Casinos object to work card overhaul proposal

Wednesday, April 2, 2003 | 11:07 a.m.

A bill overhauling the way casino workers obtain work permits may create more liability for Nevada casinos by shifting the burden of processing registrations from law enforcement agencies to casinos that may be ill-prepared for the chore, an industry lobbyist said Tuesday.

Local law enforcement agencies are primarily responsible for processing gaming work cards, which are permits that require criminal background checks of casino workers before they can work in jobs involving money-handling. Last month, however, Nevada gaming regulators introduced a bill that would eliminate work cards altogether and require casinos to process permits for employees. Casinos that unintentionally fail to process the information could be subject to disciplinary action under the new plan, Bill Bible, president of the Nevada Resort Association, told members of the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.

"Larger companies do these sort of background checks themselves" on employees, he said. Smaller casinos -- and even some with limited gambling licenses such as bars and grocery stores -- don't usually have corporate security departments or other staff to process background check information, he said.

The program would require casinos to keep permit application forms for prospective employees, which would be forwarded to state and federal authorities for a criminal check and then filed with the state Gaming Control Board, Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said.

Employees would be responsible for filling out permit applications, paying processing fees and getting fingerprinted, Neilander said.

"I don't think it's an added burden either to the industry or the employee," he said.

The committee took no action Tuesday and will consider amendments this week to the bill, which has yet to face an Assembly vote.

After more than a year of negotiations between law enforcement agencies, casinos and worker advocates, Nevada gaming regulators last year adopted new regulations approved by the 2001 Legislature that implemented a statewide work card program for casino employees. The program was aimed at streamlining a process that previously relied on local agencies operating under a patchwork of different rules. The old system required workers who changed jobs across counties to obtain new background checks and work cards, while the new regulations allowed workers to obtain cards good for five years at any casino in the state.

Several law enforcement agencies expressed concern that the statewide cards, which still would be processed locally, would mean added financial burdens. While fees for the cards were capped at $75 per worker, processing costs for government agencies were spiraling upward, they said.

In a move that surprised the casino industry, Nevada gaming regulators introduced Senate Bill 432 last month in reaction to news that the Clark County Sheriff's Office and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department -- which together process at least 60 percent of the state's gaming work cards -- would no longer be able to process the cards.

Lt. Stan Olsen, a legislative liaison for both law enforcement agencies, said they no longer have the authority to process the cards because the Clark County Commission and the Las Vegas City Council voted in 2001 to repeal gaming work card requirements for casino employees.

Neilander said the state is required by law to take over responsibility for casino permits if local agencies drop their duties.

Local law enforcement agencies have agreed to continue processing the cards through the end of the year to allow the Gaming Control Board time to introduce an alternative processing system, Olsen said.

SB 432 eliminates the actual gaming card while maintaining the process by which employees are checked against criminal records. Law enforcement agencies would no longer process or issue cards.

Besides lacking the authority to process and issue cards, rising processing costs also are a concern, said Olsen, who supports the bill.

The $75 cap approved last year doesn't allow enough flexibility for law enforcement agencies to react to cost increases outside of their control, he said.

Checks against a state repository of criminal records required for gaming work permits were recently raised to $26 from $21, law enforcement officials say. Costs for a second background check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation may also increase in the future, they add.

"There has to be some flexibility in that law so that they're not taking a loss," Olsen said. "Nobody should be making a profit but they shouldn't be taking a loss on it, which hurts taxpayers."

"Our ability to recover those (processing) costs is becoming limited," added Jim Nadeau, a legislative liaison for the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, who testified before the committee Tuesday.

"We don't make the determination on who gets a card and who doesn't," he said. "From our perspective, we're just doing the work."

The bill's critics say it will shift processing costs from the financially strapped state to the casino industry and its employees. Last year's statewide work card regulations shifted some of those costs from local law enforcement agencies to the state, they say.

"In the end, this is all about money," said Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. "It is not unreasonable to assume that local law enforcement wants out of the business of processing work cards because it is no longer profitable for them."

Olsen disputes that claim.

"It was never the intent of the gaming card to be a revenue generator for anybody," he said. "It was never a profitable business (for local law enforcement), though it initially paid for the operating costs."

The ACLU says gaming work cards for rank and file employees are unconstitutional. The group fought the regulations adopted last year, saying they violate workers' privacy rights by creating a state repository of personal data easily tapped by law enforcement officials for other purposes.

"This bill doesn't address any of the issues we raised the first time around," Peck said. "This is an example of a vague and standardless rule to give government the authority to do whatever it wants."

In an interview prior to Tuesday's testimony, Neilander said he had not had an opportunity to discuss such issues with Peck. The bill is only about two weeks old and not everyone has offered input on it yet, he said.

Senators requested assurance Tuesday that the new casino registrations would remain affordable and easy to navigate for workers.

"We are trying to create a system that's revenue-neutral" for governments and industry, Neilander said. Higher processing costs may end up getting passed on to workers, lifting the $75 cap imposed last year, he said.

"But this is a five year (permit)," he added. A $100 registration fee would actually cost $20 per year, for example -- less than what many agencies were charging for gaming cards that may have only been valid for one year, he said.