Interior Department gives opinion on proposed Indian compact revisions

Chris Roberts

Sunday, Jan. 30, 2000 | 10:36 a.m.

SANTA FE - The Interior Department says it probably would support proposed 6.7 percent revenue-sharing payments on slot machine winnings from tribes with casinos, but it can't support a proposal that the tribes make back payments on money owed the state under the current compacts.

The Interior Department opinion on proposed revisions to the gambling compacts between the state and the tribes was made public Saturday at a meeting of the Legislature's Committee on Compacts.

Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Sandel, D-Farmington, said legal concerns raised in the letter would delay the process of negotiating new gambling compacts because staff members will have to analyze the opinions. The federal department's opinion is important because it gives legislators an indication whether the interior secretary will approve the contracts, which is necessary for them to take effect. The interior secretary must be convinced the compacts don't violate the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

"In view of this, it will be very, very difficult for the Legislature to act on this" during the current session, Sandel said, adding that the committee was poised to make recommendations to the Legislature on Saturday.

Sen. Billy McKibben, R-Hobbs, added: "We're going to be a while unraveling this."

However, Richard Hughes, an attorney for Santa Ana and Santa Clara pueblos, said the problems could be worked out.

"I do not agree that this (letter) is a justification for not getting this thing done this session," Hughes said.

Another complication arose Saturday when Pojoaque Pueblo submitted a letter stating it no longer supports the negotiations because it believes they will lead to a revenue-sharing payment higher than 6.7 percent, which is the most it can afford.

"Pojoaque Pueblo is preparing for, and looks forward to, a court resolution," states the letter, signed by Pojoaque Gov. Jacob Viarrial.

With Pojoaque's withdrawal, "I think we're back where we don't have any agreement at all," said Sen. William Davis, R-Albuquerque.

"There are still seven (tribes) firmly committed to the proposal that is before you," Hughes said.

McKibben said it wouldn't be wise for the Legislature to approve new compacts unless all tribes with casino gambling sign on. "I can't imagine what an entanglement that would get us into," he said.

The proposal from the tribes has the support of five of the 11 tribes with casinos - the pueblos of San Felipe, San Juan, Tesuque, Sandia and Santa Ana - and two that plan casinos, Laguna and Santa Clara. Hughes has said other tribes not involved in the negotiations do not necessarily oppose the proposal and may still agree to it. The Jicarilla Apaches, who closed one casino and plan to open another, have said they will not sign new compacts.

The Interior Department opinion states it could support the 6.7 percent revenue-sharing figure proposed by the tribes. The current figure is 16 percent. However, the department expressed concern about language in the proposal changing the revenue-sharing percentage if the state allows more casino-style gambling at off-reservation locations such as racetracks and fraternal organizations. The opinion also says the department wouldn't support a committee proposal for a 9.2 percent revenue-sharing fee, which also includes language meant to protect the tribes' level of exclusive rights to casino gambling.

"The question is what is the value of the partial exclusivity that the tribes have," said Rep. Larry Larranaga, R-Albuquerque.

The opinion says the department wouldn't support back payment of all revenue-sharing and regulatory fees owed under the 16 percent figure in the current contracts, which were signed by the tribes under protest. The tribes say the 16 percent figure is illegally high. According to a Legislative Finance Committee estimate, the tribes owe more than $60 million.

Hughes said, despite the letter, the seven tribes remaining in the negotiations are committed to making back payments under the compact terms they have proposed.

"Interior's letter does not close the door to that proposition," Hughes said, adding that there are some "simple and easy fixes," which he would not elaborate on in an interview Saturday.