Madigan proposes casino safeguards

You want to act like Atlantic City? Then you need oversight of gambling like New Jersey.

That was the message Monday from Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, who laid out his "non-negotiable" terms for any expansion of gambling in Illinois: a completely new state regulation mechanism.

Madigan's new board would be different from the current board, which has long complained of being understaffed and underfunded. The new board would set its own budget and staffing levels.

The funding for that would come from casinos, on top of any taxes they already pay, said Madigan's spokesman, Steve Brown.

The proposed board would be one of the most stringent oversight boards in the nation, and good government groups like the Chicago Crime Commission were cautiously optimistic about it.

Jeannette Tamayo, chief legal counsel for the commission, said the group hadn't seen the complete proposal, but liked the fact that gaming board members would not be allowed to hold separate jobs and could not take any jobs in the gambling industry within five years of leaving the gaming board.

Tamayo, a former administrator for the gaming board, stressed that the crime commission is still opposed to a Chicago-owned casino, even with a stronger board in place. The agency has mounted an internet poll on its Web site to ask Illinoisans whether they want any more casinos.

Appointment to the new gaming board would still come from the governor, but he would be forced to pick from applicants selected by a nine-member panel. That panel, in turn, would be selected by the Illinois Supreme Court, Madigan said. Joe Tybor, a spokesman for the court, said Chief Justice Robert Thomas had not yet been approached about the idea.

"What I have laid out today are safeguards that are non-negotiable in terms of casino legislation. If casino legislation is to move forward … these safeguards must be part of the bill," said Madigan.

What this means for the current gridlock in Springfield over transit funding and a capital development bill is unclear. Madigan previously lost a vote to fund the RTA by increasing the sales tax in the Chicago area, but he says he will call for another vote on it Friday, and he expects it to pass. Other Springfield observers were not so optimistic.

Many legislators, like House Republican leader Tom Cross, wanted to see a capital improvement bill -- paid for by new casinos -- passed in tandem with a transit bill, but Madigan wants the items treated separately.

Monday's proposal by Madigan could be seen either as a promise to Cross that Madigan will deal with casinos after a transit bill is passed, or the exact opposite: a poison pill to kill any new casinos.

Brown, Madigan's spokesman, said the proposal was not an attempt to stop new casinos dead in their tracks.

David Dring, a spokesman for Cross, said he viewed Monday's developments positively, and that Cross backs the move for a strong gaming board.

While Dring doesn't think any more Republicans will vote for the transit tax, Cross noted 5 Republicans voted for it the first time around. If Madigan can get all 67 Democrats in place and voting for it, he might get the necessary 71 votes to pass it with a veto-proof majority, Cross noted.

The measure would still have to pass the Senate, which will also be in session Friday.