Casino Regulation Changes

In the March 30 post “Whats Next?” of this blog, it was mentioned that last fall a Federal Appeals court upheld a ruling that the National Indian Gaming Commission does not have the authority to regulate most tribal casinos and that critics of these compacts said that the sudden loss of federal oversight is something that should be addressed in the agreements before they are ratified. Stand up for California, in the last section of the analysis posted yesterday, uses this as an argument for opposition.

Today, State and tribal officials will meet behind closed doors to consider adopting federal rules that address internal security at Indian casinos. Tribes have the primary regulatory role, but the National Indian Gaming Commission, before the decision last fall (Colorado River Indian Tribes v. NIGC, October 20, 2006), established basic criteria for the internal security that monitors casino operations. The guidelines covered cash handling and counting, audits, surveillance and the games – from technical standards to how often decks of cards should be changed. Those standards were tossed out by rulings in federal district and appellate courts, which concluded that the national gaming commission did not have the authority to regulate casinos.

The Tribes and the governor are opposed to renegotiating the compacts to address this issue and instead are looking at an alternative proposal, to substitute state oversight for the lost Federal oversight, which will be debated today at the Fantasy Springs Resort Casino in Indio. Not all tribes are 100% behind this though. Some are worrying that State oversight may exceed the state's authority and lead to the same kind of legal challenge that thwarted federal oversight of tribal casinos.

The plan, developed by the California Gambling Control Commission in conjunction with Pechanga, would require all tribes with gambling agreements, or compacts, to comply with the federal “minimum internal control standards.”

“There is no doubt this controversial regulation will be tested,” Cheryl Schmit of Stand Up for California, a gambling watchdog group, said of the new proposal. “Legislators should not gamble with the welfare of the public. No new compacts should be ratified without beefing up the regulatory language.”

Philip Hogen, chairman of the NIGC, is urging Congress to restore the federal standards. He has argued that the commission had immediate enforcement powers while states, including California, must go through a long legal process that can take months to remedy violations. Hogen is expected to emphasize that point May 14, when he's scheduled to testify on the issue before a California Assembly committee.

Full Article here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070502/news_1n2casinos.html