Sound Politics Public Blog: Gov. Gregoire: The truth about tribal gaming

August 04, 2008

Gov. Gregoire: The truth about tribal gaming

http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=966&newsType=1

Office of Governor Chris Gregoire
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 1, 2008
Contact: Governor's Communications Office, 360-902-4136

The truth about tribal gaming

OLYMPIA - Recent media coverage questioning removal of a revenue sharing provision from a tribal compact is inaccurate and ignores the facts.

Following the lead of state voters who in 2004 overwhelmingly rejected Initiative 892, which would have led to a massive expansion of gambling in Washington state, Gov. Gregoire and a bipartisan group of state and local leaders opposed revenue sharing provisions. This was based on their shared fears that revenue sharing would result in a rampant expansion and lead to a reliance on gambling revenue by the state.
There is no evidence that Washington state would have raised $140 million from revenue sharing ("Tribes give big to Gregoire, avoid sharing casino cash," June 12, 2008), or lost "hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the state" by abandoning the revenue-sharing provision ("Democrats defend tribal compacts," August 1, 2008) both as carried by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Until yesterday, the issue of revenue sharing was not raised at earlier hearings on the Spokane compact. A joint legislative committee had ample opportunity to review the approval process for compacts during which they could have addressed their concerns on revenue sharing.
Tribal lottery machines first appeared in Washington state in 1998 following a federal court order. Each federally recognized tribe was allowed 675 machines. When the compacts were renegotiated in 2005, the tribes initially requested unlimited number of machines per tribe. Through negotiations spanning almost two years, the parties agreed to 975 machines.
At a mid-July 2008 conference sponsored by the Washington Indian Gaming Association, Attorney General Rob McKenna said that the "law was scrupulously followed" during the negotiation. "It was conducted strictly in the framework of state and federal law and it produced a compact which was adopted strictly within the requirements of the framework of state and federal law. Period. And if anyone ever questions the process I would be happy to tell them that, to the letter, we believe the law was scrupulously followed." (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 25, 2008)
Federal law prohibits taxing tribes. Federal law only allows revenue sharing if the U.S. Secretary of the Interior determines that a tribe receives a substantial right in return for revenue sharing. In most cases, this means a tribe must be allowed to operate an unlimited number of machines or must receive exclusive rights to particular types of gaming. Washington regulates the number of machines the tribes may operate.
Contrary to reports that the state receives no money from these compacts, through the negotiations, tribes pay local impact fees, pay for smoking mitigation and problem gaming programs (first required in the latest compacts), and commit to substantial community investments which include infrastructure, schools and public facilities.

On December 23, 2006, Gregoire wrote in a letter to John Ellis, a member of the Washington State Gambling Commission:

"I have made it clear on several occasions that I am personally opposed to gambling. However, I am committed to honoring the commitments made by the state in prior compacts and complying with federal law. I understand that components of the current compacts must evolve over time as a result. Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 to provide Native American tribes a means to promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments. All Washington tribes, big and small, urban and rural, have benefited from tribal gaming. This is a result of Washington's unique state tribal compact structure. I understand that adjustments to the current system may be necessary to fulfill the state's legal obligations to make machines available to the Spokanes, but any adjustments must adhere to the fundamental goal of supporting the economic development of all tribes.

"As you know, tribal casinos are wholly owned by the tribal government and revenues generated are used to promote tribal development. Tribes have built health clinics, needed infrastructure, and have expanded educational opportunities for their communities. Tribal members and nontribal members have benefited from these investments. I do not believe revenue sharing is necessary so long as tribes remain committed to investing in programs that benefit tribal and non-tribal members, including initiatives that mitigate the impacts of gaming. In particular, I believe there should be a commitment to preventing problem gambling."

Other leaders shared Gregoire's views:

"... Fortunately, Gov. Christine Gregoire nixed the proposed Spokane Tribe Class III Gambling Compact and sent the commission staff back to the negotiating table. ... It proposed a tenfold increase in the number of video slot machines, higher betting limits, extended hours, multiple facilities on reservations and an off-reservation facility.

"... I am also troubled by the popular notion of state "revenue sharing," which was also included in the proposed Spokane compact. While the idea of requiring tribal governments to share their gaming revenue with state government is appealing on the surface, I think it would place state government in a conflicted position as a business partner with the tribe...."

Norm Maleng
King County Prosecutor
Seattle Times op-ed
Nov. 22, 2005

"... I believe it would have caused the number and size of tribal casinos in Washington to literally explode. For the first time, state and local governments would have received a cut. Sounds like a good deal, until you hear what the tribe would get in return: 7,500 electronic machines (4,000 at one location, up from 1,500), permission to operate a casino off the tribal reservation (opening the door to megacasinos in our downtowns and neighborhoods) and 24/7 operations.

"Almost worse, the agreement would have made the state budget dependent on a regular dose of tribal gaming monies..."

Jim Honeyford
State Senator
Seattle Times letter to editor
Nov. 30, 2005

Last week Pierce County legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, met to discuss issues vital to our delegation. One issue jumped from the headlines onto our immediate agenda the possible compact with the Spokane Tribe of Indians.

The October 8, News Tribune headline, "Deal could expand tribal gambling", caught everyone's attention. This was the first time many of us had learned about the pending agreement which would grant many exceptional opportunities to the Spokane Tribe in exchange for 'a cut of their winnings'. In our discussion many concerns were raised, including the precedent set by this agreement and the broad expansion of gambling this is likely to create.

We urge you not to sign this agreement. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this issue in person.

Entire Pierce County Legislative Delegation (2005 legislative session)
Letter to Gov. Gregoire
Oct. 20, 2005

Posted by RodVanMechelen at August 04, 2008 03:38 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Wow Rod, as a Cowlitz Tribal Member and State Employee who would have thouhgt you would be so bias in favor of the Governors position?

Posted by: Smokie on August 4, 2008 05:21 PM

2. By the logic of your response, Smokie, the Attorney General is guilty of bias, as he actually came out "in favor of the Governors(sp) position." He is a State Employee, too.

I have not yet had time to read this press release, so had I commented on it I would have been guilty of knee-jerking, just like you. My purpose in posting it was not to persuade but only to inform. If in information you see bias, then you're in the company of a lot of leftists.

Your implication that having a State job predisposes me to a liberal bias is flawed. Many retired veterans have State jobs and they would take offense at your accusation, I think. Working for the State is not a political statement. It's just a job, although I'm very proud of the work I do and many of the people with whom I work.

The political tradition of mudslinging may be honored by by time, but stooping to it does you no honor. Were you to provide thoughtful analysis of the press release, however, then in my opinion that could enlighten all of us and possibly even bring honor to you.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 4, 2008 07:06 PM

3. So why did the tribes give so much money to the state democrat party, who in turn gave a huge donation to Gregoire's campaign? How did the tribes think they would benefit from another Gregoire administration?

Posted by: Michele on August 4, 2008 07:41 PM

4. ..and if Gregoire did not want expanded gambling, why did she expand gambling?

Posted by: Michele on August 4, 2008 07:45 PM

5. Well Rod the AG has a real job with the State and apparently he knows how to do it. When representing the State while speaking at official functions, the AG should not comment on anything but the legality of the issue before him. He would not place the State in harms way by making some statements about the "net effect" of the Governors actions. You attempting to use the AG and deceased former prosecutor from King County in defense of your position does you no honor. The simple fact of the matter is that the Governor has taken huge sums of money from a groups she negotiates with on behalf of all the people of Washington. Those negotiations have netted little in tangable benefits the non-tribal population. Be it the Gas Tax rebates, the loss of potential Revenue Sharing ( which according to Margarita Prentice the Governor was for in the original compact proposal) to the defeat of 1257 in the legislature last session by the Governor and the Democrats to prevent from having Legislative review and consent on all future compacts. The People of the State are ill served by this Governor.

Posted by: Smokie on August 4, 2008 09:35 PM

6. Note: I did not write the press release; I have nothing to do with the Office of the Governor; I do not represent the State on anything. The job I have is in an office whose primary mission includes saving taxpayers' money: last year we saved the taxpayers of the State of Washington more than $300 million, and I call that a real job.

Smokie is advocating for Big Government. Revenue sharing with the State feeds Big Government. Revenue sharing with local municipalities promotes decentralization and small government. Smokie, evidently, prefers Big Government.

Why did the tribes give so much money to the state democrat party? Good question. Is that a criticism of lobbying, or of tribes? The tribes did not invent lobbying and are only recent participants.

Any criticism of tribal lobbying should also include a criticism of corporate lobbying, in my opinion.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 5, 2008 05:37 AM

7. The answer is clear, Rod. The tribes bought the governor, lock, stock and tomahawk. And no amount of spin can fix that, any more then any amount of spin will ever make your casino wanted down here in Clark County.

Queen Chrissy is a total tribal prostitute. You infer it to be effective lobbying. The rest of us know better.

And, since we both have precisely the SAME amount of Cowlitz blood coursing through our veins (That is, precisely zero) your motivation is entirely the same as Queen Chrissy's... and damn the consequences to the people of this state or this region.

Posted by: Hinton on August 5, 2008 07:49 AM

8. Oh heck, I didn't realize I was dealing with members of the CCGR Syndicate.

My post had nothing to do with my tribe, nor did I infer, imply or otherwise suggest anything about the effectiveness of tribal lobbying.

Most of the criticism aimed at tribes over this issue has to do with lobbying. Effective or not, the tribes have as much right to lobby as all the other governments, municipalities, corporations, SIGS and private citizens. If you don't like tribes doing it, then ban lobbying altogether. But don't hold the tribes to a different standard.

So far nobody has posted any analysis of the Governor's Office press release, but plenty of mud has been slung. Too bad; I know that there are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful people who frequent this blog.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 5, 2008 09:28 AM

9. Bullet #1- there is nothing there to suggest revenue sharing had or would have anything to do with the massive expansion of gambling. Wasn't/isn't it all negotiated?
Bullet #2-there is also no evidence it wouldn't be 140k or more; suffice to say, it could have been substantial.
Bullet #4- I have seen State negotiations; they make them sound like they were really working at it. What is not clear is why did the State have to increase any machines; didn't the judge say exactly how many? Negotiations are negotiations. Perhaps a little cash under the table to Gregoire?
Bullet #5- so what? Even if the legal document was 'legal' and the State AG said it was legal, doesn't mean there wasn't payoffs or wink-wink special payoffs. Just saying.
Bullet #7- The Indian tribes pay piddly in impact fees and don't cover the impacts their projects create. Foolish that you try to pass that off. Question: how is creating all these social services, like drug treatment facilities, behavioral and mental health facilities and pharmacies helping your people out. IMO, it is just perpetuating the demise of a strong culture made of gentle, polite and good people.

Posted by: swatter on August 5, 2008 10:42 AM

10. My post was getting long, Rod. Here is the gentle shoe.

I have always said the Indians were smart to delay commercializing their tribal lands. Let the non-Indian build all the loser (in terms of government services) residential housing and then come in and capitalize on the lucrative commercial.developments. I also realize some of that delay may be due to the corrupt BIA, whose stranglehold is finally being released.

When we here at SP complain about the special deals of the tribes, I realize it is difficult not to take it personal. The tribes have every right to take advantage of the rules in effect at the time. I don't like some of the rules because it creates an unfair advantage (I also don't like some of the unfair trade compacts the USA has with China, Japan, Korea, etc., so don't feel like you are the only one).

So, when we point out the appearance of fraud and corruption with Gregoire, we may dislike the tribes doing this, but our ire is with Gregoire and the Ds for taking these payoffs.

From your standpoint, why don't you do like most lobbyists? Give to both parties and give a lot to the Rs to make up for the D appearance of corruption and graft we think Gregoire and the Ds do.

Posted by: swatter on August 5, 2008 10:53 AM

11. Post #9 is interesting. No, really.

Re swatter's bullet #7 comment my initial thought is about all the spin off effects tribal businesses generate. These are not vertically integrated enterprises and most if not all of the businesses that tribes buy supplies and support services from are non-tribal. The local communities get a lot from that. In this respect, the ripple effect of tribal businesses provides significant economic stimulus.

But now I gotta run. My lunch break is almost over and the battery on my laptop is running low and I have to get back to work.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 5, 2008 11:49 AM

12. My bullet #7- it was yours. Nothing you countered invalidates the comment. There certainly is spinoff, I think, though the tribes I am aware of are getting to be pretty self-sufficient (see post 10).

Posted by: swatter on August 5, 2008 12:04 PM

13. "Re swatter's bullet #7 comment my initial thought is about all the spin off effects tribal businesses generate."

Ok, here's a couple of my local spin-offs; lets talk about the non-existent traffic remediation on SR 164 when they put in the White River Amphitheatre. Or how about covering the massive expansion pressure of the Mukleshoot casino?

Posted by: MSRedneck on August 5, 2008 05:11 PM