Columnist Jeff German: Federal gaming panel’s fairness questioned again

Tuesday, Oct. 6, 1998 | 11:33 a.m.

HER WORDS WERE loud and clear 14 months ago when the National Gambling Impact Study Commission met in Washington to discuss how to conduct its business.

Kay James, the conservative Virginia college administrator who chairs the nine-member federal panel, weighed in on the side of proceeding in an open fashion.

"It is very important to me as chairman to protect the right of the public to know and to participate," James told her colleagues at an Aug. 19, 1997, hearing at the famed Watergate Hotel.

The next day, as the hearing continued, James drove home her point.

"I've always found it to be beneficial to be as inclusive and open to the public as possible," she said. "After all, we are debating issues that will ultimately be decided by the American people."

No wonder, when the panel's research subcommittee conducted a secret meeting in Denver last week, there were protests from coast to coast.

The subcommittee, chaired by Commissioner Leo McCarthy of California, met to decide the best way to survey those who gamble and whether they have an addiction. It has been a contentious subject for the panel.

On Capitol Hill, where the historic gambling commission was created two years ago, members of Nevada's congressional delegation bent on protecting the rights of the casino industry were quick to condemn the subcommittee's closed-door session.

Even before the meeting took place, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., wrote James to tell her that the subcommittee was dead wrong to conduct its business in secret.

"Taxpayers paid for this meeting, and they deserve to know what is taking place," Gibbons said.

The day after the meeting, Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., wrote James to remind her of her words 14 months ago.

"I know you have said the commission will operate in an atmosphere of full public participation and accessibility," Bryan said. "This appears to be a direct contradiction of the policies previously followed by this subcommittee ..."

Bryan said he hoped it was not a sign of things to come from the commission, as it prepares to deliver its findings to Congress in June.

On Monday, Tim Kelly, the commission's executive director, described the Denver meeting as a "rarity," and he reassured Bryan and Gibbons that closed sessions will not be a regular practice in the future.

"I think people are making too much of it," he said.

Still, the Denver meeting renewed concerns that the commission under the leadership of James, who some have called a gaming skeptic, has not been playing fair with the industry.

Last week, those fears hit close to home, when the first draft of next month's Las Vegas agenda was circulated.

Incredibly, there was no time set aside for the congressional delegation to address the commission.

Even more amazing, there was no opportunity for the casino industry to point out its economic successes in Las Vegas.

Industry insiders called the first draft a joke.

Some said it went as far as snubbing the efforts of Gov. Bob Miller, who has formed a 54-member committee to help the commission prepare for its Las Vegas visit.

Conceivably, all six panels tentatively scheduled next month could be used by the industry's critics to bring out the negative aspects of gambling here.

On Nov. 10, the first day of the hearing, the commission has scheduled expert panels on sports betting and neighborhood gambling, both of which have become controversial subjects.

The next day the commission is expected to hear testimony on other troubling issues; youth gambling, the use of slot clubs and player cards to lure patrons to casinos, the availability of ATM machines along the Strip, and the relationship between Las Vegas and the millions of tourists who come here from Southern California each year.

Kelly on Monday warned the commission's critics that the process of determining the final agenda was far from over.

"It's really not final at all," he said. "This in no way means there are not going to be other options and possibilities available."

True.

But unless the powers in Nevada remind Kelly about those options in a more persuasive manner, the thought of holding future commission meetings behind closed doors may not sound so bad.