Gaming regulators react to Harrah’s executive

David Strow

Thursday, Jan. 10, 2002 | 10:59 a.m.

The president of Harrah's Entertainment Inc. of Las Vegas was recommended for a gaming license by the Nevada Gaming Control Board Wednesday.

But Gary Loveman took some flak from Control Board members, who were concerned by Loveman's public criticism of the gaming regulatory process last August. In an August speech to the Latin Chamber of Commerce, Loveman called the investigation process "highly intrusive" and unsuited to the realities of the modern casino industry.

Loveman's August remarks came after a Control Board agent took three years of Loveman's personal correspondence as part of the investigation.

"I don't know that there's a strong case for this kind of invasiveness," Loveman said in August, calling some requirements "unproductive nonsense."

But board members weren't as bothered by Loveman's criticisms of the system's intrusiveness as they were by the inference that Control Board agents acted improperly in taking the correspondence files.

"When I read that, it looks like we did something (unusually) intrusive to you," board member Bobby Siller said. "I was somewhat offended you would have made that kind of comment, someone of your caliber, not having thought it out."

Loveman said he regretted the fact that the "dialogue occurred through newspaper stories," acknowledging agents had not entered his office and had not been disrespectful.

But he stuck to his position that the regulatory process, and the depth of investigations, was something that could be examined and reformed, noting that many talented executives from other industries were put off by the intrusiveness of the process.

"Second to nuclear power, this is the most intrusive regulatory process in America," Loveman said. "The reason I take this so seriously is because I am proud of this industry. For that reason, we need to stand up and say, there's nothing more threatening about this industry than (other American industries).

"In the past, the issue was keeping bad guys out. In the future, the issue should be how to get good people in. That has to be an objective."

Board members said they were open to that kind of debate, and board Chairman Dennis Neilander said it's possible the issue could be discussed when the board examines an update of some of its corporate regulations at a later date.

But board members were annoyed about how Loveman chose to air his concerns, and the tone of his criticisms in August.

"This is not a question about what you're entitled to say under the First Amendment. This is a question of being responsible," Siller said. "You represent the gaming industry."

And while the issue should be discussed, Neilander said, there remains a need for tough regulation.

"This is a tough balancing act we struggle with every day," Neilander said. "But absent the strict regulations we have in Nevada, there would not be a gaming industry today."