Gaming card reform on its way

If you’re a local gaming worker, you know what a hassle gaming cards can be. A local part-time bartender, for example, could easily need a gaming card to work in casinos in Reno, Sparks and in the unincorporated county. At $74 for the FBI check and administrative fees at Washoe County, $65 at Sparks and $50 in Reno, it’s a pricey proposition.

Fortunately, that’s likely to change. Efforts to reform Nevada’s gaming card system in favor of a statewide arrangement are on line for starting operation at the beginning of next year, said Tom Stoneburner of the Alliance for Workers’ Rights.

Gaming cards are required for people who work jobs related to gaming. For example, dealers, change people or bartenders must have the cards, while hotel maids, who aren’t directly tied to gaming, don’t need them. They need different cards.

Stoneburner said that more than 255,000 people in the state have to get gaming cards under the law.

Currently, people who require a gaming card for employment must get a new gaming card for every jurisdiction they work in. The new gaming card regulations, which are scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2003, will cover the state, so that anyone who passes the FBI background check can work anywhere in the state. It also puts a $75 cap on the charges. The card would have to be acquired in the applicant’s closest jurisdiction of residence. For example, someone who commutes from Truckee, Calif., would be required to get his or her card from Washoe County. The 2001 Nevada Legislature enacted the new law, which was introduced by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Washoe.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board has authority for administering and enforcing gaming card rules. A representative did not return calls for comment.

One of the more contentious issues that came up was language in the new regulation that would have allowed denial if an applicant had been arrested for certain crimes. The American Civil Liberties Union and AWR argued earlier this month to change the law to require a conviction, not just an arrest. The hearing resulted in language that was acceptable to the groups.

"We’re basically down to talking about the criteria for denial," Stoneburner said. "Who does it; what are the criteria, what are the methods for appeal, what’s the breadth of investigation. We’re putting together the nuts and bolts."