For the past few years, as Illinois – like nearly every other state in the nation – has struggled to cope with challenges of the disastrous economy, we’ve heard a lot about how our state needs to improve its business climate and practices. We’re told that we are losing ground to our neighboring states and, in order to be more competitive with them, we must learn from their economic and policy strategies.

While I don’t always agree with the doomsday, "sky is falling" rhetoric, when it comes to seeking a competitive economic advantage in tourism, I do believe there are lessons to be learned from using gaming as part of the Illinois economy. SB 744 seeks to finally compete with our neighboring states because they certainly haven’t been reluctant to expand their gaming opportunities.

At the moment, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri and Wisconsin all have at nearly twice as many gaming positions as Illinois even though they are all substantially smaller states. And somehow I’ve yet to read of an editorial board or state gaming regulator denouncing Iowa as a hotbed of organized crime or foretelling of the impending doom of Indiana and Wisconsin at the hands of the mob.

For that matter, Illinois lawmakers are constantly told to look to Indiana as the model for a pro-business economy. OK. In recent years Indiana has added slot machines at horse tracks and legalized pull tabs and other gambling options for bar patrons.

That’s why I’m just a bit confused by the constant editorial board criticism and nay saying by the head of the Illinois Gaming Board as we seek to grow our economy and compete for the millions of dollars we are losing to other states.

This is not some nickel and dime industry. In the 2010 budget year, Illinois riverboat taxes totaled $526 million.

Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe’s job is to oversee this heavily regulated industry. I would think it would trouble him that our state performs so dismally compared to our neighbors. I would hope that as the lead regulator of this industry he would be seeking to shore up the part of the economy he oversees. If Chairman Jaffe needs more resources, he should detail them in his budget request

Meanwhile the tour buses loaded with Chicago residents, tourists, and conventioneers continue a steady flow to our neighboring states. Northwest Indiana casino parking lots are filled vehicles bearing Illinois license plates and Chicago city stickers. Indiana gaming officials have reported that 68 percent of the patrons at that state’s casinos near Chicago are not Indiana residents.

Golly gee. I wonder where they might they might live? Perhaps just a hop, skip and a brief commute across the border in Illinois.

You see, these gamblers are already supporting state economies, they just happen to be the economies of our neighbors who seem to relish the reticence of Illinois policy makers and politicians.

From a business and state economic standpoint I see that as problematic. I think SB 744 would fix it by going head-to-head with our neighbors and letting them know we’re just as serious as they are about this segment of our economy.

There’s little that’s new in this proposal. The communities targeted for new casinos have long sought such development. If locations surprise state officials, that simply indicates they haven’t been paying attention to the industry they regulate.

I have not and will never claim that gaming is the precise solution to all of our state’s revenue and economic woes. But, the decision was made long ago that some forms of gaming would be legalized in Illinois. Gaming is an important part of our economy. It’s time to stop the handwringing and fear mongering and start acting like professionals in running this business.

Several components of the legislation have been overlooked or misconstrued. Here is an attempt to set the record straight:

Criticism 1: According to the Tribune’s June 18 editorial, the legislation does not "protect Illinois gambling from the pastime's camp followers: mobsters and other crooks."

This is incorrect. The Illinois Gaming Board retains all of its current authority to investigate every aspect of gaming and does not minimize or reduce one iota of the Board’s power.

Criticism 2: The Tribune’s editorial board claims that SB 744 "essentially creates new gaming boards in Chicago and Springfield to oversee local gambling venues, but sloppily sets vague boundaries between those panels and the state board."

This is wrong. The Springfield and Chicago facilities would be publicly owned. The local gaming authorities created in the bill will only operate and manage the facilities in the same way private owners at the existing riverboats.

The gaming authorities are subject to strict ethical standards. To be absolutely clear, nowhere in the legislation are these gaming authorities given any power to supplant the Illinois Gaming Board’s regulatory authority.

Criticism 3: SB 744 "awards casinos to cities that have shown little or no prior interest in them. . .".

Legislation adding casinos in Chicago, Lake County, and the south suburbs has been introduced frequently in the General Assembly since 2004. The Gaming Board received proposals in 2008 to place the 10th license in Harvey, Calumet City, and Waukegan.

Similarly, Rockford and Danville have often been included in previous discussions and legislation.

Criticism 4: The editorial also said that "[o]ther than the pro-gambling lobbyists and legislators who hurriedly rammed it through Springfield, almost no one likes this clumsy and dangerous bill."

Nothing about this legislation has been "hurried". Since 2003, there have been 11 bills or amendments filed that were similar to SB 744. The Senate approved similar legislation in 2009 and 2010, the details of which have been available for public inspection.

Support for the legislation has come from the agricultural industry, universities, businesses, labor and union groups, and the hotel and tourism industry.

Criticism 5: "The bill improperly orders the Gaming Board to issue provisional licenses for video gambling establishments before the board can complete criminal background checks. . .".

Video gaming is a vital part of the financing behind the state’s $31 billion construction program. However in the nearly two years since it took effect, the Gaming Board has yet to issue a single video gaming license. SB 744 requires the Board to issue a provisional license to an applicant who has not been convicted of a felony, is current on his or her taxes, has not violated any criminal gambling statutes and submits to the Board a federal and State background check from the Illinois State Police.

The Gaming Board retains the authority to determine a person unfit or unsuitable for a provisional or permanent license.

Criticism 6: "The bill waives fingerprint requirements

SB 744 allows the Illinois Racing Board to waive fingerprints in its discretion, but it does not do away with fingerprinting. Under current law, the Illinois Racing Board is required to obtain fingerprints from all horse owners. Illinois is fortunate enough to have hosted high-level races that included horses owned by international dignitaries. However, the way current law is drafted, a horse owned by the Queen of England cannot race in Illinois until Her Majesty the Queen has submitted her fingerprints. SB 744 gives the Illinois Racing Board discretion to waive the fingerprinting requirement in such circumstances.

Criticism 7: "Make sure other legitimate businesses"

Section 2(a) of the Riverboat Gambling Act states that the Act "is intended to benefit the people of the State of Illinois by assisting economic development and promoting Illinois tourism and by increasing the amount of revenues available to the State to assist and support education." It does not say that the Act is intended to give a few select individuals a regulated monopoly.

Criticism 8: The editorial claims "that the bill more than triples the total gambling capacity at Illinois casinos".

Illinois is unique in that it is the only state that limits the number of gaming positions. Illinois currently authorizes 12,000 gaming positions. When this bill is signed into law, there will be an additional authorization of 21,600 gaming positions.

For comparison, Nevada has 186,914 gaming positions for its 2.7 million residents, a ratio of one gaming position for every 14 people, tops in the nation. Illinois currently has one gaming position for every 1,251 people, which ranks the 25th. Under SB 744, the ratio would be one gaming position for every 335 people, which would rank 20th nationally behind neighboring states Iowa (153 people for every gaming position), Indiana (278 people for every gaming position), Missouri (299 people for every gaming position) and Wisconsin (317 people for every gaming position).

Criticism 9: "When legislators legalized video gambling in 2009, they promised to expand the Gaming Board regulatory staff to 300. That funding never arrived, so the headcount stands at 210."

The legislature gave the Gaming Board a supplemental appropriation of almost $27.5 million for fiscal year 2010 to implement the Video Gaming Act. Its total appropriation for that year exceeded $128 million. For fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the legislature granted the Gaming Board more than $137 million and $161 million, respectively, to allow the Board to effectively regulate video gaming. The legislature has lived up to its promises to the Gaming Board and if resources in excess of these increases are required, they have not been requested.