Connecticut Airport Agency refuses to reveal information on casino plans

The airport authority has even rejected a request for documents, filed under freedom-of-information laws, from a legal firm representing casino competitor MGM, saying the information is protected because negotiations with the state’s two tribes remain ongoing.

The law firm, Carmody, Torrance, Sandak, & Hennessey LLP, responded by filing a complaint with the FOI Commission in February. A commission hearing officer will hear arguments from both sides Thursday in Hartford.

“

“

Airport authority General Counsel Patrick Pemerewski, meanwhile, sent a letter to MGM’s lawyers in January stating the authority won’t comply with the firm’s records request, sent by lawyer James K. Robertson

”

CAA Executive Director Kevin Dillon said the authority’s lawyer advised him not to comment on the issue due to the complaint.

A spokesman for MGM and MMCT, the joint venture between the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes, also declined to comment.

The airport authority submitted one of two proposals to bring a casino to Windsor Locks, suggesting Bradley International Airport as a site for the facility that MMCT is looking to build.
Sportech Venues proposed building a casino at the Winners pari-mutuel location. MMCT also received proposals for sites in East Hartford and Hartford.

Since MMCT stopped accepting proposals in November, the airport authority has gone into executive session four times during its regular meetings to discuss its casino proposal, according to agendas and minutes.

Airport authority General Counsel Patrick Pemerewski, meanwhile, sent a letter to MGM’s lawyers in January stating the authority won’t comply with the firm’s records request, sent by lawyer James K. Robertson.

Robertson’s request listed 27 categories of documents, many of them pertaining to anything related to legislation that the General Assembly approved last year inviting the tribes to submit a proposal for possible gaming expansion.

He also requested any communications with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes or any entity acting on their behalf, including on the issue of gaming expansion.

Additionally, Roberts requested any communications about MGM’s planned Springfield casino, and anything discussing whether MGM should be excluded from Connecticut’s gaming expansion process.

The Jan. 13 records request was for any communications, including emails, text messages, and other correspondences, going back to Jan. 1.
Thomas Hennick, a spokesman for the FOI Commission, declined to comment on the issue because of the pending complaint.

He did say, though, that the commission would need to determine whether the airport authority is a public entity under freedom-of-information laws — it hasn’t yet had to do so because the authority has not been the subject of a complaint.

The airport authority, a quasi-public agency, was created by the General Assembly in 2011 to oversee Bradley and the five state-owned general aviation airports. It will receive roughly $3.2 million in state aid to run the five general aviation airports this year, and is budgeted to get nearly the same amount next year.

MGM’s complaint is the latest in its challenge to the gaming expansion effort in Connecticut.
MGM also has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the state unfairly excluded it from submitting a proposal — last year’s legislation invites only the two tribes, who want a casino in north-central Connecticut to stop gamblers from leaving the state for Springfield.

MGM also is financially backing a similar lawsuit from the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, and has funded a study indicating a facility in southwestern Connecticut would be more beneficial than one north of Hartford.

MGM’s license from Massachusetts gaming officials prohibits the company from building another casino within 50 miles from Springfield, a range that extends just southwest of Waterbury.