The executive director of the California Gambling Control Commission, Tina Littleton, has resigned, possibly because of her connection to the object of a probe of the San Jose cardroom Casino M8trix.
Littleton, who headed the commission for four years, will continue to work for the commission, but at a lower position. Littleton is living with James Parker, a former agent for the California Department of Justice, who has been accused of improperly giving information on an ongoing investigation to the former head of the Bureau of Gambling Control, Robert Lytle, whose client was M8trix.
Lytle is under investigation for allegedly ordering those serving under him at the Bureau to not investigate Casino M8trix, which was known at the time as Garden City Casino. He went to work for the casino upon leaving the bureau in 2007.
Currently the Bureau is attempting to take away Lytle’s temporary ownership licenses for two other casinos and the state attorney general has filed an accusation against Lytle that he received confidential information about investigations of his clients in 2012 and 2013. He has also been accused of improperly contacting regulators after he left his position and of misleading regulators.
The accusation does not name the person who allegedly shared information with Lytle, but the agent in charge of the investigation at that time was Parker.
At the beginning of 2014 Littleton made known her connection with Parker and recused herself from the investigation, as did commission Chairman Richard Lopes, who had once worked with Lytle as his superior.
Things became more complicated three weeks ago during a public hearing of the commission when more conflicts were revealed about commissioners and Parker. That is believed to have triggered Littleton’s resignation.
The U-T San Diego newspaper requested the public recordings of that meeting, but was denied it. The commission’s lawyers said the recordings would be available once the hearing is completed, which could be months since it is not scheduled to resume until October. The attorneys claim, “the public interests of preserving fair hearings and untainted testimony by delaying disclosure outweigh the public interest served by disclosing the record prior to the conclusion of the proceeding.”
One expert on open meetings and public access, Kelly Aviles, is critical of the commission’s decision. “I’m not aware of any law that prevents disclosure of a recording of a public meeting, and I don’t know of any exclusionary order that rises to the level that would subvert someone’s right to a public record,” she told the U-T.
The hearing in question involved the license renewal of a card room worker, and the request by that worker’s attorney that yet another commissioner, Tiffany Conklin, to recuse herself because of an acquaintance with the card room’s owner. During the course of the hearing it came out that Parker has an adult daughter who works at the card club, and worked there when he was conducting an investigation of the club.
In an editorial last week the U-T raked the commission over the coals for ignoring California’s Proposition 59, which requires governmental agencies to disclose records and that laws should be “broadly interpreted to further the people’s right to access government information.”
The editorial declared, “If there is a more ignored state law than Proposition 59, we are unaware of it. Recent Union-Tribune Watchdog coverage has shown state agencies obstructing attempts to get basic public information about still-unfolding scandals.”
Referring to the Gambling Control Commission’s refusal to release the audiotape of the hearing, the editorial says, The commission won’t release the audiotape of this hearing—unlike its other public hearings—because it is still considering the worker’s license renewal, contending that “the public interests of preserving fair hearings and untainted testimony by delaying disclosure outweigh the public interest served by disclosing the record prior to the conclusion of the proceeding.”
It adds, “Instead of Proposition 59’s intent being honored, we are seeing the opposite: laws being “broadly interpreted” by government officials to deny access to public records.”
