Conflict of interest charges have apparently chased Richard Lopes, the chairman of the California Gambling Commission, from his post. Lopes had just been reappointed by Governor Jerry Brown to a second five-year term in January. Lopes, who spent 30 years with the Department of Justice, was just one of several members of the commission who have been accused of conflicts of interest in regulating the state’s card rooms.
Two weeks ago, Tina Littleton stepped down as the executive director for the commission, although she will continue to work at the commission in a lower-level management job.
The trouble started back in 2007, when former Bureau of Gambling Control chief Robert Lytle resigned one day to become a card room lobbyist the next. He has been accused of maintaining contact with the commission, receiving confidential information on investigations in 2011 and 2013.
Lytle worked for several card clubs that had business before the commission, apparently communicating with the commission through Littleton’s live-in boyfriend, James Parker, also a former employee of the Bureau of Gambling Control.
Lopes mentioned none of this when announcing his retirement at 50. He cited a cancer scare a few years earlier, and said he informed the governor of his decision in a letter dated March 30.
The California Gambling Commission regulates the state card clubs, which some claim are rife with corruption, and the tribal casinos, which most view as clean and transparent operations.
Lopes admits that the convoluted regulator process in California, where two agencies with two politically appointed leaders have similar responsibilities, must change. He told Pechanga.net that the state should consider the regulatory structure of states like Nevada or New Jersey.
“I think it’s difficult to meander through this and come up with good decisions,” he said.
Richard Scheutz, another California commissioner, agrees.
“Quite frankly,” he said, “California does not represent itself well among the other gambling jurisdictions. The other jurisdictions seem to take gambling much more seriously and commit more resources to the regulation of the industry. They commit much more to training.”
