The Wyoming Lottery Board has a chance to do something few government bodies do: It can set an early standard of excellence for transparency.

Now the question is, will those on the board do the right thing and keep it and its decisions open to the public?

So far the signs are good. The lotto board was quick to disclose the $165,000 salary of Jon Clontz, the Wyoming Lottery’s new CEO. That’s a good start.

The lotto board’s stance on transparency moving forward is important for several reasons. First, as Tennessee Lottery CEO Rebecca Hargrove told the board in July, “this is a zero-mistake business.”

Second, gaming is a big money business: The lottery board estimates it’ll take in $20 million from ticket sales in the first year of the state’s games of chance. Third, regardless of truth, it’s not a stretch for some to associate lotteries and gambling with vice and back-room business deals.

The lotto board is considered a quasi-governmental organization — it doesn’t accept state money, but was created by the state Legislature. Yet the lotto board shouldn’t be quasi-sure that it wants its business to be open to public inspection.

The quasi-governmental organization designation isn’t just a name game. The board gains benefits from this designation. For example, it receives a federal tax exemption on the interest it’ll pay on a $1 million bank loan for its newly created Wyoming Lottery Corp. The exemption will reduce the final cost of the loan by a third.

But here’s the thing with quasi-governmental organizations. Wyoming has several, including the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority and the Wyoming Pipeline Authority. The leaders of these organizations don’t use their organizations’ status as a way to shield their activities from the public.

The Wyoming Infrastructure Authority, in particular, has a sterling record of opening its board meetings to the public, and in fact turning them into forums on energy issues critical to the state. They’re always well-attended.

The lotto board’s quasi-governmental status should be a reason to do the right thing, not an excuse to the wrong thing.

Yet in the early days of the Wyoming Lottery Board, some of its members seemed hesitant to take the same approach.

The board first met July 8, days after it was authorized to start work under the recent law that created the board. The board doesn’t have a lot of time. Its members are expected to put state gaming in place sometime next year.

Gaming vendors will be knocking at the state’s door for the right to be a part of the state’s gaming scene. That’s a good thing. But how much should they get paid? How much will they get paid?

Then there was the CEO situation. The question was up for debate: How much should the person in that position get paid?

It was a sticky question for the lotto board, which was first bandying around a salary of between $100,000 and $175,000. Hargrove, the Tennessee lottery CEO, said no deal: “Getting someone to pick up and leave everything and come here can cost between $225,000 and $700,000.”

That has seemed too rich for the board’s taste. More recently, the board said it would gun for a yearly salary somewhere less than $250,000. As we know now, the board agreed to a $165,000 for Clontz.

The lottery board was quick and transparent in releasing information on its choice of a CEO and exactly how much Clontz will get paid. It’s a good start, and an important one if the board is to begin its work with a reputation for transparency.

Reach Jeremy Fugleberg at 307-266-0623 or jeremy.fugleberg@trib.com. Follow him on Twitter: @jerenergy.

(7) comments

Salty Dawg
Salty Dawg

Not much is transparent in Wyoming due to the RINO infestation.

Here we go....gotta make everything political. Is that all people think about. Frankly, it is sad that all the comments one ever reads on here are comments about the political problems in Wyoming. Sad, Sad, Sad.

Salty Dawg
Salty Dawg

Well,if you don't like the "political problems in Wyoming",then do something about it,stop electing the same worthless people over and over.

You missed my point. All some people want to talk about is the "political problems." After a while it gets old.

conservation know it all

Salty Dawg, in your estimation are there any actual Republicans serving at the Capitol in Wyoming? If so, who are they and what are their positive attributes. We know one attribute must be transparency :)

CheyenneGuy

Wyoming's relative rural and low population density will reduce lottery revenues.
The estimated net revenue of $20 million may be less for Wyoming in light of findings by University of Mississippi Professor Donald Moak. He reported that state lotteries are more costly to operate in southern states like Wyoming than in more dense and urbanized states in the Northeast and Midwest (Hill, Dr. John, Lottery Revenues Not Stable South Carolina Policy Council (803) 779-5022).

State sponsored lotteries diminish local and state tax.
“The California Grocers Association reported an average decline in food sales of seven percent since the imposition of the California Lottery.” (“Not so small change” Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1986, cited in Hill, Dr. John, Theft by Consent, Alabama Policy Institute (205) 870-9900)
Given the low rate of savings among Wyoming citizens , money spent on lottery tickets would come from reduced purchases of other goods and services. This, in turn, would reduce state and local tax revenue generated from sales of other good and services.

Convenience stores have reported that selling lottery tickets hurts their businesses due to: 1) employee time required to sell tickets, 2) subsequent shoplifting increase because of inattentiveness by employees occupied with lottery sales, and 3) lost sales due to longer lines resulting from lottery customers. (Watson, Tom, “Many convenience stores say lottery sales not a big draw” USA Today, May 4, 1995)
State sponsored lotteries promote problem gambling (Richard Huddleston, 2002. An Arkansas Lottery, A Bad Bet for Education & Families?).
Research shows, “… that the lottery is a powerful recruiting device, which is responsible for inducing about one-quarter of the adult population who would not otherwise have done so to participate in commercial gambling.” Lotteries create gamblers who otherwise may never have gambled. (Clotfelter and Cook, Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press) 1991 pg. 105).
Dr. Lance Dodes, who runs Massachusetts' largest outpatient treatment center for problem gamblers says that lottery players comprise 44% of his patients. (Golden, Daniel and Halbfinger, David, “Lottery Addiction Rises and Lives Fall” Boston Globe, February 11, 1997).
43% of all callers to the national 1-800-GAMBLER hotline indicated problems with lottery gambling. (Council on Compulsive Gambling, “1995 Statistics for 1-800-GAMBLER Hotline” March 20, 1996)
39% of persons who entered publicly funded alcohol and drug treatment centers in Texas stated that the lottery was their most problematic gambling activity. (Wallisch, Lynn, “Gambling in Texas: 1995 Survey of Adult and Adolescent Behavior” Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse).
State sponsored lotteries makes states liable for gambling addiction. Given the current state of liability litigation (for example, the tobacco lawsuits), it may not be too long before states get hit with major lawsuits by addicted lottery players. (Novak, Viveca, “They call it Video Crack”).
State sponsored lotteries violate government responsibility and purpose.
“Opponents challenge state-sponsored gambling on grounds of hidden social costs as individuals, especially with low incomes, gamble away money that should properly be used to care for their dependents. For those low-income individuals succumbing to a gambling addiction, the state may be encouraging the impoverishment of families, especially poor families with children. Gambling may even be associated with other social problems, such as alcoholism and drug addiction. By supporting gambling, the state may seem to encourage other maladies. Above all, by supporting gambling, the state may promote get-rich-quick attitudes that contribute to eroding the work and savings ethic badly needed in any society.” (John K. Roth, December 2004, Claremont McKenna College, Ethics, Revised Edition, Salem Press)
“The lottery is unhealthy for the common good. First of all, lotteries convey ‘a message at odds with the ethic of work, sacrifice and moral responsibility that sustains democratic life’ (Sandel, 1997, p. 27). Americans value earning a living through hard work, but the lottery encourages the idea that someone can get something for nothing. Yet, state governments promote the lottery, encouraging citizens to participate. Doing this, the government essentially turns gambling into some sort of civic virtue, equating it with staying in school or abstaining from drugs (Hertzke, 1998). (From Jesse Aukeman, State Lotteries: A Losing Game, Universal Journal).
Lotteries are used to bail governments out of financial crisis and fiscal incompetence. The legislature should take responsibility for the state’s fiscal condition. But instead, “[T]hey seek easy, superficial, painless solutions to the state’s pressing revenue problems” like using a lottery.
Government works against the well-being of citizens when it lures citizens into risky ventures that result in an increase in social welfare cases and an added tax burden.
Government has no business enticing people to gamble their hard earned money for an against-all-odds chance of winning a big cash prize. It is bad enough that government takes our money from us in taxes. Promoting high risk gambling to get rich is irresponsible and immoral.
Knowing that it is the poor who spend more per earned dollar on lottery sales makes legislators responsible for targeting poorer people. In the hope to quickly and easily improve their conditions by the lottery (reinforced in this unwise thinking by the government), the poor lose the most. This is reprehensible.

People can voluntarily donate already more tax money to the state without the aid of a lottery. Promoting a high risk gambling game is irresponsible.
“States need to spend less time promoting the lottery as a fun, recreational activity and follow the cue of New Hampshire's lottery director. Compulsive lottery players need to be reminded that the odds are against them.” (Michael Ring. published on September 3, 1998. The Problems with State Lotteries: Chance for Quick Fix Presents Irresistible yet Dangerous Lure for the Poor, The Tech Vol. 118, Nmbr 39).
“As new gambling ventures drain potential investment capital for other businesses, as existing businesses lose more of their consumer dollars to gambling ventures, more businesses are being pushed closer to decline and failure, more workers are being laid off, and enormous public and private costs are incurred to deal with a growing sector of the population afflicted with serious gambling problems; do we really want our governments so dependent on gambling that they are forced actively to promote an activity that takes disproportionately from those who can afford it least, does great damage to existing economies, and can be highly addictive? If governments are going into business, couldn't they find alternatives that create less trouble and offer more real long-term economic and social value?” (Carnahan, Ann, “Lottery analyzing players brains” Rocky Mountain News, July 8, 1997. Goodman, Robert, “The Lottery Mystique: Why work at All?” Newsday June, 1991).
Legalized “... gambling is definitely not painless, especially to that 10% of the population who will become problem economic gamblers (PEGS) or the 1.5% to 5% who will become compulsive economic gamblers (CEGS). A guaranteed 10% of practically any U.S. population base will redirect proportionately large amounts of consumer dollars away from the preexisting economy and transform those dollars into gambling dollars once gambling is legalized by the state government (i.e., the 'acceptability factor'). (John Kindt, "Legalized Gambling Activities as Subsidized by Taxpayers," Arkansas Law Review, Volume 48, Number 4, 1995, p. 896.)
State sponsored lotteries hurt children suffering in families cursed by gambling addiction.
The state is obligated not to hurt or threaten the well being of children and their families.
Studies suggest that the costs of parental gambling are borne heavily by children.
Children of problem gamblers have higher levels of tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug use, and overeating compared to their peers.
Three-fourths of problem gamblers’ children reported their first gambling experience before age 11, compared to 34 percent of their classmates.
Children of compulsive gamblers are twice as likely to come from homes involving separation, divorce, or the death of a parent before the age of 15.
Compared to their classmates, children of problem gamblers rate themselves as more insecure, emotionally down and unhappy with life, and perform poorer at work and school. They are also acknowledged suicide risks at twice the rate of classmates.
Studies also suggest lotteries encourage illegal gambling by children.
State sponsored lotteries hurt poorer and uneducated families.
Lotteries are sometimes called stupid tax because as a, “governmental revenue-raising mechanism, a lottery will attract only those consumers who fail to see that the game is a very bad deal.”
“One third of the families with annual incomes of less than $10,000, spend one fifth of their income on lotteries. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that ‘the poor bet a much larger share of their income,’ and that ‘the less education a person has, the more likely he is to play the lottery,’ and that lotteries do best in urban areas with large proportions of minority groups” (Business Week, June 5, 1989).
State sponsored lotteries increases welfare costs.
“When statistics are included for the state lottery and race tracks, the overall pathological and problem gambling costs in Massachusetts work out to $170 million a year according to a behavioral study released by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis.” (Fraga, Brian. UMass study: Out-of-state casinos bring costly problems to Bay State, SouthCoastToday.com, posted Wednesday, February 21, 2007).
“The societal costs from pathological gambling to individuals are seen in bankruptcies, legal proceedings, and divorce. Private businesses are hurt by lost productivity, while the state pays for law enforcement, treatment, social welfare and other costs, The Center for Policy Analysis (CFPA) said. A recent University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center study on pathological and problem gambling estimated the annual cost to U.S. society to be $6 billion” (Ibid).

conservation know it all

Wow, were you up all night? Interesting stuff though, I normally would not read a post that long.

Why is it legal for an entity (the state) to provide gambling for the population and then outlaw any competition (private establishments) that may also desire to provide a place to gamble.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.