The POLO Chronicles

I saw in the paper that the NOMORESLOTS group finally delivered their petition to the governor’s office. This blog was born out of the fact that I believed that groups such as POLO, POSY, SYVCC and NOMORESLOTS were generating deceptive ad campaigns concerning the issue of 5000 more slot machines being added to the casino. Once I did the research, I decided to speak up and reveal the real truths behind the issue by submitting letters to the editor as well as a lengthy letter to the County Board of Supervisors. An email I sent to POLO on March 25 in response to their full page ad saying that the Most Favored Tribe clause could allow the Chumash, by default, to add 5000 more slots should any of the current compacts in the State Legislature this year get ratified, began a series of emails between myself and POLO. I thought I would post this exchange to allow the public to perhaps better understand POLO’s point of view as well as my own outlook. I respect POLO’s opinion and defend their right to voice it. My problem with them was their deceptive and misleading ad campaigns creating, in my opinion, much of the anger and fear and in the community as well as the "closing of doors" by the Chumash to the County Board of Supervisors. The Board is ultimately resposnsible for that but the rumors, hype and misinformation by these groups began the whole thing. The emails are unedited.

This is the initial email I sent to POLO on March 25:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a truth.......

An excerpt from a letter I sent to County Board of Supervisors....

One of the things that I believe was of grave concern to some in the valley was the “Most Favored Nations” clause in the current Chumash compact. They believed that should any of the current compacts in the State Legislature this year get ratified, and then get signed off by the Federal Government, that, that would allow any other Indian Casino in our state, including the Chumash, who did not renegotiate their compact with the Governor, to add 5000 mores slots. The dominos start to fall, so they believed. The Chumash have said it all along that they would have to renegotiate their compact but an email to Senator McClintock’s office confirmed it.. Mike Stoker, who serves as the District Director for SB County for the Senator, emailed me and said he would ask the Legislative Counsel as he didn’t know the answer. A few days later I received another email from Mr. Stoker who said, “From the information I have been provided the Chumash would have to negotiate with the Governor to renew the compact. My understanding is there is no “favored nation status" clause that would be applicable. I am also under the understanding that nothing is in the works for the tribe to add 5000 more slots....or add any slots for that matter.”


Full letter attached if you’re interested...

Rick Lee



POLO’s response,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr. Lee,

This is a one shot answer to all of your commentary, blogs, letters to the editor etc. that are out there right now.

Your reasoning accepts that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash is a separate government like Mexico or Malaysia. You have accepted this separateness as a fact instead of as the political designation our law has concluded that it is. Your conclusion is simply wrong.

In the case of Morton v. Mancari (1975), the United States Supreme Court concluded that because our federal government had decided to treat Indian tribes as separate political entities that the federal policy was not race-based. The important point here is that the treatment of the Indian tribes as separate governments is nothing more than a federal policy. Nothing in our law says or has ever concluded otherwise.

It is this federal policy that POLO is opposing. POLO does not believe it is fair to have the United States through the Bureau of Indian Affairs remove our rights to local self-governance by calling the Santa Ynez Band a separate government that is not subject to the same local regulations the rest of us must obey. Period.

McClintock, I guess, knows more than the Governor’s office? Really?

The Governor's office has stated they do not know the answer to the question of "Most Favored Tribe" even though five Tribal Law attorneys have concluded California is a sitting duck. The Governor's office stated, "We do not believe" the provision is a problem.

Well, Mr. Lee, "We do not believe" is not good enough for the protection of this community nor is it good enough protection for the State, ie the taxpayers.

You can continue to chastise this group for attempting to help this valley in all avenues you can find. We are not sure why you would treat an organization of ALL volunteers with such rancor. What exactly have we done? Perhaps we could begin there.

Your response would be very much appreciated.

Thank you,

POLO


My response sent on March 30
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for your email. It would be nice to know with whom I am communicating with. Spokesman for POLO? Name? Mr.Bowen? Oh well….

Let’s take it one at a time.

You wrote: “Your reasoning accepts that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash is a separate government like Mexico or Malaysia. You have accepted this separateness as a fact instead of as the political designation our law has concluded that it is. Your conclusion is simply wrong.”

I never compared the Chumash to Mexico or China. That is putting words in my mouth.

In my letter there was this. “In a nutshell, the U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments. It authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with "foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." That is a fact. The Chumash are a distinct government within our county. It is because of the treaties the American Indians have with the USA. The United States Supreme Court has referred to Indian treaties as contracts between sovereign nations. What is sovereignty? Sovereignty is an internationally recognized concept. A basic tenant of sovereignty is the power of a people to govern themselves. The Indians had this before we showed up. The United States Supreme Court stated that treaties were not a grant of rights to Indians but were instead a reservation by the tribes of rights that they already owned. The US never “gave” them these rights. The Indians retained what they have had all along.

If you contend that I am wrong in accepting the Chumash as a sovereign nation within our county then I believe you are wrong. You wrote “ …the political designation our law has concluded that it is..” So even though Federal law recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments you don’t think they are?

You wrote: It is this federal policy that POLO is opposing. POLO does not believe it is fair to have the United States through the Bureau of Indian Affairs remove our rights to local self-governance by calling the Santa Ynez Band a separate government that is not subject to the same local regulations the rest of us must obey. Period.

The Chumash ARE a separate government. It really is not that hard of a concept to grasp. No matter how bad the taste in your mouth is, it is what it is. They are calling them a separate Government because the US Constitution provides for it. You may not like it and that is fine and I defend your right to try to change it. Go to Washington. That is where your battle is. Funny. All I have seen in the papers and on TV from your group is the issue of stopping 5000 more slots. Is THIS your real issue? That the Chumash have sovereignty? Since the very beginning, the Chumash have not been subject to the same local regulations the rest of us must obey, because they, by US law, are a separate distinct government. It didn’t bother you back when they had no indoor plumbing. But now it’s not fair? It seems your thinking is that the Chumash’s right to self-governance within our county is removing your rights that you have had in this country since you were born. Show me the laws that have removed any rights you had 10 yrs ago? Your voice is loud (not so clear most of the time, but very loud). But don’t equate not getting what you want with your voice not being heard.

You wrote: McClintock, I guess, knows more than the Governor's office? Really? The Governor's office has stated they do not know the answer to the question of "Most Favored Tribe" even though five Tribal Law attorneys have concluded California is a sitting duck. The Governor’s office stated, "We do not believe" the provision is a problem.

To this I would say that the Governor and the Senate use the same Legislative Counsel for advice and information, and that Senators McClintock’s staff actually took the time to ask them to find out what the clause means to the issue in question. Initially, it seems the Governor and the Senator gave the same answer. They didn’t know. But Senator McClintocks’ staff said they would ask the Legislative Counsel. It took 4-5 days for Mike Stoker to get back to me with his answer:

From: Mikestoker@aol.com

Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:08 AM

To: firkin@verizon.net

Subject: Email to Senator McClintock

Dear Mr. Lee,

From the information I have been provided the Chumash would have to negotiate with the Governor to renew the compact. My understanding is there is no "favored nation status” clause that would be applicable. I am also under the understanding that nothing is in the works for the tribe to add 5000 more slots....or add any slots for that matter.

Feel free to call or email anytime I can be of assistance.

Best regards,

Mike Stoker

Doesn’t look like the Governors office asked anyone and their response, "We do not believe" the provision is a problem means what? It’s not a problem to what or who? More cryptic information. So, yes, because they actually did the research I would say that the Senator’s office does know more than the Governors office in this case and that this clause you fear will not allow the Chumash and all the other tribes in the state 5000 more slots by default. And really, did your really think it would be that easy? Or, is it you want people to believe it would be that easy.

You wrote: You can continue to chastise this group for attempting to help this valley in all avenues you can find. We are not sure why you would treat an organization of ALL volunteers with such rancor. What exactly have we done? Perhaps we could begin there.

The problem I have with your group is your scare tactics and half-truths you disseminate are NOT helping anyone or anything. You put out just enough information with a twist on it to scare the hell out of people, where if one digs just a little deeper they would see that the sense of urgency and doom that you are trying to ignite just isn’t there. An example… There was this lady in front of Albertson’s on March 17 asking people to sign a petition to stop 5000 more slots…I wanted more information so I approached her. I was completely non-confrontational. I was very low key, just another guy coming out of the store. This is how the conversation went.

Me: What is this all about?

Her: It’s a petition to stop 5000 more slots in the valley

Me: Oh yeah, I saw the full page ad in the newspaper. How come we only have a couple weeks?

Her: Oh no, we only have 4 days

Me: 4 days? Why is that?

Her: Because that’s the deadline

Me: What deadline?

Her: It’s the deadline that it has to be on the Governors desk

Me: What’s the significance of that deadline? Whose deadline is this?

Her: Are you going to sign the petition?

Me: Well, I’d like some more information first

Her: Stop harassing me

Me: I’m not harassing you. I would just like the facts before I put my name to something.

Her: If you’re not going to sign it then leave

Me: Is it because you don’t know what the deadline means

Her Oh, I know!

Me: Then tell me so I will know.

Her: No

Me: So you want people to sign your petition, but you don’t want to answer questions or give out information on the issue?

That was about the time she turned around and walked behind a wall of soda cases mumbling something about 15 or 20 other people “harassing” her that day…. Is that POLO/POSY/NOMORESLOTS policy when people ask them for information? Yell harassment then walk away?

Your full-page ad saying that we only have a few precious weeks to speak up before 7000 slots in the valley becomes reality is another prime example. You talk about studies but provide no resources to back anything up. 5-12 cars per day per slot. Could you please send me the source of that study? Thanks. You know as well as I do that the Chumash have not even started the process of renegotiating their compact with the Governor which is the first step in beginning the long, long, long process of adding more slots. It will be years if at all if it ever comes about. Your groups scare tactics and smoke screens insinuate that the Chumash will, without any input from the local governments or community, expand whenever and however they want and we will have nothing to say about it. The truth is that as Indian tribes seek to expand their gaming operations the Federal and State governments are putting into place provisions that the local communities and governments have a major voice in such matters. The following are components with in the amended compact signed by the Governor and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians last year. These provisions are COMMON COMPONENTS to the compacts in the legislature.

· The tribe will prepare an environmental impact report to assess the potential environmental effects of new and expanded gaming facilities, and detail how environmental damages will be mitigated.

· The tribe must reach intergovernmental agreements with Riverside County and any impacted cities to account for and mitigate the effect of gaming facilities on law enforcement, fire protection and public services.

· The compact requires that the tribe resolve all disputes with employees, visitors and surrounding communities through binding arbitration. California tort law will govern any personal injury or third-party property damage claims, and the tribe will provide liability coverage.

· Local residents hold the key to a new casino. Under the compact's terms, the tribe cannot build a new facility without the support of the community. The community’s go-ahead can be in the form of a public advisory vote, a fair and scientific telephone survey of residents, or a resolution by local government.

· Any new construction must meet or exceed the building and safety codes of both Riverside County and the city where new construction will occur.

· The compact requires that the tribe pay $2 million to the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund, which redistributes revenue from gaming to non-gaming tribes.

Do you really think that the Chumash, especially due to the uniqueness of the valley, will be able to renegotiate their compact, should they ever decide to do so, with out these common provisions that would allow our communities and governments a major voice in what becomes reality? Also, in a Feb. 13, 2007 letter to 35 tribes nationwide, James E. Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior, indicated that new rules would apply when tribes look to expand to off-reservation sites.

“We anticipate changes to the rules that may result in fewer off-reservation properties being accepted into trust," Cason said in his letter. "In particular, we expect to consider a paradigm where the likelihood of accepting off-reservation land into trust decreases with the distance the subject parcel is from the tribe's established reservation or ancestral lands and the majority of tribal members." Also in the letter he indicated that”community opposition will be heavily weighed” when considering off-reservation expansion.

Will POLO tell the community the truth? That should the Chumash ever decide to expand, which is a long, long, long process that would take years, that we, the citizens of this valley and our local governments WILL play a major role in the outcome of those endeavors. If you do, that will show me that you are “attempting to help this valley”. Anything less will tell me that your actions, methods and motives are not in the best interests of this valley and that you have hidden agenda’s, which are slowly becoming more visible as time goes by.

Sources for above:

http://www.flashpointmag.com/indtreat.htm
http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.html
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/20070321/NEWS/703210402/1033/NEWS01


I appreciate your email and communication is the best thing we can encourage at this point.

Rick Lee


POLO's response,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Mr. Lee, It is always someone different that answers these emails depending on
the question, so collectively we sign as POLO. You happen to be
communicating with Kathryn Bowen right now.

I have to say that I have not seen or read an email like yours in a
very long time. Most, if not all, of what we hear is very positive
from our valley residents. I would have to agree with not
understanding the animosity you feel toward a group of people that
are trying to help a community who's rights are being trampled on
almost daily. Not only by the tribal leadership, but by our own
County government. Can you help me with that?

I don't know who answered the below email. 'Mr. Bowen' is not POLO.
He is the president of POSY. I help POLO out with public relations
related activities, like answering this email and other related
things and because the responder is always someone different, the
emails will always be signed POLO.

I agree with you that open communication is essential. However, I'm
not exactly sure why you would cc a communication to the list you did
on your last email. You can send this to whoever you want, but my
communication is with you and I don't think this interests the
supervisors much and if I am going to be answering to a group, I need
to know that. This is in an attempt to clarify POLO's position and
answer YOUR questions. This doesn't have anything to do with the
supervisors. The same goes for Frances Snyder, although she might
take more interest in the contents of this email.

I think a few things need to be clarified right up front:

No More Slots is not POLO or POSY. The petition is a completely
separate group. Although we support them, they are not related to
our group. I cannot speak for whoever you spoke to about the petition.

The Town Hall meeting was also a separate group. Not POLO or POSY.
Our attorney was asked to speak at the Town Hall meeting to update
the community on our lawsuit with the federal government and I was
asked to be on the panel. There are many attempts, for whatever
reason, to try to group everyone together as one group and then
conveniently label everyone "wackos." I believe that was Chairman
Armenta who said that.

I have one thing to say about the groups. We are all after the same
thing which is not one more slot in this valley. Not one more. I
guess, in that sense, we are all one group.

The two groups mentioned above got started because of the FACT that
the Santa Ynez Band went to the governors office to ask him for 5,000
more slots. Let's just stay there for one second. They asked for
5,000 slot machines which, to me, means they are seeking to expand.
Does it not? Why would you ask for something you really don't want?
Because Chairman Armenta's undisclosed plans were made public is why
you see all the denial and backpedaling. Finding out about his
plans was a great thing for this valley. I also think Armenta forgot
to "notify" the county of his plans. Thus, the mentioning by Armenta
at the Feb 13 hearing of the "letter" the county never received.
Kind of an ooops. We'll see how the County handles that one.

These two groups were also started because they were incensed by the
treatment this valley received from our elected representatives (our
BOS) at the two Board of Supervisors hearings.

I could get into many of the details of the 5,000 slot discussion,
negotiations, no negotiations, the 15.4 provision, the Most Favored
Tribe, etc. etc. I would be here until next week.

Bottom line: we were lucky to find out about the request when we
did. No one has said that a "new" compact does not have to be
negotiated. Of course it does. The trade off, though, is the
slots. More slots = new compact. New compact = more slots. The
reason for the urgency in this matter is because the Gov's office is
just about to launch the largest expansion of gambling in the history
of California with the 5 new compacts in the State Legislature
without the 15.4 provision being definitely answered. That is
worrisome to me and if it were up to me, I would put an immediate
freeze on any and all compacts, negotiations, etc. until this
problematic provision is addressed. Think union. The contracts
unions have are very similar in nature to this question.

Another problem with these compacts is more global in its reach:
Have the taxpayers of California been asked or consulted about the
largest expansion of gambling since the passage of Prop 1A? Are
there economic studies to support it? Is there any policy in place
to deal with this kind of expansion in our State? No, no and no.

Unfortunately, we are seeing how the blueprint for gambling expansion
and the subsequent negative impacts that have played out in other
states are taking hold of California and in a much grander way. The
5,000 slots and the current compacts in front of the Legislature
sadly illustrates this fact.

I think the ire you are seeing is the fact valley residents don't
want Las Vegas in the Santa Ynez Valley coupled with the fact that
the community has no rights in this matter AND Chairman Armenta
constantly reminding the public they don't have any rights in this
matter. I think there is something innate in all of us that is not
going to accept this 'reality' when we all live in a democracy.

This is a much larger discussion so I will leave it there for the
moment and get on with what is more important right now in terms of
the larger picture and your statements about tribal governments.

POLO and POSY are focused on our lawsuit with the government....our
government. While these other groups are just beginning to navigate
their way through what Justice Thomas refers to as "schizophrenic"
Indian policy, POLO and POSY are four years into it. The amount of
research we have done to educate ourselves about this issue is
extensive. We have spent over four years educating ourselves about
Federal Indian Policy, combing through thousands of pages of
documents, immersing ourselves in extensive research and networking
with many other organizations and experts in regards to tribal issues
effecting the entire country let alone our little valley in order to
have an educated foundation for which to understand what is happening
in our own community.

This community has a right to a voice and, in a nutshell, that is
what our lawsuit is about. That is how it began. Our BOS gave up
the public's RIGHT to appeal for nothing more than a promise. There
was no enforceable contract with the tribe when they gave up our
right. Only a handshake agreement and the tribe reneged. Do you
disagree the community should have a voice in community planning?
Something that effects all of us. Do we not have a right to be
involved in the process?

Thank you for agreeing that we disagree over the legal status of what
a tribal government is. Our research simply does not support the
kinds of claims you make. There is no question that until 1871, the
federal government dealt with the Indian tribes as quasi-independent
"domestic dependent nations" (the actual language from Worcester v.
Georgia (1832)). Before the Civil War, dealing with different racial
groups as distinct segregated racial entities was the norm. But then
we fought a civil war over slavery, the ultimate racial issue.

Afterwards, the United States adopted three Constitutional Amendments
commonly referred to as the Civil War Amendments. The 13th
Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment. These
Amendments were established to forever end the federal and state
governments from dealing with people on a racial basis.
Accordingly, in 1871 the federal government ended all treaty making
with Indian tribes. It declared that from 1871 forward that Indian
tribes would be integrated into the general population. All
subsequent Indian laws have been passed in this context.

The change of federal Indian policy in 1871 is a fact. Since 1871,
no Indian tribe has been accorded "sovereign" status. Ever since
1871, tribal sovereignty has been derived from the federal trust
relationship between the Indian tribes and the federal government.
The Indian tribes are "wards of the federal government." All of
their authority derives directly from this relationship. If an
Indian Tribe is not "recognized" by the federal government--it has no
sovereign authority at all. There is no inherent sovereignty in a
group of Indian people just because they are Indian and has not been
since 1871.

Based on our research, you could not be more wrong about the status
of tribal governments. I strongly suggest that you do more research
and update your analysis.

California is an interesting petri dish for this new found
"sovereignty" and something that will have to be settled in the courts.

Promoting race based separate governments is not acceptable to the
great majority of the population today especially when we are "one
nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." ONE nation,
Mr. Lee, not 566 nations. Do you really think this is what Congress
had intended with IGRA? Do you think creating 565 separate true
"sovereign" governments within the boundaries of the United States
would be a good and positive thing for this country? How would this
benefit the majority? How does segregation, inequality,
discrimination and race-based policy help this country? How does it
really help tribal members that fear retaliation and disenrollment if
they speak out against the leadership? Do you really consider this a
democracy?

Today. I'm talking about today because we all live in the present.
In the context of what our country is today with all of the heinous
and atrocious scars this country wears from historical barbarism,
racism, etc., how does this benefit our country today? Continuing to
promote inequality because of past persecution is not ever going to
right a wrong. How does promoting this kind of separatism move the
country forward? Re-acquiring aboriginal territory is an
impossibility. It is never going to happen.

Perhaps you disagree and you have the right and the freedom to
disagree with me or anyone else. I do not think any of this is
"good" for this country. Using Santa Ynez as the example of what is
occurring in hundreds of other counties around the country, I can say
positively that communities are being railroaded by bad policy.
Constitutionally secured rights are being violated daily and elected
officials stand by and do nothing. It wasn't good in the past and it
isn't good now.

The public has asked POLO and POSY for assistance in light of the
fact our County government has failed miserably in protecting this
community. We look at It as our civic responsibility. The
importance of civic responsibility is paramount to the success of a
democracy and involvement with our government keeps it accountable to
its citizens.

This isn't a popularity contest and we realize our views may not
please everyone, but we believe very strongly that failed Federal
Indian Policy coupled with the ability of elected officials including
our own to gorge on unlimited and unregulated money is creating a
situation throughout the country that is just about to boil over.
How close we are to the boiling point is anyone's guess. My guess?
Very soon.

I absolutely disagree with your assessment that POLO and POSY have
used "scare tactics and half-truths" If you are talking about the
petition, again, I cannot speak to what was said. It isn't our
group. This has never been the case with POLO or POSY. We have the
facts to back up everything we've said and do not support, and have
never supported "scare tactics" and "half-truths."

I hope this has answered some of your questions. I also hope you
appreciate that my involvement and everyone I know that is involved
with this issue here and across the country is simply because we DO
live in a democracy.

Sincerely,

POLO


My response sent on April 2,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Bowen,

I want to thank you again for responding.

You asked me why I have animosity towards your group. I am very disturbed by POLO’s methods of gaining attention and, in my opinion, you have used scare tactics and told half-truths and perhaps lies to try to gain support and publicity. I am not angry with POLO or POSY. I just feel that your group’s recent efforts insinuating that the Chumash could expand very soon and without any input from the community is a disservice to the people of this valley and is untrue. Did you really think that no one in the valley would do the research? That is what has prompted me to do the research and write letters on this issue. The “few weeks to speak up” before 7000 slots “becomes reality”. That is about as far from the truth as you can get. Do you defend that headline as a fact?

Your opinion that the rights of the people in this valley are being trampled on daily is just that, your opinion. You do not speak for me or for a lot of other people in this valley. I have received numerous phone calls and letters from people in this valley, including a city councilman and two Supervisors thanking me for looking beyond the full page hype ads and relating, through my letters to the editor and to the BOS the whole picture. There are many others in this valley who are disturbed by your group’s recent media hypes and smoke screens. There are a lot of very smart people in this valley who do not share your views and when you make comments like “incensed by the treatment this valley received” as if you are speaking for everyone who lives here, well, it shows an arrogance that is not appreciated. They may not be as vocal as I, but there are more than you think.

As far as who’s who? I would be very naïve to believe that POLO, POSY, SYVCC and NOMORESLOTS are not of the same tree. But really all of that is not that important, it would just be nice to have people held accountable for what they say and not hide behind a name. Again I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issues with me.

My sense is that POLO/POSY have taken this 5000 more slots thing and trumped it up and sensationalized it to generate publicity for your groups. It is obvious that some members of your group are very smart and I believe you can see what the Chumash’s brief talks with the Governors office really were. Did they, along with 7 other tribes, as part of a consortium, ask for 5000 more slots. Yes. Have the Chumash seriously committed themselves to beginning the process of expanding by having serious meaningful talks with the Governor. No. Were the initial short-lived talks a means of supporting the other tribes as well as going through the motions for any future serious talks? Probably. Did not POLO/POSY sue the BIA even though they “never expected to win”? Why did you sue if you didn’t expect to win? Is it because you had to go through the motions to be allowed to get to the Federal level? Will the Chumash ever decide to look into expanding? Looks like hotel and parking are a good bet at this point and as far as gaming expansion I would say that ALOT of that will depend on what happens in Sacramento this year. Are they looking to add 5000 more slots now? You know and I know they aren’t.

You said “..the urgency in this matter is because the Gov's office is just about to launch the largest expansion of gambling in the history of California…” This is exactly my problem with POLO/POSY, the sensationalism and urgency you seem to dream up. Seems the governor launched 3yrs ago. In June of 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated amendments to the 1999 Compacts with five tribes. These amended compacts allowed for unlimited number of machines. These were ratified. Currently there are nine proposed Class III casino compacts or amendments that have not been ratified by the Legislature. Five of these are amended compacts to allow for more slots. These five compacts were proposed by the governor in 2006. Seems the urgency was 3 yrs ago. Where was POLO back in 2004 or even last year? http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/tribal_casinos/tribal_casinos_020207.aspx

By the way, part of the blueprint you keep referring to also includes the following common components of the amended compacts:

· Additional slot machines may be located only on presently existing Indian land at presently existing gaming operation locations.

· Tribes will make increased annual payments in the amount of $2 million per tribe for a total of $10 million annually to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund for non-gaming tribes and those with lesser operations.

· Tribes will allow the state to inspect the slot machines and will submit patron disputes to binding arbitration.

· Tribes agree California tort law and procedure will govern cases involving third party injury, will increase liability coverage from the existing $5 million in aggregate to $10 million per occurrence, and will agree to binding arbitration of all claims.

· Tribes agree to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for new projects and to negotiate mitigation of off-reservation impact and increased demand for services with local governments, with binding arbitration if negotiations reach impasse.

· Tribes agree to meet or exceed California Building Code and Public Safety Code on new construction, to allow the state to inspect construction in progress, and to permit the state to prohibit occupancy in any portion where there is a serious or significant risk to health or safety.

You said, “No one has said that a "new" compact does not have to be negotiated” Wrong. Trace Eubanks, stated in a letter to the editor “This issue is based on a recent compact that was negotiated between Gov. Schwarzenegger and three other tribes within California. However, this compact, if not halted by our Board of Supervisors, will be shirt-tailed to include all tribes in California. This is why tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta stresses that the Chumash are not currently negotiating with the governor’s office — they don’t need to” Everything about that statement is flat out wrong.. 1 compact with 3 tribes, that the County had the power to halt the compact and that the Chumash didn’t have to renegotiate their compact. How can a member of POLO or even a staunch supporter of POLO make comments like that? After 4 years of being “into it” you still have people making these remarks. Is it to scare the public or is it just plain ignorance? Or both. Either is inexcusable.

You say, “Of course it does”, regarding whether the current compact has to be renegotiated if they want more slots, and the California Legislative Counsel has confirmed it. Yet you continually worry (or try to get the public to worry) about the “Most Favored Nations” clause? Why? They don’t need that clause to ask for more slots and in any case they will have to renegotiate. In addition, even though it is a moot point, any tribe wishing to renegotiate for more favorable components that another tribe’s amended compact allows, they can’t just pick a few items out that they want. They have to take all the components of another tribe’s amended compact.

Not one letter or full page ad from POLO/POSY has said that it the Chumash will have to renegotiate their compact with the Governor in order to begin the process, and when a headline reads only a “few weeks to speak up” before 7000 slots “becomes reality”, to me it clearly shows you are attempting to mislead the public. THAT is the problem I have with POLO/POSY and these other groups. If POLO or POSY informs the public by letter or in a full-page ad of exactly what it would take for the Chumash to add more slots then I am done. Tell them that for the Chumash to add 5000 slots they would still have to renegotiate their existing compact with the Governors office which they have not done, are not in the process of doing and in fact may never do. But if in the future they do get that far, they would then have to get a member of the State Senate or Assembly to author a bill to introduce as legislation their “new” compact. This bill would then have to be approved or ratified by both the Senate and the Assembly and then go back to the Governor to sign. It would then have to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, that common provisions in the renegotiated compacts currently in the State Legislature you find the requirement that the tribes enter into intergovernmental agreements with impacted cities and counties to account for and mitigate the effect of gaming facilities on law enforcement, fire protection and public services where public input will be encouraged and welcome. Another requirement is that the tribes prepare an environmental impact report to assess the potential environmental effects of new and expanded gaming facilities, and detail how environmental damages will be mitigated. If the bill EVER got that far, it would then go back to the Governor who can sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without his or her signature, or veto it. A governor's veto can be overridden by a two thirds vote in both houses. If it ever got THAT far, it would then have to be approved by the Federal Government via the Secretary of the Interior.

All I want is for ALL the facts to be brought out in the open. I don’t have a problem with POLO writing the Governor asking him not to renegotiate with the Chumash to add more slots. I don’t have a problem with you writing the Governor asking to stop statewide gambling. I don’t have a problem with your lawsuit. I don’t have a problem with POLO trying to end sovereignty if that is what you want. As you say, we live in a democracy and your rights allow you to this and I defend those rights. But from now on I am watching and whenever I see false statements or facts or half-truths coming from any group then I will speak up.


Traffic, gambling addiction and crime are the issues that are of main importance to the groups it seems.

Using the study POLO/POSY referred to ( I still haven’t received the source yet) where each slot = 5-12 car trips a day, the valley right now and should be getting minimally 10,0000 people a day just with the slots. If you add in the rest of the gaming stations (poker tables, black jack, craps, and whatever else they have) lets add another 2000. Given the 5-12 car trips lets say the valley should be getting 12,000 – 15,000 people a day going to the casino. Conservative really according to the study. I went for a motorcycle ride last Saturday afternoon about 3:00 PM. I went North on 101 from Buellton and then 154 to 246 to the Casino. This to me is prime time for patrons of the Casino. Saturday afternoon, beautiful day. Freeway traffic was normal. On 154, once I got past Los Olivos, which looked jam packed as usual for a Saturday, there were no vehicles in front of me all the way to the 246 turn off. There were about 5 or 6 cars coming from the other direction on 154 turning onto 246 that had already turned in front of me and were heading west on 246 towards the casino. I thought, well OK, they must be going to the casino. When we got to the Casino only one car turned into the casino entrance. The others, including myself and in fact a few cars behind me all went straight. Where were all the cars? If we are getting12,000 to 15,000 cars a day, according to POLO’s formula, there should have been some sort of congestion of some sort line of cars getting in or out of the casino. Hmmm.. maybe the formula is wrong. Again, may I see that study?

Gambling addiction. Latest stats are hard to find and it may be that the latest studies haven’t been done yet, but in 2001 approximately 14% of the US adult population meet the criteria for alcohol /drug abuse and dependence. In comparison only 3% were found to be pathological and problem gamblers. Alcohol and drugs destroy many more lives and families than gambling and is the cause for many deaths yearly. Why aren’t you having emergency town hall meetings to deal with this much more destructive addiction? Is it because the Chumash really don’t have anything to do with it? It doesn’t fit your cause?

http://www.ncpgambling.org/media/pdf/eapa_flyer.pdf

Crime. Perhaps you have visited the blog I began a week or so ago which has this. “Anecdotal information and popular myth have perpetuated claims by gambling opponents that casinos are linked to increased crime rates in communities and organized crime. However, nearly all recent publicly and privately funded studies, as well as the testimony of law enforcement agents from around the country, refute these claims.” Check out the studies here.

http://www.ncpgambling.org/media/pdf/eapa_flyer.pdf

(The above link was wrong. I emailed Mrs. Bowen sending her the correct link which is:
http://www.americangaming.org/Industry/factsheets/issues_detail.cfv?id=23 )

My lawyer is the Internet… less expensive… You mistakenly connect the Appropriations Act of 1871 with The 13th,14th and 15th Amendments established to forever end the federal and state governments from dealing with people on a racial basis. Actually the 1871 act arose out of jealousy on the part of members of the House of Representatives that they, unlike Senators, could play no part in the formation and approval of a treaty. Also, the 1871 act expressly provides that treaties ratified prior to the date of the cut-off would have continuing validity. That means that all rights of existing treaties remained unaffected. History also shows that the end to treaty making had little practical effect as the U.S. continued to forge agreements with Indian tribes by legislation and executive orders. In fact several such agreements were negotiated in the late nineteenth century ( Blackfeet, Gros Ventres, and Assiniboines in Montana in 1884 and with the Sioux in Dakota Territoryin 1889).

Yes, the Chumash do not have the same sovereign status as that of another country like Mexico, but I never made that comparison. You or who ever answered my last email did. Tribal structures have survived, and sovereignty, although diminished, has continually been acknowledged by the courts. Your husband has even acknowledged the Chumash’s sovereignty. On February 13 speaking to the BOS, he said “You did not take an oath to represent an outside sovereign government.”

This excerpt from Felix S. Cohen’s work entitled Federal Indian Law (U.S. Department of Interior, 1944), sums it up nicely. For me anyway and perhaps you may agree. "Perhaps the most basic principles of all Indian law supported by a host of decisions...is the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribes are not, in general delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished. Each Indian tribe begins its relationship with the Federal Government as a sovereign power, recognized as such in treaty and legislation. The powers of sovereignty have been limited from time to time by special treaties and laws designed to take form the Indian tribes control of matters which, in the judgement of Congress, then, must be examined to determine the limitations of tribal sovereignty rather than to determine its sources or its positive content. What is not expressly limited remains within the domain of tribal sovereignty."

We can go round and round on this but the status of Indian sovereignty is a work in progress and may always be. My personal view is that as they venture into off-reservation commerce, I believe they should be subject to the same state, county and local rules and regulations as everyone else. As far as putting land into trust for expansion I believe, as noted before that, the rules are changing in favor of the local communities and that there will opportunity for all of us to voice or opposition or support and that voice will be heavily weighed by the Federal government.

I feel that the dialog we are having now is the dialog that the Chumash, the BOS and groups like POLO/POSY and the others should be having. Should the Chumash get to the point of seeking to add more slots the “blueprint” will allow for the general public to voice their concerns. Before we get to that point, if it ever arises, it would behoove all parties involved to already have in place calm, factual dialogs with open communication and respect for each others point of view and concerns. I think we can do a lot better than “yelling at each other” via full-page ads. That doesn’t do the community any good at all.

So after all of that, I basically would like POLO to respond specifically to the following which is pretty much my “beef” with you, your members and supporters and the entire recent media blitz’s.

1- You say “We have the facts to back up everything we've said and do not support, and have never supported "scare tactics" and "half-truths." I have asked twice for the source of the study, which the full page ad declared that, one slot = 5 - 12 car trips per day indicating that if the Chumash had 7000 slots, that then the Valley would have 42,000 people a day coming into it. Please refer me to the source of this study.

2- Please defend, as the fact that the full page ad indicated it was, that the people of the valley only had a “few weeks to speak up” before 7000 slots “becomes reality” given the lengthy description outlined above of the process the Chumash would have to go through to add 5000 more slots.

3- Please explain how a member of POLO, or at the very least a staunch supporter, (as well as his letter to the editor, he spoke at the Feb 13 BOS meeting) given the years of extensive research your group has done, can say in a letter to the editor, “This issue is based on a recent compact that was negotiated between Gov. Schwarzenegger and three other tribes within California. However, this compact, if not halted by our Board of Supervisors, will be shirt-tailed to include all tribes in California. This is why tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta stresses that the Chumash are not currently negotiating with the governor’s office — they don’t need to”

4- Please explain to me, given the years of extensive research your group has done, that you still have the belief that the County government has the power to “protect this community” from casino expansion. One of the speakers at the February 13 BOS meeting asked Mr. Firestone flat out.. “Can you stop the slot machine expansion”? “ Do you have that authority”? Mr Firestone replied, “The answer is no”. Pretty cut and dry and with the knowledge you purport to have I would think that by now you would “get it”.

I do not belong to any group. I have asked Frances Snyder if she would like me to continue to forward these emails but haven’t heard back yet. So until I hear back, you are the only one receiving this. In an effort to promote open communication I may put these emails on my blog in their entirety though (no editing)

Thanks again and I look forward to your reply. I have learned much from your letter and I appreciate your willingness to talk. Perhaps you have learned a little bit too.


Rick Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That was sent on April, 2. I have not received a response.