(Cross-posted at hesterprynne.net.)
The latest episode in the drama concerning the legality of placing ATM’s in casinos here in Massachusetts.
Quick recap. At present, a state law says that no ATM “shall be located upon premises where there occurs legalized gambling.” This law presents an obstacle of major significance to the casino industry, under whose business model casino patrons must have ready access to all of their assets. In a very lightly attended legislative session on Christmas Eve, the State Senate included a repeal of that law in an amendment to a much larger bill concerning the regulation of state-chartered banks. The maneuver did not go undetected, and those who favored more careful deliberation on this policy question succeeded in removing the proposed repeal before allowing the bill to pass.
The Gaming Commission, in sympathy with the casino industry, had earlier asked the state’s Division of Banks for its views, and last week the agency responded: no repeal of the law is necessary because it has already happened. Their argument goes like this: the 2011 gambling law included a directive to several state agencies to ensure that casinos do not allow “any credit card or automated teller machine that would allow a patron to obtain cash from a government-issued electronic benefits transfer [EBT] card.” This prohibition against EBT cards, the Division of Banks reasons, also operated to repeal the earlier law prohibiting the placement of ATM’s in casinos altogether. Despite the fact that the Legislature did not expressly repeal the ATM prohibition (as it did with seven other statutes it regarded as inconsistent with the gambling law), the repeal nevertheless occurred “by implication,” because no other interpretation is conceivable: the prohibition against the use of EBT cards can mean only that the Legislature intended that ATM’s capable of rejecting EBT cards are permissible.
Whether the Division of Banks is correct in its interpretation is certainly a matter of dispute. (Courts are very reluctant to conclude that repeals “by implication” have occurred: the test for the principle of implied repeal is “whether the prior statute is so repugnant to, and inconsistent with, the later enactment that both cannot stand.”) For one thing, the Legislature evidently lacked confidence that the gambling law repealed the entire ATM prohibition “by implication,” or else it would not have attempted to repeal it expressly last month.
In any event, now that it believes it has a green light of sorts from the Division of Banks, the Gaming Commission has a hurry-up offense going. Draft regulations allowing ATM’s as long as they are 15 feet or more from the gaming area have been issued and the Commission is requesting comments from the public by 4:00 pm on this Monday, January 19 (yes, it’s a federal holiday).
The Commission’s decision on ATM’s is far from the final word. And they should know what you think. So this weekend, maybe while you’re watching the Patriots’ hurry-up offense, drop a line to the Commission with your thoughts — and remember, the wisdom of the ATM policy is fair game, too. Use ‘draft regulation comment’ in the subject line and email to mgccomments@state.ma.us.
How unfortunately typical of the MGC, too.
Maybe some of us who’re in contact with our legislators can ask them to submit comments, too, for the extra punch and visibility? There should be time for a legislative solution to this, of course, but only if people are aware of the issue and remain committed to dealing with it. And the frustration of continually having to quash this can’t hurt with the continuing sense of commitment. It’s like, How many times do we have to tell you no?
There’s also so much wrong with “The Gaming Commission, in sympathy with the casino industry…” The Commission should be regulating the industry, not showing it sympathy. Are the Commissioners all casino owners themselves or something? (That’s a semi-rhetorical question; I hope and assume such a blatant conflict would be forbidden.)
They’re required to regulate strictly — and at the same time they’re more or less responsible for bringing in hundreds of millions in revenue.
(I guess the members could have just said no. )
from our friends at the Division of Banks. Yet another lawsuit looms….
there is no such thing. But it is a state holiday, which is all the more telling, these being state boards.
MLK Day just happens not to be one of them.
MLK Day is a federal holiday.
I remember when AZ and NH were the last holdouts to make it a holiday so I thought it was state by state, but with every state now on board.
John Chapman, who will be Undersecretary for Consumer Affairs and Business Regulations, which oversees the Division of Banks. Waddaya think will be his way of handling this mess?
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2015/01/major-baker-appointee-exploited-the-developmentally-disabled/
Who think that “we will manage and regulate these casinos for the betterment of the commonwealth” are no different from the ones who travel to Foxwoods, Vegas, and Atlantic City thinking that they will, one day, beat the house and get rich.
I only just noticed the timing on this. The Division of Banks issues its (extremely dubious) opinion on January 8; the request for comments on draft regs is issued January 8; comments are due January 19, six business days later? It might as well have been deliberately designed to exclude comment from anyone who isn’t making this their full-time job. We give people more notice for a municipal hearing on a special permit for a fast-food drive-through window.
Or, am I being hopelessly naive in my expectations here? Do other Massachusetts agencies do business this way, and I’ve just had the good fortune not to have encountered it before?
Certainly looks like the Gaming Commission (with help from the Division of Banks) is trying to put an end to the ATM controversy ASAP. But many lawmakers (Jamie Eldridge, Paul Donato, Bruce Tarr among them) have already said that further action by the Legislature is going to be necessary.
Penalty for MGC’s false start: further loss of credibility, putting them even deeper into their own territory.
Hesterprynne’s post here is very well done and I urge anyone who opposes citizen ripoffs to send in some thoughts by later this afternoon to the MGC. (insert “draft regulation comment” in the subject line and email to mgccomments@state.ma.us)
While other businesses may have ATMs inside, casinos are no ordinary commodity. You can be almost certain that no one in Massachusetts who went to a movie theater this past weekend got up out of their seat and took out a maximum cash advance on their credit card in the middle of the movie.
It was not illegal in Massachusetts to open a hotel or a restaurant…what has been illegal is to cheat and exploit citizens. Casino ATMs are central to the dishonest and financially damaging casino business model.
Les Bernal
A big thank you to hesterprynne for alerting the BMG community about the comment period for the Mass Gaming Comission’s draft regulation 205 CMR 138.00.
In response to this deadline, I submitted the comment below.
However, I along with Senator Pat Jehlen will also be asking the MGC to delay its decision on the regulation of ATMs in casinos, and to have an additional public hearing on the matter beyond the Jan. 22nd, 2015 hearing. There is no reason for such a quick decision on this important consumer protection matter. The MGC has stated over and over again, “In Massachusetts, we have the opportunity to do casinos right.” The MGC’s fast-track approach to regulating ATMs in casinos is not doing casinos right. My comment submitted today, before the 4:00 pm deadline:
As a State Senator who participated in the 2009-2012 debates over allowing casino gambling in Massachusetts, and more recently the debates concerning the amendment originally attached to the Bank Modernization Act that would have repealed a 1981 banking law that prohibited electronic cash machines at gambling venues, I offer the following comment on the MGC draft regulation 205 CMR 138.00, to be incorporated into the regulation:
“Any ATM should be no closer than 1,000 feet from any gambling area where a person may engage in gambling, on the entire casino and entertainment property, and may only be located within a building or venue on a casino and entertainment property that does not have or engage in gambling.”
Sincerely, Senator Jamie Eldridge, Middlesex and Worcester district
James.Eldridge [at] masenate.gov