Sa hy

$ %, .
2 % Prairie Band Potawatomi
é a
5 : Tribal Gaming Commission
% g
q 2 ¢ 14978 West Casino Drive = P.O, Box 129 = Mayetta, Kansas 66509

eS Ph. 785-966-3043 = Fx. 785-966-2421
4MING CO

June 30, 2022

Mr. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Chair

National Indian Gaming Commission rn
1849 C. Street NW

Mail Stop #1621

Washington, D.C. 20240

Re: Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Comments on the NIGC’s Proposed Rule and Amendments
to 25 C.F.R. Part 571 Audit Standards

Dear Chairman Simermeyer and Members of the Commission:

Included in with this letter are the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Tribal Gaming Commission’s
comments on the National Indian Gaming Commission’s proposed amendments to its regulations
and policies as related to its audit standards, which were discussed and presented via video
conference on September 21-22, 2021, and October 21, 2021, during its Series B Consultation.
We appreciate the NIGC’s efforts in consulting with Tribal governments and Tribal gaming
regulatory agencies on these matters, which will have a tangible effect on the regulation of gaming,
as well as the opportunity to comment on such potential changes.

Sincerely,

Rey Kitchkumme, Chairman
Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribal Gaming Commission


Enclosure.

Comments of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Tribal Gaming Commission on the
National Indian Gaming Commission’s Proposed Revisions to its Regulations.

I. Introduction

These comments are submitted in response to the notice of proposed amendments to 25 C.F.R.
Part 571, published by the NIGC in the Federal Register on June 1, 2022. We are pleased to provide
input on the proposed changes to the NIGC’s proposed changes to its regulations. The Prairie Band
Potawatomi Nation Tribal Gaming Commission (“PBPGC”) therefore submits the following
comments, provided below the NIGC’s related prompts and/or suggested amendments.

Il. Comments

A. Small and Charitable Gaming and Related Impacts

Before we address the specifics of the NIGC’s proposals concerning financial reporting by
qualifying charitable gaming operations, the PBPGC expresses its general support of the creation
of a third tier of financial reporting for charitable gaming operations. We hope that by creating
this third tier, Tribal governments will be incentivized to establish their own charitable gaming
operations that will be able to generate funds for worthy causes. We believe that increasing
opportunity for charitable gaming across Indian county will be beneficial to tribal and non-tribal
communities.

To this end, we request that the NIGC consider raising its $50,000 gross revenues threshold in its
proposal. We understand that the NIGC reached this number after reviewing many financial
reporting waiver requests, but we believe that if the threshold amount for charitable gaming
revenues was increased, Tribal governments would adapt and aspire to meet that threshold.
Without any such standards to base financial reporting waiver requests on, it makes sense that such
waiver requests in the past have been for relatively low amounts. As such, we request that the
NIGC consider raising this threshold to at least $100,000 in order to encourage new and successful
charitable gaming operations.

a. Part 571.12 (c)(3) currently reads, “If the Chair of the NIGC has reason to
believe that the assets of a gaming operation are not being appropriately
safeguarded or the revenues are being misused under IGRA, the Chair may, at
his or her discretion, require any gaming operation subject to this paragraph (c)
to submit additional information or comply with the annual audit requirement of
paragraph (b) of this section.”

And,


this provision as creating a wholly new cause of action (so to speak) against a Tribe with no
intermediate steps between the submission of an adverse opinion and the commencement of a
formal enforcement action by the Chair. As stated in the materials accompanying this proposed
revision last September, the Chair retains discretionary enforcement authority. However, this does
not assuage our fears that the NIGC is again seeking to create another pitfall for potential
noncompliance that Tribes will have to maneuver around. Additionally, Chairman Simermeyer
will not be serving in this position for life, and thus regulations need to contemplate the very real
possibility that future Chairs may not be so forgiving after receiving an adverse opinion should
this proposed language go into effect. We additionally are confused as to why there is now no
mention of disclaimed opinions. We, and we are sure other tribal governments and organizations,
are unsure of how the NIGC plans to address disclaimed opinions—are they also required
submissions, and if so, in what instances do they satisfy the reporting requirements?

While we do not fully support this proposed revision for the reasons stated above, if it were to be
promulgated, we recommend adding language addressing the consequences for first time
“offenders” versus repeat or serial “offenders.” It is our belief that minor, non-systematic issues
may result in the odd adverse opinion and those submitting tribal governments should not be
penalized with the same severity as those with ongoing systematic issues that require further
attention to rectify.

b. Part 571.12(d) current reads, “If a gaming operation has multiple gaming places,
facilities or locations on the tribe's Indian lands, the annual audit requirement of
paragraph (b) of this section is satisfied if:...” (emphasis added)

The PBPGC supports the intent of the NIGC’s proposed revisions to 25 C.F.R. § 571.12 (d), but
we do not think the NIGC is effectuating its intent in the proper manner. The proposed language
in § 571.12 (d) reads to us that “gaming operation” and “gaming facility” have distinct meanings
because both terms are still included in the proposed § 571.12 (d). If the intent is to clarify that
these terms are one of the same and interchangeable, rather than just treated the same for the
purposes of § 571.12 (d), this should happen in the definitions section in Part 502. This would
effectuate the Audit Division’s and our understanding of the terms throughout the NIGC’s
regulations. In any event, we do not believe the NIGC’s objectives here are met with its proposed
reworking of § 571.12 (d).

III. Conclusion

The PBPGC is appreciative of the opportunity to participate in the NIGC’s Series B Consultation
by providing the comments herein, and we believe that through such continued consultation
efforts, the NIGC will achieve regulations that protect the integrity of gaming without imposing
undue burdens on TGRAs and Tribal governments. We look forward to continuing to engage in
meaningful consultation with the NIGC regarding these proposed revisions and furthering the
government-to-government relationship between the Nation and the United States.