Court delays release of racino background data

AUGUSTA – The state’s highest court Wednesday postponed the release of documents related to the business dealings and associates of Shawn Scott, the developer of a proposed racino at Bangor Raceway.

As a result of Chief Justice Leigh Saufley’s 11th-hour ruling, the media and others interested in reviewing the documents will have to stay tuned.

Saufley scheduled a hearing for 2 p.m. Monday at Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland. She delayed the release of the documents until further notice.

Saufley’s ruling in Maine Supreme Judicial Court came within minutes of the scheduled release of more than 100 documents the state has gathered as part of its background investigation into Scott and his company, Capital Seven LLC.

The documents at issue cover a range of matters relating to the application for the state harness racing license Scott needs in order to fulfill his multimillion-dollar plan for Bangor Raceway, which hinges on slot machines.

That information originally wasn’t going to be released until after it was submitted to the Maine Harness Racing Commission, which is conducting licensing hearings and setting race dates for 2004 during the week of Dec. 15.

But after receiving requests from several Maine media outlets made under the state Freedom of Access law, Department of Agriculture Commissioner Robert Spear said last week he would release more than 100 documents relevant to the license application process at noon Wednesday.

The documents at issue were among thousands gathered as part of a state-mandated background check. The list includes financial reports, corporate information, correspondence, memorandums, invoices, transcripts of interviews and meetings, meeting minutes, bankruptcy records, documents describing litigation involving Scott in other states, print media reports, relevant statutes and rules, ownership and funding models for Capital Seven and some of Scott’s other companies.

Attorneys for Bangor Historic Track Inc., Capital Seven and Scott filed the motion for a temporary restraining order covering all of the documents at issue late last week. After Kennebec County Superior Court Justice Donald Marden denied the petition Wednesday morning, Scott’s legal counsel turned to the state’s highest court.

Scott approached the city of Bangor last fall with plans to develop a $30 million racetrack casino, known as a racino in the racing industry. He is a 49 percent owner of Bangor Historic Track but would have to acquire the remaining interest in the company as a condition of licensing. He’s also the sole owner of Capital Seven, the company he created to bring the Bangor racino project to fruition.

Scott won approval in a citywide vote in June and has struck a development deal with the city, which owns the racetrack. Maine voters on Nov. 4 authorized slots for Bangor Raceway and Scarborough Downs. It now appears that the harness racing license is the only obstacle remaining.

Maine’s harness racing licensing process involves a background investigation of operators by the Attorney General’s Office. State law requires applicants and their associates and creditors to be of “good moral character” and “financially responsible.”

During oral arguments Tuesday in Kennebec County Superior Court in Augusta, Scott’s attorneys argued that the documents should not be released because they might contain information that could later be deemed confidential and potentially result in irreparable harm to Scott and his efforts to obtain a permanent license.

Scott’s attorneys also claimed the decision to release the documents did not belong to agriculture commissioners but to the harness racing commission, which they said agreed in September to limit the documents’ dissemination to the parties involved and their attorneys. They also said Scott believes some of the information in the documents is inaccurate.

Jeff Pidot, the assistant attorney general who represented the state and the public’s interest in the matter, countered that the plaintiffs did not offer specific justification for their request for secrecy nor an affidavit stating how disclosure might harm them.

Justice Donald Marden agreed with the latter assessment, noting that before he could issue a temporary restraining order, he needed to see proof of harm.