Dear Gaming Commission

I am a homeowning resident in East Boston and professor of law and policy at Northeastern University. 

I am writing to urge you to reject any consideration of a proposal for a "Revere-only" casino at the Suffolk Downs site without having gone through the proper process as outlined in MGL c.23K§15(13).  The current plan is so different than the original proposal that has been described by Suffolk Downs for the past two years that it can only reasonably be considered a new proposal.  The current plan has a different applicant, a different location, a different partner, and a different business model.  As such, MGL c.23K§15(13) clearly states that this new proposal requires a new host community agreement and a new vote at least 180 days after November 5, 2013.  The plain reading of the law is quite clear on this point.  As your legal counsel undoubtedly has made you aware, Massachusetts courts pay very close attention to the plain language in state statutes.

To entertain a so-called Revere-only casino proposal at Suffolk Downs without having gone through the process as outlined in Expanded Game Act and your regulations is to render the concept of the rule of law meaningless.  It is not the place of the Commission to divine the intent of the voters in Revere.  This is not an academic exercise in epistemology or logic; it is a practical a legal matter with material implications.  MGL c.23K§15(13) explicitly describes the process by which voters are to make their choices clear.  The Commission needs to ensure that the proponents of this new proposal follow the letter of law and the process described therein.

I also urge Chairman Steve Crosby to recuse himself from all decisions related to Region A casino license applications.  The recent revelations of personal and professional relationships between Chairman Crosby and casino proponents in both Everett and Suffolk Downs reinforce the concern that casinos will corrupt our public officials and public processes.  It is simply implausible that Chairman Crosby could be considered impartial if he were to recuse himself from evaluating one applicant but not the other.  Indeed, the insistence on finding some way, even if contrary to the unambiguous language in state law, to allow Suffolk Downs to submit a proposal suggests that the Commission is trying to create the appearance of competition in order to create a distorted semblance of impartiality. 

The decisions and actions taken by this Commission to date have already reduced the public trust in the ability of the Gaming Commission to provide meaningful oversight of any casino licensed to operate in Massachusetts.  As I stated in my comments to you dated 2 October 2013, the rule of law is first and foremost rooted in the commitment to following procedure.  Procedure in and of itself does not automatically result in fair outcomes.  But without fair procedure, even desirable outcomes are tainted with the appearance of corruption, further reducing trust in our government.  If the Commission allows the proposed "Revere-only" proposal to go forward, and if Chairman Crosby refuses to recuses himself from evaluating any Region A applicants, the Commission's decisions can only be interpreted as stating that laws do not apply to some people and that the government cannot be trusted to look after the public's interest.

Thank you for your time.


Neenah Estrella-Luna, MPH, PhD