PROPOSED RULES
Original Notice.
Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 09-08-050.
Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: Amending WAC 230-17-137 Guidelines for imposing penalties in disciplinary actions.
Hearing Location(s): Inn at Gig Harbor, 3211 56th Street N.W., Gig Harbor, WA 98335, on August 14, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.
Date of Intended Adoption: August 14, 2009.
Submit Written Comments to: Susan Arland, P.O. Box 42400, Olympia, WA 98504-2400, e-mail SusanA@wsgc.wa.gov, fax (360) 486-3625, by August 1, 2009.
Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Gail Grate, executive assistant, by August 1, 2009, TTY (360) 486-3637 or (360) 486-3453.
Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: Housekeeping change to subsection (1)(l) to change "commissioners" to "presiding officer."
When this rule was adopted in February 2009, an inadvertent typographical error in subsection (1)(l) listed the "commissioners" rather than the "presiding officer" as the person that may consider the factors listed in the rule when determining administrative penalties.
Reasons Supporting Proposal: See above.
Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 9.46.070.
Statute Being Implemented: Not applicable.
Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.
Name of Proponent: Washington state gambling commission, governmental.
Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Susan Arland, Rules Coordinator, Lacey, (360) 486-3466; Implementation: Rick Day, Director, Lacey, (360) 486-3446; and Enforcement: Mark Harris, Assistant Director, Lacey, (360) 486-3579.
No small business economic impact statement has been prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW. A small business economic impact statement has not been prepared pursuant to RCW 19.85.025 because the change would not impose additional costs on businesses.
A cost-benefit analysis is not required under RCW 34.05.328. The Washington state gambling commission is not an agency that is statutorily required to prepare a cost-benefit analysis under RCW 34.05.328.
May 18, 2009
Susan Arland
Rules Coordinator
OTS-2283.1
AMENDATORY SECTION(Amending Order 641, filed 2/17/09,
effective 3/20/09)
WAC 230-17-137
Guidelines for imposing penalties in
disciplinary actions.
(1) Without in any manner limiting the
authority granted to the commission under chapter 9.46 RCW or
other applicable law to impose the level and type of
discipline it may deem appropriate, at the request of any
party, the presiding officer may consider the following
factors, along with such others as he or she deems relevant,
in determining the administrative penalty to be assessed for
the violation of a statute or rule:
(a) The risk posed to the public health, safety, or welfare by the violation;
(b) Whether there are special policy implications relating to the violation, for example, those regarding underage gambling;
(c) Whether, and how, the violations impacted players, for example, failure to pay a player, and player-supported jackpot violations;
(d) Whether the applicant, licensee, or permittee:
(i) Knew, or reasonably should have known, the action complained of was a violation of any law, regulation, or condition of their license;
(ii) Previously received a verbal warning, written warning, notice of infraction, notice of violation and settlement (NOVAS), or administrative charges from the commission for similar violations;
(iii) Made, or attempted to make, a financial gain from the violation;
(iv) Had an existing compliance program related to the violation; or
(v) Has subsequently initiated remedial measures to prevent similar violations from reoccurring;
(e) Whether the violations were intentional, willful, or grossly negligent;
(f) Whether requiring the applicant, licensee or permittee to implement a written self-enforcement and compliance program would assist in ensuring future compliance with relevant laws, regulations, and license conditions;
(g) If the violation was caused by an officer or employee of the applicant, licensee, or permittee:
(i) Whether the individual who caused the violation acted within the scope of authority granted to him or her by the applicant, licensee or permittee; or
(ii) Whether the individual violated company policies, procedures, or other standards;
(h) The adequacy of any relevant training programs the applicant, licensee or permittee previously offered or made available to its employees;
(i) Whether and the extent to which the applicant, licensee or permittee cooperated with the commission during the investigation of the violation;
(j) The penalties imposed on other applicants, licensees or permittees for similar violations;
(k) Whether the applicant, licensee, or permittee reasonably relied upon professional advice from an accountant or other recognized professional, which was relevant to the conduct or action resulting in the violation; or
(l) Any other aggravating or mitigating circumstances the
((commissioners)) presiding officer deems relevant.
(2) A party intending to rely on any aggravating or mitigating factors must raise them at the initial hearing before the presiding officer in order to preserve them for any subsequent hearings before a reviewing officer.
(3) In the spring of 2011, staff will report to the commission on the impacts of this rule, if any.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 9.46.070. 09-05-084 (Order 641), § 230-17-137, filed 2/17/09, effective 3/20/09.]