Tribes fear effect of panel’s study on casino operations

Fredreka Schouten

Monday, May 24, 1999 | 11:11 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Indian tribes that have cashed in on the $7 billion-a-year tribal gambling business fear new criticism from a federal gambling commission over their refusal to share financial information.

At a meeting next month, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission will decide how harshly to rebuke tribal casinos for failing to provide information on how much they make and spend.

While the commission could slam tribes for lack of disclosure, the nine-member panel approved several recommendations this week that acknowledged the casinos' role in lifting some tribes out of poverty. But the tribes -- wary of any criticism that could give their opponents in Congress and statehouses new ammunition to fight Indian gambling business -- have mounted an offensive, saying the commission has demonstrated an anti-Indian bias and will paint an incomplete picture of tribal casinos.

The commission, which does not have enforcement powers, is nearing the end of a two-year, $5 million study of gambling's effect on society and will issue a report to Congress, the White House and other government officials June 18.

Tribes aren't waiting for that final report.

The National Indian Gaming Association, a trade group that represents gambling tribes, recently called on Congress and its General Accounting Office watchdog agency to launch an investigation of the commission's work.

Rick Hill, the group's chairman, said the commission has "blatantly ignored rules and allowed commissioners to make ignorant and inflammatory remarks about American Indians and tribal governments."

Commission Chairwoman Kay Coles James dismisses the criticism, but said: "I understand, based on the history they've had in dealing with state and federal and local governments, why the skepticism is there."

The commissioners have tussled with tribes and the federal agency that regulates them for several months.

The National Indian Gaming Commission, the federal agency with oversight of Indian casinos, has declined to release casino audits, citing a federal law that keeps that information confidential.

And many of the tribes the commission has approached on its own have declined to respond to requests for financial information, saying the information is proprietary.

"I'm one of those who believe you don't always hide behind the law," said Paul Moore, a commissioner from Mississippi who heads the panel's Indian gambling subcommittee. "I believe (tribes) did hide behind the law in some places."

Jacob Coin, executive director of the National Indian Gaming Association, said the commission, which visited just two reservations during its two-year study -- didn't invest enough time in tribes.

"Of course, I'm not going to trust you to give you my financial information, if I don't know you," Coin said.

Meeting in Washington last week, the commission considered -- but did not vote on -- a measure pushed by James to rebuke tribes and the Indian gaming commission for their "unwillingness" to cooperate. She also recommended that the federal government report annually on tribes' earnings and how much federal aid they receive.

Tribes have guarded their finances closely -- in part because they fear congressional proposals to take money from casino-rich tribes and redistribute it to poorer tribes.

For instance, a measure introduced last year by Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., would have stripped half the federal funding headed to the richest 10 percent of tribes and given the savings -- about $12 million -- to the poorest 20 percent.

The commission will revisit the issue next month in San Francisco -- its last meeting before its report to Congress.

Commissioners have agreed on several noncontroversial recommendations that acknowledged the economic benefits of tribal casinos, while urging tribes to diversify their economies.

Tribal leaders have been skeptical of the commission since its inception in 1996.

Only one Native American -- Robert Loescher, an Alaska businessman -- sits on the panel. By contrast, three members have ties to the commercial casino industry against which tribes compete -- Bill Bible, Nevada's former top gambling regulator; Terry Lanni, chairman of MGM Grand Inc.; and John Wilhelm, president of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International, which represents 75,000 casino employees.

"From the very beginning, we knew we were going to be the odd man out," said W. Ron Allen, president of the National Congress of American Indians and chairman of Washington's Jamestown S'Klallam tribe.

"Who's the new threat to gaming in this country," Allen said, "It's Indian casinos."

Tribes are among the newest players in casino gambling. In the 11 years since Congress formally authorized casino gambling on Indian reservations, it has mushroomed into a $7 billion-a-year business. But only a handful of tribal casinos -- such as Connecticut's Foxwoods Resort with $1 billion in annual revenue -- account for the lion's share of that revenue.

And tribal gambling remains dwarfed by the rest of the casino industry. In 1997 alone, Americans gambled $20.5 billion at non-Indian gambling operations -- ranging from the slot machines in Las Vegas to video poker games at convenience stores in South Carolina.

In calling for the investigation, tribal officials also complained about an anti-Indian bias on the commission. For instance, they objected to a commission essay that described tribes as "defeated nations."

So far, though, an investigation appears unlikely.

"We wouldn't dream of starting up something like that on our own," said GAO official John Baldwin. "It would have to be a request from a member of Congress."

Coin acknowledged an investigation is unlikely in the month before the panel finishes its report.

"Who's the new threat to gaming in this country. It's Indian casinos."W. Ron AllenNATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS