Massachusetts: More Back Room Deals

Pols go private on casino dealings
Hash out bill’s differences behind closed doors
By Chris Cassidy and Hillary Chabot

Secretive Bay State lawmakers slammed the door on taxpayers yesterday, barring the public and the press from the final wrangling on the high-stakes casino bill — yet another affront to openness on Beacon Hill as lawmakers prepare to do business with the historically seedy gambling industry, several experts told the Herald.

“Obviously, they should have transparency,” said Dave Schwartz, director of the center of gaming research at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. “It’s a business where there’s been charges of organized crime and some underhanded dealings, so the more of the business the public is able to see, the greater the public trust.”

A six-lawmaker conference committee unanimously agreed yesterday to close its meetings to the public and work out key differences between the House and Senate casino-gambling bills behind closed doors. While the tactic has become common on Beacon Hill, observers said the gaming bill is too important to shut out taxpayers.

“I don’t see any reason that a bill to legalize gambling should ever be done behind closed doors,” said I. Nelson Rose, a leading expert on gaming law, noting that Pennsylvania may hold a warning for the Bay State. “They worked out a compromise behind closed doors over the Fourth of July weekend and they have had nothing but trouble since then,” he said — including a provision that failed to give regulators full police powers.

Local lawmakers have major differences to work out, including a so-called “free drinks amendment” that could bring back happy hour to restaurants. Experts predicted drunken-driving fatalities would spike if the provision passed.

Also off-limits to the public will be discussions about whether lawmakers should be required to wait one year before accepting jobs in the casino industry. Ditto the hot-button question of whether the Boston City Council will decide who gets to vote on a potential resort casino in East Boston.

“They want to be free to negotiate without scrutiny to the public, but that’s a bad way for government to operate,” said David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. “They do this because they get away with it — they keep getting re-elected to office.”

State Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg (D-Amherst) and state Rep. Joseph F. Wagner (D-Chicopee), who chair the conference committee, did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

House and Senate leaders note they’ve held numerous lengthy public hearings and had full debates on the floor of both chambers. But Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation said yesterday’s move just adds to the public’s “disgust” with government. “If they can’t even do the debate right,” Anderson said, “how can they do casino gambling right?”

State House News Service contributed to this report.