It is hard to understand why a new government entity regulating a new industry in Maine has chosen as its first priority to exempt itself from the state’s Freedom of Access law as the Gambling Control Board seeks to do through emergency legislation. In effect, much of the most important information the board collects about companies and people that want gambling licenses would be shielded from public view. The Legislature should modify this overly broad bill.

In reviewing the suitability of companies and people to be granted licenses, the gambling board would gather and review reams of information. UnderLD 90, little of what was collected would be available to the public.

Supporters of the bill, including officials in Bangor, where the state’s first racino is scheduled to open soon, repeatedly point out that much of the information that would be made confidential is already public and available from other sources. They suggest that those who would want this information could travel to courts around the state and country and do Google searches. Such reasoning turns the process into a cat-and-mouse game with the media and public, which want to review the board’s decisions. Rather than a justification for the bill, this is good reason to change it to ensure that information that is currently public stays that way.

Supporters also say not passing this bill would stifle the ability of Penn National Gaming, the city’s chosen vendor, to move forward with the Bangor racino. But this legislation isn’t about a specific company or project. It is about the transparency of government and ensuring that decisions made by the Gambling Control Board, which is less than a year old, can be reviewed by the media and public.

To this end, the Legislature, prompted by the Maine Press Association, revised the state’s records access law last year. Among changes was a stipulation that any future exemptions to the law be considered by the Judiciary Committee. At the least, this bill should go through that process.

Much of what is in LD 90, which will be the subject of a public hearing Wednesday before the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee, is reasonable. Few would argue that the Social Security numbers, home addresses and health status of gambling company employees should be made public. Criminal and civil litigation history and financial affairs, however, should not be confidential.

Bob Welch, executive director of the Gambling Control Board, likens the confidentiality provisions to those that govern blueberry and potato growers. He’s right that state agencies won’t tell you what farmers grow what variety of potatoes or how many quarts of blueberries a specific grower harvested. Following this analogy, the public shouldn’t care who made the slot machines or how many different people played a particular machine. It should, however, be able to find out if gambling company executives have criminal records.

Officials from Penn National say the company couldn’t be licensed in Maine and elsewhere if its employees had criminal records. If that’s the case, there’s no need for the prohibition on releasing records. With a couple of changes, LD 90 can be turned into sensible legislation. As it is written, it gives the gaming industry a free pass that it hasn’t earned.