News
Passoni says questionnaire doesn’t conflict with her public statements on casinos by Brandon Simes
Managing EditorWednesday May 13, 2009 Says discrepancy comes from ’highest standards of economic development’ wording
South End News received a candidate questionnaire on the evening of May 11 that shows that 3rd Suffolk Democratic primary candidate Susan Passoni affirmed that she would support the implementation of destination resort casinos in Massachusetts to the AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations] on March 13, which appeared to be at odds with her numerous public statements during the campaign in which she expressed doubts about building resort casinos in the state.
Passoni has consistently maintained since Gov. Deval Patrick released his plan for three destination resort casinos in September of 2007 that she would not support the implementation of destination resort casinos without further studies proving the merits of any such plan. Asked about the questionnaire on May 12 Passoni said she answered "yes" to casino gambling on all of her organizational questionnaires and doesn’t feel those responses are misleading given her public comments on casino gambling.
Question number 63 on the AFL-CIO questionnaire, the final question, asks, "Would you support and will you sponsor, co-sponsor and vote for legislation that establishes Destination Resort Casinos in the Commonwealth in a way that reaches the highest standards of economic development that we have laid out above?"
The signed document shows Passoni circled "YES."
Reached for comment on Tuesday, Passoni broke out her own copy of the questionnaire and pointed to the language of the question to explain any discrepancy.
"It says, ’in a way’- it’s in the italics -’in a way that reaches the highest standards of economic development,’ and that to me was the key and I specifically said that in the meeting, that it has to uphold and it has to sustain the level that will ensure success," she said. "So that if we-and I know this is something that they kept challenging me on-and I said my point is, that in this environment, we look at all options, this is an option that’s on the table. However, the option, or the proposal that’s on the table, to me, does not meet the ’highest standards of economic development,’ that’s my concern. And my point to them specifically was the whole case about bankruptcy. If you have casinos that go into bankruptcy it’s one of the worst environments to have to be an employee, therefore jobs are not secure, and consequently they may cut back in terms of what their offerings are and so job stability is definitely a question, and I said, ’That’s not what you want, you just don’t want any old proposal that comes along.’"
"I don’t [think it’s misleading], I think it’s pretty clear, it says, ’reaches the highest standards of economic development,’ I mean, I think that is the condition that is really spelled out here," said Passoni.
The Massachusetts AFL-CIO announced its support for Patrick’s plan in November of 2007, which AFL-CIO President Robert Haynes called "unanimous, unwavering" in a March 19, 2008 letter to the legislature.
On May 13 Rich Rogers, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Greater Boston Labor Council (GBLC), which works with the AFL-CIO in vetting candidates for endorsements, said only that his organization chose not to endorse any candidate in the 3rd Suffolk race because the three candidates who approached GBLC, Passoni, Aaron Michlewitz, and Lucy Rivera, were "all pretty supportive of labor’s agenda." He did not respond to further inquiries about his interactions with Passoni during endorsement meetings and whether or not he thought her position was misleading.
"The reason the Greater Boston Labor Council remained neutral in this race is because we had three candidates who gave us strong commitments on a broad array of important issues," said Rogers in an e-mail to South End News.
|
|
|
Email
Print
Share