The Pennsylvania State Troopers Association has valid arguments underlying its decision to file a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court to stop gambling regulators from hiring private companies to conduct background investigations. However, at the same time, the state police should move quickly to provide evidence that the department has the manpower and overall expertise to tackle the huge task that slot-machine gambling will create.

Background checks should not be rushed just to get slot-machine gambling up and running more quickly. But the start of such gambling shouldn't be unnecessarily delayed either, now that laws are in place governing it.

The state police union seems to be right on several points.

The July 2004 law legalizing up to 61,000 slot machines at 14 gambling sites in the commonwealth gave the state police the authority to investigate the executives and employees of the slots parlors and vendors supplying those parlors. Based on that legislative action, it would seem that the seven-member state Gaming Control Board erred - or acted illegally - when it authorized its staff to negotiate no-bid contracts with three private firms, while also seeking other firms through a competitive bidding process.

The troopers union also is basing its lawsuit on the argument that the gaming board, which is a legislative body, will be in violation of the constitutional separation of powers if it performs an executive function such as law enforcement. On the surface, that argument seems reasonable, but the state's highest court is the right body to examine the intricacies of what the troopers union is contending.

Acknowledging what seem to be the valid points of the union's position should not be construed as questioning the honesty and integrity of private companies skilled in background investigations.

But the conduct of such checks should be carried out within the parameters set forth by the slot-maching gambling law, and the gaming board should be willing to live within the time requirements, even if the checks under state police control take longer than what the gaming board prefers.

"Outsourcing background checks will do nothing but weaken the oversight of an industry that has traditionally attracted organized crime and rampant corruption," said Sgt. Bruce Edwards, troopers association president.

Fears about corruption and infiltration by organized crime are behind many state residents' opposition to the gambling in question. The gaming board's decision to try to skirt limitations contained in the law in regard to the background checks is fodder for that opposition to remain deeply implanted.

The gaming board favors splitting the background checks between the state police, staff investigators and private firms. But if that plan doesn't conform with the law as passed, it should not be attempted.

It's understandable that the Gaming Control Board is interested in getting slot machine gambling under way as quickly as possible. However, the tactic it is using to try to achieve that end more quickly could in fact deal that effort a lengthy setback.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will act in a timely way to resolve the dispute, but timeliness should not take precedence over correctness.