NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION MEETING

                       HARRAH'S RESORT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

                             777 HARRAH'S RINCON WAY

                            VALLEY CENTER, CALIFORNIA

                            THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2018

                                3:30 PM TO 5:30 PM

              Reported by:  Cynthia J. Vega, RMR, CSR 6640, CCRR 95

         1   APPEARING ON BEHALF OF NIGC

         2

         3   Kathryn Isom-Clause, Vice Chairwoman

         4   Sequoyah Simermeyer, Associate Commissioner

         5   Christinia Thomas, Acting Chief of Staff

         6   Yvonne Lee, Director of Finance

         7   Jon Duran, Background Investigations Manager

         8   Austin Badger, Sacramento Region Attorney

         9   Mariah Grubb, Management and Program Analyst

        10

        11

        12

        13

        14

        15

        16

        17

        18

        19

        20

        21

        22

        23

        24

        25

                                                                     2

         1                  VALLEY CENTER, CALIFORNIA

         2            THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2018, 3:39 P.M.

         3

         4            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Good afternoon.  We're going

         5   to go ahead and get started.  Thanks, everyone, for

         6   joining us.

         7            We just want to get started in the right way

         8   with a blessing from Ed McEnespy, who's our Rincon Band

         9   tribal member.

        10            (Blessing given.)

        11            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Thank you.

        12            I will present this to you as a token of our

        13   appreciation from the agency, from our chief of staff

        14   Christinia Thomas.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate

        15   it.

        16            I'm Kathryn Isom-Clause.  I'm the vice chair of

        17   the commission.  I'm from Taos Pueblo.

        18            You may have noticed that we don't have

        19   Chairman Chaudhuri here with us today.  So Commissioner

        20   Simermeyer and I are going to sort of tag-team the

        21   emceeing duties today.

        22            So before we go into our opening statements,

        23   I'll turn it over to you.

        24            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Sure.  Thank you again.

        25            I'm Sequoyah Simermeyer, the third member of

                                                                     3

         1   the commission.  And we really appreciate the

         2   opportunity that everyone has taken and the time to be

         3   here and for the opening blessing that was had.

         4            We also wanted to give the Rincon community

         5   here a chance if they would like to say hello before our

         6   opening statements to begin with and again express our

         7   appreciation for the community.  Thank you.

         8            MS. TURNER:  I'm Tishmall Turner, vice chair of

         9   the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians.

        10            Welcome.  Thank you for hosting this and coming

        11   out, listening to comments.  We're very honored to host

        12   this week's Western Indian Gaming Conference.  And

        13   commend all the staff that put together this week's

        14   events.  And welcome.

        15            We do have a reception afterwards.  We'd like

        16   everyone to join us down the -- kind of near the hotel

        17   lobby bar called Spiked.  It is sponsored by Rincon.

        18            I would also like to acknowledge our gaming

        19   commissions and my council members who are here, and

        20   also our attorney general that's here from Rincon.

        21            Thank you for joining us.

        22            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Thank you so much.

        23            We're really happy to be here.  We really

        24   appreciate all the programs that have been going on this

        25   week.  It has been a great conference as well.

                                                                     4

         1            So before we get into all of our subject

         2   matter, we'll provide some quick statements from the

         3   commission and then we'll go through our housekeeping,

         4   followed by our subject matter experts as well as our

         5   dialogue with all of you.

         6            As I said, I'm Kathryn Isom-Clause, vice chair

         7   of the commission.  And again, I just have lots of thank

         8   yous.  Thank you again for having us here.

         9            Tribal consultation is primarily a means for us

        10   to listen.  So we're going to try to do more listening

        11   than talking here overall.

        12            It's in recognition of our government-to-

        13   government relationship as well as the role of tribes as

        14   primary regulators of Indian gaming.  We get our best

        15   feedback from folks who are doing this every day on the

        16   ground.  We will really appreciate hearing from you all.

        17            This round of consultation session is following

        18   through on our previous session that we had as this

        19   current commission.

        20            So as you all know, due to the three-year terms

        21   that we serve, our time with this current commission

        22   makeup is limited.  So we're trying to use this time to

        23   really capture all the time that we have with the three

        24   of us together and just finish up some of the things

        25   that we started and -- sorry.  Let me back up a second.

                                                                     5

         1            So I just want to make clear that we're not

         2   expecting any policy changes, although we may have

         3   changes in the commission.  We're expecting to stay on

         4   the same route and to carry on as usual.  In fact, we're

         5   hoping these topics will provide greater stability and

         6   clarity to the industry.

         7            Our topics specifically today are targeted to

         8   address protecting against gamesmanship on the backs of

         9   tribes as well as developing outreach to small rural

        10   gaming establishments.

        11            We're going to continue working on those

        12   initiatives as well as our other two, that are staying

        13   ahead of the technology curve and supporting a strong

        14   work force both within the NIGC and among our regulatory

        15   partners.

        16            Those four initiatives along with another one,

        17   which is internal operational excellence, will continue

        18   to be reflected in our strategic plan, which should be

        19   becoming operational in fiscal year 2018 through 2022.

        20   So please look out for that on our website.  That will

        21   be coming out very shortly.

        22            We're going to kind of keep coming back to the

        23   commission to provide some remarks as we go through our

        24   topics, but right now we're just looking forward to

        25   going ahead with the topics and we look forward to

                                                                     6

         1   hearing from you.

         2            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I'll briefly make some

         3   statements.  And again, I'm Sequoyah Simermeyer of the

         4   Coharie Tribe.  My tribe is from North Carolina.  I

         5   share my colleagues' appreciation for the tribal leaders

         6   who have been here, for the community for hosting us

         7   here.

         8            We're going -- before we get to additional kind

         9   of comments about the substance, we're also going to be

        10   going over some general housekeeping comments.  We will

        11   also be doing some introductions too.

        12            I just want to say at the outset that I've been

        13   on the commission now for a little over two years of my

        14   three-year term.  And part of the way that I approach

        15   the work that I do with the commission is to keep some

        16   specific considerations in mind.

        17            The first is to look at and follow the intent

        18   of what the Indian Regulatory Act has set out.  It is

        19   the legislation that governs our work as an agency and

        20   has had the impact that it had on the 30-plus-billion-

        21   dollar industry that's tribal gaming.

        22            Secondly, it is important to the considerations

        23   that I take for the work that I do in commission is

        24   to -- and I know it is shared by my fellow

        25   commissioners -- is in appreciation and reliance on the

                                                                     7

         1   institutional knowledge that exists with our partner

         2   regulators in other jurisdictions and with our staff at

         3   the NIGC.  It's had long-standing relationships with

         4   Indian country and brings a lot of expertise to the work

         5   that we do every day.  And that's an important part of

         6   making reasoned and defensible decisions in our agency.

         7            And lastly, it's an appreciation for being

         8   diplomatic in the work that we do as a commission and

         9   being diplomatic in looking at the -- understanding and

        10   respecting that tribal governments as sovereigns have

        11   the authority to exercise and develop their own vision

        12   for their community and how best to meet it.

        13            And so part of our responsibility in being

        14   diplomatic is to respect the decisions that tribes are

        15   making with their relationships with other

        16   jurisdictions, not just the federal government, but

        17   tribal relationships with state governments as well.  So

        18   it is an important part of the work that we do as

        19   federal policymakers is understanding that relationship.

        20            So consultation, as the vice chair has

        21   mentioned, is an important part of not only making

        22   better, sounder policy decisions at the federal level.

        23   It's not only an opportunity to engage different parts

        24   of the federal decision-making body process to make sure

        25   that they're being informed by the impact of the

                                                                     8

         1   decisions, but it is a way for Indian country to --

         2   tribal leadership to be part of a finding and giving

         3   meaning to what tribes' government-to-government

         4   relationship means.

         5            So again, I want to say thank you for tribes

         6   for participating in this discussion here for the next

         7   few weeks as we're considering these issues and sending

         8   in your feedback.

         9            We're going to share a little bit more later on

        10   about what other opportunities we have, including a

        11   telephonic conference coming up as well as participate

        12   in an opportunity to send some written comments too that

        13   we very much would appreciate.

        14            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  So I would just like to

        15   remind everyone that this meeting is transcribed.

        16   Ms. Vega here is doing our transcription.  And so please

        17   announce your name as well as your tribal affiliation or

        18   whoever you're representing when you do speak.  It is

        19   important for the record so folks who weren't able to

        20   make it here with us will still get the benefit of this

        21   conversation.  So we would appreciate that.  We'll try

        22   to keep reminding folks if we forget.  Sometimes it

        23   seems easier because we're all in the room seeing each

        24   other, but just remember that other folks online will

        25   see this as well.

                                                                     9

         1            So I think with that, we can go around the room

         2   and do some introductions.

         3            MS. THOMAS:  Good afternoon.  I'm Christinia

         4   Thomas.  I'm the acting chief of staff of the National

         5   Indian Gaming Commission.  I've been with the commission

         6   for five years.  I'm also a Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

         7   member from Minnesota.

         8            MS. LEE:  Good afternoon.  My name is Yvonne

         9   Lee.  I'm the director of finance for the NIGC.

        10            MR. DURAN:  Hello.  I'm Jon Duran.  And I'm the

        11   background investigations manager for the NIGC.

        12            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  We'll start introducing our

        13   own NIGC staff and then we'd like to also know who all

        14   is in the room with us.

        15            MR. HERNANDEZ:  Okay.  I'm Frank Hernandez.

        16   I'm from the satellite office in Temecula, part of the

        17   Sacramento region office out of Sacramento.

        18            MR. SCHALANSKY:  Hello.  My name is Eric

        19   Schalansky.  I'm the region director, Sacramento region

        20   of the National Indian Gaming Commission.

        21            MS. REVILLA:  Good afternoon.  My name is Kim

        22   Revilla.  And I'm a compliance officer with the National

        23   Indian Gaming Commission.

        24            MR. BADGER:  I'm Austin Badger.  I'm the

        25   Sacramento region attorney.

                                                                    10

         1            MS. GRUBB:  Hello.  My name is Mariah Grubb.

         2   I'm the National Indian Gaming Commission management and

         3   program analyst.

         4            MR. WEYLAND:  Good afternoon.  I'm Greg

         5   Weyland.  I'm the director of the Washoe Tribal Gaming

         6   Commission of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.

         7            MR. HITCHCOCK:  Good afternoon.  I'm Raymond

         8   Chuckie Hitchcock, chairman of Wilton Rancheria Tribe.

         9            MS. FINK:  Elaine Fink, vice chairwoman,

        10   North Fork Rancheria, California.

        11            MS. MCGOVRAN:  Marianne McGovran, tribal

        12   council treasurer for North Fork Rancheria of Mono

        13   Indians of California.

        14            MR. MANUELITO:  My name is Henry Manuelito.

        15   I'm with the Colorado River Indian Tribe at Parker,

        16   Arizona.  I'm the executive director for the gaming

        17   commission -- gaming agency.

        18            MR. MCLAUGHLIN:  Good afternoon, everybody.

        19   I'm the executive director -- I'm Tim McLaughlin, the

        20   executive director of the gaming commission for the

        21   Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in Rohnert Park,

        22   California, Bay Area.

        23            MR. STANLEY:  Good afternoon.  I'm Les Stanley,

        24   executive director for Rincon Gaming Commission.

        25            MS. TURNER WALSH:  I'm Denise Turner Walsh, the

                                                                    11

         1   attorney general for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians.

         2            MR. STALLINGS:  Steve Stallings, Rincon Tribal

         3   Council.

         4            MS. TURNER:  Tishmall Turner, vice chair of

         5   Rincon Tribal Council.

         6            MR. ROYBAL:  Edward Roybal, attorney.

         7            MS. CASILLAS:  Nellie Casillas, tribal council

         8   liaison for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians.

         9            MR. QUIS QUIS:  Good afternoon, everyone.

        10   Justin Quis Quis, executive director of San Pasqual

        11   Tribal Gaming Agency.

        12            MR. HENDRICKS:  Good afternoon.  Dennis

        13   Hendricks, Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, council

        14   member.

        15            MR. GOMEZ:  Ray Gomez, technical supervisor,

        16   San Manuel Band.

        17            MR. RUST:  Mike Rust, San Manuel Band.

        18            MR. ERAYDIN:  Sinan Eraydin, Cyber Traction,

        19   CEO.

        20            MR. MEISTER:  Alan Meister, Nathan Associate.

        21            MR. MAZZETTI:  Ed Mazzetti from Rincon Gaming

        22   Commission.

        23            MS. BURTON:  Laurel Burton, Rincon Gaming

        24   Commission.

        25            MR. CALAC:  Abraham Calac, Rincon Gaming

                                                                    12

         1   Commission, assistant executive director.

         2            MR. HIBDON:  Joe Hibdon, Rincon Gaming

         3   Commissioner.

         4            MS. KAZHE:  Christina Kazhe, tribal attorney.

         5            MR. TORRES:  Adam Torres, executive director,

         6   San Manuel Band, Tribal Gaming Commission.

         7            MS. MACIAS:  Vickie Macias, tribal treasurer,

         8   Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians.

         9            MS. ELLIOTT:  Maria Elliott, tribal secretary.

        10            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Thank you, everyone.

        11            As a reminder too, when you're speaking, so you

        12   help with our reporter, we're going to have a sign-in

        13   list.  So please make sure that your affiliation with

        14   your tribe or your leadership is part of -- is on there.

        15   That will help to make the record clear about that as

        16   well.

        17            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  And just a quick reminder,

        18   because it is a government-to-government consultation,

        19   you know, we want to hear from tribal leaders or their

        20   specific designees.  I think it is totally fine if we

        21   have a couple of members in the room if the tribes don't

        22   object to that.  If anyone does object to that, please

        23   let us know now.  But if not, it's fine for you all to

        24   be here in listening mode, and then we will hear from

        25   the tribes for the actual comments on the record.

                                                                    13

         1            I turn it over to Ms. Thomas for our

         2   housekeeping items.

         3            MS. THOMAS:  Thank you.

         4            So housekeeping items.  We are scheduled to go

         5   until 5:30.  However, we'll continue going if there are

         6   still comments being given for the record.

         7            We have a couple additional consultation dates

         8   that we're doing on these topics.  So this is our fourth

         9   consultation that we've done on these three topics.  We

        10   have an additional one next week in Washington, DC, in

        11   conjunction with NCI.  And then our final consultation

        12   on this topic is going to be the 22nd in Milwaukee,

        13   Wisconsin.

        14            The format of the actual consultation, we have

        15   three topics.  The first topic being management

        16   contracts and some recommended revisions that we are

        17   asking for people to give comments on.

        18            Second topic is our audit submissions.

        19            And the third one is management and sole

        20   proprietary interest definitions.

        21            In between each -- as the subject matters

        22   experts go through each topic, we will be pausing and

        23   turning it back over to the commission, like

        24   Commissioner Simermeyer said, to kind of frame some of

        25   the work that we're anticipating doing with these topics

                                                                    14

         1   and then we'll open up for comments.

         2            At the conclusion of all three of the main

         3   topics, we'll actually be opening it up for a catchall

         4   session, so if there is additional comments that anybody

         5   wants to make on the record outside of these three

         6   topics or in addition to these three topics, that will

         7   be when we will do that.

         8            We do have a comment period already scheduled

         9   ending on February 28 for all three of these topics.

        10            And with that, I will hand it back over to

        11   Vice Chairwoman.

        12            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  I think we'll just go ahead

        13   and get started with our first topic.

        14            Mr. Duran.

        15            MR. DURAN:  Hello again.  I'm Jon Duran, the

        16   background investigations manager for the NIGC.

        17            Under IGRA and current NIGC regulations, tribes

        18   wanting to engage a third party to manage their

        19   operations are required to enter into a management

        20   agreement with the third party that must be approved by

        21   the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission.

        22            Following the NIGC's 2017 consultation

        23   sessions, the commission carefully reviewed its

        24   regulations and the agency's internal procedures for

        25   reviewing and approving management contracts.  As a

                                                                    15

         1   result of that review, and based on comments received

         2   during the consultations, the commission believes that

         3   changes to our management contract regulations will

         4   improve the efficiency of the contract review process

         5   and ensure consistency with IGRA's requirement regarding

         6   term limits.

         7            I will provide some background on this topic,

         8   including current regulations, agency concerns, and the

         9   commission's proposed amendments to the regulations.

        10            The chair of the NIGC may only approve a

        11   management contract if it does not exceed a term of

        12   five years, or in rare circumstances, seven years.  NIGC

        13   regulations reflect that stipulation and management

        14   contracts are not approved unless they comply with all

        15   requirements of IGRA, including term limits.

        16            After management contracts have been approved,

        17   tribes and their management contractors may amend their

        18   contracts by following the streamlined procedures for

        19   review and approval of contract amendments found in NIGC

        20   regulation, 25 CFR Part 535.

        21            Part 535 provides an expedited process within

        22   which background investigations are only required if the

        23   third-party individuals and/or entities responsible for

        24   the management contract have changed and no new business

        25   plan or updated financial information is required.  The

                                                                    16

         1   expedited process is designed to allow the parties to

         2   sustain their relationship in a dynamic business

         3   environment while maintaining the integrity of the

         4   chair's initial management contract review and approval.

         5            The safeguards found in the NIGC's management

         6   contract review process serve to assure IGRA's primary

         7   policy goals are met, including protecting Indian gaming

         8   and ensuring a tribe is the primary beneficiary of its

         9   gaming operation.

        10            A thorough review of past practice revealed

        11   that parties using Part 535's expedited process have

        12   submitted amendments to the initial approved contracts

        13   that extended the term of the approved contract by an

        14   additional one to five years, resulting in a contract

        15   that exceeds beyond the explicit term limits of IGRA.

        16            Thus, the commission believes it is important

        17   to update the regulations to maintain IGRA's mandate.

        18            The proposed amendments clarify the regulations

        19   by explicitly noting that amendments that extend the

        20   approved management agreement beyond the term limits

        21   permitted by IGRA, which is five or seven years, will be

        22   reviewed under the full requirements of a new management

        23   contract under Part 531.

        24            So, for example, if an approved contract with a

        25   five-year term is nearing the end of its term and the

                                                                    17

         1   parties are happy with the relationship and want to

         2   extend it for an additional five years, they may do so,

         3   but it may not be reviewed as an amendment.  Because

         4   IGRA limits contract terms to five or seven years, the

         5   chairman will review the agreement under Part 531 and

         6   the entire requisite information that 531 requires must

         7   be submitted.

         8            For another example, though, is if a management

         9   contract had a one-year term and the parties wanted to

        10   amend the agreement to extend it for an additional year,

        11   for a total term of two years, the chair would review

        12   the amendment under Part 535 because the term limit

        13   would still be within the statutory limit of five or

        14   seven years.

        15            The commission understands this change may

        16   affect the timing and expense of updating background

        17   investigations for making suitability determinations of

        18   management contractors.  And independent of the changes

        19   discussed above, the commission received comments during

        20   the last round of consultation that the background

        21   investigation process was time consuming and expensive.

        22   As a result, the commission has done a thorough review

        23   of its background investigation process and is proposing

        24   changes to our internal procedures to make the process

        25   more efficient, thereby reducing the cost of the

                                                                    18

         1   investigations.

         2            Under the new process, NIGC staff will review

         3   the background investigation applications and divide

         4   them into different investigative groups based on the

         5   level of risk.  The process will allow the agency staff

         6   to focus their investigative resources on the most vital

         7   individuals and entities.  This replaces a

         8   one-size-fits-all model that scrutinizes all

         9   applications the same.

        10            For example, under the current process, the top

        11   direct financial interest goes through the same

        12   background investigation as the smallest indirect

        13   financial interest.  But under the new process, entities

        14   and individuals with a direct financial interest holding

        15   the highest level of risk to the tribe will have a more

        16   in-depth background investigation completed versus those

        17   entities and individuals who have an indirect financial

        18   interest.

        19            In addition, the commission has proposed

        20   changing that individuals and entities that are required

        21   to submit background applications under the regulations

        22   to those that have 10 percent or greater financial

        23   interest.  This proposed change should significantly

        24   reduce the costs to the management contractors in

        25   submitting full applications on smaller investors.

                                                                    19

         1            Further, this proposed change will also better

         2   align the agency's requirements with other regulatory

         3   agencies.

         4            This change should not increase the risk to

         5   tribal gaming, as the commission will retain

         6   discretionary authority to conduct background

         7   investigations on the owners with even the smallest

         8   interests who may pose a threat to the industry.

         9            In addition, the commission is proposing a

        10   regulatory change to clarify the reduced scope of

        11   investigation provision to reduce the burden of

        12   background investigations on those who qualify.  To

        13   further reduce the time and cost of background

        14   investigations, the agency will no longer use the Office

        15   of Personnel Management, or OPM, to conduct part of the

        16   background investigations.  Instead, we will process

        17   fingerprint checks through FBI and perform credit checks

        18   through other more efficient alternatives.

        19            Lastly, to reduce the up-front financial burden

        20   and timing concerns, the proposed amendments to the

        21   regulation removes the requirement of a deposit before

        22   the background investigations begin.  Instead, the

        23   agency will bill the management contractors regularly as

        24   the investigation proceeds.

        25            I would now like to turn it back over to the

                                                                    20

         1   commission to lead the discussion.

         2            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Thank you.

         3            So we definitely want to thank our team for

         4   these proposed changes.  We hope that especially with

         5   the backgrounding process proposal, we can save a lot of

         6   time and make the process more efficient for everyone

         7   who may go through this.

         8            I think it's not a one-size-fits-all.  It's a

         9   more commonsense look at what poses the most risk and

        10   poses less risk and how we can allocate our resources

        11   more efficiently.

        12            So thank you to our team for that.

        13            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I'll just say as the team

        14   pointed out -- and say thank you also to our team for

        15   the approach they've provided here.

        16            The management contract review process is the

        17   chair's responsibility, not the full commission's.  But

        18   I think that some of the points that were highlighted in

        19   terms of making the process more efficient, not using

        20   OPM, looking at the deposit requirements, hopefully will

        21   make for a more efficient process in how that goes.

        22            I think it is important to note that it was

        23   mentioned in the presentation that the commissioner is

        24   looking at the chair's interpretation of vigorous

        25   requirements for the five- to seven-year terms of the

                                                                    21

         1   management contract of the statute.

         2            So it will be particularly important to hear

         3   feedback during this consultation process about people's

         4   experiences with developing these contracts or their

         5   experiences with other tribes professional groups they

         6   might have.

         7            So thanks for your feedback in this.

         8            And I'm sorry.  One point.  I want to also make

         9   the statement that what we try to do at a lot of our

        10   consultations is that, before turning it over for more

        11   comments, if leadership has somewhere they need to be or

        12   if they want to make comments in addition to comments

        13   about this particular -- this first of our three topics,

        14   please feel free to do that.

        15            We're going to have other presentations about

        16   that, but if you have to go or if you can't stay for the

        17   whole time, we want to hear comments as well.  So feel

        18   free to make additional comments as well or make those

        19   comments when the second and third parts of the

        20   presentations are done.

        21            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Just a quick reminder to

        22   introduce yourselves so we have that for the record.

        23            And we will open up the floor.

        24            MS. TURNER:  My name is Tishmall Turner.  I'm

        25   the vice chair of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians.

                                                                    22

         1            And we have an agreement with Harrah's, which

         2   we're currently in our property right now.  This last

         3   year we celebrated our 15-year relationship with them.

         4   And this relationship has benefited the tribe for us to

         5   be able to provide a stable government and a sovereign

         6   government for our people.

         7            And we have comments in regards to the term

         8   limits.  And we believe that this change is not legally

         9   required by IGRA and exposes our tribe to greater

        10   economic burdens, uncertainty and risk in its certain

        11   dealings with our management company.

        12            Congress established term limits out of concern

        13   that some management contracts in existence before IGRA

        14   was enacted were clearly unconscionable.  There is

        15   nothing in the IGRA or the legislative history that

        16   suggests Congress intended to prohibit mutually

        17   beneficial managerial relationships from continuing

        18   beyond a five-year term.

        19            The proposed change is paternalistic.  The IGRA

        20   gives tribal governments the right to determine whether

        21   to continue a managerial relationship or change

        22   direction if it so chooses, provided that a tribe cannot

        23   be bound to a manager beyond five-year period without

        24   special circumstances, and in that case no more than

        25   seven.

                                                                    23

         1            We find this change to be abrupt and radical,

         2   that it interferes with our right to design a business

         3   model that is permitted by IGRA, to use gaming revenue

         4   as a vehicle for economic diversification and tribal

         5   government capacity building.

         6            At Rincon, tribal gaming revenue is the primary

         7   engine fueling short- and long-term economic development

         8   strategies, tribal government capacity development and

         9   economic diversification.  Rincon needs business

        10   certainty to maintain and build on the progress of

        11   gaming, not new barriers made out of whole cloth.

        12            And finally, maintaining a mutually beneficial

        13   management relationship, provided that the relationship

        14   is consistent with the statutory term limit, is wholly

        15   consistent with IGRA's goals to promote strong tribal

        16   government, self-sufficiency, and economic development.

        17            MR. STALLINGS:  Steve Stallings, tribal

        18   council, also a member of the enterprise board that

        19   actually manages and oversees the property here at

        20   Rincon.

        21            I appreciate the background statement on this

        22   issue.  But to me, your background really fails to

        23   illustrate a problem that seeks a solution.

        24            You know, what occurrence has caused, other

        25   than revisionist thinking, but all the practices of all

                                                                    24

         1   the previous commissioners and commissions over the

         2   years that extended management contracts.

         3            Any lawyer in this room -- and there are a lot

         4   of lawyers, right?  If I extend a contract for another

         5   fifth year, it's a five-year contract.  And I think the

         6   point that is being made, there is no basis for an

         7   interpretation that the limit of a management

         8   relationship between a tribe and a management company

         9   was ever intended to be limited to five years.

        10            So when those amendments are done, other than

        11   major amendments relative to the business plan or the

        12   relationship, and a simple extension or a change in a

        13   manager, seems to me, that's a lot easier done in an

        14   amendment rather than all the excuses you've said that

        15   are going to make things simpler.  It has to be simpler

        16   to amend an existing contract than it is to do an

        17   entirely new contract.

        18            I see an absence here, other than revisionist

        19   thinking, about the way the commission has conducted its

        20   practices over all these years without any basis for

        21   violation, you know, some major occurrence that would

        22   drive this revisionist thinking about management

        23   contracts.  I think you have inadequate background,

        24   inadequate basis for this decision.

        25            MS. TURNER:  Can I add another comment?

                                                                    25

         1            I also want to point out that for more than a

         2   decade, the NIGC has routinely approved amendments to

         3   extend the term of a management agreement that provided

         4   the statutory limitation is satisfied.  And if approved,

         5   this change will mean that a previously two-page

         6   document will turn into a 317-page new contract.

         7   Potentially all previously negotiated and approved

         8   provisions will all have to be reviewed and subject to

         9   renegotiation and approval.

        10            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Thank you, Vice Chair and

        11   Councilman.  I appreciate those comments.

        12            It's the kind of feedback we want to be

        13   transparent and clear about when we're trying to

        14   interpret under IGRA and so that --

        15            AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Can you please talk into the

        16   mic so we can hear you.

        17            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Sorry about that.

        18            Thank you to the vice chair and to the

        19   councilman.  That's the kind of feedback we're looking

        20   for, especially in this consultation.  It's our hope to

        21   be kind of transparent in what we're thinking and kind

        22   of trying to reconcile our own internal analysis about

        23   what the requirements are under IGRA.

        24            So I think that's not a point that -- it is

        25   important to articulate what we're trying to accomplish

                                                                    26

         1   with this.  So to the extent that I can give a response

         2   to that point right now.  We're trying to reconcile and

         3   be clear internally about what our understanding of what

         4   IGRA's intent was including this five- to seven-year

         5   specific terms under the statute itself.

         6            So that kind of feedback is very helpful.  We

         7   appreciate it.

         8            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Thank you.

         9            We know that you have an experience with this

        10   very recently.  So we definitely appreciate having that

        11   kind of feedback.

        12            I want to turn to our Director Lee here for a

        13   quick second, because it is my impression that we are

        14   able to do kind of a more expedited review when nothing

        15   changes but the term, so if you can speak to that a

        16   little bit, Yvonne.

        17            MS. LEE:  Under the proposed changes, if you --

        18   there is nothing changed on your management contract,

        19   you're only simply just going to extend it for another

        20   five years.  Then we will ask you to submit the redline

        21   documents, let us know what changed.  We'll review that

        22   part.

        23            And in addition, we'll ask for your most

        24   updated financial projections or updated business plan,

        25   because things could have changed right after that.  So

                                                                    27

         1   we're not going to go through kind of the same review on

         2   the new management contract if the change is only about

         3   the term.  That's one thing.

         4            Another thing is, in order for our chair to

         5   make the suitability determination, it is necessary to

         6   update the background information to make it more -- to

         7   reflect the current financial situation and the current

         8   corporate structure of the management contractor.  And

         9   that's why we're proposing this change.

        10            And we understand the cost, you know, of the

        11   background investigation is a concern.  That's why we

        12   are proposing to change all those internal procedures to

        13   make it more efficient and, therefore, it will reduce

        14   the costs.

        15            MR. STALLINGS:  What problem are you trying to

        16   solve?  What violation are you trying to solve?  Again,

        17   I think you lack an adequate basis for upturning the

        18   practice that is a long-term practice of the commission.

        19   You haven't illustrated any problem that you're solving.

        20            So why would you change your practices if there

        21   is no violation and no problem you're trying to solve?

        22            Again, I repeat this.  You have revisionist

        23   thinking going on that is subject to the changes and the

        24   whims of appointment of commissioners.  And that's not

        25   what we expect out of the commissioners in NIGC.  It is

                                                                    28

         1   to carry on the body of the knowledge and the experience

         2   of tribal gaming, its regulatory practices, and the

         3   management practices that have achieved and have built

         4   this industry.

         5            So again, I don't hear adequate explanation of

         6   what problem you're trying to solve.

         7            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Thank you.  We do hear you

         8   loud and clear.  I see our attorney wants to make a

         9   comment.

        10            MR. BADGER:  Do I?  I can.

        11            (Laughter.)

        12            MR. BADGER:  And I totally recognize what

        13   you're saying and I agree.  To the extent that it is a

        14   change, that's why we're going through the consultation

        15   and rule-making process rather than making it an

        16   internal change.  So that's why we would really like to

        17   receive your comments and what you made so far.

        18            As far as the problem that we're seeking to

        19   address, it is an interpretation that IGRA has a

        20   seven- or five-year limit.  And that the ability to

        21   amend over and over again to perpetually push that out

        22   isn't consistent with IGRA.  And I totally understand

        23   that that's the way it has been done in the past.

        24            And we're trying to address that through this

        25   consultation process to see, you know, is our current

                                                                    29

         1   understanding the way it should be and the way that your

         2   understanding of the way it has been, if we can

         3   reconcile those and figure out the solution.

         4            MR. STALLINGS:  Again, I think in Vice

         5   Chairwoman Tishmall Turner's comments, if you look at

         6   the legislative history, I don't think in any case --

         7   because being 66 years old, I was around when this was

         8   all done.  I have no understanding or a basis by which

         9   to form an opinion that the intent of Congress was to

        10   limit management agreements to five years, period.  It

        11   was five-year increments, yes.  And anytime you amend a

        12   five-year contract, it's still a five-year contract.

        13            MR. BADGER:  I agree.  I think we're talking

        14   about close to the same thing.  We all agree that your

        15   contract can go on for -- your relationship can go on

        16   for 20-plus, however many years.  All we're debating is

        17   when you get to go through the streamline amendment

        18   process versus the slightly more rigorous full contract

        19   process, because under our regulations, the full

        20   contract process has that suitability determination

        21   whereas -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- the amendment

        22   process doesn't necessarily have that.

        23            So that's what we're moving to.  We absolutely

        24   agree.  Your relationship can continue potentially

        25   indefinitely, but it is the set time limit for when we

                                                                    30

         1   need to take a closer look and relook at the

         2   relationship.

         3            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Understand that has been a

         4   discussion we're having internally, understanding what

         5   was intended by the lawmakers in putting the five- to

         6   seven-year term in there and what that would trigger and

         7   currently with our regulations what that does trigger.

         8   But I do appreciate the vice chairwoman's points about

         9   protocols and considerations of the statute and not

        10   wanting to hinder successful relationships that are

        11   meeting the goals of IGRA, which is to provide a steady

        12   economic development for tribes.  So your feedback on

        13   terms of what the impact is, is very helpful.

        14            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Our comments are not to

        15   disagree or disrespect, but just to help us explain

        16   where we're coming from.  That was the point of that.

        17   But we don't come here with decisions made.  We come

        18   here to talk through things.  So this is exactly the

        19   kind of feedback we want and we appreciate it.  Thank

        20   you.

        21            MR. WEYLAND:  Greg Weyland with the Washoe

        22   Tribal Gaming Commission.

        23            I have a question relative to the definition of

        24   management contracts and when it becomes management

        25   contract.  If the casino's operating and there is a

                                                                    31

         1   small portion of it that you're working with a vendor,

         2   at what point does that become a management contract in

         3   a situation maybe talking about sports betting or sports

         4   book?

         5            MR. BADGER:  So the way we define -- and it is

         6   also getting into our definition of management -- is

         7   when you manage all or part of a gaming operation,

         8   you're engaging in management.

         9            This might be something we talk about more

        10   after the consultation, but for the example of a sports

        11   book, that would definitely be, in my quick opinion,

        12   management.  It might even be something where you want

        13   that person to be an individually owned operator or

        14   something else.

        15            I'll leave it at that as far as that topic.

        16            MR. STALLINGS:  I just want to go back to

        17   something.  I really appreciate the two of you being

        18   here and the consultation, and your last point of you're

        19   here to listen and no decisions have been made.

        20            I'll cite from the chairman's letter to us

        21   extending our contract:  Although I'm approving the

        22   second amendment, I do not -- to our contract, I do

        23   not -- I do not anticipate I will approve any similar

        24   amendments in the future.

        25            Sounds like the commission made a decision.  So

                                                                    32

         1   why are you here listening about something that you've

         2   already implemented as a practice?

         3            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Yes.  I appreciate that point.

         4   And that's, I think, precisely why, as a full

         5   commission, that the chair -- there are certain

         6   authorities that the chair exercises, that the whole

         7   commission doesn't.

         8            So our hope is that in some of these -- not

         9   just this topic, but other issues, like the definition

        10   of sole proprietary interest, that the hope is that by

        11   providing a transparent regulatory statement as to what

        12   is and isn't part of that definition, will provide kind

        13   of more clarity and definition and kind of reduce what

        14   might be seen as discretion in the future.

        15            So I appreciate that point.

        16            MR. STALLINGS:  Thank you.  I appreciate that.

        17            MR. SIMERMEYER:  But in order for -- one of the

        18   authorities that the full commission has in order to

        19   promulgate regulations, that's a full commission action,

        20   not a single-chair action.  So that's part of why we all

        21   feel it is important to have consultation on this topic.

        22            I'm just going to follow up that we appreciate

        23   that point about the management contract definition.  I

        24   think we're going to get a little more into that in

        25   one of the other presentations, but putting a definition

                                                                    33

         1   to that is important, and I think what the presenters

         2   will show is that there has been a lot of case law and

         3   practice that has gone into interpreting that.  And so

         4   that might be helpful in that presentation to hear more

         5   about the definition of management.

         6            MR. STANLEY:  Good afternoon, Commissioners.

         7   Les Stanley, executive director of the Rincon Gaming

         8   Commission.

         9            So I'm listening to your comments.  I just have

        10   a question.  When we're going along and extending

        11   management agreements, what are your thoughts on what

        12   would trigger a whole review?  I mean, obviously you

        13   might have some idea of what's going to trigger a whole

        14   review or a whole resubmission.  That's going to, again,

        15   be a lot of money, a lot of cost, a lot of effort put

        16   into that.

        17            So I mean, to me, you must have an idea already

        18   of why you would want to revisit that to trigger that

        19   process.

        20            MS. LEE:  Usually what would trigger the whole

        21   review is if you -- like I explained previously, if you

        22   just change your term, we'll just look at whatever

        23   change related to that term.  And some other that would

        24   require a whole review would be like if you change an

        25   entire contract content, for example, you have an

                                                                    34

         1   expansion project.  You're renovating the casino.  You

         2   are making, you know, changes to the casino, whatever,

         3   the layout of the floor or something like that, which

         4   would change your revenue or change your financial

         5   projection.  All those would require a full review with

         6   we'll have to see what the impact is and if there is a

         7   NEPA review that is required.  So that's what we

         8   consider a full review.

         9            Did that answer your question?

        10            MR. STANLEY:  Thank you.

        11            MS. THOMAS:  I'm going to add to that.

        12   Christinia Thomas.

        13            So in addition to what Yvonne had said or

        14   explained about the full review.  Part of the concern

        15   that has been raised within the commission is the

        16   staleness of background investigations when it comes to

        17   management contracts.

        18            So under the amendment process currently,

        19   unless there is a new entity or a new person identified

        20   with an amendment, those are the only individuals that

        21   have been backgrounded.  So a lot of the suitabilities

        22   on the backgrounds that have been done previously could

        23   be as old as 15 to -- I think we had some that were like

        24   20 years old.

        25            The chairman does have to make a determination

                                                                    35

         1   that the individual entities and the individuals are

         2   suitable.  And it is really hard to make a

         3   recommendation on suitability when the background

         4   information is so stale.

         5            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Are there any other comments

         6   on this section?

         7            All right.  Let's move on to our next topic.

         8            Ms. Thomas.

         9            MS. THOMAS:  Moving on to Topic 2, which is

        10   audit submissions.

        11            Under IGRA and current NIGC regulations, gaming

        12   operations, regardless of income, are required to submit

        13   an annual audited financial statement, completed by

        14   certified public accountants to the commission within

        15   120 days of their fiscal year end.  These audits may be

        16   encompassed within existing independent tribal audit

        17   system.

        18            Submission of the annual audit report is

        19   critical to the NIGC's mission to protect the integrity

        20   of Indian gaming and provides a certain level of

        21   assurance as to the safekeeping of tribal gaming

        22   revenues.  The audit report prepared and submitted on a

        23   timely basis is evidence of, among other things, the

        24   integrity of the gaming operation and, more

        25   specifically, of the adequacy of the books and records

                                                                    36

         1   and the functioning of the internal financial controls,

         2   and the disclosure of information having a bearing on

         3   the financial statements.

         4            The commission, however, recognizes that small

         5   or charitable gaming operations often struggle with the

         6   cost of these requirements.  With this in mind, the

         7   commission is seeking feedback and recommendations on

         8   whether changes are needed to the audit submission

         9   regulations.  Specifically, we want input on what level

        10   or levels of audit should be required for smaller gaming

        11   operations or charitable gaming operations.

        12            A gaming operation earning less than $2 million

        13   in gross gaming revenue annually can request from the

        14   commission to submit a CPA-reviewed financial statement

        15   if it has submitted an audited financial statement for

        16   three consecutive years.  A review of financial

        17   statement must be completed by an independent CPA and

        18   conform to statements on standards for accounting and

        19   review services of the gaming operation.

        20            In fiscal year 2016, only 80 operations earned

        21   less than $2 million in gross gaming revenue.  Of those

        22   80, only six submitted the lesser financial statement

        23   review.  Small or charitable gaming operations often

        24   produce less than $100,000 in gross gaming revenue

        25   annually, some less than $10,000.  Contracting a CPA

                                                                    37

         1   firm to perform an annual audit can prove cost

         2   prohibitive, and as a result may deter tribes from

         3   pursuing these gaming opportunities.

         4            NIGC reviewed statutes and regulations from a

         5   number of jurisdictions and agencies concerned with

         6   financial entities, including the State of Nevada, the

         7   Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department

         8   of Interior.  We found no consistency in the audit

         9   requirements.  For example, Nevada gaming regulations

        10   require audits of financial statements for operations

        11   grossing more than $5 million, but maintain the right to

        12   require audits, compile statements or reviews of

        13   financial statements of those operations whose gross

        14   revenue is less than $5 million.

        15            Interior exempts non-federal entities from

        16   their audit requirement if the entity expends less than

        17   $750,000 per year.

        18            As NIGC considers altering its own regulations,

        19   it recognizes that there are currently 95 tribal

        20   operations that produce less than $3 million in gross

        21   gaming revenue.  Further, the commission is aware that

        22   tribal operations comply with most regulations from

        23   their own governments as well as state and federal

        24   entities.

        25            Our hope through this consultation session is

                                                                    38

         1   to discuss opportunities or receive feedback and

         2   recommendations on how to amend this regulation while

         3   still ensuring we are supporting financial stability and

         4   maintaining a high level of protection of tribal gaming

         5   operations.

         6            With that, I will turn it back over to the

         7   commission.

         8            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

         9            That was our overview we've been providing.

        10            I just want to point out before discussion,

        11   that like the management contract discussion, I think

        12   the intention here and the hope is to, through

        13   regulations, be clear and transparent about how the

        14   agency's interpreting requirements under IGRA.  That

        15   would be this independent audit submission.  And so the

        16   hope is that this will be an opportunity to kind of look

        17   at that.

        18            It's also an important opportunity to look at

        19   the diversity of impacts that this audit process can

        20   have on tribes.  And so looking at ways to make

        21   expedited audit reviews more accessible is an important

        22   opportunity to help tribes that may not have the

        23   financial means to conduct these, to make it less of an

        24   impact on them as well.

        25            So thanks for feedback on this, especially in

                                                                    39

         1   our discussion now or written feedback about this topic.

         2            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  This one is a bit more open

         3   ended because we are seeking ways we can find to make

         4   this more efficient for folks.  We know that with the

         5   cost being as it is, for a small operation it can be

         6   prohibitive in some cases to have economic development

         7   and still meet the audit requirements.

         8            So we hope that you all have some feedback on

         9   this one.  If not, we can start the conversation off

        10   with some questions to prompt the conversation.

        11            MR. HITCHCOCK:  Chairman Hitchcock, Wilton

        12   Rancheria.

        13            So I'm going to ask the question basically.  So

        14   are you saying right now $750,000 is the threshold that

        15   requires an audit for any gaming tribe?  Is that what

        16   I'm reading?

        17            MS. THOMAS:  No.  The $750,000 amount that I

        18   highlighted in the topic is actually what Interior

        19   requires.  What we did is we reviewed various areas that

        20   actually had an audit requirement to see what type of --

        21   how they do the audit and what threshold, if there is a

        22   different threshold amount.  So Interior requires

        23   anything less than $750,000 expended, they don't require

        24   an audit submission for that.

        25            So it is not our -- ours actually requires an

                                                                    40

         1   independent audit regardless.  The only differential for

         2   our audit submission is the review portion underneath

         3   $2 million, but a tribe still has to comply fully for

         4   three years before they can actually then do the reduced

         5   review component.

         6            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I know that's something that

         7   we know firsthand and have seen too is that using other

         8   jurisdictions as earlier agencies' examples, there are a

         9   lot of capacity that tribes have in the area of

        10   auditing.  There is also a lot of different approaches

        11   to how entities that are receiving audits, what sort of

        12   thresholds and requirements they're putting as well and

        13   what general practices are.  So that's part of what

        14   Ms. Thomas was saying in highlighting that.

        15            But I just want to highlight too that in our

        16   experience, I think it's -- one of the benefits of the

        17   greater policies is to help approve capacity for this

        18   internal oversight that already exists, which is very

        19   much in line with IGRA's direction with tribes and the

        20   primary regulators and beneficiaries.

        21            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Definitely welcome questions

        22   on this process.  We have the experts here, so feel

        23   free.

        24            MR. STALLINGS:  Not so much a question, but

        25   being the chairman of CNIGA, the statewide gaming

                                                                    41

         1   association, we have a lot of smaller members.  And any

         2   reduction in the burden placed upon them relative to

         3   audits or any of this stuff, really from a standpoint

         4   of, I think, try to represent our smaller members who

         5   are a lot of times in that category mentioned here in

         6   isolated rural areas, lower revenues, any reduction in

         7   burden on them in terms of regulatory auditing, really

         8   we think would make sense and I think we would support.

         9            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Thank you.  We appreciate

        10   that.

        11            Our intention with our rural outreach

        12   initiative is to specifically look at those tribes that

        13   end up feeling burdens more acutely than other tribes.

        14   So I appreciate that comment.

        15            MR. SIMERMEYER:  One of the other thoughts we

        16   had, both in internal discussions and with some of the

        17   feedback that we have had, is to look at our role as an

        18   agency that provides training, technical assistance and

        19   thoughts about things that we can do as an agency to

        20   help tribes to lessen that burden in terms of

        21   preparation for the auditing process too.  If there is

        22   ideas about that that we can focus on, that will be

        23   helpful too.

        24            Not to prolong the conversation.  We're not

        25   trying to pry anything out, but just to get feedback

                                                                    42

         1   from other discussions that we've been having.  In other

         2   parts of the country we visited, we've heard firsthand

         3   examples of what the actual costs are for the

         4   independent audits even when they go through the reduced

         5   auditing process.  In one example we heard was a

         6   charitable gaming operation where it was close to half

         7   of the profit was going towards these audit reviews.

         8            So if there is other examples of that that

         9   communities are comfortable sharing, that can help too

        10   in sort of looking at this over the next few weeks,

        11   whether today or in the future.  That sort of

        12   information is helpful to understand the impacts that it

        13   may have on this.

        14            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  We're going to move on to our

        15   next topic now.

        16            MR. BADGER:  I'm Austin Badger.  I'm the

        17   Sacramento regional attorney.  I'm talking about

        18   management and sole proprietary interests.

        19            As previously discussed, IGRA provides that a

        20   tribal gaming operation owned by the tribe may either be

        21   managed by the tribe or by a management contractor

        22   subject to a management contract approved by the NIGC

        23   chair.  This applies to any arrangement in which a

        24   contractor manages all or part of an Indian gaming

        25   operation.  To provide better clarity, the commission is

                                                                    43

         1   considering developing regulations clearly setting out

         2   its standard for what constitutes management as well as

         3   its criteria for evaluating when a sole proprietary

         4   interest violation has occurred.

         5            To assist tribes in determining whether an

         6   activity constitutes management, NIGC Bulletin

         7   Number 94-5 explains that the term encompasses

         8   activities such as planning, organizing, directing,

         9   coordinating, and controlling all or part of a gaming

        10   operation.  In addition, the NIGC Office of General

        11   Counsel issued an opinion letter expanding on these

        12   terms by providing examples of management activities.

        13            To date, however, the commission has not issued

        14   a regulation formally defining management.  The

        15   commission believes that, in consultation with tribes,

        16   developing a regulatory definition consistent with these

        17   past interpretations would help provide greater

        18   certainty to the tribal gaming industry regarding what

        19   constitutes management.  The commission also recognizes

        20   that the Seventh Circuit has recommended that the

        21   commission provide more certain guidance.

        22            A stated purpose of IGRA is to ensure that the

        23   Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming

        24   operation.  Seeking to serve this purpose, IGRA requires

        25   that tribal gaming ordinances provide that tribes have

                                                                    44

         1   the sole proprietary interest and responsibility for the

         2   conduct of any gaming activity, unless the gaming

         3   activity is individually owned.

         4            To determine whether a third party has received

         5   a proprietary interest in a tribal gaming operation in

         6   violation of the sole proprietary interest mandate, the

         7   NIGC considers the term of the relationship, the amount

         8   of revenue paid to the third party, and the right of

         9   control over the gaming activity provided to the third

        10   party.

        11            The commission has previously consulted on

        12   developing guidance or regulations concerning sole

        13   proprietary interest in 2008 and 2010.  Courts have also

        14   had the opportunity to consider and discuss this issue

        15   in the intervening years, noting and upholding NIGC's

        16   formulation of the criteria to evaluate for such

        17   violations.  The commission believes that a regulation

        18   consistent with past NIGC enforcement actions and

        19   litigation would provide greater certainty to the tribal

        20   gaming industry regarding what constitutes a violation

        21   of the sole proprietary interest mandate.

        22            The draft regulations we have provided you

        23   today as a handout incorporate these interpretations for

        24   your consideration as an addition to the commission's

        25   compliance regulations.

                                                                    45

         1            I would now like to turn it back over to the

         2   commission.

         3            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Thank you.

         4            Our intention with this one is not to create

         5   any new requirements, but merely to collect all of our

         6   existing requirements throughout case law and bulletins,

         7   as Austin just mentioned, into one place.  So we're

         8   hoping that this can provide some clarity in the

         9   industry so folks don't have to search for it, and give

        10   greater certainty.

        11            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I want to echo that.  I think,

        12   as was mentioned, there is case law and guidance that's

        13   come out of the agency, and the hope is that what we're

        14   proposing reflects that.  And so we're particularly keen

        15   to hear if that's not people's reaction, if that's not

        16   the interpretation that they've experienced that they

        17   believe exists under case law or guidance we've given in

        18   the past.

        19            I'll also say that as a member of the full

        20   commission, our responsibilities in reviewing an action

        21   that might require a definition of sole proprietary

        22   interests or of a management contract, it's helpful in

        23   that context to have more clarity or at least more of an

        24   insight as to what can be expected.

        25            And I think also we've had some of our

                                                                    46

         1   conversations with some feedback, and our hope is that

         2   in putting some definitions on some of these topics,

         3   that it would help with providing some certainty to

         4   partners.  As some of you are aware, the Office of

         5   General Counsel provides opinions of different types.

         6   And one of those opinions is a declination letter that

         7   talks about whether or not management is occurring.

         8            In fiscal year '17 alone, the Office of General

         9   Counsel has issued 60 declination letters.  And so it

        10   will be helpful to know if providing this sort of

        11   language in the regulations would provide any more --

        12   would help to lessen the transactional costs associated

        13   with trying to engage in those financial service

        14   agreements or other types of partnerships that exist out

        15   there.

        16            Likewise, with other types of partnership

        17   agreements for professional services if our definition

        18   of management is unintended -- is having unintended

        19   impact on those topics as well.

        20            And finally a point I think in that, as an

        21   agency, providing a definition and bringing awareness to

        22   the management contract concepts under IGRA and sole

        23   proprietary concepts through IGRA that we can let the

        24   broader public know about those enforcement and

        25   expectation authorities under the Gaming Act to ensure

                                                                    47

         1   integrity and compliance in the tribal unit.

         2            MR. STALLINGS:  Steve Stallings, Rincon Tribal

         3   Council.

         4            We really commend the commission, the staff,

         5   and the commissioners for their efforts to really, you

         6   know, make sure that tribes are the primary beneficiary

         7   of tribal gaming, especially Rincon itself and the fact

         8   that -- again, we have 34 tribes in the statewide

         9   association who are benefiting from IGRA and really want

        10   any way we can to make sure that we buttress and make

        11   sure that is the goal.

        12            And as I look at this revision, it seems

        13   simple.  You don't want to have adverse control.  You

        14   can really look at that contractually and kind of figure

        15   out that you don't have adverse control.  So I see that

        16   and I get it.

        17            But when you begin to look at just the term of

        18   the relationship, again, if you're not calculating the

        19   value of the relationship over time, you can't just look

        20   at the time.  Then you have to look at the relationship

        21   itself and what makes up that relationship.

        22            Just to give you a scenario.  Earlier in our

        23   relationship, our management fee was higher.  One of --

        24   the way that we structured that was the ability of the

        25   management company to act as a guarantor in our debt.

                                                                    48

         1   This tribe barely had running water.  There is no way

         2   we're going to go out and guarantee $100 million worth

         3   of debt.  So what is the value of that relationship?

         4            So you can't just look at duration and what it

         5   is.  Adverse control, I get it.  And simply say, well,

         6   is there a proprietary interest on the other party?  You

         7   have to look at the value of the relationship.

         8            Another example for us would be -- and there

         9   are a number of other examples I can think of, but there

        10   is value in the brand.  And like a franchise -- you

        11   know, you're a franchisee.  You don't pay for your

        12   franchise fee for seven years or five years.  As long as

        13   you're that franchisee, you pay that franchisee fee.

        14            So again, I think the commission -- and I'm not

        15   sure how you do this or how you intend to do it, but I

        16   think the calculation is too simplistic the way that you

        17   have it.  You have to calculate the value of the

        18   relationship, sure, over time and the cost of it.

        19            But again, if I have a relationship and I pay

        20   somebody $10 million over ten years, but I make

        21   $100 million every ten years for a billion dollars, you

        22   know, how are you going to determine whether that's a

        23   good relationship or not?

        24            So I think, again -- not to accuse.  And we

        25   know you're trying to achieve the best thing for tribes.

                                                                    49

         1   It becomes at this point in the life of any gaming -- I

         2   think we're beyond our infancy -- most tribes can

         3   calculate the value of the relationship, whether it is

         4   worth the investment.  And I'm sure that in new

         5   agreements, probably the commission, I think, definitely

         6   needs to be more cognizant of some of these issues, but

         7   as a relationship -- and I think you've said a couple of

         8   times -- no one solution fits all.

         9            And this is another one, I think, where you

        10   would have to not just have a simple rule that gets

        11   applied to everybody, but looks at the material

        12   relationship, the value of the relationship, to really

        13   be able to determine whether or not there is a

        14   proprietary interest in that relationship.

        15            MR. BADGER:  I'll just say that I agree with

        16   everything you just said.

        17            And my experience -- I've been with the agency

        18   for two years.  And that is what we try to do when we do

        19   sole proprietary interest analysis.  As you said,

        20   adverse control is always, as you put it -- that's

        21   always a red flag.  The term and amount of revenue is

        22   absolutely something we look at overall.  And in my

        23   experience, it needs to be pretty egregious before we --

        24   because we're always conscious that we're not here to

        25   second-guess your business position.

                                                                    50

         1            It is when those things get so out of whack

         2   that we feel that the proprietary interest has been

         3   transferred.  That's kind of the analysis that's been

         4   developed over time through many, many Office of General

         5   Counsel opinion letters and in our limited form in the

         6   enforcement actions and in litigation that's occurred.

         7            MR. STALLINGS:  Thank you.

         8            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  I just also want to add that

         9   when we're looking at this language and especially our

        10   attorney, he was going back and forth, how do we make

        11   this broad enough to capture lots of different scenarios

        12   and specific enough to mean something?  So we really

        13   appreciate those kinds of comments and how it might be

        14   right in different scenarios and how we can best make

        15   this useful.

        16            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I'll just say, if there is

        17   other thoughts or ideas about -- as Austin mentioned,

        18   there is opinions by the attorneys within the agency

        19   that have some weight.  There is enforcement actions and

        20   settlements.  There is a handful of those that provide

        21   some definition to the issue.  And so what we're

        22   proposing is a regulatory definition, whether it is

        23   other tools, whether it's more formal guidance or other

        24   types of things.  That would be helpful to kind of bring

        25   some certainty.  That would be helpful for ideas that

                                                                    51

         1   folks have about that as well.

         2            As the vice chair said, this is intending to

         3   try to strike a bit of that balance between providing

         4   certainty and providing flexibility.

         5            MR. STALLINGS:  Thank you.

         6            MR. BADGER:  I would just like to encourage --

         7   we submitted these discussion drafts and I personally

         8   would love to receive markups and redlines of what you

         9   think you would like to -- what would improve it.  That

        10   would be helpful, in addition to formal comments in a

        11   narrative form.  Thank you.

        12            MR. SIMERMEYER:  And I will say too, just to

        13   help, the reason the first -- we've heard that reaction

        14   of the business too about the bringing some context to

        15   what those individual actions would mean.  We're putting

        16   some sort of more definition to that or what it will

        17   look like in combination.

        18            MR. STALLINGS:  I guess I would just comment

        19   that every relationship where a tribe used to have a

        20   relationship with the, quote, "management company," I

        21   think today they constitute a number of variables in the

        22   relationships.  Right?  Some could be financial.  Some

        23   could be brand oriented.  Some clearly could be

        24   marketing oriented because access to market, for

        25   example, in player clubs and stuff like that, and some

                                                                    52

         1   are non-branded.  Then there is some value to a

         2   management role.

         3            So sometimes I think it is oversimplistic to

         4   say a management agreement is just that, when it really,

         5   in my experience in Indian country for the last 30 or

         6   40 years, is those relationships really are very varied

         7   and robust in some cases; and in some cases, they play

         8   just a simple role and could be evaluated purely on

         9   management or something.

        10            So I guess that thing of cookie cutter,

        11   especially in this area, I don't think that that's --

        12   it's not a simplistic approach to look at it, I guess,

        13   to reemphasize my point.  But I appreciate your

        14   comments.  Thank you.

        15            MR. SIMERMEYER:  And I'll share, not in

        16   response to anybody's comment here, but some other

        17   comments and feedback that we've had too, is that the

        18   potential impact of the management definition would

        19   maybe chill or create concerns for professional services

        20   types of relationships that tribes would very much

        21   benefit from, but would make it difficult or would --

        22   scare off is the wrong word -- make it more burdensome

        23   to kind of establish those kind of relationships.  So

        24   that's some of the other feedback we're getting as well.

        25            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  I'm here to listen.  I would

                                                                    53

         1   love to hear more.

         2            If folks don't have comments on this topic in

         3   particular, we have the room, we would love to hear

         4   about anything else you might like to discuss here.

         5            MR. STALLINGS:  I have an additional question.

         6            It did occur to us that one in three are

         7   linked, and of course mentioned term of the contract.

         8   And again, it causes us concern because, you know, it's

         9   kind of this:  Well, we're going to limit the contract

        10   to five years and then we're also going to have this

        11   application of making sure that there is no proprietary

        12   interest.

        13            And I guess:  Do you see it that way or are

        14   these really separate issues?  Because I think in our

        15   minds they're totally linked.

        16            MR. BADGER:  I would agree that management and

        17   sole proprietary interests are often talked about in the

        18   same sentence.  Management contracts are not an

        19   exception to sole proprietary interests.  A management

        20   contractor does not have sole proprietary interest

        21   because, just under IGRA, those are separate issues.

        22            The only time that a tribe does have a sole

        23   proprietary interest is when the operation is

        24   individually owned.

        25            So we keep that in mind ourselves when we

                                                                    54

         1   evaluate issues.  So that I understand they are together

         2   in that they both go to primary beneficiary status of

         3   the tribe, but as far as the levels of control and

         4   management and things like that, they are separate.

         5            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Also -- I'm sorry.  Go ahead,

         6   please.

         7            MR. WADZINSKI:  I had a question.  Can you hear

         8   me?  I don't think I need a mic.

         9            My name is Kevin Wadzinski.  I represent a

        10   number of entities that have management contracts with

        11   tribes.  And I just had a question specific to the

        12   commission's efforts to put some definitions behind sole

        13   proprietary interest as well as management.

        14            And as the chairman indicated, and many of you

        15   know, the NIGC routinely issues declination letters

        16   stating that a particular agreement, including finance

        17   agreements, do not contain management terms.  They're

        18   not management contracts; therefore, do not require the

        19   approval of the chairman, as well as the determination

        20   that a particular agreement does not violate the sole

        21   proprietary interest.  So you have issued a number of

        22   those.

        23            In the consultation draft, I didn't see

        24   anything in there that would indicate that those

        25   declination letters would continue in full force and

                                                                    55

         1   effect.

         2            I guess what I'm getting at here:  Is there any

         3   intent for the commission to include a form of

         4   grandfather provision where to play it out you have a

         5   finance agreement, a declination letter has been issued.

         6   If the commission comes up with new regulations adding

         7   really some substance, you're now defining these terms.

         8   I think you're going to see a number of lenders, other

         9   nonmanagement contractors feel a real strong need to go

        10   through that declination letter process again.

        11            So I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on

        12   that.  Thank you.

        13            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I had asked Austin to talk a

        14   little bit about sort of the weight of advisory opinions

        15   from the Office of General Counsel somewhat, and whether

        16   there is Indian lands or declination letters or gaming

        17   classification opinions.

        18            But I will say that in terms of the motivation

        19   for what I was mentioning with the example of the number

        20   of declination letters that comes out is that it was

        21   intended perhaps to -- what I'd also say for myself,

        22   intends that hopefully it provides more -- something

        23   since there currently is no definition of sole

        24   proprietary interest for or with the management.

        25            The definition is impacted by a lot of pretty

                                                                    56

         1   significant case law that's happened in recent years

         2   where the guidance has come out.  It will provide

         3   more -- as promulgated regulations, more weight to kind

         4   of reduce the need for that, but the point that you're

         5   making about if it would cause problems or if it would

         6   need to make a safe harbor kind of grandfather type of a

         7   thing, that's a good point that we hadn't thought about

         8   or how partners react.  That's helpful to hear.

         9            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  We certainly don't intend to

        10   stop doing declination letters.  We think that's a

        11   helpful service that our general counsel provides and we

        12   are actually hoping to make it more efficient.

        13            MR. BADGER:  I agree.  And I think it is a

        14   great point you made.  And certainly our intent with the

        15   draft regulation was to kind of enshrine what we've

        16   already put in our declination letter, but to the extent

        17   that we might inspire a flood to recertify, that's

        18   something we would want to avoid and we'll definitely

        19   discuss that more about how we roll that out.  Thank

        20   you.

        21            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I was going to say, I think

        22   that opinion letters provide some comfort, but in terms

        23   of their binding effect, I think you're aware on the

        24   chair taking enforcement actions is limited.  But they

        25   do and they have provided a lot of certainties in cases

                                                                    57

         1   like Lake of the Torches.  Hopefully it's been a helpful

         2   service or a success in that regard.  It hasn't -- it

         3   provides some certainty, the declination letters.

         4            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  We didn't intend for it to

         5   have a retroactive effect either, to be clear.

         6            MR. STALLINGS:  During the lull, which is not

         7   so much a question, but I just wondered in the absence

         8   of the administration to really adequately, you know,

         9   nominate people -- and I assume that as long as you guys

        10   agree to serve your terms until appointed and we have a

        11   commission and a full commission and a chair and all

        12   those kind of things, it would seem to me that making

        13   these kind of changes in the middle of, you know, a

        14   situation where commissioners -- and we've been in these

        15   situations before, right, where we had -- didn't have a

        16   full slate of commissioners.  So just getting regular

        17   things done in the regular order could be a problem, and

        18   here you go implementing a bunch of new rules that

        19   are -- again, I think that are a change from the history

        20   and the underlying basis and then to end up with not

        21   enough commissioners to implement that change.  A

        22   concern, I guess.

        23            MR. SIMERMEYER:  That's absolutely a fair point

        24   in terms of that timing, but I think we have -- and one

        25   thing -- one of the points you're making.  One thing

                                                                    58

         1   that wasn't the exact point that you were saying early

         2   on, and you acknowledge that.

         3            But we have -- each member of the commission is

         4   independent.  We have time left in each of our terms.

         5   We serve three-year terms.  And there are limitations in

         6   terms of what can be delegated, but your point's well

         7   taken about the impact of a number of these things go

         8   towards responsibilities that a chair will exercise in

         9   terms of enforcement, which is an exercise by the full

        10   commission, but by the chair.

        11            MR. STALLINGS:  Thank you.

        12            MS. MCGOVRAN:  Marianne McGovran, tribal

        13   council treasurer for North Fork Rancheria of Mono

        14   Indians of California.

        15            I just kind of have a follow-up question.  For

        16   management contracts that are under review right now by

        17   the commission, these changes, would it affect the

        18   timing of that review process or the contracts?  How

        19   would that work?

        20            MS. THOMAS:  The contracts that we're currently

        21   reviewing, we're reviewing underneath the current

        22   process that we have in place right now.  These are

        23   proposed changes, so they're not in effect.  The one

        24   thing that we did change already was the internal

        25   procedures for the backgrounding.  So we've already

                                                                    59

         1   implemented that.  We've changed the three levels of

         2   backgrounding.  So we're not backgrounding everybody, so

         3   any of the current contracts that we're reviewing are

         4   being reviewed under the reduced levels of

         5   backgrounding.

         6            MS. MCGOVRAN:  What about for contracts that

         7   will be submitted like within the next month?

         8            MS. THOMAS:  If they're submitted within the

         9   next month, it would still be under the current thing.

        10   And the internal procedures for how we conduct the

        11   backgrounds, that's an internal procedure.  So once we

        12   decided -- so management contracts was kind of an open

        13   discussion consultation in our last year's round of

        14   consultation.

        15            And one of the comments that we heard

        16   repeatedly was how extensive and how long it took to get

        17   the backgrounds done.  So we looked at -- and those

        18   aren't laid out in the regulations.  Those are all

        19   internal processes.  So we did look at our internal

        20   processes.  And once we decided that it was probably

        21   more cost effective and efficient to have these

        22   different levels of backgrounds instead of a one

        23   catchall, everybody gets backgrounded at the same level,

        24   we started implementing that right away.

        25            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Just to emphasize, again,

                                                                    60

         1   that no decisions about reg changes have been made yet.

         2   So we certainly wouldn't impose that before, you know,

         3   we actually would complete a process and hear from

         4   everyone.  There is no midstream changes being planned.

         5            MR. STALLINGS:  So go for five years, not one.

         6            (Laughter.)

         7            MS. THOMAS:  I'm going back to your comment

         8   that you talked about implementing changes mid

         9   commission with the fact that the chair's term is going

        10   to be up shortly.

        11            So if the commission -- there is specific

        12   things that the chair can do and the full commission can

        13   do, but when it comes to day-to-day work of the

        14   commission and the stuff that has to be implemented, the

        15   commission makes changes on the regulations.  The staff

        16   will take on the responsibility of making sure that

        17   those changes are implemented.

        18            And my position is a career position, so is the

        19   OGC staff.  So none of us are intending on jumping ship

        20   with the change of the commission right now.  So there

        21   will be maintained consistency in how the stuff is

        22   handled from day to day.

        23            MS. MCGOVRAN:  Without a chair in place, would

        24   you still be able to have signing authority on

        25   management contracts?

                                                                    61

         1            MS. THOMAS:  That, unfortunately, is one of the

         2   things that is actually the responsibility of the chair.

         3   So if we no longer have a chair, if the chairman decides

         4   to leave after his term ends, we would actually need a

         5   designation of an acting chair in place in order to

         6   continue with management contracts being signed off on.

         7            MS. MCGOVRAN:  That's not a warm and cozy

         8   comment.

         9            MR. STALLINGS:  It's reality.

        10            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  They found it important that

        11   the person who does that is a senate-confirmed position,

        12   so I think that's probably the reasoning behind that,

        13   but that's where we're at.

        14            MS. MCGOVRAN:  Okay.

        15            MR. WADZINSKI:  Just a follow-up question on

        16   that.  Thank you.

        17            If you have an acting chairman, would that

        18   person be able to approve management contracts?

        19            MS. THOMAS:  If there is an actual official

        20   acting chair designation, then that person will have

        21   full chair authority.

        22            MR. WADZINSKI:  Thank you.

        23            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I think too, there has been --

        24   this isn't the first time that the agency's dealt with

        25   interpreting this issue.  So like with any federal

                                                                    62

         1   agency, the Department of Justice's office of legal

         2   counsel provides interpretations of the application of

         3   IGRA, the application of vacancy acts, and other types

         4   of statutes that will be relevant in this.

         5            So I don't know to go too far into that, but

         6   it's a legal determination.  There has been analysis on

         7   the issue.  So I'm not speaking to what would or

         8   wouldn't happen.  I don't know.

         9            MS. MCGOVRAN:  I'm trying to figure out how to

        10   word this the right way.

        11            IGRA is supposed to be there to help the tribes

        12   and to look at the management contracts.  And that's the

        13   NIGC.  Does it take into consideration that if there is

        14   a management contract pending and it needs to be signed

        15   and there is no chair, the economic issue that the tribe

        16   will have with that management contract not being

        17   signed?  I'm trying to word this the right way.  I

        18   mean --

        19            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Absolutely.  We hear you.

        20   That's an excellent point.  I think -- I assume that the

        21   intention was we wouldn't be left in that position, that

        22   they assumed things could work a little more quickly.

        23   We don't exactly know how it will play out.  There may

        24   be an acting chair appointed very quickly.  That's

        25   something certainly the tribes can advocate for with the

                                                                    63

         1   Department of Interior.  There is presidential

         2   appointees with that office as well.

         3            MS. MCGOVRAN:  I understand the process.  I'm

         4   just saying things need to be --

         5            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Correct.

         6            MS. MCGOVRAN:  Okay.

         7            MR. SIMERMEYER:  That's a matter of what the

         8   statute says in terms of, I think, what the vice chair

         9   said earlier.  Congress intended that to be a

        10   senate-confirmed position who makes those

        11   determinations.

        12            MS. MCGOVRAN:  Understood.

        13            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  So the vast majority of our

        14   work certainly just continues on as per usual if we are

        15   left without a chair for some period of time, but we

        16   do -- it's important that people do realize what

        17   happens.  So thank you for bringing that up.

        18            MS. MCGOVRAN:  When is the term up for the

        19   chair?  You might have said it and I didn't hear it.

        20            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  So the chairman's term ends

        21   at the end of April.  He doesn't get kicked out of

        22   office at that point.  A lot of former chairs stay on

        23   longer than that.  So, you know, it's not a deadline

        24   where he has to leave, but the end of his term is the

        25   end of April.

                                                                    64

         1            MR. STALLINGS:  I guess that's my concern for

         2   the interim.  The context which we are in in terms of

         3   just how appointments are in other agencies are far

         4   behind.  Clearly, you have someone to have to make

         5   personal choice about continuing.  And then finally, in

         6   a sense, not a negative word, but use a lame duck, not

         7   literally, but just figuratively, making new rules that

         8   go against the history, legislative history and the

         9   practice of the commission and then leaving.

        10            Those are things that confront us in terms of

        11   just the environment within which we are right now.

        12   That's a real concern, I think, and it should be of all

        13   tribes, not just around this management agreement issue.

        14            MR. SIMERMEYER:  Good point.  Thank you.  We

        15   appreciate that.

        16            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Any other comments, feedback,

        17   questions?

        18            MR. HITCHCOCK:  I have a question.  Chairman

        19   Hitchcock, Wilton Rancheria.

        20            So assume the chairman's term ends at the end

        21   of April and he stays on, will he still have the

        22   authority to sign contracts?

        23            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Yes.  So it is different -- I

        24   actually received a question earlier in this conference

        25   on that exact point.  It's good to clarify.

                                                                    65

         1            He does not lose any authority.  The way IGRA

         2   works is the chair continues just as normal until there

         3   is a replacement or until that person leaves.

         4            MR. HITCHCOCK:  Thank you very much.

         5            MS. MCGOVRAN:  There is hope.

         6            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  We'll definitely inform

         7   Chairman Chaudhuri of all these comments here today.

         8            MR. STALLINGS:  I think it's significant,

         9   especially this is relevant in California where we have

        10   a lot of tribes, resort tribes, and tribes that are

        11   finally moving towards gaming.  So they will be starting

        12   a five-year -- if they have a management contract.  They

        13   are in infancy, but then it is getting it approved,

        14   which is part of the concern of CNIGA that there is

        15   someone there to approve them, separate from the idea of

        16   evaluating the extension management contracts.  Just the

        17   fact that someone is there to -- these new gaming

        18   tribes, make sure that they do get up and operating.

        19   The point being, there is a lot of revenue lost to those

        20   tribes when they're not open.

        21            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I would say separate from the

        22   recent comments about the authority who signs off and

        23   stuff, I think one of the hopes is that whether it is

        24   through this or guidance or what other tool might be

        25   that the -- providing some of the -- lessening the

                                                                    66

         1   impact through the OPM, the small things with the

         2   removing the deposit requirement, those type of things

         3   would hopefully ensure that there would be a backlog so

         4   that things would move through more quickly.

         5            That's not to say that we don't have great

         6   staff here with a lot of other folks and Jon that talked

         7   today about -- we should never find ourselves as an

         8   agency in a position where there is a backlog like that.

         9   That's just a matter of good governance.

        10            MS. ISOM-CLAUSE:  Well, the chairman always

        11   says there is no crime in ending early.

        12            Certainly, if anyone else wants to make any

        13   statements on the record, we'll certainly leave you time

        14   for that.

        15            But hearing none, I'll turn it over to

        16   Commissioner Simermeyer in just a second.

        17            I'd really like to thank you all.  I know that

        18   folks here have lived through a lot of these issues.

        19   Your comments are coming from a places of experience and

        20   expertise.  We truly appreciate your comments.

        21            Thank you again for hosting us here, to the

        22   Rincon Tribe.  It is a beautiful facility.  We've had a

        23   wonderful time here.  And we do look forward to

        24   hearing -- reading written comments.

        25            We also -- I think Christinia Thomas mentioned

                                                                    67

         1   that we have our next consultation in DC.  While that is

         2   in person, it is also telephonic, so if anyone wants to

         3   bring up any other points, you can call in and talk to

         4   us again.  So feel free to do that as well.

         5            Thank you all.

         6            MR. SIMERMEYER:  I'll just echo the vice

         7   chair's appreciation for everyone's participation in

         8   this and for the events all this past week.

         9            This might be a bit out of -- I do want to

        10   mention that there were some comments that asked about

        11   the resources on some of these issues that are already

        12   available, like management contracts or opinions that

        13   have come out.  I just want to point out too that the

        14   agency's website -- this is kind of before our tenure --

        15   made an effort to put a lot of information out there

        16   about the management contract process, the declination

        17   letter process.

        18            So just want to encourage folks to look at that

        19   as well, either in your experience in taking along one

        20   of these issues or in maybe looking at your comments or

        21   thoughts during the consultation during the coming

        22   weeks.

        23            So thank you.  Thanks, everyone.

        24            (Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.)

        25                          * * * * *

                                                                    68

         1

         2

         3

         4                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

         5

         6            I, Cynthia J. Vega, a Certified Shorthand

         7   Reporter for the State of California, do hereby certify

         8   that the above-referenced proceedings were reported by

         9   me on Thursday, February 8, 2018, at 777 Harrah's

        10   Rincon Way, Valley Center, California; were taken by me

        11   stenographically and were transcribed through

        12   computerized transcription under my direction, and the

        13   foregoing is a true and correct record of the

        14   proceedings taken at that time.

        15

        16            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name

        17   this 20th day of February, 2018.

        18

        19

        20

        21

        22

        23

        24                       ___________________________________

        25                          Cynthia J. Vega, CSR No. 6640

                                                                    69