MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 15, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Thursday, March 15, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Heather Dion, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board
Carol O’Hare, Executive Director, Nevada Council on Problem Gambling
Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association
Jonathan Andrews, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources
Rachel A. Volberg, Ph.D., President, Gemini Research Ltd., Northampton, Massachusetts
Ken Templeton, The Templeton Group, Las Vegas
Dr. Robert Hunter, Clinical Director, Problem Gambling Consultants Inc., Las Vegas
Bo Bernhard, Ph.D., Operations Director, Problem Gambling Consultants Inc., Las Vegas
Rex Williams, Concerned Citizen
Howard Cornbleth, Concerned Citizen
Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 335.
SENATE BILL 335: Enacts provisions pertaining to problem gambling. (BDR 41‑1105)
Senator James began introductory remarks on S.B. 335. He stated it was with deliberation to introduce the bill. However, after extensive research on the issue, Senator James stated he believed the State of Nevada needed to address the issue of problem gambling. He said if the bill is viewed as being critical of anyone, “It should be critical of us in the Legislature for having not addressed this issue before now.”
Senator James stated he believed the bill would have some broad-ranging support from the regulators, the industry, and from a number of professionals. He continued, “One of the things that surprised me was the research, given to me by Dr. Hunter, of the rundown of other states that having gaming as part of their industry.” The research, by Dr. Robert Hunter, listed the different levels of funding and programmatic approaches of problem gambling that the other states use.
Senator James ran through the list of the states:
Georgia devotes $250,000 a year to problem gambling programs, and Louisiana Mental Health Division spends $2 million a year for problem gambling research. While Michigan budgets up to $1 million a year for problem gambling, Minnesota has appropriated $2.6 million over a 2-year span for the issue. New Jersey allocates $500,000, and in addition funds four treatment centers.
Senator James contended the majority of state governments were providing education, research, and treatment for the problem-gambling issue. He stated a discussion of problem gambling does not have to be a critique of the gaming industry. He continued, “Nevada’s gaming industry is inextricably entwined in its history and economy.” Senator James commented it is not the objective of the committee or S.B. 335 to assail the industry or cripple it with needless pejoratives about problem gambling.
Senator James remarked problem gambling is much like other addictive behaviors. He stated, “Some people for whatever reason are unable to control their behavior, and get involved in compulsive behavior.” As a state, he said, we have an agency that deals with drugs and alcohol problems. And furthermore, he stated, “We even have programmatic approaches to crimes related to compulsive drinking and drug use, within the criminal code.” However, he said there are no approaches that deal with problem gambling.
Senator James declared through his review and research of the topic, he has concluded the behavior can be quite addictive and difficult to cure. He acknowledged the vast majority of individuals who come to Nevada to game do so responsibly. Yet for those who cannot do so responsibly, he pointed out, the problem needs to be addressed, and resolutions should be considered at the state level.
Senator James went through the order of presenters. He indicated the first panel would provide an overview of the current efforts to address problem gambling. He stated the second panel would give information on the ongoing study of problem gambling in Nevada. He addressed the third panel which would provide the committee background on studies related to problem gambling.
Senator James concluded his remarks stating, “It is an interesting situation because the gaming industry itself, having no compulsion or leadership from us to do so, is doing some things to address the issue.” He pointed to the casinos, which have given substantial portions of money to fund treatment programs.
Senator James noted he would be proposing one amendment to S.B. 335.
Chapter 458 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) deals with alcohol and drug abuse. There is [sic] a section[s] NRS 458.310 and NRS 458.330, which provides that an individual who appears in court and pleads guilty, or if they are to be convicted of a particular crime, the court can conduct an inquiry to see if the crime is related to alcohol or drug abuse. The court can then defer sentencing, sentence with treatment, or sentence to treatment. I believe it would be appropriate to amend the statute to allow the same program in the courts for gambling addictions as well.
Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, introduced himself for the record, and indicated he did not prepare his remarks. However, Mr. Neilander stated he would give an explanation of Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 5.170 (Exhibit C). Mr. Neilander stated the Nevada Gaming Commission adopted the regulation in 1998.
Mr. Neilander indicated the former Gaming Control Board chairman Bill Bible had sat on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, and as a result of the study his awareness of Nevada was heightened. Mr. Bible then paneled a committee to take a look at the issue, stated Mr. Neilander. He stated, the panel heard testimony from various professionals, those afflicted from problem gambling, and several individuals from other states. Mr. Neilander contended the panel concluded there needed to be “baseline effort” at the board and commission level.
Mr. Neilander pointed out that the industry was already doing several things to address the problem, before the panel concluded a “baseline effort” was necessary. However, the panel believed there was a need for uniformity to deal with problem gambling. Nevertheless, the result of the panels need for uniformity is the Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 5.170 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Neilander stated the regulation was designed to heighten awareness. However, he pointed out the board has no expertise in the treatment area, and therefore the regulation does not address treatment. He continued saying the board does not attempt to regulate patron conduct, only gaming. The goal of the regulation was heightened awareness and education, stated Mr. Neilander. Based on the testimony the panel received, there was nothing specific to Nevada. Mr. Neilander stated the lack of information which was pertinent to Nevada moved the panel to request funding from the Interim Finance Committee. The funding was used to conduct a prevalence study specific to Nevada which would provide data showing the extent of the problem.
Mr. Neilander, referring to section 1 of Gaming Regulation 5.170, stated the regulation needed to apply to both restricted and nonrestricted licenses. He continued pointing out the 1-800 number must be posted in conspicuous places within the casino. Mr. Neilander acknowledged the enforcement side of the regulation, “We go out as a course of our regular audits, and audit the components in the regulation.” He added that there is a team of “chip checkers,” which are individuals who go to the casinos to check the “e-prom” (programmable) chips in the slot machines, to ensure the chips have been approved by the lab. At the same time, the “chip checkers” audit certain components of the regulation.
Mr. Neilander stated the first major area of the regulation was the 1-800 number. He commented there has been indication the number provided significant impact to help problem gamblers. The second area Mr. Neilander stated was training. He pointed out it was necessary that employees, who deal with patrons who have a desire to contact the 1-800 number, know what the regulation states and know how the 1-800 number works. The regulation mandates the training program.
Mr. Neilander indicated training could occur several different ways. The Nevada Council on Problem Gambling has a program. Also, several of the casinos offer in-house training programs. He stated, “From the board’s perspective we wanted the employees to be knowledgeable of the regulation and the 1-800 number process, which was the ‘baseline’ that was set.” Mr. Neilander pointed out some of the training goes beyond the “baseline” that was set, which the Gaming Control Board supports. However, it is noted in the regulation there is not a requirement for employees to identify a problem gambler, stated Mr. Neilander. He continued stating, “The last thing you want is a bartender saying to a patron, ‘You have a problem,’ because it is a clinical diagnosis and they are not trained to make such a decision.”
Mr. Neilander referred to Gaming Regulation 5.170 (Exhibit C). He said there is a self-exclusion program in subsection 4, that each licensee is required to develop a program to allow persons to self-exclude themselves from check cashing, issuance of credit, and the direct mail marketing. Mr. Neilander stated the Gaming Control Board believes the self-exclusion subsection is important. He continued, “There are many self-exclusion programs.” For example, he stated, in Missouri there is a lifetime ban, where an individual can self-exclude themselves from a property. However, the self-exclusion program is completely voluntary.
Mr. Neilander indicated the remainder of the regulation, after subsection 4, gave the Gaming Control Board the authority to enforce the regulations. He commented the enforcement clauses are standard, and are included in most of the board’s regulations. Also, he declared, “If an establishment fails to follow a regulation, it can be deemed an unsuitable method of operation and disciplinary action can be taken.”
Mr. Neilander noted at the onset of the creation of Gaming Regulation 5.170 (Exhibit C), the board would reevaluate the regulation after 2 years. He stated it has been almost 2 years, and reevaluation is taking place. However, thus far, Mr. Neilander indicated, the regulation is working well.
Senator James commented, “It is difficult timing because we leave in June and the report does not come out until August.” Senator James also noted he was on the committee that had a request for proposal, and was anxious to review the report.
Mr. Neilander added he was also on the committees reviewing the issue previously, “but attempting to tailor a request for proposal (RFP) and just the parameters of the study was a difficult task.” He contended the task was difficult because there was disagreement of the methodology used to conduct a study. Mr. Neilander stated at the National Gambling Impact Study Commission level, there was great debate about the proper way to survey the issue, and what the best way to get the information needed to set up the study.
Senator James stated he was interested to hear more testimony on the issue, as it is a difficult problem to define. He called attention to one instance he was aware of, where an individual claimed to not have a gambling problem because he drains his bank account only once a year, as opposed to weekly. Senator James voiced his personal concern on the issue, “I have people who are close to me that have this problem.”
Senator James acknowledged part of the bill includes putting a member from the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling on the gaming policy committee. He added there are some individuals who believe the gaming policy committee is a “dead letter,” which it might be because it does not meet frequently. Senator James pointed out because the committee was given the appeal responsibility to review appeals of neighborhood casino designations, it has been somewhat revived. However, the appeal responsibility was only given to the review panel of the gaming policy committee, and not the full committee.
Senator James stated, “I spoke to the Governor yesterday, and he is aware of the measure.” Senator James indicated the Governor is the chair of the gaming policy committee, and is the person to take leadership on the issue. He added, “The Governor has assured me it is his intention to make the policy committee something more than it is now and revitalize it.” Moreover, by adding the member of the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling onto the policy committee, it is not an empty gesture, Senator James included.
Mr. Neilander referred to Senator James remarks, “The subset of the policy committee you mentioned is actively working. As I have been saddled with the task of sitting on that, and had a hearing on Monday of an issue on Senate Bill 208.”
SENATE BILL 208: Makes various changes to provisions concerning public dental health. (BDR 40-738)
Carol O’Hare, Executive Director, Nevada Council on Problem Gambling, identified herself for the record. She began her testimony referring to her written testimony (Exhibit D). Ms. O’Hare’s written testimony provided an overview of current efforts to address problem gambling by the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling.
The testimony by Ms. O’Hare gave an introduction of the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling’s mission, and a brief overview of the council’s history. Also, the testimony (Exhibit D) defined the numerous programs and services the council provides to those seeking assistance with problem gambling. These programs and services include: Public Awareness, print and broadcast media, Internet Websites, speakers bureau presentations to community and social service agencies, and presentations at gaming industry, mental health and other professional conferences; Prevention, “When the Fun Stops” (Exhibit E), distribution of information to schools in Clark County, inclusion of problem gambling brochures in new student orientation packets distributed at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Administration of the Project 21; HelpLine, 1‑800-522-4700; Training and Education; Treatment, insurance coverage for pathological gambling, inclusion of pathological gambling in all employer- provided benefit plans, treatment-outcome studies, screening for gambling disorders with substance abuse treatment populations, equal access to services regardless of geographic location within the state, appropriate fees for services; Research; Program Support.
Ms. O’Hare concluded her written testimony (Exhibit D) by stating:
The overview that I have provided today encompasses the broad range of efforts in which the Nevada Council [on Problem Gambling] has had direct or indirect involvement. It should be noted, however, that in some of these areas, such as awareness and treatment, we cannot possibly provide information on every resource and initiative that may exist in the state of Nevada. For example, while council has distributed over 750,000 brochures, that figure does not include brochures and other material that have been produced and distributed by various gaming companies within their in-house responsible gaming programs. Likewise, the number of calls received through the Problem Gamblers HelpLine does not necessarily reflect every individual who has sought assistance. There may be many who have made their call to an employee assistance program (EAP) provider or a Gamblers Anonymous hotline.
Obviously, to identify every service being provided throughout the state would require a more detailed and comprehensive assessment, and more of the committee’s time than I have already taken.
As a final comment in offering this summary, I would like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. The Nevada Council on Problem Gambling is committed to serving as a central resource on problem gambling issues within our state and we will continue to make our organization available to participate in any forum that addresses this important concern.
On a personal note, to everyone represented here today, I would like to say that as a recovering compulsive gambler and a proud citizen of the state of Nevada, it is my sincere hope that our collective and cooperative efforts will lead to the development of the best and most comprehensive network of problem gambling services that can be offered, one that someday will be recognized as a model for other states to follow.
Senator James responded to Ms. O’Hare’s remarks, “I did not realize a lot of that stuff was going on, and obviously through efforts like yours and the support through the community you have accomplished a lot.”
Senator Care asked about Gaming Regulation 5.170, subsection 3, “What does the action of the player have to be to initiate help from an employee of the casino?” Senator Care furthered his question, in subsection 4, stating, “The licensee is required to have a program, but what happens at the check cashing stage?”
Ms. O’Hare, referring to the questions, responded:
In the manner in which we provide training to the employees, we are educating the employees but not training them to take intervention approaches. We are training employees to have awareness and sensitivity to the problem. By the time they complete the training, they have a good sense of the personal anxiety that a problem gambler might be going through. Our hope is, and what we encourage, is to listen and be sensitive to the comments. However, we do not encourage the employee to make any decision on the behalf of the player. We are training the employee to have the knowledge of the information that is available. Secondly, from the counselors perspective there is no standardized way in which the employee should respond. We also train the employee to learn what their company’s policy is. In some companies the policy is to direct the individual to a higher supervisor. We are trying to raise the employee’s awareness and sense of responsibility. The check-cashing mechanism is voluntary by the player, but is the responsibility of the casino to have it in place.
Senator Wiener, referring to the support material, noted the problem is profound within the juvenile community. Senator Wiener asked Ms. O’Hare to clarify Project 21.
Ms. O’Hare responded Project 21 was developed by Harrah’s Entertainment as an in-house program. The program was prompted by an incident, which occurred in their casino, stated Ms. O’Hare, “An underaged person who checked into the hotel, ordered room service, and gambled. Nevertheless, the program, an awareness and educational campaign, was developed as a response to the incident.”
Project 21, Ms. O’Hare referred to as a unique peer-education campaign. “The goal of the program is to encourage people under the age of 21, to develop messages that can be conveyed to their peers,” she contended. Ms. O’Hare continued, stating the program is wrapped around creativity, and encompasses a wide range of work from the youth. The youth are presented with $1000 scholarships at the point that they enter into an institution of higher learning.
Senator Wiener replied, “Because it is a first year program and we can always look at the ifs, hopes, and dreams of a program like this, what do you plan to do with the products the youth create?” Ms. O’Hare responded, “We hope to use the products as a part of the council’s public education campaign.” She added the council hopes to see a broader dissemination, up to this point it has not happened.
Senator Titus asked when the problem gambling is studied in Nevada, if there is any evidence if people come to Nevada and become problem gamblers, or if problem gamblers come to Nevada. Ms. O’Hare replied, “Defining the word evidence, statistically, I cannot answer the question from the information taken from the HelpLine.” She continued, “The information we do have, most people report they identify themselves to have had a problem for two years or less.” However, from the experience of the council, the problem acts in both directions.
Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, introduced himself for the record, appearing on behalf of the Nevada Resort Association (NRA). Mr. Whittemore referenced his testimony to “A Progress Report” (Exhibit F), which describes how the industry is promoting responsible gaming resources and education standards. He also referred to his testimony to the “National Center for Responsible Gaming 1999 Annual Report” (Exhibit G), which provides information which goes into detail on the issue.
Mr. Whittemore stated, “We are here today to begin a comprehensive and organized review of the prevalence of problem gambling in Nevada, and to examine ways in which we can address the issue.” The synergy, which has been developed within the industry over the past few years, has simply been remarkable. And on behalf of the NRA, Mr. Whittemore stated, he will provide an overview of some of the progress and positive impact it will have on disordered gamblers.
Overall, the industry has taken the stance, one problem gambler, is one too many, regardless of the scope of the problem, stated Mr. Whittemore. Although, he added, all of the members are Nevada-based, but the effects of disordered gambling are not limited to one area in the country or to one form of gambling. It is an issue the entire gaming industry faces.
Mr. Whittemore testified, “With respect to the Nevada program, I think the approach being taken in S.B. 335 is well-structured.” Many gaming companies have been committed to promoting responsible gaming behavior and establishing responsible gaming programs for many years now.” He continued, stating, as individual companies and as an industry, there will be the continuation to build on the foundation which has been established.
Mr. Whittemore stated he wanted to address three components: first, the education; secondly, the training and certification programs; and then the financial support piece that the NRA has engaged in over the past 5 or 6 years.
Mr. Whittemore addressed education as “the foundation of any effort with respect to the problem gambling issue.” To act responsibly as an industry, he stated, “We must first educate ourselves, our employees, and our customers about the issues that need our attention.” Mr. Whittemore pointed attention to 1995, when the responsible gaming task force was created. This task force would not exist without the support of many Nevada casino companies, among those are Caesars Palace, Boyd Gaming Corporation, and Harrah’s Entertainment, Incorporated, he suggested. And, he said, these companies and others saw the need to discuss responsible gaming within the industry, and to combine their efforts in the area.
Mr. Whittemore continued his testimony stating:
From a start of about 12 members, this task force now identifies in excess of 20 members, and is an aggressive team charged with identifying, developing, and implementing responsible gaming programs and policies. The task force was a multidisciplinary group of people who represented human resources, hotel and casino operations, and the legal departments of our member institutions. It also consisted of leading experts within this area, from universities and gambling councils. As I mentioned, the majority of the task force’s members were originally from gaming companies located in the state of Nevada. And the people who sat on that task force were absolutely instrumental in providing the expertise and guidance necessary for developing long-term strategies.
He added that the members were also the people who participated in and developed, with the Gaming Control Board, [Gaming] Regulation 5.170, which compels the nonrestricted and restricted licensee to act in certain ways. He continued:
Those individuals who serve on the boards are the backbone of the industry’s efforts to create the progress we have made. They are in fact the educators of the industry. What they did was pull together all the best information for both disordered and underage gambling, and these programs were developed by Boyd Gaming Corporation, Harrah’s Entertainment, Incorporated, Caesars Palace, and Tropicana Resort and Casino.
Mr. Whittemore contended the efforts eventually led to the American Gaming Association (AGA), which developed a document titled “Responsible Gaming.” He stated, “The guide proved so successful that not only was it developed throughout the nation, but there was also a second guide created.” Many other jurisdictions have used the Nevada model to create their own programs, he added.
Mr. Whittemore mentioned the responsible gaming national campaign took place three or four years ago. It resulted in a task force caucus being held at The Mirage Hotel and Casino, and 125 of the top industry people from 21 gaming companies participated. From the campaign the task force created a report, and also created a responsible gaming resource guide. The information gained was taken to various gaming summits, particularly the Southern Gaming Summit held in Biloxi, Mississippi, and the Northern Gaming Summit in Detroit, Michigan. As a result there has been involvement by Sue Cox from the Texas Problem Gaming Council, stated Mr. Whittemore.
Finally, Mr. Whittemore noted one of the things that took place with respect to Nevada’s efforts was the creation of an educational program under the direction of Dr. Howard Shaffer from the Harvard Medical School, Division on Addictions. Mr. Whittemore suggested, “Your staff could use references from the reports that are presented under The Wager, a weekly addiction gambling educational report, produced by the Division on Addictions of Harvard Medical School.”
Mr. Whittemore continued his testimony stating, “In any event, Dr. Shaffer created and held a task force at the Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino. And Dr. Shaffer presented his opinion on the direction of support to the problem and how it should go, and he also presented his conclusion to the summits.”
Mr. Whittemore claimed the education component has been part of the core of the three-part curriculum the National Resort Association (NRA) program was designed to implement. The second piece was the training and certification program, which resulted in the Gaming Control Board Gaming Regulation 5.170. And, he added, during the first world gaming congresses, Dr. Carl Bronlik developed instructions on how to train, and what the certification process should be. The individuals who attended the training programs received certifications of completion.
Mr. Whittemore called attention to the third and critical factor, which he identified as the lack of adequate funding. He contended the picture is changing today because of the support of the casino industry. There are programs in over 30 states sponsored or funded by the gaming industry to address problems related to compulsive and underage gambling.
The first of these, Mr. Whittemore testified on, was the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling. Mr. Whittemore responded to Senator Care’s earlier question of what the minimum standards are that an employee must know. Mr. Whittemore answered, “The employees must know the 1-800 number. Therefore, when there is this intervention there are minimum standards that the employees must know about.”
Mr. Whittemore referred to Ms. O’Hare’s testimony, stating, “One of the things Ms. O’Hare did not mention in her report is the fact the hotline may answer 2800 phone calls, but the Nevada Counsel on Problem Gambling received 6000 phone calls.”
Mr. Whittemore said, as a result of the funding efforts, the NRA has been able to create and provide funding for numerous counselors throughout the country. Finally, the centerpiece of the efforts is the creation of the National Center for Responsible Gaming. The document provided on the study (Exhibit G) shows the efforts, he added.
Mr. Whittemore testified the gaming industry does not direct the money or the nature of the study, but sits on the governing board. However, the gaming industry does provide direction to the board. He added the board is the entity selecting the various studies to be completed, the amount of funding to be done, and ensuring the studies are peer-reviewed.
Mr. Whittemore said he recognized the board includes extraordinary members: Lewis Sullivan, Secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services; Roland Burst, Illinois Attorney General; Brian McKay, former Attorney General of Nevada. And, he added, there are a wide variety of individuals who represent the gaming industry. Two Las Vegas institutions, Boyd Gaming Corporation and Station Casinos Incorporated, donated the bulk of the funding, $1.8 million, for the National Center on Problem Gambling. Bill Boyd has a commitment to the issue, and it was his seed money that generated contributions from other casinos in the Las Vegas area, Mr. Whittemore commented.
Mr. Whittemore declared it was because of the national center there was involvement from Harvard Medical School’s addictions division, which created a statistical support evidence report. The ultimate objective of the Nevada Resort Association is, stated Mr. Whittemore, “The mere existence of problem gamblers should be our focus and is our focus.”
Senator Titus stated, “All of the accomplishments sound impressive, and what the gaming industry has done is commendable.” However, she asked, “Could some say what we have done in Nevada is just window dressing, because a number of states require the industry to contribute to the problem as a condition of licensing.” Mr. Whittemore responded, “I hope those who would suggest this is widow dressing would take a hard look at the scope of the commitment that the industry has made.” He continued, stating there were many opponents of gaming, nationally, who suggested the commitment of the industry was simply response to the federal issue. Mr. Whittemore added, “You really challenge the integrity of the people involved in the industry, to suggest that Bill Boyd was not concerned about the issue.” He voiced the opinion that Mr. Boyd “put his money where his mouth was.”
Mr. Whittemore continued his remarks concerning Senator Titus’s inquiry. He gave various examples of the efforts the gaming industry has made to deal with problem gambling.
Chairman James remarked, “It is remarkable that the state has not done anything to help the problem.” Senator James commented, in terms of the “meta-analysis prevalence,” looking at the report from the National Center for Responsible Gaming, which states between 1.14 and 1.6 percent of the adult population, could be classified as having pathological problems. He questioned Ms. O’Hare, “You stated this problem ranges from the mild to moderate gambling problems, to the most severe but less frequent problem of pathological gambling, so when we talk about the 1.14 percent, is there a larger sphere that have the mild to moderate problems?” Ms. O’Hare responded, “That is a misnomer when we use the term ‘problem gambling.’” She continued when the problem is looked at clinically, there are those who meet the diagnostic criteria and would be classified in the smaller number of pathological. It is similar to the idea of substance abuse versus addiction.”
Senator James noted he wanted to draw attention to the important work that has been done by not simply addressing pathological gambling, which is a smaller number, but also by placing programs to help the less serious problem gamblers as well.
Mr. Whittemore addressed Senator James’ comment, “With respect to the bill itself, that is the component that discusses the education component, which is how you define prevention.” He added, “Prevention, at the first instance, seems to be education.” Senator James interjected there are many people who still do not realize problem gambling is a problem in themselves or others. He added, it is a problem that is compulsive and has been identified and studied as such. Senator James stated, “That is one of the reasons I brought this forward, in addition to the substantive things we do. But, to bring forth a discussion at the state legislative level . . . gets people’s attention.”
Senator James queried into the appropriation of money, the $250,000 not in the Governor’s budget. He commented some states take a portion of the fines from casinos, and give the money to problem gambling programs. Senator James suggested to Mr. Neilander, “We need to find an appropriate, ready, and stable source for the funds being appropriated, and working with you would be helpful.” Mr. Neilander responded, “The way our agency functions, our fines are deposited directly into the General Fund.” Chairman James noted he was aware the Gaming Control Board’s fine money went into the General Fund.
Senator Care remarked, “Nationally, one associates problem gambling with the resort industry.” He questioned Ms. O’Hare, “Do you ever get calls from people who believe they have a gambling problem, but do not frequent resorts?” Ms. O’Hare replied there are certainly individuals who have gambling problems from all sources of gambling. Ms. O’Hare added those calls the HelpLine receive are mainly from individuals gambling within the casinos, resorts, and other facilities. However, she commented, it is very dangerous to tie the disorder to the form of gambling because it is not a relevant issue. Ms. O’Hare stated tying the two issues together is misleading, because it is a progressive disorder, and the problem gambler will gamble on anything available to him or her. However, it has been found once the gambler gets to Nevada, the data from the HelpLine shows the most frequent form of gambling is video poker, then slot machines, and third, table games.
Mr. Whittemore added, “There has been some discussion in the literature on the impact of Internet wagering, as there is now the ability to access gaming anytime.” Ms. O’Hare commented, frequently the gamblers only reports what they see as the most visible form of gambling, which does not mean they are not involved in Internet gambling.
Senator Wiener commented Chairman James had requested material on the employee programs, and stated she was reading over the material distributed by Mr. Whittemore (Exhibit F and Exhibit G), “The casino employees have a higher prevalence rate of pathological gambling behavior than the general adult population, 2.1 percent versus the range of 1.14 to 1.6 percent,” Senator Wiener continued quoting the material (Exhibit G), “Under the radar scope, those that were less likely to be diagnosed in that way, there actually may be even more. As some of the gamblers learn to cope with their problems because of the help available.” Senator Wiener commented the report implied the industry itself would attract the problem gambler, in terms of employment. Senator Wiener questioned, “Are you considering doing something up front to know if the employee has a problem?”
Mr. Whittemore replied, “I believe human resources managers are aware of the profiles of individuals who seek employment.” He added, as a human resource manager, there is an attempt to resolve the problem before it begins. Mr. Whittemore continued, “I would hope in 10 years Nevada’s employee problem would go down because as you train they would see their own problems.”
Ms. O’Hare added to Mr. Whittemore’s statement, “On the comments the employees provide at the end of the session, we frequently have the employee self-identify.”
Jonathan Andrews, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, identified himself for the record. Mr. Andrews introduced Rachel Volberg, Ph.D., President, Gemini Research Ltd., Northampton, Massachusetts. Mr. Andrews gave the committee a brief summary of the background information, which led to the study formed by the Gaming Control Board (Exhibit H). He added Dr. Volberg would give the committee a full report of the up-to-date study.
Dr. Volberg began her testimony directing attention to her written testimony, “A Study on the Prevalence of Problem Gambling Among Citizens of Nevada” (Exhibit I). The study gave information on the project overview, challenges to the project, and a progress report.
Senator James commented, “From discussions I have had with individuals, I understand there is some controversy about the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), can you explain what it is?” Dr. Volberg replied the SOGS is one of the systems used in both clinical and population research settings to classify individuals with regard to having gambling problems. She added the SOGS was the first screen ever developed, and also the first screen used in state prevalence studies. Dr. Volberg stated, “However, it is based on a set of criteria for pathological gambling that was published in 1980. There was also a set of criteria published in 1994, and a number of the problem gambling screens are based on the recent criteria.”
Dr. Volberg pointed out the SOGS has two versions. She stated, “In 1991, together with colleagues in New Zealand the original items in the SOGS were lifetime items. However, there were current questions added to the original SOGS, which developed a current prevalence rate in addition to the lifetime prevalence rate.”
Dr. Volberg contended the items in the original SOGS have been controversial. She added, “People in the gaming industries have felt the lifetime SOGS produces rates that are too high. The lifetime and the current screen seem to be useful for different purposes.” Dr. Volberg said the lifetime screen is a good clinical screen, whereas the current screen is a good indicator for prevalence research. However, she added, “We are also using a DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition] problem gambling screen in the Nevada survey, so there is problem gambling prevalence rates in Nevada that are based on the most current criteria.”
Dr. Volberg commented the committee would receive two prevalence rates from the Nevada survey. The first is a current prevalence rate based on the SOGS, and the second is a lifetime and current prevalence rate based on the DSM-IV screen. Dr. Volberg stated the reports would allow for comparability with all other states which have done SOGS-based research.
Dr. Volberg stated, “The usefulness of the lifetime items in the SOGS, even though they are not as useful in identifying a prevalence rate, they are better than the current screen at identifying individuals at risk.” She added the SOGS lifetime items are an analysis of how problem gamblers differ from non-problem gamblers, which is important for development of services.
Ken Templeton, The Templeton Group, introduced himself to the committee. Mr. Templeton stated his first involvement with the issue was when he viewed a human-interest story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Dr. Hunter and the Problem Gaming Center. Mr. Templeton added, “Upon conducting investigations of my own and realizing there is a lack of support for these types of programs, I became very interested in the issue.”
Mr. Templeton testified there are many people in the community who have issues with problem gambling. Mr. Templeton stated he is a licensed slot route operator, and he stated he believes there is a need to place responsibility on the industry. The industry not only needs to support education, research, and training, but also provide funding and put pressure on the state to provide funding for treatment.
Mr. Templeton commented, “I have heard about all the money being expended on the studies, programs, and awareness, but I am not hearing anything about the funding for the treatment.” He added Nevada has issues, and the state needs to take responsibility for treatment programs and appropriate funding. Mr. Templeton said he would ask the committee to consider a funding level higher than $250,000.
Mr. Templeton concluded his testimony stating, “If we are going to continue to be the leader in the industry, and be the industry that the nation looks to, then we need step up to the plate.”
Dr. Robert Hunter, Clinical Director, Problem Gambling Consultants Inc, Las Vegas, introduced himself for the record. Dr. Hunter submitted a report detailing the description of the Problem Gambling Center (Exhibit J). He stated Mr. Templeton had contacted him, and said, “I believe that I have a moral obligation to help.” Dr. Hunter indicated the reason the Problem Gambling Center (PGC) was established is because of individuals such as Mr. Templeton.
Dr. Hunter testified the majority of people who need help are typically too indebted to afford any assistance, and most insurance companies do not provide for assistance. He added the PGC “is the safety net, the court of last resort.”
Dr. Hunter indicated he took a phone call on the way to the airport, and he said he recalled the lady was being evicted from her home, and needed information ranging from when meetings are held to the phone number of the homeless shelter. He stated, “We are dealing with those that are at rock bottom.”
Dr. Hunter testified he had spent 15 years with these individuals who are the victims of gambling. Despite his history, he acknowledged he was not anti-gambling, and he stated he does not believe the industry created the problem. However, there are a percentage of individuals who cannot gamble because of their compulsive disorder.
Dr. Hunter drew attention to the neurological research which suggests there is a biochemical component to the problem. He said, “My patients gamble for escape, not for fun.” And, he added, when the patients gamble they enter an incoherent state, which is much like a blackout period.
Dr. Hunter testified the treatment available does work, and is effective. He added the PGC works very closely with Gamblers Anonymous (GA). Dr. Hunter stated, “Nevada, as you might imagine, has the strongest Gamblers Anonymous association in the country.” However, he testified, some people need more than associations such as Gambler Anonymous, and it is simply not enough to help those at “rock bottom.” Dr. Hunter said, “There is a significant percentage of our patients who have already attempted suicide, and another significant percentage who is about to.” Dr. Hunter suggested there needs to be a formal safety net, and an intensive treatment program. Dr. Hunter stated the PGC runs an intensive 6-week program, followed by a year of aftercare, which Dr. Hunter stated he believes is a necessity.
Dr. Hunter called attention to those companies which have funded the program, “The Station [Casinos Incorporated] gave $70,000, IGT [International Game Technology] gave $50,000, and Mr. Templeton gave $10,000.” However, Dr. Hunter stressed, the PGC “exists on a shoe string.” There is no other program in the state that is similar to the PGC; and in Las Vegas, he stated, “we do not even have a day program.”
Dr. Hunter introduced Bo Bernhard, Ph.D., Operations Director, Problem Gambling Consultants Inc., Las Vegas Dr. Bernhard has done the ethnicity studies of the clinic, and also does the research within the clinic.
Dr. Bernhard stated, “I have spent most of my life trying to explain to others elsewhere our community works not despite the major industry, but because of our core industry.” He added that once he entered the area of problem gambling, he has had the opportunity to get know the gamblers, and is now a believer. He stated, “This is something I am very proud of, the fact that we are providing solutions to our communities.”
Dr. Hunter added, “We have been doing this for a long time, I have run a gambling clinic for about 15 years, and it has been conducted as a charity for a year.” He stated, when average people think of problem gamblers they think of “born losers,” they picture the low rungs of society. However, he said, nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hunter noted, “One of the patients is an attorney, who makes more money than I have ever made in my life, but is millions of dollars in debt.” Dr. Hunter contended there is a wide range of individuals who are patients at the clinic.
Rex Williams, Concerned Citizen, introduced himself for the record. Mr. Williams submitted written testimony, which he read into the record (Exhibit K).
Mr. William’s testimony was a personal statement that included the history of his family’s difficulties with problem gambling, and then later, his own difficulties. Mr. Williams alluded to the various problems often associated with problem gambling such as abuse, physical and mental; loss of all monetary assets; and self-destruction.
Mr. Williams offered a suggestion to amend NRS 458.290 thru NRS 458.360. Mr. Williams proposed adding the same rights afforded to those with drug and alcohol addictions be extended to those with a gambling addiction.
Senator James responded to Mr. Williams testimony stating:
Mr. Williams, thank you, your testimony was very powerful and personal. I know that GA helps a lot of people, and you did not have very good statistics of the success rate. But, I do know some people who have been helped by GA, and it is there and we all appreciate what you do. This is a treatment bill, and we are starting. I know you identified the sum as paltry, but I am coming up with what I can come up with. And we will take it from here.
Howard Cornbleth, Concerned Citizen, member of Gamblers Anonymous, testifying from Las Vegas, identified himself. Mr. Cornbleth testified he had founded the Nevada Council in 1979. He stated he has tried numerous times to get help for the issue of problem gambling. However, he commented, no official notice was taken until United States Senator Harry Reid, in the “mid 1980s, sent a gentlemen to some of our Nevada Council meetings,” although nothing occurred from the meetings.
Mr. Cornbleth said of Nevada, “It seems like the state of Nevada has been in denial for about 35 years.” He added many other states set aside funds for problem gambling, but Nevada had not done such. And Mr. Cornbleth said he believes the state is long overdue to get involved.
Chairman James replied, “For someone who founded the program in 1979, we all owe you a debt of gratitude and appreciate your work.” He added:
We heard testimony in the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs, chaired by Senator Porter, regarding Nevada’s suicide rate. We are discussing a committee that would study the suicide rate. Maybe the appropriate thing to do would be to have the study look into the link between the serious problem gamblers and suicide.
Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 335, and opened the work session. All proposed amendments and other changes concerning the bills heard in work session are included in the work session document (Exhibit L).
SENATE BILL 25: Revises provisions governing granting of rights to visitation with child to persons other than parents of child. (BDR 11-45)
Senator James indicated two amendments to S.B. 25. All amendments to Senate Bill 25 can be found in the work session document (Exhibit L).
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 25.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 36: Changes standard of proof in proceeding for forfeiture of property. (BDR 14-14)
Chairman James indicated there were not any further changes of proof to be made to S.B. 36; however, he indicated there was an amendment to the money fund. All amendments are found in the work session document (Exhibit L). A discussion ensued between Senator Titus, Senator Washington, and Senator James about the appropriate place for the funds.
Senator James indicated there would not be any action taken on S.B. 36.
SENATE BILL 47: Provides for judicial approval of certain contracts involving minors. (BDR 11-260)
There were no amendments proposed for S.B. 47.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 47.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 62: Increases penalties for certain mistreatment of animals. (BDR 50-713)
Senator Titus proposed amendments to S.B. 62. All proposed amendments are in the work session document (Exhibit L). Senator Titus stated, “This sign was brought to my attention yesterday (Exhibit M). The sign is used in Pahrump, and has been very effective. It has been especially effective around school grounds.”
Senator James commented there were many proposed amendments to S.B. 62, and Senator Titus would be allowed more time to work with the bill.
SENATE BILL 180: Prohibits suspension of sentence or granting of probation to persons convicted of certain sexual offenses involving victims who are minors. (BDR 14-467)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B 180.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 197: Authorizes department of prisons to request money from contingency fund if offenders’ store fund has insufficient money to provide for needs of therapeutic community. (BDR 16-23)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 197.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 107: Clarifies that person convicted of battery constituting domestic violence within 7 years before or after principal offense has committed prior offense for purposes of determining penalty. (BDR 15‑481)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 107.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
There being no other business, Chairman James adjourned the work session at 11:15 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Heather Dion,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman