OFFICE OF THE TRIBAL M IKO 

BEASLEY DENSON ­

P HONE (60 I) 656- 525 1 FAX (60 I) 6 5 0 -7496 

EM Ail, bcaslerlenso n(Olc hoc taw.org 

MISS ISSIPPI BAN D O F CHOCTAW I ND IANS 

P. O . B o x 6 01 0 · 101 I N DUSTRIAL ROA D 

CHOCTAW. M S 3 9 3 50 

May 16,2011 

Via Electronic Mail: C0l1s1l1taf;on.policv@n;gc.gov 

Kathy Zebell 

National Indian Gaming Association 

1441 L Street, NW, Suite 9100 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

RE: Comments on draft NIGC Tribal Consultation Policy 

Dear Ms. Zebell: 

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI) appreciates the opportunity to review and 

comment on the draft National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) Tribal Consultation Policy. 

A tribal consultation policy designed to guide the process for interaction and communication 

between the NIGC and Indian Tribes is a vital foundational document that will set the tone for 

how the NIGC will work with Tribes on Indian gaming issues. We are hopeful that NIGC will 

carefully consider the tribal input and comments on the Tribal Consultation Policy. 

Pursuant to the March 8, 2011 letter to Tribal Leaders, the MBCI offers the following comments 

on the draft NIGC Tribal Consultation Policy: 

1. We appreciate that the Consultation Policy traces its roots back to the "centuries-old, 

special relationship between the Federal government and the Tribes." (Section I). This 

foundational statement reflects the long-standing history of governmental interactions between 

the Federal Government and Tribes. These interactions have not always been positive and have 

not always been meaningful or productive. There are many instances in the past where the 

NIGC has simply dictated its policies to the Tribes without meaningful tribal input or 

consultation. Thus, it is important that this policy reflect and follow through with the current 

Commission's stated "renewed" commitment to regular, meaningful and timely consultation 

with Tribes on gaming issues. 

2. The MBCI welcomes the tenor of Section III. Consultation General Principles which 

recognizes the Tribes' sovereign authority to make their own laws and govern their own 

territory, and that this includes gaming activities. The MBCI fully supports Section I1I.F. which 

encourages Tribes to develop their own policies for gaming activities and, when possible, to 

defer to Tribes to establish their own standards. The willingness to defer to those who actually 

implement and enforce tribal policies and standards makes sense since it allows tribes to develop 

standards based on their particular situations and needs. 

·0 IA I IlJ\ F I RS1 ·· 
Ms. Kathy Zebell 

Re: MBCI Comments on Draft NIGC Consultation Policy 

Page 2 

We also agree that NIGC should consult with Tribes on the need for federal standards and other 

alternatives that preserve the authority and autonomy of the Tribes over their gaming activities. 

A good example is the Facility Licensing Standards established by the NIGC. There were likely 

other alternatives that limited the scope of the federal standards to allow more localized tribal 

standards to be developed. 

3. One of the more common failures of previous tribal consultation efforts was the inability 

or unwillingness to engage Tribes early on in the process and simply letting the Tribes know of a 

proposed policy or change when it was too late to have meaningful input. As a result, we 

strongly agree with the language at Section IV.A. that recognizes that meaningful consultation 

"must happen early and often" and encourage the NIGC to engage Tribes in conversations, even 

informally, when considering issues affecting tribal gaming. This includes the other forms of 

interactions that can be used to receive and evaluate tribal comments as described in Section 

V.B. 

4. Something as simple as seating arrangements, agenda and dialogue opportunities can 

have an impact on successful communication and consultation efforts as discussed at Section 

IV.G. Past meetings where NIGC representatives were at the head ofthe room talking to a large 

audience of tribal leaders and representatives did not encourage open and free-flowing 

discussions. We appreciate the recognition of this and how this reflects upon the government-togovernment interaction between NIGC Commissioners and staff and Tribal leadership and staff 

when conducting a consultation meeting. 

5. We also feel it is important that the Consultation Policy recognize the need for NIGC to 

be as flexible as possible to allow sufficient time for Tribes and tribal entities to adequately 

review and analyze matters that could or will impact tribal gaming activities and interests. It is 

important to allow as much time as possible and depending on the circumstances, be flexible in 

time periods and deadlines for consultation and submission of comments. Often tribal input and 

authorization for comments or position statements may be delayed because of Tribal Council 

schedules and traditional tribal activities. We support NIGC's commitment in Section IV.1. to be 

as flexible as possible to allow Tribes enough time to review and comment on matters that couJd 

have tribal implications. 

6. It is a welcome change to see language at Section V.C. that allows a Tribe to request a 

consultation with the NIGC when a Tribe believes the NIGC may be taking actions with tribal 

implications. This option, along with the mandated time for NIGC to corrfmn receipt of the 

request and reply, create the sense that Tribes can initiate dialogue with NIGC and that there will 

at least be a response back from NIGC. In the past, Tribes would not get any response back from 

NIGC on submitted comments or suggestions on proposed NIGC actions. 

7. The ability of Tribes to review transcripts of consultation meetings as well as comments 

submitted by other Tribes is very helpful, especially if a Tribe is not able to participate or attend 

CHAI 11A I- I RS I " 
Ms. Kathy Zebell 

Re: MBCI Comments on Draft NIGC Consultation Policy 

Page 3 

a consultation meeting. We encourage NIGC to continue the practice as described in Section 

V.E. 

8. The fact that the Consultation Policy contains specific provisions in Section IV. to hold 

NIGC Tribal Consultation Officers accountable internally to the NIGC Chair and accountable 

externally to the Tribes shows a commitment to taking tribal consultation seriously. It also 

shows the commitment to try and improve the consultation process. We applaud the NIGC 

Commission for taking this step. 

Overall, the MBCI believes that the NIGC's proposed Consultation Policy is a strong 

commitment by the current NIGC Commission to improve communications and consultation 

practices with Tribes. Such a Consultation Policy will benefit our Tribe, our gaming operations 

and our gaming commission. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this important Policy. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Choctaw Gaming Commission