Massachusetts: Details of state's deal with casinos need open debate

Editorial: Details of state's deal with casinos need open debate
Andover Townsman, Andover, MA

The Massachusetts legislative leadership, intent on producing a gaming bill this fall that will be subject to as little debate as possible, is hashing out the details behind closed doors.

We do not share the view that we are already so far down the road of legalized gambling — and government dependency on the money it can siphon from the public via the Lottery, scratch tickets and other games — that we might as well embrace casinos.

Casinos are mechanisms designed to prey on the vulnerable through the illusion that a big payday is just around the corner and never mind all the money being lost along the way. They bring social costs that are a different order of magnitude than a scratch ticket.

The only sure bet is that casinos will not solve the state's economic problems. The Legislature always finds a way to spend "new" revenue without solving underlying problems.

The ethical concerns that surround the leap into casino gambling ought to convince Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo that the deliberations of the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, where the various bills reside, should be as transparent as possible.

Former attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Scott Harshbarger, who has made his opposition to expanded gambling well known, says that Beacon Hill has a reputation for secret dealing, especially when large amounts of money are involved.

"I'm not clear that we have a track record in this state of being able to effectively regulate money and power interests," Harshbarger told the State House News Service last week, in something of an understatement.

Added House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, R-North Reading, when asked about Harshbarger's comments, "There is a great risk in having something completely, entirely worked out between the three leaders (Murray, DeLeo and Gov. Deval Patrick), if you will, and then coming out and announcing, 'This is the agreement. There will be no changes.'"

Murray and DeLeo, both of whom support allowing at least a few casinos to locate here, said this week they are placing their trust in their respective committee chairmen — Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, and Rep. Joseph Wagner, D-Chicopee.

The plan is for the committee to deliberate through the summer and produce a bill for members to debate in open session this fall. (The North of Boston region is not well represented on the committee, unfortunately, with only Marcos Devers, D-Lawrence, Sen. Thomas McGee, D-Lynn, and Reps. Ann-Margaret Ferrante, D-Gloucester, among its members.)

But as anyone familiar with the workings of the Statehouse knows, and Jones suggested, many of the important decisions are likely to be made in committee before a bill reaches the floor. And having exempted themselves from the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, legislators are under no obligation to include the public in these preliminary discussions.

But shutting out the public would be a mistake. Despite polls showing a majority of Bay State residents in favor of casino gambling, despite the large numbers of Massachusetts license plates that can be found in the parking lots of the Foxwood/MGM and Mohegan Sun gaming palaces in Connecticut on any given day, many are wary of the deals that might be cut to allow a particular operator to set up shop here.

Also worthy of examination — and full public disclosure — are details of the bureaucracy that would be established to supervise the new gaming enterprises, how host communities would benefit and which law enforcement agencies would have jurisdiction.

With government's insatiable desire to sweep more and more money off the tables and into its own coffers, casino gambling may be a done deal, but the debate about the implications and consequences of such a momentous decision must be completely open and aboveboard.