The Truth is Out There

Boasting that Massachusetts building a casino in the South Coast would ruin Rhode Island's Twin Rivers, Clyde Barrow tells the Projo that the only solution, should we build one, is for Rhode Island is to go out of business, or build a bigger casino.

“Rhode Island’s only options are to exit the gambling business or move toward a full-scale casino that would buffer it against competition from Massachusetts and recapture some of the considerable revenues still leaving Rhode Island for Connecticut,” he said in an e-mail last Friday.

Oh, if only they had built a bigger casino! Twin Rivers, being one of the biggest in the world (literally), isn't quite big enough to stack up against Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Truly, Barrow has never seen a casino he didn't like.

Of course, we know this is where Massachusetts slot proponents take their cues. Barrow's numbers to them are sacred, even if they're bullshit. (Apparently, Barrow missed the memo: Twin Rivers is going bankrupt, with Foxwoods not particularly far behind.)

Well, it pains me to read this, but that's not all the Speaker's looking at. There was, of course, the at-that-time roundly criticized Spectrum Gaming Report, which the Speaker, apparently, took as Holy Grail. You know, the report that covered Patrick's 3-casino plan, not the Speaker's 3,000 slots at the Race-Tracks and two-casino* plan. Of course, the Spectrum report barely covered the costs of a casino at all in its effort to study the 3-casino plan, never mind the Speaker's much bigger and different (and worse) plan.

*The Speaker leaves the option open for more casinos in his plan if they're tribal casinos (but don't worry, there's only two tribes in Massachusetts -- and another 6 pending -- for potential casino compacts /snark off).

So, let's get this straight. The Speaker bases his numbers off a report that studied a plan that wasn't his, that was much different than his, and even that report failed to take a comprehensive look at the costs. Will the legislature really travel down the rabbit-hole with the Speaker? Does the Speaker and Barrow even believe this stuff, or do they really just want to believe?

Casino's Biggest Cheerleader's First Rational Quote?

Well, at least one of the first rational things, in my opinion, Clyde Barrow's said when it comes to casinos:

Clyde Barrow, a gambling expert at University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, said states rationalize gambling "as a voluntary tax because nobody has to gamble." But he said studies show that many respond to the temptation.

"We do know the closer you put casinos to people the greater propensity to gamble," Barrow said.

Which has been my point, all along. People complain about Massachusetts citizens gambling in Connecticut and how 'we need that money back.' The problem with that, of course, is that casinos' business models don't depend on faraway tourists to make the bulk of their profits, they depend on a small number of local players in the region who get hooked and use slots several days a week, wasting thousands a year.

They depend on a player base that used to spend money in the local economy -- and now spend money at the casino. These companies lay out lots of dough just to get people in the door, betting knowing that if people go in enough, trying slots a few times, eventually many of them will get hooked and make casinos a ton of money. Even casinos like Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun rely almost solely on regional players.

Mitchell Etess, president and chief executive officer of Mohegan Sun, said it was no surprise that a national survey would find Las Vegas and Atlantic City rate highest in the public's awareness of gambling destinations.

"Both Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are very, very huge destinations but we're primarily a regional destination," he said. "If you go to Missouri, they're not going to know Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun."

Note the fact that Clyde Barrow never made a quote about how nearby casinos produce more addicts in a Massachusetts paper or state house hearing. He's been all 'let's make a world-class resort casino for nation-wide tourists' when he's spoken to Massachusetts reporters. People have to realize that the big resort casinos don't add concerts, clubs and restaurants to capture people from over the world -- they do it for the same reason Jordan's Furniture does it to a much smaller extant, to get people in the area in the doors, on the chance they'll try the slots. The difference is while Jordan's is trying to sell furniture with its IMAX theaters and other entertainment, casinos sell a product that pushes gambling addiction to 5% of the population within 50 miles.

Dearest Clyde Barrow,

You went on Emily Rooney's TV show claiming casinos actually help local businesses. No offense, but I think you're full of it. We get that you like casinos and think they're swell, but do you have to support them so blindly? If casinos are so good for local businesses, can you please explain to me why Atlantic City went from having over 260 restaurants, bars, pubs and clubs to having less than 50 today, after casinos? Or why Detroit's lost 20% of all its small businesses since casinos went in to 2007? Or how about the fact that New London, Connecticutt lost over 30 restaurants to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, or that Cripple Creek, Colorado, went from having 66 restaurants to 10. Can you please explain how casinos 'helped' the small businesses in those areas?

The answer, of course, is that they didn't and don't. Casinos are one great, big, giant sucking sound, but you knew that already. We in this state have to decide whether we want to help that great, big, giant sucking sound -- or our local business owners, who are our friends and neighbors and the lifeblood of any state's economy (85% of the Commonwealth's). If you want to still espouse the virtues of casinos, that's fine, but at least be honest about the downside. The only winner when a casino comes in is the House.

Sincerely,

Ryan

PS: Your claim that the University completely funds your casino research is downright false. I found an example, reported by the press, of an instance where a union gave $20,000 to your organization to research how much casinos would fund state coffers -- right around when the union accepted $25,000 from a casino lobby group. Furthermore, that totally clouds your claim that you've made many times, that you don't accept money from casinos interests on behalf of your organization. Saying your Center hasn't accepted money from any casinos is misdirection at best -- while your Center may not have accepted money from a casino group directly, it's clearly accepted money from it indirectly, and to say that it's completely funded by the University is, well, completely false.

Intimidation?

Barrow's very angry over those who have detracted from his consultant gigs and methodology across the blogosphere, so much so that he's now publicly threatening to sue. Perhaps I'd be a target, but it's not because I've actually committed libel. Nothing I've ever written was ever meant to be libel, I've worked very hard to make sure the proof was irrefutable. Anything that I've ever been wrong about on this blog, I've always corrected very soon. If there is anything I'm wrong about now, I'm happy to correct it - just let me know about it. The most I think I've ever been wrong about regarding Barrow was on the date of an article I linked to, something I corrected within 24 hours of the blog being posted. It was a mistake and I apologize.

I have never published his home address, as he seems to claim. In fact, I went out of my way to avoid publishing his home address, though that home address is, for better or worse, a part of the public record. Barrow made that decision, when he formed Pyramid Associates and took a consultant gig with the Yes on 2 campaign in Maine: Campaigns must report their expenditures and list key information about whoever's services they've used, including posting the business address. Barrow decided to use his home address as his business address: Yes on 2 published Barrow's home address, not me, because they were required by law to do it.

When I received reports that Barrow had worked for Maine's Yes on 2 Campaign in 2008, I demanded my sources help me find irrefutable proof -- because I do not write wild claims on my site. Not only did I have to know Pyramid Associates took on $15,000, I had to know that Clyde Barrow was Pyramid Associates. I am not a journalist, but I try to hold to journalistic standards when I am proving a claim that I make. I had to tell my sources that it wasn't good enough that Pyramid Associates was a Fall River company, telling them to find me that evidence that Barrow was Pyramid. They did, in the form of a yellow pages website -- again, public information. I never published the address, but I did link to the public information, because I needed to have that proof for readers. Since bloggers have no editor to vouch for their veracity on a blog, we have to link to critical information. Barrow has subsequently had the yellow-pages site take his address off the record, which is his right, but to say I published his home address, writing it on my website, if that is indeed his claim (he never points me out by name, I just make the assumption), is erroneous. He let it be published himself and made it a matter of public record.

You know, I don't actually like doing this. When I signed up to be a blogger, this isn't what I had in mind. However, it's imperative that people realize who Barrow is and realize that he isn't a completely impartial source on casinos. Why? Because he's an exceptionally important figure in the fight. He made himself that important, because he's obviously a very bright guy. I've unfortunately been one of the few people who knew about Barrow long ago, since I knew of him during my UMASS Dartmouth days and have cared so much about casinos, which is why I'm one of the few who started to post about him. I'm not sure if he ever cared much before, until some of my major points started being picked up by the mainstream media, as it has very recently.

He calls people like me a "zealot" and I say he's at least mislead the general public, by saying he's never taken industry money, backing up my claims. He's gone on to say he never took money from a casino or gaming company and that's probably true, but as I've said multiple times now, it's a distinction without a difference. He has taken money from groups wanting to build casinos, be it campaign committees or the Golf Course in Maine. His research center takes on private clients, which at least once was a group wanting a casino built in Rhode Island, paying $20,000 for Barrow's Center's work, right around when that group took a $25,000 donation made by Harrah's, which was enough to pay for Barrow's work and then some. Is that a conflict of interest? Well, there's at least that appearance -- and it's something, as a professor and public employee, he should disclose. Barrow is certainly entitled to have side gigs, but he should be disclosing any possible conflict of interest whenever appropriate, like when being asked about it by State Senator Tucker at a Beacon Hill hearing. This is pretty basic stuff.

I don't see where Barrow could think he has a case, I guess that this just has more to do with the fact that he wants to scare people like me away and stop our free speech. Threatening a lawsuit is often a good way to do it, even if one doesn't have much of a case. He makes over $150,000 a year between his University position and gigs, so he could probably afford to make the lives of bloggers and activists a little more bothersome, but I would counter to him that it would just be more bad news cycles for him, getting the press to look at issues he clearly doesn't want people to look at -- and, at the end of the day, that would hurt his efforts.

I'd like to offer him an alternative -- instead of trying to shush me up, why not come on my podcast, LeftAhead.com, and we can talk about the issues? I promise that it'll be a respectful environment and he can get his full say. Maybe we'll even realize we all have valid points? I'm willing to listen, is he?

Clyde's Misdirection -- including a $20,000 gem

Clyde's at it again. This time, UMASS Professor, head of the Center of Policy Analysis and industry consultant Clyde Barrow has claimed that "I am not, and never have been, employed by, retained by, or paid by, a casino or gaming company," as if that was the complaint. It's a classic red herring, something most University professors attempt to avoid. Clyde's not one of them. Yes, Clyde, we know you aren't technically in the employ of "a casino or gaming company," but you have been in the employ of groups and committees that want casinos and/or gaming companies, frequently. It's a distinction without a difference.

Consider:

• Clyde Barrow took $20,000 on behalf of the UMASS Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis in 2006 by a Rhode Island union group supporting an effort to pass a bill legalizing a casino in Rhode Island, right after Harrah's, one of the country's largest union chains, gave $25,000 to the union group.
  
• In 2008, Barrow took $15,000 from Maine's Yes on 2 Campaign as a full-fledged consultant.
  
• Just recently, Clyde Barrow took $11,000 from a New Hampshire Golf Course wanting to build a casino on its greens. They don't own a casino or gaming facility, they just want to own one. Big difference, right?
• Both New Hampshire and Maine are on top of his considerable salary at UMASS Dartmouth, which was $144,000 this year and over $150,000 last.
• And that's just all I know about it. Every time Barrow writes an article or pens a paper, I seem to find some new consultant fee he was more than pleased to take from a group wanting to build a casino, the Harrah's example just being the most recent.
  

Almost discrediting Barrow's entire article, he basically says at the end, 'so what if I've taken money? Academics do it all the time.' Honestly, that's more like it. Just admit it, Clyde, you don't mind schilling for casinos. Be honest about it. Opponents of casinos in Massachusetts aren't after Barrow to be an impartial resource on casinos. We just want people to have an honest understanding of who he is and how important he's been to casino proponents. He prays off the image of an unbiased college professor, but is in fact very partial and on the take from the industry's many lobbyist groups. Clyde Barrow could choose to be honest about his past history, but he knows that would be extremely damaging to his efforts. So, instead he tries to lie, mislead and distort his record, which is par for the course for the industry's powerful and greedy lobby.

Clyde Barrow Took *Another* Casino Consultant Gig

Don't worry, Senator Pacheco, I don't blame you for being wrong. Even today, he's not being completely honest about his monetary connections to the industry, but at least he's admitting to the fact that they exist. From today's Herald:

A University of Massachusetts professor, who has billed himself as an objective voice in the long-running debate over casino gambling in the Bay State, is now a paid consultant for a gaming proponent in New Hampshire.

What's he being dishonest about?

Some gambling critics have long insisted Barrow has had at least indirect ties to the gambling industry in recent years. But Barrow said yesterday the Greenmeadow work is the first time since 1999 that he’s performed paid work for a gaming interest.

Of course, readers know that is false. Clyde Barrow took $15,000 as recently as 2008, from Maine's Yes on 2 campaign -- for consulting, again. Furthermore, his Center at UMASS Dartmouth takes on private clients. Just who would pay the tens of thousands of dollars for a comprehensive casino study in Massachusetts?

Governor Patrick's office tried to pooh-pooh the revelation, saying Barrow was 'just one' of its sources in coming up with its original casino plan. However, readers should remember that Governor Patrick's plan was Clyde Barrow's plan -- a fact I first pointed out two years ago. The people of Massachusetts, chief amongst them our chief policy makers and elected officials, have to know the truth about Clyde Barrow -- because his influence on this issue is deep and nefarious, based almost entirely on his faux-brand of impartiality as a UMASS professor.

Update: According to a South Coast paper, Barrow took $11k from the NH group. In the article, he was quoted scoffing at us ebil bloggers.

He described criticism from anti-casino advocates as a “character assassination” and “the only arrow they have left in their quiver.”

Now, my question: Does that sound like an unbiased, independent professor?

A reminder: In the Boston Herald article, Barrow said about the sum of his NH consultant pay, "it's really not that much." Who wouldn't take an extra $11k over 6 weeks, including a tenured college professor? Honesty, clearly, hasn't been one of Barrow's strong suits on the matter of his past work.

Finally, check out BMass's latest blog on Blue Mass Group on this latest Barrow revelation -- it's pretty freaking funny, proving that sometimes the best response to the absurd is mockery.

Dear Clyde Barrow,

You recently did a cable access show with Senator Pacheco. On it, Senator Pacheco asked if you were ever paid by the casino industry and you said no.

I was, in fact, emailed a quote with exactly what you said on the show. You said you were

"...not on a retainer, not a consultant to any casino company and never have been."

Can you please explain that statement for me? It doesn't seem to fit with your past history. For example, in 2008 your home address was listed as the business address for Pyramid Associates and Pyramid Associates was paid $15k to create a study on slots in Maine. Where does that fact fit in with your public statements that you've never worked for the industry? How does that fit when you went to public meetings with the Yes on 2 campaign in Maine and did a press conference for them? If that isn't "consulting," can you please explain what that job is in your view?

Additionally, can you please explain how your Center at UMASS Dartmouth funds its studies? We know that it takes on contracts from "clients" including the "private sector." Can you explain how often those clients have had any connection, whatsoever, with the slot machine and casino industries?

The answer to these questions would be very helpful and, really, the people of Massachusetts, as well as our elected leaders, deserve to know the truth. The time for deception and dishonesty is over. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ryan

Senator Pacheco is Wrong About Barrow

First off, let me just preface all of this by saying I have an enormous amount of respect for Senator Pacheco. I consider him an ally on many issues. He was essential, for example, in passing several bills last year to help combat Global Warming and grow green jobs, making Massachusetts an environmental leader again. He's just very, very wrong on the topic of casinos. Sadly, he's misinformed on that topic, too.

A constituent of his and friend of mine sent Senator Pacheco a message today, including a link to my last blog. Pacheco has had Clyde Barrow on his monthly show and frequently uses Barrow's research as evidence for the need to build casinos in Massachusetts. Here's what Senator Pacheco had to say:

From: Pacheco, Marc (SEN) <Marc.Pacheco@state.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Cyde Barrow
To: [redacted]
Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 9:16 AM

Professor Barrows has NOT received any funding from the Gaming industry

I'm sorry to have to tell the Senator this, but he's completely misinformed. Barrow took no less than $15,000 from Maine's Yes on 2 campaign in 2008, under the guise of Pyramid Associates. Furthermore, from the same link, Clyde Barrow's Center for Policy Analysis itself takes money from the industry -- and that fact comes straight from Barrow's own research papers. So not only is Barrow personally on the take, but his Center's research depends on the funding it receives from their "clients."

It's hard to blame Pacheco for being misinformed, though, because Clyde Barrow danced around the issue and failed to answer the question of whether he's taken money or not, when he was asked at a state house hearing by Senator Tucker.

Senator Pacheco has a race track in his district. That track is very important to him -- which is understandable. He's actually being a good legislator in defending his district's interests. However, just because the track is important to his district doesn't mean he should be making decisions when he's clearly misinformed.

Since Clyde Barrow has been so important to Senator Pacheco's rational behind supporting slots in Massachusetts, the Senator should at the very least hold off on a yes vote until the state commissions an unbiased, comprehensive look at casinos in Masssachusetts -- or, at the very least, until he reads the work of Professors Goodman, Grinols and/or Kindt.

Will Beacon Hill Make an Informed Decision on Casinos?

As important as preventing casinos in Massachusetts is to me, I could honestly be happy if whatever decision is made were made by a group of legislators making informed decisions. The fact is, though, most of the talking points and studies out there on casinos come from biased sources, even the studies that would appear to be unbiased.

Nothing is more illustrative of this fact than UMASS Dartmouth Professor of Public Policy, Dr. Clyde Barrow. He's written more studies on casinos in Massachusetts than possibly anyone and they've been very favorable to the industry, but here's the cold, hard facts.

• Clyde Barrow works privately for the industry. Clyde's home address in Fall River is the same address of Pyramid Associates. Pyramid Associates was paid a total of $15,000 for an "economic impact study" by Maine's Yes on 2 campaign in 2008, funded in large part through Olympia Gaming, the Las Vegas group that bankrolled Yes on 2. Barrow also, reportedly, appeared at a press conference and public meetings on behalf of the campaign. [Update: That link isn't working anymore, but this one does.]
  
• Barrows doesn't include his private, industry jobs on his extensive, public resume at his UMASS Dartmouth page, despite their relevance.
• Barrow's Center for Policy Analysis studies on gambling, which frequently appear on the industry's own website in Massachusetts, are also compromised financially. As recently as March of 2009, Barrows did a study through his center that was favorable of the industry. Included in that report, for those who actually bother to read it, is the fact that the funding comes from the Center's clients, read: lobbyists.
  

  "The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis is a multidisciplinary research unit that promotes economic, social, and political development by providing research and technical analysis in the areas of economic development, public management, program evaluation and polling research for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, private businesses and educational institutions.... The Center for Policy Analysis does not pursue a predetermined research agenda, but is a flexible research organization responding on a timely basis to the problems and issues identified by client agencies."

• For all of Clyde Barrow's UMASS Dartmouth resources, there's very little accountability. The Center for Policy Analysis's Advisory Board is comprised of a great deal of people who have a bone in this fight: Senators Murray and Pacheco, for example. Not only do these politicians not mind Barrows waging this war by using the University to make himself appear an unbiased observer, but they gain from it and use his studies as justification to support their political agendas. It's smart politics, but the Center is an organization that should exist separate from politics.
  

Barrows is not alone. The Labor Resource Center at UMASS Boston created a study asking "Can Casinos Bring 'Good Jobs' to the Commonwealth?" The results here, again, are mostly favorable. Yet, the results here, again, are also funded through the industry and biased sources.

• The study was funded by The Construction Institute and the The Future of Work in Massachusetts project, which is funded through the UMASS system's President's Office.
  
• While I'm sure The Construction Institute is a great organization, they have an obvious stake in this fight. It's an organization that wants to build really big things and expand union labor. Need I say more?
  
• The Future of Work in Massachusetts seems like a great arm of the UMASS Boston Labor Center, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum either. The funding comes from the (Romney-Appointed, often political) President's Office, which comes from the Commonwealth's coffers (to the tune of $1.2 million) -- which means we'll probably never know just who was responsible for that funding. Furthermore, the labor movement appears to be very involved in this project, a movement which is very biased when it comes to the question of casinos.
  

Governor Patrick made two attempts to "study" casinos in Massachusetts. The first was a retread of many the other studies done, bringing in "experts" and using their numbers - which led to the 30,000-person joke of a job claim. The second was his Spectrum Gaming Report, perhaps the closest thing to a comprehensive study done in Massachusetts, yet produced by a company that works for the industry. Useless. That was almost as bad as when Representative Flynn boasted at a casino hearing I attended that he had never even gone to the Connecticut casinos or racino in Rhode Island. He actually saw that as a plus in his argument to legalize them in Massachusetts.

Studies shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and there are many people on Beacon Hill who are doing their due diligence, some of which probably sit on the other side of this issue. However, it's clear that all too many don't have the important facts, in great part because we haven't commissioned a comprehensive, unbiased study to find them. Given that it's undeniable that casinos will have a huge and likely irreversible impact on the state, it's important for legislators to get this decision right. The question has to be if casinos are worth it. As of yet, there's no substantive, unbiased study to show that they are worth it. Without that evidence, legislators should vote no.

Clyde Barrow: I Deal in "Pseudo Facts."

Note to readers: I write the following because Barrow is set to appear in a hearing on casinos at the State House on Monday -- a hearing that follows the lengthy pattern of drumming out almost all the opposition in favor of bringing in a carefully selected group of industry "experts," including six of the eight people invited to Sen. Spilka's hearing.

Even in all my fascination with the UMASS Dartmouth Casino Industry cheerleader Professor Clyde Barrow, I somehow missed this critical article, "The Persistence of Pseudo-Facts in the US Casino Debate: The Case of Massachusetts." First, a reminder for readers: Clyde Barrow is the Director of the Center for Public Analysis at UMASS Dartmouth, a somewhat new arm of the University in its quest to offer more grad classes, programs and original research. Barrow's work was the basis of Deval Patrick's plan for casinos -- one of the few things I can claim credit to "breaking" as a blogger. That's all well and good, except for the fact that Barrow has deep connections to the casino industry, connections he removed from his website when it started to get embarrassing for him. He's constantly called on by the Massachusetts media and politicians as the "leading expert" on gambling in Massachusetts, but he never owns up to the fact that he's been paid a great deal by the industry he claims to be an unbiased academic on.

What does this make him? Well, it's not the best example of academic integrity. Really, read at least the first page of the first link. Let's actually quote from it. Emphasis mine (with the exception of the italicized "one" - that's his).

It is widely recognized in the policy process literature that academic policy research is only one input into the policymaking process and, therefore, it is only one of the many sources of information that decision makers take into account when making public policy decisions. Social scientists, legal scholars, and policy analysts, however, are more likely to believe that their research findings and recommendations should command special attention from policymakers because of their scientific or empirical basis. While the findings of academic policy researchers are not infallible, they are generally something more than mere opinion, but in the policymaking arena, academic policy research often appears to the decision maker as simply one more opinion to be processed and weighed in the course of decision making. The public policy arena is always crowded with noisy ideas and chatter, including the views of constituents and clients, heart-rending anecdotes and testimonials, personal letters, testimony to committees and task forces, ant the minute-by-minute interpretations of "the chattering class," i.e., talk radio, headline television, newspaper editorials, and the Internet blogosphere.

Hear that, everyone? The man who's become media-quote numbah one, Mass pundit extraordinaire, is calling constituents, journalists and trained political scientists from his own university (me), "the chattering class." Sadly for Barrow, as the links above indicate, when it comes to issues surrounding slots, this blog deals only with the facts -- casting a critical eye, as all political scientists should, on an industry masked in deception and bias, lobby dollars and uncomfortable facts. Clyde Barrow, on the other hand, deals with flawed science in coming up with numbers that please the (casino) industry.

His "chattering class" is really just a way of belittling those who disagree with him. Note how he fails to include the academics who denounce casino profiteering at the expense of society, such as Bob Goodman, author of The Luck Business, or Dr. Hans Breiter of Harvard, who found that, "Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine." He's actually trying to create a medication to suppress that urge. Are they, too, a part of "the chattering class?" If not, why doesn't Barrow include a single reference to their work - as any good political scientist normally would?

The truth is Barrows is part and parcel of the industry, the personification of the flawed Spectrum Gaming "study" Patrick paid for as means for "independent" analysis - a report that issued exactly what you'd expect... coming from the industry. Although, given the facts, it takes a lot of audacity for him to label us skeptics as dealing with "psuedo facts." The base rule of "the chattering class" that Barrow mocks in page one of this report at the very least submits to the paramount of ethical standards -- report conflicts of interest. What does it say, then, of a very serious academic who's the Director for Policy Analysis at a major Massachusetts public university when he not only fails to divulge his conflicts of interest, but actually covers them up when they matter the most? It seems to me, once again, Barrow fails to be the skeptical scientist his profession is supposed to be all about.

Update: Is the fact that Clyde Barrow took $15,000, under the guise of "Pyramid Associates," from Maine's Yes on 2 Campaign -- a failed campaign for casinos in Maine - a conflict of interest? How does that befit a very serious academic? Will someone ask Clyde Barrow about these "chattering class" "psuedo facts" at Monday's hearing?

What's Missing From Clyde Barrow's Resume?

I recently took a stroll along Clyde Barrow's online resume, Director of UMASS Dartmouth's relatively new Department of Public Policy program.

He lists his past 20+ years of work:

Professional Career

Director, Center for Policy Analysis, 1992 – present
UMass Dartmouth

Chair, Department of Policy Studies, 2005 - present
UMass Dartmouth

Chancellor Professor, Policy Studies, 2004 - present
UMass Dartmouth

Professor, Political Science
UMass Dartmouth, 1996 – 2003

Associate Professor, Political Science
UMass Dartmouth, 1990-1996

Assistant Professor, Political Science
UMass Dartmouth, 1987-1990

Visiting Assistant Professor, Political Science
Texas A&M University, 1985-1987

Visiting Assistant Professor, Social & Policy Sciences
University of Texas at San Antonio, 1984-1985

But leaves a few things out. Things that used to be there - as recently as 2007.

According to a copy of Barrow's resume that is attached to the CFPA's website, he was hired by the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head in 1995 to conduct what appears to be his first patron origin analysis at Foxwoods. In 1999, according to the CFPA's website and his resume, Barrow conducted a casino study for The Visions Group, which, according to a 1999 New Bedford Standard-Times article, was "a team of developers who hope to build a $300 million casino in Salisbury."

Last time I checked, one of the most important aspects to academia is integrity - which includes disclosing potential conflicts of interest. Revoking disclosure of work on a public resume when your work makes you a public figure in that field is intellectually dishonest, especially when that information was there before an embarrassing story in the media.

Professor Barrow Wasting UMASS Resources

Who thinks a known casino supporter should be using university funds to pay for polls of his pet projects, especially when its something the private sector would likely fund anyway. That's exactly what Clyde Barrow did in his recent poll of New Bedford citizens, to test whether they'd want a casino in the city. Now, no one should question the importance of university professors researching their own interests when there's some kind of academic or scientific merit, or little purpose for the private sector to get involved - but it's been made obvious again and again that Clyde Barrow an unbiased observer when it comes to casinos in Massachusetts. Hence, his deep connections to the industry in the past. Most professors study things with an open mind, just trying to learn information before coming up with any serious conclusions. Clyde Barrow's more akin to the guy who knew the answer before the question, rarely ever considering any facts beyond how much money he thinks Massachusetts could make, using science others consider flawed to come up with those numbers in the first place.

Seriously, though, where's the Scientific Method? Was the fact that casinos are Bay State bliss ever in doubt with Mr. Barrow? There would actually be no problem with that - if got his own little think tank and did his 'research' (you know, counting license plates) funded by the industry instead of the university, or even if he disclosed his conflicts of interest and appearances of such.

The bottom line: Barrow's doing no favors to the University, the city of New Bedford or the Commonwealth. There are plenty of other, much better uses for the resources of UMASS Dartmouth than propping up the casino industry, especially when there's almost no chance in hell of a casino opening in New Bedford, whether or not Massachusetts legalizes Class 3 gambling. Furthermore, university resources should fund projects that the private sector has little incentive to be involved in, or at least something that benefits the public health, not studies that the private sector is very capable of funding itself.

Wouldn't it be a much better use of university resources to study the effects of the black market (drugs) on New Bedford, an international leader in offloading heroin? Or, how about studying why the city suffers from some of the worst drop out rates in the state? Not important enough for UMASS? What about studying why family median income lags so far behind the rest of the state in New Bedford, even many of the other struggling cities across Massachusetts? Nah - not important enough. Clearly, we need to be doing the casino lobby's work for them! Now that's important!

Oh, Yea, Trust This Man on Casinos!

Clyde Barrow: Professor of "I Love Casinos 101" at UMASS Dartmouth.

Thanks to a great blog from David, I found an even more important article from the Weekly Dig: "The argument for casinos ain't nothing but a mathquerade," the subtitle says. And you know what? It's true. The article - and David's blog - focuses on a man I've written about on several occasions, Clyde Barrow, a Professor from UMASS Dartmouth. He's the man, as David, the Weekly Dig and my last link points out, who's largely behind Patrick's casino plan. Just how close are Barrow and Patrick's plans? Here's the Dig:

Barrow's blueprint called for "three commercial resort casinos," to be situated in Suffolk Downs, southeastern Massachusetts and western Massachusetts. It promised that, collectively, the casinos would generate $1.5 billion in revenue and create 20,000 jobs. It recommended a 27 percent tax rate on gaming revenue, which would generate "over $400 million" in revenue for the state, half of which would be spent on local aid. It suggested that the state charge $600 million in casino licensing fees every 10 years. It also recommended that the casinos allocate 2 percent of their gross revenues to offset the costs of communities near the new casinos....

Patrick... deliver[ed] a gambling plan remarkably similar to Barrow's proposal: He recommended three casinos taxed at 27 percent, and said the state would reap $400 million in new tax revenues, $600 million in 10-year licensing fees, 20,000 jobs and a 2.5 percent allocation of gross funds to local communities.

Even more shocking is the fact that Patrick's staff put warning labels all over Barrow's casino report, which offered many of the suggestions Patrick went with. The staff's warning?

"As most of you know, the work of Professor Barrow and The Center for Policy Analysis at UMass Dartmouth is not without some controversy, and many opponents of expanded gaming question the rigor of the economic analysis and the independence of the organization given its pro-gaming recommendations. All that being said, we wanted to circulate the report for your convenience since some of you have seen mention of it in the news and had asked for a copy."

Shouldn't we trust that guy? Shouldn't we trust someone who's resume includes, according to the Weekly Dig, working for the Aquinnah Wampanoags Tribe of Gay Head? If that isn't enough, he was also commissioned by a group that wanted to build a $300 million dollar casino in Salisbury. Shockingly, though, not even some pro-casino people trust Barrow's methodology. As the Dig reports, the chairman of the Aquinnah Wampanoags at Gay Head, said Barrow's methodology is "long on assumptions that weren't really articulated." Ouch. Here's an important note to everyone: just because he works for UMASS Dartmouth, doesn't mean he's an honest broker of information. As much as I love my Alma Mater, that school (and region) is teaming with people who crave a South Coast casino and will do anything to get it. Barrow's just a convenient source to help their effort.

Unfortunately, help their effort, he has. Somehow, he's hoodwinked Governor Patrick - I wonder if our Governor knows about all of Clyde's past connections to casinos? (I bet by the end of the day, he will.) He's one of the media's go-to guys for pro-casino quotes, hiding behind his University position to make it sound as if he's a completely neutral figure in this debate. Um, no. Furthermore, his papers not only include dubious forms of data collection, but in their general praise of casinos, they ignore things like income redistribution, economic impact of addiction and the effects casinos have on local economies. How else could they so glowingly endorse casinos in Massachusetts? (They couldn't.)

Finally, to show how important this guy really is to the pro-casino forces, a lot of these pro-casino numbers people keep throwing around come directly from Clyde Barrow. Barrow's continued to claim that Bay Staters spend 1.1 billion a year in Connecticut's casinos. Scary that we're losing so much money? Well, only in the way that "Scary Movie" is after people read how he came up with those numbers. That movie became a major comedy satire hit - and so has, apparently, Dr. Clyde Barrow.

What he calls "patron origin analysis," I call "counting license plates." He's gone to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, counted the license plates in their lots and used that to determine how much Massachusetts citizens were spending in Connecticut. That's the source, as the Weekly Dig points out, of his 1.1 billion dollar figure. Because there are no local senior citizen groups that regularly take busses to Foxwoods, ever. And there's no way that local residents, who are twice as likely to be addicted (and addicts/frequent regulars account for 20% of a casino's profits), would ever screw skew the data.

David over at BMG, who's supported casinos all along, now seems like a skeptic.

Ugh. If totting up the number of out-of-state license plates at Foxwoods is really the only basis for estimates of how much money we're sending to Connecticut each year, then this is my stop -- I'm off the train.

Well, Mr. Kravitz, we're glad to have you. David went on to criticize Patrick's administration for not doing their homeworking on verifying the information they've completely trusted. They've done little to validate Barrow and others in their quest to see if casinos are right for Massachusetts. David is right - the Patrick administration's efforts aren't "good enough." In fact, the their efforts are downright bad. I'd blockquote the Dig more, but I've already reached my legal limit (3 paragraphs). Suffice it to say, the Patrick administration did no original investigation of its own - instead, they relied on the research of others. According to the Dig, they did "little to distinguish dubious casino-funded studies from other, more authoritative sources," which allowed Governor Patrick, "to ignore anything he didn't want to know."

That's not the Governor I worked so hard to elect. Casinos will change the Bay State forever. The administration owes it to the people of Massachusetts to do a comprehensive review that includes, for instance, a real price check on just what we're getting. The Dig's made it abundantly clear that review hasn't happened in any way, shape or form. This is truly the first real, major mistake of the Patrick Administration. Let's hope it's his last - and he changes course quick to correct it.