casinos

The debate about the transparency of the legislative process on Beacon Hill continues.  Lack of transparency was noted during this past year while the budget was being debated behind closed doors.  Our legislators said this process was necessary for the Senate and House to decide on a compromise bill.  Did the public really have a choice?  What about other major decisions?  What about public hearings, when the public testifies on the issues before the committee members...who aren't present (many times waiting 3-5 hours to speak in front of 2-3 committee members of perhaps a total of 14-17)? 

A survey by the Boston University State House program of 19 major legislative committees that shape and move legislation found this process increasingly takes place outside the public view.  [The Milford Daily News]

Among the findings:

• The staff for 15 of the committees polled said some voting is done through emails rather than in open executive sessions. The staff of 10 committees said the votes were not available to the public. State law requires that roll-call votes in executive sessions be recorded and made public. But committee rules do not address email voting.

• Minutes and other details of committee meetings were not available from 18 of the committees, according to their staff. State law does not require such documentation of legislative committees, although it is required by other Massachusetts commissions and boards.

• Among the lack of documentation are records of attendance by committee members. Observers say fewer committee members now show up for public hearings as the work of the committees takes place through phone discussion or email polls.

And here's more about legislative debate, in general: ...neutral observers such as [Michael] Widmer note a trend toward more control emanating from the offices of the House speaker and Senate president.

“I wouldn’t say that this session has had less debate than recent years, but part of the trend towards more power in the leadership has been less floor debate, particularly in the House,” said Widmer. “A lot of the debates are taking place in the legislative caucuses behind closed doors.”

The Commonwealth may perhaps do legislation better than some states, but we can clearly be more transparent and accountable to the public than we are currently.

Now that the casino legislation has passed through the State House and the Governor signed it, it's time for implementation...and there's lots of details to get right from the beginning.

The law also requires the state police to set up their own gaming enforcement unit. The as-yet-unnamed five-member Massachusetts Gaming Commission will help coordinate the policing units. The commission will have its own investigation and enforcement bureau with the power to issue subpoenas and refer cases for civil or criminal prosecution.

An anti-casino group led by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger has argued for even stronger centralized control, saying the fracturing of law enforcement oversight among multiple agencies creates a potential logistical and communications nightmare.

One of the more challenging tasks created by the casino law is enforcement of the state's liquor laws, in part because casinos will be able to serve free drinks on the gaming floors. No other business in the state is allowed to so serve free alcoholic drinks.  [Mass live.com]

Why always the last minute for very important decisions.  Human nature I think. Besides there may be new information coming in at the last minute and what is better: a closed mind already made up or an open mind able to adjust with new information?

with the usual Herald slant of making something out of nothing

Votes on casino gambling and several other high-profile bills are expected to go down to the wire in the final few days before lawmakers break for the year, three state representatives told the Herald yesterday.

Representatives have been told to “plan to stay late” Wednesday, the last day before they leave for the holidays.

The House is expected to take up congressional redistricting Tuesday, and pension reform, human trafficking and gambling Wednesday. Representatives also could call a rare Monday formal session.

We all should be asking the same questions that are in this opinion piece...why all the secrecy around the casino legislation.  Isn't it time for more transparency?  Isn't it time to break the mold on the tired response...'but we've always had closed door conference committee sessions'?

Besides, this is a matter of public interest, and there’s simply no good reason to hide it from the public. There are no national security considerations here. Conference committee members shouldn’t be making any deals in private they’d be ashamed to have made public. [Full Opinion: Enterprise news]

Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts , is doing great work that benefits all the people in MA, reminding us that we shouldn't just rubber stamp legislation proposed by elected and appointed officials.  We need to be confident that all elected and appointed officials are operating ethically and transparently.  It seems that Gregory Bialecki, secretary of housing and economic development, perhaps wasn't operating quite up to that standard...otherwise why would he feel the need to sell his casino stock after The Boston Globe questioned him - over one year after its purchase?  

Bialecki said the stocks were bought by a financial advisor in August 2010 without his knowledge. When he later learned of the purchases, Bialecki said, he did not think the holdings posed a problem because he didn’t pick the stocks ; they accounted for only a small percentage of his portfolio; and he doesn’t expect to award any of the casino licenses.  [Full Article: The Boston Globe]

Veddy Interesting article in the Metro West Daily News with the title Framingham could win big with Casino Amendment.

A diverse group of public education advocates are struggling with this one and the amendment is creating a suburban/urban split among the usual liberal suspects who have been concerned with the long underfunded education formula for a loooong time. .

Proponents of a Senate casino amendment that would distribute education funds to some wealthier Massachusetts towns and cities fended off criticism yesterday, saying the plan is only fulfilling goals made by the state in 2006.

That year, the state set a budget formula for all school districts to use, with the state hoping to provide at least 17.5 percent of the money needed to support the budgets. But the state has struggled to make those payments, with 158 of 326 communities considered underfunded this year, when the state came up $113 million short.

The state money was distributed based on need, meaning poor communities received more than cities and towns with higher property tax revenues.

The gambling bill amendment looks to counteract that. Called Strengthening our Schools, the amendment gives underfunded districts priority when the extra money from casino revenue is doled out.

Public schools are due to get 14 percent of casino revenue under the amendment filed by Sen. Katherine Clark, D-Melrose, which is now being considered by a conference committee since it was passed by the Senate but not voted on in the House.

"It's more a matter of equity," said Sen. Michael Moore, D-Millbury. "The communities who aren't receiving any additional aid aren't because they're already receiving the promised amount."

..............................The amendment's many co-sponsors included Sens. James Eldridge, D-Acton, and Karen Spilka, D-Ashland. "People need to be clear that this money would not be available until after the casinos are built and revenue is coming into the state, which would take several years," Spilka said.

The amendment passed, 34-4, in the Senate, with Sens. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, Sonia Chang-Diaz, D-Boston, and Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville, dissenting. "I hope that we will not be making educational policy in this forum," Jehlen said during debate on the amendment Oct. 11. "I ask that we refer this debate back to the Education Committee so we may do what's best for all of the children, not just what would benefit our particular communities."

The casino legislation is now in conference committee.  One point to reconcile is how to distribute some of these casino revenues to fund public education in communities throughout the Commonwealth.  It's important what the formula will be.

Both the House and Senate versions of the casino legislation would devote 14 percent of all casino taxes to schools. The House bill would distribute that money statewide, based on a formula Massachusetts uses in doling out money to cities and towns.

But a Senate amendment that was overwhelmingly approved last week would put a priority on distributing the casino money to 165 of the state’s 400 school districts that are considered underfunded, based on a plan the state passed five years ago to help suburban districts...Schools in some of the state’s wealthiest communities, including Wellesley, Lexington, and Dover, would get millions of dollars in casino money while some of the poorest districts, including Boston, Brockton, and Holyoke, would get nothing...  [Full Article: The Boston Globe]

We thought the Repbulicans especially did not approve of dany new taxes, and now they want to count casino revenues as taxes?  What next? Fishing fees?

As reported by by Channel 22 in Springfield.

Want to know how the House voted on the casino gambling bill on September 14, 2011?  Read this...

It’s not often that an elected official supports a measure that effectively strips their constituents of a say on an important issue. But that’s what eight Boston lawmakers did.  [Full Article:  CommonWealth Magazine]

It seems Massachusetts is at the middle of the pack, nationally, when it comes to taxes on casinos.  And, we're on the low end for the Northern states.  Why is the tax revenue aspect of the casino gambling bill not being debated in the House this week?  Is MA leaving money on the table?  What are the true reasons for allowing casino gambling in MA?

[Economic development secretary, Gregory P.]  ]Bialecki said the state must look at casinos primarily for their ability to create jobs and long-term economic development...Tax money has to be a secondary concern, he said, emphasizing the importance of debating the bill outside the pressures of budget season, when the need to plug short-term holes in spending could cloud discussion about economic development.  [Full Article: The Boston Globe]