Rep. John Sytek: Reply to Al Kirkland on SB 152

In response to a comment from Salem Patch user Al Kirkland, listed below:

 

No offense, John, but this article is full of crap. You and your wife have and never will support expanded gaming. Tell me one bill that either of you have supported in the last 20 years that involves expanded gaming.

Because (as you say) a casino is such a big issue to Salem, why haven't you worked hard to either craft a big that's a win-win for Salem or offered to write an amendment to the current SB-152? That's right - you're against gaming no matter what. You can say whatever you like, but your past actions speak louder than your words.

There are amendments to the bills that will be voted on tomorrow (assuming that the ITL motion isn't approved) that address many of the issues that you bring up, including the requirement of a higher investment by the casino developer.

You also don't appear to be that concerned about the charities because you don't appear to care about what will happen to them once the Massachusetts casinos are up and running!

You are an example of one of those extremely intelligent guys with absolutely ZERO common sense.

Mr. Kirkland:  

There are some inaccuracies in your post that are worth commenting on. While I don't know you, I thank you for your substantive remarks and for standing up by using your name.  

Have I ever supported gaming? you ask. Here are two examples in the past two years. In this session, HB 459 would have raised the maximum poker stakes from $4 to $6. I announced that I would vote for this bill but it was "retained" by the Ways And Means Committee in February. That means they want to study it over the summer. I don't know whether that qualifies for supporting gaming in your mind.  

None of the 18 amendments (more coming) address the major concern - effective regulation - that I have concerning this bill. I'm sorry if you do not believe me, but I would support the bill otherwise. I mentioned other downsides to expanded gaming but I can live with all the others. After all, 81% is an impressive number but no number will permit me to vote for a bill with such a hodge-podge of uncoordinated enforcement. Depending on the amendment, there are at least 4 agencies sharing enforcement responsibilities. That doesn't make sense and invites real problems. 

So, you have challenged me to come up with an effective regulatory mechanism. Well, that brings me to my second support for gaming. Last session HB-1 (the budget) set up the “Gaming Regulatory Oversight Authority” which was tasked with setting up an appropriate regulatory structure. I voted for this bill. This committee voted $40K to hire a consultant. However, the Governor’s Council, which must approve all state contracts, refused to award the contract and the initiative was effectively stalled.  

About charity games. You could not possibly be more off base when you accuse me of no interest. I work charity games for two Salem organizations. A casino anywhere near here would end, destroy, charitable games. In fact, that's one of my real concerns.  

Here's what would happen. After the casino opens, charities would continue to run their games –undoubtedly at an off-site location. Who would go to charity games when there's a real casino nearby? There'd be some folks who might like, maybe, lower pressure or the atmosphere in general. But not many. We workers from the charities would be looking at largely empty tables. At the end of the year, the operator would give us a check for the difference since we're held harmless. Ask yourself: how long would that go on? In a couple of years, the operator would march to Concord, to a new legislature with new people, and say, look, this isn't working out. We thought it would be a good idea but, so few people are going, how about we phase it out? You don't need a crystal ball to see this - this is common sense, not brains.  

By now, you know that the House rejected the casino by a 35 vote margin. By the way, during the debate, I realized I hadn’t mentioned a significant point to you. Millennium, the operator hoping to open a Salem casino, operates the Meadows in Pennsylvania. Millennium pays a 55% tax to Pennsylvania but the bill voted on today was taxing Millennium at 30%. Could we be seeing the unhealthy influence on the legislature already? 

I spoke with several other Reps after the vote. I found that many of them shared my concern about lack of credible regulation and, like me, could not vote for the bill for that reason. According to the bill, three inexperienced part-time commissioners would have the lead responsibility for regulating a business that could conceivably have a gross take of $5B. 

I’d like to mention that I’ve lived in Salem over 40 years. I’ve taught at SHS for nearly 20 years and, in retirement, still teach one course. You may not agree with me on the issue. I understand that but it is unthinkable that I would not act in the best interests of the Town of Salem and the State of New Hampshire as best as I could determine them.