Lawmakers want a say in state gaming deals

Governor shouldn't have sole authority, some in GOP say

By DENNIS CHAPTMAN dchaptman@journalsentinel.com, Journal Sentinel

Friday, February 21, 2003

Madison -- Angered by what they portrayed as Gov. Jim Doyle's "giveaway" gambling deal with the Oneida Indian tribe, Republican lawmakers plan to take quick action today in an effort to strip his sole authority to enter into such agreements.

"I don't know if he wants to go down in history as 'Diamond Jim, the gambling governor,' but that's certainly what it looks like to us," state Sen. Bob Welch (R-Redgranite) said Thursday. "He is negotiating and signing contracts that basically give away the store."

A measure to require the Legislature to ratify any tribal gambling compacts negotiated by the governor had been scheduled to go to the GOP-controlled Senate and Assembly Thursday after legislative leaders set a rare extraordinary session to act on the bill.

But after hours of maneuvering and expectations of an acrimonious all-night session, Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer (R-West Bend) said at about 9 p.m. that lawmakers would return this morning to take up the issue "in the light of day."

Panzer and other Republican leaders then left to meet with Doyle about the compacts.

Quick response from GOP

The call into the extraordinary session -- for just the fifth time in 15 years -- came one day after the Doyle administration reached a tentative agreement with the Oneida that would allow the tribe to add craps and roulette to its casino, would lift betting limits and would have no restrictions on the casino's hours. In return, the tribe would significantly increase its payments to the state.

The compact is likely to set a precedent for other tribal agreements, as Doyle is counting on an additional $237 million in gambling payments from the tribes over the next two years to help reduce a $3.2 billion budget deficit.

Republicans said they responded quickly largely because they were worried that the Oneida deal signaled an expansion of gambling in perpetuity. While gaming compacts now expire after five years, the tentative agreement with the Oneida has no expiration date.

"These deals are in perpetuity. That's what finds the most trouble in the Legislature," Panzer said. "Once this is done, there is no remedy."

But Democrats such as Assembly Minority Leader Jim Kreuser (D- Kenosha) said the GOP's move was aimed at discrediting Doyle.

"It's a political move to get at the governor," he said. "This puts at risk the money in the budget for gaming compacts. Republicans aren't talking about the fiscal ramifications."

Assembly Speaker John Gard (R-Peshtigo) said oversight is needed to assure that compacts serve the interests of the entire state. He said the unprecedented compact with the Oneida has the potential to remake the face of gambling in Wisconsin.

"We were stunned when we heard the word 'permanent,' " he said. "When you transform gaming in Wisconsin forever, behind closed doors, without the elected representative from either house or either party having any role or any say, automatically you raise suspicion."

But Doyle and legislative Democrats balked at the oversight measure, with the governor defending wider gaming compacts and saying legislative review of the deals would be "impossible."

Doyle also wondered why GOP lawmakers want to be consulted now, because they never asked to review the first two sets of deals brokered by former Republican Gov. Tommy G. Thompson.

"At a time when Tommy Thompson approved these compacts, and got one-fifth of the amount I'm getting, nobody was squawking about them about giving the governor the power," he added.

In the late 1980s, former Assembly Speaker Tom Loftus, a Democrat, pushed through a law that allows the governor alone to negotiate new gaming deals with the tribes. In the 1999-'01 state budget, Thompson vetoed a measure that would have given lawmakers oversight over compacts, saying it would cause undue delay.

More money for state

The Oneida deal calls for the tribe to pay the state about four times the $4.85 million annual payment it now makes for the next two years -- $20 million in 2004 and $18 million in 2005. After that, payments would be tied to a percentage of net casino revenue, beginning at 6% in 2006, and varying between 4% and 5% in subsequent years before leveling off at 4.5% in the ninth year of the deal.

But Gard said the cost of the Oneida deal is too high.

"This budget problem we've got is manageable. But you shouldn't sell your soul to fix it," he said.

But Senate Minority Leader Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) said the rush to pass legislation without a public hearing or more study was unwise, and could backfire.

"There is a line that we're going to walk up to and look over, and that line is abusing power," he said.

In response to Panzer, who said she was shocked by headlines announcing the deal in the morning newspapers, Erpenbach said, "We're shattering records in reading something in the paper in the morning, and getting legislation on the floor by the afternoon."

Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) warned that the new deal could give tribal casinos another advantage over local businesses such as hotels, restaurants and taverns.

"You're going to see Taj Mahals, you're going to see convention centers, you're going to see marinas, you're going to see -- absolutely without question -- water parks," Zien said. "Gaming will be a way of life, more than we ever, ever envisioned."

And Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Beaver Dam), who co-authored the oversight bill with Welch, said the scope of the latest agreement calls for legislative oversight.

"This is way too big a decision for one single man to be making when it affects the future of this state," he said.

"Vegas has come to Wisconsin forever if we don't do something quickly," he said. "Our state character and culture will be changed forever."

Tom Krajewski, spokesman for the Forest County Potawatomi Tribe, said long-term compacts would stimulate investment by state tribes.

He said the five-year compacts would allow all state tribes to leverage only $300 million in investment, while long-term deals would enable tribes to come up with more than $1 billion.

Krajewski also questioned whether legislative involvement was practical.

"Neither party gets to the bottom line. It's very hard to negotiate with 132 people," he said. "It's a cumbersome, cumbersome process. It just doesn't work."

Copyright 2003 Journal Sentinel Inc. Note: This notice does not apply to those news items already copyrighted and received through wire services or other media
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.