MAY 1 5 1% 

Bruce S. Rogow, Esquire 

2441 S.W. 28th Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 I 0 

Dear Mr. Rogow: I 

By letter dated April 15, 1996, and received by the National 

Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) on April 16, 1996, you filed a 

notice of appeal and/or request for reconsideration of the March 

18, 1996, decision of the Chairman disapproving the management 

contract between the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Seminole 

Management Associates, Ltd (SMA). 

111,d The appeal and/or request for reconsideration is filed on behalf . 

of SMA. SMA's request for reconsideration is rejected; 

therefore, your April 15, 1996, letter will be treated as an 

appeal. 

The Chairman's decision disapproving the management contract wad* , 

based on the failure of the Tribe or SMA to submit certain 

information required to be submitted with a management contract 

pursuant to regulations of the NIGC. In a letter to the Tribe ' 

and SMA dated January 26, 1996, Mr. Fred Stuckwisch of the NIGC 

advised the parties to the contract of the submission 

deficiencies and stated that the required information must be 

submitted to the NIGC within thirty days. Enclosed with the 

January 26, 1996, letter was a list detailing the items that 

needed to be submitted to the NIGC. That list included: copies , 

of documents evidencing the authority of the tribal chairman to 

execute the management contract on behalf of the tribe; a copy of 

the Tribe's constitution; an updated three-year business plan; an 

updated list of all persons and entities with a financial 

interest in, or having management responsibilities for, the 

management contract; and applications for each person or entity 

with management responsibility for, or a financial interest in, 

the management contract. 

SMA argues that the failure to timely respond to the January 26, 

1996, deficiency letter was the result of excusable oversight, 

with each party believing the other had responded to the letter. 

The deficiency letter was sent certified mail to each of the 

----- 

1441 L STREET. N W. QTH FLOOR WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 TEL.: 202-632-7003 FAX: 202-632-7066 

, I 
,. 'I 

., parties to the contract. The items to be submitted required boeh 

parties to respond since some of the required items would clearly 

be in the possession of the Tribe, such as the tribal 

constitution and documents evidencing the authority of the tribal 1 

chairman, while other items would be in the possession of SMA or 

more readily obtainable by SMA. The Commission does not find it 

credible that each party thought the other was responding to the 

deficiency letter. Therefore, the Commission does not find the 

oversight to be excusable. 

SMA next appears to argue that all of the required items had been 

submitted in October of 1993 in connection with a management 

contract between the Tribe and SMA dated August 12, 1993. That 

information, however, was almost two years old when the parties 

submitted their latest management contract in May of 1995. As 

the January 26, 1996, deficiency letter makes clear, the 

information submitted in 1993 needed to be updated. 

NIGC regulations state that required information must be current. 

For example, section 537.1(b) requires that for each person 

required to undergo a background investigation, the management 

contractor must provide the NIGC with a current photograph, 

current business and residence addresses, the names and current 

addresses of at least three personal references, current business 

and residence telephone numbers, and a complete financial 

statement showing all sources of income for the previous three 

years, and assets, liabilities, and net worth as of the date of 

rirrdjl' the submission. Information that is two or three old is not 

current. 

The parties were also asked to update the three-year business 

plan. In the appeal, SMA concedes that the financial projections 

have changed and now asks for additional time to submit such 

updated information. The parties were also asked to update 

Exhibit B, the list of persons and entities with a financial 

interest in the management contract, and to identify each 

person's or entity's percentage of ownership in the management 

contract. As explained in the January 26, 1996, deficiency 

letter, without this information the NIGC is unable to determine, 

which persons and entities are required to undergo a background 

investigation. The parties failed to provide the NIGC with 

ownership percentages as required in the January 26, 1996, i, 

deficiency letter. i L 

it 

Moreover, the list was not updated. SMA argues that, except fdr 

the death of Alex Sailor, the list is up to date. The NIGC 

disagrees. SMA submitted background information for Jennifer 

Lynn Weisman Irrevocable Trust, Dawn Elizabeth Moriarty 

Irrevocable Trust, and Weisman Enterprises, Ltd. Neither the ," 

trusts nor the limited partnership are included on the list. ' 

The issue on appeal is a narrow one. Did the Chairman err by f 

2 . , 
ldisapproving the management contract between the Tribe and SMA 

for failing to submit certain required information within the 

thirty-day time period? SMA has presented no arguments or 

'evidence that the decision of the Chairman is erroneous. For all 

bf these reasons, the NIGC affirms the decision of the Chairman 

daisapproving the management contract. 

Sincerely, 

onteau 

7/~ + 

Tom Foley @ 

Associate Commissioner 

Philip N. Hogen V 

Associate commissioner