Nevadans talk about banning ATMs from casino floors

John Wilen

Friday, Aug. 14, 1998 | 10:36 a.m.

Should cash machines be allowed on casino floors? Should casinos be required to tell problem gamblers where they can go for help? If you have a gambling problem, should casinos honor your request that you not be allowed to gamble?

These and many other questions were addressed Thursday at a meeting of a special Nevada Gaming Control Board panel.

In addition to taking more than five hours of testimony from a variety of experts -- including clinical psychologists, gaming industry representatives and problem gaming activists -- regulators previewed some of they ways they're thinking about addressing problem gambling.

These methods could include banning cash machines from casino floors, requiring casinos to train employees, posting information on the symptoms and treatment of problem gambling and adhering to minimum credit extension standards.

Regulators may also order a voluntary self-exclusion program whereby problem gamblers could request that they be denied entry to casinos.

In addition to new regulations, the board will likely call for state money to study the prevalence of problem gambling in Nevada and call for state treatment programs.

"I think it's very important that the state conduct studies at some point to determine the extent of problem gambling in Nevada," said Control Board Chairman Bill Bible.

The panel -- which included gaming control board members Bible, Steve DuCharme and C. Brian Harris, as well as gaming commissioner Susan Wagner and Charlotte Crawford, director of the Nevada Department of Human Resources -- concluded by asking the Control Board staff to draft proposed regulations and determine how much to spend on a prevalence study.

The proposals will likely be presented at a board meeting in the fall, and could be enacted as early as the end of the year, Bible said.

Clearly the most radical of the proposals would be banning or limiting the placement of automatic teller machines in gaming establishments. Representatives from banks, gaming machine companies and slot route operators argued vehemently against the proposal.

"What we're talking about is convenience," said Raymond Pike, executive vice president of corporate development at International Game Technology. "It is a misconception to believe that by removing [machines] you are affecting problem gambling."

People are increasingly using credit and debit cards to make purchases of all kinds, not just to gamble, officials argued.

"It is a convenience, a way of life," said Sean Higgins, general counsel of slot route operator ETT Inc. and president of the Nevada Retail Gaming Association. "And your patron ... demands that convenience."

Banning cash machines from gaming areas of casinos would have a significant financial impact on banks, said executives from Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

"There's a good volume" of business from casino ATM's, said Brad Peterson, a Wells Fargo representative. "It would be a significant financial impact to us."

Fees from casino ATM transactions are generally split between the banks and casino companies on a percentage scale, officials said.

Regulators in Iowa and Michigan already ban the placement of ATMs in casinos.

DuCharme asked Pike if there aren't some people on the verge of becoming problem gamblers who might be pushed over the edge by the easy availability of cash on the casino floor.

"Yeah, there's a couple of people who might abuse what they have," Pike said.

But Pike argued the real issue with cash machines is money management. And the government, Pike concluded, has no right to manage people's money.

The panel is also studying the less stringent measure of requiring ATMs placed in casinos to accept deposits. The rationale is that if people win money, they ought to be able to deposit it as easily as they can withdraw money now to play.

Bank executives argued that deposit-accepting ATMs are more difficult to install, requiring special government approval. Also, the executives said, there is no demand for such machines.

"The consumer demand is driven more towards the convenience," said Peterson. "I'm really not there to take my payroll check and make a deposit."

The panel did not indicate which way it is leaning on the issue. But in a document issued toward the end of the meeting, the panel listed only three proposals under the cash machine heading: 1) banning cash machines from gaming areas in casinos; 2) requiring machines in gaming establishments to accept deposits; and 3) prohibiting gaming machines that allow players to transfer money directly from debit or credit accounts.

Regulators also appear to be seriously considering requiring gaming establishments to prominently display toll-free numbers for problem gambling help lines, provide written information on the symptoms and treatment of problem gambling, train employees to identify problem gambling behavior and follow minimum standards of responsible credit extension.

Hector Mon, chairman of the Nevada Resort Association, argued against such requirements. Casinos should be allowed to develop their own methods of dealing with problem gambling, Mon argued.

That didn't sit will with Bible.

"It seems to me that's just volunteerism," Bible said. "I don't see how that addresses the problem."

On the issue of voluntary self-exclusion programs, the panel heard testimony from Kevin Mullally, deputy director for legal and legislative affairs of the Missouri gaming agency. Missouri's program allows problem gamblers to ask that casinos exclude them for life. Violators face arrest and confiscation of winnings. Casinos who do not honor the requests face sanctions.

"Once people enter into this program, they're in it and they can't ever get out," Mullally said.

Panel members said they thought a voluntary exclusion program was a good idea.

Nevada is acting on the issue just as problem gambling is surfacing as a national issue.

It's drawing the attention of a federal commission studying gambling -- as well as critics who have talked about suing the industry just like the tobacco industry is being sued.