The Workgroup to Consider Gaming Expansion issued its short-awaited recommendations Wednesday. To the surprise of many, the recently convened 11-member panel failed to reach consensus on adding a sixth gambling venue and expanding gaming in Maryland. The hang-up came when three state delegates would not back a proposed decrease in the state’s tax rate on slot machines as a trade-off for adding a venue. That means there likely will be no special session of the legislature next month to take up expanded gambling.

The work group deserves recognition and credit for undertaking their task conscientiously. However, their efforts also were seriously tainted by the decision to meet this past Monday and Wednesday behind closed doors.

After work group Chairman John Morton III last week announced the closed meeting, Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Dist. 36) of Elkton asked the Attorney General’s Office for an opinion on whether it was legally permissible for the private meeting to take place. With the final public meeting of the work group scheduled for two days later, and because discussions concerning gambling can become heated, Morton said, “It’s probably better that those debates be held in a forum where people can really be very open and candid about their feelings.”

Dan Friedman, the attorney general’s counsel to the General Assembly, responded to Pipkin that the work group is not subject to the state’s Open Meetings Act because it was not considered a “public body.” For the work group to have been a public body, one of seven methods would have had to create it: the Maryland Constitution; a state statute; a county or municipal charter; an ordinance; a rule, resolution or bylaw; an executive order of the governor; or, an executive order of the chief executive authority of a political subdivision of the state. It also could have been deemed a public body if more than one member was not an employee of the state.

Well, the work group was established by Gov. Martin O'Malley and General Assembly leaders by statute, not by executive order. And, Morton was the group’s only member not employed by the state. Therefore, the panel wasn’t technically a public body.

Pipkin rightly said in reaction, “While the closed-door policy of the 11-member task force does not violate the letter of the law, it most certainly violates the spirit of the law.” He also called the closed meeting a “sad example of the proverbial ‘smoky back room.’”

If the pros and cons of expanded gambling warranted an honest discussion, that debate should have been held in public view. After all, the results of the work group would be “crafting policy,” as Pipkin maintained. While it’s true, as Friedman noted, that expanded gaming still required two “very public” steps — passage of a bill by the General Assembly and approval by the voters at referendum — it’s also true that the thinking that led to the outcome of the work group’s efforts was a big part of the process.

It’s too late to do anything about the two closed sessions, but in the future “work groups” of this sort must keep the public foremost in mind and their dealings and decision-making as transparent as possible.