Gambling for Justice
Should Oregon's profits from charitable gambling go directly to pay government administrative salaries to oversee those games? What does that do to the motivation of officials?
Oregon's Justice Department if currently considering increasing its "take" from state-approved charitable gambling to cover increased expenses. Fees from licensing gambling and permitting charitable gambling go to Justice, not to the General Fund, a fact known to very few legislators.
The Chartable Activities section of Justice proposes to increase its income from nonprofit, tax-exempt groups which run gambling programs, such as the Lions, Rotary and the Catholic church by $200,000 per year.
To do this, it may increase Class A bingo charges as much as $8000 per year. The groups which operate charitable gambling are required to-- and do--make significant contributions to Oregon "worthy" causes. These groups express concern that, if their costs are increased, their funds remaining which now go to charities will be sharply diminished. The Elks statewide, for instance, gave $l,903,000 to various charities in the year ended last March 31. Typical recipients include the Casey Eye Institute at the Oregon Health Sciences University, Boy and Girl Scouts, and academic scholarships for college-bound students. Other proposed increases--referred to as "rule changes" by Justice, include a 400% increase in raffle fees.
What does it cost to oversee charitable gambling? Oregon has a Charitable Activities Section staff of 6.3 people. Two other states have seven each. Arizona's staffing budget is $222,800 or $31,828 per person. Alaska, where costs are always high, budgets $548,300 for staffing or $78,328 per person. Oregon budgets $785,800 for this or $124,000 each. More broadly, among the 23 states and Canadian provinces reporting, $62,236, or $90,180 each is spent on staffing. Two units, however, are wildly out of line. Washington spends $14,086,000 on 180 employees and British Columbia $15,312,0000 on 114 people.
Oregon began to permit gambling at non profits at the start of 1988. Early government receipts more than covered costs, particularly with the popularity of bingo early in the nineties. However, that faded late in the decade, leaving regulators spending more than their "take", hence the present search for more funds.
Should these cost increases be made at the sole discretion of the agency which wants the money? Not in the opinion of the Elks' Grover Simmons. His view: "The Justice Department should not be dependent upon gambling activities for administrative income. The fact that Justice gets a percentage of the "handle" is alarming and unknown to all but a very few Oregonians. This surprising information merits a re-examination of how to fund the Charitable Activities Section. We believe the General Fund budget should cover these department costs, not have management functions dependent upon money generated as a percentage of gambling volume."
A decision for the '07 Legislature?