|Action||Promulgation of Charitable Gaming Regulations by Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, including electronic gaming provisions|
|Comment Period||Ended on 11/23/2022|
1) 11VAC 20-20-10 DEFINITIONS
'Immediate family' definition is way too broad and all inclusive. Charities are made up of families, friends, community members and all contribute to work towards the success of the charity which is putting resources back into the community. To limit those who can help is not productive nor what community and charity means.
'Reasonable and proper business expenses' definition should absolutely include the salaries and wages of employees whose primary responsibility is to provide services for the principal benefit of an organization's members. Not allowing these salaries/wages to be included is a failure to understand how any charity works. Charities depend on certain individuals to help run their functions in order to be able to turn around and contribute to the community which allows the charity to actually be a charity.
2) 11VAC20-20-20 D2.
The minimum percentage of 40% UOP for charities to meet is unrealistic. This again shows how those creating these regulations have no clue about 'boots on the ground' and how charities and social quarters are run so they can turn around and contribute to the community. We already see how those charities with bingo permits are having difficulty meeting the 10% UOP requirement so this should be taken into account as well. Drop that number or you will have numerous charities shutting their doors and I'm pretty sure the state won't be stepping in to help the community like the charities have.
3) 11VAC20-20-20 E
The department does not have the authority to change the regulations for bingo.
4) 11VAC20-20-20 H
This item seems purely as a punishment. Why give social quarters no opportunity to try and fix their fundraising issues? For all other charitable gaming, the regulations offer time without an immediate revocation of a permit.
Also, under this item, why even have item 3? Is it necessary?
H5 also is redundant in its terms and there is no need to bring on any new process.
5) 11VAC20-20-30 D3
This seems to focus once again paying people to help with the mission of the charity to succeed in fundraising and in turn helping the community. Permits should not be denied for this reason as this is how charities may work.
6) 11VAC20-20-40 D
Just because an organization's application was denied under a different item in the proposed regulations does not mean a permit should be denied for electronic gaming as the situation and circumstances may be different. Equal opportunity.
7) 11VAC20-20-40 E
E1 & 2 These items are ambiguous and restrictive. It seems to have no other underlying support except to create obstacles and restrictions for charities.
E3 Charities already have their addresses on the application sent to the department so why add this? Again, seems like just extra restrictions and hoops for the charities to jump through.
8) 11VAC20-20-40 K
This has already been listed in the proposed regulations. It is redundant and unnecessary.
9) 11VAC20-20-40 N 1-4
Charities will already be in compliance with the IRS so isn't that enough? Again, obstacles and restrictions for the charities instead of helping them.
10) 11VAC20-20-50 I
Again, restrictions placed on the charities when in other gaming regulations chances are given to correct. Why continue to punish the charities?
11) 11VAC20-20-80 B & D
B. Limiting disbursements for expenses other than prizes and reimbursement of meal expenses to checks is no longer the norm. Credit cards and debit cards should be allowed by charities to conduct their normal business operations.
D. Requiring charities to deposit all receipts within 48 hours (2 business days) from each session is unrealistic and burdensome. Many times the receipts are less than $100 and to make a whole trip to the bank for this is just burdensome and not called for. Many time the machines are not even emptied except on a weekly basis. It all depends on the location and should be up to the charity when they make deposits. The department should be focused on enforcement if there are questions about where the money is prior to being deposited.
12) 11VAC20-20-90 A2
Once again, as mentioned above, the recordkeeping of electronic gaming should be determined by the charity as gaming play and receipts are different with each location.
What authority is given to the department to create a regulation regarding bingo?
Why is the charity given the responsibility to oversee the audit fee is paid by the manufacturer? Another burden placed on the charity...
A Expenditures for UOP being required to be paid by check is no longer a norm and should be changed to allow credit and debit payments.
C ...Funds for social or recreational activities or events open primarily to the orgs members and families SHOULD QUALIFY as UOP bc these events are held to fund raise for the charity. That's what charities do, they hold events to fund raise. Any expenditure made to support these events should be included in UOP. Another item proving the department does not understand charities, how they work and what they do.
16) 11VAC20-20-120 F & H4
F This is saying a landlord is not allowed to contract with an electrician who happens to run charitable gaming in the landlord's building. This needs to be stricken as landlords often use services individuals in organizations. This restriction is limiting the rights of volunteers in an organization to work for whom they choose and it limits the rights of a landlord to contract with whom they want.
H4 A landlord has a right to put this clause in a contract and it is up to an organization to either accept or question it. These regulations should not forbid what is common among landlord/tenant contractual terms as it should be up to the organization and the landlord to come to an agreement.