Minutes from the Gambling Control Board’s Meeting
October 17, 2017
Department of Public Safety
Gambling Control Conference Room
45 Commerce Drive
Introduction of Board members present: Chairman Timothy Doyle, Alan Skolfield, Barbara Dresser and Greg McNeal. Present through Skype, Robert Harmon
Gambling Control Staff present: Executive Director Milton Champion, Inspector Supv. Vicki Gardner, Kathy Robitaille, Mallory Reilly, Donald Berrie and Det. Don Armstrong
DPS Staff present: Deputy Commissioner Janet Joyeux
AG Staff present: AAG Ron Guay and AAG Katie Johnson
Review of the 7/18/17 Minutes
AAG Johnson advised there were some suggested changes that needed to be made.Under Unfinished Business – Advanced Deposit Wagering that the Board decided to retain the original language from Section 15 and to state which Board member abstained from voting. #1 also should be up under A in Unfinished Business.
Motion by Greg McNeal to accept with changes
Seconded by Al Skolfield
Vote: three yes with one abstention (Barbara Dresser)
Executive Director Report – Milton Champion
Operations – September – (19)shipments of machines and/or associated equipment shipped to or from licensed facilities. On site inspectors completed (631) observations, (32) checklists. There were (2) formal alleged violations reported of which both were answered with letters of guidance and (6) alleged violations entered in the activity log for continued monitoring (Failing to display gaming license, table game sign not on, no security for jackpot payout, card room unsecure and 2 incorrect table fills). There was (1) Patron Complaintconcluded and was forwarded to Board members to show the new formal process. There were 10 self-exclusions.
1)Bills of interest to the Board under legislative record or review for the 128th short session are LR 2693 “Resolve to acknowledge that a ruling of the supreme court of the United States applies to permit gaming by the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians on tribal land of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians” and LR 2697 “Resolve, to accept White Sands final report on its market feasibility study of expanded gaming in Maine commissioned by the 128th Legislature.”
2)We are currently reviewing and will have presentations by the licensed business entity Scientific Games of their acquisition of Tech Art, and NRT Technologies’ acquisition of Sightline Payments/Interactive LLC in the coming months.
Auditor Report - Donald Berrie
The Board received revenue reports via e-mail for the September 2017, year to date ending September 30th and the calendar quarters of 2017. These reports also provide comparisons with results for the same time frames in calendar 2016. The Board has also received revenue
-2-
breakdowns through September 30th. This information is a compilation of data that is also reported on the “Revenue Totals” section of the Gambling Control Board website.
Historically tax revenue peaks in the months of July and August and begins to taper off in September. This year has been no exception. September tax revenue was $4,882,000 an increase of $12,000 basically flat from the year before. Year to date revenue was $41,724,000 or 1% over 2016. The third calendar quarter through September 30th shows a decrease of $67,000 which is less than 1% lower than last year. Slot machine hold continues to be in compliance. The hold is reviewed on a daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly basis.
State Police Report - Det. Don Armstrong
There haven’tbeen any issues going on with either Bangor or Oxford facilities. There have been several thefts of TITO tickets from the gaming floors, all have been taken care of and funds recovered. Licensing continues to go on, with twelve new applications just completed, 65 renewals and 43 are pending. Oxford had twelve calls for service from the PD. Bangor did not report in. With the new hotel opening in Oxford, it will generate many new applications for licensure.
Unfinished Business
- Non-Licensed Employees and
B. Resolution 9 Gaming License Waiver – Director Champion
This item was tabled from the September meeting and coincides with Resolution 9. Dir. Champion reached out to each facility since the last meeting and they sent him a list which has been given to the Board, of positions and the number of employees in that position that are not currently licensed, but have access to the gaming floor. Discussion ensued on various types of positions and what that entailed as far as access to the gaming floor. If all were licensed, it would impact 201 total employees from both casinos, the cost of which for each employee would be $250.00 plus $50.00 for the background check/fingerprinting and then $25 renewal each year following. AAG Guay advised that in statute, it says that any employee that works for a casino must be licensed or granted a waiver for those not in public interest. What would happen is that the Board would grant a waiver for certain employees. The Statute describes how that would work. Barbara Dresser advised that then casinos would have the burden of proof that these positions should not be licensed. Maybe have all positions apply and then the casinos would need to justify why they would need a waiver for these positions?
Dir. Champion advised if the Board passed Resolution 9, he would work with the two facilities on these positions/ waivers etc. Looking at the list, Dir. Champion felt that of the 100 from Bangor, 27 would have to be licensed and from Oxford, out of 101, 16 would have to be licensed. Then as far as the other positions, he can have conversation with the facilities if it’s a matter of public interest, whether they be licensed or not. Chairman Doyle feels the Board should still have a discussion as to what the State’s interest is - whether or not these positions should be licensed at all and therefore give direction regarding the granting of waivers. He thought that anyone on the floor as an employee that has access to TITOs, tickets, thefts, should they be licensed? Because the State (Board) would have an interest in employees, on the floor who could take tickets left behind by patrons. Is that enough or not enough to require a license that requires a background, the cost associated with it etc.? He knows that there’s a process in place for housekeepers, etc. who come across these materials to return them to the Cage. Are the internal controls enough to cover that? Or does the Board find an interest in licensing those employees?
-3-
Chairman Doyle asked both facilities if they would like to address the Board in terms of any prior knowledge of waivers granted?
Attorney O’dea for Oxford advised in 2004, when Penn National was licensed, this process did occur under Director Welch’s directorship. In 2012, when Oxford was licensed, under Dir. Fleming, this process was also done, the rules were looked at to see if they had access to the gaming equipment. She advised that one of the significant concerns both facilities, is the financial burden of requiring the lower paid employees to pay for this themselves as $300 is a lot of money to a lot of people. She believes procedurally that what the Board would be doing is giving the Director authority to rescind waivers that prior Boards had given based on prior Director’s recommendations. It’s certainly this Board’s prerogative to do that, but understanding the historical reference. Based on alcohol in general, you have a Rule that addresses alcohol and that Rule specifically defers to the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement and that deals with alcohol on the floor re: bartenders, cocktail waitresses being on the floor, etc. Oxford’s biggest concern is the financial burden on employees.
Jose Flores, GM of Hollywood Bangor addressed the Board on this issue. The historical reference for them is that when he started at Hollywood Slots, he was given a list of which positions were to be licensed and those that didn’t require it. They take compliance very seriously. He feels that came from somewhere in the past, as to how it was determined. They do provide extensive training to those who deal with liquor on the gaming floor, which is about 20% of their employees. This gives the employees a three-year license, with a yearly refresher course. In 2016, they provided it for 86 employees. They do hold their employees accountable in this area. He doesn’t think the 100 positions need to be licensed.
Executive Director Champion provided the following information:
- §1003. POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD
- 3.Required rules. The board shall, without limitation on the powers conferred and duties imposed in subsections 1 and 2, adopt rules governing:
- K. Distribution and consumption of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products on the premises of gambling facilities.
- CHAPTER 15: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS
- §1. The provisions of Title 28-A M.R.S.A. and the rules adopted pursuant theretogovernthe possession, distribution and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises of the slot machine or casino facility.
- STATUTORY AUTHORITY: 8 M.R.S.A. §1003
- CHAPTER 18: RESPONSIBLE GAMING PROGRAMS
- The Board finds that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that persons have access to information and resources to address problem and compulsive gambling.
-4-
- 1. Program Requirements: Prior to commencing slot machine or casino operations the slot machine or casino operator shall submit its responsible gaming program to the Board. The program shall address the following areas:
- 2. Alcohol service. The program shall be designed to promote responsible alcohol service and consumption. The program shall identify all employee training related `to alcohol service. The program shall also identify the procedures designed to prevent a visibly intoxicated individual from gambling or consuming alcohol at the casino or slot machinefacility;
Chairman Doyle asked the question, “did we in 2004 or 2005 engage in a formal discussion that resulted in a memo that granted a waiver?Certainly, this Board can make a different decision than what was done in 2004 or 2005. Would the Board be comfortable in tabling to allow some research in that regard or not think that’s important to their decision today?” The Board agree to table for now. The Board wants to know was there a waiver process done in 2004 or 2005 or when Oxford started in 2012. Can we point to a memo from Dir. Welch or Fleming that would document the process that was followed back then?” What are we trying to fix? This is brought to us because we are going through a process of Resolutions, with a new Director who has brought this to counsel and asked do these positions need a license? Dir. Champion advised that once Resolution 9 was passed, then all waiver able decisions would not come back to the board each time, some will be time sensitive, etc. and the need to fill positions. Perhaps the positions could be broken into different categories i.e. Strongly should be licensed, incidental being on the gaming floor or lastly, if a waiver can be done. Decision to table this until the next meeting, giving the facilities and Executive Director an opportunity to do some research, find out if anything in the records in 2004 or 2005. Chairman Doyle asked the Board to read Chapter 2 and Chapter 5, determine what access to the floor means, what incidental access to the floor might mean, simple access governs whether or not they need a license and we’ll move forward. AAG Guay advised that the question this will all come down to is what is a person’s access to the gaming floor? The default right now according to Statute, is that people do need a license. Greg McNeal offered that something is needed to lay out the order of waivers that are to be done.
- ADV – Rule Development Update – Dir. Champion
Rules from comments have been submitted for publication tomorrow Wednesday Oct. 18 with comment deadline of Friday November 17 to bring back to the Board for provisional approval and advancement to the legislature at the December Board meeting.
- Request for Proposal Updates:
- Central System is being reviewed by a third-party consultant firm (GIS) and is on track for publishing in December or January.
- Advance Deposit Wagering 1st draft has come back to Dir. Champion from purchasing and I am schedule to return the revisions back to them in the next week or two. This RFP will not require a bidder conference.
- Financial Reviews are in the “Q” to be worked on after ADW
-5-
New Business
- Advertising – Alcohol Display
CHAPTER 14: ADVERTISING
§1. The Board finds that the State has a compelling interest in deterring
excessive use ofalcohol and tobacco products, especially by minors.
The Board finds that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that
minors are aware of the law that prohibits persons under age 21 from
engaging in gambling at the slot or casinofacility.
§3. Advertising shall comply with the followingstandards:
B.Depictions of the use of alcohol and tobacco areprohibited.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: 8 M.R.S.A. §1003
Dir. Champion has had some conversations with the facility as to what our position is on this. Additionally, now that we have social media interaction, people putting different pictures on Facebook etc. the facilities might look to get involved in. They want to have a general discussion of what our actual position is on this issue. Question: if the facility is doing a television commercial, can they show a table of four sitting there with beer bottles in their hand? See beer bottles in the background? Or does it mean no one can be seen actually drinking from a beer bottle, that links it to gambling? Facilities want a clearer understanding of this.
Jose Flores, GM for Hollywood Slots addressed the Board on this issue. He did receive an email re: alcohol advertising from Dir. Champion. In summary, there should be no depiction of alcohol use in any advertising, specifically glass or bottles. This email concerned him. Hollywood Slots does a lot of social media advertising. Chapter 14 was generated in 2005, Facebook was only one year old. He advised of a fundraiser that HS and other local businesses did for Hurricane relief efforts in Texas. They had a bottle/can drive and the PR showed a beer can being deposited to donate for the fundraiser. Under this interpretation, this would be prohibited. He feels this Chapter 14 is restrictive. Restaurants, Bars etc. promote wings and liquor etc. He feels this would put them on an unlevel playing field.
Attorney O’dea, Oxford Casino addressed the Board. Oxford is opening a pub in the new hotel. The Statute says they are required to have a rule to deal the distribution of alcohol and tobacco products as well as a Rule about gambling related advertising and marketing. Families with minors can go to the pub without going to gaming floor activity. Expanding this, now they can’t tell that the pub is now at the casino? How now would they advertise without violating Chapter 14? It seems excessive and the Casino needs some direction where to go with that.
AAG Guay advised that the advertising prohibits consumption of alcohol. As long as it’s not linked with slot machines/gambling, it would be accepted. Suggestion by Barbara Dresser next time we do Rulemaking to clarify what is the difference between the gaming floor versus a Brew pub? It’s ok to show the pub as being part of the casino, but don’t marry alcohol with gambling.
- Drop Box – Board Communications
Chairman Doyle advised the Board that the Board staff put everything into folders into Dropbox for the upcoming Board meetings and the Board was emailed to let them know that it’s there in Dropbox for them to read. What we’ve now learned as Kathy tells me, is that we
-6-
have been doing this without a license which is $300 a month, which seems excessive. If we aren’t going to use it, we need to come up with another process. We can do it by email, each table also has its own email associated with it. Kathy advised that what the Board has is an individual account, and what they are supposed to have is a business account. Greg McNeal advised there has to be other things out there that are free that might be usable for this process. Chairman Doyle advised going forward for now, that they could use the tablet email with an email to their personal account to let them know it’s there. Continue with a binder for everyone, that includes an Agenda that is now numbered to correspond with the tabs.
- Oxford Floor Plan Change – Oxford presentation
Jack Sours, VP/General Manager of Oxford addressed the Board. Oxford has done a $25 million dollar hotel, public and great expansion of the gaming floor. They moved the entrance from the hotel lobby area to being across from the front desk, about 20 feet.
Is the Executive Director ok with all these changes, after he has reviewed the plan? No issues.
Motion to accept the floor changes by Greg McNeal
Seconded by Al Skolfield
Unanimous vote
Public Comment
Jose Flores, GM of Hollywood Slots thanks the Board to allow Hollywood to have input to the Board during meetings. We have also had very good discussions with the Department itself.