My comment relates to concurrent tournaments. Where VDACS prohibits concurrent tournaments, it hurts players, dealers, and charities because VDACS is overreaching in limiting play in a way not authorized by statute. It creates an arbitrary limitation on legal poker tournaments, and it feels like an unreasonable limitation without a compelling regulatory need to ensure the integrity of charitable gaming. Why would the regulations add a prohibition on concurrent tournaments while the Code permits it? One reasonable fix to VDACS's error would be to strike proposed 11VAC20-30-90.F

My comment relates to the amount of the use of proceeds. VDACS requires charities to blanketly follow 11VAC20-20-110 for its use of proceeds formula. This destroys charitable poker. Charities couldn’t afford to host any tournaments. A tournament wouldn’t raise enough money to pay its bills and also meet this use of proceeds amount. Anyone who can run a simple budget for a tournament will realize that this formula is an incompetent approach. The fix is to apply the recently adopted formula for pull tabs to poker.

My comment relates to operator fees. VDACS requires that charities may only pay a fixed fee to an operator for services, and not a percentage of the revenue. This hurts charity. If revenue is down, the charity is still on the hook for whatever the flat fee is. It’s bizarre that VDACS would impose this type of arbitrary restriction. One reasonable solution is to Strike the first two sentences of 11VAC20-30-60.P. As Commissioner Guthrie has conveyed, what is important is that charities meet their use of proceeds. Beyond that, what interest does the state have in micromanaging charities’ business operations.