In the November issue of CEM, we discussed the importance of, and some methods for, sharing background information. But as important as formal arrangements can be to the regulatory effort, less bureaucratic techniques of communication are also a vital component of effective operations.
There are probably as many different ways of connecting with fellow regulators as there are, well, regulators. Communication technology is certainly conducive to interaction for everything from cell phones to e-mail to Twittering. Conferences, seminars and participation in regulatory organizations such as the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA) and the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) provide opportunities for making face-to-face contact. In short, all methods of networking used by business in general are available to the regulator.
Our purpose in this article is not to offer a primer on networking, but rather to detail two examples from our own experiences that illustrate how a little creativity and persistence can reap significant and lasting rewards in developing meaningful associations with other regulators.
The Michigan Indian Gaming Communication Network (MIGCN)
In May 1993, before the advent of the tribal mega-casinos and when tribal gaming was in its infancy on both the national and local scene, our good friend Nelson Westrin tapped Pat to oversee the implementation of the new state-tribal compacts in Michigan. Pat had extensive experience in lottery and charitable gaming but little experience or knowledge of casino gaming and even less knowledge of the state’s role in the implementation of the compacting process.
At that time, there were seven federally recognized tribes operating approximately 18 casinos in Michigan. Some of these enterprises, such as the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, began to build large “destination style” properties. For a number of reasons, including geographic distance and market forces, there was very little interaction between the properties or among the tribes that owned and operated them.
In late 1993, Pat and the then compliance supervisor with the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Dick Bailey, discussed the need for more communication between the properties. They both realized that as the properties grew and revenue increased, the bad guys would find the new gaming venues, with their largely inexperienced staff, attractive targets. We realized that starting an information network, or even constructive dialog, between the Michigan gaming tribes would be a challenge for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the understandable mistrust of the competition, which was intense at the time.
We decided to press on regardless, and Pat contacted folks like Ray Meisch, chief of surveillance at Soaring Eagle Casino, who was receptive to the idea of a communication network.
Our first meeting was held in mid-1994, and Dick Bailey was elected its first president. Fortunately, the early efforts at communication, information sharing and idea sharing produced positive results that led to some major busts even in the first year of operation. For example, a group of individuals was using stolen and counterfeit checks and credit cards to defraud casinos of thousands of dollars and then fleeing before the casinos knew what happened. The group had stopped at Soaring Eagle Casino in the central part of Michigan and cashed several fraudulent checks and used stolen credit cards to pay for goods and services. When the property found out about the scam, it alerted the network with the suspects’ names, photos and license numbers. Two days later, these same individuals showed up at the Kewadin Casino in Sault Ste. Marie, about 220 miles north of Soaring Eagle . Armed with the intelligence information sent via the network, security and surveillance at the Kewadin Casino were prepared. They quickly identified and apprehended the suspects on the spot. The information confiscated from the suspects and their vehicles subsequently led to a quick and successful prosecution.
This incident, along with other early successes, convinced everyone involved that the flow of information was vital in protecting the casinos’ assets and in sending a clear deterrent message to the bad guys—don’t come here because we talk to each other. The more the word got out, the less likely it was that highly organized and highly successful bands of roving cheats and thiefs would prey on many gaming establishments.
At the beginning, the group held quarterly meetings on a rotating basis at various casinos in Michigan. The first meetings did not require a very large venue to accommodate everyone. The small spaces reverberated with the excitement of committed attendees who were determined to expand the network to form an integral part of the overall asset-protection goal of Michigan tribal casinos. As the MIGCN grew, we invited experts from security, surveillance, game technology and game protection to make presentations to the group to supplement the intelligence-gathering component of the group with more state-of-the-art techniques for protecting gaming assets.
Pat was invited to attend the 10-year reunion of the MIGCN in 2005. He was astonished to find more than 150 tribal gaming representatives from Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota participating in a two-day conference that dealt with everything from the audit function to video of actual card cheats at one of the participating casinos. What had started as a modest effort for basic communication between gaming tribes in Michigan had evolved into a popular and effective network. The MIGCN has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars and has been instrumental in stopping crooks and preventing would-be crooks from making an appearance at Michigan properties.
The Public Lab Managers Forum
In 1998, three public casinos were about to open in Detroit. As part of the effort to establish a new regulatory structure for the state, the new Michigan Gaming Control Board decided to have its own gaming laboratory. Nelson Westrin again tapped Pat for yet another challenge: build, and ultimately manage, the gaming lab. (Pat, of course, accepted this challenge out of loyalty to Nelson without considering that anyone in a sane frame of mind would not have voluntarily tackled such a task).
Once again, however, the need for collective networking became immediately obvious. It was imperative to tap into the collective experience, wisdom and knowledge that had been painfully acquired by other jurisdictions with public gaming labs. Pat visited each jurisdiction with public labs, forming friendships and alliances that last to this day. The more he traveled and met with fellow lab managers and their staff, the more apparent it became that it would be very beneficial to meet in one place to discuss the issues critical to each jurisdiction, and to use this group and its experience on the front lines to interact and uniformly deal with similar gaming device issues.
A meeting of all the gaming lab managers was held in Detroit in late 1999. To help build camaraderie, Pat took the group on a tour of Detroit and its suburbs in a vintage Cadillac convertible (photos still exist and can be purchased for a price), followed by a baseball game at the new Comerica Park. The tour was followed by a meeting to discuss issues identified as vital to the game approval process. As with the MIGCN, the concept of mutual benefit and common interests rapidly gained support among this more specialized group.
The lab mangers thereafter met twice a year, and these meetings ultimately formed the basis for the communication link that was key to allowing the approval of more than 10,000 gaming devices in the Detroit casinos in a space of three months. As lab manager, Pat regularly talked to folks like Rich Williamson, then lab manager in New Jersey, and Marc MacDermott, chief of the technical services division in Nevada, to discuss and get input on game anomalies, new game modifications and questionable lab test results.
Though the managers certainly did not always agree on issues or approaches, they never hesitated to contribute their knowledge, experience and viewpoints. It is impossible to overstate the value of the work we accomplished collectively and the impact that the group had on the gaming device approval process. Of equal importance, the exchanges fostered friendships that ultimately turned the network group into a kind of fraternity that still meets (though now we are all old ex-lab managers).
Two Truisms
There are perhaps two truisms in the world of gaming regulation: (1) you can’t do it alone; and (2) there is danger in trying to make decisions in a vacuum. Regulators also need to remain humble and recognize that no matter how much you know, there is always someone out there who can teach you something new. Our experience with both the MIGCN and the Lab Managers Forum has convinced us that the time invested in productive networking repays itself many times over. It just requires someone to simply pick up the phone and reach out to some peers. How about you?
Comments
Post new comment