 MR. STARK: Commissioners, our second item, B,
14 Jeffrey Sauls. Again, this is a case of an application being
15 made that has been preliminarily denied by the Commission
16 based on the failure to disclose certain information upon the
17 application.
18 Mr. Sauls had been previously licensed by the
19 Commission since 1997, worked in the industry all those years,
20 but did allow his Level II occupational license to expire or
21 terminate in May of 2005.
22 Earlier this year he made an application for a Level
23 II occupational license. And on the question regarding the
24 disclosure of any arrests, detention, charge, indictment,
25 conviction of any criminal offense based on the Commission's
1 investigation it was found that he failed to disclose certain
2 past arrests for misdemeanors. Those misdemeanors that were
3 not disclosed were possession of a controlled substance,
4 assault, failure to appear.
5 At the hearing Mr. Sauls indicated that he had
6 previously disclosed this information on the first application
7 from 1997 and felt that he properly disclosed all information
8 necessary for him to obtain the license.
9 In fact, he thought it was merely a renewal of his
10 license. However, the burden is again upon the Petitioner,
11 the applicant, in this case to fully disclose on each and
12 every application they submit to the Commission all
13 information.
14 And I found a case that the Appellate Court looked
15 at that seemed to be on point. And if I could refer you to
16 that case called Teague versus Missouri Gaming Commission
17 cited at 127 S.W. 3d 679. In that particular case --
18 MR. HAIS: Do you have a copy of that case with you,
19 sir?
20 MR. STARK: Yes, sir.
21 MR. HAIS: Would you pass it up, please.
22 MR. STARK: (Complied.) In that particular case --
23 it's a 2003 case -- Mr. Teague had applied for a Level II
24 occupational license, was granted that license. Then some
25 time later he applied for a Level I license.
1 Apparently, he was in the information technology
2 field that necessitated that Level I licensure. He failed to
3 disclose some past criminal information on his application and
4 the Appellate Court looked at his argument as to whether or
5 not that having the two applications read together was
6 sufficient to disclose all information.
7 And that Appellate Courted ruled no, the burden is
8 upon the applicant to prove his suitability, such that all
9 information has to be disclosed on each individual
10 application. Basically, you cannot piggyback on previous
11 information you have provided to the Commission.
12 So while sympathetic to Mr. Sauls in this case at
13 hand that, yes, the Commission did have all that information
14 previously, even though it was back in 1997, the Commission
15 was fully aware of his past criminal activity.
16 My conclusion is that the 2006 application was not
17 properly providing the information necessary to determine his
18 suitability for licensure. And that therefore it was
19 appropriate for the Commission to deny the license.
20 So therefore I would make the recommendation that
21 the decision of the Commission dated April 3rd, 2006 be
22 affirmed as the proper denial of Mr. Sauls' application for a
23 license.
24 MR. SHULL: Is Mr. Sauls or his representative here?
25 MR. SAULS: Yes, I am.
1 MR. SHULL: Would you like to speak, Mr. Sauls?
2 MR. HAIS: Before you start, I just wanted to ask
3 you a couple very quick questions. Sir, you were present in
4 the room and you heard the statement of counsel just
5 presently, did you not?
6 MR. SAULS: Yeah -- yes.
7 MR. HAIS: And do you agree with the facts as he
8 stated them?
9 MR. SAULS: Yes and no.
10 MR. HAIS: Okay.
11 MR. SAULS: I'm not trying to hide a thing from
12 anybody. I never have. I've had other gaming licenses in
13 other states and never been denied a license.
14 I was under the assumption that I was doing this
15 because of this relicensing or whatever -- it happened to me
16 previously at Harrah's Casino when Player's
17 them. And I did the exact same fingerprint stuff -- actually,
18 they lost my previous paper.
19 I was issued a new badge with a new gaming number
20 and at that time I was working on the floor. I was a poker
21 room manager, been let go, come back as executive host. And I
22 filled out -- did the all fingerprints. I did -- some of the
23 stuff I couldn't remember, I told them if there was something
24 that I missed it's in my original gaming package when I
25 completely filled all this out.
1 I didn't hide anything from anybody. I never ever
2 have. I wouldn't do that. And sure enough, about a month
3 later they came back, took that badge, gave me back my
4 original badge with my original badge number.
5 When I went downtown to go work to at the Admiral, I
6 presumed it was the exactly the same thing. The officer that
7 did my background check, I said: If there's anything that I
8 missed because I can't remember, would you please go to my
9 original gaming licensing and it's all been put in there.
10 I even gave them FBI reports for each state, which
11 aren't here in here, I don't know why. I've never tried to
12 hide anything from anybody and never had a problem with
13 licensing in my life.
14 And this was quite a shock to me. I've wrote
15 letters to Angie Franks explaining to her that it embarrassed
16 me. I'm sorry to be here. I've -- basically, I went to
17 another hearing before this and they seemed to think that
18 since I handled such large sums of money I may be a potential
19 person to take something, well that's not true.
20 I believe that I've earned the right to have a
21 gaming -- especially Level II license in
22 past. I've never taken anything from anybody. And I've got
23 licenses in
24 had a problem.
25 This is the first time I've ever had a problem like
1 this
and it's my livelihood. I like
2 here. I bought a home. If I lose my job, I lose all that.
3 So that's why I'm here today. I took the time to drive down
4 here and I thought that it was a good idea to talk to you
5 gentlemen so that you knew.
6 Also, I have a character references if you'd like to
7 read them. I mean -- and that really is the truth. I didn't
8 try to hide anything. If this person would have said: Jeff,
9 why don't you come down to my office, I want to discuss this
10 with you. I believe there's something that you may forgotten
11 about. I would have done everything possible to take care of
12 the whole situation.
13 MR. HAIS: I don't have any questions.
14 MR. SHULL: Did you want to continue with your
15 remarks or did you have anything else to add?
16 MR. SAULS: Other than I really do need my job and I
17 need this license. It's important to me. If not I'll lose my
18 livelihood and I don't want to do that.
19 I like my job. I'm very responsible. People like
20 me. I know a lot of the gaming guys that work the floor for
21 year and years and they even seem concerned -- you know, in my
22 benefit. Other than that, I really don't know what else to
23 tell you.
24 MR. SHULL: Did you read the application?
25 MR. SAULS: Yeah.
1 MR. SHULL: Thoroughly?
2 MR. SAULS: Well, I mean it's -- I had already
3 previously gone through it. And I thought if there was
4 anything that I missed that I couldn't remember that they
5 would take into account that in the first application that I
6 submitted all the information.
7 I mean, everything. I did everything that I could.
8 And see, I treated this like it was a renewal. It didn't seem
9 to be a -- like, I had to start all over again. And other
10 than that, no, sir. I tried to comply with everything. I
11 always have.
12 MR. HAIS: But there was information on the second
13 application that was also was on the first application; isn't
14 that correct?
15 MR. SAULS: Yes, sir, that's true.
16 MR. HAIS: Don't you see the inconsistency there?
17 MR. SAULS: Well, I thought they would go back if
18 there was anything I missed on the original application. See,
19 it's like -- other states that I've been in, that's what they
20 do. It's the same thing. That license number follows you
21 just like -- for the rest of your life. And if they did a
22 background check and if there was something I would have
23 missed, I would have whatever I need to do to help them.
24 MR. SHULL: Are there any other questions?
25 MR. JONES: Yeah, one question. Did I read
1 somewhere the license had expired?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, it did.
3 MR. JONES: So you didn't look at this a brand new
4 application since that had expired?
5 MR. SAULS: No, sir, I didn't understand it to be a
6 brand new application. I just thought it was a renewal of --
7 because of the original licensing.
8 MR. SHULL: Do you have any other questions?
9 MR. HAIS: You can step down, sir. I just have two
10 questions. First, when his hearing took place, sir --
11 MR. STARK: Yes.
12 MR. HAIS: (Continuing) -- there was a record before
13 you, was there not?
14 MR. STARK: Yes, there was.
15 MR. HAIS: And did the record contain the first
16 application?
17 MR. STARK: At the hearing date itself it did not.
18 I allowed the record to remain open so that that record could
19 be made. In fact, I marked it as an Exhibit No. 5 to be
20 submitted to me by -- I put a date of September 1st that the
21 1997 application would be part of record.
22 MR. HAIS: Were they kept in two separate places?
23 MR. STARK: Well, no one knew where it was kept on
24 the date of the hearing. The Attorney General's Office didn't
25 know and Mr. Sauls didn't know.
1 MR. HAIS: Whose care and custody were the records
2 left originally?
3 MR. STARK: My understanding is it came from the
4 investigator from the Commission, Mr. Wiedeman.
5 He actually submitted it to Mr. Roberts at the Attorney
6 General's Office. I didn't receive it until after the
7 deadline I had said, but I did --
8 MR. HAIS: So the Attorney General's Office --
9 MR. STARK: No.
10 MR. HAIS: (Continuing) -- had this record while the
11 hearing was going on, but it wasn't conveyed to the premises
12 where the hearing took place?
13 MR. STARK: No, the record was submitted after the
14 date of the hearing. I believe the hearing was, like, July
15 30th. And the record was not submitted to the Attorney
16 General's Office until that first week in August. So there
17 was no record at the time of the hearing. The physical record
18 was not present at the hearing.
19 MR. HAIS: Was it known at the time of the hearing
20 that there was a file that existed somewhere relating to this
21 gentleman?
22 MR. STARK: Well, Mr. Sauls testified that there
23 was.
24 MR. HAIS: I'm asking what your understanding was at
25 the time -- were you physically present at the hearing -- you
1 were --
2 MR. STARK: I was the hearing officer.
3 MR. HAIS: And so it was called to your attention by
4 anyone or did you determine on your own that there were
5 documents that existed relative to -- regarding his employment
6 -- his previous employment in the industry?
7 MR. STARK: Yes, it was brought to my attention by
8 Mr. Sauls. He wanted to make that part of our record, that's
9 why I gave the opportunity to leave the record open for the
10 submission of that particular record.
11 So it was brought to my attention there was a
12 previous application. I don't remember if Mr. Wiedeman
13 testified as to the prior record at all, but Mr. Sauls had
14 brought it.
15 MR. HAIS: Okay. At some point those records were
16 conveyed to you and that's when you discovered that there were
17 additional criminal matters on the second application; is that
18 correct?
19 MR. STARK: Yes, I confirmed what Mr. Sauls
20 indicated was that he did disclose it on his first
21 application, but it was not disclosed on the second
22 application.
23 MR. HAIS: So just there's no misunderstanding on my
24 part anyway, at time of the hearing he told you that there
25 were some other things on the first application, but that
1 wasn't physically present?
2 MR. STARK: That is correct.
3 MR. HAIS: And through no fault of his?
4 MR. STARK: Well, I assume he probably kept a copy
5 of the application in 1997, so I don't know if it was his
6 fault or not.
7 MR. HAIS: Was there anything said to him bring all
8 your previous applications with you?
9 MR. STARK: Correct. A party to an Administrative
10 Hearing should be prepared for that day, I agree.
11 MR. HAIS: That's your opinion. I'm asking what it
12 said in black and white.
13 MR. STARK: What the record said or what --
14 MR. HAIS: What the instructions indicated to the
15 subject of the hearing.
16 MR. STARK: I don't know that there's any specific
17 instructions. They make a request for a hearing. Then the
18 Commission's Office makes a determination as to date of that
19 hearing, sends a notice to say show up.
20 So I don't know that there's specific instructions
21 on saying, you know, what documents to bring or what witnesses
22 to bring.
23 MR. HAIS: Is it your position, sir, that this is
24 just strictly matter of law?
25 MR. STARK: That is correct. I think the case law
1 and the Statutes say that, yes --
2 MR. HAIS: And speaking of case law, is it your
3 position the Teague case is factually exact, not the legal
4 point, but the fact pattern?
5 MR. STARK: I believe the fact pattern is definitely on
6 point. You're talking about two different applications,
7 failure to disclose in one of them.
8 MR. HAIS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the hearing
9 officer has submitted -- if I may just hang on to this
10 temporarily, I'll see that it's returned to you.
11 MR. STARK: Yes.
12 MR. HAIS: This Teague case is some length -- twelve
13 or fifteen pages. I would just ask the Chair to table the
14 matter until I can take a look at the case law just to certify
15 what counsel has indicated.
16 MR. SHULL: So moved. Issue will be tabled.
17 MR. HAIS: I think it won't take longer than when we
18 take a recess and I can have five minutes to go over the case,
19 but I don't think it's appropriate to take the Commission's
20 time to do it now.
21 MR. SHULL: Thank you, sir. Next case.
22 MR. STARK: Item C, Steven Bledsoe. Again, this is
23 another case of an applicant failing to disclose information
24 on their application resulting in the preliminary order that
25 the license be denied.
1 Mr. Bledsoe requested a hearing. The notice of the
2 hearing went to Mr. Bledsoe. However, Mr. Bledsoe did not
3 show up for his assigned time for the hearing. I heard
4 nothing from him on the date of the hearing or after the
5 hearing with regard to his failure to appear.
6 There is a regulation on the books that indicate a
7 failure to appear at your assigned hearing constitutes an
8 admission of the facts alleged in the preliminary order of
9 discipline.
10 But the facts were presented to me as the hearing
11 officer by a witness from the Commission showing that
12 Mr. Bledsoe answered the question with regard to past criminal
13 conduct, an arrest, being charged or convicted of a crime
14 leaving that answer -- leaving an answer to that question as
15 being no.
16 However, the Commission's investigation did reveal
17 that there was a felony, passing a bad check. And therefore,
18 that was the basis for the initial denial. Therefore, given
19 the fact that Mr. Bledsoe did not show up for his hearing and
20 the fact as presented to me that he failed to disclose a past
21 criminal act upon his application it would be my
22 recommendation that the decision of the Commission that was
23 dated July 26th, 2005 be affirmed as a proper denial of
24 Mr. Bledsoe's application for a license.
25 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Is Mr. Bledsoe or a person
1 representing him here that would like to speak? Is there a
2 motion?
3 MR. HAIS: Chairman, I move that Commission
4 Resolution 06-061 be approved.
5 MR. JONES: Second.
6 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
7 roll.
8 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
9 MR. SHULL: Approve.
10 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
11 MR. JONES: Approve.
12 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
13 MR. HAIS: Approve.
14 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
15 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
16 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
17 No. 06-061.
18 MR. STARK: The fourth item is item D, Robert
19 Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert made an application for a Level II
20 occupational license, that license application was reviewed by
21 the Commission and it was found that he failed to provide
22 information with regard to the question about criminal past
23 activity.
24 In addition, Mr. Gilbert did not show up for his
25 assigned time and date for a hearing. Again, notice was sent
1 to Mr. Gilbert notifying him of the date of hearing. We
2 delayed the time start for the hearing to learn if he might be
3 coming late. No communication whatsoever from Mr. Gilbert
4 regarding his hearing.
5 Therefore my conclusion was that because of our
6 regulation that says that failure to appear at your assigned
7 hearing constitutes admission of the facts as alleged in the
8 preliminary order of discipline.
9 As well as the presentation of evidence to me at the
10 hearing, that Mr. Gilbert did fail to disclose full and
11 complete information on his application, that being the basis
12 for his denial on his application for licensure and as such my
13 recommendation is that that decision of the Commission dated
14 May 8th, 2006 be affirmed as a proper denial of a license.
15 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Is Mr. Gilbert or his
16 representative here that would like to speak?
17 MR. JONES: Point of information, Mr. Stark, is it
18 customary to schedule the hearing meeting at the same time? I
19 notice on tab C and tab D, both of the hearings were at 11
20 o'clock on the same date.
21 And the second part to that, do we have -- what is
22 the set time to wait before we say that the Petitioner failed
23 to show for the hearing? Is it ten minutes, twenty minutes?
24 MR. STARK: To answer your second question, I don't
25 think there's a set time. I think in my recommendation I
1 identified the time that I waited before I actually started
2 the proceeding.
3 The question about the scheduling two hearings at
4 the same time, that is a typical practice. What I try to do,
5 depending on the facts of the case, is how much time might be
6 necessary in order to keep the cases moving.
7
I go to
8 hearings a day starting at two at 11 o'clock, two at 12
9 o'clock and so on, just to have people available for their
10 hearings.
11 Some do not show up as in some of these cases and
12 some get continued, so just to make sure there's a full
13 schedule, I do schedule at the same time a lot of time.
14 MR. JONES: That was just for some future reference.
15 MR. STARK: Sure. If that's not appropriate, I'll
16 be glad to change that practice --
17 MR. HAIS: I think you should schedule them all at
18 the same time and that way you might find that you can
19 expedite them better.
20 MR. STARK: That's true. And in fact, that's what
21 the courts do, they tell all the attorneys to show up at the
22 same time. So my thought is if we space them out a little
23 bit, people don't have to sit and wait all day for their
24 hearing, if they have witnesses. And so I was just kind of
25 giving them some treatment to their value of time by spacing
1 them out a little bit.
2 MR. HAIS: Yeah, it's different if you have thirty
3 or forty, but if you have six. Just a suggestion.
4 MR. STARK: Thank you.
5 MR. SHULL: Thank you.
6 MR. HAIS: But the other suggestion, that's more
7 important, is do you subpoena records when -- or you don't
8 even from the AG's office, do you? I mean, not to go back to
9 a previous matter, but since we're talking about procedure.
10 MR. STARK: Sure.
11 MR. HAIS: You wouldn't have to subpoena records
12 from the AG.
13 MR. STARK: My understanding of my role as a hearing
14 officer is to be kind of neutral, not to bring evidence to me,
15 but allow the parties to present the evidence.
16 So no, I do not request information before a
17 hearing. I'm hoping everything will be on the record, where I
18 can have both sides to argue about the evidence before me.
19 MR. HAIS: But ideally you have all the contents of
20 the file, whatever exists pertinent to that individual.
21 MR. STARK: Well, it's presented to me and
22 authenticated before me. All I have is the names of the
23 parties, basically, and the preliminary order of discipline,
24 that's what I receive when I start my hearing.
25 And -- but there is subpoena power to answer that
1 question. If one of the parties requests a subpoena, whether
2 it's records from the Attorney General's Office or from any
3 record holder at all, that can be done. There is a subpoena
4 power.
5 MR. HAIS: Is the Attorney General's representative
6 typically there at the hearing?
7 MR. STARK: Yes, they're the representative of the
8 Gaming Commission, always there.
9 MR. HAIS: Thank you.
10 MR. STARK: Mr. Chairman, should I stay for any
11 further discussion on the Sauls case or does that conclude my
12 presentation today?
13 MR. HAIS: I think I've indicated everything that I
14 think is relevant.
15 MR. SHULL: You can be dismissed.
16 MR. STARK: Thank you kindly.
17 MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to approve
18 06-062.
19 MR. HAIS: I'll second.
20 MR. SHULL: Is there any further discussion? Call
21 the roll.
22 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
23 MR. SHULL: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
25 MR. JONES: Approve.
1 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
2 MR. HAIS: Approve.
3 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
4 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
5 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
6 No. 06-062.
7 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item III concerns the
8 exclusion list, which is a rare entry on the agenda. Acting
9 general counsel David Welch will explain that and make the
10 presentation.
11 MR. WELCH: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
12 11 CSR 45-15.030(1) provides for an exclusion list and the
13 grounds for exclusion that they have been convicted of a
14 felony and any jurisdiction of any crime of moral turpitude or
15 involving gaming, violated either the act of these rules,
16 performed any act or had notorious or unsavory reputation,
17 which would adversely affect public confidence and trust in
18 gaming or his or her name on any valid exclusion -- current
19 exclusion list from any other jurisdiction in the United
20 States.
21 On November 14th Assistant Attorney General, Michael
22 Wambolt notified us that two individuals had been
23 convicted of stealing, both felonies, on three counts and had
24 received five years suspended imposition of sentence.
25 He recommended that these people be placed upon the
1 exclusion list, because during the same period of time, which
2 they were stealing by the seat -- by way of taking down
3 payments for installing carpeting and then not installing the
4 carpeting. They were spending thousands of dollars at local
5 gaming establishments.
6 The disciplinary review board reviewed this and
7 found that these are reasonable grounds for placing the
8 individuals on the exclusion list and recommend that both of
9 these individuals and Resolution 06-063 and Resolution 064 be
10 placed upon that exclusion and list and barred from gaming
11 establishments in the State of
12 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Is Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton
13 present and would they like to speak or do they have a
14 representative present?
15 MR. WELCH: Procedurally, I am not certain they have
16 been notified. Once they are placed upon the exclusion list
17 they will be notified that they are on that list and then may
18 request a hearing before the Commission.
19 MR. SHULL: Okay. Thank you. Are there further
20 questions?
21 MR. HAIS: No.
22 MR. JONES: No.
23 MR. PLUNKETT: Make a motion that we approve the
24 Resolution No. 06-063 to take these individuals -- and 064.
25 MR. SHULL: Thank you.
1 MR. JONES: Second.
2 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
3 roll.
4 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
5 MR. SHULL: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
7 MR. JONES: Approve.
8 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
9 MR. HAIS: Approve.
10 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
11 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
12 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
13 No. 06-063 and 06-064.
14 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item IV is consideration
15 of certain relicensure of certain suppliers and Lieutenant
16 Gary Moore will address that issue.
17 MR. MOORE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
18 Commissioners, a relicense diagram and investigation was
19 conducted on the following companies with no derogatory
20 commission discovered, the Atlanta City Coin and Slot Service
21 Company Inc., and Western Money Systems, that's the two.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. SHULL: Thank you.
24 MR. McNARY: Chairman, we find no reason not to
25 relicense these suppliers.
1 MR. SHULL: Is there a motion?
2 MR. JONES: Question first. What's the Western
3 Money Systems? What is their function? I'm just trying to be
4 inquisitive.
5 MR. McNARY: I'm going to refer that to the --
6 George --
7 MR. GREENO: If I might, Mr. Chairman,
8 Commissioners, Western Money Systems is a manufacturer of
9 kiosks that break bills and redeem tickets at casinos, redeem
10 tickets for cash.
11 MR. JONES: It goes into the -- one of the other
12 resolutions that's here, cassette, so they break the bills
13 down and administer tickets or cash, right?
14 MR. GREENO: Yes, sir, the kiosks typically are
15 impressed anywhere from $150,000 to $250,000. They can take
16 cassettes -- each cassette has a different denomination of US
17 currency inside.
18 When the person inserts a ticket they have received
19 as a cash out ticket at a slot machine, they can put it in
20 this redemption kiosk and the kiosk then presents them with
21 cash that ticket.
22 MR. JONES: Like I said, that's one of the -- I
23 guess one of the items on the agenda that we are talking about
24 right now.
25 MR. SHULL: Motion?
1 MR. HAIS: I move that the Resolution be approved.
2 MR. JONES: Second.
3 MR. SHULL: And is that 06-065 and 06-066?
4 MR. HAIS: Yes, sir.
5 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
6 roll, please.
7 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
8 MR. SHULL: Approve.
9 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
10 MR. JONES: Approve.
11 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
12 MR. HAIS: Approve.
13 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
14 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
15 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
16 Nos. 06-065 and 06-066.
17 MR. SHULL: Thank you.
18 MR. McNARY: Item V, consideration of Level I key
19 applicants, Lieutenant Gary Moore.
20 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the
21 Highway Patrol and Gaming Commission investigators conducted a
22 background investigation on the following Level I applicants.
23 The investigation included and were not limited to criminal,
24 financial and general character requirements.
25 The first one was Lisa Marie
Givens of Aztar
1 Riverboat Gaming Company. The second one is Wayne Henry
2 Smith of Aztar Missouri Riverboat Gaming Company. The third
3 one is Brian Ray Jenkins. The fourth one is Glen R. Wilen of
4
Harrah’s
5
Harrah's North,
6 The rest of the investigations were provided to the
7 Gaming Commission staff for their review and recommendation.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, we find no reason not to
10 renew the license -- not to issue the license.
11 MR. PLUNKETT: We accept Resolution 06-067.
12 MR. JONES: Second.
13 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
14 roll.
15 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
16 MR. SHULL: Approve.
17 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
18 MR. JONES: Approve.
19 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
20 MR. HAIS: Approve.
21 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
22 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
23 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you're adopted Resolution
24 No. 06-067.
25 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item VI concerns a
1 resolution under which the Commission would delegate the
2 authority to the chairman to extend any existing license for
3 up to sixty days without a prior vote of the Commission.
4 This is -- we will not meet until January. This
5 would give the chairman the authority to extend the license
6 during that sixty-day period and that resolution is in your
7 packet.
8 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Any questions?
9 MR. HAIS: I would move that the resolution so
10 numbered be approved.
11 MR. JONES: Second.
12 MR. SHULL: Further discussion? Call the roll.
13 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
14 MR. SHULL: Approve.
15 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
16 MR. JONES: Approve.
17 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
18 MR. HAIS: Approve.
19 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
20 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
21 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
22 No. 06-068.
23 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item VII consideration of
24 rules and regulations. The first portion will be handled by
25 acting general counsel, David Welch.
1 MR. WELCH: The first two proposed regulations are
2 identical, except one is an emergency amendment and one is a
3 proposed amendment.
4 The difference in the two is that the emergency
5 amendment will go into effect ten days after it is adopted.
6 The proposed amendment requires public hearings, comments and
7 to come back to you for a final action.
8 The emergency amendment has a limited time span and
9 the purpose of emergency amendment is to have them go into
10 effect while the procedure for the proposed amendment is
11 taking place.
12 The amendment as to 11 CSR 45-13.055, which provides
13 for emergency orders suspending licensing privileges.
14 Currently we have this and it allows the Executive Director to
15 suspend a license when he has facts which he believes
16 indicates there's a problem with the health or safety of being
17 endangered.
18 He has the authority to close a gaming facility,
19 cease all gaming operations. He also has the authority to
20 cease the sales of manufacturing of gaming supplies and by a
21 supplier to a licensee.
22 He can close down bingo halls, can cease the
23 supplying of bingo supplies to those bingo halls. We have
24 found recently that there are issues involving the consumption
25 of alcohol, which we also regulate.
1 The current regulation does not allow the Executive
2 Director to suspend the liquor sales license. He can close
3 the entire facility, which would in effect do that, but he
4 can't through the limited purposes of suspending the sale of
5 liquor.
6 And these amendments would give them that authority
7 consistent with the procedures for review by the Commission
8 that currently exist for suspending all gaming activities and
9 things of that nature. We would recommend your adoption of
10 these emergency and proposed amendments.
11 MR. SHULL: Are there any questions?
12 MR. HAIS: I would move for approval of the
13 resolution.
14 MR. PLUNKETT: Second.
15 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
16 roll.
17 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
18 MR. SHULL: Approve.
19 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
20 MR. JONES: Approve.
21 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
22 MR. HAIS: Approve.
23 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
24 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
25 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted emergency
1 and proposed amendment 11 CSR 45-13.055.
2 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Final Orders of
3 Rulemaking will be handled by Clarence Greeno.
4 MR. GREENO: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners behind tab
5 L you will find thirteen Final Orders of Rulemaking. If I
6 might, I would suggest these orders be acted upon in four
7 separate groups in conjunction with those chapters with which
8 they address. Those are 11 CSR 45-5, 11 CSR 45-7, 11 CSR
9 45-11 and 45-12.
10 The first is an amendment to 11 CSR 45-5.180
11 relating to tournaments held by casino licensees. The
12 amendment clarifies for the licensees what constitutes
13 tournament entry fees and they are subject to the adjusted
14 gross receipts tax.
15 The amendment provides the casino the ability to
16 retain 20 percent of all entry fees to cover business related
17 expenses and allows both cash and non-cash winnings to be
18 deductible from adjusted gross revenue, but only to the amount
19 of the tournament's total entry fees.
20 No comments were received either in writing or at
21 the public hearing held on behalf of this particular rule.
22 The next final order is an amendment to 11 CSR
23 45-5.190 relating to minimum standards electronic gaming
24 devices. The amendment clarifies for gaming device
25 manufacturers and casino operators that slot machine payglass
1 and its corresponding artwork for mechanical displays must be
2 submitted to the Commission's independent testing laboratory
3 for review and approval prior to implementation within the
4 state.
5 The amendment also requires gaming device
6 manufacturers to comply with the gaming device standards in
7 Chapter E of the Commission's Minimum Internal Control
8 Standards.
9 One written comment was received, that being from
10 the Director of Regulatory Compliance for International Game
11 Technology, who wanted to ensure her company's understanding
12 of the amendment was correct and it was.
13 The next amendment is to 11 CSR 45-5.200 relating to
14 progressive slot machines. The revision allows the required
15 event logs to be maintained electronically rather than in hard
16 copy as previously specified. And no comments were received
17 concerning this amendment.
18 MR. SHULL: Are there any questions?
19 MR. HAIS: No questions.
20 MR. SHULL: Is there a motion?
21 MR. JONES: Move for the acceptance of CSR 45-5.180,
22 CSR 45-5.190 and CSR 45-5.200.
23 MR. SHULL: Further question?
24 MR. PLUNKETT: Second.
25 MR. SHULL: Further discussion? Call the roll.
1 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
2 MR. SHULL: Approve.
3 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
4 MR. JONES: Approve.
5 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
6 MR. HAIS: Approve.
7 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
8 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
9 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Final Orders
10 of Rulemaking 11 CSR 45-5.180, 5.190 and 5.200.
11 MR. GREENO: The next four Final Orders of
12 Rulemaking amend Chapter 7 of Title 11, Division 45 of the
13 Code of State Regulations relating to security and
14 surveillance.
15 The first is an amendment to 11 CSR 45.7030 relating
16 to required surveillance equipment for casino properties.
17 This rule will require casinos to migrate to an all color
18 environment on their gaming floors and to replace their
19 present analog recording equipment with digital video
20 recording systems.
21 The amendment allows a five-year phase-in; that is,
22 the casino properties will not be required to have completed
23 the changeover to digital until July 1, 2011.
24 Written comments were received from Harrah's North
25
1 Booneville and Argosy-Riverside Casino. Additionally, the
2 Compliance Administration Manager and the Director of
3 Surveillance from Argosy-Riverside Casino testified at the
4 public hearing.
5 The area of concern expressed both in the written
6 comments and in testimony at the public hearing related to the
7 cost of converting to all color cameras and the time period
8 for compliance. There was no objection voiced or comments
9 received relative to the required migration to digital
10 technology.
11 No changes to the proposed rule were deemed
12 necessary based upon the comments and testimony. The
13 Commission recognizes the conversion costs to an all color
14 environment will be significant for some properties and we
15 will establish a reasonable effective date for implementation
16 as 11 CSR 45-7.150.
17 The second rule amendment relating to surveillance
18 is 11 CSR 45-7.040, which establishes the areas of required
19 surveillance at casino properties.
20 The amendment specifically delineates exactly what
21 must be covered in the soft count rooms and casino cages, adds
22 a requirement for coverage of each slot machine offering a
23 payout in excess of $250,00 and removes a roulette coverage
24 that licensees can no longer meet because of changes in
25 technology.
1 Again, three letters of comment were received and
2 two individuals testified at the public hearing. Neither the
3 comments not the testimony warranted any changes be made to
4 the rule.
5 The next amendment is to 11 CSR 45-7.080 relating to
6 the storage and retrieval of the video surveillance
7 recordings. The rule presently requires all recordings be
8 retained for at least fourteen days.
9 The amendment requires recordings from cameras
10 covering the turnstiles and areas within the cashier cages,
11 main banks and count rooms be maintain for at least thirty
12 days, while all other areas be retained for at least fourteen
13 days.
14 The amendment also accommodates digital record
15 systems which can retain the recordings on their hard drives
16 rather than having to be removed from the recording devices to
17 be viewed as is presently the case with analog recording
18 devices.
19 The written comments and testimony related to the
20 increased costs for videotapes and their storage if the
21 requirements are implemented prior to the deadline for
22 migrating to an all digital environment.
23 The Commission recognizes the associated costs may
24 be significant for some properties and will establish a
25 reasonable effective date for implementation as provided in 11
1 CSR 45-7.150.
2 The final surveillance amendment is to 11 CSR
3 45-7.120 relating to surveillance system plans. A
4 requirement that the licensees maintain and keep current a
5 copy of their surveillance plans within their surveillance
6 department with access to a copy thereof being available to
7 the Commission upon request was added to the rule. No
8 comments were received relative to this amendment.
9 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Any questions? Is there a
10 motion?
11 MR. HAIS: I move that the rules described by
12 Mr. Greeno namely -- correct me, Angie, if I misstate this --
13 45-5.18 --
14 MS. FRANKS: Chapter 7 Rules.
15 MR. HAIS: 7.030, 7.040, 7.080 and 7.120 be
16 approved.
17 MR. JONES: Second.
18 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
19 roll.
20 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
21 MR. SHULL: Approve.
22 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
23 MR. JONES: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
25 MR. HAIS: Approve.
1 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
2 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
3 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Final Orders
4 of Rulemaking 11 CSR 45-7.030, 7.040, 7.080 and 7.120.
5 MR. GREENO: The next three Final Orders of
6 Rulemaking relate to tax regulations, all of which are
7 intended to codify, simplify and streamline the tax remittal
8 process to more accurately reflect the improved electronic
9 filing system that became effective April 1, 2006.
10 The first amendment is to 11 CSR 45-11.040,
11 establishing procedures for the submission of tax returns for
12 gaming taxes. The amendment codifies the filing practices for
13 tax returns currently in use by the Commission, including
14 electronic filing of returns and the imposition of filing
15 deadlines.
16 This amendment included provisions previously stated
17 in 11 CST 45-11.090 which is being rescinded. No comments
18 were received relative to this amendment.
19 The second Final Order rescinds 11 CSR 11.090
20 relating to the determination of time limits for filing
21 returns and extensions thereof. The elements of the rule have
22 been included in 11 CSR 45-11.040, previously presented.
23 Again, no comments were received on this change.
24 The third Final Order amends 11 CSR 45-11.110
25 establishing the procedures whereby claims for refunds can be
1 filed. The amendment corrects grammatical errors, eliminates
2 Appendix A to the rule and streamlines the tax refund approval
3 process. Essentially, the amendments parallel to the
4 Department of Revenue regulations and policies for filing
5 claims for refunds of taxes paid. And no comments were
6 received relative to this amendment, as well.
7 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Any questions?
8 MR. JONES: Move for acceptance of CSR 45-11.040,
9 11.090, 11.110.
10 MR. PLUNKETT: Second.
11 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
12 roll.
13 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
14 MR. SHULL: Approve.
15 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
16 MR. JONES: Approve.
17 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
18 MR. HAIS: Approve.
19 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
20 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
21 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Final Orders
22 of Rulemaking 11 CSR 45-11.040, 11.090 and 11.110.
23 MR. GREENO: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the
24 final three Final Orders of Rulemaking are amendments relating
25 to Liquor Control.
1 The first is amendment to 11 CSR 45-12.020 defining
2 an excursion liquor license and licensed premises. "Licensed
3 Premises" is being defined as any and all property owned and
4 operated by the Class A applicant or licensee immediately
5 adjacent to and contiguous with its riverboat gaming
6 operation.
7 Also under the proposal the excursion liquor license
8 will allow for the sale of intoxicating liquor in the original
9 package at locations specifically indicated on the license for
10 consumption off the licensed premises. No comments were
11 received on the proposed amendment.
12 Next is an amendment to 11 CSR 45-12.040 relating to
13 excursion liquor license applications. The proposal clarifies
14 the application shall also include the areas of the premises
15 where intoxicating liquor will be sold and stored. Again, no
16 comments were received relative to the amendment.
17 Last is an amendment to 11 CSR 45-12.090 on the
18 Rules of Liquor Control. The amendment reflects changes in
19 this general Liquor Control Law under Chapter 311 under the
20 Revised Statutes of the State of
21 The first change updated the forms of acceptable
22 identification a licensee can rely upon to determine a person
23 is of legal age to purchase intoxicating liquor.
24 Three additional rules were added. The first
25 relates to complimentary service of intoxicating liquor,
1 prohibiting an excursion liquor licensee or employee thereof
2 from supplying intoxicating liquor in any quantify free of
3 charge to any person on the gaming floor of the premises.
4 This has been a long-standing policy of the Commission and the
5 amendment acts to codify that policy.
6 The second rule allows patrons to carry unfinished
7 bottles of wine out of restaurants provided certain conditions
8 are met. The proposed regulation and the conditions imposed
9 are identical to those set forth in Chapter 311 of the Revised
10 Statutes to which establishments licensed by
the
11 Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control must comply.
12 The last rule allows excursion liquors licensees to
13 permit certain charitable or religious organizations or
14 educational institutions to hold events and activities for
15 which an admission is charged and beer, wine, brandy, or
16 non-intoxicating beer which has been donated or delivered is
17 available without a separate charge or auctions of wine in the
18 original package for fund-raising purposes and no comments
19 were received on the proposed amendment.
20 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Are there any questions?
21 MR. HAIS: No, sir.
22 MR. SHULL: Is there a motion?
23 MR. PLUNKETT: Make a motion to accept the
24 amendments to 11 CSR 45-12.020, 12.040, 12.090.
25 MR. HAIS: Second.
1 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
2 roll, please.
3 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
4 MR. SHULL: Approve.
5 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
6 MR. JONES: Approve.
7 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
8 MR. HAIS: Approve.
9 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
10 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
11 MS. FRANKS: By your vote to the Final Orders of
12 Rulemaking 11 CSR 45-12.020, 12.040 and 12.090.
13 MR. SHULL: Thank you. I think at this time we're
14 going to go back to the Teague case.
15 MR. HAIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
16 the Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to refer ruling
17 on this matter by the Commission until I had an opportunity to
18 take a look at this case.
19 But before I comment on it, I would just ask the
20 Members of the Commission if you would care to see the case,
21 too? We can proceed.
22 If I might just inquire, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rackers,
23 you're here representing the Attorney General's Office this
24 morning, as usual.
25 MS. RACKERS: Yes, sir.
1 MR. HAIS: I would just like to inquire briefly.
2 Was it you who were personally present at this particular
3 hearing or --
4 MS. RACKERS: I was not. One of my colleagues was
5 present.
6 MR. HAIS: Is it your understanding that any records
7 that are kept in the care and custody of the Attorney
8 General's Office relative to one of these hearings, such as
9 the one we're entertaining right now, that any records that
10 may be existing outside of the files that physically exists
11 and is physically present at the hearing needs to be
12 transmitted to that hearing by the Attorney General?
13 MS. RACKERS: I think I can clarify that for you.
14 The first application that's being described -- Mr. Sauls'
15 first application, that is a record of the Gaming Commission.
16 And at some point that record was sent to the State Archives
17 and so it was in the care of the State Archives off site of
18 the Gaming Commission.
19 It was not our record. We didn't get a copy of the
20 record because under the Teague case it was not relevant to
21 the case. The only thing relevant was the application that
22 Mr. Sauls submitted in 2006.
23 Mr. Sauls did not ask for a copy of the first
24 application either informally or through any formal means. I
25 mean, he can you get a copy of that record. He never asked
1 for it before the hearing. During the hearing Mr. Sauls said:
2 Can I get a copy of that somehow. Would that be too much
3 trouble --
4 MR. HAIS: Meaning of a copy of the first --
5 MS. RACKERS: Meaning a copy of the first
6 application, yes, sir. The Assistant Attorney General that
7 was at the hearing --
8 MR. HAIS: May I just ask what prompted -- if you
9 know, what prompted him asking that question?
10 MS. RACKERS: It was a discussion. I reviewed the
11 transcript, so there -- it was his assertion, as he did today,
12 that because he had disclosed it on his first application that
13 he didn't think he needed to on the application in 2006.
14 So I think he wanted to establish that he had
15 disclosed all of his arrests and convictions on the first
16 application. So he said: Can I get a copy of it.
17 At that point the Assistant Attorney General that
18 was present objected on the basis of relevance and said we
19 don't think this record exists, if it can be obtained is
20 relevant and shouldn't come in.
21 MR. HAIS: Well, let me just -- and pardon the
22 interruptions, but I think it's important. When you say: "If
23 it exists", didn't you just say that it was sent to the State
24 Archive?
25 MS. RACKERS: As far as we knew at that point.
1 Mr. Sauls had asserted that he had that. We had not seen a
2 copy of -- and so we were saying that we didn't believe it was
3 relevant to the hearing under the Teague case.
4 MR. HAIS: That wasn't my question, though. My
5 question was to the best of your knowledge it was at the State
6 Archives.
7 MS. RACKERS: As far as we knew it was in the State
8 Archive.
9 MR. HAIS: You were told it was in the State
10 Archive?
11 MS. RACKERS: Yes.
12 MR. HAIS: Did you check your office to see whether
13 or not there were any Teague (sic) records in the Attorney
14 General's possession at the time?
15 MS. RACKERS: Mr. Sauls' records?
16 MR. HAIS: I'm sorry, yes.
17 MS. RACKERS: I don't think anyone ever checked
18 because there would be no reason for us to have his
19 application. We don't keep copies. We would not have been
20 part of his original application --
21 MR. HAIS: Except you were present here and you
22 heard counsel testify, did you not, that -- that the records
23 were at the Attorney General's Office? Unless I misunderstood
24 him.
25 MS. RACKERS: I'm not sure, but -- I'm not sure if
1 he understood your question, but he was saying that he --
2 MR. HAIS: I think my question was: Where were the
3 records.
4 MS. RACKERS: And he was saying that he did not have
5 -- what he gets is the preliminary order from the Commission
6 staff, that's what begins the case for Mr. Stark.
7 He then relies on the parties to bring evidence,
8 present evidence and request it be admitted. And he was
9 saying that to the extent there were any other exhibits, those
10 would be within the Attorney General's Office.
11 We never had that original application. We wouldn't
12 have had that original application --
13 MR. SHULL: Excuse me, I believe what was testified
14 to by the hearing officer was that he asked that that
15 information be located and sent to him by September the 1st.
16 MS. RACKERS: Yes, sir.
17 MR. SHULL: And that the information was forwarded
18 to the Attorney General's Office the second week of August.
19 MS. RACKERS: I'm not sure --
20 MR. SHULL: According to Mr. Stark.
21 MS. RACKERS: But I believe that -- yes, at the
22 hearing.
23 MR. SHULL: As I saw this I didn't see any -- excuse
24 me, it did go. November the 15th there was a letter from
25 Mr. Roberts forwarding the information to --
1 MS. RACKERS: Yes, sir.
2 MR. SHULL: Was there some reason for the delay from
3 August to November?
4 MS. RACKERS: I believe there was some confusion
5 about whether -- when the records were obtained by the Gaming
6 Commission staff, whether those were submitted directly to the
7 hearing officer. I believe they submitted them only to us,
8 but we thought they had already been submitted to the hearing
9 officer.
10 MR. HAIS: Well, did you read the Teague case?
11 MS. RACKERS: Yes, sir.
12 MR. HAIS: Do you concur with the hearing officer's
13 opinion that the facts are exactly the same as this case?
14 MS. RACKERS: Yes.
15 MR. HAIS: And the law is the same?
16 MS. RACKERS: Yes, sir.
17 MR. HAIS: And is it your position then that this
18 gentleman was in the same position as Mr. Teague in terms of
19 the availability of records?
20 MS. RACKERS: Yes, sir.
21 MR. HAIS: But the Teague case was -- the first
22 application was a
23 MS. RACKERS: I don't recall that.
24 MR. HAIS: Well, let me refresh your memory then.
25 It says in the Teague case: "Additionally -- and I'm quoting
1 from paragraph two -- the hearing officer noted that
2 Mr. Teague had been notified by the Louisiana Gaming
3 Authorities that he had omitted the same two arrests in his
4
5 his
Level I license applications in
6
It was not even in the State of
7 another state. Not in the same database. Not in the same
8 state. Are -- are you saying that in view of that it's the
9 same case?
10 MS. RACKERS: Commissioner, I believe he submitted an
11 earlier
12
13 this is a situation where he had information he had
14 submitted to
15 Plus, as he testified, he had gone through a
16 situation with another casino where he had had to get those
17 records again. So he recalled and had more of an opportunity,
18 not since 1997 or not since the arrest, but even more recently
19 to know all of the information to put down on the application.
20 No one with the Gaming Commission ever told
21 Mr. Sauls that he did not have to put down everything. He
22 never asked whether anyone would look back at that first
23 application. He never asked that. He assumed, but he never
24 asked.
25 What he was told was he had to fill out a complete
1 application. He had to put down everything. There was no
2 time limit. Mr. Sauls made some assumptions and those
3 assumptions turned out be incorrect.
4 MR. HAIS: Thank you, ma'am.
5 MS. RACKERS: Thank you.
6 MR. HAIS: I think that this Teague case is not -- I
7 would respectfully disagree with Ms. Rackers. I think the
8
Teague case does reference a
9 And it's my feeling that the other points cited in
10 the Teague case, namely that Mr. Teague had the duty to inform
11 and that the Commission doesn't have the duty to inquire is a
12 qualitatively different situation than exists with respect to
13 this case.
14 I think it's a misapplication of the Statute to keep
15 possession of file and keep it in separate locations. I
16 think it turns a very useful and very important Statute and
17 regulation into an abusive and potentially abusive thing and
18 the consequence is too important.
19 This Commission exists to accomplish certain results
20 with respect to the gaming industry, which are key and
21 critical to the people of the State of
22 the expense, if appropriate -- if appropriate of costing
23 people their jobs when there was no intent, in my opinion from
24 what I see before me -- it's just my opinion alone -- to
25 deceive.
1 And in fact, the contrary request by the applicant
2 to retrieve documents that would disclose it. I don't think
3 he had any intention to hide things. And that the Teague case
4 while it's true that the Teague case references the
5 distinction between an administrative regulation and a
6 regulation that exists outside of the administrative frame
7 work.
8 It is not such that comparing one record, one file
9 that ought to exist in one location for the sake of just so
10 that a problem like this won't reoccur, especially in this day
11 of technology when records can be much more easily kept within
12 one location is different than something
exists in
13 or some other foreign place. So I would vote, Mr. Chairman,
14 to not approve the resolution.
15 MR. JONES: I second that.
16 MR. SHULL: Is there any further discussion? Call
17 the roll.
18 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
19 MR. SHULL: Disapprove. I'm approving the motion.
20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
21 MR. JONES: Approve.
22 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
23 MR. HAIS: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
25 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
1 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've disapproved the
2 hearing officer's recommendation.
3 MR. SHULL: I'd just like to comment that I believe
4 this is correct, but in the future Mr. Saul I would suggest
5 that you read and understand what you are signing very
6 carefully and clearly.
7 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, we may be about half way
8 through and you may want to take a break at this point.
9 MR. SHULL: That would be a good idea. Let's do
10 take about a ten-minute break.
11 (WHEREIN A SHORT BREAK WAS TAKEN.)
12 MR. SHULL: We are now back in session. It has been
13 brought to our attention a correction that needs to be made in
14 the previous motion, so --
15 MR. HAIS: Yeah, I think rather than moving to --
16 could you read it back what you have --
17 MR. McNARY: Disapprove the --
18 MR. HAIS: Disapprove -- moving to disprove the
19 Resolution -- excuse me, no, that's what I need to do is to
20 move --
21 MR. McNARY: I think that's what you did.
22 MR. JONES: We approved your disapproval.
23 MR. McNARY: And I'm told that there's no further
24 action required to restore his license. He still has the
25 license by your action.
1 MR. SHULL: Thank you.
2 MR. WELCH: I think what was brought to the
3 attention is the original motion was not in the form of a
4 motion. You had said I'm going to vote against and that was
5 then seconded rather than being in formal phrase as a motion.
6 MR. HAIS: I think your point is correct. I would
7 move to disapprove the resolution, not to amend.
8 MS. FRANKS: Disapprove the hearing officer's
9 recommendation.
10 MR. HAIS: I think the previous one was not on the
11 floor properly, so I would -- yes, ma'am. I would move to --
12 that the resolution to discipline be disapproved.
13 MR. JONES: And I'll second.
14 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
15 roll.
16 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
17 MR. SHULL: Approve.
18 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
19 MR. JONES: Approve.
20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
21 MR. HAIS: Approve.
22 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
23 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've disapproved the
25 hearing officer's recommendation.
1 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Next.
2 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, we're up to Item VIII on
3 the agenda, that's consideration of disciplinary action.
4 Acting general counsel, David Welch, will handle that.
5 MR. WELCH: Hello, again. The next item is a
6 preliminary order of disciplinary action by the Commission
7 against Ameristar Casino St. Charles, Inc.
8 The situation was their kiosks, which dispense many
9 or make change for many that are situated throughout the
10 gaming floor on casino boats.
11 The have over a $100,000 in them when they are
12 placed upon the floor. When they are placed on the floor
13 kiosks must be locked with a seal so that they cannot be
14 tampered with.
15 On July 9th through the 11th the main bank cashiers
16 loaded the kiosks with currencies, but failed to lock or seal
17 them with the tamper resistant seals.
18 Further on July 9th through the 11th of 2006, they
19 were placed upon the floor and the bank -- main bank
20 supervisor and cage supervisor failed to complete the same and
21 signed the log attesting to the accuracy of the kiosks.
22 The main bank cashiers failed to notify the merchant
23 of the cashier's supervisor or the cage manager's failure and
24 we found this out during our audits.
25 It's the duty of the boats under CSR 45-10.0301 to
1 properly report these violations to the Commission and it's
2 further the responsibility in paragraph IV that they shall
3 take reasonable actions to safeguard from lost tokens,
4 tickets, chips, fins and other gaming assets.
5 They failed to do these things, so we are asking
6 that a preliminary order of discipline be issued with the fine
7 in the amount of $10,000. Fine is consistent with what we
8 have done in the past for first violations.
9 MR. SHULL: Are there any questions?
10 MR. WELCH: Well, I would ask for a motion for
11 preliminary order of discipline.
12 MR. PLUNKETT: I'll make a motion to approve
13 DC-06-227.
14 MR. HAIS: Second.
15 MR. SHULL: Further discussion? Call the roll.
16 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
17 MR. SHULL: Approve.
18 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
19 MR. JONES: Approve.
20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
21 MR. HAIS: Approve.
22 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
23 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
24 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Disciplinary
25 Action DC-06-227.
1 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item IX involves
2 consideration of change of control of the President Riverboat
3 Casino-MO, Inc., and Mr. Welch will handle that.
4 MR. WELCH: We have received a request from
5 President Casino, Inc., the holding company for President
6
7 the President Riverboat Casino Missouri to be Pinnacle
8 Entertainment.
9 Thus change of control would be subject to approval
10 by the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the case as we
11 speak. Here and this will be Pinnacle's first licensed
12 casino. We have licensed the key people at Pinnacle who will
13 be control of it, but this will be the first casino.
14 You have in your report the summary report on the
15 change of control, bankruptcy buyout and change of control by
16 Pinnacle. It's our recommendation that this would be approved
17 and the resolution subject to approval by the bankruptcy
18 courts.
19 MR. SHULL: When will the bankruptcy court rule
20 on this and when will it be effective?
21 MR. WELCH: The bankruptcy court may rule today.
22 They have no objections to the proposed settlement. I
23 understand that there are people in the bankruptcy court who
24 are waiting for an e-mail as to your action, so it could very
25 well happen today. It probably will not be effective until --
1 for, approximately, ten days due to the purchase and sale of
2 the stock and things of that nature.
3 MR. SHULL: Are there any questions -- further
4 questions? Is there a motion?
5 MR. HAIS: Mr. Chairman I move that Commission
6 Resolution 06-069 be approved.
7 MR. JONES: Second.
8 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
9 roll.
10 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
11 MR. SHULL: Approve.
12 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
13 MR. JONES: Approve.
14 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
15 MR. HAIS: Approve.
16 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
17 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
18 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
19 No. 06-069.
20 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item X concerns the
21 change in control of Ameristar Casinos, Inc. Mr. Welch?
22 MR. WELCH: We have a request from Ameristar.
23 Ameristar was originally planning on being here to present for
24 their relicensure.
25 Due to the untimely death of the Chairman,
1 Mr. Nelson, they have requested that that be postponed. And
2 they have further requested that under our rules any change of
3 control must be approved by this Commission before it can take
4 place.
5 They did not have any advance knowledge. There's no
6 way you can advance knowledge of these type of situations.
7 When Mr. Nelson passed away the -- his interest passed to his
8 estate.
9 We are asking that under 11 CSR 45-1.100 that we
10 waive the requirement for a motion -- approval of a change of
11 control until such time as that can be presented. We suggest
12 the resolution that they be granted ninety days to present the
13 information for change of control.
14 MR. SHULL: Thank you. Are there any questions for
15 Mr. Welch?
16 MR. JONES: I have a question, Mr. Welch. If it
17 says in the foundation, someone from the foundation has to
18 come before the Commission to be licensed or --
19 MR. WELCH: That is correct.
20 MR. JONES: Okay.
21 MR. SHULL: Is there a motion?
22 MR. HAIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that resolution --
23 proposed Resolution 06-070 be approved.
24 MR. PLUNKETT: Second.
25 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
1 roll.
2 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
3 MR. SHULL: Approve.
4 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
5 MR. JONES: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
7 MR. HAIS: Approve.
8 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
9 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
10 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
11 No. 06-070.
12 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item XI, consideration of
13 internal controls. Mr. Welch?
14 MR. WELCH: The Missouri Gaming Company, LLC is
15 being -- has been authorized to change of control with
16 supervision. And the resolution merely states that the
17 existing internal controls will continue to be internal
18 controls until such time as a request for changes in the
19 internal controls are submitted to the Commission in the
20 ordinary course.
21 MR. SHULL: Are there any questions for Mr. Welch?
22 Is there a motion?
23 MR. PLUNKETT: I make a motion that we accept
24 06-071.
25 MR. JONES: I'll second.
1 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
2 roll.
3 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
4 MR. SHULL: Approve.
5 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
6 MR. JONES: Approve.
7 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
8 MR. HAIS: Approve.
9 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
10 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
11 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
12 No. 06-071.
13 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, Item XII consideration of
14 relicensure of bingo manufactures and suppliers will be
15 handled by Lieutenant Gary Moore.
16 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, today
17 I'm presenting several companies for relicensure. The
18 suppliers and bingo manufactures of bingo products in the
19 State of
20 You may notice some of companies listed hold dual
21 license. The primary difference between a relicense of a
22 manufacturer and a supplier is a requirement which is
23 incumbent upon the supplier and is responsible for the tax on
24 the items sold.
25 The following nine companies have applied for
1 relicensure of their manufacture's license: Applied Concepts
2 Incorporated, Arrow International Incorporated, Douglas Press
3 Incorporated, Fortunet Incorporated, GameTech International
4 Incorporated, International Gameco Incorporated, MMG
5 Incorporated, Pollard Games Incorporated d/b/a American Games
6 and Universal Manufacturing Company.
7 The following six company haves applied for
8 relicensure of a supplier license: All American Bingo
9
Incorporated,
10 Incorporated, GameTech International Incorporated, Games
11 Galore and Universal Manufacture Company. Thank you.
12 MR. SHULL: Any questions of Mr. Moore? I do have
13 one question on the fact of these resolutions. There is a
14 delegation of authority to renew existing licenses between now
15 and December the 31st by the executive director. How many
16 licenses do you anticipate that will need be renewed by then?
17 MR. MOORE: You'll have to refer that to the bingo
18 investigators.
19 MS. BAX: One.
20 MR. SHULL: One. And do we know who it is?
21 MS. BAX: MMG Incorporated.
22 MR. SHULL: Have they applied for renewal?
23 MS. BAX: They actually hold a temporary license at
24 the current time, just pending the completion of the
25 investigation.
1 MR. McNARY: Is this a common problem for
2 supplier/manufacturers to be late on their application or is
3 it not?
4 MS. BAX: Sometimes the problem is for all the
5 investigations to be completed, but not for them to be late.
6 It's just the temporary one because we haven't completed the
7 initial investigation.
8 MR. McNARY: Thank you.
9 MR. SHULL: Is there a motion?
10 MR. HAIS: I would move that the Resolution 06-006-B
11 be approved.
12 MR. PLUNKETT: Second.
13 MR. SHULL: Further discussion? Call the roll.
14 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
15 MR. SHULL: Approve.
16 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
17 MR. JONES: Approve.
18 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
19 MR. HAIS: Approve.
20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
21 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
22 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
23 No. 06-006B.
24 MR. SHULL: Can I have a motion on 06-007-B?
25 MR. PLUNKETT: I'll make a motion.
1 MR. JONES: Second.
2 MR. SHULL: Is there further discussion? Call the
3 roll.
4 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
5 MR. SHULL: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
7 MR. JONES: Approve.
8 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
9 MR. HAIS: Approve.
10 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
11 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
12 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted Resolution
13 No. 06-007-B.
14 MR. SHULL: I believe that concludes this meeting.
15 If I could have a motion.
16 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, there's one more update
17 on the Caruthersville, which I think you would be interested
18 in. And Mr. Greeno, are you handling it?
19 MR. GREENO: Ask the chief.
20 MR. GREENO: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I
21 understand all regulatory approvals have been obtained to
22 permit the acquisition of Aztar Corporation by
23
24 The actual consummation date for the merger,
25 however, is somewhat elusive at this point. It's been kind of
1 a moving target for us.
2 The latest information we have is that the merger
3 will take place the first week in January. The Commission
4 Electronic Gaming Device Specialists are scheduled to conduct
5 an audit of electronic gaming devices at the property prior to
6 the Commission assuming supervisorship and this will ensure
7 all devices and firmware have been upgraded as required.
8 I plan to be on site one to two days prior the
9 merger's consummation to meet with casino management, city
10 officials and community business interests to facilitate a
11 smooth and seamless transition.
12 We'll have six Commission Compliance Auditors,
13 including the Compliance Audit Manager will be on-site to
14 conduct a cash count at the end of the gaming day proceeding
15 the merger. And we have requested that Aztar Missouri LLC
16 have internal audit staff present for the cash count, as well.
17 Three Commission Tax Auditors will be at the
18 property the day following the cash count to review 2006 tax
19 submittals. And then Commission audit staff will be available
20 as necessary to assist the supervisor with any matters of
21 concern or to review financials as deemed necessary.
22 MR. SHULL: Are there any questions of Mr. Greeno?
23 That was a good report.
24 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, one more point of
25 information that I'd like to mention. It's not on the agenda,
1 but I think it's significant.
2
We've had some problems in
3 They've -- Harrah's has appealed to a younger crowd and the
4 Voodoo Lounge seems to be jumping these days to the point that
5
we've established a working relationship with a
6 Height Police.
7 They've done a good -- it's been a good relationship
8 and I can't say it's solved the problem, but it's handling the
9 problem and I think that probably those kinds of relationships
10 will develop in the future. So it's been a good cooperative
11 effort.
12 MR. SHULL: Thank you.
13 MR. JONES: Do you see or does Harrah's anticipate
14 the same thing happening on the west side of the state with
15 the Voodoo Lounge?
16 MR. McNARY: You know, I can't answer that. We've
17 been there -- all of us have been there. And they seem to
18 have a different target audience and they're marketing is such
19 that they're bringing in a group of people that don't create
20 the same kinds of problems.
21 What will happen in the future, I don't know, that
22 will be determined by their policy and marketing procedures.
23 If there's somebody from Harrah's here, you might -- anybody
24 here that can answer that question.
25 MR. STUCKEL: Clearly we're watching it and
1 monitoring it. It's the last thing we want to do is end up
2 being the bad graces of the Gaming Commission in terms of
3 intoxicated patrons. There's a lot of issues that revolve
4
around there, that's why we partnered with
5 help.
6
We're monitoring everything at
7 We
don't see the same issues in
8
Harrah's
9 MR. JONES: Thank you.
10 MR. McNARY: That's all we have, Mr. Chairman.
11 MR. SHULL: I would entertain a motion to go into
12 closed session.
13 MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman I move to close this
14 meeting to receive, discuss and consider the following
15 matters: Confidential or privileged communications with
16 attorneys under Statute 610.021 (1) and personal matters under
17 Statute 610.021 (3)and (4).
18 MR. HAIS: Second.
19 MR. SHULL: Further discussion? Call the roll,
20 please.
21 MR. McNARY: Mr. Chairman, based on the sensitive
22 nature of the closed session, we would request that the
23 Chairman restrict those present -- you know, usually we fill
24 up the room.
25 We think that in this case it should be the
1 commissioners and myself, acting general counsel and Angie --
2 limited to that number.
3 MR. SHULL: So approved. Call the roll.
4 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull?
5 MR. SHULL: Approve.
6 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones?
7 MR. JONES: Approve.
8 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais?
9 MR. HAIS: Approve.
10 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett?
11 MR. PLUNKETT: Approve.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3
STATE OF
4 ) SS
5
6
7 I, Ashley C. High, a Court Reporter, the officer
8 before whom the foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby
9 certify that the testimony which appears in the foregoing
10 proceeding was taken by me to the best of my ability and
11 thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that I
12 am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the
13 parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken, and
14 further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney
15 or counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor financially or
16 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
17
18
19
________________________
20 Ashley C. High
Notary Public within and
21 for
22 My commission expires October 20, 2007
23
24
25