By Brian Greenspun

Sun, Apr 20, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Henri Lewin passed away last week. Some of the details of his life were published in the myriad obituaries that recounted his time with us and his contributions to society in general and, for Las Vegans, the gaming and entertainment industry, which exists today in Las Vegas because of his vision.

As with all of us, there are always fault lines in our humanity. Henri was a fun-loving, game-playing, self-styled humorist whose larger-than-life ego played well in a town yearning for personalities.

Henri was also a dear friend of mine. He was dearer to my father, Hank Greenspun, who championed Henri throughout his tenure in the entertainment capital of the world.

When there was a rough patch in Henri’s gaming life, Hank stood up for him and for a principle that, as you will readily see, has been used and abused against the mightiest men in the land.

Because my father’s column shows the love this town had for Henri, the respect it had for his talent, energy and contribution to the well-being of our city, I am republishing portions of the Feb. 15, 1989, column. The Gaming Commission reversed the Gaming Control Board’s recommendation for denial a short time after this column was written.

Maybe we can each recognize ourselves, our intolerance and our willingness to scapegoat others at the first sign of adversity. And, if so, we can use the life Henri led to right our own ships.

By Hank Greenspun

It is a standard the industry can live without.

The news of the Gaming Control Board’s denial of Henri Lewin to run the Sands Hotel surprised more than Henri if I can believe my ears.

Gaming licensing is a lot like presidential elections ... the day after the elections you are hard pressed to find anyone who voted for the loser. That may explain why there are very few people who will admit that they were shocked with the board’s decision to deny Lewin a license. What industry leader wants to get crosswise with the people who control his every move?

The regulators denied Henri because they were upset over the way he handled a sexual harassment claim. They didn’t like his lack of candor about the subject, a subject, I might add, which has been the object of many a casino boss who finds himself in a potentially compromising situation.

I know it is no longer in vogue to chase a secretary around a desk or invite a cocktail waitress to a “private” party. A perpetrator of such an act subjects himself to lawsuits, government claims and, most certainly, domestic problems should the matter become more public than originally anticipated. ...

Assuming that something like this happened to Henri Lewin and a young lady, the penalty exacted by the gaming officials appears a bit excessive under the circumstances. And if what we think happened really didn’t, the penalty is unfair and unconscionable.

What really occurred remains a subject of speculation because the matter was settled with the payment of money from the alleged admirer to the alleged object of his wiles. The issue never went to court where a proper adjudication would be made, so we are left to consider the extent of the truth either party might be telling.

There was a time in Nevada’s gaming control regulation that a man’s ability to run an efficient operation meant something. His reputation for honesty and fair dealing was also a major consideration as well as his lack of criminal involvement or suspicious behavior.

Whether or not a person settles a sexual harassment complaint “out of court” and away from the public’s prying eyes with due consideration for the domestic violence that might result, may be a concern for the national tabloids, but should not be a reason to deny an otherwise qualified person a gaming license.

When Barron Hilton, Sheriff John Moran and a respected gaming executive like Dennis Gomes put their own credibility behind a man like Henri Lewin, he deserves the benefit of all doubts by a Control Board which seems more concerned about what a regulator in New Jersey might think than what is right in Nevada. I happened to add my name early to the list of Henri’s supporters who believe his ability to contribute to our gaming industry more than qualifies him for a license.

Certainly a licensee’s abuse of the law and community standards is a legitimate issue for gamers to consider in granting or otherwise acting on a license application. And while I don’t believe in harassment of any type, allegations of such peccadillos as we have heard in Lewin’s case should not form the basis for a surprise attack on the licensure of an otherwise qualified person.

Very few of us can claim absolute fidelity to the concept of harassing only the person to whom we are married or otherwise attached. For some, the loss of a gaming license is far more preferable than the wrath of a scorned spouse. Silence is often the most desirable course.

In Henri’s case, the price he paid for marital harmony has suddenly escalated beyond comprehension and reason.

If the Control Board order should stand, there’s no business in the nation, from banks to the largest corporate offices, that would be subjected to greater extortive or blackmail possibilities than leaders of the gaming industry. And no executive of any large corporation would have to measure up to the criteria required of gaming licensees.

I am concerned about the price the rest of the gaming operators would have to pay for the wages of those who are without sin.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.