1

BEFORE THE MISSOURI GAMING COMMISSION

5 STATE OF MISSOURI

9 Meeting

May 23, 2007

10 10:00 a.m.

Central Office

11 3417 Knipp Drive

Jefferson City, Missouri

1 AGENDA

2 PAGE

3 I. Call to Order

4 II. Minutes

A. April 25, 2007 5:2

III. Consideration of Hearing Officer

6 Recommendations

B. Melody Kirsch 6:11

7 1. Resolution No. 07-022

C. Gerard R. Smriga 17:23

8 1. Resolution No. 07-023

D. Lawrence Saunders 19:24

9 1. Resolution No. 07-024

E. Dagmawi Solomon 24:9

10 1. Resolution No. 07-025

F. Angelic M. Dozier 27:19

11 1. Resolution No. 07-026

G. Jason Mansfield 35:20

12 1. Resolution No. 07-027

H. Allen Wrancher 37:17

13 1. Resolution No. 07-028

I. Christopher Bourneuf 40:2

14 1. Resolution No. 07-029

15 IV. Ratification of License

K. Aztar Missouri Riverboat Gaming 45:9

16 Company, LLC

1. Resolution No. 07-031

V. Consideration of Licensure of Class A

18 Licensee

L. Aztar Missouri Riverboat Gaming 47:19

19 Company LLC

Presentation by Applicant

20 Presentation by City of Caruthersville

Public Comment

21 Investigative Summary

Staff Recommendation

22 Resolution No. 07-039

23 VI. Consideration of Change of Control 69:6

1. Resolution No. 07-040

AGENDA (CONT'D)

2 PAGE

3 VII. Consideration of Relicensure of

Certain Suppliers 72:2

4 M. Gaming Partners International USA

1. Resolution No. 07-032

5 N. Tech Art Manufacturing, Inc.

1. Resolution No. 07-033

VIII. Consideration of Licensure of Level I/

7 Key Applicants 74:13

O. Resolution No. 07-034

X. Consideration of Settlement Agreements

9 Q. Harrah's Maryland Heights, LLC 76:5

1. Resolution No. 07-036

10 R. Harrah's North Kansas City, LLC 77:18

1. Resolution No. 07-037

11 S. Harrah's North Kansas City, LLC 79:7

1. Resolution No. 07-038

XI. Caruthersville Update 81:8

Statement by Mayor Diane Sayre 82:18

BEFORE THE MISSOURI GAMING COMMISSION

2 STATE OF MISSOURI

6 Meeting

MaY 23, 2007

7 10:00 a.m.

Central Office

8 3417 Knipp Drive

Jefferson City, Missouri

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Noel J. Shull, Chairman

15 Darryl T. Jones

Samuel J. Hais

16 Larry W. Plunkett, Sr.

Suzanne Bradley

Reported by:

20 Patricia A. Stewart, RMR, RPR, CCR 401

Midwest Litigation Services

21 3432 West Truman Boulevard, Suite 207

Jefferson City, Missouri 65109

22 (573) 636-7551

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 CHAIRMAN SHULL: I'd like to call the

3 meeting to order, and the first issue on the agenda is the

4 minutes of the April 25th meeting.

5 Are there any questions?

6 COMMISSIONER JONES: I move for the

7 acceptance of the April 25th minutes, 2007.

8 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Second.

9 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Any further discussion?

10 Questions?

11 If not, call the roll.

12 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

13 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

14 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.

15 COMMISSIONER JONES: Approved.

16 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.

17 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Approved.

18 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett.

19 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Approved.

20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bradley.

21 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Approved.

22 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted the

23 minutes of the April 25th, 2007 meeting.

24 CHAIRMAN SHULL: The next item is our

25 consideration of hearing officer recommendations. I'll

1 turn it over to Mr. McNary.

2 MR. MCNARY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,

3 good morning.

4 COMMISSIONERS: Good morning.

5 MR. MCNARY: Item III on the agenda will be

6 handled by Steve Stark, hearing officer, and General

7 Counsel Chris Hinckley is seated here in case there are

8 other questions.

9 MR. STARK: Good morning, Commissioners.

10 COMMISSIONERS: Good morning.

11 MR. STARK: The first case on your agenda is

12 Item Letter B, Melody Kirsch. This is a case of an

13 application being made by Ms. Kirsch for a Level II

14 occupational license for employment in the gaming

15 industry.

16 During the application process there is

17 questions with regard to past criminal activity, including

18 arrests, charges, convictions. And Ms. Kirsch did

19 disclose a particular crime, burglary, dropped to

20 attempted stealing. That's what she disclosed on her

21 application.

22 In response to that application, the

23 Commission conducted its investigation and discovered that

24 that particular event was a felony.

25 The particular offense occurred on

1 December 16th, 1977 when Ms. Kirsch was age 17. It was

2 pursuant to a plea bargain arrangement, and that plea

3 bargain was entered into the court records on August 17th,

4 1979 when Ms. Kirsch was age 19.

5 The presentation of her evidence, I found

6 her to be credible. She did not realize that this was a

7 felony conviction. Her understanding of the plea bargain

8 arrangement was that she would serve probation and that

9 her record would end up being a clean record.

10 However, we have a statute on the books.

11 The Legislature has deemed that a conviction of a felony

12 or a plea of guilty to a felony is basically a mandated

13 denial of a license.

14 What made this case difficult was the fact

15 that Ms. Kirsch had previously been licensed by this

16 Commission. In fact, twice she had made application, two

17 times before, and received a license and indeed had worked

18 in the gaming industry for several years.

19 She did present evidence from other

20 witnesses, co-workers, who, again, were credible in their

21 testimony that Ms. Kirsch performed professionally and

22 should be deemed suitable for licensure.

23 However, given the mandate of the statute

24 with regard to pleading guilty or being convicted of a

25 felony, my conclusion was indeed that the license denial,

1 her third application that is, was the correct conclusion

2 that the Commission made and that decision should be

3 affirmed.

4 The argument about having been licensed

5 twice before brings up an issue of estoppel, and I was

6 able to find a couple of cases where the appellate courts

7 have decided that it's very difficult to assert equitable

8 estoppel against a government agency.

9 The reason being is that the government

10 agencies have their duties of police power and public

11 policy, such that the private rights don't necessarily

12 overtake the public rights.

13 There is kind of a balancing test I suppose

14 there. But in this case I did not see that Ms. Kirsch's

15 rights to a license would override the right of the

16 Commission to strictly regulate the industry, as well as

17 to follow the mandate of the statute that a felony

18 conviction negates the ability to get a license.

19 Therefore, my conclusion, my recommendation,

20 is that the denial of license for Ms. Kirsch be affirmed.

21 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Counsel, did you

22 investigate whether or not the license -- the granting of

23 her previous licenses were in spite of her application?

24 And actually, the better question is, did

25 she list these criminal problems on the original?

1 MR. STARK: Yes. I did not do an

2 independent investigation, but based on the testimony

3 presented to me by Ms. Kirsch, she did disclose, did the

4 same thing she did in her third application as she did in

5 the first and second application.

6 So the Commission was indeed aware of the

7 second-degree burglary charge reduced to attempted

8 stealing. So my conclusion was, yes, the Commission knew

9 about the felony on two occasions.

10 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Were there any

11 references to extraordinary circumstances in any written

12 document attending those earlier applications, earlier

13 granting of licenses?

14 MR. STARK: No, Your Honor. I was not

15 presented any written documentation as to the prior

16 applications or as to any investigative report or analysis

17 done by the Commission relative to those two prior

18 applications. So, no, I had no separate information on

19 that.

20 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Do you have any opinion

21 or did you reach any conclusion as to whether or not there

22 are any extraordinary circumstances here?

23 MR. STARK: Having no information, I have no

24 opinion, no.

25 COMMISSIONER HAIS: It's just mandatory?

1 MR. STARK: With regard to the statute, yes.

2 CHAIRMAN SHULL: It's my understanding that

3 there are some conflicting records between the City of

4 St. Louis and the County or the State?

5 MR. STARK: Conflicting with regard to this

6 particular charge of burglary in the second-degree?

7 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Yes.

8 MR. STARK: Not that I know of. She had

9 other charges with regard to forgery and some other

10 issues, but not -- not that I know of being a conflict

11 with this one charge.

12 MR. HINCKLEY: Chairman, there was a

13 conflict through an admission between the records

14 retrieved from the city police department and the city

15 court system, the clerk of the court of the city.

16 And that inconsistency was that the police

17 records reflected or denoted that the charge pled to was a

18 felony, but the court records lacked that same indication.

19 COMMISSIONER HAIS: What did the court

20 records indicate she pleaded to?

21 MR. HINCKLEY: It indicated she pled to the

22 same charge, but it did not denote the severity of the

23 charge that she pled to.

24 And being that the court records are the

25 best evidence of -- or the most complete evidence of the

1 severity of the crime that was pled to, as opposed to the

2 police records, which are a resource but not, as you would

3 know, Judge, not as reliable as the court records reflect

4 the actual plea.

5 COMMISSIONER HAIS: I'm not clear on what

6 the relevance of that would be though.

7 MR. MCNARY: It didn't indicate that it was

8 a felony.

9 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Isn't there only one

10 kind of burglary in the State of Missouri?

11 MR. HINCKLEY: Correct. But she pled -- I'm

12 sorry. This was 1977 when the crime was committed, so,

13 therefore, she would be subject to the 1977 law when she

14 pled in 1979.

15 COMMISSIONER HAIS: I mean, to my knowledge

16 there has never been a misdemeanor charge of burglary in

17 the State of Missouri.

18 MR. HINCKLEY: Correct.

19 MR. MCNARY: She pled to attempted stealing.

20 MR. HINCKLEY: It was attempted stealing.

21 COMMISSIONER HAIS: It was reduced to a

22 misdemeanor and she pleaded to the misdemeanor?

23 MR. HINCKLEY: That's not what is -- there

24 is no indication -- there is some indication that with the

25 reduced charge of -- or the altering charge of attempted

1 stealing over $50, there is some indication that that too

2 was a felony. There is no conclusive proof.

3 MR. STARK: If I may. What I think you're

4 reflecting as a possible conflict, if you have exhibits

5 with you, Exhibit No. 2, the transcript of conviction,

6 it says attempt stealing over $50. In parentheses after

7 it has the letter F. During the hearing both parties

8 concluded that that F referred to felony.

9 Petitioner's Exhibit A, A as in apple, is

10 the transcript -- or excuse me -- the certified record,

11 one-page document, from the Circuit Clerk of St. Louis

12 City.

13 And it says Defendant PG, which is pled

14 guilty, I guess, to amended information of attempted

15 stealing, $50, placed on probation for one year. Above

16 that disposition paragraph it says charges, burglary,

17 second degree.

18 Effective January 1st, 1979, burglary in the

19 second degree is a Class C felony. That's pursuant to

20 Section 569.170.

21 But since she pled to attempted stealing,

22 the way I would read the criminal law at Chapter 564, is

23 that the crime of attempted reduces a Class C felony to a

24 Class D felony, still, again, being a felony. Even though

25 it was merely an attempt, that was the end result.

1 So my conclusion, even though the circuit

2 clerk's record did not say felony, was that even the

3 attempt that was the crime pled to was indeed still a

4 felony.

5 MR. MCNARY: That's under the laws today or

6 was it also the law in 1979?

7 MR. STARK: The statutes that I copied here

8 says effective January 1st, 1979, based on Senate

9 Bill 60, 1977.

10 So whether you use the date of arrest or the

11 date of conviction, I think the end result is that we're

12 dealing with a felony.

13 MR. HINCKLEY: I believe that's the date

14 that Missouri adopted the model penal code to have its

15 criminal law reflect the model penal code.

16 However, you know, this occurred in 1977.

17 As we know, that she was subject to the laws in place in

18 1977 when she committed the crime and not the laws in

19 place when she pled guilty.

20 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Which would have been

21 a misdemeanor?

22 MR. HINCKLEY: That's not -- I've inquired

23 but have not heard back. I had the chance to read the

24 hearing which I did not participate in and realize that

25 there was some discrepancy and made an inquiry with the

1 City of St. Louis, and I'm awaiting a reply from the chief

2 trial assistant who was employed in that area when these

3 changes were made. She said that she needs to refer to

4 her code book from that time.

5 CHAIRMAN SHULL: As I read this, it appears

6 to me that she was charged with stealing a case of beer.

7 MR. HINCKLEY: Correct, attempting to steal.

8 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Attempting to steal a case

9 of beer. And I can tell you, in 1979 a case of beer did

10 not cost $50.

11 COMMISSIONER HAIS: But it was a burglary

12 charge.

13 MR. HINCKLEY: It could have been foreign

14 beer.

15 COMMISSIONER HAIS: It doesn't matter. If

16 she broke and entered with the intent to commit a felony,

17 then it's a felony.

18 MR. HINCKLEY: Burglary, second degree, it

19 doesn't matter what you steal.

20 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Which is why it was

21 also amended. Correct? She didn't plead guilty to that?

22 MR. HINCKLEY: Correct.

23 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Well, in your opinion --

24 and, Chris, if you want to add to this, that's fine too.

25 Is it your opinion that with the facts as we

1 have them, in view of what Mr. Hinckley just said, that

2 we're in a position to rule on this?

3 MR. STARK: Well, given the language, shall

4 not be licensed for having a -- pleading guilty to a

5 felony, my opinion would be that it's mandatory. The

6 Legislature, the law enacted says that no felon shall be

7 given a license in the gaming industry.

8 COMMISSIONER HAIS: And, Mr. Hinckley, you

9 agree with that?

10 MR. HINCKLEY: With what was presented, the

11 bur--

12 COMMISSIONER HAIS: That's my question,

13 isn't it?

14 MR. HINCKLEY: Yes, it is. I just --

15 COMMISSIONER HAIS: In other words, do you

16 think that there is -- that there is any type of -- well,

17 do you think that the information is complete enough to

18 rule on it, simple as that?

19 MR. HINCKLEY: No.

20 COMMISSIONER JONES: Mr. Hinckley, is that

21 based on the lack of evidence from the City that this may

22 have been a misdemeanor at the time --

23 MR. HINCKLEY: Correct.

24 COMMISSIONER JONES: -- and we don't have

25 that information?

1 MR. HINCKLEY: Yeah, the lack of knowledge

2 with regard to a law that was in place in 1977.

3 COMMISSIONER HAIS: When do you anticipate

4 that we'll have that information, if you know?

5 MR. HINCKLEY: Within the next week.

6 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Okay.

7 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Could I make a

8 motion?

9 COMMISSIONER HAIS: If I may, what would be

10 involved in getting the information? Wouldn't that be --

11 I mean, you mentioned the circuit attorney's office.

12 Any prosecutor's office would probably have a reasonably

13 complete library, would be able to digest it back to

14 that year to determine what category that crime was in.

15 Right?

16 MR. HINCKLEY: That's correct.

17 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Okay. Well, if it can't

18 be done today, then we'll have to postpone it. I mean,

19 I'm presuming that I can say that. I guess it depends on

20 how the Commission feels.

21 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Well, let's just table it

22 to the next meeting then. Is that appropriate?

23 COMMISSIONER HAIS: I think so.

24 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Do you need a motion

25 to do that?

1 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Yeah, we move that we

2 table the matter under consideration, Resolution 07-022 of

3 Melody Kirsch, until the next session.

4 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Before we have a second, is

5 Ms. Kirsch here or a representative of hers?

6 Seeing none.

7 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Second.

8 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is there any further

9 discussion?

10 Call the roll.

11 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

12 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

13 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Jones.

14 COMMISSIONER JONES: Approved.

15 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.

16 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Approved.

17 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett.

18 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Approved.

19 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bradley.

20 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Approved.

21 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you have tabled

22 Resolution No. 07-022.

23 MR. STARK: Commissioners, the second item

24 at Letter C is the case of Gerard Smriga.

25 Mr. Smriga was served with a preliminary

1 order of discipline early in the year 2006. I don't have

2 the exact date here. But, nevertheless, he had requested

3 a hearing on the date of February 13th, 2006.

4 I scheduled the hearing actually probably a

5 couple of times, but, nevertheless, it was scheduled for

6 March 16th, 2007.

7 Prior to that date it was brought to my

8 attention by both Mr. Smriga and Mr. Hinckley that

9 Mr. Smriga's license had actually expired. This was the

10 case to discipline his license for the allegation that

11 some tokens belonging to the casino were not properly

12 recorded as assets.

13 Mr. Smriga actually moved out of state and

14 is no longer employed within the state of Missouri, but,

15 nevertheless, his license did expire. He allowed it to

16 expire on July 31st, 2006.

17 Given the lack of licensure, lack of a

18 license to discipline, Mr. Hinckley presented to me

19 basically a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

20 And that would be my recommendation, that

21 there be a dismissal of this matter for lack of subject

22 matter jurisdiction, in that there is no license to

23 discipline.

24 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is there a motion to that

25 effect?

1 MR. HINCKLEY: I would just add that that

2 would be a dismissal without prejudice. If Mr. Smriga

3 reapplies for licensure, this matter should be raised

4 again.

5 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Mr. Chairman, I would

6 move that Resolution 07-023 be dismissed without

7 prejudice.

8 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Second.

9 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is there any further

10 discussion?

11 Call the roll.

12 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

13 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

14 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.

15 COMMISSIONER JONES: Approved.

16 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.

17 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Approved.

18 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett.

19 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Approved.

20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bradley.

21 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Approved.

22 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted

23 Resolution No. 07-023.

24 MR. STARK: The next item, Letter D,

25 Lawrence Saunders.

1 Mr. Saunders is licensed as a Level II

2 occupational licensee. He was employed in January of 2006

3 as a security officer for the Ameristar Casino,

4 St. Charles.

5 His job duties as a security officer

6 included asking patrons to present identification prior to

7 entrance into the casino in order to assure that the

8 patron was attempting to enter is indeed at least of the

9 age of 21 years.

10 On the date of January 13th, 2006, a patron

11 did enter the Ameristar Casino, where it was later learned

12 that she was only 19 years of age. There was video

13 evidence showing that the 19-year-old patron did pass

14 through security without being stopped. The petitioner,

15 as the security guard, did not stop this patron and ask

16 for any type of identification.

17 Again, the law is clear that one has to be

18 at least age 21 years, and the job duty of the security

19 officer is to check for that identification at the

20 entrance of the casino.

21 Mr. Saunders did indicate that they were

22 short-staffed that night, that particular night, and

23 basically he was overwhelmed with the crowd.

24 But, nevertheless, as a licensee, he has an

25 obligation to assure compliance with the statutes and

1 regulations of the Commission.

2 As such, the discipline proposed of a

3 suspension of one calendar day should be affirmed, which

4 is my recommendation.

5 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is there any questions for

6 Mr. Stark?

7 Is Mr. Saunders or his representative here?

8 Is there any further comments or questions?

9 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Just for record, in

10 spite of Mr. Saunders' absence here today, I note that he

11 has a written statement made and signed by him.

12 Have you had a chance to take a look at

13 that, Counsel?

14 MR. STARK: His request for hearing?

15 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Yes.

16 MR. STARK: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. Yes.

17 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Is there any comment

18 that you want to make on that?

19 MR. HINCKLEY: I'm sorry. It's not the

20 request for hearing. It's his followup letter for today.

21 MR. STARK: Oh, okay. No, I did not receive

22 a copy of that.

23 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Would you come up and

24 give you an opportunity to respond to this if you want to.

25 MR. STARK: Okay. Thanks.

1 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Take a moment.

2 MR. STARK: I have read Mr. Saunders'

3 written comments, and I believe he makes the point that

4 there was no photograph but rather just reliance upon the

5 videotape. The videotape was not that clear.

6 The gaming agent, the Highway Patrolman, did

7 testify that there was photographs of the individual.

8 Also, the gaming card is introduced into, I guess, an

9 electronic bank, such that the timing can be pinpointed to

10 that particular person, the gaming player's card.

11 So it's my conclusion that that person that

12 was identified as being under the age of 21 was indeed the

13 same person on that video.

14 Mr. Saunders makes a chain-of-custody issue

15 with regard to the evidence. Again, I found the Highway

16 Patrolman to adequately explain the videotaping and the

17 player card identification process. So I really had no

18 problem with any allegation of corruption of the evidence.

19 Mr. Saunders did even at the hearing raise

20 the issue that he had not seen that videotape prior to the

21 date of the hearing, and I think he's probably using

22 criminal law with regard to being able to confront an

23 accuser in a reasonable length of time.

24 Again, I think he is the licensee and as the

25 one requesting the hearing would have the burden to

1 produce his own evidence or discover his own evidence.

2 The regulations of the Commission do allow

3 an individual licensee as petitioner to request records of

4 the Commission in preparation of the hearing.

5 So Mr. Saunders fortunately had the

6 opportunity to prepare for the hearing but waited until

7 the date of the hearing to complain of a lack of

8 discovery.

9 He being a nonattorney, I can be sympathetic

10 that maybe he wasn't aware of his particular abilities and

11 rights and opportunities, but he had plenty of notice

12 about the hearing to be prepared for it if he wished.

13 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Any other questions,

14 comments?

15 Is there a motion?

16 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Mr. Chairman, I would

17 move that Commission Resolution 07-024 be approved.

18 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Second.

19 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Any questions or

20 discussion?

21 Call the roll.

22 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

23 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

24 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.

25 COMMISSIONER JONES: Approved.

1 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.

2 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Approved.

3 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett.

4 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Approved.

5 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bradley.

6 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Approved.

7 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted

8 Resolution No. 07-024.

9 MR. STARK: Our next case, Item Letter E,

10 Dagmawi Solomon.

11 Mr. Solomon is a licensee with a Level II

12 occupational license. In December of 2005 he was employed

13 as a security officer with the Harrah's Maryland Heights

14 Casino.

15 His job duties as a security officer

16 included asking patrons for identification before they

17 enter the casino in order to assure their age of being at

18 least 21 years.

19 Again, this is a similar case, in which

20 Mr. Solomon, as the security guard, along with others,

21 failed to stop and check the ID of a patron entering the

22 casino. The particular patron that entered the casino

23 without being stopped for identification was a gentleman

24 who was only 20 years of age.

25 And, again, the videotape identified that

1 particular person. And there was also an indication that

2 the individual was consuming alcoholic beverages within

3 the casino.

4 Again, the law is that anyone that enters

5 the casino has to be age 21 or over, and the job of the

6 security officer is to ensure compliance with that law.

7 Mr. Solomon failed to prove that he did

8 comply with that. He did indicate in his testimony that

9 he was a new employee, that he was not really yet

10 completely comfortable in identifying people under the age

11 of 21 in order to stop them to ask for licensure or for

12 identification as to age.

13 Nevertheless, there was a failure on his

14 part to comply with the law, and as such, the recommended

15 discipline by the Commission of a suspension of two

16 calendar days is a proper discipline, and that would be my

17 recommendation, to affirm that decision of the Commission.

18 Now, actually, there is -- for some reason

19 this particular suggestion of two days is different than

20 the prior case of one day, and there was no evidence

21 presented to me as to the difference.

22 But with the burden of proof being upon the

23 petitioner, I really had no justification to change that

24 recommended suspension of two days.

25 So, again, that's a discretionary matter

1 with regard to what the Commission can and can't do.

2 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is there any further

3 questions for Mr. Stark regarding this matter?

4 COMMISSIONER JONES: Mr. Chairman, based on

5 the similarities of the two cases, I just can't understand

6 why one is one day and the other is two days. So I'd like

7 to make a motion to amend the resolution to have the two-

8 day suspension decreased to one day.

9 CHAIRMAN SHULL: A motion has been made. Is

10 there a second?

11 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Second.

12 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Further discussion?

13 Call the roll.

14 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

15 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

16 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.

17 COMMISSIONER JONES: Approved.

18 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.

19 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Approved.

20 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett.

21 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Approved.

22 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bradley.

23 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Approved.

24 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is Mr. Solomon in the

25 audience?

1 Is there a motion to go ahead and approve

2 the resolution then, the amended resolution?

3 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: I make a motion to

4 approve Resolution 07-025.

5 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Second.

6 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Call the roll.

7 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

8 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

9 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.

10 COMMISSIONER JONES: Approved.

11 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.

12 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Approved.

13 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett.

14 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Approved.

15 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bradley.

16 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Approved.

17 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted

18 Resolution No. 07-025 as amended.

19 MR. STARK: Our next case, Item Letter F,

20 Angelic Dozier.

21 Ms. Dozier is licensed with a Level II

22 occupational license. She's employed as the assistant

23 count manager for Ameristar Casino, St. Charles. She was

24 in that position as assistant count manager on April 30th,

25 2006.

1 The allegations are that on April 30th,

2 2006, during what's called a bill validator box drop, that

3 is, the validator box is the container within the

4 electronic gaming device, or the slot machine, that

5 contains the money or the tokens. Those are taken out of

6 the machinery, put on a cart and then taken to a

7 particular safe room for counting at a later time after

8 pickup.

9 Anyway, on April 30th, 2006 the employees on

10 the floor doing the pickup of the validator boxes -- and

11 sometimes the transcript will refer to can, which I guess

12 is cannister, but can and box are really the same term.

13 That is the container that has the money and the tokens.

14 A call in to Ms. Dozier had occurred from an

15 employee on the floor indicating that there is a missing

16 bill validator can.

17 Apparently the process of pulling the cans

18 or the boxes from the slot machines was not complete. She

19 merely informed the employee to finish the route of

20 pulling the boxes from the machinery.

21 At the end of the route or the pull, end of

22 the day when the counting was accomplished, apparently the

23 number of cans was equal to the number that was pulled

24 from the machinery.

25 So Ms. Dozier concluded that all validator

1 boxes were accounted for at the end of the day in spite of

2 being told during the process of the pickup that there was

3 a missing can, a missing validator box.

4 So the issue is, was there a situation that

5 there should have been a reporting to the Commission with

6 regard to a possible violation of law?

7 Ms. Dozier actually in an e-mail the next

8 day did state that there was a missing can for a

9 particular machine. So she did recognize the next day in

10 her e-mail that there was the issue of a missing can.

11 Three days later it was learned that there

12 was still indeed a missing can, that the particular

13 missing can was placed into the wrong electronic gaming

14 device, the wrong slot machine, and it was accounted for

15 on the next route, the next time when the cannisters were

16 pulled for a counting.

17 So there were on April 30th missing assets,

18 unaccounted-for assets, of the casino.

19 The Commission has a regulation that

20 basically says that the licensee shall report promptly to

21 the Commission any facts which would lead reasonably to

22 believe that there might be a violation of law.

23 As a licensee, she, Ms. Dozier had an

24 obligation to safeguard the assets of the casino. And

25 with a missing can, a missing bill validator box, my

1 conclusion was, that there could have been a violation of

2 law such that there should have been a report made to the

3 Commission.

4 Now, the evidence did not indicate to me as

5 to the time frame between the first phone call and the

6 conclusion at the end of the day that all cannisters were

7 accounted for.

8 So the question is, what is promptly? And

9 it would be my conclusion that promptly means without

10 delay, basically immediately.

11 And my conclusion is that Ms. Dozier failed

12 to comply with the regulation to promptly report any

13 possible violation of law. And as such, the

14 recommendation that the Commission offered of a five-day

15 suspension would be the proper discipline, for which I

16 would recommend affirmation.

17 CHAIRMAN SHULL: I believe the resolution

18 says a two-day suspension.

19 MR. STARK: A two-day?

20 COMMISSIONER JONES: Yes, it does.

21 MR. STARK: Yes, you're right, two

22 consecutive days. I'm sorry. You're right, two days.

23 COMMISSIONER HAIS: I'd like to ask just for

24 my clarification. At the end of the first day Ms. Dozier

25 believed that there was no possible violation. Correct?

1 Or am I missing something?

2 MR. STARK: Well, she believed that the box

3 that was supposedly missing earlier in the day was

4 accounted for.

5 So my conclusion was that she knew that

6 there was a box missing. She got a phone call from one of

7 her employees saying a box was missing.

8 COMMISSIONER HAIS: But if it was accounted

9 for then subsequent to that, would -- are you stating that

10 she still should have reported it even on that first day?

11 MR. STARK: Yes, that would be my

12 conclusion.

13 And, in fact, the accounting for that

14 particular box had a different label on it. So the

15 conclusion was that the missing box was actually on the

16 cart but mislabeled, and then later on they found out that

17 it was basically an exchange in the wrong machine of the

18 boxes.

19 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Yeah.

20 MR. STARK: But, no. Again, the evidence

21 didn't show how much time frame there was, duration,

22 between the phone call and the conclusion at the end that

23 all boxes were accounted for. But promptly is what the

24 regulation says. Promptly to me would be right when you

25 get that information.

1 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is Ms. Dozier in the

2 audience and would she care to speak?

3 I have a question.

4 When they balance out at the end of the day

5 and evidently the money is accumulated in these totals,

6 was she $2,086.10 short? Would she have known that?

7 MR. STARK: Apparently she did not know

8 that. Her testimony didn't indicate that she knew on that

9 particular day of April 30th that there was missing money.

10 In fact, it appeared to me that the actual

11 reconciliation or variance report didn't get to her until

12 May 3rd. Her supervisor was apparently out of the office

13 for a couple days.

14 I think April 30th was a Sunday, and the

15 supervisor didn't have the variance report until May 2nd,

16 and then on May 3rd reported it to the Commission. My

17 understanding --

18 CHAIRMAN SHULL: She was looking for the box

19 then and someone reported to her that it was there, and

20 she was unaware, according to what you're saying, that

21 they were short $2,086.10 until May 3rd?

22 MR. STARK: May 3rd, three days later, is my

23 understanding with regard to the financial reporting.

24 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Well, I don't understand

25 how she would have known that they were short the box had

1 one of her employees had reported to her that the box had

2 been found, that it was there, if they didn't balance or

3 reconcile it to a dollar amount three days later.

4 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Are you saying she

5 should have taken the initiative to reconcile it?

6 MR. STARK: Well, that would have been one

7 safeguard.

8 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Was that within her job

9 description?

10 MR. STARK: Well, she was assistant count

11 manager, so she probably relied on her supervisor to

12 initially do that. But with her supervisor being gone

13 that day and the next day and she was in charge as second

14 in command, then, yes, she probably should have followed

15 up.

16 And she was told at the end of the day that

17 the cannister was mislabeled, so that would be another red

18 flag that would say, hey, what happened, why is this

19 missing and why is it mislabeled?

20 COMMISSIONER JONES: But based on all of

21 that information, she still should have reported it?

22 You're saying she still should have reported it --

23 MR. STARK: Yes.

24 COMMISSIONER JONES: -- earlier that assets

25 were missing?

1 MR. STARK: Well, the cannister contains

2 assets, so she would not have known what, if any, assets

3 were missing.

4 But, yes, knowing that there is a missing

5 cannister from a gaming device would lead me to believe

6 that she should have been concerned about the assets and

7 promptly would indicate that she should have reported that

8 immediately upon being told by her employee, to give the

9 gaming agent the opportunity to investigate as well. The

10 passage of time again might corrupt the evidence.

11 So I think the purpose of the regulation

12 saying promptly is to prevent a passage of time, no matter

13 how long that time might be, but to prevent that passage

14 of time. And she allowed a passage of time before she was

15 able to say that all cannisters were there.

16 CHAIRMAN SHULL: And she was still employed

17 by Ameristar --

18 MR. STARK: That I don't know.

19 CHAIRMAN SHULL: -- at the time of the

20 hearing?

21 MR. STARK: I'm sorry?

22 CHAIRMAN SHULL: At the time of the hearing

23 she was employed by Ameristar?

24 MR. STARK: That was my impression.

25 I didn't ask her.

1 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Yeah, she did say that.

2 Are there any further questions?

3 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Mr. Chair, I would move

4 that Commission Resolution 07-026 be approved.

5 COMMISSIONER JONES: Second.

6 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Further discussion?

7 Call the roll.

8 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

9 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

10 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.

11 COMMISSIONER JONES: Approved.

12 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Hais.

13 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Approved.

14 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Plunkett.

15 COMMISSIONER PLUNKETT: Approved.

16 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Bradley.

17 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: Approved.

18 MS. FRANKS: By your vote you've adopted

19 Resolution 07-026.

20 MR. STARK: The next item is Letter G, Jason

21 Mansfield.

22 Mr. Mansfield made an application for an

23 Occupational II license. Upon the application the

24 question with regard to have you ever been arrested,

25 detained, charged, indicted, convicted, pled guilty to any

1 crime.

2 Mr. Mansfield answered no to that question

3 and had opportunity to answer that question again and

4 still indicated, no, that there was no criminal past.

5 However, during the investigation by the

6 Commission's investigator, it was learned that there was

7 indeed from the State Highway Patrol criminal records that

8 Mr. Mansfield had been arrested on two different

9 occasions, one for felony assault first-degree, the second

10 occasion felony armed criminal action.

11 Mr. Mansfield requested a hearing. However,

12 he failed to appear, and no one on his behalf appeared at

13 the hearing after he was given ample notice.

14 Based on his nonappearance and based upon

15 the records presented by the Commission, Mr. Mansfield

16 failed to provide the clear and convincing evidence to

17 show his suitability for licensure.

18 And my recommendation is that the denial of

19 licensure for Mr. Mansfield as performed by the Commission

20 should be affirmed again as a proper denial of licensure.

21 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Are there any questions of

22 Mr. Stark?

23 Is Mr. Mansfield in the audience?

24 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY: I move that we

25 approve Resolution 07-027.

1 COMMISSIONER HAIS: Second.

2 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Is there further

3 discussion?

4 Call the roll.

5 MS. FRANKS: Chairman Shull.

6 CHAIRMAN SHULL: Approved.

7 MS. FRANKS: Commissioner Jones.

8 COMMISSIONER JONES: Ap