Class is in session.
Remember this rule: the one who seals a controversial political deal, and then gets it...
* Quickly into print as a bill...
* Approved by a hurriedly convened committee...
* Moved from the floor of one chamber to the next...
* And all done fast enough to keep interest groups from taking whacks at the deal...
Wins.
Got it? Good. With that in mind, consider today's action in the long-running saga over revised casino compacts between the state and five powerful Indian tribes in southern California.
The headline is simple: after almost a year of limbo, four of the five compacts were ratified today by the Assembly. That means that short of federal objections, as many as 17,000 more slot machines will be in operation in California, and the tribes will be able to run their casinos through the year 2030. The revised compacts, by the way, could also bring in several million dollars a year to help balance the state budget.
But there's much more below the surface, hence the rule stated above.
As you may know, it was only yesterday that Governor Schwarzenegger and the four tribes announced that they had formally signed side deals to the compacts-- side deals that grew out of private negotiations with Assembly Democrats, who had balked at ratifying the compacts for months.
But what's most notable about the side deals is what they don't include... provisions that labor unions desperately wanted for an easier method than currently exists in organizing workers at these casinos.
And as everyone knows, labor is a big player in Democratic politics. In fact, the top labor leader in the nation-- John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO-- personally made phone calls in recent weeks to Democrats, asking them to reject the casino compacts unless the new worker organization rules were included.
But back to our lesson in Politics 101, where all of the ingredients appeared to be in place for swift passage... until a series of long closed-door deliberations among Democrats.
Those discussions did not, in the end, give labor leaders what they wanted... namely, a rejection of the compacts. But they did probably prompt Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez to make what seemed like an unusual statement on the Assembly floor before the vote. Each tribe, he said, had promised not to thwart casino workers from organizing.
Did that mean there was a new agreement in writing? No, just a promise... apparently extracted after what appeared to be individual one-on-one meetings between Nunez and tribal chairmen.
This is how Nunez explained it to reporters afterwards:
"If the unions want to come on to the tribal properties and organize," he said, "each one of the tribal chairs has committed to me that they would not interfere with that process of workers organizing themselves to form a union."
Is that good enough? We'll see. Nonetheless, it helped Nunez execute everything he needed under the Politics 101 game plan. And in the end, the compacts were ratified.
There are numerous political side issues to consider in the wake of this action: what does it mean about the relationship between organized labor and Democrats once the 2008 election season rolls around? Is there any fallout for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who cut his political teeth working for the L.A. County Federation of Labor? Do these politically savvy tribes return the favor when Democrats search for money to help finance an initiative campaign next February to modify the state's term limits law?
And then the policy questions: are these side deals enforceable? Senate President Don Perata went so far this morning as to refer to them as "non-binding." And if a tribe chooses to ignore either the provisions of its 'memorandum of agreement' (MOA) or a decision reached through binding arbitration, what power does the state have?
And what about the one big gaming tribe that opted not to sign the MOA: the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. What will happen to their revised casino compact?
No easy answers on any of these questions for now. Only an interesting day in how policy can be quickly enacted here at the Capitol, especially when that policy's fate is dependent on swift political action.