Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi, at-large Councilman Michael Brown and others have made a mess of the lottery contracting process and their apparent scheme for Internet gambling. The District’s only ethical choice is to void its agreement with Greek-based gaming corporation Intralot. Perhaps the third time will be the charm. According to recent testimony before the D.C. Council’s Committee on Finance and Revenue and an inspector general report, the process was fraught with contract irregularities and questionable behaviors. Gandhi modified the contact after it was signed, violating District procurement rules. Further, Digidoc’s joint venture, a legitimate District business, was denied certification while Veteran Services Corp., which “was not a local business enterprise,” was certified. Brown withheld information about his law firm’s relationship with the gaming industry. Councilman Jim Graham told one bidder he would support his lottery proposal — if the bidder relinquished an unrelated Metro project.
Those facts make laughable Gandhi’s assertion the process was “transparent” and “adhered to all laws.”
“I don’t feel comfortable to be able to stand behind this new enterprise,” said Ward 6 Councilman Tommy Wells, who has co-introduced legislation to repeal the Internet gambling law. “Information presented raises significant questions about whether council members and the public were aware Internet gambling was part of the overall lottery contract,” said Committee Chairman Jack Evans. In 2009, when the legislature approved the Intralot contract, Internet gambling was illegal. What’s more, the contract, presented by the CFO, made reference only to “non-traditional games.”
Gandhi and Brown were the only ones to correctly translate that phrase. Within weeks, Gandhi was negotiating with Intralot to launch Internet gambling. Brown began writing legislation to make it legal in the District.
Interestingly, there’s a general perception that Intralot’s operation of Internet gambling is a fait accompli. But CFO spokesman David Umansky told me, “A contract modification is required.”
The council must approve all contract changes valued at $1 million or more. Moving ahead would indicate the legislature isn’t serious about ethics reform. It also would signal to businesses they can’t trust the city to play fair.
Digidoc owner Darryl Wiggins and Charles Hopkins, principal with the District-based Metropolitan Gaming, already have received that message. The two were part of lottery contract bid teams. They told me the CFO never discussed Internet gambling and they never interpreted “non-traditional games” to mean such. Hopkins said the best thing is to “rebid the entire lottery contract” or at the very least the Internet gambling component.
Umansky contradicted Wiggins and Hopkins. He said bidders were allowed to suggest what they wanted and “all included Internet gaming or games over the Internet.”
But Gandhi and Brown played wicked word games: “Non-traditional games” could mean anything. Moreover, Brown told the IG he titled his bill “Lottery Modernization Act” to deflect attention. Calling it “The Legalization of Internet Gambling” certainly would have killed his effort.
Brown couldn’t have that.
Being credited with bringing Internet gambling to the nation’s capital could help Brown and others score big consulting contracts — not simply with state governments but with gaming corporations like Intralot. That kind of money would make former Councilman Harry Thomas Jr.’s illegal haul look like chump change.
Jonetta Rose Barras’ column appears on Monday and Wednesday. She can be reached at [email protected].
