Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charitable Gaming Gambling Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel recommends 'do not pass' on bill to move charitable gaming funds to gambling treatment; sponsor said bill duplicates another measure
Summary
The Human Resources Division of the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to recommend a do‑not‑pass position on Senate Bill 2393, a measure that would have authorized transfers from the charitable gaming operating fund to a gambling disorder prevention and treatment fund and created a full‑time DHHS position.
The Human Resources Division of the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to recommend a do‑not‑pass position on Senate Bill 2393, a measure that would have authorized transfers from the charitable gaming operating fund to a gambling disorder prevention and treatment fund and added a full‑time equivalent position in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Deb McDaniel, director of the Charitable Gaming Division in the Attorney General’s Office, told the committee the office had coordinated with bill sponsor Sen. Lueck and that the office’s preference was to keep the earlier, separately filed Senate Bill 22 05 as the primary vehicle for increasing problem gambling funding. McDaniel said passing SB2393 could unintentionally override the other bill and thus frustrate the intended funding package. “Our concern is if this bill passes the other bill won't,” McDaniel said.
Senator Davis (as recorded in the transcript) moved a do‑not‑pass recommendation; Senator Cleary seconded. The clerk recorded the roll call with members voting to carry the do‑not‑pass recommendation: Senator Cleary — yes; Senator Davison — aye; Chairman Deaver — aye; Senator Magrum — yes; Senator Mather — yes. The committee chair declared the motion carried.
Committee discussion included objections from members who said the policy committee had left the bill because it had become complex and that funding or an FTE for treatment oversight would be more appropriately considered in the human services budget or on the House side as an amendment to the bill that already passed the Senate. A senator noted that the committee had already advanced a related bill (SB 22 05) to increase problem gambling funding and suggested merging changes on the House side if needed.
Outcome: the committee recorded a do‑not‑pass recommendation and carried it forward to the full committee as its formal recommendation.
Why it matters: the measure would have modified the state’s approach to funding problem‑gambling prevention and treatment; the committee’s recommendation preserves the legislature’s preferred vehicle for that effort and avoids creating overlapping or conflicting funding directions across bills.
