Unions mull role in slots referendum

‘‘In all likelihood we’ll be mobilizing unions and the members to assure its passage,” said Fred D. Mason Jr., president of the Maryland and D.C. AFL-CIO. ‘‘We believe it will not only create additional revenue for the state of Maryland, but it also will be a tremendous job development program.”

AFL-CIO members have known for years that the union supports slots, he said.

‘‘Obviously, there will be some people for partisan reasons, and also for strong philosophical reasons, opposed to it. The question is what’s the alternative,” Mason said. ‘‘Opponents have had an equal amount of time to say how they’ll come up with three-quarters of a billion dollars for the state. It’s easy for them to say no to everything, but it’s harder to show leadership and come up with solutions.”

The General Assembly squeaked through the referendum bill and companion legislation that will divide the proceeds.

The House of Delegates passed the referendum, 86-52, just one more vote than the supermajority it needed. The Senate passed it 31-13, two more than needed. Because the referendum is a constitutional amendment, it does not need Gov. Martin O’Malley’s signature. If a majority of voters agree, slots parlors would be possible in five locations.

The implementing legislation passed the House, 71-44. Had one delegate switched, or even not voted, the measure would have failed. The Senate passed the bill 25-20, one more than the minimum. O’Malley (D) signed the legislation on Monday.

Because the votes were so close, several factions can claim to have played key roles in the legislation’s passage. Sixteen Montgomery delegates supported the referendum, as did 17 from Prince George’s. Both counties have been solidly in the anti-slots column in polls. The Republican caucus opposed the slots plan because of its linkage with tax increases. Still, five in the GOP supported the referendum.

Eleven Montgomery delegates supported the implementing legislation, as did eight from Prince George’s. Again, five Republicans supported the measure.

Bonnie Cullison, president of the Montgomery County Education Association, was in Annapolis during the just-completed special session, working the State House lobby and asking Montgomery lawmakers to support the referendum. But that doesn’t mean she will support legalization of gambling, she said.

‘‘I think we’re relying too much on something that’s uncertain,” Cullison said.

She said she hoped the Maryland State Teachers Association would work with members to decide the role teachers would play in the referendum.

MSTA remains undecided on slots, spokesman Daniel Kaufman said.

‘‘We’ve got to see the complete picture before we can make any decision,” Kaufman said.

One added wrinkle, he said, is a change from late in the special session. Delegates amended the referendum to require slots venues to follow local zoning regulations. Theoretically, zoning could forbid slot machine gambling and limit the amount of revenue headed to the state.

Even so, education is in line to receive the largest share of the expected slot machine revenue.

Legislative analysts, in a report released this week after final amendments to the legislation passed, estimate the state receiving a bit less than $1.4 billion in slots proceeds in fiscal 2013, when the program should be fully up and running. Earlier estimates had pegged the proceeds higher.

Of the $1.4 billion, the largest share, or $660.4 million, would go to the education trust fund. Licensees would get $449.3 million. A fund to boost racetrack purses would receive $95.3 million, and the local jurisdictions would split $74.9 million

The remainder would be divided among a racetrack renewal fund, the state lottery agency and minority business investment.

Not every union is prepared to take a stance on slots.

‘‘We’ve not taken a stance on it at all,” said Larry D. Kump, president of the Maryland Classified Employees Association’s Public Safety, Non Custodial Employees Chapter and governor of the Western Maryland district.

‘‘Our concern with all this budget turmoil is that they don’t balance the budget on the backs of state employees,” Kump said. ‘‘[Slots] is a policy issue and we’re just concerned about getting our fair share of the budget and not where that revenue comes from.”

Other union officials were not for slots per se, but lobbied for them as part of the overall revenue package, said Robert A. Stewart, executive director of the UFCW Local 1994 of the Municipal and County Government Employees Organization.

‘‘It’s the overall revenue package that was critical to Marylanders at large, including our union members,” he said. ‘‘Our union has never taken a position one way or the other on slots.”

The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees’ position on the referendum has yet to be decided, said Sue Esty, interim executive director for Council 92.

‘‘We’ve faced incredible cuts to state employees both in terms of number of employees and the way they’re rewarded for their work,” she said. ‘‘There needs to be more revenue to keep the state solvent and to keep services happening.”

Unions that support legalizing gambling will be at odds with one of their natural allies, the Catholic Church.

‘‘We’ve always been against expanded gambling in Maryland,” said Dick Dowling, a lobbyist for the Maryland Catholic Conference.

‘‘There will always be the need for money. This modest slots initiative is merely a stepping stone to full-blown gambling, riverboat gambling, Chesapeake Bay gambling,” he said.

Esty said AFSCME has ‘‘significantly more enthusiasm” for alternative sources of revenue, such as progressive tax structure and closing corporate loopholes.

‘‘The bottom line really is what kind of state do we want to have?” she asked. ‘‘Do we want to take to take care of foster kids who need homes? Do we want the streets to be safe? Do we want correctional institutions not have escapes. That’s the bottom line for us.”