Here’s an interesting scenario: You apply for a license to serve on the board of a gaming organization, maybe a racetrack, in Kansas. Or maybe you simply want a job with the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission.

As it is allowed to do, the commission does a background check on you. It has permission to check with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service and just about any other criminal justice agency to see what they can find out about you.

After doing whatever checking they want, the commission declares that your background check shows that you are unfit to serve. Thinking you have nothing in your background that should justify that decision, you ask why. What did someone tell you about me?

It seems like a fair question, but it is a question that state racing commission officials can’t answer. If they share information about a background report, they could be prosecuted for a class A misdemeanor and removed from office.

This situation arose last month when the commission denied an application from Sen. Jim Barone, D-Frontenac, to continue to serve on the board of The Racing Association of Kansas Southeast. The decision was based on a background report, but the commission wouldn’t release that report even to Barone.

In the mind of Stephen Martino, executive director of the state racing commission, the commission’s “hands are tied by the statute.” The primary justification for keeping the background reports secret, he said, was to protect people who give information to investigators. But who protects the applicants from false information in background reports?

Martino agreed that the commission’s decisions on those who are fit to be associated with gambling in Kansas were subjective, but also noted that “working in gambling in Kansas is a privilege, not a right.”

Keeping background checks secret even from those whose reputations are at stake clearly was the intention of the Kansas Legislature, but Martino said he “wouldn’t be opposed to tweaking the law in a way that allows some give and take.” Providing applicants an executive summary of a background report would be one possibility, he said.

It’s understandable that state officials want the gaming commission to have broad latitude to keep criminal elements out of the state’s gambling operations, but the secrecy of the current law may not provide enough oversight either by individual applicants or the public. With that in mind, it seems the statute covering background checks would benefit from a review by state lawmakers.