CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Chairman Delores Pigsley
Con’t from page 1
is not. It is the NIGC’s intent to impose a
fine on the tribe.
The implications of the NIGC’s NOV
against the Siletz Tribe are so profound and
have generated such concern among tribes
nationwide that the National Indian Gaming
Association, at its convention in Billings,
Mont., on Aug. 16, took an affirmative stand
in support of the Siletz Tribe.
By unanimous vote, NIGA members
adopted a resolution that “authorized and
directed” the chairman and executive
director of NIGA “to take any appropriate
action necessary to intervene in the NIGC’s
administrative proceedings, including the
filing of an amicus brief in any litigation in
federal court in support of the Siletz Tribe
over the NIGC’s authority to issue its NOV
to the Siletz Tribe.”
Earlier, during the morning session,
NIGA’s Chairman Rick Hill, Vice-Chairman
Danny Tucker, and Political Analyst John
Tahsuda each pointed out that what NIGC
has done to the Siletz Tribe is an infringement
on tribal sovereignty. All three admonished
NIGA members that if not successfully
challenged, the Siletz case has the potential
of having an adverse impact on all tribes.
As Chairman Hill said, “Harm to one is harm
to us all.”
Chairman Hill commended Franklin
Ducheneaux for his legal analysis of NIGC’s
authority and for helping to keep NIGA aware
of the dangers involved in NIGC’s invading
the sovereignty of Indian tribes.
Tahsuda commented that immediately
following my testimony before the Senate
Committee on July 26, Committee Chairman
Ben Nighthorse Campbell pointed his finger
directly at NIGC Chairman Monte Deer and
asked, “Are you listening?” Some
interpreted this as a rebuke of the
NIGC chairman.
In his testimony before the Senate
Committee, NIGA Chairman Hill also made
statements that are relevant to the Siletz
issue. “The primary regulatory authority for
Indian gaming,” he said, “has always been
accepted as residing within the Indian
nations as a matter of their inherent
sovereign governmental powers. There has
not been any legislation amending the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to grant
greater regulatory authority to the NIGC, and
without such authority, it is unclear how the
NIGC can legitimately usurp such authority
to itself.”
The Aug. 16 NIGA resolution,
unanimously adopted by the member tribes,
sets forth the reasons underlying NIGA’s
action. For your information, I would like to
quote from selected parts of that resolution:
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
“The unlawful invasion of the rights of
one Indian nation arising from its gaming
activities constitutes a threat to the rights
of all Indian nations”
“The cost of ‘comping’ in Chinook Winds
Casino is not paid from net gaming
revenues as defined and regulated by
IGRA, but as a part of the operating
expenses of the casino”
“The practice of ‘comping’ or providing
complimentary services and benefits of
a gaming enterprise is a well-accepted
and widespread business practice in the
gaming industry”
“Many Indian tribal gaming enterprises
engage in ‘comping’ as a marketing,
advertising, and public relations tool to
enhance the profitability of their gaming
enterprise, and pay for the cost of such
‘comping’ as a part of the enterprises’
operating expenses”
“IGRA confers no power on NIGC to
impose business requirements or
limitations on Indian gaming enterprises
or to substitute its business judgement
for that of the tribe and its management
authorities”
“If NIGC is permitted to force tribal
gaming enterprises to forego or limit
‘comping’ expenses as a reduction of ‘net
gaming revenues,’ it may force any
operating cost reduction practices on
such enterprises”
♦ “In issuing its NOV to the Siletz Tribe,
NIGC has taken the position that it has
power to enforce the provisions of tribal
state compacts, which power is not
conferred upon it by IGRA"
♦ “NIGC issued its NOV to the tribe based
upon raw, unaudited data provided by
the Tribal Gaming Commission and,
without further auditing or investigation,
issued its NOV and posted this
information on its web page”
♦ “This rush to unauthorized judgement
and posting on the Internet has
wrongfully accused the Tribal Council
members of the tribe and caused them
public and tribal embarrassment”
♦ “These unauthorized actions of the
NIGC represent a threat to all Indian
tribes engaged in gaming”
•
In addition to directing the chairman
and executive director to take appropriate
action, “including the filing of an amicus brief
in federal court,” the resolution calls for NIGA
to make clear to NIGC “that IGRA doesn’t
authorize it to control business-making
policies of tribal gaming enterprises.” It
further “calls upon the NIGC to explain the
authority it derives from IGRA to enforce the
provisions of a Class III tribal-state compact.”
As chairman of the Siletz Tribe, I have
been saddened by the fact that a number of
our own tribal members had joined NIGC in
a rush to judgement and have been making
public statements that have been
detrimental not only to the Siletz Tribe but to
Indian tribes and Indian gaming in general. I
am pleased, however, that the Siletz Tribal
Council is no longer standing alone.
In addition to the affirmative action
taken unanimously by NIGA member tribes
in adopting the resolution, other tribes are
stepping forward to support the Siletz Tribe
on this issue.
John McCarthy, executive director of
the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association
representing 11 tribes, and Kurt Lugar,
representing the Great Plains tribes, told me
that their intertribal organizations have
adopted similar resolutions in support of the
Siletz Tribe in our struggle against the
unwarranted actions of the NIGC.
I anticipate other tribes will join us in
this struggle.
3