On 11/25/19, I wrote: “Hopefully, at this time tomorrow, this will be completely moot.” Updated:

Unfortunately there was no ruling on the case by Judge Tim Fox, so the Gulfside case has not yet been decided in court.

I keep going back to the plain reading of the amendment, not even considering the gaming rule requirement and the statute.

Gulfside didn’t become an applicant until May 17th, when they submitted their application. Applicants are required to submit supporting letters or resolutions from THE applicable county officials. Gibson had been out of office 4 months and 17 days the day Gulfside became an applicant.

The Judge in the Gulfside case, Hon. Tim Fox, got a couple of letters yesterday, November 19th. One was from an attorney for Cherokee Nation Businesses. The other was from an attorney for Gulfside.

I was looking at Google maps and Street View to see where the Gulfside case would be on Monday.

Sometimes you find interesting things on Street View. Here’s what I stumbled across.

The Gulfside Casino Partnership case

(and some “when” and “what” at the Racing Commission)

From yesterday’s Courier article: “Cross issues letters of support for casino, Dover possible location”

The ARC has not received any applications from casino operators, although Cherokee Nation Business released a statement Wednesday saying that the company would submit its application this Friday.

“Even if there is an applicant that received a letter of the city [of Russellville] — if it was going to be located in the city limits — either the quorum court or the county judge would still be required to put out a letter of support for the application to be considered complete. And the county has made it clear that there will be no more letters for additional companies,” (Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration communications director Scott) Hardin said.

The ARC’s next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Nov. 21. Hardin said the commission will likely continue to wait on a decision for the Pope County license until the pending litigation decision between Gulfside Casino Partnership and the ARC and the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration arrives.

That decision will be made on Monday, Nov. 25, in Pulaski County Circuit Court.

Gulfside filed a lawsuit after the ARC denied its application for having improper letters of support on Thursday, Aug. 15. The lawsuit is based on Gulfside claiming that the denial is unconstitutional and the company had the required letters of support as defined originally by Amendment 100.

Former Pope County Judge Jim Ed Gibson and former Mayor of Russellville Randy Horton each wrote a letter of support for Gulfside before leaving office last year. However an amendment to Amendment 100 passed shortly after it was passed into law stating letters of support must come from current administration, thereby blocking Gulfside.

“We don’t anticipate there will be much, if any, discussion regarding the Pope County license,” said Hardin. “The commission is still awaiting the Gulfside decision, which should be announced Nov. 25. We anticipate that the December meeting will be the point at which the commission really discusses and potentially makes a determination on Pope County.”

Cross said he expected no movement from the racing commission until all litigation has been exhausted, including those in Pulaski County and on the appellate level.

According to Hardin, the meeting to watch for consideration of a Pope County license will be Thursday, Dec. 19.

If the racing commission makes a final decision that CNB should be the operator that comes to Pope County, CNB will decide where to locate.

I was checking the case dockets and look what I found!

Judge Wendall Griffin just issued an order this afternoon granting the voluntary dismissal of the CFABPC et al case against the Racing Commission.

The Gulfside case is STILL pending.

Gulfside

Gulfside Casino Partnership v. Arkansas Racing Commission

Court Hearing is November 25th at 9 AM.

Some more on the shaky foundation of Gulfside’s case…..

The Arkansas Racing Commission held a meeting the day after Christmas 2018. In that meeting, Byron Freeland, the Commission’s counsel, advised that a support document from a local official would be effective if it was dated after November 14th, the effective date of the Amendment.

The commission subsequently unanimously voted to “publish for comment a draft version” of a casino gaming rule stating that support documents (required by Amendment 100 and the casino gaming rules under development at that time) shall be dated after the effective date of the Amendment.

Gulfside argues that Freeland’s advice to the Racing Commission and the Racing Commission’s draft version of a rule were somehow the official policy of Arkansas and the Racing Commission.

The post-Christmas Racing Commission meeting was only 32 days — barely 4 1/2 weeks — after the effective date of Amendment 100.

Development of the Arkansas Casino Gaming Rules had barely started. It’s understandable that the rules that were eventually approved would differ from a preliminary draft.

Bottom line….. advice from an attorney to a client (Racing Commission) and a publish for comment draft version of a rule under development are poor additions to an already shaky legal foundation.

Oh, that “publish for comment a draft version” of a casino gaming rule? It was never published and no public comments were ever collected on it.

Court hearing just a couple of weeks away

Gulfside’s foundation is built on shaky ground. This is part of it….

In a December 19, 2018 email, Asa Hutchinson’s Executive Assistant Carleton Saffa asked Byron Freeland, long time counsel to the Racing Commission, “I’ll be asked if the letter of reference language in the rule on county judge is restrictive to the judge at time of application submission or is broader — any county judge during a time in which the amendment was in effect.”

Freeland replied in an email two days later, “Letter is valid if written after the Amendment became effective. If ARC gets more than one letter of support, the Commission will determine which applicant is the best qualified.”

According to the Administrative Procedures Act: “No agency rule, order,or decision shall be valid or effective against any person or party, nor may it be invoked by the agency for any purpose, until it has been filed and made available for public inspection as required in this subchapter.”

Gulfside’s case is partly built on something that wasn’t even communication from Freeland to Gulfside or any of the potential casino applicants. It was a Racing Commission counsel’s email reply to an email question from an assistant to the governor.

We haven’t been hearing much about Gulfside. Their first (and maybe last) court hearing is in a couple of weeks.

Their court case hinges on a letter from former Pope County Judge Jim Ed Gibson.

River Valley Now asked him about that letter last December:

https://www.rivervalleynow.com/…/article_012930f8-0d55…

This is what the Racing Commission found as facts the day they denied the appeal from Gulfside.