Case For The Casino

I had an interesting conversation with Steve Fabre of Point Defiance Casino and Cafe last week. He wanted folks in Ruston to know what is happening with the lawsuit between himself and the Town. You’ll recall that he closed his gambling operations shortly after the Town Council imposed a tax increase from a sliding scale (that had been paying about 2%) to a flat rate of 12%. The following outlines Mr. Fabre’s views on the pending litigation. The Town was invited to respond but has declined. ~ Karen

First, the timeline of events:

• Mr. Fabre settles with Ruston Connection in their lawsuit between the Casino and the Chinese Christian Church.
• The Ruston Connection suggests a tax increase on the Casino in the next newsletter.
• Council Member Stebner brings it up the same idea at next council meeting.
• The issue goes dormant for few months.
• Council Member Albertson brings up the idea again in May 2008.
• Mr. Fabre places calls to all council members inviting them to meet with him and work on alternatives. Only Council Member Hedrick returned his calls, although Fabre did catch Council Member Hunt at home briefly. Fabre wrote letters outlining his case instead.
• In July, 2008 the Town Council passed a gambling tax increase to 12% on the first reading (400% to 1200% increase compared to the former sliding scale). Council rules require a second reading for ordinances, which allows one chance for public input at the end of the meeting where the first reading is done (no public comment is allowed on any business item – only during public comment at the end of each meeting). The requirement for a second reading of ordinances can be waived by the majority of the council plus 1. Council Member Stebner was absent at this meeting, so the vote to waive the second reading was 3 to 1.
• The casino immediately asks for preliminary injunction to allow the issue to be heard by the court before the tax is collected.
• The injunction was denied because the judge would not accept the recording of the meeting as evidence of what the vote count had been – and the town attorney refused to acknowledge that the vote had been 3 to 1.
• There were other motions filed by both sides – the end result is the judge ordering a trial.

Mr. Fabre outlined three main arguments for his case:

1. He feels this is a personal vendetta against him and/or his business. The depositions are bearing this out. Albertson says he does not trust Fabre. Council Member Huson likewise says he does not trust Fabre. Huson has stated in his deposition; “I never returned phone calls to Mr. Fabre. I will never return phone calls to Mr. Fabre. I don’t like his demeanor. He makes my skin crawl. I don’t want to be in the same room with him.”
2. Council did not follow their own rules. Those rules require that a second reading of ordinances can only be waived by a majority plus one of the council. The rules are included in the council meeting materials by clicking here (you'll need to scroll down past other information). The vote to waive the second reading on this was 3 to 1, not the required 4 member majority of a 5 member council.
3. Case law interprets the general presence of law enforcement to be a deterrent to illegal gambling. Most departments will deposit gambling tax into their general fund to be used on general police activities, but will dedicate as least some resources to enforcement of the state Gambling Act.
1. Former Chief Reese specifically declined to enforce gambling violations when a casino employee was caught in violation, telling officers to refer the case to the Gambling Commission in April 2008.
2. If the gambling tax is supposed to be directly tied to even “general” law enforcement, no reduction was made in the police budget when the casino operations were closed. Nor did the council set policy or direction on how the gambling tax would be used or how it related to the police budget.
   

Mr. Fabre has offered to settle the case. In general terms, he will agree to a flat rate increase of 4% in the gambling tax, which is the same rate paid by other facilities in Fife. And he wants to be paid the actual costs he would need to open up the casino again. He has not asked to be reimbursed for attorney fees or for “soft costs” such as pain and suffering.

According to Fabre, Ruston is not willing to discuss settling the case. So the depositions continue and everyone is preparing for trial.