Deval’s Sleazy Casino Power Grab

Here’s a subject local talk radio should be jumping all over today: Deval Patrick’s sleazy “gaming” (a casino industry code word for “gambling”) power grab.

According to today’s Globe, the governor intends to create a crony-filled “gaming” authority stuffed with two elected officials and five pals.

Clearly, he’s taking advantage of the Bay State’s lack of experience with gambling issues to create an agency that reports only to him. This represents instant corruption for Massachusetts and why somewhere in It-lee, Ireland or Thailand, Whitey Bulger is probably salivating.

Consider this: his new Massachusetts Gaming Control Authority would carry a dual function- the issuance of licenses as well as regulating casinos, once operational.

From the Globe’s coverage:

The authority would have broad powers to set up the license auction process and evaluate and choose the winning bidders. After the casinos begin operating, the authority would collect and distribute the state’s share of gambling proceeds, monitor the conduct of casino operators, and perform annual audits. The authority’s operating budget would be funded through a fee on each of a casino’s slot machines or gaming tables.

That’s right: Deval’s own friends will be overseeing casinos on a day-to-day basis! How creepy is that?

Do keep in mind this second task is a function of law enforcement, that means Deval’s moving toward taking control over future agents who will carry badges.

Because this just didn’t seem possible, I checked the wording in the Herald’s coverage, which turns out to match the Globe’s interpretation of Patrick’s plan:

The casinos would be overseen by the seven-member gaming board, as well as a 12-member advisory committee to be composed of officials in the governor’s administration and other groups.

By contrast, in Nevada (which has a century of experience to draw from in this area), the Gaming Commission and Gaming Control Board are two separate and quite independent bodies: the former oversees state gaming policy and individual licenses, while the latter functions as the enforcement arm and employs agents that carry badges.

The Gaming Control Board also handles audits and more mundane administrative matters.

Unlike Patrick’s fishy plan, there are NO elected officials anywhere near either Nevada agency, though members are appointed by that state’s governor.

I think the key difference is that Nevada’s casinos are already well- established and the local industry quite mature, so even if its governor does appoint cronies, opportunities to grab power are limited.

In addition, the local news media has reporters who specialize in covering the subject and the university system even has a gaming studies department. Many Nevadans work in the industry and follow regulatory developments. As a result, the system is more transparent.

By contrast, Massachusetts is new to the process and has not even granted licenses to build casinos, much less oversee their operations. While Nevada has issued thousands of gaming permits, here, only three will be handed out. Giving Patrick complete power over a tiny, fledgling industry is dangerous.

In my experience from having lived there, the Gaming Control Board is seen as the more important body, as it is responsible for ensuring that Nevada casinos aren’t cheating patrons. That even includes inspections of internal circuit boards in slot and video poker machines.

And the enforcement division creates public visibility as patrons are occasionally barred from casinos.

Patrick’s second proposed body, a 12-member “advisory committee”, appears easy to dismiss as a nod to various political interests rather than a group with any real power.

Dan Kennedy has his take here.

Bay Staters should watch Patrick’s moves closely on this issue before we wake up one day to find he’s added “casino mogul” to his job title.

And for local talk show hosts, here’s a thought: instead of filling airtime with mindless “whadda-you-think?” philosophy questions, why not do some digging into Patrick’s real intentions on the gambling issue?