Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charitable Gaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing exposes regulatory gaps in bid to allow two charities to operate under one roof
Summary
Representative Jim Greenieck told the panel House Bill 1416 would let two charitable organizations use the same facility sequentially or temporarily in small towns; the Attorney General's gaming director opposed the bill as drafted, citing regulation and record-keeping gaps.
Representative Jim Greenieck (District 28) told the Senate Judiciary Committee that House Bill 1416 is a narrow effort to help charitable organizations in rural towns share a heated, accessible facility to conduct gaming or fundraisers without expanding gaming statewide. "Two charitable organizations can operate under the same roof, for a limited period of time, using their own employees, not commingling any funds," Representative Greenieck said.
The bill would permit a second licensed organization or a locally permitted organization to use the same site for up to 12 hours per day, and the House amendment limited the sites to cities of 1,200 population or less. Greenieck said his original draft had further limited usage to four days per month but the House increased that to allow more flexibility for rural organizers.
Deb McDaniel, director of the Gaming Division in the North Dakota Attorney General's Office, testified in opposition and flagged multiple regulatory and operational questions: how consent between organizations would be documented; how the Attorney General would monitor and regulate simultaneous activities; record keeping by local permit holders (who do not report to the Attorney General the same way licensed organizations do); and the risk of commingling cash when activities such as bingo occur across a whole venue. "There is an area in statute that permits raffles in a separate area," McDaniel said, "but this bill as written raises gaps about how we regulate and ensure no commingling of funds."
Committee members asked the sponsor whether limiting days of use or restricting the allowed games to activities such as bingo would address the Attorney General's concerns, and Greenieck said he would accept a cap on days per month and preferred a broad, year-round option to accommodate community needs. Several senators suggested a workable compromise could be to require clear separate areas for simultaneous activity and stronger record-keeping requirements for any permitted organizations.
The committee did not take final action on House Bill 1416. Members indicated interest in further work between the sponsor and the Attorney General's gaming division to clarify supervision, reporting, and anti-commingling controls before the bill is brought back for a vote.
