FCL NEWSLETTER -- June, 2001

In the past five years initiatives and referenda have crowded our ballots. Proposition-related court decisions and legislative tinkering have consumed the attention of lawyers, judges and politicians.

Two recent measures ? Proposition 1A and Proposition 21 ? illustrate the point that voter approval is often just the first step in a lengthy and difficult process. The FCL Newsletter offers these case studies as cautionary tales to all who are faced with deciding how to cast a vote. Indian Gambling

In March 2000, California voters overwhelmingly approved Class III gambling (such as percentage card games and slot machines) on California Indian lands. The gambling compacts with 61 California Indian tribes authorized by Proposition 1A have led to a bitter struggle over the powers and budget of the state's new Gambling Control Commission. In particular, the compact signatories have resisted controls on how many slot machines they can install and how much financial reporting they must do. Under pressure from tribal leaders and Assembly Budget Chair Tony Cardenas (D., Arleta), who has received more than $600,000 in campaign contributions from California Indian tribes over the past three years, an interim funding bill, AB 66 (Herb Wessson, D., Culver City) has been on a slow track through the legislative process. Wesson is carrying the $1.35 million measure for Governor Gray Davis, who appointed the members of the commission.

As sovereign entities, the tribes insist on self- regulation of their casinos. The Gambling Commission's role is restricted to a small number of responsibilities: administering a revenue-sharing fund through which a portion of casino income is transferred to tribes with limited or no gambling facilities; reviewing licensing of casino employees and vendors; inspecting and auditing casino operations.

To date, the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust has collected $39.6 million from fees on new slot machines. Language inserted into the current budget requires tribes to disclose how many slots they are operating, how many they have claimed in a series of secret draws and a breakdown of payments made so far.

Despite repeated inquiries, 19 tribes still have not provided that information. Other tribes have used a wide variety of methods to determine how much they owe the fund. Apparently, the tribes are concerned about revealing just how many slot machines they divided in the confidential lottery they held shortly after the passage of Proposition 1A. Nonetheless, Cardenas and tribal leaders pressed the Commission at its May meeting to distribute as much of the money as it can with the information it has.

The Commission voted to release $10 million, withholding the rest on grounds of fiscal prudence. "Some tribes are overpaying and some are underpaying," according to the Commission's executive director Robert Traverso.

In addition to tribal resistance, the Commission has been hampered by jurisdictional differences with Attorney General Bill Lockyer's Gambling Control Division. However, on May 14, the Commission and the Division executed a memo of understanding that specified their respective roles and responsibilities.

With less than two months left in the state's fiscal year, the interagency agreement eradicated the issue of duplication between the two agencies, which had caused the state Legislative Analyst to recommend withholding the Commission's budget. On May 22, AB 66 moved out of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and is awaiting hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

With an operating budget finally on the horizon, the Commission will shortly be able to begin clearing up some of the ambiguities in compacts that were negotiated in just 16 days. The Commission has its work cut out for it.

The environmental protections outlined in the compact are vague at best, already placing gambling tribes at odds with local governments and community associations. "We'll be walking a tightrope on many issues," Commission chair John Hensley told Copley News Service. "I've read the sections that require the tribes to perform environmental studies. It's unclear as to whose ultimate authority that falls to."

Indian casino gambling in California is already more than a decade old and it has been over a year since the historic 20-year compacts were negotiated between the state's gambling tribes and Governor Davis. "We're at the very early stages of a very long ? relationship," according to Jacob Coin, executive director of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, "and we're looking forward to some very important developments." For more information, contact: