Unanimous Vote Required For Gaming Board

[imau2fan]

As much as I'd never underestimate the crookedness of Fast Eddie, my non-emotional side always questioned exactly how much he could pull the strings of that Gaming Board. Especially considering two of the members are Republican-appointed.

Well, I wasn't aware before listening to Stan today that the Board's decision must be a unanimous one. Now unless Eddie has blackmail material on the two Repubs, he'd be giving himself away if he tried to directly influence the Board's decision. So like Stan, I came away from today's show feeling somewhat better than before.

Or am I oversimplifying this?

[dboss]

As much as I'd never underestimate the crookedness of Fast Eddie, my non-emotional side always questioned exactly how much he could pull the strings of that Gaming Board. Especially considering two of the members are Republican-appointed.

Well, I wasn't aware before listening to Stan today that the Board's decision must be a unanimous one. Now unless Eddie has blackmail material on the two Repubs, he'd be giving himself away if he tried to directly influence the Board's decision. So like Stan, I came away from today's show feeling somewhat better than before.

Or am I oversimplifying this?

I knew about that prior to Stan's show and I don't put much credence in that whatsoever. They are ALL politicians! To be honest, I don't know what to believe anymore. I do think that Onorato is starting to realize more and more everyday that A LOT of people are supporting the Pens in this. As he said, he was listening to the show prior to coming on and he heard that 90% of Stan's calls were about this issue. I think we just need to keep the pressure ratcheted up on him and O'Connor. No matter where they appear whether radio, TV, etc. a barrage of phone calls needs to follow. Marty Griffin was an idiot when he was saying things about the Pens on KDKA, but at the same time that just tells you that the entire show was dominated by people that want this resolved.

[imau2fan]

I certainly won't question your cynicism of any politician, regardless of party. They all are susceptible to shady agendas.

But those agendas can wildly vary, depending on the individual and party. So unless Fast Eddie can get all those agendas to match, how can he realistically pull the Board's strings the way we've feared he could?

[netwolf]

I would be interested in hearing how deadlocks/stalemates are broken in this process. The odds of all members agreeing from the beginning are slim-to-none.

[MKRA]

Monlinari had stated twice that the voting process was that 5 of 7 votes were required, incuding all 4 of the non-Rendell appointees.

Now I'm heraing that all 7 are required to agree on the awarding of a license. This only makes it worse than I had understood it per Molinari.

To answer you question netwolf, my quess is that the parties simply narrow them down until they agree on solid applications. Then they begin a process where they scrutinze those and convince each other of the ones to accept. Once they all agree on an applicant, they'll award a license. Yes, there will be more than a few where they don't agree. Here's the problem, however: We're not talking about guilt or innocence on the charge of murder. We're talking money, not lives. There is not that much at stake. If the Rendell appointees absolutely stonewall the non-Rendell appointees regarding, say, IOC's application, then it ends there. There may not be too much of a struggle if there are other good applicants and they can all move on.

To be clear, even as I had undersood the process, Rendell appointees alone could not award a license. Their influence is through refusal.

But, I don't understand how a higher standard -- more votes -- is better than a lower standard. What's to be happy about?

The voting process should be 4 of 7. That simple. This is why I don't understand the continued denials from the Rendell office about how they have no influence over the process when, indeed, the very process indicates that they have a "veto" power over any application.

[dboss]

Monlinari had stated twice that the voting process was that 5 of 7 votes were required, incuding all 4 of the non-Rendell appointees.

Now I'm heraing that all 7 are required to agree on the awarding of a license. This only makes it worse than I had understood it per Molinari.

To answer you question netwolf, my quess is that the parties simply narrow them down until they agree on solid applications. Then they begin a process where they scrutinze those and convince each other of the ones to accept. Once they all agree on an applicant, they'll award a license. Yes, there will be more than a few where they don't agree. Here's the problem, however: We're not talking about guilt or innocence on the charge of murder. We're talking money, not lives. There is not that much at stake. If the Rendell appointees absolutely stonewall the non-Rendell appointees regarding, say, IOC's application, then it ends there. There may not be too much of a struggle if there are other good applicants and they can all move on.

To be clear, even as I had undersood the process, Rendell appointees alone could not award a license. Their influence is through refusal.

But, I don't understand how a higher standard -- more votes -- is better than a lower standard. What's to be happy about?

The voting process should be 4 of 7. That simple. This is why I don't understand the continued denials from the Rendell office about how they have no influence over the process when, indeed, the very process indicates that they have a "veto" power over any application.

Its not that all 7 have to agree, its 5 of 7. Rendell had three appointments to the board, the democratics in the house and senate each had one, and the republicans in the house and senate each had one. So, the house and senate members from both parties all have to agree and ONLY one of the gov. appointees has to agree with the other four.

The reason I don't trust it is because these people still have aspirations of their own and if they want to run for office or a job in the next administration of Rendell's then they need to do what he wants. That is where the skepticism comes from.

[ExPatriatePen]

The reason I don't trust it is because these people still have aspirations of their own and if they want to run for office or a job in the next administration of Rendell's then they need to do what he wants. That is where the skepticism comes from.

It's not even just that Rendell holds power... if these ambitious wanna-be's are concerned about aligning themselves with powerful interests for future runs, Forest City / Ratner trumps Pens / IoC EVERYTIME. The important thing to remember is that for a politician, Voters are the ultimate trump card.

[dboss]

The reason I don't trust it is because these people still have aspirations of their own and if they want to run for office or a job in the next administration of Rendell's then they need to do what he wants. That is where the skepticism comes from.

It's not even just that Rendell holds power... if these ambitious wanna-be's are concerned about aligning themselves with powerful interests for future runs, Forest City / Ratner trumps Pens / IoC EVERYTIME. The important thing to remember is that for a politician, Voters are the ultimate trump card.

Good point! We just need to keep the pressure turned up on these people.