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.