ILNews

AG wants disclosure of riverboat casino money

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Non-profit and for-profit companies that receive riverboat casino revenue through economic development agreements should have to disclose how they spend the money, the Indiana Attorney General told lawmakers at a legislative committee meeting on Monday.

At its third meeting of the year, the interim Gaming Study Committee met to discuss several issues relating to gambling in Indiana, including a topic that ties in directly with ongoing litigation in both state and federal courts. Where riverboat casinos operate, state law requires that a local development agreement be set up so a portion of casino revenue is set aside and directed to fund local economic development projects to boost tourism. But disclosure for how that money is spent isn't currently required.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller testified before the 11-person committee about his continued push to require public disclosure by any corporation receiving this revenue through a statutory agreement. Deputy Attorney General David Miller also appeared. The AG's support for the transparency stems from the case of East Chicago Second Century, in which a for-profit company received 0.75 percent of the revenue from the city's riverboat casino - or $16 million over 10 years. The 1995 agreement was put in place by former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick, who is no longer in office.

New leadership in East Chicago canceled the Pastrick-era local development agreement, and the AG's office reports that approximately $6.3 million in revenue remained in escrow at the end of 2008. In the Pastrick case and the ongoing Second Century case in Marion Superior Court, the AG's office is trying to force open the books and impose a constructive trust over the corporation to create accountability.

Second Century got the case dismissed at the trial court and Indiana Court of Appeals levels, but in April the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state and revived the case, sending it back to Marion Superior to decide whether Second Century must make a public disclosure of how it spent casino revenue. "Beyond asking the trial court to impose a constructive trust on the Second Century organization and reform its operation, we are trying to pry open the long-closed financial books to find out who benefited from the $16 million Second Century received," Zoeller said. "We are asking the trial court to do that with Second Century, and we are asking the legislature to require that same public disclosure wherever casinos have Local Development Agreements with outside entities, not just in East Chicago."

A disclosure provision was inserted into House Bill 1514 during the General Assembly's regular 2009 session, but it was removed during conference committee negotiations in the final days of the session last April. The committee didn't take a vote on Monday, but AG spokesman Bryan Corbin said Zoeller hopes to see the disclosure language introduced again during the upcoming session.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT