CFA-06-06 - Edward Street 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL FINE ASSESSMENT

 

Ref: CFA-06-06 (Street)

To: Edward Street

206 North Barnes

Tonkawa, OK 74653

Oakland Enterprises

Edward Street

1000 Allen Drive, P.O. Box 147

Tonkawa, OK 74653

1. Under the authority of 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (a), of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and 

the regulations of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) at 25 C.F.R. § 575, the 

Chairman of the NIGC hereby provides notice of his intent to assess a civil fine against Edward 

Street (dba Oakland Enterprises) (Respondent), for violations of 25 U.S.C. § 2711, as set forth in 

detail in Notice of Violation No. NOV 06-06, issued on February 2, 2006, a copy of which is 

attached hereto (Exhibit 1). NOV 06-06 was issued because Edward Street and Oakland 

Enterprises managed the tribal casino without a contract approved by the Chairman. 

2. Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (a) and 25 C.F.R. § 575.4, the Chairman of the NIGC may assess 

a civil fine, not to exceed $25,000 per violation, against a tribe, management contractor, or 

individual operating Indian gaming for each violation cited in a notice of violation issued under 25 

C.F.R. § 573.3. If noncompliance continues for more than one day, the Chairman may treat each 

daily illegal act or omission as a separate violation. 25 C.F.R. § 575.4 (a)(2). 

3. The NIGC regulations at 25 C.F.R. § 575.5 provide that, within 15 days after service of a notice 

of violation, or such longer period as the Chairman may grant for good cause, the respondent 

may submit written information about the violation. The Chairman shall consider any information 

so submitted in determining the facts surrounding the violation and the amount of the civil fine. 

Respondents have not made any submission to the Chairman.

4. The Chairman has considered the factors set forth in 25 C.F.R. § 575.4 and the written 

information submitted by the Tribe and finds as follows: 

 i. Economic benefit of noncompliance. Respondents have substantially 

benefited from noncompliance. Respondents have managed the Tonkawa Bingo and 

Gaming since November of 1999 without a contract approved by the Chairman of the 

NIGC. For the years 2000 through 2004, Respondents have been compensated 2.6 

million dollars. We have not received audited financial statements for the fiscal year 

ending December 31, 2005, so we cannot ascertain earnings for that period. 

Additionally, the $2.6 million does not reflect benefits paid to Eddie Street, such as travel 

expenses.

 ii. Seriousness of the violation. It is the declared policy of the IGRA to provide a 

statutory basis for the regulation of gaming by an Indian tribe adequate to shield it from 

organized crime and other corrupting influences; to ensure that the Indian tribe is the 

primary beneficiary of the gaming operation; and to assure that gaming is conducted 

fairly and honestly by both the operator and players. 25 U.S.C. § 2702. Managing a 

tribal gaming facility without a contract that has been approved by the NIGC Chairman is 
a substantial violation. 25 C.F.R. § 573.6(a)(7). The contract approval process allows 

the NIGC to protect tribes by first performing a background investigation to determine 

whether a management contract is suitable to be involved in gaming and second to 

review the terms of a contract to ensure that the tribe is the primary beneficiary of the 

gaming operation. In this instance, it appears that Eddie Street and Oakland Enterprises, 

and not the tribe, was the primary beneficiary of the gaming activity.

 iii. History of violations. The Chairman has not issued any prior Notices of 

Violation to the Respondents for this violation or any other violation.

 iv. Negligence or willfulness. Respondents’ violation in this case was not the 

result of negligence and was willful. The Respondent was made aware in 1999 that he 

and his company could not manage a tribal gaming operation without a contract that had 

been approved by the NIGC Chairman. In 2000, the Respondents were issued a warning 

notice informing him again that managing without a contract approved by the NIGC 

Chairman was a violation of IGRA. Additionally, Respondent was verbally warned that 

managing without a contract approved by the Chairman was a violation of IGRA. Despite 

these numerous warnings, Respondents continued to manage the Tonkawa Bing and 

Gaming without an approved management contract.

 v. Good faith. A civil fine may be reduced based upon the degree of good faith 

of a respondent in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notice of a violation. The 

Tonkawa Tribe complied with the Order of Temporary Closure. To date, Respondents 

have not contacted the NIGC in anyway. 

5. WHEREFORE, the Chairman, having carefully reviewed the above factors, has determined that a 

fine in the amount of Two Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,600,000.00) is assessed on 

the Respondent for managing a tribal gaming facility without a contract approved by the 

Chairman.

6. This fine shall be due in full by March 6, 2007. Checks should be sent to the National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, N.W., Suite 9100, Washington D.C. 20005. Checks should 

be made payable to the United States Treasury. Interest shall be assessed at rates established 

from time to time by the Secretary of the Treasury on amounts remaining unpaid after their due 

date. 31 U.S.C. § 3717.

7. The above-described amount represents an appropriate balancing of the other factors cited 

above. 

8. Pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 577.3, within 30 (thirty) days after service of this Notice of Proposed Civil 

Fine Assessment, Respondent may appeal the proposed fine to the full Commission by 

submitting a notice of appeal to the National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW, 

Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Respondent has a right to assistance of counsel in such an 

appeal. A notice of appeal must identify this Notice of Proposed Civil Fine Assessment. Within 

ten (10) days after filing a notice of appeal, Respondent must file with the Commission a 

supplemental statement that sets forth with particularity the relief desired and the grounds 

therefore and that includes, when available, supporting evidence in the form of affidavits. If 

Respondent wishes to present oral testimony or witnesses at the hearing, Respondent must 

include a request to do so with the supplemental statement. The request to present oral 

testimony or witnesses must specify the names of proposed witnesses and the general nature of 

their expected testimony, and whether a closed hearing is requested and why. Respondent may 

waive its right to an oral hearing and instead elect to have the matter determined by the 

Commission solely on the basis of written submissions.
Dated this 11th day of April 2006.

 

Philip N. Hogen

Chairman

John R. Hay

Staff Attorney