Tribe rejects offer, Class III gaming over
Pub Date: 12/1/2006
Just hours before press time Nov. 28, hope that a last minute breakthrough could save Class III gaming on the Flathead Reservation was dashed, as the Governor's office and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes announced eleventh hour negotiations had broken down.
The term "negotiations" may be a misnomer, as the Tribe never officially budged from its opening position that demanded total control of all gaming on the reservation including the authority to "license, regulate and enforce (law)...for all gaming" including non-tribal licensees within reservation borders.
Further, under the tribe's proposal, it would regulate and presumably tax all forms of gaming currently allowed by state law, and would authorize the tribe to, solely at their discretion, set wager and prize limits, set the number of gaming machines, tables or devices, and to be the sole enforcement authority over all gaming on the reservation.
The Governor's office had most recently made a proposal with an offer to share tax revenue from non-tribal gaming and even other state excise taxes amounting to over $700,000, limit the number of non-tribal gaming licenses on the reservation, and effectively cap the number of non-tribal machines operated, some of which would have required statutory changes.
Earlier the state had also offered to increase the number of machines the tribe could operate from 371 to 400 as well as increase payout limits from $1,500 to $2,000. The administration also proposed open-ended and limited extensions of the current compact while negotiations continued.
None of the state's offers had been accepted, nor even countered.
But in a Nov. 19 report in the Missoulian, Tribal Chairman James H. Steele, Jr., said, If you want to boil it down, It's all about the money. To the tavern association, to the tribes, to the state, It's all about the money, where it goes and who makes it. The 10,000-pound gorilla in the room is that the majority of the revenue generated by gaming on the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' reservation is garnered by state-regulated operations. Perhaps there is some way that there can be revenue sharing, and we can hammer out whether It's 50-50 or 60-40 or 70-30 or whatever.
However, even the state s latest revenue sharing offer didn't move the tribe, and then the tribe s focus appeared to change.
A tribal release the evening of Nov. 28 said, "The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have reviewed the Governor's proposal. From the beginning, key principals we asked the state to consider revolved around jurisdiction and self-governance. The state has chosen not to consider our key issues.
"At this point, the Tribe's proposal remains unsigned.
"(The Governor) has offered revenue sharing that hinges on the legislature making significant changes to state law. The amount he offered is less than 25 percent of what the state receives from the state managed gaming that occurs on our reservation." The governor's office said the amount was 20 percent.
The release continued, "We cannot consider the Governor's offer primarily because it does not address our key issues of jurisdiction and self-governance of the gaming on our reservation...
"We invite the governor again to reconsider the Tribe's proposal that would save gaming for everyone. And we invite the Governor to read the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that states very clearly that Indians are intended to be the sole managers of gaming on their reservations."
Others, including courts, have interpreted the Act to mean states and tribes have joint jurisdiction when they enter into compacts, which is the primary way Class III games are allowed on reservations. They can also be allowed by state statute.
The Governor told the Tavern Times two hours before press time, "I've told everyone, from the tribes to the Montana Coin Machine Operators Association to the Tavern Association, that my position is no expansion of gambling in Montana.
"They want jurisdiction," he continued. "I can't offer that." But when Chairman Steele said in the Missoulian that it was about revenue sharing, "I thought, here's a chance."
Gov. Schweitzer said he offered the tribes revenue sharing from gaming and gasoline taxes in the equivalent of over $700,000, which is higher than the 70 percent revenue sharing figure Chairman Steele floated in the Missoulian interview.
"I thought we were close to a deal," Schweitzer said. "I gave them what they wanted. Then they went back to jurisdiction."
"Here's the problem" with granting complete jurisdiction, Schweitzer said. "It means A leads to B, then B to C. 'A' is jurisdiction'; 'B' is unlimited games and payouts, which is Las Vegas style gaming. 'C' means the same thing happens on every other reservation.
"But there is a 'D', too," he said. "This is non-tribal operators wanting equity, to stay competitive, and that means Las Vegas style gaming off reservations. Anyone who knows about the Governor of Montana knows he wears blue jeans, has a dog named 'Jag' and opposes gambling expansion.
"But I want to be clear about this: I am a friend of the people in Indian Country and am proud of that. There are more tribal people in my administration than in any other. I've worked hard on building these relations, to bring all the people of Montana together.
"That could be my legacy. But my legacy won't be Las Vegas gambling in Montana. I can't allow A to B to C to D."
Montana Tavern Association Government Affairs Counsel Mark Staples, upon learning of the offers tendered, then rejected, said on behalf of association members licensed on the reservation. Â Without taking sides, it appears one party to the negotiations moved considerably and one didn't budge at all, Staples said.
"The Governor's offer seemed reasonable and should have at least invoked a counter offer instead of an outright rejection," Staples said.
"It seems particulary senseless," he continued, "to put so many of their neighbors in jeopardy when an offer for an extension of the existing compact was made and negotiations could have continued.
"The Tribe has its reasons. They obviously feel strongly about them, and I m not judging the worth of their arguments. Bur when an extension was availaable would ve harmed no one, it s just tragic that was not accepted.  As a result, innocent busineses, employees ¦families will suffer needlessly.
Source:Montana Tavern Times, Dec., 2006, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.