TESTIMONY OF 

JONODEV OSCEOLA CHAUDHURI

CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

UNITED STATES SENATE

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON

“SAFEGUARDING THE INTEGRITY OF INDIAN GAMING”

JULY 22, 2015

Chairman Barraso, Vice Chairman Tester, and members of the committee, good afternoon, and 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to share my perspective on 

safeguarding the integrity of Indian gaming. 

The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) is firmly committed to fulfilling its

responsibilities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to ensure not only the integrity 

of Indian gaming is protected, but that tribes remain the primary beneficiaries of their gaming 

operations. 

Over the course of eighteen months, the NIGC worked closely with the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) in its efforts to provide an overview of the Indian gaming industry. 

We are grateful for the GAO’s report titled Indian Gaming: Regulation and oversight by the 

Federal Government, States, and Tribes and generally agree with its findings. I view the report 

as a tool the agency will use to refine its procedures to more fully address regulatory priorities 

while adhering to certain principles.

During my confirmation proceedings, I outlined specific agency priorities that are well-targeted 

to advancing the sound regulation of Indian gaming. These priorities include: 

1) Active performance of oversight duties; 

2) Engaging in ongoing commitment to training, technical assistance, and meaningful 

tribal consultation; 

3) Staying ahead of the technology curve; 

4) Supporting a strong regulatory workforce both in-house and among our regulatory 

partners; and 

5) Strengthening dialogue and relationships with all relevant stakeholders. 

To implement these priorities, NIGC is focusing on the following specific guiding principles to 

administer our statutory responsibilities:

a. Act within appropriate agency authority to address and mitigate activity that 

jeopardizes the integrity of Indian gaming and, by extension, the valuable selfdetermination tool that it represents; 

b. Swiftly act on anything that jeopardizes the health and safety of the public at 

gaming establishments, including employees and patrons; 
c. Engage in sound regulation without unnecessarily stymieing the 

entrepreneurial spirit of tribes; and

d. Protect against anything that amounts to gamesmanship on the backs of tribes.

Application of these priorities and principles has already seen positive results and is taking the 

agency beyond the GAO’s recommendations. 

Consistent in these priorities and principles is the recognition of the value and efficiency of 

leveraging our relationships with our regulatory partners to meet our shared goal of compliance 

with IGRA. We recognize that in addition to being a matter of good policy and consistency with 

executive orders, it is also a matter of agency economy and good fiscal management to maintain 

positive relationships with our regulatory partners. We do this through open and frank dialogue, 

meaningful and active consultation, and by the delivery of quality training and technical 

assistance.

We were pleased that the report recognized the important and strong relationships between the 

NIGC, tribes, and states. As the report details, tribes dedicated $422 million to the regulation of 

the Indian gaming industry in 2013. This includes the costs tribes bear for federal and state 

regulation of their gaming activity. The resources devoted to effective regulation, especially the 

thousands of tribal regulators, are a testament to the importance of gaming to tribal economic 

development and self-determination. 

Sound regulation preserves public confidence, supports tribal self-sufficiency and selfdetermination, protects tribal assets, and promotes a safe and fair environment for all people who 

interact with the industry. We recognize there are still opportunities for improvement as we 

continue to advance the goals of IGRA, but it is appropriate to highlight the work we have done

to address the GAO’s recommendations. 

The GAO recommended that in order to make an informed decision, the NIGC should seek input 

from states on its proposal to draft updated guidance on class III minimum internal control 

standards and withdraw its 2005 regulations. It has always been our intent to seek guidance from 

all of the parties involved in the regulation of Indian gaming. To assist in this goal, the NIGC 

added a new position: Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator. This addition to 

our staff will strengthen our communications and outreach efforts to all stakeholders.

Earlier this year, the NIGC invited tribal leaders to participate in consultations on the issuance of 

guidance on class III minimum internal control standards that regulators may use in developing 

their own class III internal controls. The purpose of these consultations was to receive tribal 

views on the process to be used by the NIGC in providing guidance on class III minimum 

internal control standards. These discussions did not involve any substantive discussions of 

individual controls. For example, during the consultations, tribes expressed concern over the 

withdrawal of the 2005 regulations and the possible void that may be left for tribes whose 

compacts reference or incorporate those standards. These types of issues must be addressed 

before we undertake drafting substantive guidance.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-togovernment relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments. The 

Commission is committed to implementing the President's November 5, 2009 Executive 
Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order 13175. This is why 

it is so important for the NIGC to reach out to tribes before it takes any substantive action. Once 

the process to be used is determined by the NIGC, it will then begin work on substantive internal 

control guidance.

Once drafted, the guidance will be published for comments from industry stakeholders including 

states. I am mindful of the fact that class III gaming is framed by the terms of compacts 

negotiated between tribes and states. The NIGC does not want to interfere or hinder compact 

negotiations or the relationships between tribes and states.

The GAO also recommended that to improve its ability to assess the effectiveness of its training 

and technical assistance efforts, the NIGC should review and revise, as needed, its performance 

measures to include additional outcome-oriented measures. The NIGC began efforts to assess the 

effectiveness of its training and technical assistance efforts during GAO’s review. To assist in 

these assessments, and to contribute to the overall performance of the agency, the NIGC has 

established a Division of Technology. Among its responsibilities will be to capture, track, and 

analyze data from all of our compliance efforts.

Congress, through IGRA, mandated that the NIGC provide tribes with training and technical 

assistance. Our focus has been to incorporate this Congressional mandate into overall 

compliance efforts rather than something that is done simply as a service. The NIGC is

committed to measuring the efficacy of its training and technical assistance and making 

adjustments, where necessary. The NIGC is actively working to develop outcome-focused 

assessments of its effectiveness. In recognition of the value of accurate performance 

measurements to continued improvement of operational management, the NIGC has actively 

explored a variety tools to measure the effectiveness of the initiative. 

One of the tools it has been using is an analysis of data contained in Agreed Upon Procedures 

(AUP) reports that tribes are required to submit to the Agency. A comparison of AUP findings 

from before the NIGC began emphasizing training and technical assistance with findings after 

implementation of this approach show a 34% decline in high risk findings and a 36% decline in 

overall findings. The Agency is mindful, however, of narrow reliance on any one data source in 

assessing its ongoing training and technical assistance. In addition to a review of data collected 

by existing means, the NIGC has recently developed additional tools to track its operations. 

These include voluntary internal control assessments and IT threat assessments. 

Further, the NIGC is considering developing knowledge reviews that will be conducted during 

training sessions. The report recommends that the NIGC apply the recommendations found in the 

GAO report titled Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 

Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO -04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004). The NIGC 

is currently reviewing this report to ascertain whether it is practical to track and apply individual 

training results to improvements in IGRA compliance. The NIGC anticipates coordinating the 

development of performance measures with the regulated industry.

Finally, the GAO recommended, to help ensure letters of concern are more consistently prepared 

and responses tracked, that the NIGC develop documented procedures and guidance to 1) clearly 

identify letters of concern as such and to specify the type of information to be contained in them, 

such as time periods for a response; and 2) maintain and track tribes’ responses to the NIGC on 
potential compliance issues. Since the NIGC began utilizing letters of concern it has been 

examining and refining their use. 

The NIGC’s regulations related to letters of concern were first promulgated on August 9, 2012, 

and established a system of graduated enforcement. The NIGC recognized that there was a lack 

of clarity in these letters and that action timetables were needed. A standardized format for these 

letters has been developed that include deadlines for tribes. Further, the NIGC is refining its 

procedures for tracking responses to these letters.

The NIGC was pleased that the GAO report highlighted many of the success stories in Indian 

gaming; including the manifold ways tribes have used gaming revenue to safeguard their 

peoples’ futures and pursue self-determination. We were also pleased that the report’s technical 

recommendations were consistent with many of the positive efforts we have actively pursued in 

recent months to support tribal economic development by strengthening the regulatory structure 

of the Indian gaming industry. I believe that all of the NIGC’s responses to the issues raised by 

the GAO will only enhance the regulation of the industry and I look forward to their continuing 

implementation. 

Thank you for your time today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.