Return to Browsing

12 N.J.A.R. 191

Gaming Enforcement, Div. of v. Crumble, Mark Phillip
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 12 N.J.A.R. 191
Decision Date: 1989
Agency: CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION
Synopsis: The Division of Gaming Enforcement filed a complaint with the Casino Control Commission seeking revocation of respondent's casino hotel employee registration. Respondent requested a hearing and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law. Respondent, who works in a casino parking lot, had twice been convicted for drug-related offenses which are grounds for disqualifica- tion from licensure or registration under the Casino Control Act. He sought to demonstrate rehabilitation pursuant to section 91d of the Act based primarily upon his participation in the Intensive Super- vision Program. The administrative law judge assigned to the case concluded that respondent had shown progress toward rehabilitation, but that not enough time had yet elapsed to prove rehabilitation. Nonetheless, because of respondent's diligent efforts, the judge recommended that disqualification be waived and respondent be permitted to retain his registration in the interest of justice, as permitted by section 91e, the waiver provision of the Act. Upon review, this initial decision was affirmed by the Casino Control Commission by a vote of 3-1. The Commission agreed with the administrative law judge that respondent was statutorily dis- qualified because of his convictions and that he had not yet demon- strated rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. In addition, the Commission agreed that disqualification should be waived. The Commission noted that the waiver provision applies to casino hotel employees, but not to key employees or casino employees. The regulations relating to casino hotel employees are less stringent because these employees are in positions that are unrelated to casino operations. Even so, waiver is an extraordinary exception to the strict regulatory process. It is to be used sparingly, only when the Com- mission finds,that it is required by the interests of justice. Although the Commission said it was reluctant to exercise waiver authority in a drug-related matter, this was an exceptional case in which respon- dent showed genuine commitment toward rehabilitation. Therefore, disqualification was waived. R. Lane Stebbins, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner (Donald R. Belsole, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney) Mark Phillip Crumble, respondent, pro se
Statute(s) Cited: 5:12-86c 5:12-91e 
Citation Tracker adopted-Casino Cont. Com'n; affirmed -App. Div. A4561-88-T2, 3/13/90 (unreported) [Updated through 1991]