Beacon Hill Mired in Scandals

Beacon Hill is mired in patronage scandals that will cost taxpayers' money, yet, they continue to meet behind closed doors, unwilling to correct public perceptions.

Ignoring the Crime and Corruption Gambling has wrought elsewhere, Predatory Gambling continues to be Beacon Hill's focus.

How deaf can they be?

Suit filed over court patronage
By Lee Hammel TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

The union representing 3,100 employees in the state's trial courts and probation service is suing former and current state officials for promoting employees based on political connections rather than merit.

The suit filed last month in federal court in Boston names not only former probation commissioner John O'Brien and his deputies - all of whom resigned in the wake of an investigation into their activities - but also Mr. O'Brien's successor, Ronald Corbett Jr. and Robert Mulligan, chief justice for administration and management of the Trial Court who complained of Mr. O'Brien's practices.

They are named because the National Association of Government Employees complained that they have not reopened promotions to undo damage to union members who were denied advancement because others were promoted based on their political connections.

The suit also names Bernard E. Dow of West Boylston, a former official of two NAGE locals, and 15 "John Does" who NAGE said all benefited from their political connections, violating the NAGE contract requiring promotion on merit.

NAGE asserts that, as a union official, Mr. Dow was supposed to report wrongdoing that violated the contract, not exploit it.

However, Mr. Dow, who retired in 2009 as assistant chief probation officer at Central District Court in Worcester, called the action a retaliation against him.

He said he had a contentious relationship with NAGE national president David J. Holway even when Mr. Dow was a union local official. But now Mr. Dow works for New England Police Benevolent Association, which is attempting to decertify NAGE and have NEPBA represent 2,100 trial court employees.

Mr. Dow, the only person below the level of deputy commissioner named in the NAGE suit, appeared as a witness and was quoted extensively in the 322-page Ware Report of November 2010 that delved into apparent instances of undue political influence and alleged corruption in the state Probation Department.

The report recounted his testimony that he was denied promotions about six times between 1976 and 2005, despite superior education and experience.

It said, "I knew that I was not going to get that job on my qualifications alone . So I knew or believed that I needed some political help to get it."

He called the office of House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and spoke to Danny Toscano, a DiMasi aide he knew, before interviewing for openings for first assistant chief probation officer and assistant chief probation officer. Mr. Toscano promised him "We'll work on it."

Although no one from that office solicited funds, Mr. Dow told the independent counsel, "he began contributing to DiMasi in the belief that this would assist in securing DiMasi's assistance in his promotion," the report said.

He gave $500 to DiMasi's election committee on Sept. 26, 2004, and Feb. 4, 2005, during the interview process. Mr. Dow said that Mr. Toscano called him the day before the final interview for the jobs to tell him that he was not going to get "the first assistant chief probation officer's job because it's already spoken for, but you're going to get the assistant chief probation officer's job."

He soon got the job and contributed a total of $1,600 to Mr. DiMasi's committees through December 2005, according to the Ware report.

"Dow told us that he was 'appalled' at the fact that he felt he needed to" make contributions to secure a promotion. While he said he does not mind $20 or $25 contributions, "I don't like contributing, OK, large sums of money to anybody other than to my family, my children."

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Dow said the Ware report did not include all of his 3-1/2 hours of testimony, including that all of the payments were in connection with DiMasi campaign events he attended. Mr. Dow said the September 2004 contribution was made before the posting in December 2004 of the two jobs for which he sought help securing.

He said there is nothing illegal about contributing to a politician whose policies he liked. And Mr. Dow said that when he was a union official, NAGE had complimented him for knowing so many politicians and said that contributions could help both his union membership and himself.

He said he already had a relationship with the speaker, having once resolved a probation case to the satisfaction of Mr. DiMasi, who was representing the probationer as a private lawyer.

After that, Mr. DiMasi once called him personally to say that he was able to shift surplus state funds from some courts to others, such as the one in Worcester.

He said, "I don't believe that Sal DiMasi would not have helped if I hadn't contributed."

Asked yesterday whether the contribution was to ensure that help, Mr. Dow said, "It wouldn't hurt."

Mr. Holway, the NAGE national president, said, "We actually encourage people to be involved politically. But we've never suggested that anybody bribe somebody to get a job."

Mr. Holway said that Mr. Dow's bringing up his work against NAGE is a "smoke screen. There's literally thousands of court employees who chose not to participate in the political process.

"And for anybody who was a union official at the time to conspire and scheme to grab an advantage in a process that he's supposed to be defending as a union official is mind boggling. That's what the suit is about."

DeLeo: Same Old, Same Old, Ignoring Tornado Victims

House Speaker "Racino" DeLeo, to outward appearances, has experienced a sudden epiphany [after recommending incompetents and "No Shows" for Probation Dept. jobs, inter alia] when confronted with the reality after the DiMasi verdict that those 'back room deals' and secret promises can lead to prison.

This is the Speaker who doled out Chairmanships [translation: extra pay, more staff, bigger offices] based on blind obedience and not competence.

The budget was passed with NO DEBATE, after being discussed behind closed doors. Transparency? You jest!

And the final vote on the Slot Barn legislation passed on July 31st, 2010, with no debate with few members of either House wasting their time informing themselves of its contents which included ERRATA - pages of errors concocted in closed door meetings.

And Mr. Speaker is too busy genuflecting before vested interests to get the Bottle Bill passed - one measure that would save municipalities money in solid waste disposal.

Below is the Speaker's public comment and most surely gagged on its content [wonder who wrote it for him?]:

A Statement from House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo

“Today‟s news delivers a powerful blow to the public‟s trust in government. I don‟t think I can imagine anything more damaging than the idea that the defendant‟s conduct was nothing other than „business as usual‟ on Beacon Hill. This was definitely not business as usual – and it is a slur on every hardworking public servant to suggest otherwise.

“One of the things that I find most disturbing – and the thing I am most committed to changing – is the public‟s view of politicians and public sector employees. This conviction makes that job no easier.

“What came out at trial was deeply troubling. I feel angry and disappointed.

“Given the cumulative effect of recent cases of public corruption, I understand the negative feelings many have for public officials right now. That is something we are working to change. Our efforts over the past couple of years have been focused on government reforms that make our work and our decisions more transparent and ensure that we can be held accountable for what we do on behalf of the taxpaying public.

“As we move away from this verdict – in our actions and in our deeds – we will work to restore the public‟s faith that public servants can be counted on to work for the greater good. I intend to lead by example.”

This is the Speaker who paralyzed Beacon Hill during the last legislative session while he remained closeted, having his ego stroked by Gambling Industry Lobbyists and was obsessed with the Glitz and Cash of a Slot Barn in his district.

Instead of focusing on his JOB, the People's House, remember this?

Massachusetts House leaders to huddle in Amherst on casinos....

Even the Taunton Gazette criticized in:

OUR VIEW: Slow action on Beacon Hill hurting Massachusetts...

Beacon Hill's Sleazy Conduct is writ large with the conviction of former Speaker DiMasi, but there are no clean hands, Mr. DeLeo.

We have residents of the Commonwealth suffering, traumatized, homeless, having lost EVERYTHING - homes, mementos, pictures, family treasures of strictly sentimental value, memories as a result of the devastating tornadoes.


And what are the Beacon Hill Clowns discussing? Slot Barns!

Governor Deval Patrick, who did himself no service testifying about his willingness to "Go Along, to Get Along" and signed onto the Cognos deal, is cavorting with House Speaker "Racino" DeLeo in much the same fashion. This after the Governor secretly met with a group and seemingly promising a 'state land into trust' slot barn deal in Freetown.

Governor, You spent $189,000 hard earned taxpayer dollars conducting a lopsided BENEFIT Analysis filled with exaggerated claims of jobs and revenues, but where is the INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS that has never been conducted?

Some articles about the DiMasi decision:
DeLeo distances himself from DiMasi
Speaker’s statement doesn’t mention his mentor by name
DeLeo’s caustic statement was a marked departure from earlier this year when he invited DiMasi and two other former speakers, Thomas Finneran and Charles Flaherty, to attend DeLeo’s reelection and swearing in as speaker. At that time, DiMasi was preparing to stand trial, while Flaherty and Finneran had both been convicted.


Picture of corruption

With DiMasi’s disgrace, it’s time to end the imperial speakership
DiMasi found guilty of corruption, maintains innocence
By Steve LeBlanc and Bob Salsberg, Associated Press
Graphic: DiMasi Trial Verdicts
By Jesse Costa
Former AG Harshbarger: Beacon Hill Has Culture Of Corruption
By Bob Oakes
Scott Harshbarger, a two-term state attorney general, and the former CEO of Common Cause in Washington, D.C., had harsh words for the business as usual on Beacon Hill.

“The fact is that the culture is such that people don’t say no,” Harshbarger said. “This is not just about one person. It is about a culture that has been created that does not invite debate, does not invite dissent, does not invite open and accountable government. And we are all paying a price for that.”

It wouldn’t take a huge effort to turn around that culture of entitlement on Beacon Hill, Harsharger said.

“Its about the character of the leadership here,” Harshbarger said “Are they going to insist that there is open accountable honest integrity in terms of the performance of the public interest?”

House leadership, Harshbarger said, has to say “this is now going to be the people’s house.”

Ex-speaker blasts conviction
Guilty of 7 charges, Dimasi vows to appeal
By Laurel J. Sweet

Robert DeLeo escaped taint of mentor’s crimes

Let's not forget who elects the Speaker like Bobble Heads.

Massachusetts: Whatever happened to meaningful ethics reform?

Lawmakers’ ‘interest’ in casinos
Whatever happened to meaningful ethics reform?
By Joan Vennochi | Globe Columnist

BEACON HILL is giving new meaning to the term “naked self-interest.’’

As a six-member legislative panel finalizes details of the Bay State’s high-stakes casino bill, the House member leading negotiations declared that he’s inclined to oppose any efforts to block lawmakers from working in the casino industry for a year after they leave office.

“It’s my sense that this matter is so important that we should not preclude the best and the brightest from being eligible even if those people would be in government presently,’’ said Democratic Representative Joseph Wagner of Chicopee, according to the State House News Service.

Wow. The casino industry can’t manage one measly year in Massachusetts without assistance from the brilliant minds who make up the Legislature?

The matter that seems most important to Wagner is giving lawmakers quick and easy access to a future piece of the casino action. That and other important issues are being worked out behind closed doors, without any prying eyes, per unanimous vote of the conference committee - and with the apparent blessing of House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray. One provision could bring back happy hour to bars and restaurants. Another amendment addresses who will get to vote on a potential resort casino in East Boston.

Committee members say they are hopeful they can complete their secret negotiations by Nov. 16. That’s when they are scheduled to begin a seven-week recess - and coincidentally, just around when former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi is scheduled to begin serving an eight-year prison sentence.

The symbolism is worth contemplating.

The conviction of a once-powerful speaker of the House on political corruption charges was supposed to change the culture on Beacon Hill. It would trigger more transparency and less self-dealing under the Golden Dome, or so the theory went.

DiMasi — who opposed expanded gambling — was found guilty of accepting kickbacks in return for pushing state business to a computer software company. Now, just as DiMasi heads to prison, Bay State lawmakers are finalizing ways to speed up the revolving door that connects them to employment and big bucks.

It makes you wonder: Whatever happened to meaningful ethics reform? And why, post-DiMasi, is it still the same old depressing business as usual on Beacon Hill?

Not every lawmaker is a crook. But there are all kinds of ways to undermine democracy and people’s faith in it.

DiMasi did it one way. With all the secrecy and backroom dealing around the casino debate, the current Beacon Hill leadership is doing it another way. Instead of seeing the DiMasi narrative as a cautionary tale, lawmakers defended his honor. Then they defiantly defended their own, even as their words and actions undercut it.

A few weeks ago, a proposal to impose a five-year ban on former lawmakers taking casino jobs triggered an uproar on the Senate floor. It led to another secret debate, which ended in a watered-down, one-year restriction. The rationale behind the change was that a stronger prohibition would feed the public’s perception that lawmakers can’t be trusted.

“We’re creating a presumption that the people in this body cannot operate with integrity,’’ griped Democratic Senator Gale Candaras of Wilmington.

With DiMasi the third House speaker to be indicted, and several ex-senators charged with crimes, consider that presumption well-cemented. Nor was it shaken by an angry declaration from Democratic Senator Stephen Brewer of Barre that “98 percent’’ of all the people he has served with are hard workers who served honorably.

No one on Beacon Hill seems to understand the cynicism or worry about debunking it. Not DeLeo. Not Murray. Not Governor Deval Patrick.

The governor barely blinked when it turned out that Gregory Bialecki, the secretary of housing and economic development, who is the voice of Patrick’s pro-casino policy, owned stock in two Las Vegas gambling companies that want to build casinos in Massachusetts. Bialecki sold the shares only after the Globe questioned him about it, acting with what Patrick’s spokeswoman defined as “an abundance of caution.’’

When it comes to bringing casinos to Massachusetts, there’s an abundance of something going on. But it’s not caution, and it seems far removed from the public interest.

The real “culture of corruption”

The real “culture of corruption”
Closed-door legislating can be more harmful than outright graft
BY: Maurice Cunningham

There has been plenty of talk in the wake of the Sal DiMasi verdict about whether or not Massachusetts has a “culture of corruption.” The DiMasi situation is the standard pol-on-the-take scenario, a violation of public trust for private favor. But there may be a more corrosive form of corruption in Massachusetts, one we’ve nearly come to accept as routine, than DiMasi being open for business.

This sort of corruption is what Mark E. Warren discusses in a chapter titled “Is Low Trust in Democratic Institutions a Problem of Corruption?” in Michael A. Genovese and Victoria A. Farrar-Myers’ book Corruption in American Politics. Warren is less concerned with the lack of trust engendered by a politician seeking his own advantage and more with what he calls “duplicitous exclusion,” in which politicians shut citizens out from decisions that affect them. Such activity, argues Warren, can do more to undermine trust in government decision making than the relatively rare example of a politician having his hand out.

Consider Boston Globe reporter Noah Bierman’s story last Friday, “Legislators’ vital work veiled from public eye,” on lawmakers working through final details of the state budget in private. Or a June 20 story Bierman wrote, “Gambling debated behind closed doors; Critics say public left without a role.” In it, he reported that the governor, Senate president, and House speaker were engaged in closed door meetings to hash out a compromise casino gambling bill. When they were challenged on the secretive nature of the negotiations, Bierman reported that the powerful triumvirate argued the casino legislation had been debated fully over the past years. Casino legislation has already been vetted and debated and discussed and fought over in the court of public opinion, so what more of a contribution could citizen input make?

Well, it may have been citizen input that helped foil prior efforts at casino gambling. After all, as Gov. Patrick faced re-election in 2010 his enthusiasm for gambling legislation waned. At least in part that seemed in consideration of the fact that the most energetic part of his coalition, progressives, hate the prospect of casino gambling. With the election over it is safe to revisit the issue. No need to hear more from the citizenry – not to mention the other 198 legislators who might be expected to have some say in a functioning democracy.

Warren argues that a healthy democracy should encourage trust in society by institutionalizing an active distrust in politics – specifically, that we acknowledge that politicians represent and favor particular interests and constituencies, so that the citizenry must have access to decision making to assure the process works fairly. Politics should foster conflict, not hide it. Warren writes that “Democracy works when it channels conflict into processes of deliberation, negotiation, bargaining, and voting.”

Warren asserts that it is not partiality that should concern us, but the kinds and sources of it. What sorts of influences are at play, money or argument? Who exerts influence, a precious few or all affected by the decision? Are influences exerted and decisions made in a transparent or a secretive process?

Here’s another example. After the 2003 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, conservatives advanced a constitutional amendment to define marriage solely as the union between man and woman. Organizers obtained the signatures of approximately 170,000 citizens who wished to see the amendment placed on the statewide ballot. However, the matter first had to go before a constitutional convention composed of the members of the Senate and House and receive the support of 50 legislators before advancing to the statewide ballot. In December 2006, it appeared that the votes existed to advance the matter – but progressive legislators averted a vote by deciding to go into recess. Had the Legislature instead voted to adjourn, then-Gov. Mitt Romney could have called them back into session to vote. Romney and others challenged the legislative maneuver in the courts and the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the constitutional convention had an obligation to vote on the amendment. Chastised legislators returned and voted to advance the amendment to the next session, where it was killed in an open process.

Interestingly, not only conservatives cheered the SJC’s decision but also some progressives who defined themselves as “process liberals.” They were derided by many other progressives, who usually advocate for transparency and adherence to law. Instead they found their Sir Galahad in the legislative leader who had used his muscle to round up the votes to go into recess. That leader, of course, was none other than House Speaker Sal DiMasi.

Most progressives did not criticize DiMasi for his procedural shenanigans. After all, he had been right – never mind our fellow citizens who had worked to get the signatures, or the signatories who sought a vote on the matter. There’s no real reason to pay them heed – they were wrong, and worse, backward. Had DiMasi’s stratagem prevailed the outcry might have been, “the system worked!”

Actually, the system worked in the case of United States v. DiMasi. As to whether it works when elected leaders huddle in secrecy to settle on gambling legislation that has failed for almost 20 years, or when legislative legerdemain is used to scuttle an amendment we find distasteful – well, the jury is still out.

Maurice Cunningham is an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

Time for Beacon Hill to make changes!

Lawmakers targeted in inquiry

US attorney looking at Democrats who may have gained from Probation Dept. hiring

(Wendy Maeda/Globe Staff)Robert DeLeo says that he did not use his ties to former Probation Commissioner John J. O’Brien to win votes from fellow Democrats to become the speaker of the Massachusetts House.

By Andrea Estes and Scott Allen

Globe Staff / July 15, 2012

 

Federal prosecutors investigating the scandal-plagued Probation Department are focusing on Democratic legislators who may have benefited from the agency’s allegedly rigged hiring system, including House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, one of the most influential politicians in helping people get jobs under former commissioner John J. O’Brien.

 

Prosecutors have subpoenaed several lawmakers to testify before a secret grand jury considering criminal charges in recent weeks, including Representative John Rogers, the Norwood lawmaker DeLeo defeated to become House speaker in 2009. Rogers’s supporters have long suspected that O’Brien helped DeLeo win by giving jobs to people close to legislators backing DeLeo, a charge both men deny.

People with direct knowledge of the grand jury proceedings in Worcester say that prosecutors have also called at least two legislators who voted for DeLeo for speaker after people close to them received probation jobs.

“Yes, I was called to testify and I cooperated fully,” said Representative James J. O’Day of West Boylston, one of the two. He has said that he planned to vote for DeLeo even before probation hired one of his colleagues in 2008.

US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz has been investigating the Legislature’s role in politicizing the hiring process at the Probation Department for months, even calling former House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi from his prison cell in Kentucky to testify before the grand jury last winter. But in March, when Ortiz announced the first criminal indictments from the 20-month-long inquiry, only O’Brien and two former top lieutenants were named.

“This is just one step in the ongoing investigation,” Ortiz said at the time.

Since then, prosecutors have been ramping up efforts to identify actions taken by lawmakers that could be criminal, such as accepting probation jobs for family and friends or even campaign donations from probation employees in exchange for voting to increase the agency’s funding or to vote for a certain candidate for speaker. It is a violation for lawmakers to accept something of value in exchange for any official act.

DeLeo, who has described O’Brien as a friend, was one of the most successful legislators at helping people obtain jobs at probation, including his godson, Brian Mirasolo, who, at age 28, became the youngest chief probation officer in Massachusetts history.

But DeLeo strongly denies that he used his connections with O’Brien to win votes from fellow Democratic legislators for the speakership, which brought him a pay increase of more than $30,000 along with a larger staff and far greater influence over state policy.

“There is no way any individual can honestly testify that jobs were traded for votes for speaker, because it did not happen,” said DeLeo spokesman Seth Gitell.

Paul F. Ware, the independent counsel who issued a damning report on the hiring practices at the Probation Department in 2010, said he surmises that federal prosecutors are now trying to negotiate a deal with O’Brien to get his cooperation in the investigation of politicians’ culpability.

“In terms of a criminal investigation, I think it’s predictable that the US attorney focus on political figures who may have had a lot more to gain” from Probation Department patronage than O’Brien, said Ware, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Goodwin Procter in Boston.

O’Brien may be more motivated to cooperate since he was indicted on federal racketeering, conspiracy, and mail fraud charges that could result in up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 fines for each count if he is convicted. He also faces state bribery charges for allegedly funneling campaign donations by his employees to then-state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill in exchange for a job for his wife at the state lottery, which Cahill oversaw. Cahill was not charged in the case, though a senior staff member was.

O’Brien “has to be very concerned for his family, and he doesn’t want to spend the next 10 years in jail,” said Ware, adding that he has no direct knowledge of plea deal negotiations.

O’Brien’s new legal team, appointed to defend him in June after O’Brien said he could no longer afford his own lawyers, declined to comment on any aspect of the case.

A spokesman for Ortiz also declined comment, but one person who follows the investigation closely said that four assistant US attorneys joined in the questioning during recent grand jury sessions, which is more than usual, and their focus was clear: elected officials.

People who follow the investigation closely say that prosecutors’ interest in politicians extends back to former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a key architect of the probation hiring system.

Finneran pushed through a 2001 state budget amendment that gave O’Brien — a Finneran protege and sometime jogging partner — nearly complete control over hiring and firing in the 1,800-person agency. After that, probation’s budget, which is set by the Legislature, soared and by 2010, probation employed at least 250 people who were friends, supporters, or relatives of politicians and court officials, the Globe Spotlight Team found in 2010.

Legislative leaders had by far the most success in helping people get probation jobs, Ware found. Finneran’s successor, ­DiMasi, now serving an eight-year prison sentence on an unrelated corruption conviction, was so important to O’Brien that he had a folder to track ­DiMasi’s recommended candidates for jobs.

Over time, the politically motivated hiring process led to an explosion of less-qualified candidates winning jobs at probation, which is supposed to protect the public from criminals serving their sentences in the community. The indictment of O’Brien cited 26 instances where probation officials hired or promoted candidates supported by lawmakers and judges, even though they were not the most qualified. DeLeo sponsored one of those candidates — his godson — while Senate President Therese Murray of Plymouth backed three.

Murray declined comment on the investigation, but said she “was not aware of any senators being called” before the grand jury.

Prosecutors are particularly interested in the heated 2008 race in the House to succeed DiMasi, who became the third consecutive Massachusetts House speaker to be convicted of a crime. Initially, backers of Rogers thought they could get support from enough Democrats to win, but DeLeo ultimately got the speakership on Jan. 27, 2009, without a vote because Rogers withdrew in the face of eroding support.

In the spring of 2008, amid speculation that DiMasi might step down, the Legislature unexpectedly gave the Probation Department $6 million more than judicial officials requested. First, the House Ways and Means Committee, then chaired by DeLeo, recommended an additional $2.3 million more than Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert Mulligan requested. Then, probation’s friends in the House increased funding by another $3.7 million.

The windfall gave O’Brien more money for a flurry of hiring. By May 2008, O’Brien had hired people associated with legislators including O’Day, Harold P. Naughton Jr. of Clinton, and Geraldo Alicea of Charlton.

O’Day confirmed that he was called to the grand jury, though he wouldn’t say what he testified about. People familiar with the grand jury proceedings say Naughton also testified, but he did not return a call asking for comment. Alicea said he was not subpoenaed, though he was asked for documents shortly after the Globe Spotlight Team’s series.

All three deny any wrongdoing, saying they always planned to vote for DeLeo for speaker and that the probation jobs for people associated with them did not affect them.

Former representative Charles Murphy of Burlington, who became the Ways and Means chairman after DeLeo, confirmed that he, too, testified in June, but wouldn’t discuss his testimony. Likewise, Thomas Frongillo, a private lawyer hired to represent the House and Senate in the probation case, confirmed that he has interacted with the grand jury recently, but declined to be specific.

Though some observers expected the investigation to wrap up months ago, there are indications that prosecutors may be broadening their inquiry. According to one court official who follows the investigation, prosecutors recently asked about legislation that a group of ticket brokers pushed in 2006 and 2007 with the help of Richard Vitale, DiMasi’s former accountant, who was acquitted in the federal corruption case that sent DiMasi to prison.

At the time, DeLeo was chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which pushed the bill that lifted the state cap on ticket prices for concerts and other events. The House passed the bill, but it stalled in the Senate.

Gitell, DeLeo’s spokesman, said he was unaware that prosecutors were interested in the ticket legislation.

“We have no information that there is an ongoing investigation of the ticket broker legislation and have not been contacted in that regard,” he said.

Several people who have been following the probation investigation say they don’t expect more indictments, if any, until after the November elections. Ware, the special prosecutor, said he believes Ortiz’s office will seek indictments of some politicians.

“I think it is inevitable that at least some of the public officials who were direct beneficiaries of the hiring and promotion system within probation will be charged,” he said.

Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/15/federal_prosecutors_focus_on_legislators_including_house_speaker_deleo_in_probation_investigation/?page=full
globe.com. Scott Allen can be reached at allen@globe.com.

Massachusetts Closed Door Meetings and Corruption

Many of our fellow Massachusetts residents have lost their homes because of massive tornadoes, while leadership on Beacon Hill ignores them and continues to meet with special interests.

House Speaker "Racino" DeLeo allowed Beacon Hill to be paralyzed during the last legislative session while he met with the Gambling Interests, behind closed doors and allowed them to write legislation that gave them everything they wanted.

Few have taken the time to read any version of that legislation - surely not the media, nor legislators who voted for it.

The media allowed itself to obsess about the smoking ban, yet nary a word was said about 24/7/365 FREE ALCOHOL which will make all of us innocent targets of drunken slot barn patrons.

Nothing was said in the media about the failure of the legislation to include an appropriate regulatory structure.

Nothing was said in the media about the failure of Beacon Hill to project the costs of not only the regulatory structure, but the additional personnel required in the Attorney General's office for the 'Crimes Bill.'

When last year's legislation was passed with NO debate, clearly lawmakers were more focused on getting home or getting on vacation and had not read the 'compromise bill' that contained pages of ERRATA - a polite word for mistakes, some of which contradicted other sections or changed the meaning and intent.

I attended many of those public hearings and there was little media presence - other than soundbites.

They were filled with Industry Cheerleaders who were allowed to speak without time limits, yet opponents were limited to 3 minutes. They were a sham!

Beacon Hill's conduct - public or behind closed doors has been appalling, accompanied by media silence.

It's time for a change!


Gambling debated behind closed doors
Critics say public left without a role
By Noah Bierman

Despite promises about transparency, often the most critical decisions on Beacon Hill happen this way, with little meaningful input from anyone outside the small circle of the State House’s top three leaders.

“The public’s entitled to more, particularly now,’’ said Scott Harshbarger, a Democrat, referring to the embarrassment caused by DiMasi’s conviction.

“If the only way you can do this is getting a deal behind closed doors, it strikes me as tone deaf.’’

While there have been no allegations of corruption related to the casino debate, Harshbarger echoed a critique made by others — that the DiMasi trial cast a spotlight on the pitfalls of concentrating excessive power in only a few hands.

Centralized authority provides special interests an opportunity for outsize influence, Harshbarger said.

But members of the general public, lacking knowledge of what is being discussed, have no way to tell their representatives their opinions. And even those representatives may be shut out of the process.

“It’s an outrage,’’ said Kathleen Conley Norbut, senior adviser for the interest group United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts. “If the decisions are only made by two people or three people, what’s the sense of having a Legislature?’’

Senator James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat who opposes gambling, said the Legislature has become more transparent in recent years, but that the DiMasi trial highlighted that there was still work to be done.

Illustrating the point, he said his only confirmation about the current gambling negotiations came from news accounts.


Speaker under scrutiny
Controversial casino debate on tap as ethics questions remain
By Chris Cassidy

“I think what came out in the DiMasi trial certainly underscores that certain corporate interests will try to use the system behind closed doors to try to get a special advantage,” state Sen. James Eldridge (D-Acton) told the Herald. “I think that same dynamic exists within the casino industry.”

DeLeo was one of several top lawmakers named in the Ware report, conducted by an independent investigator, which revealed widespread patronage in the beleaguered department. It found 58 percent of the 12 candidates DeLeo backed for jobs were ultimately hired, placing him amid legislators with the most success. He’s mentioned 41 times in the report by name.

All of this comes while state leaders prepare to iron out high-stakes legislation over casino gambling — a debate expected to heat up later this month and bring intense lobbying.

“What allowing casinos in Massachusetts would be is the government picking winners and losers in terms of where the casinos will be, where the racetracks will be,” said Eldridge, a gaming opponent. “That’s exactly the kind of dynamic that can get a legislator or other elected official in trouble. That’s very disconcerting to me.”

Thomas Whalen, a Boston University political historian called gambling “the most unsavory business around.

“To have the speaker still identify with it undercuts any position of morality, if you will, that he’s trying to stake out for himself on ethics,” Whalen said. “It just looks really bad.”

It's helpful to re-visit history to figure out how we reached this disasterous destination.  

In spite of pretense, discussion took place behind closed doors.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/20/gambling_debate_goes_on_behind_closed_doors/?page=full

Gambling debated behind closed doors

Critics say public left without a role

By Noah Bierman

Globe Staff / June 20, 2011

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo stood in front of his office last week and declared that state government has become “a whole lot more transparent than it’s ever been,’’ as a result of the corruption case in which his predecessor, Salvatore F. DiMasi, had just been convicted.

But only two days earlier, DeLeo met behind closed doors with Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray to hash out what could prove to be one of the most controversial bills of the year— a deal to legalize gambling.

The negotiations have been intermittently acknowledged on Beacon Hill, but never detailed publicly. Yet whatever emerges from those talks will probably dictate what the final bill could look like.

“We’re making progress,’’ Patrick said last Monday after his weekly meeting with Murray and DeLeo, adding that the discussion focused on how many slot parlors to allow in the state. “We’re not quite there, but that’s the kind of conversation we’re having.’’

Despite promises about transparency, often the most critical decisions on Beacon Hill happen this way, with little meaningful input from anyone outside the small circle of the State House’s top three leaders.

“The public’s entitled to more, particularly now,’’ said Scott Harshbarger, a Democrat, referring to the embarrassment caused by DiMasi’s conviction.

“If the only way you can do this is getting a deal behind closed doors, it strikes me as tone deaf.’’

While there have been no allegations of corruption related to the casino debate, Harshbarger echoed a critique made by others — that the DiMasi trial cast a spotlight on the pitfalls of concentrating excessive power in only a few hands.

Centralized authority provides special interests an opportunity for outsize influence, Harshbarger said.

But members of the general public, lacking knowledge of what is being discussed, have no way to tell their representatives their opinions. And even those representatives may be shut out of the process.

“It’s an outrage,’’ said Kathleen Conley Norbut, senior adviser for the interest group United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts. “If the decisions are only made by two people or three people, what’s the sense of having a Legislature?’’

Patrick, DeLeo, and Murray have said they support casinos but have been unable to agree on the details. They argue that the casino debate has been aired fully in public over the last four years, since Patrick first proposed authorizing resort-style casinos in the state. Last year’s floor debate in the Senate took eight days.

And the current Legislature held a daylong hearing on the issue in May.

But none of the three leaders would comment directly for this story, instead issuing statements or referring comment to their representatives.

DeLeo said in a statement that the urgency for state revenue and jobs demands that he work to find a consensus with Patrick and Murray.

“This issue has been the subject of thorough public discussion — having been heard three times in consecutive sessions, debated in the Legislature twice, and intensely scrutinized by the public last year,’’ he said. “Any proposed bill will again be debated and voted on in the respective branches.’’

Murray’s spokesman, David Falcone, said in a statement, “We expect the same level of scrutiny and transparency this year.’’

Patrick’s spokesman, Brendan Ryan, said in an interview that any agreement among the top three would be subject to further scrutiny on its way through the full legislative process.

“The meetings in leadership are characterized as high level, and I don’t think that they’re getting into any detail,’’ Ryan said.

At least one gambling opponent agrees.

Representative William N. Brownsberger, a Belmont Democrat, said there are too many conversations in the legislative process to hold all of them on the floor of the House or Senate.

“Ultimately, there has to be a debate when there’s something that they want to put forward,’’ said Brownsberger.

Patrick has said repeatedly in recent months that last year’s prolonged public debate on gambling sucked “too much oxygen’’ from the political atmosphere, crowding out other priorities. Private negotiations may be a reaction to that.

“The goal is to make sure there are no nonstarters’’ among Patrick, DeLeo, and Murray before initiating a broader legislative debate, Ryan said.

Some lobbyists say that the three top players are working out most of the deal in private so that whoever gives ground in a compromise can save face.

Last year’s negotiations ended in public finger-pointing after the sides failed to reach a deal, despite a general agreement among Patrick, Murray, and DeLeo that the state should legalize casinos.

They ultimately disagreed over whether to allow race tracks to set up slot machine parlors that would compete alongside more traditional full-scale casinos.

Patrick has indicated at times that he is willing to allow one slot parlor in addition to three full-scale casinos. DeLeo has gone as low as two slot parlors, but said in a WCVB interview scheduled to run yesterday morning that he was “willing to compromise even more than I did before to get it done.’’

“There’s an evolving consensus that they’re very close and that this will happen in July,’’ said one lobbyist, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. “Everybody’s giving a little bit. When you’re in an environment like that, it’s really, really, really sensitive and there needs to be a lot of trust, and that’s why you’re not seeing a lot of it in public.’’

Senator James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat who opposes gambling, said the Legislature has become more transparent in recent years, but that the DiMasi trial highlighted that there was still work to be done.

Illustrating the point, he said his only confirmation about the current gambling negotiations came from news accounts.

Noah Bierman can be reached at nbierman@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @noahbierman.

A real pain in the neck

A real pain in the neck
By Yvonne Abraham

Excuse me while I adjust my neck brace. I’m getting spasms just from looking at some legislators’ casino votes.

In 2008, House members were dead-set against expanded gambling in Massachusetts. Led by Speaker Sal DiMasi, a casino opponent, they demolished Governor Deval Patrick’s casino dreams, 106 votes to 48.

On Wednesday night, led by Speaker Bob DeLeo, a slots evangelist, lawmakers embraced casinos - by an even bigger margin, 123 votes to 32. Scores of former opponents were among the yea voters, including some who had trafficked in anticasino fire-and-brimstone three short years ago.

It was a festival of flipping that actually began a year ago when a slew of casino opponents caved. The reversals have been sharp enough to cause whiplash. Now, bringing casinos here is no small thing. Once we’ve done it, we can’t undo it (or control it either, but that’s another column). The industry will transform Massachusetts forever.

So, I can’t imagine legislators took last week’s roll call lightly. I can’t believe their votes were based on anything but the merits of the issues and the dictates of conscience. I mean, they wouldn’t vote with the speaker on something this important just to remain in his good graces, right?

Well, Representative Ellen Story would.

When the Amherst Democrat and gambling opponent first flipped last year, she made no bones about her motivation, now that she has cracked DeLeo’s leadership circle.

“This is the bill he has cared about more than any other bill,’’ she said. “My sense is that there may well be consequences for people voting against this bill - particularly people in his inner circle.’’

Is Story the most honest politician on Beacon Hill, or a favor-currying outlier? I called some other House flippers to find out. Oddly enough, only two called back. Amazingly, both told me the risk of disappointing DeLeo had no influence on their votes, last year or last week.

One was John Scibak, a South Hadley Democrat who voted no three years ago because he feared we would have problems with compulsive gambling. (We will: Michael Jonas, in CommonWealth Magazine, points out that casinos depend on problem gamblers for a whopping 35 percent of their take.)

Scibak’s was not “a philosophical change,’’ he insisted: The bill he voted for includes support for gambling addicts. And in a rotten economy, it promises more revenue - much of which is currently going to Connecticut.

Peter Kocot opposed casinos three years ago because he worried they would eat away at the state lottery. But he said the new legislation will make sure casinos push sales of state lottery tickets

Besides, “things have dramatically changed since 2008,’’ said the Northampton Democrat. Like Scibak, he cited the economy, and cuts to services he cares about.

DeLeo himself voted to scuttle casinos under DiMasi. He may be less of an arm-twister than DiMasi, but the speaker benefits from decades of proud Beacon Hill history, which has schooled legislators from both chambers in the art of favor-seeking contortionism.

I wish I’d heard back from Michael Costello, because I’d like to know why he reversed himself so dramatically. Three years ago, the Newburyport Democrat was vehemently opposed to casinos, for reasons that were recession-proof. He worried that legalizing casinos here would force New Hampshire to follow suit, and that his constituents would head north to gamble, leaving his area with the negative effects of gambling and few of its benefits.

Speaking on the House floor in 2008, Costello said the state had weathered tough economic times before, and could do so again without resorting to casinos. He cast his stance as a courageous one, going against the wishes of unions. “We gotta take tough votes here, folks,’’ he said.

Few took the tough vote Wednesday. But I’m sure it was for all the right reasons.

Ouch! Please pass the Ben-Gay.

Massachusetts Corruption

In view of the recent conviction of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi, the Democrats, some Democrats, seem convinced 'same old, same old' will do.

Not so!

DiMasi's conviction was preceded by Dianne Wilkerson, a legislator who showed great promise and City Councilor Chuck Turner and others.

For reasons unknown, Beacon Hill has been content to pretend transparency reigns, even as casino deals are being discussed behind closed doors and the People's Business remains paralyzed.

There is no budget. Legislation has been stalled.

Human Trafficking legislation was only recently passed.

The People's Business is ignored. Where's 'Right to Repair,' the 'Bottle Bill,' and numerous other matters that are stalled?

Beacon Hill has become the definition of dysfunction - held hostage by House Speaker "Racino" DeLeo's Gambling Obsession, as if nothing else existed.

Recently, Republicans proposed reforms.

This is a Democrat's wrong headed response:

Representative John J. Binienda, a Worcester Democrat who has served in the Legislature since 1987:

On Wednesday, Binienda, who heads the House Rules Committee, called the proposal revolting and went on to make the historical analogy.

Hitler, during the concentration camps, tattooed all of the Jewish people so he would know who was a Jew and who wasn't, and that's something that I just don't go along with, Binienda told State House News Service for an article posted yesterday.

From:
House leader apologizes for Holocaust remarks
Badge analogy˜inappropriate™
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff


When voters elect grown adults, the assumption is made that they behave like adults and are capable of thinking independently, not supporting 'leadership' that is tone deaf to the scandals swirling around him.

Not to be outdone, Tom Keane felt the need to liken badges for lobbyists to Nathanial Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter:

Power on
Punish corruption, but don’t weaken the Legislature
By Tom Keane


Sorry! But I've witnessed the LOBBYISTS, stroking egos, dictating policy and legislation, voters be damned!

It's time for change.

And it begins with an Independent Cost Benefit Analysis that has NEVER been conducted to consider the costs and impacts of Predatory Gambling. Otherwise, one must wonder what is being concealed.

It begins with a serious debate and consideration of taxpayers subsidizing wealthy investors, destroying local businesses and theaters, the cost of regulation and enforcement, and a transparent discussion.

One need only consider the Vote Buying Scandal trial currently underway in Alabama to see the similarities.

But, but, but.....where are the JOBS?

Didn't Casino Vultures promise GAZILLION OF JOBS?

Didn't politicians REPEATEDLY quote GAZILLIONS OF JOBS?

Where'd those jobs go???  


Committee forms to oppose ballot question that would repeal Massachusetts' 2011 casino law

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 09, 2014 - 8:09 pm EDT

BOSTON — A new political committee has formed to oppose a ballot question that would repeal Massachusetts' 2011 casino law.

The Committee to Preserve Jobs Associated with Casino Gaming Law filed papers Wednesday with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance. The committee's stated goal is to protect the estimated 10,000 jobs it said are associated with the construction and operation of casinos.

Opponents of the law, which allows Massachusetts to license up to three casinos and a single slots parlor, collected enough signatures to put the repeal question on the November ballot.

They have their own committee called Repeal the Casino Deal but could face a daunting fundraising challenge as they try to make their case to voters.

Under Massachusetts law, individuals and corporations including casino companies are allowed to give unlimited donations to ballot question committees.

Repeal the Casino Deal reported collecting more than $175,000 last year and ended 2013 with a balance of less than $8,000. Much of the money was spent on its signature-gathering efforts.

In its initial filing, the Committee to Preserve Jobs Associated with Casino Gaming Law reported no contributions.

The pro-casino ballot committee lists as its chairman and treasurer Boston attorney Thomas Kiley of the firm Cosgrove, Eisenberg & Kiley.

One of Kiley's more high-profile clients was former Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, convicted in 2011 of conspiracy, extortion and theft of honest services by fraud and a bribery charge. DiMasi was a strong opponent of casino gambling.

 

 

 

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/26100e5595cd475b937dc8d9db4eb948/MA--Ballot-Questions-Casinos

Beacon Hill Crime, Corruption and Gambling Addiction

In the unfolding saga of another Beacon Hill scandal, Lally's disappearing funds certainly raise interesting questions that muddy the waters of the prosecution's zeal and require public disclosure.



Pre-trial clashes continue in DiMasi corruption case
By Milton J. Valencia, Globe Staff

Weinberg argued that the e-mails may show that Lally, who purportedly has a gambling problem and debts, had a financial interest in agreeing to cooperate, something that would impeach his credibility as a witness.

Wolf did, however, grant a separate request by Weinberg to subpoena the tax returns of Lally and his wife from 2006 to 2010. Weinberg said he had evidence showing Lally lied on his tax returns and the lawyer said he planned to use that evidence to impeach Lally’s credibility.


DiMasi defense targets former codefendant
Seeks records of associate who struck plea bargain
By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff

Weinberg would not say exactly what he is looking for, but the search terms, including “bankruptcy’’ and “forfeiture,’’ suggest he wants to determine what Lally did with the $2.8 million in commissions he netted on the two Massachusetts contracts. The public is footing the bill for Goldstein, after a federal judge found Lally could not afford to pay a lawyer himself.

Massachusetts: 4 in 10 think corruption is widespread in Legislature

As continuing negotiations take place behind closed doors regarding Expanded Gambling (and much else) in Massachusetts, Beacon Hill leadership is ignoring wide spred public perception of corruption, patronage, nepotism and much else.

Some might like to pretend "corruption on Beacon Hill is limited to a few isolated incidents" the unfolding saga proves otherwise.

Governor Deval Patrick promised greater transparency, yet participates in this charade.

4 in 10 think corruption is widespread in Legislature
New MassINC poll finds recent scandals have taken toll on Beacon Hill

BY: Jack Sullivan

The prevailing view among Massachusetts voters is that corruption on Beacon Hill is limited to a few isolated incidents, but nearly 4 in 10 voters think the problem is widespread, according to a survey by the MassINC Polling Group.

The survey found 52 percent of voters believe corruption is limited to a few isolated incidents and 50 percent of those surveyed place the blame for those incidents on individual lawmakers. But a surprisingly high number of voters – 39 percent – say corruption is widespread and 40 percent say the cause is the system on Beacon Hill rather than individual lawmakers.

“I think it reflects overall faith in the system but a real concern about (their) representation,” says Suffolk Assistant Professor Rachel V. Cobb, the school’s chair of government. “The thinking goes, if there were more honest people, these problems would be reduced.”

The poll of 500 Massachusetts residents, 440 of them voters, was conducted last week as part of a quarterly tracking survey on a variety of issues. The most recent survey added two questions asking respondents how common they think corruption is among legislators and what they think is the main cause of corruption in state government. The poll of voters has a margin of error of 4.7 percent.

The polling followed the conviction of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi on federal charges of receiving kickbacks. DiMasi is the third consecutive House speaker to be convicted of criminal charges. In addition, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson pled guilty last year to accepting bribes and other former legislators have been accused or convicted of various charges ranging from driving under the influence to misusing campaign funds to pension abuse.

The probation department scandal, in which a number of lawmakers were cited in a damning report for padding the payroll with friends, relatives, and financial supporters, also cast a dark shadow over the Legislature.

Cobb says she falls into the category of believing corruption is isolated and thinks the drumbeat of media stories combined with the popularity of talk radio has had a huge impact on public perception. But she says legislative leaders should take heed of the results.

“If I were a legislative leader, I’d use these numbers to try not so much get the house in order as much as alter the public perception,” she says. “There have been too many scandals recently for us to say there are not problems.”

Among registered voters, 42 percent of those who are unenrolled say corruption is widespread in the Legislature. The corresponding numbers for Republicans and Democrats were 41 percent and 38 percent, respectively. Conversely, unenrolled voters also had the highest rate in saying corruption is nonexistent on Beacon Hill, with 6 percent agreeing with the statement. Just 1 percent of Democrats and Republicans believed corruption didn’t exist.

The biggest disparity appears to be in education and income. The higher the degree and salary, the more likely voters believe corruption is limited to a few incidents. Among those making more than $150,000, 65 percent think corruption is limited while just 39 percent of those making less than $25,000 think only a few people are corrupt.

Among those voters with just a high school degree or less, 46 percent think corruption is widespread while just 24 percent of those with advanced degrees think similarly. When it comes to the cause, only those with some college education but no degree blame the system more than the members by a 48-44 margin.

“There seems to be a direct relationship between income and education in that your belief in the widespread corruption declines the more money you make and the more educated you are,” says Stephen Crosby, dean of the John W. McCormack School at the University of Massachusetts in Boston and a former gubernatorial aide. “I suppose with education and wealth goes some degree of being able to discriminate a little more and not just say a pox on all their houses.”

Crosby also says the constant “rat-a-tat of real transgressions” by government officials – both elected and appointed, in and out of the state – has influenced many voters to view their leaders with skepticism. While the poll questions focused on the Legislature, Crosby says lawmakers are becoming the generic whipping boy, albeit with reason.

“People probably don’t discriminate. They just see these repeated stories,” says Crosby. “You could probably substitute ‘elected officials’ for ‘Legislature’ and the numbers probably wouldn’t change much.”

DeLeo opening casino door to tribes

DeLeo opening casino door to tribes
By Paul McMorrow


ROBERT DeLEO wants to bring legalized gambling to Massachusetts. He wants two casinos and slots at four racing tracks, and right now, it looks like he’s going to get his wish.


And, potentially, a lot more. In DeLeo’s rush to appease the building trades and carve out some action for the two racetracks in his district, the speaker of the House is setting the table for a gambling expansion in Massachusetts that has the potential to be far broader than anything he’s pitching. He’s opening the door to new gambling halls on Martha’s Vineyard and the Cape, in Middleborough and Fall River. It’s also something neither he, nor anyone else on Beacon Hill, can control.

Forget, for a second, all the reasons we know we should worry about legalized gambling — its regressive nature, the way it cannibalizes money that would otherwise be spent at local businesses, the negligible benefits it offers strained government budgets, the staggering social and regulatory costs. None of that has swayed DeLeo, or anybody else on Beacon Hill whose opinion actually matters these days. Two years ago, the Legislature was debating whether to legalize casinos at all; now the body is just wondering how many to greenlight.

The Mashpee Wampanoag and the Aquinnah, the state’s two federally recognized Native American tribes, have each expressed serious interest in owning a gleaming gambling hall. They haven’t been able to follow through on those urges because, legally, they can’t.

The tribes are sovereign, but they’re only allowed to set up a gambling shop at the highest level of gaming that’s legal in their home state. Right now, they could peddle scratch tickets, or maybe hop into the high-stakes bingo game. There’s no serious money in either pursuit. That changes the moment the governor signs a casino bill into law this summer. Each will be freed to set up gaming operations on their tribal land, on the Cape and Martha’s Vineyard. And the state wouldn’t be able to touch a dime of whatever rolls in.

There is a bit of fine print to tackle first. A Supreme Court decision has stalled the Mashpee Wampanoag effort to take land into federal trust, establishing a sovereign homeland. Still, anyone who thinks Congress will not eventually override the decision is wholly unfamiliar with Congress and with money; money and Congress, though, are by no means strangers.

Clearly, state-backed gambling enterprises will get rolling before any potential tribal enterprises. These things have life cycles of years, not months, though. The Mashpee Wampanoag fought for decades for federal recognition. In that context, the difference between a groundbreaking in 2010 and 2015 isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker. And anyone who thinks the gaming interests that form partnerships with tribes are afraid of competition should take a drive up the California coast, where every exit seems to feature a gambling outpost.

The speaker, who has assumed a leadership role in pushing gambling in the Commonwealth, is fond of quoting figures. He says he knows how many jobs will materialize, and how much cash will flow to cities and towns. His guys have it all figured out. Except that they don’t. They have no idea how many gaming operations the state will eventually wind up hosting. These things can change quickly. And they’re completely beyond Beacon Hill’s reach. Until 2007, the Mashpee Wampanoag weren’t a federally recognized tribe; months later, they had financial backers, and were talking about gobbling up more than 500 acres in Middleborough.

The Legislature hasn’t appeared to be preoccupied with asking questions about the ramifications of votes it takes. DeLeo, in particular, has been steering the effort to broaden gambling’s reach and install 3,000 slot machines at the state’s four racetracks (only two of which still feature actual racing, but let’s not nitpick).

Two of those four — Suffolk Downs and Wonderland — lie in the speaker’s district. Suffolk essentially controls Wonderland, a greyhound track rotten with debt; DeLeo’s version of the gambling legislation would hand Suffolk’s politically wired ownership half of the state’s slots market, giving it a virtual lock on one of the two full casino licenses the state will be selling off. That’s the point, really.

DeLeo rose to his post at Sal DiMasi’s right hand. DeLeo was responsible for divvying up the state budget’s spoils — a process that has long rewarded leadership’s allies, and delivered punishing blows to political enemies. His path into DiMasi’s old office was cleared with budgetary earmarks.

The casino debate shows DeLeo still playing the part of the two-bit committee chairman. DeLeo has yet to fully grasp that the speaker’s office is a statewide position. Here he is, about to dramatically reshape the state’s economic landscape, and he’s obsessing over his district, his neighborhood guys, the tracks he grew up visiting. From the beginning, he has been out to get a piece of the action for his two tracks. And now he’s on the cusp. Once he opens that door, though, he should watch out — that’s when things get interesting.

Paul McMorrow is a staff writer for Banker & Tradesman.

The David-and-Goliath Story

For casino opponents, an unlikely ace in the hole
Small-town activist presses fight against industry


“If there’s a David-and-Goliath story, this is it,’’ said Kathleen Conley Norbut of Monson, an anticasino activist.





(Essdras M Suarez/Globe Staff)
By Michael Levenson


Her desk is her kitchen table. She cajoles legislators on the phone while folding laundry. At night, she works in her pajamas.

Kathleen Conley Norbut, a fast-talking 49-year-old mother, former selectwoman, and mental health counselor from Monson, has become the improbable public face of the opposition to expanded gambling, as founder of the group United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts.

From that perch, she is trying to stop a multibillion-dollar casino industry eager to break into Massachusetts, an army of well-paid lobbyists pushing the cause, and a growing number of lawmakers who believe gambling will bring much-needed jobs and economic development.

“If there’s a David-and-Goliath story, this is it, because that industry is predatory,’’ Norbut said in an interview. “They’ve got deep, deep pockets behind them. I’m small peanuts. I care about small businesses. I care about my communities.’’

Norbut is confident, though she knows what she is up against.

In the weeks ahead, as House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo readies his bill to license two casinos and slot machines at the state’s four racetracks, Norbut — who already spends 30 hours a week fighting casinos — plans to step up her campaign, with a focus on pushing for a new independent review of the costs and benefits of expanded gambling. DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick all support casinos, though Murray and Patrick say they oppose slots.

“I’m not nervous or worried,’’ Norbut said. “I actually feel like the little people are being heard a little more, and I’m very excited about that.’’

She has made her presence felt. Since forming United to Stop Slots on the Fourth of July last year, Norbut has successfully pushed the state Democratic Party to adopt a resolution opposing slot machines, helped persuade the governor to endorse her call for a new economic analysis of gambling, and organized an anticasino rally at Faneuil Hall with former governor Michael S. Dukakis.

“She certainly has made an impact,’’ said state Representative Daniel E. Bosley, a North Adams Democrat and a leading casino opponent in the Legislature. “It’s hard to find people on both sides who aren’t reactionary. They have a moral objection to slots, or they’re very libertarian. She really has done her homework, and is really energetic.’’

In some ways, Norbut, who has not been active in prior fights over gambling, is an unlikely figure in the casino debate. She has no personal story of a family member addicted to gambling, nor moral qualms about gambling. She first got involved in the issue in 2007, she said, when the operators of Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut proposed building a casino in Palmer, which borders Monson, the town 30 minutes east of Springfield, where she has lived for 23 years and was serving on the Board of Selectmen. Norbut said she was concerned the casino would ruin the town’s rural character, drive up crime and addiction, and strain local services.


“I didn’t choose the cause,’’ Norbut said. “I really feel like this cause chose me to be the champion. I wasn’t looking for a hobby. I’m married. I have a 13-year-old. I have elderly parents. I have a career. It started by caring about the community.’’


As she began researching the issue, she became convinced that a casino was bad not only for Monson, but for the state because, she believes, casinos cannibalize other businesses and burden taxpayers with additional social and economic costs.

“It’s long-term economic drain,’’ Norbut said.

Supporters of expanded gaming counter that the state is missing out on thousands of jobs and millions of dollars as gamblers flock to out-of-state casinos.

The last time casinos were debated, in 2007, the group Casinofacts.org, led by residents concerned about a proposed casino in Middleborough, helped organize the opposition. Bosley, state Senator Susan C. Tucker, and then-House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi helped galvanize opponents in the State House.

This year, prospects for a Middleborough casino have faded, Bosley and Tucker are preparing to leave the Legislature, and DiMasi, a powerful casino foe, has been replaced by DeLeo, a longtime supporter of expanded gambling whose district includes two struggling racetracks.

The changes have thrust Norbut into a newly prominent role in the ranks of the opposition, helping lead a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that includes partners such as the Massachusetts Family Institute, a socially conservative group.

In December, she and other members of the organization met with the governor for an hour. Afterward, Patrick sent a letter to DeLeo and Murray encouraging them to meet with United to Stop Slots and supporting Norbut’s call for a new economic analysis of gambling, which the state last conducted when the governor proposed licensing three casinos in 2007.

“She is a really thoughtful, energetic, smart organizer with a great head and a great heart,’’ said Patrick, who first met Norbut when she volunteered on his 2006 campaign.

She can also be polarizing. In a private briefing with lawmakers last week, Norbut hotly debated state Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a Revere Democrat and ardent supporter of slot machines whose district includes Wonderland Greyhound Park.

“We’ve clashed heads, and the impression I get from her is that she’s not very fond of me,’’ Reinstein said. “I obviously disagree with a large percentage of what she says, and I feel like their side is using absolute fear tactics when it comes to this issue, and that’s not fair.’’

Norbut said it is the pro-casino crowd that has used fear to push its agenda.

“I’ve had retired police officers tell me to watch my back; I’ve had verbal threats from a top AFL-CIO official,’’ Norbut said. “Maybe it was a warning. He said, ‘If you ever run for office again, we’ll remember.’ ’’

“It’s not easy,’’ Norbut added. “I’m not a thick-skinned person.’’

Norbut, the third of six children of a Marine who fought in Iwo Jima, is tough, however. She and her husband, a carpenter, lived in a tent for six months while they cleared trees and built their home from scratch.

This fight, she says, will also require a lot of heavy lifting, but she has no intention of giving up.

“I have no issue with anyone who wants to get on a bus or a plane and go and do their thing,’’ she said, referring to gamblers traveling to casinos. “But it becomes my business when it impacts my property tax, my community, and the society that my child is going to live in.’’

Join us! At United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts. Add your name to the mailing list, sign the Petition for an Independent Cost Benefit Analysis and consider making a donation.

Suffolk Downs Neighbor

Which politicians do YOU agree with? Those for or against a casino?? Wait a minute... it's the same guys!!!

East Boston’s elected officials on a casino at Suffolk Downs: A primer

By Steve Holt - 3/19/13 - 6:21 pm

If a casino comes to Boston, it will arrive with the full-throated support of Boston's mayor and East Boston's city counselor, representative, and senator. Our local leaders – including those who grew up here and know Eastie the best – risked everything they'd helped East Boston become and threw their support behind the statewide casino bill and the idea of expanded gambling at Suffolk Downs.

They didn't always support a casino here, though:

Anthony Petruccelli, State Senate

Sen. Anthony Petruccelli was an outspoken casino skeptic when the move to bring gambling to Suffolk Downs began to gain steam. “These neighborhoods are impacted by the international airport, three tunnels and a major highway,” he told the Boston Herald in July 2007. “How much more can we take?”

Well, just three years later, Petruccelli apparently thought these neighborhoods could take quite a bit more. In July 2010, he supported the initial House bill authorizing the construction of casinos throughout the state and would vote “yea” on every piece of gambling legislation from then on. He was one of a handful of Senators shepherding the legislation through the process.
“It took me a couple of years to get to the point where I support and prefer a resort casino at Suffolk Downs,” he told the Revere Journal in 2010. “As we look at it, the benefits outweigh the impacts.”

OK, so what changed?

Petruccelli explains his about-face on a casino at Suffolk Downs this way: the Senator ran into a guy from the neighborhood, someone Petruccelli grew up with, who had lost his job. It was this single interaction and his old friend's pleading with the Senator for work, Petruccelli said, that allowed him to ignore his strong initial concerns about casino impacts and help to pass the expanded gaming legislation – a bill he calls “a jobs bill.”

But “jobs” isn't a strong enough explanation for getting from “how much more can we take?” to full support of a casino in our neighborhood. One doesn't get from there to here without an outside influence or two. One of those influences might be Suffolk Downs owner Richard Fields. The Boston Globe reported in 2011 that Fields made a $6,000 donation to the senator's family foundation, after which Petruccelli “made sure bills before the Legislature have included a provision that would make local approval [for a casino] easier.”

According to the Globe, this donation far exceeded what Fields would have been allowed to give to Petruccelli's campaign under the state's campaign finance law. (for more on suspicious Richard Fields donations to elected officials, skip down to the section on Mayor Menino...except don't. The stuff to follow is really interesting.)

Carlo Basile, House of Representatives

Rep. Carlo Basile spoke even more forcefully against putting a casino at Suffolk Downs. During his campaign for a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, he was widely seen as the underdog, anti-casino candidate. Here's the tune he was singing during the campaign in 2007:

“We have a fight on our hands with officials who want to put another enormous burden on us with a quote-unquote world-class casino in our town. I will stand up to those who want to congest our streets more and thrust more upon us so that the state and city can reap more money and more taxes at our expense. Enough is enough – we have paid our fair share to the Commonwealth with three tunnels, an airport and a horse track within our borders. How much more can we take????

No one asked us if we wanted this – no one consulted the people of this neighborhood – look what happened in South Boston when they tried to jam the football stadium down their throats. We need to stand up and be heard. We need to fight to ensure that our opinions matter, and we have say in what happens in East Boston.

This is our town and we as a community will decide what is best for us!”

Hold onto your hats, because here's Basile, now the vice-chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, singing quite a different tune after the passage of the expanded gaming bill on Nov. 22, 2011: “This bill has been a long time in the making. I am very proud and excited about its passage as I believe it will spur much needed job growth and economic activity throughout the state.”

Explaining his position switcharoo, Basile also cites the jobs a casino would create. But like his counterpart in the Senate, Basile's stance on the casino appeared to shift out of political convenience.

Back when Basile first spoke out against a casino, his stance would have sat very well with Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi, his “boss,” who was staunchly anti-casino. When DiMasi left office amid corruption charges, Robert DeLeo, an ardent casino supporter, took his place. Almost immediately, our then-junior representative's tune began to change on the subject of casinos.

But politics aside, what if his real motives are even more self-serving than that? Local political insiders know that Basile has for several years made jokes about one day leaving politics — to take a job at the casino. Not only could Basile earn more – probably significantly more – than his current annual salary of roughly $60,000, he'd receive the king's treatment for having helped pave the way for a casino at Suffolk Downs. That would be fantastic for Basile, of course, but terrible for the rest of us.

This is probably a good time to review one of the more disturbing aspects of the state's gambling legislation: the need for an amendment requiring some lawmakers to wait a period of time before taking a job with a casino. In the Senate, the amendment authorizing a “cooling off period” came only after one senator proposed an amendment requiring senators to wait five years after leaving office to work for a casino – and chaos nearly ensued. Here's the account from MassLive.com:

Soon after it began on Tuesday, the debate halted when one state senator argued for an amendment for a five-year "cooling off period" for former legislators before they work for a casino or applicant for a gambling license. Opponents became testy and Senate President Therese Murray gaveled the debate to a close. She ordered Democrats behind closed doors for a caucus that lasted an hour. When they emerged, senators quickly voted 36-1 for the one-year period for former lawmakers.

Hmm. Why would legislators get so heated about a proposal ensuring they would not personally benefit from an industry they helped usher in? Could it be that a handful of them actually planned to leave the public sector and snatch a comfortable position at one of the casinos? Alas, state lawmakers from both the House and the Senate must wait exactly one year after leaving office to go to work for a casino. After 12 months, though, it's anybody's game.

Salvatore LaMattina, City Council

In front of some community groups, City Councilor Sal LaMattina is cautious and understated about his feelings on a casino. He frequently tells them that he supports a casino at Suffolk Downs if it benefits the people of East Boston. At a recent Eagle Hill Civic Association meeting, he was pressed hard by members of No Eastie Casino about feeling unrepresented in local government because of their concerns about the proposed casino. In response, LaMattina put on his diplomatic, “wait-and-see” hat. According to Boston.com:

LaMattina said he, too, had questions about casino impacts, and he would work to ensure transparency. But many in East Boston are in desperate need of jobs the casino could bring, he said, and he will wait to make up his mind until he has more information.
The data isn't available yet, he said, but it will be put before the community in time for residents to make an informed choice in the voting booth.
“If this isn't right for East Boston, I'm saying no, too,” he said.

But LaMattina's true feelings – not just that he wants a casino in Boston, but specifically one in East Boston – have been on record for a while now. Last November, when asked by a Boston Herald reporter about Steve Wynn's just-released plans for a casino in Everett, LaMattina was bullish in his support for an Eastie casino.

“Do I welcome competition? Yeah, I welcome competition, but I want a casino in Boston, as does [Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino],” he said. “I still think Suffolk Downs is a perfect location, and I would have a lot of concern that a casino is going to Everett.”

And just two weeks ago, at his own fundraiser in East Boston, to 75 mostly pro-casino supporters – including Mayor Menino – he spoke glowingly about the benefits of a casino at Suffolk Downs.

“He emphasized that if the agreement is good he would support it,” said one who was in attendance.

“People came away with the impression that he was favorable to the casino, unlike the Eagle Hill meeting.”

There you have it. Three out of three East Boston politicians either switching positions on the most important neighborhood development since airport expansion or (worse, perhaps) saying one thing to residents and another to the political establishment.
Then there's the mayor.

Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston

Love him or hate him, Mayor Thomas M. Menino has been the most transformative, powerful and productive executive leader the City of Boston has ever seen.

And despite hailing from Hyde Park, Menino's Italian-American heritage has made him somewhat of a native son of East Boston, long dominated by multiple generations of residents and politicians with Italian blood. He frequents our restaurants. He's made completing East Boston's waterfront – including re-introducing water transport – a priority, and construction has, in fact, started up again after a long hiatus. Beyond that, though, the Mayor consistently wins elections in East Boston because his image has become that of a leader who works tirelessly for the neighborhood's working class people.

Menino is well aware of the well-documented negative effects of urban casinos, and still he backs one – despite the risk that it would turn back years of work reducing crime, building our economy, and expanding opportunities for all residents. So his support for a “resort-style casino” at Suffolk Downs would be a big head-scratcher, right? Well, maybe not that big.

Initially, the Mayor was quite skeptical of casinos and slot machines because of the negative impacts they typically bring. Then, in 2005, Suffolk Downs executives and owners flooded the Mayor's campaign coffers with $2,200 in donations. A few weeks later, Menino made a surprising endorsement of installing slot machines at the state's racetracks, including Suffolk Downs, to save the dying industry.

And remember Suffolk Downs owner Richard Fields?

The Fields Foundation, controlled by Suffolk owner Richard Fields, donated $10,000 to Menino's charity in 2008 and 2009, according the foundation's nonprofit tax return. Menino has confirmed in the past that a meeting with Fields one year earlier - just after Fields bought the racetrack - was a turning point in his transformation from tepid casino supporter to full-throated ambassador. (Source: The Boston Globe)

See how this works? Combine all those contributions and closed-door meetings with Menino's longtime friendship with Suffolk Downs principal owner Joseph O'Donnell, and one's confusion about the mayor's positions on casinos subsides considerably.

Shenanigans aside, here's the frustrating truth: Mayor Menino could shut casinos out of Boston tomorrow morning, if he wanted to. He has taken stands in the past against Walmart (for its benefits policy, as well as its impact on local businesses) and Chick-fil-A (for its CEO's opinion about gay marriage). He could do the same with the casino. Under the state casino law, mayors have enormous power to block proposals from moving forward, simply by refusing to negotiate with developers. Last year, we saw this in Holyoke, where Mayor Alex Morse reversed his position on building a casino in his city and abruptly ended negotiations with two casino companies.

Mayor Menino, on the other hand, is negotiating. Last year, in accordance with the 2011 gaming law, the Mayor appointed a Host Community Advisory Committee to represent the residents of Boston in negotiations with Caesars, but it too appears interested only in seeing that a casino is built. The five-person committee – which features just one resident of East Boston – lists on its website the driving philosophy behind its existence: “…that a resort casino entertainment destination, when properly regulated, can be an important economic driver in the region.”

But in dealing with the HCAC, community members report frustration that the committee has responded to few of their questions and requests for data. The suppression of information has become somewhat of a theme with all of our local leaders. On a number of occasions – both publicly and in writing -- residents and community groups have requested that an independent cost-benefit analysis be conducted to see what the impacts will be. Astoundingly, in a neighborhood where simple road improvements or construction variances require multiple studies of their impacts, requests for an in-depth report on a casino's impact have fallen on deaf ears.

Most disturbing is that those with knowledge of the process say Boston is close to finalizing its mitigation agreement with Suffolk Downs – if it hasn't already. Our politicians already know the framework of that agreement, while residents have yet to see any of the reports they've requested outlining the impacts a casino would have on our working-class, residential neighborhood. The next batch of information East Boston residents see will be an agreement between the city and Suffolk Downs showcasing the millions in mitigation dollars meant to offset the inevitable increase in crime, addiction, and traffic congestion.

We'll then be expected to vote yes or no on the construction of a casino with all of the good — and none of the bad — to inform our decision.

How Will This End?

This paints an admittedly bleak picture of our elected officials' blind support of a casino in Boston, but it can, of course, end differently than it started. Our mayor and local officials could choose to remove the shiny dollar signs from their eyes and demand that the voters know precisely how a casino will affect their neighborhood, rather than actively campaigning for a casino and blocking the free flow of information.

But at this point in the process, these men are unlikely to change.

As was true during the airport expansion of the 1960s, when mothers with baby carriages protested the destruction of our Olmstead-designed Wood Island Park, the residents of East Boston are on their own in standing up to a multinational casino company. Like those Maverick Mothers, “we're the last line of defense,” as lifelong resident Celeste Myers correctly put it at a recent neighborhood meeting. That's because all our elected officials chose long ago with whom they would stand in this fight.

Steve Holt is a writer in East Boston and volunteer with No Eastie Casino


http://www.universalhub.com/2013/east-boston%E2%80%99s-elected-officials-casino-suffolk-dow