Wash. Admin. Code § 230-17-137 - Guidelines for imposing penalties in disciplinary actions
(1) Without in any manner limiting the
authority granted to the commission under chapter 9.46 RCW or other applicable
law to impose the level and type of discipline it may deem appropriate, at the
request of any party, the presiding officer may consider the following factors,
along with such others as he or she deems relevant, in determining the
administrative penalty to be assessed for the violation of a statute or rule:
(a) The risk posed to the public health,
safety, or welfare by the violation;
(b) Whether there are special policy
implications relating to the violation, for example, those regarding underage
gambling;
(c) Whether, and how, the
violations impacted players, for example, failure to pay a player, and
player-supported jackpot violations;
(d) Whether the applicant, licensee, or
permittee:
(i) Knew, or reasonably should have
known, the action complained of was a violation of any law, regulation, or
condition of their license;
(ii)
Previously received a verbal warning, written warning, notice of infraction,
notice of violation and settlement (NOVAS), or administrative charges from the
commission for similar violations;
(iii) Made, or attempted to make, a financial
gain from the violation;
(iv) Had
an existing compliance program related to the violation; or
(v) Has subsequently initiated remedial
measures to prevent similar violations from reoccurring;
(e) Whether the violations were intentional,
willful, or grossly negligent;
(f)
Whether requiring the applicant, licensee or permittee to implement a written
self-enforcement and compliance program would assist in ensuring future
compliance with relevant laws, regulations, and license conditions;
(g) If the violation was caused by an officer
or employee of the applicant, licensee, or permittee:
(i) Whether the individual who caused the
violation acted within the scope of authority granted to him or her by the
applicant, licensee or permittee; or
(ii) Whether the individual violated company
policies, procedures, or other standards;
(h) The adequacy of any relevant training
programs the applicant, licensee or permittee previously offered or made
available to its employees;
(i)
Whether and the extent to which the applicant, licensee or permittee cooperated
with the commission during the investigation of the violation;
(j) The penalties imposed on other
applicants, licensees or permittees for similar violations;
(k) Whether the applicant, licensee, or
permittee reasonably relied upon professional advice from an accountant or
other recognized professional, which was relevant to the conduct or action
resulting in the violation; or
(l)
Any other aggravating or mitigating circumstances the presiding officer deems
relevant.
(2) A party
intending to rely on any aggravating or mitigating factors must raise them at
the initial hearing before the presiding officer in order to preserve them for
any subsequent hearings before a reviewing officer.
(3) In the spring of 2011, staff will report
to the commission on the impacts of this rule, if any.
Notes
Statutory Authority: RCW 9.46.070. 09-17-074 (Order 653), § 230-17-137, filed 8/14/09, effective 9/14/09; 09-05-084 (Order 641), § 230-17-137, filed 2/17/09, effective 3/20/09.
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.