Now comes word, in today's Boston Globe, Boston Herald and Cape Cod Times, that the FBI is investigating the tribe's finances. Once again, I'm in awe of Kenney's sources. He first got wind of this on Wednesday, and posted a more detailed story yesterday morning.
The crucial issue here is whether the probe is aimed at Marshall alone, or at the entire tribal leadership. Based on a preponderance of what we know, it would seem to be the latter. That, of course, would include Hendricks, Marshall's handpicked successor, who would be removed if a recall effort being led by tribal elder Amelia Bingham and her son Steven succeeds (unless he resigns, of course).
For instance, here's what Kenney reported yesterday: “Presented to council chairman Shawn Hendricks, treasurer Nelli Ramos and council member Desire Hendricks Moreno were formal demands for the council's financial records as well as personal financial records from all three officials.”
In the Herald, reporter Dave Wedge has the same information and attributes it to an on-the-record source, tribal spokeswoman Amy Lambiaso. Lambiaso does describe it as “an investigation into Glenn Marshall,” but obviously the feds are seeking information that could reflect on other tribal leaders as well.
In the Globe, reporters Sean Murphy and Christine Wallgren offer a slightly different interpretation, writing:
Amy Lambiaso, a spokeswoman for the tribe, said the investigation focuses on Glenn Marshall, the former tribal chairman….
“It's our understanding it is an investigation into Glenn Marshall and not any of the other tribe members,” she said.
Fair enough. But again, it does not appear that the feds can do their job unless they're also looking at what the other tribal leaders knew and when they knew it.
The most detailed overview of what's going on right now is provided in the Cape Cod Times by reporters George Brennan and Stephanie Vosk. Not only do they report on the FBI probe, but they also get into a separate IRS investigation of Marshall, as well as an inquiry launched by the state attorney general, Martha Coakley. Not to sound like a broken record, but Kenney has been all over these developments as well.
Also not to sound like a broken record, but how can Gov. Deval Patrick step up and offer his support for casino gambling given what's going on in Southeastern Massachusetts? This is what you get when you embrace gambling. Nothing that's happened is surprising, except that it all came out so quickly following the two votes by Middleborough town meeting (yes to a casino deal; no to a casino) on July 28.
This week The Pilot, the weekly paper published by Boston's Catholic archdiocese, runs a terrific editorial on why casino gambling needs to be stopped, whether it's in Middleborough, Palmer or East Boston. (Media Nation trivia: I worked as the production manager of The Pilot for a few months in late 1990 and early '91.) A Middleborough resident who's worried about the possible destruction of his town called it to my attention. Here's a highlight:
Casino advertisements frequently depict casino gambling as a fleeting, joyous experience amidst a wonderland of entertainment and excitement. However, what is portrayed as an occasional weekend getaway all too often becomes an uncontrollable compulsion that can lead to broken families, bankruptcy and even suicide.
Studies show that instances of crime, prostitution and bankruptcy increase around casinos. Those living on fixed income, particularly the elderly and the poor, are easily lured by their promise of quick money and often spend money needed for essentials on gambling.
Gambling addiction is a self-destructive behavior that has dire consequences.
The fight against the Middleborough casino isn't about mindless NIMBYism. The best possible outcome is to keep casino gambling out of Massachusetts — period. If people want to gamble in Connecticut or Rhode Island, let them. That's not a reason for us to lower our standards.
<
p>
2. I think you’re persuasive that the Middleborough proposal has much wrong with it.
<
p>
I’ll also stipulate that the state revenue piece of this is not THAT compelling, and that there will be an uptick in compulsive gamblers who live in MA.
<
p>
So what?
<
p>
Usually, BMG seems to be protective of personal freedom (with the notable exception of the Fluffernutter wing).
<
p>
Dan, you seem to be a “personal freedoms” kind of guy….why so strongly anti on this one?
<
p>
If we prohibit “self-destructive behavior with dire consequences,” isn’t alcohol at least as bad?
Good question. It's one we debated a bit here earlier, but it's always worth revisiting. First, some labeling. I'm a liberal, not a libertarian, although I like to think I have some libertarian tendencies. But, essentially, I have no problem with we the people regulating individual behavior for the good of the community, provided that it can be truly demonstrated that the good of the community is at stake, and that the right balance is struck.
There are some personal liberties that should never be abridged, like freedom of speech, since that protects all of our other liberties. But I have no more problem with regulating (i.e., banning) casinos than I do with zoning bylaws, taxes, or the prohibition of crack cocaine. The well-documented social ills associated with casino gambling — not to mention the old-fashioned over-development woes such as traffic, crime, and the like — far outweigh any individual right to gamble, in my view.