I've been thinking about this quite a bit - there's something about engaging with an admitted murderer that makes one take pause and assess things.

TL;DR: I don't have a problem with Mr. Cullotta speaking at the banquet, and if we apply point 12 of the Code of Ethics to all conduct in one's past without respect to time passed or patterns of positive behavior established after the fact, we are necessarily limiting the club, its membership, and - if its decided to apply that same threshold to banquet speakers - future speakers to scant few individuals.

Given the activities & trappings that come with being a mob enforcer, it's worthwhile to carefully assess if & how you might engage someone with such a past. The man's a murderer & has extensive dealings with illicit activity. I'm not sure that he would be my go-to guy as a babysitter or to do my taxes. In this case, however, we're considering if we want him to speak of part of his past that has relevance to the club, answer a few questions, and sign a few books. So what things do we need to consider? Safety comes to mind, first and foremost. And lest anyone think I'm being flippant, let me clarify that I'm entirely serious here - Do we fear him murdering one of us or otherwise victimizing us? I'd say the likely answer is, "No." The last time he did that was over 37 years ago, and its been decades since his dealings with the mob. We don't have evidence of further criminal activity that I'm aware of. Furthermore, casinos have a grip of security, and there's a mob of us compared to one of him. If he had any further desires to commit a crime, I'm thinking this wouldn't be the most opportune moment. In short, the likelihood of him turning us into victims of some sort seems minimal to me.

But what about the ethics of it? Does engaging with a murderer violate our own Code of Ethics? By my reading, no - unless Mr. Cullotta is a member of the CC>CC, I don't think we can hold him to those standards. Even if it was decided that those standards apply to our vendors, however, what would that do to our current membership base? I'd be right out - I've received a citation or two in my day. I'm guessing a few others have broken a law or two as well, including local statutes as they pertain to gambling. Are we going to start doing background searches to suss out all convicted criminals on our roster? And as for speakers, this puts anyone who had first-hand knowledge of or experience in illegal gambling operations right out as speakers - and that's a significant part of the history of gaming. In short, strictly applying point 12 to our membership and our vendors would both significantly limit our potential membership and would inhibit the club from carrying out some of its mission.

In the specific case of Mr. Cullotta, if we applied Code of Ethics point 12 in a more limited fashion then I'm not sure he'd really be in violation of it. He has indeed assisted in the prosecution of those who have violated laws, and so far as we know he has decades worth of law-abiding history since he ceased activity with the mob and turned state's evidence. Others may know his more recent history better than I, but I'm not privy to that information.

Regarding the bylaws...again, by a strict reading, I'm not sure we can apply them to Mr. Cullotta since he's not a member of the organization. If we did that, though, the only thing I can see us being able to bring him up on would be a Article VII, points f or g. In those cases though, I read them as present-tense - he would have to be currently (or at least very recently) engaged in such conduct, not conduct that occurred over three decades ago.

I don't think a murderer ever ceases to be one - once you've killed someone you wear that like a tattoo, so it's always worth careful consideration when deciding whether to deal with one. Given what we're asking him to do, though, combined with the pattern of contributing, non-criminal behavior he's displayed over the more recent decades, I don't have any reservations asking the man to come speak to us so that we can learn from him. I don't blame anyone that has reservations about listening to him, though - that's a personal decision, and I understand why listening to an admitted murderer might be highly unpalatable to some folks.

(As an aside, I think Code of Ethics point 12 is intentionally written broad so as to be used when needed, but I'd like to think the BoD has some wisdom & discretion on when/how to apply it. I'd hate to think that the CCA might boot me out the next time I get a speeding ticket, or if I start a home poker game in a state where even home gambling among friends is forbidden by law. But I digress...)