Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Where I Stand:

Brian Greenspun: George Dickerson leaves a legacy of integrity

George Dickerson, a lifelong Nevadan and attorney whose commitment to public service set the bar for honesty and integrity, died earlier this month at age 96.

George’s legal career was highlighted by his service as Clark County’s district attorney and as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission.

Most Nevadans weren’t here in the early days when growth was dramatic and turmoil — politically and otherwise — was the order of the day. George, the son of Denver Dickerson, a former Nevada governor, was. And so was my father, Hank Greenspun.

My father wasn’t shy about writing in his column from time to time what he thought were George’s shortcomings — mostly shortcomings that may have highlighted some of Hank’s faults!

But never did the two of them criticize the other on issues that mattered — namely their honesty and integrity and their deep and abiding belief in the people of the state of Nevada.

I am reprinting below a column Hank wrote Dec. 6, 1967. It followed an article critical of Chairman Dickerson’s comments about Caesars Palace — which was brand new at that time — written by the Sun’s wonderful columnist Paul Price.

It will give you a flavor of what was happening in Nevada in those days — Howard Hughes was on his buying spree and publicly traded corporations were being welcomed — and is quite prescient in its understanding of what was happening in gaming and what was important for Nevada’s No. 1 industry if it were to grow properly.

Since it was about the George Dickerson of 52 years ago, it is appropriate for readers to understand the high esteem in which my father held him.

It is not often that a person is remembered in death in the same way that he was known during his life. George Dickerson was one of those rare people.

His family should be justifiably proud of the legacy he has left.

By Hank Greenspun

The old order changeth.

Important events have occurred in the gaming industry and more are on the way. The industry has undergone a dramatic transition in the past few years that has taken it out of the back-alley concept and placed it in a big business category.

If ever it has earned the right to be classified as a legal, legitimate business which the law of Nevada states it is, that right has been expressed by the new breed of operators presently engaged in administering our large hotels and casinos.

And as the industry has been updated, so must the enforcement methods assume a face-lifting.

In my judgment, Paul Price leaned a little bit too heavily upon George Dickerson, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, in a recent column.

Dickerson is trying to do an honest job in a delicate spot, and it’s undeserved to fault him on his zeal and dedication to this task.

I have had some differences with Dickerson in the past, much of it attributable to the devotion he brings to any post in which he is engaged.

I thought he was a trifle too zealous in his submission of information to a grand jury when he was the district attorney of Clark County and I was suspected of writing too zealously about a judge who in my judgment merited criticism.

I have never suspected his honesty and sincerity because these qualities in the man are absolutely unquestionable. And anyone who has been exposed to his methods can only have respect for his principles and ability. Both of these attributes have been brought to his present job.

But recognizing such qualities in the chairman of the gaming commission does not blind me to equal faith and confidence in Paul Price’s dedication to his job. I can also see Paul’s views.

It is true that Dickerson’s recent remarks asking for a further survey of the operation of Caesars Palace were printed all over the country.

And his reference to a Life magazine article alleging some unsavory Jack Horners have their thumbs in the hotel’s pie made the story even more sensational.

It probably is true, as Dickerson said later, that his remarks were misinterpreted and not meant to lend credence or authority to the Life article. But this only illustrates how careful those in charge of our gaming control programs must be in their public utterances.

They work in a goldfish bowl and it should have been apparent for some years that there are thousands of eyes and the same number of ears tuned avidly to our state for any hint that can be blown up to the detriment of the gaming industry and Nevada itself.

Dickerson isn’t the only gaming official who has made an off-hand remark and then suffered shock when reading the ensuing headlines. And each time it has happened, the official promptly blames the press, declaring that the news media is harmful and then destroying the industry.

That’s the old route of blaming the mirror for what you see in it on the morning after. The mirror is really blameless, for it reflects good and beautiful things as well as the sordid and ugly. It’s what you put in front of it that creates the image.

So, Price is more than a little right when he cautions, albeit a little strenuously, that gaming control authorities should be more prudent in what they say — before, not after the fact.

It’s also true that the chairman’s remarks in some measure affected one of the major hotels in this area. At least it brought suspicion upon it without revelation of any evidence to justify it. And it is also true that this particular hotel had more than its share of unwarranted accusations without proper basis.

We know this is not Dickerson’s intentions. He believed he was carrying out his proper functions as he sees them. There have been some sensational stories come out of Nevada in the past because of gaming enforcement methods and people. Some of them have performed like frustrated actors, staging raids to which the press, and most certainly the television cameras, were invited in advance.

Dickerson doesn’t happen to be of this breed and he shouldn’t be held responsible for past acts. Besides, it should be stressed that his is a nonpaying job to which he devotes more time than the average appointee, even to the detriment of his private law practice.

The press handled him roughly and this column in some measure aims to ameliorate the effects of it. But we must emphasize that if all who are presently engaged in administering the gaming act would get it through their heads that there are many ways of handling a situation — possibly a little more intelligent and prudent — the whole state, and certainly the gambling industry, would benefit from it.

We suggest the basic philosophy of a former president: “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” Or better yet, just carry the stick and don’t say anything at all.

Perhaps there was a time, in the very beginning of state control of gambling, that the law of the Old West, “shoot first and ask questions later,” applied to efforts to keep the industry off the flats and on the square.

But with the entry of large publicly owned corporations and the multimillion-dollar investments needed to engage in such business, the situation has changed.

These prominent businessmen and large corporations with diverse interests are emerging as the dominant influence in the state’s economy. And with what they have at stake, it is foolish to think for even a moment that they will risk all to win a few dollars illegally.

There might be some fringe operators left in the remote areas who have some larceny in their hearts, but the old order is changing, rapidly giving way to the new.

The same transition is needed in enforcement practices.

Brian Greenspun is editor, publisher and owner of the Sun.