Tad Decker Resigns Having Failed to Put Two Casinos in Philadelphia

Casino-Free Philadelphia applauds the resignation of Tad Decker, the chairman the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB), the worst run and most anti-democratic regulatory body in Pennsylvania.

Under Tad Decker's tenure, the PGCB seemed to operate like the bureaucratic equivalent of Dr. Strangelove's doomsday machine, dedicated to advancing the gambling industry's agenda and blind to the will of the public it was supposed to protect. According to an independent statewide poll conducted by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research, 45% of poll respondents said the performance of the PGCB has made them less supportive of slot machine gambling (http://www.lincolninstitute.org/focusSURVEYa.php). Only 22% said it has made them more supportive.

Handpicked by Governor Ed Rendell, Mr. Decker long ago abandoned his role to protect the people as a regulator of Pennsylvania's casino experiment and instead has catered to the casino industry in its pursuit of profit regardless of social costs. Casino-Free Philadelphia called for the resignation of Tad Decker on April 11, 2007 in a publication sent to Governor Ed Rendell (http://www.casinofreephila.org/decker). The call for resignation -- entitled "Take Tad Back, SugarHouse Needs Him" -- encouraged Tad to abandon his role at the PGCB and go back to Cozen O'Connor, which represents SugarHouse casino. A few months later, he now appears to be doing exactly that.

Says Daniel Hunter, organizer with Casino-Free Philadelphia and West Philadelphia resident, "Tad Decker's inept leadership and his protection of the gambling industry to the exclusion of the needs of the people will never be forgotten. Governor Rendell had the power to remove Mr. Decker long ago and it is a shame we had to wait so long for Tad to go."

Casino-Free Philadelphia calls on Governor Ed Rendell to appoint Jethro Heiko, Casino-Free Philadelphia co-founder, as the next chairman of the PGCB. If appointed, Mr. Heiko promises to more aggressively regulate casinos.

Under Tad Decker's stewardship, the PGCB:

• selected the two sites rated lowest by the city's site selection committee, giving almost no weight to the negative social and economic impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods;
• approved of the PGCB's lawsuit that successfully prevented Philadelphians from voting on a referendum that would have establishing minimum standards to keep casinos from being built next to schools, places of worship and homes;
• voted in favor of a license for Foxwoods Casino, which stated that it intended to compete head-to-head with casinos in Atlantic City, without asking Foxwoods whether it had made any efforts towards building a casino in Atlantic City. In reality, Foxwoods had already entered into a joint-venture agreement with MGM Mirage to develop casinos around the country with first priority given to building in Atlantic City;
• saw its Executive Director indicted for stealing money from Louisiana's gaming board, two staff lawyers arrested for two separate barroom brawls, one licensing investigator arrested for a third brawl, another licensing investigator charged with five counts of falsifying credentials on his job application and a press aide charged with third-degree murder.

Bungled Recusal

Beyond these areas, Mr. Decker has been accused publicly in more than one legal challenge in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of improperly handling his recusal, due to his relationship with Cozen O'Connor. He left his leadership position with Cozen to work at the PGCB. Later it was disclosed that after he took office, he participated in meetings with Cozen lawyers about supposedly non-casino issues, without even recording those meetings in a publicly available log, as seems to be required by the Gaming Act. Cozen's client, SugarHouse casino, ended up receiving one of the licenses.

From the Philadelphia Magazine article, "Gaming the System":
(http://www.phillymag.com/articles/gaming_the_system/ )

I spoke with Tad Decker, to ask about that web of relationships and perceived conflicts of interest, particularly pertaining to SugarHouse.

“I recused myself on the vote,” he said.

“You recused yourself from the vote,” I said, “but for a couple of years you had been in on the deliberations.”

“Right. And my firm — my old firm — only started representing them about two weeks before the vote. Not before us, but in a financial capacity,” he said.

“But in the meantime, you were meeting privately with Patrick O’Connor.”

Decker’s voice rose. “He’s my friend — I go to dinner with him once in a while. He doesn’t represent them. The firm does!”

I asked him if he thinks that appears to be a conflict of interest.

That set Decker off — he had clearly heard the question before. “Why don’t you say that publicly, put it in your article, and I’ll sue your ass off!”

For more detail on Tad Decker: http://www.casinofreephila.org/decker