Pennsylvania: Crime, Corruption and Appearances

Pennsylvania, the Cradle of Liberty, passed Gambling legislation at midnight on the Fourth of July, to its discredit.

The flawed and questionable process overlooked many issues and this seems to be one.

How impartial can a public official be receiving campaign contributions from a predatory industry? How is the public protected? Or does it no longer matter and we just surrender control to the Gambling Predators?


Pa. treasurer wins prelim round in gaming lawsuit

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — State Treasurer Rob McCord won an important round Friday in his lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, as a state court ruled that the treasurer's office may be entitled to participate in the board's closed-door sessions.

In a 6-0 ruling, the Commonwealth Court rejected the board's preliminary objections to the lawsuit McCord filed in May. McCord has said he filed the suit to make sure he could fully carry out his role of ensuring that taxpayers get a fair return from the casinos.

"The court has recognized my status as a member of the gaming board," McCord asserted. "Now it's up to the board to decide if it wants to continue this pointless fight."

The 2004 law that legalized slot-machine gambling in Pennsylvania and created the board that regulates the industry specifies that the treasurer or his designee will serve as a nonvoting member of the board.

In its preliminary objections, the board argued that only the voting members designated in the gambling law — seven people appointed by legislative leaders from both political parties and the governor — may attend the executive sessions at which personnel actions, business or legal strategies and other confidential matters are discussed.

But the court said the state Sunshine Act, which permits private discussions under certain circumstances and as exceptions to open government, does not limit participation to voting members. The law also prohibits official action from being taken behind closed doors, the court noted.

The judges rejected the board's arguments that allowing the treasurer's office to participate in executive sessions would taint the panel with the appearance of corruption and erode public confidence in the board's supervision of legalized gambling.

The board had cited $80,000 in contributions to McCord's 2008 election campaign from lawyers and lobbyists with ties to the gambling industry. A spokeswoman for McCord, Corinna Vecsey Wilson, said Friday the money represented legal contributions by donors with diverse interests not limited to gambling.

The court sided with McCord.

"We do not see how the involvement of the treasurer pursuant to statute creates any appearance of impropriety," President Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter wrote in the court's opinion.

In a written statement, the board said it was reviewing the decision "to determine the current impact as well as the next steps of the still-ongoing proceedings."

McCord, a political newcomer and former venture capitalist from the Philadelphia suburbs, is one of three nonvoting "ex-officio" members of the gaming board and the only one elected by Pennsylvania voters.

In his lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment, McCord said the board sought to marginalize his involvement by discouraging his participation at regular meetings and barring him from attending executive sessions.

The board has denied that it is being unreasonable.