Legislators left Harrisburg late last month after a familiar flurry of lame duck session activity. Most news coverage focused on what was approved - the increase to $47 from $5 for the former Occupational Privilege Tax, now renamed the Emergency and Municipal Services Tax - and what wasn't approved - a rumored $13,000 pay hike for lawmakers.

One important measure left unresolved in November involves changes to the slot machine legislation signed into law last July.

Lawmakers put together a package of changes to the slots law - some good, some questionable. Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed the measure, but lawmakers will have to revisit this issue when they return to Harrisburg in January. Voters should keep the pressure on to make sure the necessary changes to the slots law are made and signed into law.

The two major provisions that should be part of any slots amendment are a total ban on lawmakers and members of their families from owning any gambling related businesses and the absence of any restrictions on the state attorney general's office to look into allegations of illegalities involving gambling.

Beyond these measures, lawmakers should stick with a GOP proposal to allow slot machine manufacturers to sell directly to the casinos, rather than going through a Pennsylvania-based distributorship, as was required in the original law.

The objective of the Pennsylvania distributorship plan was to help create jobs, but it would also increase costs of the slot machines by adding an unnecessary middleman.

Though it would seem to have been a simple matter to eliminate the one percent ownership allowance for lawmakers, the amendment Rendell vetoed prohibited lawmakers and their children from ties to gambling interest, but permitted lawmakers' siblings, adult children and parents to profit from gambling interests. Once lawmakers return to the slots amendment, the final language should make clear that nobody with any connection to a lawmaker is permitted to enrich themselves from these state-sanctioned gambling interests.

Gambling has such a rich history of ill-gotten gains and kickbacks that Pennsylvania's venture into the one-armed bandit business requires a zero-tolerance approach from the start.

Rendell might have been right to veto this amendment since it did appear to have several flaws. But next month, without the pressures of a November lame-duck session, lawmakers should be expected to openly discuss all of the pros and cons of each provision in the amendment and produce the cleanest possible legislation to ensure that the dubious expansion of legalized gambling gets off on the best possible footing.

- J.L.W.III