Commentary from Vince Carocci

SLOW LEARNERS TO SAY THE LEAST

November 2006

By VINCENT P. CAROCCI

When, if ever, will they learn? The Pennsylvania General Assembly, that is. One would have thought in the wake of the upheaval wrought in the 2005 and 2006 election cycles by electorate anger over last year’s infamous pay raise fiasco— 1 Supreme Court justice rejected, another only narrowly retained on the bench, and 50 newly elected legislators (20 per cent of the entire membership)—that our legislators would have found reason to mend their ways more than just a little bit. Apparently not, however.

Exhibit A: An 11^th hour legislative enactment of a measure that will permit newly licensed gambling parlors across the Commonwealth to serve unlimited free drinks to their patrons while they searched for a quick hit and easy money from their favorite slot machine.

Put aside for the moment the serious economic and social consequences, pro and con, to the legislation itself. Rather, focus on how the legislation was brought with little advance notice to the floor of both the House and Senate shortly before each chamber adjourned for the year; and how that measured up to the principle of transparent legislating promised by the legislative leadership in advance of what was supposed be an abbreviated, non-controversial post-election wind-up to the 2005-06 legislative biennium.

Advocates, including Governor Rendell as he signed the bill, insist this was no stealth action on the part of the General Assembly or the Administration since the proposal was an original component of early expanded gambling legislation debated over a year ago but dropped before the final version received legislative approval.

Organizations which monitor such matters very closely, however—particularly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving—insist they were caught completely off guard when the issue surfaced as it did shortly before sine die adjournment. Additionally, no media accounts of the pending legislative agenda for the post-election session made mention of free liquor at the casinos as an issue that would be raised before the final gavel was pounded. The preponderance of evidence on the record quite clearly sides with the latter notion rather than the former, the governor’s protestations not withstanding.

As to the issue itself…well, the consequences of on-the house-drinks at gambling casinos pose some very serious public policy concerns. One, obviously, would be the potential for increased cases of driving under the influence and the havoc that could cause on public safety. There also is the matter of what effect unlimited access to alcohol might or might not have on a patron’s disposition to gamble more or less of his or her money on his or her visits, frequent or otherwise, to the casinos.

No matter where you come down personally on the question, there can be little doubt the issue merited more than fleeting, almost surreptitious consideration in both chambers of the General Assembly. It didn’t get it from the legislature this month; it didn’t get it from the Governor. When it did get it over a year ago, it was dropped from the final version. That tells you something.

The outrage the since repealed pay raise generated among the electorate this past Spring and Fall made for repeated pledges, apparently offered in all sincerity, from the legislative leadership for a short, tidy, businesslike post-election gathering of the General Assembly. It was short, it was tidy, it was businesslike. But on the most serious question to be raised in the proceedings, it was business as usual.

“It did not jibe with the spirit of those who want a more open and transparent (legislative) process,” observed Matt Brouillette, president of the Harrisburg-based conservative policy think tank, the Commonwealth Foundation.

“Apparently, we don’t have to worry about these guys stealing our political reform platform,” added Eric Epstein, a reform advocate from the opposite end of the political spectrum as that of Brouillette.

And from the General Assembly, this from Senator Pat Vance (R-Cumberland), an opponent of the proposal: “If one wants to rehabilitate the image of the Legislature, that’s a very poor way to do it.”

Agreed on all counts.

The message for concerned Pennsylvanians to be take from the episode: Talk about reform, transparency, and legislative service in the public interest sounds good and comes easy when members feel the heat from an aroused electorate. But when push comes to shove, as it did over free liquor at the casinos, none of the talk should be over-valued. The influence special interests exert on the processes of governing—and for certain, the interests had to work this one hard and quietly in the legislative and executive corridors for it to happen when and in the way it did—can never be minimized. Unfortunately, that’s the most important lesson to be learned—alas, once again-- from this case.

# # # # #