MASC Proposed Resolution

Inquiring minds want to know who brought forth the proposed Resolution for the MASC to support casino gambling revenues to fund education? $5.00 D&D gift certificate to the person who squeals. Let's just hope it wasn't a certain SC member who is profiting from his relationship with a certain slots/casino predatory gambling outfit. Conflicts of interest abound.

Here's the version of the Resolution that should be considered by the MASC:

Resolution – Amendment MASC Delegate Convention

November 2009

Whereas the MASC has a long and proud tradition of advocating for public education, working for policies that promote the health and wholeness of all young people, and fighting to garner adequate and sustainable funding to support best practices and pedagogy for comprehensive public education;

And whereas legalizing slot machines would erode participation in the Lottery and siphon away from local small businesses the discretionary spending on goods and services that they depend on;

And whereas the impacts of expanded gambling in other states provide evidence of long-term economic drain, increased student drop-out rates in entire slot/casino host regions (35-50 mile radius), an increased incidence of problem gambling and gambling addiction among youth in these regions and increased fiscal burdens upon school budgets for entire host regions (35-50 mile radius);

And whereas modern slot machines use neuroscience-informed technology to mesmerize and entrap gamblers and to keep them playing until they have exhausted their resources ("playing to extinction");

And whereas medical research has documented the highly addictive nature of the brain's chemical reactions to slot machine stimulation;

And whereas evidence from other states indicates that the long-term costs of gambling addiction -- increased substance abuse, increased crime, increased family discord and dysfunction -- outweigh the short term benefits of licenses and gambling revenues;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, as a matter of both principle and policy, opposes the legalization of slot machines and any similar efforts to promote addictive and predatory gambling as a means of raising public revenues and requests that an independent cost-benefit analysis of these proposals be performed before any expanding gambling is legalized in the Commonwealth. Public education cannot sustain any further fiscal negative impacts.

MASC misguided?

Dear Monson School Committee Members:

It has been brought to my attention that the MASC has proposed endorsing slots/casinos in the Resolutions to be deliberated upon at the upcoming November 18-21, 2009 conference, page 25.

There must be an egregious misunderstanding of the fiscal impacts of slots/casinos upon the state and local budgets by the MASC board members to consider putting this issue before the delegates. No state with legalized slots/casinos has solved their budgetary and educational needs through legalizing predatory gambling. I am guilty as charged in the recent letter in the Journal Register by a Palmer resident of my "excessive use of statistics" to support my research findings which conclude that these businesses are long-term economic drains on entire regions and the state. The state of California released a report documenting 1Bilion dollars per year spent by taxpayers for the costs associated to slots/casino gambling. $4.5 Billion dollars per year are taxed to Australian citizens for the costs associated with slots/casino gambling as reported in their government's recently released 10 year impact study of slots/casinos.

In the Spectrum Gaming report commissioned by Governor Patrick and funded by taxpayers ($189,000) the only community featured, of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, was the Town of Monson. I was asked by the industry "experts" to provide information on the impacts to education. The report highlights the irrefutable negative fiscal impacts. The report failed however, to extrapolate the potential negative impacts to the entire Commonwealth and provide a statewide cost-benefit analysis.

No legislation has been crafted that provides sufficient mitigation to the municipal and education impacts to the regions affected. No legislation has been crafted that includes representation of impacted districts as decision makers. The proponents only discuss one side of the balance sheet. Public education in Massachusetts cannot afford to take a myopic position on this issue.

Simply put, there is not enough revenue generated to the state by slots/casinos to offset the costs.

The Western MA Casino Task Force's (comprised of 15 communities in the Quaboag Valley and founded by the Monson Board of Selectmen) top recommendation is an independent cost-benefit analysis of the slots/casinos proposals before expanding any gambling in the Commonwealth.

More disheartening is the apparent ignorance of the MASC board to the impacts of expanded gambling upon youth. I believe that there may be many well intentioned people who are unaware of these issues. Young people including young adults, are cognitively and emotionally underdeveloped to discern between the allure of gambling and the risks. Youth are the highest risk group for gambling addiction. The executive director assured me that this is a normal process for the delegates to consider potential revenue streams. I asked if the executive board would be interested in learning more about the long-term costs to taxpayers, impacts to municipalities and education. He said he didn't know.

I was wondering this morning if the MASC would consider a Resolution to have state sponsored doubling of alcoholism and paying more taxes to support the devastation, while not garnering any additional funds to improve education? Does that sound absurd? Of course it does and yet it is the same model as legalizing state sponsored predatory gambling slots/casinos.

Let's hope they learned from the MTA's mistaken endorsement of the bogus job and revenue projections in the Governor's legislation.

Please contact the Executive Director and MASC Board Members to voice your objection to this wrong-headed proposal on behalf of our community and the future of education funding.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kathleen