1

TESTIMONY OF JOHN SIMMONS, CHAIRMAN, 

MEDICINE CREEK ENTERPRISE CORPORATION 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION 

REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF 

THE REGULATIONS UNDER IGRA 

LITTLE CREEK RESORT, SHELTON, WASHINGTON 

JANUARY 14, 2011 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning Chairman Stevens, Vice Chairman Cochran, Associate Commissioner 

Little and Members of the Committee. My name is John Simmons, Chairman of the 

Medicine Creek Enterprise Corporation. The Medicine Creek Enterprise Corporation 

(MCEC) is charged with the management of the Nisqually Red Wind Casino on behalf of 

the Nisqually Indian Tribe. 

I want to thank the Committee for this opportunity to provide our views and input on 

NIGC’s comprehensive review of the federal regulations promulgated under IGRA. 

BACKGROUND OF NISQUALLY RED WIND CASINO 

The Nisqually Indian Tribe, through the Medicine Creek Enterprise Corporation, operates 

a Class III gaming facility at the Nisqually Red Wind Casino on Nisqually tribal lands in 

Olympia, Washington. Consistent with the terms of the IGRA, the tribe conducts its 

gaming activities at Red Wind Casino in accordance with regulations enacted pursuant to 

a tribal ordinance, and rules contained in a Tribal-State Class III gaming compact with 

the State of Washington. Indian gaming is a beneficial sector of the Washington 

economy that benefits Washington Indians specifically and Washingtonians more 

generally. 

COMMON GOALS WITH RESPECT TO TRIBAL GAMING REGULATION 

I think it is fair to say that NIGC and Nisqually Red Wind Casino share the common goal 

of seeing Indian gaming succeed. To date, proceeds from Indian gaming at Nisqually 

Red Wind Casino have funded critical economic development and other social services 

for the Nisqually Tribe and its members. This is a very positive outcome of Tribal 

gaming – and the regulatory scheme provided in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

I believe we both also agree that the industry is well regulated. In our view, the credit for 

this goes to tribal governments, Congress, the Commission, as well as the state gaming 
2

authorities. Congress is owed special credit for empowering the tribes and elevating 

tribal capacity to be able to administer our responsibilities and regulate these affairs. 

I hope it is also fair to say that we also agree on the importance of a relationship between 

the Commission and Tribal Governments based on mutual respect and understanding. 

Your Commission has repeatedly emphasized your commitment to renewing and building 

strong collaborative relationships with Tribal Governments to safeguard the Indian 

gaming industry and to foster economic self-sufficiency among Tribal Governments. 

We all care about the integrity and success of the gaming industry on our reservations. 

Nothing Congress or the State or anyone has ever done has made a difference in our 

community like gaming. So we want to protect our rights. 

SUGGESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NIGC’S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF 

IGRA GAMING REGULATIONS 

 

· NIGC lacks authority to issue and enforce Minimum Internal Control Standards 

(“MICS”) for Class III Indian gaming. 

In Colorado Indian River Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Commission, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the NIGC lacks the statutory 

authority to issue and enforce MICS for Class III Indian gaming. According to the court, 

“Congress plainly did not intend to give the NIGC the authority to issue MICS for Class 

III gaming. ... The intent of Congress to withhold this power from the NIGC is 

unambiguous ....” 

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court. In so doing, the court 

noted, “The Commission is correct that Congress wanted to ensure the integrity of Indian 

gaming, but it is equally clear that Congress wanted to do this in a particular way.” The 

court simply found no statutory basis empowering the Commission to regulate class III 

gaming operations. 

Nonetheless, the Commission continues to assert its authority to issue and enforce MICS 

for Class III Indian gaming. With all due respect, the Commission’s position is flawed. 

The District Court’s opinion plainly included all Class III Indian gaming, not just Class 

III Indian gaming of the Colorado River Indian Tribes. Moreover, the Commission’s 

insistence on issuing MICS for Class III Indian gaming is inconsistent with the 

Commission’s emphasis on strong government-to-government relationships and will have 

several negative consequences for Indian gaming. 

1. First, MICS envisioned by the Commission are not negotiated 

between governments. By contrast, the minimum internal control 

standards contained in the tribal-state gaming compacts are 

negotiated between governments, as specifically envisioned (and 

mandated) by IGRA. As such, the negotiated control standards can 
3

address the particular needs and circumstances of each Tribal 

gaming facility and operation. 

2. Second, changes to minimum internal control standards that have 

been in place for years will likely place unnecessary financial 

burdens on tribes. 

3. Third, in light of the detailed nature of the standards, imposing one 

set of minimum internal control standards on all Tribal gaming 

facilities and operations will likely be impracticable. There is no 

“one size fits all” approach for handling this issue. 

4. Fourth, also fully consistent with IGRA, Tribal gaming ordinances 

(in conjunction with tribal-state compacts) regulate gaming 

operations on Indian land and it is the sovereign right of Indian 

tribes to govern themselves, subject to the role for the Commission 

that IGRA establishes (and that I will touch on more below). 

These practical considerations should not be disregarded. As the United States Supreme 

Court has eloquently stated, "[s]elf-determination and economic development are not 

within reach if the Tribes cannot raise revenues and provide employment for their 

members through gaming activities.” California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 

480 U.S. 202, 219-21 (1987). 

We do not disagree with NIGC over the importance of gaming control standards or 

regulations. We simply agree with the court that Congress intended that the state-tribal 

compact process would govern the operation of Class III gaming and that is how the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was constructed. Every gaming compact for a tribal 

casino in Washington requires minimum internal control standards, standards that are 

negotiated between each Tribal gaming agency and the Washington State Gambling 

Commission. The standards cover all of the areas that the Commission is apparently 

concerned about--accounting, audits, cash handling, security, surveillance, game 

standards, and player relations. In addition, each tribal gaming operation is subject to an 

annual audit by an independent certified public accountant, in accordance with the 

auditing and accounting standards for audits of casinos of the American Institute of 

Certified Public Accountants. 

In addition, the NIGC already has and exercises substantial existing authority. IGRA 

authorizes the NIGC to review and approve tribal gaming regulatory laws, review tribal 

background checks and gaming licenses, receive independent annual audits of tribal 

gaming facilities, approve management contract, and work with tribal gaming regulatory 

agencies to promote tribal implementation of tribal gaming regulatory ordinances. 

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully urge the NIGC to abandon any further effort to 

issue and enforce minimum internal control standards for Class III Indian gaming. 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has worked well to promote “tribal economic 

development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments,” just as the U.S. Congress 

intended, and, as discussed above, Indian gaming is a Native American success story – 

and indeed, a true American success story for the Nation as a whole, as many Native 

Americans begin to see the promise of the American dream of a job and economic selfsufficiency. 

Indian Country is proud of its gaming regulatory history and we are working hard to 

ensure that tribal gaming regulation remains strong into the future. 

NIGC remains an important part of the cooperative partnership that makes Indian gaming 

successful. Nonetheless, NIGC’s role must stay true to and not exceed the dictates of the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It is for this reason that we speak out so strongly against 

NIGC issuing and enforcing minimum internal control standards for Class III gaming. 

Thank you. 
KEY POINTS FOR THE 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN SIMMONS, CHAIRMAN, 

MEDICINE CREEK ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION 

REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF 

THE REGULATIONS UNDER IGRA 

LITTLE CREEK RESORT, SHELTON, WASHINGTON 

JANUARY 14, 2011 

INTRODUCTION 

• Good morning Chairwoman Stevens and and Commission 

Members and NIGC Staff 

• My name is John Simmons and I serve are the Chairman 

of the Medicine Creek Enterprise Corporation which is the 

corporate board that oversees the management and 

operations of the Nisqually Red Wind Casino 

• I want to thank the Committee for this opportunity to 

provide our views on NIGC’s comprehensive review of 

the federal regulations promulgated under IGRA. 

• I have submitted our written testimony and now I will 

highlight some of the Board’s concerns:

CONCERN: 

1
• our main concern today is with the NIGC’s proposed 

Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class III Indian 

gaming (NIGC Class III MICS) 

• We firmly believe and the courts have ruled, that the 

NIGC lacks authority to issue and enforce Minimum 

Internal Control Standards (“MICS”) for Class III Indian 

gaming. 

• We ask that with respect to the tribes that have negotiated 

internal control standards on a government-to-government 

basis, such as our tribes here in the state of Washington, 

that our negotiated standards be honored and upheld rather 

than having the Commission continue asserting its 

authority to issue and enforce MICS for Class III Indian 

gaming. 

• With all due respect, we believe the Commission’s 

insistence on issuing MICS for Class III Indian gaming is 

inconsistent with the Commission’s emphasis on strong 

government-to-government relationships and will have 

several negative consequences for Indian gaming.

• We do not disagree with NIGC over the importance of 

gaming control standards or regulations. We simply agree 

with the court that Congress intended that the state-tribal 

compact process would govern the operation of Class III 

gaming and that is how the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA) was constructed. 

2
• Every gaming compact for a tribal casino in Washington 

requires minimum internal control standards which are 

negotiated between each Tribal gaming agency and 

the Washington State Gambling Commission. These cover 

all of the areas that NIGC is concerned about--accounting, 

audits, cash handling, security, surveillance, game 

standards, and player relations. In addition, each tribal 

gaming operation is subject to an annual audit by an 

independent certified public accountant, in accordance 

with the auditing and accounting standards for audits of 

casinos of the American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants.

3