message board home
Next
1/24/2008 2:27:28 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 528262
|
||||||
|
Ted, Bill Rakow said that it was WRONG for the state to give OC and Berlin a fixed percentage of the slots money. Is that a moral or emotional viewpoint? I have no idea. I believe he also indicated to me in a post that it would be WRONG for OPA to try and obtain a percentage now because another wrong doesn't make anything right. WRONG? He has also said words to the effect that we need to live with the bill as written and work within it, as though we should not seek to change anything once the legislature passes something. As I have pointed out, such a position is essentially saying no bill should ever be changed once passed. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Rick, The argument of who has what role in the politic process can be argued from both sides and frankly there is a role for OPA. The extent of that role is debatable and some on this platform called for the Board to oppose slots, clearly a political action. So I can see both sides. But can you respond to the major point of my question as repeated below? I want to see where the Board was against OPA directly receiving slots revenue. Thanks, Ted Previous post Rick, After exploration the BOD announced they were against, or still against, OPA directly receiving slots revenue. Where did you see this...what I read is that they didn't think they could amend the legislation, not that they were against OPA directly receiving slots revenue (if I am wrong can you reference the post?). |
