From the Daily Southtown:

Our View

Gaming board reform is sensible, insult or not

November 9, 2007

The Issue: With gambling the only revenue source politicians likely will support, House Speaker Michael Madigan proposes oversight reforms.

We say: Tougher regulations and more independence should be adopted, regardless of whether the expansion plan goes forward.

Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan last week said he might support an expansion of gambling in Illinois if it was necessary to pass a "capital plan" - a public works program that likely would include highway and bridge construction and reconstruction and school construction and repairs.

But Madigan for years has said he is not a proponent of gambling and has opposed most efforts to expand it - except for a proposal to allow legal video gambling in bars. As a result, political analysts around the state are speculating Madigan has something else in mind other than increasing the number of casinos and putting slot machines in Illinois racetracks, even if it will fund a capital program.

As evidence, some have pointed to Madigan's proposal for a new, tougher and more independent gambling oversight board, which he supposedly would demand before agreeing to support expansion of gambling. The theory goes that the proposal for stricter oversight may be intended to embarrass Gov. Rod Blagojevich or Senate President Emil Jones. The governor's authority to appoint members of the gaming board would be reduced; he would be permitted to select only from a list of nominees selected by a new panel, selected by the Illinois Supreme Court and a group including former judges, prosecutors and regulators. If the intent of that new lineup wasn't clear enough, Madigan also proposed that no communication would be permitted between the gaming board and the governor, any senator and their staffs, except in public meetings. The board would be subject to the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

It's difficult to imagine the governor and Senate president accepting those provisions, but they are reasonable and ought to be part of the organizational legislation. Of course, the legislation should prohibit contact between the gaming board and any member of the House and their staffs as well, and it's hard to imagine Madigan accepting such a provision aimed at his domain. Madigan must realize - and we're sure he does - that House members must be subject to the same restrictions as members of the Senate and governor's office.

But personal insults aside - intended or not - Madigan's oversight proposals would be a vast improvement on the current system. They would make the gaming board more independent, and they would reduce the opportunity for political influence and favoritism. The changes ought to be adopted, in our view, regardless of whether the plan for expanding the number of casinos and gaming positions, which we favor, goes forward.

We have reservations about including the Supreme Court in the process, because appointments are an executive function, not a judicial prerogative. We're also a bit skeptical about the inference that the court somehow is less political than the other branches. We'd like to hear more about Madigan's theory that the court should have a role in this process.

All of this is subject to whether the governor and four legislative leaders can reach an agreement. We seen nothing to indicate they can. We would like to see them prove us wrong.