Meetings & Information




*****************************
****************************************************
MUST READ:
GET THE FACTS!






Showing posts with label Open Meeting Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Open Meeting Laws. Show all posts

Thursday, January 7, 2016

MGM Springfield? Yeah! Right!



John P Epstein
MGM reveals new design for Springfield casino:

Slot machine revenues — the sweetest plum of them all — at Connecticut casinos continues on a downward trend. Both casinos reported taking in a ...
By 
Here are our greatest hits on the casino playlist this week:
Size Matters: It’s really happening, folks. In late December, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission signed off on the final state license MGM needs in order to begin knocking down buildings and starting construction in earnest. The redesigned casino project — which includes the elimination of a 25-story hotel tower in favor of a six-story high rise, among other concessions MGM says were caused by rising labor and construction costs — will add roughly $150 million to the price tag for this 14.5-acre entertainment complex, bumping it up from $800 million to $950 million. MGM has not disclosed any details about how, exactly, it will be using that extra money. Will the result be breath-taking? Maybe. So don’t hold your breath.




Just You N’ Me: What’s a commissioner gotta do to get a good lunch around here? Well, if you’re going to talk shop over sandwiches, turns out you have to invite the general public along for a bite of the action.


On Dec. 23, the state’s gaming commission received a letter from Amy Nable, assistant attorney general in Maura Healey’s office, stating that the commission had several times violated open meeting law by discussing operations and management of the agency at staff meetings and private lunches without opening the doors to the public. Topics of discussion, according to Nable’s investigation, included authorizing a report on licensing in the Greater Boston area, hiring a consultant, and the possible implications of a referendum banning gambling.
In a statement on Dec. 24, the commission says it plans to schedule a training session with the attorney general’s office. And a spokesperson for the commission stated that “the commissioners are unable to discuss the contents of the AG’s letter among themselves, but will place this important topic on the agenda for the next public meeting.” By jove, I think they’ve got it.
I Like Money! According to research by Forbes magazine, MGM Springfield is poised to generate $450 million in annual revenue off of the casino’s planned 3,600 slot machines and 140 gaming tables. That’s largely due to the fact that people in Masachusetts [sic] and Connecticut are loaded, apparently. They’re among the top three wealthiest states in the nation, with the Bay State’s per capita income more than $8,000 higher than the U.S. average. After taxes, interest, depreciation, etc., Forbes says MGM Springfield will make an estimated $100 million in annual profit.

Overstated projections in an Over saturated Market! 
Don't BET on it! 



Easy Come, Easy Go: MGM Springfield, however, shouldn’t start spending that $100 million before they get it. Slot machine revenues — the sweetest plum of them all — at Connecticut casinos continues on a downward trend. Both casinos reported taking in a couple million less from slot jockeys in October and November. MGM derives 65 percent of its revenue from slot machines, according to Forbes.•
What fates impose, that MGM must needs abide? Send your predictions tohstyles@valleyadvocate.com.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Gaming Commission playing games with open meeting rules






Herald: Gaming Commission meets behind close doors regularly
The Boston Herald reports the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has spent more than 100 hours in meetings that were kept from the public. "A Herald review of more than 1,000 pages of the commissioners' individual public calendars dating back to 2012 uncovered questionable ways the commission has been able to meet in full, despite the strict requirements of the state's Open Meeting Law preventing 'deliberation' in private," writes Chris Cassidy of the Boston Herald. Some of that time is spent at weekly "commissioners' lunches" where no records are kept on the topics.
http://bit.ly/1RfHS2g


Gaming Commission playing games with open meeting rules





Photo by: 

Ted Fitzgerald
PRIVATE EYES: Gaming commissioner Bruce Stebbins had a calendar entry suggesting some ‘deliberation’ was done in private.





By:


The state’s Gaming Commission has spent more than 100 hours in secret meetings that were off-limits to the public — including “agenda-planning” sessions, weekly “commissioners’ lunches,” and at least one 90-minute conference with the gambling industry’s former top lobbyist, a Herald record review found.
A Herald review of more than 1,000 pages of the commissioners’ individual public calendars dating back to 2012 uncovered questionable ways the commission has been able to meet in full, despite the strict requirements of the state’s Open Meeting Law preventing “deliberation” in private.
Weekly “commissioners’ lunches” inside the body’s downtown Boston office — lasting between one and two hours — began in July 2013 and are still held each Wednesday. No records are kept on the topics, and the lunches are closed to the public, according to spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll.
“Commissioners discuss social matters, organizational structure and morale,” Driscoll said. “The commissioners do not discuss any matter that constitutes public business within the jurisdiction of the commission.”
But former Inspector General Greg Sullivan of the Pioneer Institute said he found that hard to believe.
“You can only talk about Tom Brady and ‘Deflategate’ for so long,” Sullivan told the Herald. “Eventually, the conversation probably drifts around to the subject of Massachusetts gaming.”
At least one commissioners’ lunch even featured a special guest — Frank Fahrenkopf, who had stepped down as president of the American Gaming Association one year before he met for 90 minutes with the MGC on Oct. 22, 2014.
Asked why that meeting had to be conducted in private, Driscoll said it was a “training session,” which is allowed under the Open Meeting Law, “to provide his perspective ... on the overall international status of the gaming and racing industry.”
The MGC also holds private “agenda-planning meetings” for up to two hours every other Wednesday.
They often immediately follow the lunches, putting the commission in combined private meetings together for nearly four hours at a time.
Driscoll said commissioners don’t deliberate during the “agenda-planning meetings,” which are also attended by director-level staffers, but “discuss the upcoming public meeting agenda” and materials needed for commissioners’ packets before the public meeting the following week.
Driscoll provided the Herald with a sample “draft agenda” and a “to-do list” that helps staff compile the agenda.
While the commission insists deliberations are conducted and decisions are made only in public meetings, Commissioner Bruce Stebbins had a one-hour entry on his calendar on Sept. 17, 2014 — the day after the Commission awarded a casino license to Wynn Resorts — with the subject line “Conference Call — MGC.”
“I was hoping we could strategize and discuss some critical topics in light of yesterday’s license decision,” Stebbins’ entry stated.
Driscoll told the Herald: “Commissioner Stebbins cannot recall if that conference call actually happened.”
She said “his intent was to have an agenda-setting conversation” with staff and “possibly” Commissioner Gayle Cameron about the future of racing and the employees at losing bidder Suffolk Downs.
The MGC also held a few “commissioner dinners” in late 2012 and early 2013, the calendars show.
Sullivan told the Herald the Gaming Commission’s structure — where the commissioners all work out of the same office — is a problem.
“It’s vulnerable to violations of the Open Meeting Law because of the design of the agency and the decisions the Legislature made,” said Sullivan. “It’s an inherently problematic situation because of the extremely unusual arrangement whereby the commissioners are full-time employees that work in the same building.”
Some of the datebook information the Herald requested could not be produced.
Stebbins’ calendar from March 2012 through the end of 2013 was “unavailable due to technical issues caused by his BlackBerry,” the MGC told the Herald.
Driscoll insisted the commission has acted within the law and has held 156 public meetings since 2012 — all of which require prep work.
“The commissioners never discuss or deliberate on any matter of public business which is, has or could be before the commission,” Driscoll said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/07/gaming_commission_playing_games_with_open_meeting_rules



Thursday, June 20, 2013

Plainville: Violating Open Meeting Law....Again...

Was this delliberate to exclude the public? Simply NO EXCUSE!  

Letter in response to the story (below):

To the Editors:

Imagine my surprise to find out that there was a Plainville gambling consultant's forum on Wednesday night! I had been carefully watching the town website and the town's Posted Meetings page for any mention of the meeting, as I was not certain the meeting had been definitely set for that night. But there was nothing there. It's not even mentioned on the Gaming Consultants Report page.

I happen to be one of the people in town who IS paying attention to the question of slots in Plainville. To have held this forum without ANY mention of it on the town website is unconscionable, and I believe they should hold another one, this time with plenty of notice.

Really, Joe (Fernandes), how much effort does it take to walk the ten feet to the Town Clerk's office and ask her to post it on the website? But, I guess if it's not publicized, there's less chance anyone will express opposition. Shame on the town administrator and the board of selectmen for holding a so-called public forum without public notice.

Mary-Ann Greanier

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/bruins-win-out-over-slots/article_c51754d5-ac6f-5f22-ba08-7df943244020.html
 
 
 



Follow-up - Forum was on the Town website:

I just sent this to the Sun Chronicle:

Apparently the Plainville Gambling Consultants forum was posted on the Plainville website in the "News and Announcements" section — not a place any of us thought to look for a posted meeting. Still, it was buried in the website, and so I stand corrected. You should disregard my previous letter to the editor.

Thanks.

Mary-Ann Greanier

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Search for state gaming chief comes down to lone finalist

Does anyone remember the Beacon Hill was asked to do an INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS?

Does anyone remember when Governor Slot Barns Patrick agreed to an INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS and developed amnesia after his  re-election?

Wait until you see how much political hacks cost Massachusetts taxpayers...and this in only the beginning.


Search for state gaming chief comes down to lone finalist


 
A man who has held the top job for Washington state's gambling industry for the past 12 years will be interviewed Thursday for the chance to become the first executive director of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
 
Rick Day, executive director of the Washington State Gambling Commission, was selected as the lone finalist for the job by Commissioner Bruce Stebbins. Day has 30 years of experience in law enforcement, according to a commission statement.
 
Day has helped negotiate tribal-state compacts in Washington where there are 28 Indian casinos operating, experience that could come in handy as the Massachusetts commission considers the viability of a Mashpee Wampanoag casino in Taunton.


In the history books, was Washington State ever considered one of the original 13 Colonies?

The Original 13 Colonies are different according the federal statute which is why the Aquinnah are 'different.' Wonder why folks can't do their legal homework?

 
In mid-March, the gaming commission is scheduled to re-evaluate the tribe's chances to get its casino bid on track. The tribe still has several federal hurdles to overcome, and developers and some politicians have urged the commission to open Southeastern Massachusetts to commercial bids.
 
Washington also has 58 commercial card rooms, which are sometimes referred to as mini-casinos, Susan Newer, a spokeswoman for the Washington commission, said.
 
Day was picked from among 100 applicants to lead the fledgling agency, commission spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said in an email.
 
Several other potential finalists dropped out of the field, Driscoll said.
 
"Each withdrew before reaching that point in the process for their own personal reasons, citing inability to relocate or a hesitance to go through the public process," she wrote.
 
In January, commission Chairman Stephen Crosby announced that several finalists had been identified and were undergoing background checks. After the meeting, when the Times requested a list of finalists, the commission issued a statement refusing to release the names and saying that the candidates were not yet considered finalists.
 
Under the state's open meeting and public records laws, finalists for public jobs are considered public record. The Times has appealed the commission's decision to withhold the names, which is currently under review by the state supervisor of public records.
 
Before he joined the Washington commission, Day was director of Montana's Department of Corrections for five years. He was also the former bureau chief for the gambling control division for the Department of Justice in Montana for two years. He is also a former police officer.
 
Day is scheduled to be interviewed Thursday during the commission's public meeting. The meeting is broadcast live on the commission's website at www.mass.gov/gaming.
 
 

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Thugs at Massachusetts Gam[bl]ing Commission?



The Massachusetts Gambling Commission evicted a member of the public from a 'Press Conference.'

Why???




Since Chariman Stephen P. Crosby seem never at a loss for words, what say you?

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Gaming panel withholds names of contenders for top post



Gaming panel withholds names of contenders for top post
 
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is moving closer to choosing an executive director, but for now the names of the candidates are being kept secret from the public.
 
"We have our finalists for executive director in background checks right now," Chairman Stephen Crosby said during the commission's Thursday meeting. "We will be bringing them in for public interviews as soon as we have background checks done."
 
In the Bay State, names of job finalists for municipal and state posts are a matter of public record.
 
"Once finalists have been selected and forwarded to the governing body for its consideration, their identity is a matter of public record," according to the Massachusetts Recruitment Guidelines Handbook, published by the Massachusetts Municipal Management Association and the International City/County Management Association.
 
After the meeting, commission spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll refused to release the names of the finalists or their resumes, saying in an email they will be kept private until the background checks are completed. Later, she followed up with an email saying the candidates are not yet considered finalists, even though that's what Crosby called them during the meeting.
 
"Chairman Crosby is enthusiastic about the progress being made in the commission's important search for an executive director," she wrote. "Potential candidates are not yet considered finalists. It is a misstatement to characterize potential candidates as finalists at this time. Background checks are a necessary prequalifier to determine if a potential candidate will advance to becoming a finalist. The commission looks forward to sharing that information when available."
 
She declined to say under what exemption of state public records and open meeting laws the names are being withheld.
 
The gaming commission, as a public entity, operates under the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.
 
The Times is appealing the commission's decision to withhold the candidates' names with the state's public records division.
 
The commission also announced Thursday that two potential developers turned in the necessary paperwork to begin initial background checks. They are among three companies that have paid the $400,000 application fee and submitted supplementary materials.
 
As many as seven other companies have requested detailed information and could still apply for the preapproval process by the Jan. 15 deadline, Driscoll said in an email, although one of those companies has already bowed out of contention.
 
As for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Southeastern Massachusetts, neither was mentioned during the board's first meeting of the new year. KG Urban Enterprises, a developer hoping to build a New Bedford casino, had issued a plea for the commission to reconsider a decision to give the tribe three more months to clear some of its federal hurdles for an Indian casino in Taunton.
 
 

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Backroom Deals Again for Kraft



Krafts, Foxborough in talks as rift cools

Friday, August 17, 2012

State board tours Raynham Park & Violates Intent?


Where was on-site inspection ever publicly disclosed???

Isn't it bad enough that members of the Gam[bl]ing Commission speak at fund-raisers that exclude the public and the media and are not publicly disclosed? 




Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Guide

What meetings are covered by the Open Meeting Law?
With certain exceptions, all meetings of a public body must be open to the public. A meeting is generally defined as "a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body's jurisdiction." As explained more fully below, a deliberation is a communication between or among members of a public body.
These four questions will help determine whether a communication constitutes a meeting subject to the law:
1) is the communication between members of a public body;
2) does the communication constitute a deliberation;
3) does the communication involve a matter within the body's jurisdiction; and
4) does the communication fall within an exception listed in the law.
What are the exceptions to the definition of a meeting?
There are five exceptions to the definition of a meeting under the Open Meeting Law.
  1. Members of a public body may conduct an on-site inspection of a project or program; however, they cannot deliberate at such gatherings;
  2. Members of a public body may attend a conference, training program or event; however, they cannot deliberate at such gatherings;
  3. Members of a public body may attend a meeting of another public body provided that they communicate only by open participation; however, they cannot deliberate at such gatherings;

Response from the MGC:
Thank you for your comment. As you pointed out, a site visit is allowed under the Open Meeting Law. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is now the regulatory authority for the state’s horse racing industry. As a result, it is critical for gaming commissioners to have a thorough understanding of racetrack operations, hence the educational visit. MGC did highlight the visit in advance on both MGC’s Facebook page and Twitter account. We will also consider including a website announcement for future visits.
Sincerely,
MGC

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission
84 State St., Suite 720
Boston, MA 02109
(p) 617-979-8400
(f) 617-979-0258
For the latest news and updates, please visit MGC at:

State board tours Raynham Park

Raynham Park owner hopes to land slots parlor



By Gerry Tuoti
Posted Aug 17, 2012


nt raynham slots1.jpg
Mike Gay/Taunton Gazette

State Gaming Commissioners Gayle Cameron, from left, Enrique Zuniga and Chairman Stephen Crosby tour the Raynham Park with owner George Carney.




Although Raynham Park owner George Carney has made it no secret that he plans to pursue the lone slots parlor license in the state, members of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission insist their visit to the former greyhound track is not linked to such a bid.

The commission, which assumed authority over the horse racing industry in Massachusetts on May 20, visited Raynham Park and the Plainridge Racecourse on Thursday. It is scheduled to make a stop Wednesday at Suffolk Downs.

“We don’t really have an agenda,” Gaming Commissioner Stephen Crosby told Carney and track management. “We’ve been doing racing for two or three months. We thought we should at least visit and see what’s going on.”

Since a statewide ban on live dog racing went into effect Jan. 1, 2010, Raynham Park has continued to operate a betting parlor where patrons can wager money on simulcast horse races from across the country.

Carney said the facility has contributed more than $8.7 million to the state over that span, $4.8 million of which is from Lottery sales.

Earlier this year, the commission hired consultants to conduct an independent comprehensive review of the regulatory system for the Massachusetts racing industry, including simulcast wagering. Under the expanded gambling law, a portion of casino and slot revenue is slated to go into a fund to enhance purses from local horse races.  [Taxpayer subsidies to a dead industry.]

During the midday tour of the Raynham facility, park managers led the commission members through the betting parlor, empty function rooms and the printing facility where betting programs are produced.

“As a simulcast facility, it’s a clean, professional, quality facility,” Crosby said.

Crosby declined to comment on the suitability of the 120-acre Raynham site as a potential slots parlor venue. Aside from questions from the press, the topic of slot machines wasn’t raised during the commission’s trip to Raynham.

Under a law passed last year, the state can authorize up to three casinos and one slots parlor in Massachusetts.

Like Carney, Plainridge owner Gary Piontkowski has also expressed interest in running the state’s only slots parlor.

Carney, when asked about his plans for a slots parlor, declined to discuss revenue projections and said little about funding, but insisted that the potential investors he’s lining up would have no problem meeting the minimum $125 million investment and $25 million license fee.

“We’re doing business with people, and that is not an issue,” he said, while declining to identify his potential investors.


His vision for a slots parlor includes a hotel, a movie theater, a bowling alley and a simulcast betting parlor.

He also hopes to benefit from the proposed South Coast Rail expansion, which could bring a train station to the area.

If Carney were to be successful in building a slots parlor, he would face the prospect of running the establishment one town away from Taunton, where the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe is seeking to build a full casino.

Carney, who got his start at the former dog track at age 14 and has worked in the industry for 70 years, said he welcomes competition.

“We found out the best thing for a successful business is to have successful competition,” he said.

“Therefore, you have to be on top of your game seven days a week.”


Read more: http://www.enterprisenews.com/features/x186673927/State-board-tours-former-Raynham-dog-track#ixzz23noPzn00

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Town of Mashpee Finally Wakes Up



Mashpee land deal worries town

Top Photo
 
Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell, left, and Medicine Man Earl Cash Jr. lead the Grand Entry dance at the 89th Mashpee Wampanoag Powwow in 2010.Cape Cod Times File/Steve Heaslip

MASHPEE – Town and Mashpee Wampanoag leaders will sit down Friday morning to talk about a clause in the tribal-state gaming compact that has some in town on edge.

The deal negotiated between Gov. Deval Patrick and Mashpee Wampanoag leaders, which is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate today, includes a provision in which the state agrees to help the tribe settle claims to public lands in and around Mashpee.

Tribal leaders have said they are eyeing town and state land, though they haven't specified any locations. In a previous interview, tribal council Vice Chairman Aaron Tobey Jr. said beaches such as South Cape Beach could be in play.

The tribe is already seeking to have the federal government take the 170 acres it owns in Mashpee into federal trust for an initial reservation. The town owns 3,051 acres, and the state holds 1,189 acres in Mashpee, 2012 assessors records state.

Patrick Costello, the town's attorney, said he is “perplexed” by Patrick's agreement to help the tribe with land claims in Mashpee given an agreement the tribe reached with the town in 2008.

The town's position, Costello said, is it has a legally binding agreement with the tribe – voted on by both town meeting and the tribal body – that deeded certain lands to the tribe in exchange for the tribe not seeking a casino in Mashpee.

“I'm quite surprised by the comments I'm hearing,” Costello said. “The town has not been contacted by the tribe or the commonwealth. ... We are hearing things secondhand.”

Tuesday night, tribe Chairman Cedric Cromwell declined to answer specific questions, saying he wants the opportunity to sit down with town officials first.

“It's only fair, and it's very important that I speak with the town of Mashpee first. I have to be respectful of that, so I can't comment to any of those things at this time,” Cromwell said about whether the tribe was attempting to reopen negotiations with the town. “It's very important that the tribe and Mashpee sit down. We'll have a meeting in the very near future, sit down and talk about many things.”

Michael Richardson, chairman of the board of selectmen, said the meeting Friday will likely include representatives from the tribe; an attorney who has been representing the town in Washington, D.C.; Costello; Town Manager Joyce Mason; Selectman Wayne Taylor; and Selectman John Cahalane, who is the board's liaison to the tribe.

The meeting is not a posted public meeting and will be held behind closed doors.
“It's a really complicated issue, and we don't have all the information we should have,” Richardson said.

Selectmen hope the meeting will be a chance to “sit down and go back and forth across the table” and hopefully figure out a good way to work through the tribe's requests, Richardson said.

“We've had a long-term good relationship with them, and I think no matter what happens we want to keep it that way,” he said.




The agreement between the tribe and the town was reached by a previous administration of the Mashpee Wampanoag. Cromwell was on the council at the time but abstained from the vote, and Tobey, who was also on the council, voted against the deal.

“The tribe is a government body just like the town is,” Costello said. “Individual board members and tribe members can have their personal opinions, and that's their right, but the only thing that can be binding are the votes of their executive and legislative bodies.”
The agreement gives the town the authority to take the tribe to arbitration if it feels the tribe is violating provisions of the pact, Costello said.