Gambling foes critical of Hull in casino talks

Paul Davenport

Thursday, Sept. 14, 2000 | 4:35 a.m.

PHOENIX - Gambling foes at the Legislature are grumbling about Gov. Jane Hull's negotiations with Arizona tribes on new casino gambling compacts.

Critics said Thursday that Hull should leave the issue for her successor - the compacts begin expiring in 2003 when she leaves office. Some also criticize the terms she wants, including a proposal to require that a 7 percent share of the tribes' casino profits go to a "community benefit fund" doled out by an appointed panel of state and tribal representatives.

"I'm against the state taking dirty money," said Rep. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa. "We want to do away with gambling if we can."

Hull's proposal for a profits split with the state was disclosed in documents released earlier this week by western Arizona's Colorado River Indian tribe. That tribe has balked at participating in talks aimed at producing a standard compact for all tribes.

The documents state that other negotiation issues include length of new compacts, whether the Arizona Lottery will forego use of video lottery terminals, the extent of state regulation of casinos and their personnel, compulsive gambling services, consumer protections, limits on numbers of casinos and gambling devices, and whether tribes can add more machines by purchasing rights from other tribes.

Fifteen Arizona tribes have gambling operations, including several in or near major metropolitan areas. Tribes do not disclose their revenues but tribal officials say the money provides vital services.

David LaSarte Jr., executive director of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association, did not immediately return a call for comment on the talks.

Citing a confidentiality agreement with the tribes, Hull aide Mike Bielecki declined Thursday to discuss specifics of the talks.

However, he said no agreements have been reached in the off-and-on talks that began in January and included negotiating sessions this week.

Hull said Wednesday that her negotiation positions were part of the give-and-take with the tribes.

"You throw things on the table. They throw things on the table," she said. "My goal is to keep them at the table. It looks like this week is not the week that anything gets settled."

She said the proposed revenue split would offset state and local government expenses related to Indian gaming - "costs that I think the tribes could be picking up with a lot of the revenue they make."

While some lawmakers criticized the proposed revenue split, one said it is a good idea but not in exchange for the state going along with an overall increase in gambling in Arizona.

"If there's nothing I can do to stop gambling, (I think) that the state should have the money to offset the demands made on the state by gambling," Bowers said, citing crime and other costs.

The problem is that Hull's proposed terms would effectively permit expansion of tribes' gambling operations, Bowers said. "She's proposing an overall increase in gaming in Arizona in exchange for money."

Bielecki said the tribes asked to begin negotiations and the state agreed, partly out of respect for the tribes but also to see if the state can get better terms.

"Fundamentally the question is is there a better relationship and a better compact for the state as a whole," he said.

While critical of some of Hull's negotiating positions, some legislators are second-guessing the Legislature's own decision to give the negotiating authority to the governor in the first place.

"I wish we hadn't abdicated our responsibility," said House Majority Leader Lori Daniels, R-Chandler.

The Legislature effectively renewed that decision as recently as April. A law enacted to extend the life of the Department of Gaming keep intact the provisions giving the negotiating authority to the governor.