There is a big, hulking shell of a casino rising on the Mystic River in Everett, Massachusetts. Many people have been hoping Wynn Boston Harbor would sparkle like a Bellagio East with grand restaurants, glittering ballrooms, dancing fountains, floating furniture, and riverfront paths. The promise of jobs galore, both during construction and for years to come, was another crucial part of the dream.

But now we’ve got a little problem. Wynn Resorts, even without Steve Wynn, is a tainted name. No one wants any facility in Massachusetts to be associated with a name that reeks of sexual misconduct. Casino construction is on hold, the fate of the casino license is up in the air, and the ensuing mess could take years to resolve.

The Gaming Commission responsible for selecting Wynn Resorts to build this casino is in hot water. Gambling as an industry is not particularly known for being squeaky clean and the Gaming Commission is responsible for ensuring that anyone opening a casino in the Bay State maintains “integrity, honesty, high character, and reputation.”

To honor that commitment, the Gaming Commission investigated and vetted both Steve Wynn and Wynn Resorts. Both passed.

So how did we get into this mess? How could the vetting process have missed learning of a $7.5 million dollar pay off to an “alleged” victim of Steve Wynn? And how did decades of complaints about his sexual misconduct go unnoticed?

‘Wynnful thinking’ is the answer, and two factors, in particular, undoubtedly contributed big time to this mess.

First off, ‘vet’ and ‘investigate’ are Treadmill Verbs, a phrase I coined to identify verbs that trigger activity, not results. Like running on a treadmill, these verbs specify no destination – no way of knowing when you are done. So you do a bunch of vetting and investigating. Then you write a report. ‘Report’ is another Treadmill Verb. So what.

The Gaming Commission undoubtedly got a nice thick report. If they were already excited about the Wynn proposal, I’m sure they accepted the report with a smile and were tickled pink to check off that annoying little step in their process.

By the way, the investigators then billed the Gaming Commission. ‘Bill,’ by the way, is not a Treadmill Verb! Any decent bill is very concrete and leaves no question about how much money is due or when it is to be paid! It’s a cinch to know when you have billed someone and even simpler to know when you’ve been paid the right amount.

I doubt the Gaming Commission made their vetting request anywhere near as clear and concrete as that bill. I doubt they said something like, “We want you to look back 25 years and give us your absolute assurance that no one will turn over a rock you missed that casts doubt on the integrity, honesty, character, or reputation of Steve Wynn, the company, and any of his board members or executives over that entire period.”

The second problem concerns how the Gaming Commission made this decision. If they did it the way most organizations do, they undoubtedly conflated the multiple steps of decision making into a series of muddled discussions, drooling over the glitz and promises, and arguing about the cons. While they eventually came out with a favorite, I am sure their announcement was more about marketing and persuasion than explaining how the winning proposal passed all showstopper criteria and how they were rated on all other criteria.

Had the Gaming Commission followed a crisp, disciplined decision-making process, here are three signs we would have seen that didn’t happen :

1. They would have defined much clearer, crisper decision criteria than these that I found in their application process:

“All applicants and their financial backers will also have to undergo an examination of their qualifications, their experience in the gaming industry, and thorough background checks.”

2. They would have ensured that the requirement for high character and integrity was spelled out as a measurable attribute and clearly identified as a show-stopper, not just one of many vague desirables. They certainly would not have left it as an unmentioned potential outcome of a background check, that treadmill activity already discussed.

3. They would have used their objectives/decision criteria to explain to the state and its residents why they made the choice they did.

What do you suppose would have happened if the Gaming Commission had very publically announced that they were confident that no one could possibly find any reason reaching back 25 years to cast doubt on the integrity, honesty, high character, and reputation of Steve Wynn, his company, and all his executives and board members over that period?

I don’t believe for one minute that such a statement would not have led to immediate and critical revelations, do you?

Don’t rely on wishful thinking when you make important decisions! SOAR through Decisions instead!

Ann Latham is an expert in strategic clarity and the author of The Clarity Papers. For more information, visit http://bit.ly/The-Clarity-Papers.

This article first appeared on Forbes, February 11th, 2018.