Friday, April 23, 2004 | 11:05 a.m.
The Hard Rock Hotel is paying a stiff price for pushing the limits of decency in its racy marketing campaign.
It's costing the casino a $300,000 fine to settle a state Gaming Control Board complaint.
But that's not the worst of it.
The Hard Rock remains in the doghouse with the one gaming regulator it can't afford to upset, Control Board member Bobby Siller, who oversees the ever-present Enforcement Division, which can cause plenty of headaches for any licensee who gets on its bad side.
A five-page stipulation settling the board's concerns about the Hard Rock's edgy advertising will go to the Nevada Gaming Commission for approval next month without Siller's signature.
"I couldn't in all good conscience sign that stipulation," Siller said Thursday, explaining that Hard Rock executives insisted on including language in the agreement that isn't true to portray themselves in a more favorable light.
"A licensee's credibility to the board is important," Siller said. "Right now (the Hard Rock's) credibility isn't very high."
Siller's opinion of Hard Rock President Kevin Kelley is even lower.
"I just don't have a lot of respect for him," Siller said. "He was very difficult to deal with in resolving this issue."
It's almost unheard-of today for a top regulator to call out the chief executive officer of a major casino, especially a casino as well known internationally as the Hard Rock, the haven for celebrity high-rollers and the 20-something party crowd.
The concern was obvious in Kelley's voice when asked to respond.
"I respect Mr. Siller greatly," Kelley said. "I look forward to having good relations with Mr. Siller and the Gaming Control Board. My goal always has been to resolve this fairly and to deal with the issues."
By law only two of the three Control Board members have to sign a stipulation, but it's rare for all three not to pen their names.
Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander declined to discuss his reasons for signing the agreement. But board member Scott Scherer said he was comfortable with the deal.
"The fine is significant to get their attention and cause them to rethink the way they do things," Scherer said.
What has irked Siller, however, is the misleading language the resort was able to get written into the stipulation, which tells Siller that the Hard Rock really hasn't learned its lesson.
At issue is one sentence that says Hard Rock management has a "subjective belief" that an internal compliance committee created in 2002 would only review in-house promotions that might be offensive -- not advertising outside the property.
Siller said there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the Hard Rock also promised to clear advertising with the compliance committee.
To him, the Hard Rock's reluctance to make that admission is a sign of its bad faith during the contentious negotiations.
"The Hard Rock has fought this all the way," Siller said. "I don't think they have a serious appreciation for the impact of their advertising on the community and the industry. I think they're more concerned about preserving their niche."
Siller's words of anger probably shouldn't be taken lightly. As the board's lead negotiator during the talks, he knows the history of the casino's regulatory indiscretions better than anyone on the board.
He also has the ability to make life hard for the Hard Rock.
archive
