Republicans and Democrats alike are criticizing a flurry of last-minute phone calls among casino investors, state gaming board members and Democratic politicians, all in advance of a deal moving Pittsburgh's casino project out of Don Barden's hands.

State Rep. Dwight Evans, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said yesterday that he, Gov. Ed Rendell, Rendell Chief of Staff Greg Fajt, Don Barden, and Mr. Barden's new business partner, Chicago billionaire Neil Bluhm, discussed the impending deal twice by conference call on Monday. The deal, which gives Mr. Bluhm's outfit 75 percent control of the Pittsburgh casino in exchange for $120 million in cash, was signed Wednesday.

Mr. Evans, D-Philadelphia, also said he discussed the deal by phone with Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board member Jeff Coy and board Chairwoman Mary DiGiacomo Colins, and fielded calls from Mr. Barden himself on Sunday.

Yesterday, both the conference calls and the one-on-one communiques between Mr. Evans and the gaming board members drew admonitions from critics who said the conversations violate the gaming board's code of conduct provisions against private discussions on issues that will come before the board for a vote.

"I'm flabbergasted," said state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, who called for a new round of bids for the casino license even before he knew about the private discussions.

Asked if any of those communications could be viewed as inappropriate, Mr. Evans said:

"I would agree with you, if the gaming board had not made the decision to pick Don Barden already. ... It's not that we told the gaming board what to do, how to do it. [We] wanted to add our stamp to this, that we were 1,000 percent supportive."

Mr. Evans said it was important that select state officials referee the conference calls partly because it was important to Mr. Evans, who also is black, to preserve Mr. Barden's role as a minority owner. The state had pledged to have minority ownership among the state's 14 casinos.

He also said state officials wanted assurances that the new ownership group would keep the financial promises Mr. Barden had made to the city of Pittsburgh and its neighborhoods -- payments toward a new hockey arena, in particular.

Mr. Coy was contacted, Mr. Evans said, because he was the House Democrats' appointee to the gaming board. Each caucus -- House Democrats, House Republicans and their Senate counterparts -- gets one representative, while the governor names three people to the seven-person board.

Mr. Coy said he didn't regard the call as an effort to pressure him to approve the transfer, and that he hadn't decided how he will vote on it.

He also said there was nothing "ex parte," or private or improper, about his phone call with Mr. Evans, because Mr. Evans has said publicly that he supports Mr. Barden's ownership of the casino.

"He simply reiterated what he has said in public, in the past," Mr. Coy said.

Steve Miskin, spokesman for House Republican Leader Sam Smith, wasn't buying it.

"If you already know [his] position, what was the point of the conversation to begin with? The law was written exactly to prevent these types of conversations," he said.

Mr. Smith, R-Punxsutawney, sent a letter to the gaming board yesterday, which said, in part: "I must admit that I am hard-pressed to reconcile the language of the law [and] the reports of ongoing discussions between a Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board member and various public officials about the pending Barden petition."

He referenced the 2004 gaming law's code of conduct (section 1202.1): "A member of the board shall not engage in any ex parte communication with any person [and shall] avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety at all times and observe standards and conduct that promote public confidence in the oversight of gaming."

The passage suggests that if any gaming board member discussed the situation with "any person" -- Mr. Evans, or anyone else -- he engaged in ex parte communications.

Ironically, a July 16 letter from the gaming board acting director, Frank Donaghue, regarding the upcoming review of the new casino arrangement, explicitly said that "it would be inappropriate for the board to engage in ex parte discussions about the details of a pending matter upon which it will exercise its quasi-judicial responsibilities."

The law defines "ex parte communication" as "an off-the-record communication by a member or employee of the board, regarding the merits of or any fact in issue relating to a pending matter before the board, or which may reasonably be expected to come before the board in a contested on-the-record proceeding." The transfer of the license from Mr. Barden to the new Pittsburgh Gaming Holdings LLC is expected to come before the board next week.

The law also says that a board member should remove himself from voting on a matter if his neutrality is questioned.

Communications between elected officials and casino investors don't appear to be prohibited by the state gaming law, but when the gaming board was considering the applications back in 2006, elected officials made a point of stressing that they'd exert no influence over the selection process.

"This is making a mockery of this issue. ... I'm completely perplexed as to why public officials are somehow negotiating -- involved in any way -- in this matter. I'm somewhat incredulous that there are these secret conversations taking place between unknown parties on these [license] transfers. ... Talk about back-room deal-making," said Mr. Ferlo, who joined Republican Sen. Jane Orie earlier this week in calling for a new round of casino bids.

Combined, the two conference calls lasted more than an hour.

Mr. Ferlo said the proper mode of communication with the gaming board is a letter; Mr. Evans said there's little difference between lobbying via letter or with a phone call, and pointed out that he did, in fact, send a letter to the gaming board in support of Mr. Barden, on May 1.

Mr. Ferlo and Ms. Orie sent a letter to the gaming board yesterday, questioning the talks between board members and Mr. Evans:

"The involvement of the House Majority Appropriations Committee chairman, who has direct oversight over the board budget, in discussions with a member of the board on behalf of applicants for a gaming license, raises troubling ethical questions concerning the board's adjudicatory process, the conduct of its members and the inherent fairness of any resulting determination," the letter said.