Findings Of Fact Petitioner designs, manufactures, and sells the "Little Casino" video game machine. The machine is designed to enable a player, through the insertion of either one or two quarters, to play one of four games: poker, high-low, blackjack, or craps. The machine contains two switches which enable the owner to control the cost per game, whether 25 cents or 50 cents per game. Upon deposit of the appropriate amount of money, the player of the game receives 10,000 points to play the selected game. If the operator utilizes the entire 10,000 points in less than four hands or rolls, the game is over. If, however, the operator earns or wins 100,000 points by the conclusion of the fourth hand or roll, a free fifth hand or roll is allowed. If the operator earns 200,000 points by the conclusion of the fifth hand or roll, a free sixth hand or roll is allowed. The player of the game is allowed no more than six hands or rolls in the chosen game, regardless of the number of points scored. Depending upon the game option selected, cards or dice appear on the video screen. So far as can be determined from the record in this cause, the dealing of the cards or roll of the dice is entirely determined by the programming of the machine, and the player is wholly unable to control or influence the initial selection of cards or the roll of the dice. Little Casino does not allow free replays, does not accumulate free replays, and makes no permanent record of free replays. The game is not classified by the United States as requiring a federal gambling tax stamp under any applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The machine can be set to eliminate what Respondent considers to be the objectionable fifth and sixth hands.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns the application of Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, to a claim for payment of a $5,000.00 lottery prize where the winning lottery ticket was purchased by two individuals, one of whom has a substantial court-ordered child support arrearage, one of whom does not, and the prize claim form is submitted by the individual who owes child support. The Petitioners contend that only half of the prize should be subject to the outstanding child support debt. The Respondents contend that the entire prize should be subject to the outstanding child support debt. Shortly after the filing of the request for hearing in this case, the Office of the Comptroller filed a Motion To Join Indispensable Parties, by means of which it sought to join the Department of the Lottery and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as parties to this case. Both of the last mentioned agencies agreed to being joined as parties and neither Petitioner objected to the joinder. Accordingly, the Department of the Lottery and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were joined as parties respondent. At the hearing both Petitioners testified and also offered exhibits. The Respondents presented the testimony of several witnesses and also offered several exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were allowed ten days within which to submit proposed recommended orders. All parties filed post-hearing submissions containing proposed findings of fact. All proposed findings of fact are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Shortly after the Florida Department of the Lottery began selling lottery tickets, the two Petitioners, Lawrence R. Lindbom and Donald Johnston, began the regular practice of buying lottery tickets together. They agreed that they would make equal contributions to the cost of the lottery tickets and that they would share equally in the proceeds of any lottery prizes resulting from their co-purchased lottery tickets. On January 26, 1988, consistent with the foregoing agreement, Petitioner Lindbom purchased four instant game lottery tickets. Petitioner Johnston had contributed funds to pay half of the cost of the four tickets. Lindbom retained two of the tickets and gave the other two tickets to Johnston. At Johnston's place of employment, Lindbom scratched the two lottery tickets he had retained. One of the two was a $5,000.00 winning ticket. At the suggestion of some third party, Lindbom wrote his name on the winning ticket. He then showed the ticket to Johnston, and the other people present congratulated the two of them on their good fortune. The two Petitioners agreed that Lindbom would submit the ticket for payment in both of their names. On January 27, 1988, Lindbom traveled to the Jacksonville District Office of the Department of the Lottery, where he inquired about filling out a claim form in two names. He also inquired as to whether any money would be deducted from the prize. Upon being advised that only one name could be placed on the claim form and that no money would be deducted from the prize, Petitioner Lindbom called Petitioner Johnston to advise him of what he had been told at the Jacksonville District Office. Johnston told Lindbom to go ahead and file the claim in Lindbom's name and they would split the prize when it was received. Thereupon, Petitioner Lindbom filled out a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form. The information he placed on the claim form included information about the lottery ticket and Lindbom's name, address, telephone number, and social security number. At the bottom of the claim form, Lindbom signed a printed statement reading as follows, in pertinent part. "Under penalty of law, I swear that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the name, address, and social security number correctly identify me as the recipient of this payment." The claim form and winning ticket were submitted to the Tallahassee office of the Department of the Lottery for validation and payment in accordance with that Department's procedures. The Department of the Lottery provided the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services a list of $5,000.00 winners which contained the name of Lawrence Lindbom. DHRS determined from its records that there was an arrearage in child support payments by Lawrence Lindbom in the amount of $12,014.65. On February 1, 1988, DHRS certified the child support arrearage to the Department of the Lottery in accordance with Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1987). On February 5, 1988, the Department of the Lottery forwarded the entire $5,000.00 claimed by Lindbom to the Office of the Comptroller of the State of Florida. On February 8, 1988, the Office of the Comptroller notified Lindbom by certified mail of its intention to apply the entire $5,000.00 prize toward Lindbom's unpaid court-ordered child support, with the result that no payment would be made to Lindbom. Following receipt of the letter from the Office of the Comptroller, Lindbom and Johnston jointly wrote a letter to the Comptroller protesting the proposed disposition of the prize and requesting a hearing. At all times material to this case, the Department of the Lottery had in effect Rule No. 53ER87-43, F.A.C., titled "Procedure for awarding prizes." That rule reads as follows, in pertinent part: (6) Until such time as a name is imprinted or placed upon the back portion of the lottery ticket in the designated area a lottery ticket shall be owned by the physical possessor of such ticket. When a name is placed on the rear of the ticket in the designated place, the person whose name appears in that area shall be the owner of the ticket and shall be entitled to any prize attributable thereto.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Office of the Comptroller issue a final order in this case providing for payment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the entire $5,000.00 prize originally claimed by Petitioner Lindbom. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1176 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioners The Petitioners' proposal consisted of a letter in which they assert three specific reasons that entitle them to the relief sought. The factual aspects of those three reasons are addressed below. The legal aspects have been addressed in the conclusions of law. Reason 1. Accepted as finding of fact. Reason 2. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Reason 3. Rejected as constituting argument rather than facts. Findings proposed by the Respondents The Respondents filed a joint proposed recommended order. The paragraph references which follow are to the paragraphs of the Findings of Fact section of the Respondents' proposed recommended order. Paragraphs 1 and 2) Accepted in substance, with the exception of the implication that the Petitioners were not co- purchasers of the lottery tickets. Paragraph 3: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Omitted as unnecessary procedural details covered by introduction. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. First unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Second unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Accepted. Third unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant. Fourth unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant or subordinate and unnecessary details. Fifth unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: First sentence accepted. The reminder is rejected as argument rather than proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence R. Lindbom 3542 Tiara Way, West Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Mr. Donald Johnston 12888 Beaubien Road Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Jo Ann Levin, Esquire Senior Attorney Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue abetting bookmaking on its licensed premises. If so, what disciplinary action
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Rickey's Restaurant and Bar, Inc., be DISMISSED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. Caleen, Jr. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues for disposition in this case are whether proposed rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, which consist of the repeal of said rules, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes; and whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering’s (Respondent), failure to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in chapter 120.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and cardrooms pursuant to section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Each Petitioner currently holds a permit and license under chapter 550 to conduct pari-mutuel wagering and a license under section 849.086 to conduct cardroom operations. Petitioners offer designated player games at their respective cardrooms. The rules proposed for repeal, rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), relate to the play of designated player games. Rule 61D-11.001(17) provides that “‘[d]esignated player’ means the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position.” Rule 61D-11.002(5) provides that: Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ potential wagers shall be governed by the cardroom operator’s house rules. The house rules shall: Establish uniform requirements to be a designated player; Ensure that the dealer button rotates around the table in a clockwise fashion on a hand to hand basis to provide each player desiring to be the designated player an equal opportunity to participate as the designated player; and Not require the designated player to cover all potential wagers. Both rules were adopted on July 21, 2014. Both rules list sections 550.0251(12), and 849.086(4) and (11) as rulemaking authority, and section 849.086 as the law implemented. Designated Player Games A designated player game is a subset of traditional poker games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table, instead of all players competing against each other. The term “designated player game” is used synonymously with “player banked games.”3/ However, a designated player is not a cardroom operator. In traditional “pool” poker games, each player bets into a central pool, with the winning hand(s) among all of the players collecting from the pool of bets, minus the cardroom rake. In designated player games, each player at the table makes an individual bet, and compares their hand against the designated player’s hand. If the player’s hand is better than the designated player’s hand, then the designated player pays the player from the designated player’s stack of chips. If the designated player’s hand is better than the player’s hand, then the designated player collects the player’s wager. At an eight- seat table, it is as though there are seven separate “player versus designated player” games. Designated player games were first played at the Ebro (Washington County Kennel Club) cardroom in 2011. The game, known as “double hand poker,” was demonstrated to Respondent, and subsequently approved for play. Though the internal control that describes the rules of game play was not offered in evidence, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the game used a designated player. After Respondent’s approval of Ebro’s double hand poker, Respondent entered an order rescinding its approval due to concerns that the use of a designated player resulted in the establishment of a banking game. That decision was challenged, and subsequently withdrawn, with the result being that “Ebro may immediately resume play of Double Hand Poker as approved by the division.” In 2012, the Palm Beach Kennel Club cardroom began offering “tree card poker” with a designated player. Although tree card poker had been approved by Respondent, the designated player element had not. Thus, since the game was not being played in accordance with the approved internal control, it was unauthorized. Respondent investigated the playing of tree card poker at Palm Beach Kennel Club. A video demonstration was provided that showed two hands of tree card poker being played with a designated player. The video depicted a single designated player playing his hand against each other player at the table, and paying or collecting wagers based on each individual hand. After having reviewed the demonstration video, Respondent ultimately determined that the use of a designated player did not violate the prohibition against banking games as defined. The Adoption of the Designated Player Rules As requests for approval of internal controls for games using designated players became more common, Respondent determined that it should adopt a rule to establish the parameters under which designated player games would be authorized. On December 16, 2013, after having taken public comment at a series of rulemaking workshops, Respondent published proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) which provided as follows: 61D-11.002 Cardroom Games. * * * Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ wagers shall: Allow for only one designated player during any single hand; Not require the designated player to cover all wagers that could be made by the other players in the game; Not allow other players to cover wagers to achieve winnings that the designated player could have won had he or she covered the same wagers; Not allow or require a player to buy in for a different amount than any other player in the game in order to participate as the designated player; and Rotate a button or other object to designate which player is the designated player. The button or other object shall rotate clockwise around the table to give each player the opportunity to participate as the designated player. On February 14, 2014, a challenge to the proposed rule was filed that objected to restrictions on the manner in which designated player games could be conducted. The rule challenge hearing was continued, and the case placed in abeyance pending negotiations between the parties. On March 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change to the proposed rule 61D-11.002, which added the following provisions to proposed rule 61D-11.002: The designated player shall: Cover the table minimum for each participating player; and Pay each player an amount above the table minimum equal to their pro rata share of the pot in the event the designated player cannot cover all wagers. A public hearing on the changes to the proposed rule was held on May 8, 2014. As to the designated player provisions of the proposed rule, Respondent received the following comment: [I]f we could modify this . . . taking the existing paragraph 5 and come up with three new criteria, one being uniform requirements for a designated player included within the house rules; allowing for the dealer button to rotate on a hand-by-hand basis for qualified designated players; also, not requiring the designated player to cover all potential wagers, but nonetheless allowing the house rules to set a designated minimum buy-in amount or just a chip count. I think if we had those particular parameters, we would allow the preservation of this game to continue in its current fashion . . . . And . . . we’re going to avoid [] any argument that the department has somehow created a banked card game, because the biggest thing here is that we’re not requiring that the designated player meet all the theoretical payouts of the game. On May 19, 2014, written comments were submitted on behalf of several pari-mutuel facilities. Those comments included proposed language that is identical to the rule that was ultimately adopted, and included the following: Multiple jurisdictions have determined a key element to banked card games is the house requiring all wagers be covered. We propose this language to distinguish between lawful games and impermissible banked games. On June 9, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change that adopted the industry’s proposed language, and changed proposed rule 61D-11.002 to its present form. On June 13, 2014, the challenge to proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) was voluntarily dismissed, and the case was closed. On July 21, 2014, rule 61D-11.002(5) became effective. There can be little doubt that Respondent understood that it was, by its adoption of rule 61D-11.002(5), recognizing player banked games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table. The rule is substantial evidence that, as of the date of adoption, Respondent had determined that designated player games did not violate the prohibition against “banking games” as that term is defined in section 849.086. Internal Controls Over the course of several years, beginning generally in 2011 and extending well into 2015, Respondent was presented with internal controls from cardrooms around the state for playing designated player games. Internal controls are required before a particular game may be offered, and describe the rules of the game and the wagering requirements. The internal controls submitted by the Jacksonville Kennel Club; the Daytona Beach Kennel Club; the West Flagler Associates/Magic City Poker Room; and the Naples/Ft. Myers Greyhound Track Cardroom, described games in which designated players played their hand against those of the other players at the table, and paid and collected wagers from the designated player’s chip stack based on the rank of the designated player’s hand against the individual players. The games described did not involve pooled wagers, and clearly described player banked games. Respondent approved the internal controls for each of the four facilities. The process of approving internal controls occasionally included the submission of video demonstrations of the games described in the internal controls for which approval was being sought. Approval of internal controls was never done without the review and assent of Respondent’s legal department or the division director. With regard to the rules of the designated player games that underwent review and approval by Respondent, “all of them are about the same, few differences.” From 2011 through mid-2015, Respondent approved internal controls for playing one-card poker, two-card poker, three-card poker, Florida Hold ‘Em, and Pai Gow poker using designated players at numerous cardroom facilities. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent was aware of the fact that, for at least several facilities, “eligible” designated players were required to meet minimum financial criteria, which ranged from a minimum of $20,000 in chips, up to $100,000 in chips. In the case of the Daytona Beach Kennel Club cardroom, internal controls called for a designated player to submit an application, agree to a background check, and submit a deposit of $100,000. Respondent approved those internal controls. DBPR Training In August 2015, Mr. Taylor was invited by the Bestbet cardroom in Jacksonville4/ to participate in a training session it was offering for its employees. Mr. Taylor is an investigator for Respondent, and visited the pari-mutuel facilities at least once per week. Mr. Taylor was invited by the facility to get an overview of how the cardroom games that had been approved by Respondent, including designated player games, were played. The games that were the subject of the training were substantially similar to those depicted in the April 2012 training video, and those he had observed during his weekly inspections. The designated player games for which training was provided had been approved by Respondent. In September 2015, training in designated player games was provided at Respondent’s Tallahassee offices to several of its employees. Mr. Taylor perceived the training “as an overview to give us an idea of what we are going to see.” Neither Mr. Taylor nor any other participant in the training offered any suggestion that the training was being provided in anticipation of a shift in Respondent’s practice of approving the internal controls for designated player games. Current Rulemaking On September 23, 2014, Respondent published a Notice of Development of Rulemaking. The notice cited 15 of the 30 subsections of chapter 61D-11 as being the subject areas affected by the notice, and provided that “[t]he purpose and effect of the proposed rulemaking will be to address issues discovered in the implementation and practical application of cardroom rules adopted on July 21, 2014.” There is nothing in the notice to suggest that Respondent had modified its position on designated player games, and its continued approval of institutional controls approving such games is strong evidence that it had not. On August 4, 2015, Respondent published a Notice of Meeting/Workshop Hearing for a rule workshop to be held on August 18, 2015. The Notice listed each rule in chapter 61D-11 as the “general subject matter to be considered,” including those related to games of dominos. Respondent asserted that it had “posted a version of amended cardroom rules that included the [repeal of rule 61D-11.005] on its website,” though such was not published, nor did Respondent provide a record citation in support of its assertion. On October 29, 2015, Respondent published its proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11. Rule 61D-11.001(17), which defines the term “designated player” as “the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position,” was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.002(5), as set forth above, which had established the standards for designated player games, was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.005 was proposed for amendment to add subsection (9), which provided that “[p]layer banked games, established by the house, are prohibited.” On December 2, 2015, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. During the public hearing, Mr. Zachem made it clear that the intent of the proposed amendments was to change the Division’s long-standing and consistently applied construction of section 849.086 as allowing designated player games to one of prohibiting designated player games, and in that regard stated that: The rules pertaining to designated player games are now going to be correlated with the statute that is the prohibition against designated player games. The statute does not allow designated player games. There has to be a specific authorization for a type of game in statute, and there is none in 849.086 pertaining to designated player games . . . . When some of these definitions in other areas were created, I don’t think that the concept of what these games could even become was fathomed by the division. Given the process by which internal controls for designated player games were approved by Respondent, including written descriptions and video demonstrations of play, the suggestion that Respondent could not “fathom” the effect of its rules and decisions is not accepted. On December 11, 2015, Petitioners individually filed petitions challenging the validity of the proposed rules. The cases were consolidated and ultimately placed into abeyance pending efforts to resolve the issues in dispute. Agency Action Concurrent with Rulemaking After the December 2015 public hearing, and prior to the adoption of any amendments to chapter 61D-11, Respondent filed a series of administrative complaints against cardrooms offering designated player games. Those administrative complaints were very broadly worded, and reflected Respondent’s newly-developed position that designated player games constituted “a banking game or a game not specifically authorized by Section 849.086, Florida Statutes.” In that regard, Mr. Zachem testified that a cardroom could have been operating in full compliance with its Respondent-approved internal controls and still have been the subject of an administrative complaint.5/ The position of Respondent was made clear by Mr. Zachem’s statement that if a cardroom has an approved designated player game “where a banker is using their table, their dealer, their facility they [the cardroom] are establishing a bank.”6/ Thus, there can be little doubt that Respondent now construes section 849.086 to mean that player banked games constitute prohibited “banking games” because, by allowing the player banked game in its facility, the cardroom “establishes” a bank against which participants play. After the December public hearing, Ms. Helms was instructed that she was to no longer approve internal controls if they included provisions regarding designated players. That blanket instruction came with no conditions. Since that instruction, the internal controls for at least one facility have been disapproved, despite their being “about the same” as internal controls that had been previously approved for other facilities. Ms. Helms testified that after the December 2015 rule hearing, “things kind of turned around” with regard to Respondent’s position on designated player games. She then rethought her selection of words, stating instead that “things changed.” Given the totality of the evidence in this case, Ms. Helms’ statement that the position of Respondent towards designated player games “turned around” is the more accurate descriptor. Notice of Change On January 15, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Change/Withdrawal of proposed rules. Through the issuance of this notice, the Division withdrew proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). The proposed repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5) remained unchanged. Since that notice of change, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent has stopped approving internal controls that propose the offering of designated player games, and has continued to take action against facilities that offer designated player games. Respondent’s statements and actions, including those made in the course of this proceeding, demonstrate that Respondent intends the repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), to effectuate the prohibition of designated player games despite the withdrawal of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative When it proposed the subject amendments to rule 61D-11 on October 29, 2014, Respondent had not prepared a statement of estimated regulatory costs. Rather, the notice of proposed rule provided that: The agency has determined that this rule will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the agency. The agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of estimated regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: the economic review conducted by the agency. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs, or to provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. On November 19, 2015, in conjunction with the rulemaking process described above, a number of licensed cardroom operators, including some of the Petitioners, timely submitted a good faith proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative (“LCRA”) to the proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11 that would have the effect of prohibiting designated player games, citing not only the creation of rule 61D-11.005(9), but the repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5). A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the LCRA indicated that the rule was likely to directly or indirectly increase regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. The LCRA, as described in the letter of transmittal, also concluded that regulatory costs could be reduced by not adopting the proposed rule amendments, thus maintaining Respondent’s previous long-standing interpretation of section 849.086, and thereby accomplishing the statutory objectives. Respondent employed no statisticians or economists, and there was no evidence to suggest that any such persons were retained to review the LCRA. Though Mr. Zachem did not “claim to be an expert in statistics,” he felt qualified to conclude that the LCRA was “a bit of a challenging representation.” Thus, Respondent simply concluded, with no explanation or support, that “the numbers that we received were unreliable.” Respondent did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs or otherwise respond to the LCRA. Respondent argues that its abandonment of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9), which was the more explicit expression of its intent to prohibit designated player games, made the LCRA inapplicable to the rule as it was proposed for amendment after the January 15, 2016, notice of change. That argument is undercut by the fact that Respondent did not amend its statement of estimated regulatory costs as a result of the change in the proposed rule. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that Respondent, by its decision to disapprove internal controls that included designated player games, and its enforcement actions taken against cardrooms offering designated player games, specifically intended the amendments repealing the designated player standards to have the effect of prohibiting designated player games. Thus, despite the elimination of the specific prohibition on designated player games, there was no substantive effect of the change. Therefore, the LCRA remained an accurate expression of Petitioners’ estimated regulatory costs of the proposed rule. Ultimate Findings Respondent has taken the position that the repeal of rule 61D-11.005(9) was undertaken “[f]or clarity with the industry.” That position is simply untenable. Rather, Respondent has taken an activity that it previously found to be legal and authorized and, by repealing the rule and simply being silent on its effect, determined that activity to be prohibited. By so doing, Respondent has left it to “the industry” to decipher the meaning and effect of a statute that is, quite obviously, ambiguous and in need of the interpretive guidance that has been and should be provided by rule. The evidence is conclusive that, by its repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5), Respondent simply changed its mind as to whether playing with a designated player constituted the establishment of a prohibited banking game.7/ It previously determined that such games were lawful under the terms of section 849.086; it has now determined they are not. Though there is substantial evidence to suggest that the reason for the change was related to the renegotiation of the Seminole Compact, the reason is not important. What is important is that Respondent has taken divergent views of the statute in a manner that has substantially affected the interests of Petitioners. For Respondent to suggest that its repeal of the rules is a clarification, a simplification, or a reflection of the unambiguous terms of the statute, and that Petitioners should just tailor their actions to the statute without any interpretive guidance from Respondent, works contrary to the role of government to provide meaningful and understandable standards for the regulation of business in Florida. Respondent cannot, with little more than a wave and well-wishes, expect regulated businesses to expose themselves to liability through their actions under a statute that is open to more than one interpretation, when the agency itself has found it problematic to decipher the statute under which it exercises its regulatory authority.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent accessed two slot machines without logging the purposes for opening the machines, in violation of Florida Administrative Code rule 61D-14.023(2), as in effect in March and April 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been employed as a licensed slot machine technician with Isle of Capri. A slot machine technician maintains and repairs slot machines. Respondent holds a slot machine professional individual occupational license, bearing license number 7463121-1051. As relevant to this case, a locked main door provides access to the main compartment of the slot machine. Inside the main compartment of the slot machine is the MEAL book for logging all openings of the main compartment. Within the main compartment also is a locked logic compartment, which contains the computer chip that controls the operations of the slot machine. The logic compartment is also secured by a special tape that is broken whenever someone accesses the logic compartment. Within the main compartment also are a coin hopper, which holds coins that are available for payouts, as well as a locked drop box or billbox, which holds coins and bills that are collected periodically by the drop team. Although it is not entirely clear, a belly door apparently permits access to the drop box or billbox without going through the main compartment. Several times weekly, a drop team enters each slot machine, through the belly door, to empty the drop box or billbox. On March 28, 2010, and April 2, 2010, Respondent entered the main compartments of two slot machines in connection with his employment. The MEAL book for each machine was available inside the machine to log the activity. On these occasions, Respondent did not enter the logic compartments of these two slot machines. On each of these occasions, Respondent logged the times in and out of each slot machine, but failed to log the purpose for his entering each machine. For the March 28 activity, 24 other entries are shown on the same page of the MEAL book, and all 24 report the times in and out and the reasons why the persons entered the machines. For the April 2 activity, five other entries are shown on the same page of the MEAL book, and all five report the times in and out and the reasons why the persons entered the machines. Isle of Capri determined that Respondent's failure to log reasons for entering the slot machines on March 28 and April 2 violated Isle of Capri policies. The resulting "performance document" notes that Isle of Capri had previously counseled Respondent for similar failures to make the required entries in MEAL books. The "performance document" states that Isle of Capri will retrain Respondent, but a repeat of this conduct may result in termination. As required by the performance document, to reflect understanding of the issues discussed in the document, Respondent signed the document, but did so "under protest." On November 6, 2009, Petitioner sent Respondent a "warning letter." The letter explains that, on October 20, 2009, Respondent failed to complete the MEAL book with the time in and out of a specific slot machine. The letter states that this conduct violates rule 61D-14.024, which requires a log of logic compartment door openings and closings so as to include the time and reason for the opening. The letter warns that any future violations of slot machine laws or rules could result in an administrative fine or suspension or revocation of Respondent's slot machine occupational license. On February 5, 2010, Petitioner sent Respondent a "warning letter." The letter explains that, on November 26, 2009, Respondent failed to complete the MEAL book with the time in and out of a specific slot machine. The letter states that this conduct violates rule 61D-14.023(2). The letter warns that any future violations of slot machine laws or rules could result in an administrative fine or suspension or revocation of Respondent's slot machine occupational license. Respondent offered multiple defenses, including entrapment (never explained) and unfairness (the drop team is not required to log their openings of the belly door). The lone relevant defense was that Respondent had entered the main compartment, not the logic compartment, as Count I charged. It was apparent to the Administrative Law Judge, however, that Respondent recognized this to have been a pleading error by Petitioner, and Respondent was not prejudiced by the Administrative Law Judge's allowing Petitioner to amend the Administrative Complaint to substitute "main compartment" for "logic compartment." Two important mitigating factors apply. As testified by the Isle of Capri general manager, electronic monitoring of all entries into the slot machine has rendered the rule obsolete. Likely for this reason, the current version of rule 61D-14.023 no longer contains the requirement set forth in former rule 61D-14.023(2). On the other hand, nothing in the record suggests that Respondent relied on the proposed changes to rule 61D-14.012 when he failed to record the reasons for entering the main compartment on two occasions in the spring of 2010. After observing Respondent testify, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondent tends to view himself as the final arbiter of the rules that govern licensed slot machine technicians. Respondent's obstinacy, recent past problems in documenting the servicing of secured areas of slot machines, and commission of two violations (although in a single count) militate in favor of a fine that will refocus Respondent's attention on the critical, well-defined role that he plays within a sensitive, carefully regulated industry.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering enter a final order dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Neil E. Waigand, Jr. 906 North Riverside Drive, Apartment 8 Pompano Beach, Florida 33062-4623 David Perry, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Milton Champion, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Emergency Rule 53ER99-48, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, whether it was promulgated pursuant to a true emergency and whether certain agency statements contained in letters promulgated by the agency constitute an unadopted rule, in purported violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia as a "not-for-profit" corporation. It is registered to do business in the State of Florida. NALP is an association of six member companies. It became organized following the passage of a change to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code enacted on October 21, 1998. That provision, I.R.C. Section 451(h), the so called "transitional rule" provided that if state lotteries offered to "cash-out" previous prize winners on a limited basis, then the tax payer would not be subject to the so called "constructive receipt doctrine." NALP's members purchase large lottery payment streams in every state that has a lottery, including Florida. The winners assign their right to the annual payments in return for a lesser amount than their payments would total over, in Florida, the twenty-year time span for pay-outs, in return for receiving the immediate cash lump-sum. In Florida this is accomplished pursuant to Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999). One of NALP's main purposes is to protect the interests of its member companies through monitoring and participating in the formulation of federal legislation as well in rulemaking before various state agencies including the Florida department, as well as to provide educational materials and functions for members and for the various state lottery agencies. Each of the member companies owns at least one Florida Lottery prize and in the aggregate they own dozens of Florida large lottery prize payment streams worth over fifty million dollars. The Respondent is the Florida Department of The Lottery (Respondent or Department). It is a state agency authorized under Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, to organize, regulate and administer the operation of the state lottery and to properly account for, deposit in trust and invest lottery ticket sale proceeds and to pay related prizes from funds received from ticket sales and through investments of such lottery department revenues, all pursuant to Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Petitioner's Standing: The Petitioner has standing to pursue its challenge to the rule and agency statements in this case. Each of its members owns Florida lottery prizes. That is, by operation of assignment under Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes, they have assumed the interests of the actual lottery prize winners who have assigned their prizes to the members of NALP by assignment agreements enacted pursuant to the terms of this statute. The prize winners (winning ticket holders) received discounted amounts, lump-sum settlements, in lieu of prizes paid in equal annual installments over twenty years. Therefore, each of the companies who are members of NALP and hold assignment rights to the lottery prizes, are eligible for the lottery's one-time, cash-out opportunity under the subject Emergency Rule 53ER99-48, Florida Administrative Code. The Emergency Rule applies by its own terms to the Petitioner's members, as they are assignees of the prizes involved. Through the Emergency Rule as well, the Department, in effect, is competing for the same clientele, that is, past lottery prize winners who won the lottery during the relevant time period, and the same cash flow from the prize winners' annual payments as are all of the Petitioner's members by virtue of the above-referenced assignment statute. The only real difference is that the Department, by the terms of the rule, does not have to comply with the extensive "Consumer Protection" provisions of the statute which include court proceedings, explicit disclosures of purchase price and discount rate and the ultimate mandate of court orders on proposed assignments, all of which is required by Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes, of private assignment companies. In short, the Petitioner has established a sufficient substantial interest "injury and fact" which occurs within the zone of interest carved out by the lottery prize payment, revenue investment and trust fund management scheme established by Chapter 24, Florida Statutes. Emergency Rule 53ER99-48 and Agency statements Purported To be Rules. Prior to October of 1998, all large lottery prize winners could receive their prize only in equal annual installments over a period of twenty years. They were not given the choice of an immediate lump-sum, cash settlement. This was because, under the federal tax law prevailing at the time, the ability to make a choice of receiving a lump-sum prize award or payments over time automatically triggered the "constructive receipt doctrine" which thereupon allowed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assume the taxpayer had constructive receipt over the entire prize money and therefore, owed income tax on the entire prize in one year. However, assignments of prize payment streams to private investment companies for a cash lump-sum settlement in return were allowed through the aegis of state circuit court orders without violating the constructive receipt doctrine. Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999), was enacted to provide for such assignments to third-party, private investment companies with court approval. On October 21, 1998, Congress passed an amendment to Section 451(h) of the I.R.C., henceforth called the "transitional rule." This amendment provided that if state lotteries offered, on a limited basis, to "cash-out" past prize winners, the taxpayer would not be subject to the constructive receipt doctrine for IRS tax purposes. This federal tax exception provision is only effective for a limited period of time, however, from July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000. This change in the federal tax law does not itself authorize the Department to do anything, rather it only changes the tax consequences to individual tax payers who are lottery winners. When change in the tax code allowing state lotteries to cash-out past winners became known, Mr. Shapiro, General Counsel for a NALP member company, met with attorneys for the Florida Department in 1998 to discuss the Florida Lottery's intentions following passage of Section 451(h) (the amendment in question). In November of 1998, the Department began its examination of the federal transition rule in order to determine whether it would adopt a rule regarding cash-outs of past prize winners. There is no federal or state requirement that the Department adopt such a rule. There is no testimony of any need created by changing market conditions to adopt such a rule. The NALP sent information regarding the transition rule including memoranda and legal analysis to all the state lotteries in January of 1999. Many months elapsed during which time the Department was apparently contemplating whether or not to adopt a rule accommodating the above-referenced federal tax law change. On September 13 and September 28, 1999, letters were issued by the Department which offered a cash-out option and announced a methodology available to all previous large lottery prize winners as an alternative to the normal twenty-year, equal annual installment method of payment of prizes. These letters were sent to all eligible winners and predated the issuance of the Emergency Rule adopted by the Department and under consideration in this case. Even though the Emergency Rule was adopted after the mailing of the letters, the Department still takes the position that it relied on the letters as supplemental to the terms of the offers contained in the Emergency Rule itself. Thereafter, and almost one year after it first considered adopting a rule to accommodate the advent of the federal transitional rule, and almost a month after the first cash-out option letter went to previous lottery winners, the Department, on October 8, 1999, published its Emergency Rule 53ER99-48, entitled "Florida Lottery Prize Payment Option Election." That rule provides in pertinent part as follows: From October 1, 1999 through November 30, 1999, the Florida Lottery is providing a one-time opportunity for eligible prize winners to elect to voluntarily cash out their remaining annual installment payments and receive a single lump-sum cash payment. In order to be eligible for this opportunity, the prize winner must have won a Florida Lottery prize before October 22, 1998, which is payable over a period of at least ten years, and the prize winner must not have assigned the prize to another person or entity pursuant to Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999). * * * All prize winners who elect to cash out will be paid in one lump-sum cash payment and the payment shall be calculated as follows: For all prizes, other than WIN FOR LIFE prizes, the lump-sum payment amount will be the accreted value of the Lottery's investment (original cost plus accrued interest) as determined on a date certain (the "trade date"), unless the market value of the investment is less than the accreted value determined on the trade date. In that case, the market value of the investment will be paid. If a prize winner elects to cash out, the Lottery's investment will be liquidated. . . . According to department witnesses, the delays in adopting the subject Emergency Rule were attributable to changes in the executive administration of the state due to the 1998 election of the Governor and concomitant changes in the person of the Secretary of the Lottery as well as changes in the prize payment process for new lottery winners (as opposed to past lottery winners), embodied in Rule 53-28.007, Florida Administrative Code (not here under challenge). The Department conceded that it did not make the promulgation of the Emergency Rule its highest priority and took almost a year, from October 21, 1998 to October 8, 1999, for adoption of the rule even as an Emergency Rule. No market conditions were described in the evidence which would have prevented the adoption of a regular rule proposed in the normal fashion rather than an Emergency Rule. No evidence propounded by the Department explains why regular rulemaking would not have been practicable in this matter and in dealing with the subject matter of the Emergency Rule. No reason stated by the Department at hearing will support a factual finding of any emergency existing which required the promulgation of the prize payment option election as an Emergency Rule rather than in a regularly proposed and enacted rule proposed in accordance with Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. In fact, the Internal Revenue Code transition rule option which gave rise to the purported Emergency Rule is valid through December 31, 2000, almost thirteen months after actual promulgation of the Emergency Rule. Any urgency perceived by the Department at this point was not shown to be anything other than a sense of urgency in the perceived need to adopt the past prize winner cash pay-out "Emergency Rule" caused by the Department's own delay since October 21, 1998, in promulgating a rule on the subject, emergency or otherwise. While this delay might be for legitimate, understandable reasons, the fact remains that the delay was the Departments' own responsibility and does not militate in favor of a finding that there is any emergency necessitating the adoption of an emergency rule because of changes in market conditions or for other reasons. Once a large lottery drawing produces a winner or winners and a monetary prize, the Department transfers the prize funds to the State Board of Administration (SBA) for investment pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, and in accordance with a Trust Agreement executed between the Department and the SBA. The Department and the SBA hold those past funds in trust pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, for the benefit of that Lottery prize winner so that the winner will be assured of receiving the prize payments in equal amounts over a twenty-year period. Under the statutorily required payments system, when a prize is awarded, the Department and the SBA calculate the amount of money needed to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities (Treasury Strips) which will generate enough funds to meet the prize payment requirements for each year of the pay-out period. The investment is then done in a manner designed to preserve capital and to ensure the integrity of the lottery disbursement system by eliminating risk of payment of funds when due and to produce annual sums of money over the required term of investments. Once the prize monies are in the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust fund, the prize is deemed awarded and paid by the Department. Thereafter, the annual payments to the lottery winner are a matter of privity between that winner and the trust fund. Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, was enacted at a time when only annual payments were statutorily authorized. Section 24.120, Florida Statutes, has not been amended since new lottery winners (post October 1998) were given the choice of annual payments or a lump-sum payment pursuant to Rule 53-28.007, Florida Administrative Code. Moreover, money for those lump-sum prize payments pursuant to that rule do not get deposited into the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust fund, but are always deposited in the trust fund called the Administrative Trust Fund pursuant to Section 24.120(1), Florida Statutes. They are not deposited in the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust because that trust was designed by the Legislature to provide investment instruments securing only equal annual installment prize payments. The Emergency Rule 53ER99-48 does not actually effectuate payment of a prize. Rather, it has the effect of changing Lottery prizes already first awarded and already transferred to the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust fund. Winners of large Lottery prizes prior to October 1998, were entitled to equal annual prize payments over a twenty-year period. The Department's Emergency Rule has the effect of changing that prize to allow a single cash payment of the funds produced from the sale of the investment held and designed by the Legislature to fund only the annual prize payments. The Department thereby would instruct the SBA to liquidate the "Treasury Strips" held in trust for the benefit of the Lottery prize winner and designed to secure payment of equal annual installments to the prize winner over twenty-years, in order to fund the lump-sum payment provided for under the Emergency Rule at issue. The Emergency Rule allows the Department to sell the trust investment which supports the twenty-year pay-out of a prize, on a "trade date" before the required term of the investments lapses. The "trade date", while it might presumably be the date of sale of the trust investment which supported installment payments of the prize in question, is not clearly defined in the rule as to what the trade date is or how it is determined. The Department would then pay the prize winner the lesser of the "market value" or the "accreted value." This lump- sum amount is not the same as the total amount of the installments the prize winner would be entitled to over the entire twenty-year period calculated as the winner's entitlement when the prize is initially awarded. The lump-sum also does not represent the liquidated value of the investment held in trust for the winner. If the accreted value is less than the market value on the trade date then the lottery winner would only get the accreted value and the Department would get the balance, presumably the difference between accreted value and market value. Thus, through this Emergency Rule the Department proposes to sell the investments before the required term lapses and potentially pay the winner only a portion of that money, thus retaining additional proceeds for the Lottery. The Emergency Rule does not specify how the Department would determine what the winner's share would be under the lump-sum arrangement, nor how much the Department would keep after payment of the lump-sum amount when the supporting investments in the trust are liquidated for a given prize winner. In this connection the Emergency Rule does not clearly define certain critical terms necessary for a lay person to be able to understand the cash-out offer from the Department. The terms include "accreted value", "original cost" and "accrued interest." Accreted value is described as being the difference in the sum of the original cost of the investment and the accrued interest earned thereon. How one determines "original cost" and "accrued interest" is not specified in the rule, however. While financial experts might easily determine how to define those terms and determine the relevant sums attributable to them, the rule is vague in these particulars in terms of adequately defining how these critical terms relate to the amount a lottery prize winner could expect from a lump-sum pay-out and in providing such a prize winner a clear understanding of how the lump-sum is calculated. Thus the rule has not been shown to be engendered by a true emergency and, in the particulars referenced last above, it is vague. Agency statements Defined As A Rule: On September 13 and 28, 1999, the Department issued letters to previous lottery prize winners setting forth the terms and conditions concerning the formulae and method in which the pricing, timing and other terms and conditions of cash pay-outs would be determined. Those letters pre-dated the promulgation of the subject Emergency Rule. Several of the Petitioner's member companies received the cash-out offer letters similar to those attached to the Petitioner's petition. The letter stated, in pertinent part: If you elect to cash out, however, you will receive a single, smaller lump-sum payment. This amount will be the accreted value of the Lottery's investment (original cost plus accrued interest) as determined on a date certain (the "trade date"), unless the market value of the investment is less than the accreted value determined on the trade date. In that case, you will receive the market value of the investment. . . . The Department's letters thus contain a formula for determining the amount of the cash-out offer. That formula is not disclosed or contained in the Emergency Rule, even though it purports to apply to all previous lottery winners eligible under the rule. Be that as it may, the Respondent has asserted in its Proposed Final Order that the Petitioner's challenge to the letters as agency statements amounting to a rule is now moot with the enactment of the subject Emergency Rule. This appears to amount to a recession by the Department from reliance on the statements and content of those letters in defining and implementing its cash pay-out program for previous Lottery winners. Nevertheless, in the context of resolving all issues raised by the Petitioner, the question of those letters having the quality of an unpromulgated rule will be addressed below. The Department has cited Sections 24.105(10)(j), 24.115(1) and 24.109(1), Florida Statutes, as the source of its rule-making authority. Section 24.105(10)(j), Florida Statutes, provides the Department with authority to adopt rules concerning the manner of payment of prizes to holders of winning tickets and such other matters necessary or desirable for the efficient or economical operation of the lottery or for the convenience of the public. See also Section 24.105(10)(e), Florida Statutes. Section 24.105(10)(j), Florida Statutes, however, does not specifically authorize cash pay-outs to previous lottery winners already determined to be eligible to receive payment as holders of winning tickets and who have already received awards of payments in equal annual installments pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. Section 24.115(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to adopt rules "to effect payment of . . . prizes." However, the payment of prizes to the relevant past winners was effected when the Department made its initial one-year payment to the pertinent prize winners and then paid the remaining cash represented by the winning tickets to the SBA in the trust established by the Legislature for the lottery winners, for investment in securities supportive of equal annual installment payments to the winners pursuant to the trust arrangement established in Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. Section 24.109(1), Florida Statutes, while it authorizes the Department to adopt emergency rules in general when such emergency rulemaking power " . . . is necessary for the preservation of the rights and welfare of the people in order to provide additional funds to benefit the public . . . " does not specifically authorize any particular emergency rule subject matter, including cash pay-outs to prior Lottery winners already determined eligible to receive prize payments in equal annual installments pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. The Department, pursuant to Section 24.104(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 24.121(2), Florida Statutes, has a mandate "to maximize revenues consistent with the dignity of the state and the welfare of its citizens" in order to provide, among other things, improvement of the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund each year. The Department has not shown any specific authority to adopt a rule which changes a prize previously awarded, even though it might create new revenues as a result of the difference between lump-sum awarded to a past winner and the accreted value of the investment supportive of the prize, or the market value as the case may be. There is no specific authority to have such funds previously invested to support annual installment payments of prize money being diverted from the trust fund set up by the Legislature by Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, instead of, for instance, the "Administrative Trust Fund," constituted under Section 24.120(1), Florida Statutes. These findings in conjunction with the reasons given in the Conclusions of Law below show that the Department exceeded its rulemaking authority in enacting the Emergency Rule and the agency statements at issue. Enlargement Modification or Contravention of the Implemented Law: Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides for a payment of prizes on a deferred basis and for the safe investment of the prize monies set aside in the trust fund under that section for payment of deferred prize payments. That section also provides for production of equal annual sums of money over the required term of the investment (twenty years). The Emergency Rule and the agency statements at issue depart from the terms of the trust relationship set up by the Legislature through Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, by changing the prize awarded to allow the early liquidation of prize monies invested on behalf of the prize winners in the trust fund constituted under that section. Such a change in the prize awarded and manner of award is not authorized by the terms of that statute. The Emergency Rule and agency statements thus enlarge, modify and contravene Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, by departing from the terms of the trust created by the Florida Legislature designed to ensure a safe investment of lottery monies so as to produce annual prize payments over twenty years. The Emergency Rule, by allowing a liquidation of trust investments before the statutorily required term and by allowing the trustee of the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust (the Department) to intentionally profit from liquidation of the trust investments and concomitant change in the prize awarded departs from the conditions of the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust, and the purposes for which it was established. In the enactment of this rule, the Department stands in the position of a trustee varying the terms of a trust in terms of the benefits to be afforded the beneficiary of that trust and the method of calculation and payment. While the beneficiary (the prize winner) in the trust analogy might agree with that course of action, the settlor has not assented to variance from the terms of the trust arrangement. The Florida Legislature is in a position analogous to the settlor of the trust created pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. Since that law, implemented purportedly by the Emergency Rule and agency statements, does not itself provide authority for the change in the award of prizes and methods of paying prizes embodied in the rule and in the agency statements, it would appear that the settlor, the Legislature, must first assent to the new arrangement (ipso facto by an amendment to the statute). Moreover, it should be pointed out that the new arrangement contemplated by the Emergency Rule would be accomplished without any disclosure to a lottery winner of the discount rate or dollar amount that the state would retain, in the sense that the terms in the rule of "trade date," "market value," "original cost" plus accrued interest or "accreted value" are not adequately defined on the face of the rule. They are thus amenable to varying interpretations, leading potentially to ad hoc policy decisions by the agency or necessitating further illumination by the agency through an additional rule enactment, thus rendering the rule, in the sense of the employment of these terms and any disclosure to the lottery winner, vague. There are various "consumer protection" standards set forth in Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999), which are directed to the third-party assignment arrangement whereby lottery winners may assign their right to the annual installment payments of their prizes to third-party entities and thus obtain from those entities a discounted, lump-sum payment of a prize. Those standards or restrictions include oversight by a circuit court and include the necessity of approval of the assignments and lump-sum payments through third-party entities by an appropriate circuit court order. They also include a provision allowing the prize winner a three-day cancellation period opportunity. The Emergency Rule and agency statements at issue in this case modify, contravene or depart from the provisions of that law because the Department in the so-called emergency cash pay-out provision in the subject rule is not required to adhere to the "consumer protection restrictions" mandated by Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999). Although the end result of what the Department proposes by the Emergency Rule achieves a lump-sum, cash payment to the lottery winner, unlike the arrangement to be set up by the Emergency Rule, the "cash-out" assignment arrangement authorized by Section 24.1152, Florida Statutes, was mandated by the Legislature. The Emergency Rule is potentially arbitrary and capricious (meaning not adequately supported by facts or enacted without adequate support as to reason or rationale) 1/ The impetus for the Emergency Rule, as found above was a change in the Internal Revenue Code concerning the "constructive receipt doctrine". The relevant I.R.C. provision Section 451(h), contains the "qualified prize option" test. The Emergency Rule purports to meet that test but does not. A qualified prize option must contain three things: (1) A clear statement that it is only an offer; (2) A statement of the offer methodology; and (3) A disclosure of the discount rate that makes equivalent the present value of the prize previously awarded and the Department's new offer (lump-sum pay-out). The Emergency Rule does not adequately disclose the methodology of the offer since critical terms enabling a lay prize winner to understand the offer are not clearly defined, as referenced in the Findings of Fact above. The Emergency Rule does not require, on its face, any disclosure of the discount or amount of the prize valued as of an identified date. In its Executive Summary regarding its decision to adopt the Emergency Rule, the Department stated that it would meet the requirements of Section 451(h), by providing full and clear disclosure "as described in the Federal Tax Conference Report on Section 451(h)." The rule has the potential of being arbitrary and capricious in its operation since it does not in fact meet the qualified prize option test in the I.R.C. provision by clearly disclosing the discount rate or the methodology used in arriving at the offer, even though it purports to disclose those matters. Agency statements As Rules: The agency statements, the letters mailed to each prior prize winner contain financial information specific to each individual prize winner but they also contain general formulae to be applied by the Department to all eligible winners in cashing out prizes under the Emergency Rule. Thus the letters expand the cash-out procedure by providing cash-out formulae and other critical conditions beyond those which are stated and disclosed in the rule itself. This is necessary information for the prize winners to make decisions on accepting the Department offers but was not adopted as a rule and is not contained in the Emergency Rule. It is meant by the Department to apply to the entire universe of eligible prior prize winners.
The Issue Whether the proposed repeal of Rule 61D-11.027, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the repeal has the effect of creating or implementing a new rule or policy.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Legislature enacted Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, in 1996. The law authorized the establishment of “cardrooms” at licensed pari-mutuel facilities and dictated the parameters by which games may be conducted at such facilities. In essence, the cardrooms conduct games wherein the players compete against one another. The participants do not wager against “the house.” Instead, the house, that is, the pari-mutuel facility, conducts the games in a non-banking manner. This means the house does not have a financial interest in the outcome of the game(s). For purposes of this case, it is determined that the players who win share fractions of the “pot” created by the entry fees paid to participate in the game(s). The Petitioners in this cause are licensed facilities that have operated cardrooms. Each Petitioner holds a pari- mutuel wagering permit and a valid cardroom license. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering Section 849.086, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 by Section 4, Chapter 2003-295, Laws of Florida. The 2003 amendment imposed a $2.00 bet limitation, with a maximum of three raises per round of betting. This change to the statute required the Respondent to revisit the rules governing cardrooms and, more specifically, the concept of poker “tournaments” being conducted at pari-mutuel facilities. To that end, and after extensive rule-making proceedings, the Respondent adopted rules that were incorporated in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11. The Respondent intended for the rules to address concerns regarding the $2.00 bet and raise limitations as well as how “re-buys” might affect or potentially allow a violation of such provisions. A “re-buy” describes when a card player is allowed to purchase more chips from the house during a game(s). Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.027 was adopted on May 9, 2004. It was then challenged by pari-mutuel facilities who alleged the rule encompassed more than the statute authorized. Such challenge (DOAH Case No. 04-2950RX), was granted. The Final Order found that the rule (Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.027(2)(a)) exceeded the Agency’s grant of rulemaking authority, modified the specific law implemented, and was arbitrary. Accordingly, the Final Order (DOAH Case No. 04-2950RX) determined that the rule violated Subsections 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Final Order by a Per Curiam decision issued on October 28, 2005. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded with the emergency repeal of the tournament rule in its entirety and issued an advisory letter to all cardroom license holders. The Respondent represented that it cannot reconcile the holding of the court with the explicit language of Section 849.086(8), Florida Statutes (2005). At the hearing, the Respondent represented that additional rulemaking will be necessary. The Respondent does not dispute that tournaments are permissible under the statute. Moreover, the parties agree that prior to the rule, repeal tournaments were conducted using tokens or chips that did not have value. Tournaments were played at licensed cardroom facilities during the period commencing in May 2004 through November 9, 2005. During that time (the period the rule was in effect) counties, cities, and the state received income from the monies remitted by the cardroom facilities. Additionally, the cardrooms employed persons to work the facilities to conduct the various games. After the repeal of the rule, revenues from the cardrooms decreased substantially. Similarly, the cardrooms did not need the number of employees as games were not being conducted. Tournaments at the St. Petersburg Kennel Club have not been conducted since January 17, 2006. From November 2005 through January 17, 2006, the tournaments at the St. Petersburg Kennel Club were conducted using chips or tokens that had “fractional value.” The “fraction” did not correspond to the entry fee charged for the tournament. It is not known whether or not re-buys during the tournaments were allowed. The Respondent issued a Memorandum to Pari-Mutuel General Managers at Cardroom Facilities and Cardroom Managers on January 12, 2006, that provided in part: In light of the recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeals, the Division’s administrative rules regarding tournaments have been repealed on an emergency basis, and are scheduled to be repealed permanently. The Division distributed a memorandum to all cardroom operators regarding Clarification of Cardroom Tournament Rules and Jackpots on November 9, 2005. The Division has also expressed on numerous occasions a serious concern of cardroom operators issuing chips in a fashion that does not represent an even value exchange for money in an attempt to circumvent the $2 bet and three raise limitation outlined in Chapter 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes. [Italics in original.] The November 9, 2005, Memorandum referred to in paragraph 14 above provided, in pertinent part: This memorandum is intended to clarify issues regarding the recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeals which affirmed an earlier ruling of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). The DOAH ruling found that various cardroom rules, which were challenged by Dania Jai Alai and Calder Race Course, are invalid. These rules addressed tournaments, jackpots, the Division’s approval of games, and gifts that enable play in an authorized game. As a result of the ruling, today the Division filed emergency rules to ensure that tournaments are played in compliance with the bet limitation of Section 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes. * * * The Final Order that was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeals invalidated the Division’s rules regarding entry fees, re-buys and single table tournaments. The judge held that tournament play is authorized by the cardroom statute. Therefore, cardrooms may set their own entry fees and allow re-buys in tournaments and hold single table tournaments. * * * Unauthorized activity, such as conducting wagering on tournaments that does not conform with the wagering restrictions found in Section 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes, or offering of jackpots or gifts that do not comply with the requirements that cardrooms be operated in strict conformity with the statute as required by Section 849.086(3), Florida Statutes, may result in disciplinary action. The memorandums identified above did not change or modify the Respondent’s position regarding whether tournaments are legal or permitted by the statute. To the contrary, the memorandums merely advised the cardroom facilities that they would be held to the statutory standard regarding wagering and that jackpots and gifts would be prohibited. Prior to the appeal of the rule, the Respondent routinely approved tournaments that were based upon the following scheme: A participant paid a $32 buy-in and paid the house $13 for the fee to conduct the tournament. Then the participant received a number of no-value chips that were used to play a multiple number of games of poker. At the end of the designated time, number of games, or whenever the designated end occurred (on the same day of play), winners were announced based upon the number of chips they held. Participants were “ranked” and awarded cash prizes from the pot of entry fees. The $32 entry fee was a mathematical calculation thought to assure that no participant would violate the statute’s bet and raise limitations. Whether or not the “all in” concept violated the statute was not considered as the chips were deemed to have no value in and of themselves. This “no value” chip was a fiction that the Respondent supported as, in theory, the $32 player buy-in comported with a mathematical calculation that was within the statutory guideline. The payouts were determined based upon the number of participants and were set by percentage with the first place person receiving the largest payout. Additionally, participants under the approved scheme were not allowed re-buys. That assured that all participants started with the same number of chips and had the same “betting” potential. Finally, winners were not paid or could not receive prizes outside the “pot” created by the entry fees. A nominal gift (such as a T-shirt) was not considered a violation. Prizes such as giant television sets or vacations were not acceptable. All winnings were to be paid from the buy-in fees and all buy-in fees were to be returned to the players in winnings.
