Verizon Protection Amendment In Limbo

Since no gambling amendments were brought forward to be voted on, we didn't get a sense of how Manchester Represenative/Alderman Pat Long's Verizon Protection Amendment would have fared.

The amendment would have blocked any casino from building an entertainment venue (that is to say concert hall) with more than 1500 seats. 

Sources tell me that it was not one of the 18 amendments presented this morning, but it was included in one of the omnibus amendments proposed.  The omnibus amendments were never voted on by any of the full subcommittees either, so the Long plan appears to be in legislative limbo.

Since House rules prevent mention of any amendments as long as the pending motion is Inexpedient To Legislate and since I expect the ITL motion to carry, we will most likely never hear of the Long/Verizon Protection Plan on the House floor.

My guess is that even though Verizon would thus be in jeopardy if SB152 passes, a majority of Manchester Democrats will still vote for the gambling bill; never underestimate the desire of Manchester Democrats to put their governor ahead of their city!

Speaking of Manchester Democrats, SB152 sponsor Lou D’Allesandro, whose previous gambling bills allowed the state to keep up to 55 percent of revenues unlike the 30 percent with this bill, slipped into the committee room and was sitting at the press table during the 23-22 vote to ITL his bill.

From 55 percent for the state in 2004 to a mere 30 percent this year, to quote Howard Cossell, "Who would have believed it?!"

Super Committee Strikes Down Gambling 23-22

Pro gambling lobbyists are already spinning the closeness of the recommendation (23-22) to kill the Senate gambling bill (SB152) as good news, but there's no way of judging how many votes were simply procedural rather than in favor of gambling.

At least three or four members of the committee seemed to be against the gambling bill, but were voting against the ITL (kill) motion as a protest against not being allowed to vote on one of all of 18 amendments which were on their desks this morning.

As Chairman of the committee, Mary Jane Wallner made the decision to accept the ITL motion from Rep. Patricia Lovejoy, of Stratham, seconded by Rep. John Kelley, of Nashua.

The first indication that the vote would be closer than expected was when Hudson Republican Jordan Ulery, who earlier told me he was against the bill, voted against the ITL motion because he wanted to consider the amendments first.

In other work, the bill conceivably would have failed by more than the one vote margin had the chair allowed the amendments to be voted on first.

We'll never know, but there were a few surprises.

Dan Eaton, of Stoddard, whom I had as undecided, voted for the ITL.

Bill Hatch, of Gorham, whom I had as leaning against gambling, voted against ITL.

Despite heavy pressure from Democratic leadership, Susan Ford, of Sugar Hill, voted for ITL. 

Despite heavy pressure from some in Salem, Marilinda Garcia voted in favor of ITL.

Three Ways and Means freshmen Democrats chose to side with their governor rather than their committee chair (Susan Almy).  Voting against ITL were Richard Ames and Harry Young, both from Jaffrey, and David Karrick, of Warner.  I'll be sure to change them in my overall total listings, but be aware, others are changing the other way as well.

Ways and Means members appeared to be split 10-10 on the motion which means Finance members must have been 13-12 in favor of the ITL motion.

Others can run the numbers, but there appears to be real evidence that first termers were far most likely to vote against ITL while veterans Reps were anxious to dispose of gambling as a revenue solution.  Note, for example, that in those with seniority are first on the roll listing and I will list names as they appear on the roll in totals here.

Here's how everyone voted, Democrats from Finance listed first; remember a yes vote is to kill the  gambling bill; a no vote would have kept it alive for other motions to come. 

Wallner yes

Rosenwald yes

Nordgren yes

Eaton yes

Benn yes

Leishman no

Buco no

Huot no (a surprise to me; this may not be an indication that he favored the bill, simply that he didn't want to see it killed prior to amendments being offered)

Lerandeau no

Hatch no

Rogers no

Ford yes

Spratt no

Walsh no

Now Finance Republicans:

Kurk yes

Weyler (absent; Priestly voted for him) no

Lynne Ober no

Elliott no

Allen no

Garcia yes

Barry yes

Cebrowski yes

Umberger yes

Dan McGuire yes

Worsman yes

Now Ways and Means Democrats

Almy yes

Lovejoy yes

Butynski no

Davis yes

Shattuck yes

Kelley yes

Cooney yes

Ames no

Karrick (another surprise to me) no

Schamberg no

Young no

Now Republicans on Ways and Means:

Major yes

Griffin no

Hess yes

Sapareto no

Ulery no

Russ Ober no

Abrami yes

Azarian no

Sanborn yes

Finance Democrats--6 for ITL, 8 against ITL

Finance Republicans--7 for ITL, 4 against ITL

Finance Total--13 for ITL, 12 against ITL

Ways and Means Democrats--6 for ITL, 5 against ITL

Ways and Means Republicans--4 for ITL, 5 against ITL

Ways and Means Total--10 for ITL, 10 against ITL

Total Republicans--11 for ITL; 9 against ITL

Total Democrats--12 for ITL; 13 against ITL

24 committee members spoke.  The words "do the right thing" in favor of the gambling plan were uttered twice, including Ways and Means Democrat Thomas Schamberg from Wilmot (I kept track because I have long been convinced that "do the right thing" is really a pathetic argument; we all after all are trying to do the right thing with each and every vote).

I took notes on all 24 orations (a throwback to my days as a reporter; although I can type faster than I can scribble), but will mention here only the one I agreed with most (after all the matter of Jodi's life or death is being decided even as I sit here).  Former Ways and Means Republican Chair Norm Major, of Plaistow, actually summoned passion to note something I've been saying for weeks now, that the bulk of the money with this bill will flow to out of state to out of state owners.  (After all, Millennium gets to keep 70 percent of earnings as opposed to only 45 percent in previous incarnations of D’Allesandro bills). There is only so much money to go around and with it leaving the state to go to Millennium in Las Vegas, jobs and businesses here, Major asserted, will be hurt. 

A big thumbs up to Norm Major.

Even as lobbyists left the room claiming Chairman Wallner's tactics will come back to haunt anti-gambling forces, I see very little change from the 60-vote plus defeat I forecast yesterday.

Clearly, however, first term Democrats are in for the arm twisting of their young legislative lives as they get called into the corner office to hear how the state really needs the up front money this bill would provide.  Yes, I would contend, there's $80 million in up front, but the state loses more than a billion dollars in the long run with this plan.

Norm Major sees that; others should as well.

The House is expected to vote on the bill next week, limiting the time for Hassanick pressure on first term Dems.

House rules do not allow for ideas from amendments to be mentioned in floor speeches until the ITL motion is disposed of.  Thus, depending on how strictly Speaker Norelli enforces that rule, gambling forces could well be extremely hamstrung.

18 Gambling Amendments Offered

Almost on time Wednesday morning at 9 a.m., Finance Chair Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord, opened what is expected to be a day-long session by the 45-member House paneling (Finance and Ways and Means combined) considering a Senate gambling bill.

It's standing room only.

Lobbyists abound; even Jabba The Hut has resurfaced (bonus points for the first person to identify this particular lobbyist, so dubbed long ago).

The press table is packed.

Various pro gambling senators (Woodburn, Soucy, Lasky) spill into the hallways.

As they arrived, committee members were presented a packet of no less than 18 amendments.  Chairman Wallner indicated that each presenter would be given 5 to 15 minutes (plus questions), but at the end of hour number one, only two amendments had been heard.

One pro gambling committee member, Ken Weyler, has been declared absent for the week, and according to House policy (if not rules), Republican leader Gene Chandler has been allowed to name a voting replacement.  Apparently he reached an agreement with Weyler that the replacement would be pro-gambling (like Weyler).  Rep. Chandler had promised me that I would be his first choice as a replacement were an anti-SB152 member not present.

Of the 45 members on the panel, only four or five are deemed undecided at this point.

I'm listed sixth among presenters, and the way things are going, that could be after lunch.

I have four handouts:

--One comparing revenues from SB152 and my HB678 which was tabled by the House earlier;

--One showing how Senator D'Allesandro's gambling proposals began with the state keeping 55 percent in 2004 and is now down to 30 percent (25 percent to the general fund plus five percent to special stat interests)

--One detailing five changes from the original HB678 including cutting the minimum bid price in half, from $10 million (from a 1300 machine facility) and $5 million (for a 600 machine facility) down to $5 and $2.5 million; and allowing a single county to have up to two facilities (one of 1300 machines and one of 600 machines);

--One proving how Delaware rents/leases slot machines for only six percent of the take, very like the number Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre told the revenue subcommittee, but way out of line with what a Millennium spokesman insisted was the industry standard--10 to 15 percent.

Among the other amendments are five from Rep. Dan McGuire (including one for Rep. Ed Gionet, the champion of a North Country casino), two from Rep. Bernie Benn, two from Rep. Frank Davis, and one each from Transportation Chair Candace Bouchard, Lynn Ober, Mary Cooney, Rosenwald, Lovejoy, and Dan Eaton (one of the undecided members of the committee).

It's going to be a long day!

By noon, the committee had completed hearing about all 18 amendments.

UPDATES

By noon, the committee had completed hearing about all 18 amendments.

Pressure On Ford--When it comes time to vote, watch Democrat Susan Ford from Grafton County (Sugar Hill--pop. less than 500) very carefully.  She's always been opposed to gambling, and I had her as a lean no, but she also comes from a swing district and word is that Democratic leaders are applying tremendous pressure, going so far as to threaten that they will not do much to help in a re-election bid (presumably against Greg Sorg again) if she does not do what Governor Hassan wants.  We knew hard ball tactics would set it; we'll report them here as they come forward. 

Elliott Vs. Sytek and The Garcias--Also watch Salem Republican Marilinda Garcia.  Long-time pro gambling Republican Bob Elliott is apparently trying to bully (my word, not Toole's) four of his fellow Salem reps into voting for the bill.  John Toole reports in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune that Elliott is naming names of the four; they include both Garcia sisters, Patrick Bick, and John Sytek, husband of former speaker and long-time gambling opponent Donna Sytek.  Elliott doesn't quite say that Salem voters should use this vote against his fellow Salem Republicans, but he comes close to it.  Of course, by touting gambling Elliott himself is going against his party platform.  Talk about the impure pot calling the ketle black!  You just can't make this stuff up.  Check out the Toole take on the Salem spat.

I'll quote the pertinent passage for you.  Toole reports:

There are four no votes in the Salem delegation, according to Elliott.  He identified them as  Reps. Patrick Bick, John Sytek, Marlinda Garcia and Bianca Garcia, all Republicans (hey, all Salem Reps are Republicans, I would add).  "Turn them yes and that could make it a winner," Elliott said.  In an interview later, Eilliott said he has no doubt the four lawmakers could be decisive players in the casino debate in Cncord.  "This would be a (sic) historic moment for the represenatives of Salem if this bill passed," he said.

Not to mention an historic chance for an out of state company to rake in billions of dollars by yielding only 30 percent to the state as opposed to 55 percent in past incarnations.  No, Elliott didn't say that; I did and do.

Of course, Elliott is conveniently claiming that the House vote is within eight votes (thus a switch of four votes could make a difference).  To that I say, only in Bob's dreams!  I don't expect his bullying tactics will change the mind of the Salem four.

Eaton's Amendment--Cheshire County Democrat Dan Eaton offered an amendment which doesn't really provide an answer as to how he will vote; I have him as a lean yes.  His amendment was recommended by the Lottery Department and would merely tighten up regulations guaranteeing that not owner of the lottery terminals be allowed to report on them.  He calls it a "back room amendment".  Perhaps the fact that Eaton has been talking with the Lottery Director should tell us he's a Yes.

The 200th No--However, my survey is up to 200 nos as of noon.  I had 198 coming into today; I got one more, the I ran into a true undecided on the sidewalk.  I explained that he/she could become number 200.  "Off the record?" he/she asked.  Sure, I promised, I won't use your name (not even your gender as you can see here).  His/her thumb went down and an explanation enused, but I had to break it off to be on the Arnie show.  Sorry, Mssr. Elliott, it's up to 200 nos now.  Even if Rep. Ford caves to Hassanick pressure, this bill is going down.

Edmond Speaks!--It could be even worse.  Long time gambling supporter Edmond Gionet, my friend from Lincoln, just told me he would not vote for the bill as currently configured.  "Unless this bill is changed to incorporate two destination casinos, one on the Mass border, one in the White Mountains," he is saying (for attribution even as I type this, "I will vote against it."

But dear Edmond went even further.  "This bill is full of pork, politics, and favors," he states.  Hey, that sounds like a better TV sound bite than one for this blog.  Tell it to Channel 9, Edmond!  I guess he should be listed as number 201 against the plan.  "I didn't get a chance to speak to the committee, but I get a chance to speak to Steve," he adds as he departs the room seeking lunch.  (Hey, what can I say? I used to be a play by play announcer, and I can type pretty fast, not so accurately, but fast).

Lovejoy's Charities; My Charities--Ways and Means Vice Chair Patricia Lovejoy offered an amendment for charitable gambling which could stand by itself.  She appears concerned that charities in current law must yield 35 percent of their take to operators (as well as ten percent to the state), but it's only 14 percent from the casino to the state for table games in SB152 and only 16 percent in a version proposed by the revenue subcommittee.  

Some charities claim that the Senate bill will be the death of charitable gambling.  Various complicated amendments to make the charities "whole" have surfaced, but only one plan (my plan of course) would actually help charities.  In that plan, only slots are allowed in the six casinos which would then enter into agreements with charities to run table games.  In other words, my plan actually would be a boon rather than the death knell for charities.

Alas, my plan has about as much chance of passing as we have of seeing Rep. George Katsiantonis, Ward 10 Democrat, of showing up for the vote...or any vote for that matter!

Is All Darkest Before The Gambing Dawn?

 Was anyone really expecting the special 45-member House gambling panel (Ways and Means and Finance committees combined) to spend days and days reviewing a slew of amendments and debating the final proposal?

Certainly not anybody who knows how the process works.

After hearing reports from three subcommittee chairs last Thursday, one might have expected the committee to come back day after day to get the job done.

One would have been wrong. 

With the announcement from Finance Chair Mary Jane Wallner that all amendments were due in Tuesday, one might have expected the full committee to be meeting right now to discuss them.

One would be wrong.

The committee has broken back up into the three subcommittee panels (revenue, regulation, and community impact), and rather than dot the i's and cross the t's on a final document, more and more amendments seem to be surfacing every hour.

Just before noon, for example, Rep. Tom Buco, D-Conway, presented a plan which reverts back to the $80 million licensing fee with the state's take a paltry 25 percent a year, but it also includes a $3 million annual fee, presumably $600 for each of 5000 machines.

Why?

Because that's the way other states do it, the subcommittee was told.

Why not simply increase the annual percentage for the state to keep?'

No one asked that question, and why not?

Because I'm not on the committee.

Buco also offered an amendment which would make the casino operator rather than the state pay the regulation costs (a $4.6 million figure was noted).

My only reaction to that was--Wow!  Talk about the fox watching the chicken coop!

Rep. Tim Horrigan, D-Durham, offered a proposal to remove the four percent (three for the host community and one for abutting towns), replacing it with three percent for the host county and one for any abutting county.

Rep. Dan McGuire, along with his Oregon plan (enthusiastically dubbed here last week "here a slot, there a slot, everywhere a slot, slot") also now plans an amendment which appears to simply remove all prohibitions against gambling; in other words, let's call this one "a slot in every pot". 

Those were only a few amendments I heard before lunch, and I spent much of the morning in my own committee (Criminal Justice) watching a demonstration of the advanced igntion lock devise system, hopefully so we can pass a drive to work bill for first time DWI offenders...but I digress.

My tabled gambling bill remains the first choice of more than a few people.  It would get rid of the Millennium monopoly mega casino and offer six licenses for bid, two for 1300 machine facilities; four for 600.  Promises are that it will also be offered tomorrow as an amendment to the Senate plan.  Only committe members are empowered to offer amendments, but I've been promised it'll be heard.  I would place odds of that passing right up there with odds of georgethek showing up for the next House session!  (Hey, Speaker Norelli, hey Democrats, you really should gently ask him to resign; if the media had any sense of responsibility, his No Showism--is he even living in Ward 10 any more?--would be a major embarrassment to the party, not to mention the honorable House).

So much will be offered tomorrow that one wonders if in fact any final vote will be taken by nightfall.

Of course, if the plan all along has been to simply open the floodgates for all kinds of plans and then reject them all out of hand, things could go fairly quickly.

Only a cynic would even suggest such a master plan.

I've been known to approach cynicism.

Have you?

Of course, amendments could wind up killing the bill.  For example, the revenue committee recommends removing the one percent sum to go to HHS to deal with problem gambling.  A certain undecided Rep just told me he’d vote against the bill if that section is removed.

Then there are the Manchester Reps (mostly Democrats) who are gung ho for gambling but want to assure that any mega casino not be allowed to have a theater to compete with the Verizon Center for concerts. 

Can you imagine—spending $600-700 million to build a facility and NOT having a concert venue?  The so-called Long Amendment will not be LONG for this legislative world.

Can you make this stuff up?

Of course not. 

Gambling Vote Won't Be Close--New Total--136 Yes, 198 No

            Even while media “experts” continue to predict a close vote when the Senate gambling bill (SB152) comes to the House floor presumably next week, my updated tally is that even if every single undecided (or not responding or not saying) Representative voted for the plan, the best it could do would be a 198-198 tie.

            That’s correct.  My latest tally is 198 against and 136 in favor with 62 unknowns, three vacant, and the George Katsiantonis seat which is really vacant although he refuses to submit his resignation letter.  (Only Speaker Norelli and Democratic leaders could explain why they insist on playing the game of keeping him on the list when he’s no longer living here).

            But I digress…

            WMUR’s gap is widening.  The station now reports a losing margin of 105-128 (Democrats 55-57, Republicans 50-71), but the station inexplicably continues to list no fewer than seven Representatives as Yes who are most certainly No.  I’ve explained that before, so I won’t name names again here.  John Hunt was one of the seven, but Channel 9 has finally moved him to the No side; the other six remain in error.  If you make those seven corrections, the WMUR total is up to 137 No and only 98 Yes for a 39 vote margin, hardly close. 

            My 136-198 total is an update from 129-186 last time I did a complete rundown.

            Of the 62 unknown Reps, I have only about 20 as truly undecided (mostly Democrats), including majority leader Steve Shurtleff and Dan Eaton and William Hatch on the joint Finance/Ways and Means Committee which is scheduled to vote tomorrow.  Also undecided are Kris Roberts, Keene Democrat, and my seatmate Lisa Whittemore from Londonderry who insists she has not yet made up her mind.  I trust her.

            Deputy Speaker Naida Kaen is not saying how she’ll vote.  I’ve “pushed” her to the No column, but it’s somewhat of a guess.

I’m trying not to guess here, and every time I post numbers here, a few Reps inform me of how they actually intend to vote, either secretly or openly, so these numbers should be fairly solid.  I expect to get the 200^th no later today; maybe we should make it a contest.  “Tell me now; you could be the magical 200^th NO.  Come on Lisa, you can do it.”

            Bad news for gambling buffs is that I’ve included five Republicans in the Yes column who would have to do some fancy footwork to get around their party’s platform in order to cast that yes vote.  They include Al Baldasaro who would have to go against not only his party but the House Republican Alliance who he co-chairs.  The other four are Rideout, Boehm, Haefner, and Lynn Ober (Russ was always a yes).  The loss of any of them would push the No total to an absolute majority.

            Good news for gambling buffs is that I’ve increased my projection on that committee from support of only 17 members to as many as 20, from 17-28 to perhaps 20-25.  Richard Ames is clearly a yes; I had him as a no before.  William Hatch and Karen Umberger are preparing a major amendment for the revenue subcommittee this afternoon; should they both flip and support the gambling plan, the vote could be as close as 20-25.

            My sources are solid that Governor Maggie Hassan is continuing to work very hard to twist arms, mostly of first-term Democrats.  In fact, a prominent Democratic source just now revealed to me that much of the omnibus 19-page amendment (to be offered by Representatives Kathi Rogers and Richard Ames) was actually written in the governor’s office.

            Without releasing how I expect 334 Reps to vote, here’s my latest methodology.

            From the old WMUR total of 101-120, I removed seven from the Yes column and added them to the no column to get a total of 94-127.

            I  “push” five of the WMUR “Not Saying” to the no column and two (David Cote and Mary Nelson) to the yes column for a total of 96-132.

            Of the WMUR “Undecided” group I “push” 23 to No and 15 to yes to get the total up to 111-155.  From the WMUR Not Responding group, I deem 43 to be in the No column and 25 in the yes column for an overall total of 136-198.