HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01252005 - C48 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
contra
' - costa
AUlr
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE - •-s ,
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2004 � Tq��---�' � C o U nty
SUBJECT: COUNTY ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE ISSUANCE OF
CARD ROOM WORKER PERMITS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. RECOGNIZE that the County has authority to issue card room work permits only for
individuals working in the county, regardless of whether or not those persons are residents
of the County or some other county.
2. RECOGNIZE card room work permits for Indian gaming casinos result from Indian tribal
and State compacts over which the County has no jurisdiction or input.
3. ACKNOWLEDGE that, in addition to the any of the reasons for denial of a card room work
permit specified in state law, which compels denial, County Ordinance permits the Board
of Supervisors to deny a card room work permit if it makes a finding that the applicant is
not of good moral character.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: F ` lie
-------------------
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,� ECOMME D ION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Z_,;A00ROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)-
GAYLE B. tKKEMA, CHAIR MARK DeSAULNIER
ACTION OF BOARD O APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
S 106:
A K 5'Cll. Ale--'C— 10 7.,01 9�) UJ ES T S/t Cp�Ns451J 1-0
,fz 9-�j
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
, ,'C UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ��� ) ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON THE DATE SHOWN
2r
AYES: NOES: ATTESTED: JANUARY 2005
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 BY ,DEPUTY
CC: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF
KELLY FLANAGAN,DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
SHERIFF-CORONER
County Ordinance Governing Issuance of Card Room Worker Permits December 20, 2004
Internal Operations Committee page Z
4. DIRECT the County Counsel to introduce an ordinance to amend County Ordinance Code
section 52-3.703 to be consistent with the State gambling Control Act, which states that a
county"shall notes issue a card room permit to an applicant who would be disqualified form
holding a state gambling license for reasons specified in state law, and retaining the
Board's discretion to deny a permit on the basis that the applicant is not of good moral
character.
5. REQUEST the Office of the Sheriff to seek, prior to approving any card room worker
permit, State Gaming Commission review on each permit application to ensure that the
state has no objections to the approval of a permit.
BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2004, Lieutenant Barkley of the Sheriffs Office presented to the Board of
Supervisors a staff report on the Sheriffs recommendation to deny the administrative appeal
of Stuart McKinzie regarding denial of a card room employee work permit.
Supervisor Uilkema inquired about the monitoring process of this type of permit, noting that
there had been more appeals in recent weeks than in the previous seven years. Commander
Jim Nichols concurred. A flaw had been noted in the staffs interpretation of the ordinance
that the Sheriff was addressing. The Commander further noted that the guiding ordinance
was unequivocal as to the standards applicable to permit renewal and the Sheriff has no
discretion in its enforcement of the ordinance. The Sheriffs denial of the permit was in strict
conformance with the County's policy.
The Supervisors and Counsel discussed the age and lack of flexibility in the relevant
ordinance, and the ramifications it may have, in light of the many proposals for casino-style
gambling facilities that offered the possibility of jobs for many—if the restrictions did not
prevent them from being employed.
Based on the particulars of the appeal, the Board decided to grant the permit but referred the
larger matter of the ordinance and its interpretation to the Internal Operations Committee for
review and recommendations, and requested the Sheriff-Coroner's Department to work with
the Committee.
On November 1, the IOC received a report from the Sheriffs Department recommending that
the current County ordinance not be-made less stringent. Following a thorough discussion,
Supervisor Uilkema asked staff to follow up issues related to jurisdiction and the level of
Board discretion over appeals. For example, if the Board of Supervisors has authority to
grant permits, what conditions must be present for the Board to overturn the Sheriffs denial of
a permit? Can the Board overturn a finding by a court regarding the convictions relevance to
the issuance of a permit? Is the Sheriff acting as an officer of the state or the County in
reviewing the applications? How does residency factor into the equation? For example, who
has jurisdiction over a Sacramento resident--the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
or the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors? Is a card room worker permit authorized by
County Ordinance Governing Issuance of Card Room Worker Permits December 20, 2004
Internal Operations Committee Page 3
county or is it statewide?
The County Counsel prepared the attached report that is responsive to the Committee's
questions. Based upon this information, our Committee recommends that if any of the first six
reasons in the County Ordinance Code for denying a card room work permit are found, then
denial of the permit shalt be mandatory. However, if only the seventh reason is found, then
the Board would retain its discretion to grant or deny the permit.
Since one of the reasons state law compelling denial of a permit is an objection by the state to
the issuance of the permit, we recommend that the Office of the Sheriff institute aprocedure
to check in with the state prior to making any recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for
approval of a permit.
Office of the County Counsel Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: (925) 335-1800
Martinez, CA 94553 Fax.- (925) 646-1078
Date: December 14, 2004
f
To: Internal Operations Committee
From: Silvano B. Marchesi, County Counsel
By: Kelly M. Flanagan, Deputy County Counsel
Re: Cardroom Work Permit Issues
Following the December 6, 2004 Internal Operations Committee meeting,, County Counsel
was asked to research and report back to the Committee on several issues relating to cardroom work
permits: (1) local authority over cardroom work permits, specifically including the authority of the
Board of Supervisors to overturn the Sheriffs denial of a work permit and the authority of the Board of
Supervisors to overturn the State's determination respecting a work permit; (2) residency issues,
including whether the Board of Supervisors has authority over a Sacramento County resident seeking a
work permit in Contra Costa County; and(3) the scope of a County-issued work permit, i.e.,whether
it is valid just within the county or statewide. Each of these issues is addressed below.
Local Authority Over Cardroom Work Permits
The California Gambling Control Act(Business&Professions Code section 19800, et
seq.) generally regulates the licensing of gambling establishments and gambling employees within the
State. The Gambling Control Act does not preempt the entire field of gambling regulation, however. It
expressly provides that local governments are free to impose"more stringent local controls or
conditions upon gambling than are imposed by[the Gambling Control Act]." (Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code
§ 19803; see also, Gilbert v. City of San Jose(2003) 114 Ca1.App.4th 606, 616.)
The Gambling Control Act requires that any employee of a gambling enterprise hold either
a work permit issued by the state commission or a work permit"issued in accordance with the
applicable ordinance or regulations of the county, city, or city and county in which his or her duties are
performed." (Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code § 19912(a).) A county"shall not,"however, issue a permit to
an applicant who "would be disqualified from holding a state gambling license for the reasons specified
in subdivisions (a)to (g), inclusive of Section 19859,"which are as follows:
"(a) Failure of the applicant to clearly establish eligibility and
qualification in accordance with this chapter.
(b) Failure of the applicant to provide information,
documentation, and assurances required by this chapter or requested by the
Internal Operations Committee
December 14, 2004
Page_2_
director, rial to qualification, or
or failure of the applicant to reveal any fact mate
the supplying of information that is untrue or misleading as to a material fact
pertaining to the qualification criteria.
(c) Conviction of a felony, including a conviction by a federal
court or a court in another state for a crime that would constitute a felony if
committed in California.
(d) Conviction of the applicant for any misdemeanor involving
dishonesty or moral turpitude within the 10-year period immediately preceding
the submission of the application, unless the applicant has been granted relief
pursuant to Section 1203.4, 1203.4a, or 1203.45 of the Penal Code . 0 & *
(e) Association of the applicant with criminal profiteering
activity or organized crime, as defined by Section 186.2 of the Penal Code.
(f) Contumacious defiance by the applicant of any legislative
investigatory body, or other official investigatory body of any state or of the
United States,when that body is engaged in the investigation of crimes relating
to gambling; official corruption related to gambling activities; or criminal
profiteering activity or organized crime, as defined by Section 186.2 of the
Penal Code*
(g) The applicant is less than 21 years of age."
The Gambling Control Act also provides that the state commission may object to the
issuance of a work permit by a local entity"for any cause deemed reasonable by the division." (Cal.
Bus. &Prof. Code § 19912(c). If the state commission objects,, the"work permit shall be denied."
(Id.) Local ordinances must permit for objection by the state,, and any individual whose application is
denied based on the state commission's objection is permitted to apply for an evidentiary hearing to the
commission. (Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code § 19912(c)(2) and(3).)
Consistent with the scheme set out in the Gambling Control Act,the county's ordinance
code provides for notification to the state of applications for cardroom,work permits and for the denial
of a permit when the state informs the sheriff of an objection to the issuance of the permit. (County
Ord. Code § 52-3.703(c).) The county code also provides that the sheriff"may"deny the issuance or
renewal of a permit for the following reasons:
"(1) Conviction of the applicant for any crime punishable as a
felony;
Internal Operations Committee
December 141 2004
Page 3_
(2) Conviction of the applicant for any misdemeanor involving
dishonesty or moral turpitude within the ten-year period immediately preceding
the submission of the application,unless the applicant has been granted relief
pursuant to Section 1203.4, 1203.4a, or 1203.45;
(3) Association of the applicant with criminal profiteering
activity or organized crime, as defined by Section 186.2 of the Penal Code;
(4) Contumacious defiance by the applicant of any legislative
investigatory body, or other official investigatory body of any state or of the
United States,when that body is engaged in the investigation of crimes relating
to gambling; official corruption related to gambling activities; or criminal
profiteering activity or organized crime, as defined by Section 186.2 of the
Penal Code;
(5) The applicant is disqualified from holding a state gambling
license;
(6) The state objects to the issuance of a work permit to the
applicant;
(7) The applicant is not of good moral character."
(County Ord. Code § 52-3.707(a).)
The county's ordinance code provides for appeal of a permit denial to the Board of
Supervisors. (County Ord. Code § 52-3.707(d).) Such appeal is within the county's authority,with
two caveats.
First, permitjection by the state,recourse should be
if the basis for the denial of a is an objection
through the state commission, as set out in Business and Professions Code section 19912(c). Second,
six of the seven bases for denial of a permit under the county ordinance code are mandatory bases of
denial under the Gambling Control Act. When a permit is denied by the sheriff on one of the
mandatory grounds, the Board of Supervisors' authority on an appeal is limited to a determination as to
whether there has been a mistake. Neither the sheriff nor the Board of Supervisors has authority to
grant a work permit when an applicant meets one of the mandatory bases for denial under state law.
The seventh basis for denial under the county's ordinance is that an"applicant is not of good moral
character." (County Ord. Code § 52-3.707(a)(7).) A denial on this basis is discretionary, and
therefore either the sheriff initially or the Board of Supervisors on appeal could determine whether or
not a work permit should be denied on this basis.
Internal Operations Committee
December 14, 2004
Page 4 -
Residency Issues
The Gambling Control Act provides that every employee of a gambling enterprise must
hold a work permit issued either by the state or by"the county, city, or city and county in which his or
her duties are performed." (Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code § 19912(a)(1).) Contra Costa County therefore
has authority to issue work permits only for individuals working in the county,regardless of whether or
not those individuals are residents of Contra Costa County or some other county.
Scope of County-Issued Permit
A permit issued by Contra Costa County is valid only for an employee who performs his or
her duties in Contra Costa County. (Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code § 19912(a)(1).) The Gambling Control
Act gives the county the ability to impose"local"controls on gambling,but does not give the county any
authority to regulate gambling outside of the county. (Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code § 19803.)
We will be available at the Internal Operations Committee meeting on December 20, 2004,
to further discuss these issues.
\K.MF
cc: Commander Jim Nichols
HAShetiffiCardroom Work Permits.wpd