From: Bill Kearney
Massachusetts ‘GAMING’ Future
I’m sure the forefathers of this industry known today as GAMING, people like Bugsy Siegel, Meyer Lansky, Lucky Lucano and their crew of street thugs, gangsters, mobsters, shysters, and con-men would have agreed with Gov. Patrick vetoing background checks and drug screenings on all future GAMING commission employees.
I’m sure the forefathers of this industry known today as GAMING, people like Bugsy Siegel, Meyer Lansky, Lucky Lucano and their crew of street thugs, gangsters, mobsters, shysters, and con-men would have agreed with Gov. Patrick vetoing background checks and drug screenings on all future GAMING commission employees.
Patrick’s perplexing veto enables lax scrutiny of gambling hires
May 17, 2012
Moving Massachusetts into the world of casinos is a major part of Governor Deval Patrick’s legacy. With so much at stake for the state, and his own reputation on the line, the governor should do all he can to instill public confidence in those who play any role in policing the Bay State’s fledgling gambling industry.
Instead, Patrick is doing his curious best to undermine public confidence. Last week, he vetoed portions of a spending bill sent to him by the House and Senate, which would have required the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to conduct full criminal background checks and drug screenings on all future commission employees.
In a letter explaining his veto, Patrick said, “The highest levels of background checks and screening may not be necessary nor appropriate for every employee.” He said he is satisfied with current law, which gives the gaming commission the discretion to decide which hires require a full background check.
McGee ended up withdrawing from the position after critics — including child-protection advocates, state Representative Dan Winslow, and state Treasurer Steven Grossman — raised legitimate questions about his suitability for this highly sensitive position.
McGee has a stellar professional resume. He was a Rhodes Scholar and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. However, in 2007, he was arrested for an alleged sexual assault on a 15-year-old boy in the steam room of a Florida hotel. McGee was never charged, but settled a civil lawsuit with the boy’s family. When questions were first raised about McGee’s appointment, gaming commission chairman Stephen Crosby defended the decision, arguing that McGee was entitled to a presumption of innocence. Upset by those and other comments accusing the young man of making false charges, family members released the results of a 2008 investigation by Florida child welfare officials recommending that McGee be prosecuted.
A key issue in the controversy involved what kind of background check the commission conducted before hiring McGee. Ultimately, Crosby conceded that the commission relied solely on news accounts and never contacted any Florida investigators. McGee was said to be undergoing a State Police background check as a condition of his employment before he formally withdrew.
At a recent gaming commission hearing, members discussed the extensive background checks required of anyone applying for casino licenses. Applicants must meet the highest standards of character, honesty, and integrity. It seems only fair and logical that Patrick would want anyone working for the state gaming commission to meet the same criteria.
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/05/17/patrick-perplexing-veto-enables-lax-scrutiny-gambling-hires/YFYR3fKEqXxnBuSvJNEGLL/story.html
Comments:
Another example of a politician lowering standards for personal gain. Somehow there is personal gain involved. Imagine a governor not wanting full background checks on potential employees being considered to work in the lucrative" gambling industry. " With Ma.history of corrupt politicians always on the take It is risky to allow bad decisions, and probable outcomes to be left in the hands of inept politicians. Patrick, by his actions has already shown what is likely to happen if he is allowed to follow thru on his present plan.
I have voted for Governor Patrick in both his campaigns, and I have also written to him to express my strong opposition to gambling in the Commonwealth. I suspect that I am not his only supporter who is dismayed by his position on this counterproductive "revenue generator". Now that it appears that legalized gambling will soon be a reality in our state, every possible means to ensure transparency in its operation and oversight is not only warranted, it's mandatory. Governor, stop this nonsense immediately and support full and regular background record checks for any and all personnel involved in gaming oversight. Given the strong correlation between gambling and other addictions, drug screenings should also be mandatory, as they are for police officers and pilots and couriers in the private sector.
He knows that many of the hires that he has lined up couldn't pass the screening.
Of all the agencies in state government, one would think the Mass Gaming Commission would be high on the list for scrutiny of its potential employees. "Curious" is an understatement.
Moving Massachusetts into the world of casinos is a major part of Governor Deval Patrick’s legacy. With so much at stake for the state, and his own reputation on the line, the governor should do all he can to instill public confidence in those who play any role in policing the Bay State’s fledgling gambling industry.
Instead, Patrick is doing his curious best to undermine public confidence. Last week, he vetoed portions of a spending bill sent to him by the House and Senate, which would have required the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to conduct full criminal background checks and drug screenings on all future commission employees.
In a letter explaining his veto, Patrick said, “The highest levels of background checks and screening may not be necessary nor appropriate for every employee.” He said he is satisfied with current law, which gives the gaming commission the discretion to decide which hires require a full background check.
Ironically, Patrick’s veto came after the gaming commission’s first major hire resulted in a storm of controversy over a troubling lack of scrutiny. Commissioners appointed C. Stanley McGee, an assistant economic development secretary in the Patrick administration, as their interim executive director.
McGee ended up withdrawing from the position after critics — including child-protection advocates, state Representative Dan Winslow, and state Treasurer Steven Grossman — raised legitimate questions about his suitability for this highly sensitive position.
McGee has a stellar professional resume. He was a Rhodes Scholar and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. However, in 2007, he was arrested for an alleged sexual assault on a 15-year-old boy in the steam room of a Florida hotel. McGee was never charged, but settled a civil lawsuit with the boy’s family. When questions were first raised about McGee’s appointment, gaming commission chairman Stephen Crosby defended the decision, arguing that McGee was entitled to a presumption of innocence. Upset by those and other comments accusing the young man of making false charges, family members released the results of a 2008 investigation by Florida child welfare officials recommending that McGee be prosecuted.
A key issue in the controversy involved what kind of background check the commission conducted before hiring McGee. Ultimately, Crosby conceded that the commission relied solely on news accounts and never contacted any Florida investigators. McGee was said to be undergoing a State Police background check as a condition of his employment before he formally withdrew.
At a recent gaming commission hearing, members discussed the extensive background checks required of anyone applying for casino licenses. Applicants must meet the highest standards of character, honesty, and integrity. It seems only fair and logical that Patrick would want anyone working for the state gaming commission to meet the same criteria.
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/05/17/patrick-perplexing-veto-enables-lax-scrutiny-gambling-hires/YFYR3fKEqXxnBuSvJNEGLL/story.html
Comments:
Another example of a politician lowering standards for personal gain. Somehow there is personal gain involved. Imagine a governor not wanting full background checks on potential employees being considered to work in the lucrative" gambling industry. " With Ma.history of corrupt politicians always on the take It is risky to allow bad decisions, and probable outcomes to be left in the hands of inept politicians. Patrick, by his actions has already shown what is likely to happen if he is allowed to follow thru on his present plan.
I have voted for Governor Patrick in both his campaigns, and I have also written to him to express my strong opposition to gambling in the Commonwealth. I suspect that I am not his only supporter who is dismayed by his position on this counterproductive "revenue generator". Now that it appears that legalized gambling will soon be a reality in our state, every possible means to ensure transparency in its operation and oversight is not only warranted, it's mandatory. Governor, stop this nonsense immediately and support full and regular background record checks for any and all personnel involved in gaming oversight. Given the strong correlation between gambling and other addictions, drug screenings should also be mandatory, as they are for police officers and pilots and couriers in the private sector.
He knows that many of the hires that he has lined up couldn't pass the screening.
Of all the agencies in state government, one would think the Mass Gaming Commission would be high on the list for scrutiny of its potential employees. "Curious" is an understatement.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment