1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

512

______________________________________________________

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

TRIBAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

NOVEMBER 17, 2011

VOLUME III

______________________________________________________

DATE: November 15 - 17, 2011

PLACE: Hilton Garden Inn

815 East Mall Drive

Rapid City, South Dakota 57701
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

513

I N D E X

TAC MEMBERS PRESENT:

John Magee, Gaming Commissioner, Pechanga Band

of Luiseño Mission Indians

Kathi Hamel, Casino General Manager, Lytton

Rancheria of California

Jason Ramos, Gaming Commission Chairman, Blue

Lake Rancheria

Daniel K. McGhee, Gaming Commission

Administrator, Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Brian Callaghan, Gaming Commission Executive

Director, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

Christinia Thomas, Office of Gaming Regulation

and Compliance Executive Director, Mille Lacs

Band of Ojibwe

Steve Garvin, Gaming Commissioner, Ho-Chunk

Nation

Jeff Wheatley, Director of Gaming,

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians

Michele Stacona, Gaming Commission Executive

Director, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm

Springs Reservation of Oregon

Leo Culloo, General Manager of The Point

Casino, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Mia M. Tahdooahnippah, Gaming Commission

Compliance Director, Comanche Nation

Robin Lash, Gaming Commissioner, Miami Tribe

of Oklahoma

Matthew Morgan, Gaming Commissioner, Chickasaw

Nation

Thomas Wilson, Gaming Commission Executive

Director, Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Carleen Chino, Gaming Commissioner Executive

Director, The Navajo Nation

NIGC SPEAKERS:

David Little

Nimish Purohit

R. Rust West

Tracie Stevens

Michael Hoenig

FACILITATOR:

Robert Fisher
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

514

(November 17, 2011, at 8:05 a.m.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. Good morning. We are

going into the closed session.

(Executive session - discussion held off

the record.)

MR. WILSON: So the one -- a couple things

first off. The TAC really -- these executive

sessions are beneficial for us. It helps us to

organize our thinking to ensure that we hopefully

meet the objectives of the agenda for the day and

what we're trying to do. So this is really more

just conversation amongst ourselves to ensure

that we're all on the same page so that we can

have a more effective meeting going forward. So

we just wanted to make that point.

The -- we would like to -- we know that we

need to revisit the technical standards. There's

one item outstanding that we need to take care

of. We would like to do that. We would like to

table any further discussion on 543.1, 2, 3, 4,

and 6 -- oh, not 3. 543.1, 3, 4, and 6 because

some of the members have requested that they're

not comfortable discussing that until they have

the red line version of any of that document. So

we'll just table that until next time. But that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

515

will not preclude us from moving forward on

starting with 543.7 in bingo.

The other thing is that we are going to be

putting together a position paper on why we

believe that the -- what we will call the

risk-based approach to crafting regulations is

critically important to the whole success of the

Tribal Gaming Working Group document. In that

regard, I got a brief statement that I just want

to make to set a little more tone on the

risk-based thing. Matthew is going to follow up

with some additional conversation about some

historical things of the Tribal Gaming Working

Group.

I would like to refer the group to OMB,

Office of Management and Budget circular A-123,

which is a document put out by the White House,

that discusses internal controls and management's

responsibility for implementing internal controls

and how that is accomplished. Yesterday I had

mentioned that these are well-established

principles not only in private industry, but in

federal government as well. And I think it's

important that NIGC, as part of their

deliberations, incorporate in the direction that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

516

has been given by both the White House and

Congress in terms of how you evaluate internal

controls and manage risk. In that regard, I will

just read a couple statements from OMB circular

A-123 just to give the flavor of this whole risk

concept. One area says that federal managers

must carefully consider the approach balanced

between controls and the risk in their programs

and operations. Too many controls can result in

inefficient and ineffective government. Agency

managers must ensure an appropriate balance

between the strength of controls and the relative

risk associated with particular programs and

operations. The benefit of controls should

outweigh the costs. Agencies should consider

both qualitative and quantitative factors when

analyzing cost against the benefits. Internal

control guarantees neither the success of an

agency or programs, nor the absence of waste,

fraud, abuse and mismanagement, but is a means of

managing the risk associated with federal

programs and operations. Managers should define

the control environment, i.e., the programs,

operational, financial reporting, and then

perform a risk assessment to identify the most
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

517

significant areas within that environment which

to place or enhance internal controls.

Appropriate internal controls should be

integrated into each system established by an

agency management to directing guidance

operations. Generally identifying and

implementing specific procedures necessary to

ensure effective internal controls and

determining how to assess the effectiveness of

these controls is left to the discretion of the

agency head.

The point here is that I view, and the

TAC, that NIGC's role is identifying the risks

that need to be mitigated as they pertain to the

integrity of gaming, safeguarding of assets. But

the entities, each individual government, should

be allowed to come up with the controls to

mitigate the identified risks. And so it's

critically important in our mind, this is

potentially a major mind shift difference from

how the agency has previously looked at creating

regulations, crafting regulations to the

opportunity that we see is before you now to take

a significant step in getting the agency kind of

up to the 21st century thinking that's being
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

518

expounded here even from the White House and the

government.

MR. MORGAN: Three topics, really. First

of all, Dan, thank you and your staff for

providing these books. I know it was a lot of

time and effort. We appreciate that very much.

I just want to say thank you for that.

And, two, we have asked the TAC members,

you know, we're going to use this document as our

reference. And if anybody is going to bring in

any other information from some other document,

no matter what, that they do like Tom did and

kind of tell you, this is where I'm getting it

from, whether it's a 2008 or 2010 draft,

wherever. The tribe has set that off so we're

not getting confused on documents. This will be

the document.

The second topic would be on the guidance

documents. My understanding -- our understanding

from our discussion is that our primary purpose

here is to provide you input on the MICS itself,

on this particular topic. While we believe the

guidance document is important in the overall

scheme and philosophy, we would prefer not to get

into questions in trying to debate the guidance
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

519

documents. They are an example. We do want the

NIGC to eventually adopt a guidance document as a

safe harbor provision, saying if you adopt this

guidance document, we believe you've met this

standard in this verbatim. But to go in to

debate the guidance document because it is only

an example, we think, would draw out this

conversation much long longer than the six months

we have. Saying that, if the NIGC feels that the

standard is deficient in an area and that

deficiency may be accomplished from something in

the guidance document, we feel that would be

different. So we wanted to make sure that we at

least got that out on the table, that our purpose

is to provide comments on MICS.

The third topic is we've had a request

that as we go into new sections, very much like

we did in the technical standards, we would like

to hear from the NIGC on your views of it. Maybe

whoever is -- I think maybe Mr. West, in this

case, his review of the sections and kind of his

thoughts and positions on why they thought

generally about this section before we get into

discussions. Because it helps us formulate our

thoughts knowing, you know, where you're coming
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

520

from and what type of comments you may have on

that section, and we hope we can accomplish that

as we go through these sections.

MR. LITTLE: Okay.

MR. FISHER: Is that everything? Great.

Thank you. I think it might be useful, because

we're on the record here, just to clarify a

couple things about what you have in front of you

and what the references were. So, Dan, if you

could, would you explain what you handed out and

what's in the binders that Matt referred to as

now the set of documents.

MR. LITTLE: We took the Appendix 1

directly from the website, directly from the

submission from the working group that was given

to us in July and made a copy. That's the red

line copy. However, I am understanding from some

members that the copy that may have been

submitted to us in July had some omissions in it.

I don't know how you guys want to deal with it,

but this was the copy that is on our website. So

my personal opinion is if there are some areas

that was not red lined that was submitted to us,

you can make a recommendation and make those

changes, like you would do anything else. I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

521

think it's an easy way to get through that. The

other three documents are the comparisons, and we

cleaned them up to make them a little more user

friendly. They were off the -- primarily they

were viewed off the 2010 draft that's on our

website. We removed the 2008 notations because

it was just adding confusion. There was a couple

areas where there simply was nothing in the 2010

draft, so that's the only reason to reference

there. So we just removed it. For all intents

and purposes, we're working off the draft from

2010.

The thing about the comparison documents,

and as we go through today, if these don't work

for you, let us know and we will change them. We

will put them in any format that you all think

will help you better understand our, you know,

our thinking, our reason or our comparison. If

these work, that's fine. We'll continue to move

forward and we'll do the comparisons on the rest

of the subject items. But it would be helpful to

learn that today because Mike Hoenig and his

staff are going through that. Rust has spent

considerable time trying to compare, and it

hasn't been easy. It wasn't as easy as the 547.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

522

That was a proposal. We've got 2008 -- we got

the 2008 proposal that's out there. It's been

delayed. We got the 2010. And then actually

there's a lot of new parts that the working group

put together that, you know, Rust was trying to

find a reference in the 542 regulations. So just

to try to find some common area to make an

adequate comparison. So it's been very, very

difficult on our part, and our staff has spent a

lot of time. That's why before we -- if there is

a better way that you think you can do it, we're

willing to, you know, justify and put that

together for you. So please let us know if

something is not clear, and we'll make that

change. Otherwise we'll get those all done

rather quickly and we'll get those out to you.

The other thing I will do is we will print

off the entire working group document submitted

to us that's on our website. We'll put it in

binders. Actually this document here, we'll put

it in a three-ring binder. And today, if you

take your Appendix 1 to make notes on that, we

won't make copies of that particular appendix, so

when you get the binder you can pop that in. And

then we'll get the comparison documents and we'll
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

523

try to get that mailed to you before the next

meeting, hopefully in the next couple of weeks.

If that's what folks think would be the most

helpful. And then that way we have one clear

document. Robert will put the red lines up on

the board as we go through them, and I think

we'll do well. We started doing that yesterday,

and I thought it was a pretty good perspective.

But like I said, if there's something that's not

working here, please let us know and, you know,

we want to provide to you whatever you need so

that, you know, everybody has a clear

understanding of our thinking and then if we're

making an appropriate comparison.

MR. WILSON: As a point of clarification,

did we not want, then, the guidance comments?

Because currently they're putting both the

comments about the material and then comments

also about the guidance documents. Is our

preference that we don't need the guidance

document comments in the comparison? I know

there was discussion about that, but I don't know

what the consensus was.

MR. CULLOO: Doesn't matter.

MR. LITTLE: We don't need to include the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

524

guidance in the comparison?

MR. WILSON: Well, I'm not sure.

MR. MORGAN: It's how we feel. What we

talked about is we don't want to spend a lot of

time discussing those comments.

MR. LITTLE: And I could understand how it

could cause confusion there.

MR. MORGAN: If there is a particular

deficiency that you and the general NIGC feel

exists in the standards that are in that case, it

may be important to have that there. If you're

saying we think this language needs to be in the

standard itself and not in the guidance document,

in that scenario, it would be important.

MR. WILSON: I guess the thing is, as a

group, we're not going to spend a lot of time

necessarily discussing guidance document

comments.

MR. LITTLE: All right. I'm sure Mike

will be happy not to have to put that in there.

MR. HOENIG: We can take them out. I

think, Rest, if there were comments in our --

where it says NIGC comments, I'm not sure, but I

think some of those comments may have been on the

TGWG guidance document, as well as the text of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

525

the suggested regulation itself. So we can

certainly take the guidance section out. That's

easy and not include it in the future and then

just have comments. But to the extent that any

comments may apply to the guidance versus the

text of the reg itself, I guess that's something

as you go through it, you can note or we can

discuss it at that point, however you want to do

it.

MR. WILSON: I don't think the issue is

whether they're there or not. I think there's a

benefit to them being there for us to understand

your thinking on things. I guess the point more

is that we as a group, though, don't want to --

are not planning on spending a lot of time

discussing the guidance document except in the

context of what Matt was saying.

MR. LITTLE: Thanks for the clarification.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So just to follow up

on one thing, Dan, the comparison documents in

the binders that were handed out this morning are

revised versions of what was distributed in

advance of the meeting, correct?

MR. LITTLE: Yes.

MR. FISHER: That means that the revised
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

526

versions of the comparison documents need to be

posted on the NIGC website.

MR. LITTLE: Absolutely. We'll get those

up.

MR. FISHER: Okay. And then of course as

we go through the day, if there are other

comments about the format, just let Dan and then

Dan will tell Mike and Rest. Okay. So we're set

on the paper documents that you have in front of

you.

What Dan also said was that the version of

the Appendix 1 that's in the notebook that was

handed out this morning is from the PDF document

that was sent to NIGC. We requested a Word

version of the -- of that PDF, so I got that this

morning. And then I -- because it's such a huge

document, electronically, to make it workable, I

took out of that Word document the Appendix 1,

the Part 543. So I shortened it up to like 40

pages roughly. And in the PDF, the PDF has in

that Appendix 1, Part 543. It has, you know, the

page, you know, the total number of pages for

Appendix 1, Part 543, plus what the page number

is. So it's like 1 of 35, I think. So we'll be

able to reference the pages in that smaller
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

527

document, and it will be easier for us to

maneuver around electronically using that shorter

version. But it does derive directly from the

PDF that was submitted.

The other thing that I heard was that --

and I think when I was reflecting on this after

the meeting ended, part of what we got wrapped

around yesterday was the -- what was the

comparison to and the use of the 2008

regulations, the 2010 draft. And now I think

we've solved that problem because we're going to

be referencing the 2010. Essentially it's a

comparison to the 2010 draft. And so for that

portion of the TGWG document that wasn't red

lined because there was not a comparable

provision in the 2010 draft, you just need to

make sure we don't skip over that part. So Dan

invited discussion and comments on that section,

even though it's not red lined and it won't be

red lined in the draft that will be projected on

the screen.

MS. HAMEL: Well, the question I would

have is, is the NIGC going to review those

sections and have comments?

MR. LITTLE: Absolutely. Got it written
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

528

down right here, .3, .4, .5 doesn't exist, and

.6.

MS. HAMEL: Okay.

MR. FISHER: All of that, as we heard,

will be deferred to the December meeting.

Perfect. So I think it sounds like we solved

what's the -- what documents are we using, where

did those documents come from, and how we're

going to move ahead. All right. So is there

anything else around that before we kind of shift

to a little bit of looking at how we're going to

spend the rest of our day today?

All right. So I think we had a request

that we take a break at roughly at a quarter to

12, even though we'll take a break before then,

but a break at a quarter to 12 will allow people

to check out. We are still scheduled to end at

2:00 p.m. for people to make flight arrangements,

and we have a bunch of kind of housekeeping

things that we're going to need to do. And so on

the agenda right now, those things are at the

very end, the planning for the next meeting and

getting the -- checking in about the agenda

planning group and a bunch of other housekeeping

tasks. So we have to probably set aside about a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

529

half hour, maybe, towards the end in order to be

able to do that bunch of things to cover that.

Other than that, if I understand

correctly, we're going to start -- you want to

start back at the technical standards? Matt sent

me the language, so I can project that up on the

screen. And then once we do that, we'll then

move into the bingo MICS. Okay.

MR. WILSON: I don't know if you're

plugged in.

MR. FISHER: I'm not. First I have to get

it going again. Okay. So what's projected on

the screen is the language that -- the homework

from yesterday that Matt volunteered to give back

to the group. So, Matt, do you want to --

MR. MORGAN: Yes. Again, just for the

returns, the group has not actually seen the

verbiage yet. We talked about it conceptually

yesterday. My suggestion was this language to

replace what is currently in 547.2, if you want a

reference of where I'm at.

So the first, you know -- I did change up

the question. Before the question was purely

limited, was the information now you find in (c).

So the question will be what are the general
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

530

rules of application to this part? I've pulled

that similar language from 543.4. And so I'm

trying not to recreate language. I'm just trying

to shift language. That's where I got the

question, (a), minimum standards. That is

verbatim 543.4 language (a). That is exactly

what it says there. I pulled it over to say

basically it's minimal. It's a general thing.

MS. HAMEL: Why does it say 2? Oh, okay.

Sorry.

MR. MORGAN: 547.2(b), TGRA authority. I

did use some language in 543.3, as saying

recognizes that the TGRA is the primary regulator

of a Class II gaming -- nothing in this part is

designed to try to parallel that to what's in

(c). (C), state jurisdiction, that is the same

thing that makes up 543.2. That was my idea. I

know y'all haven't seen it yet, but I did want to

put it up there so you could see it so you could

say yes, or if there's tweaks that y'all think.

But that was my intent to try to get something to

y'all.

MR. FISHER: Let's pause a moment and let

everybody have a chance to read it.

MR. MORGAN: I know there needs to be
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

531

tweaks.

MR. FISHER: I could put one in here.

MR. MORGAN: I did tell the group this

morning, one of the things that we've talked

about and the reason that we were holding a TGRA

definition up, was there's this general concept

which we captured in the MICS but not in the

technical standards which basically defers all

decisions back to the TGRA for things. And I

tried to capture it in (a), but I wasn't for sure

I got there personally. But instead of me

sitting there and drafting and playing, I thought

it best to give it out to the group to see where

they are at.

MR. FISHER: This might be one where --

and I'm just checking. It might be one where

people really need to absorb it, test it, go

back. So we might get a preliminary read on it

and then let people have a chance between now and

the next meeting to reflect on it.

MR. MORGAN: Are y'all comfortable with it

and ready to go forward, or do y'all need to take

time? And, again, that's one of the reasons I

tried to use existing language and just bring it

over so that we wouldn't have to recreate the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

532

wheel; that you've seen the language before. But

if anybody is not comfortable --

MR. FISHER: Or anybody have any questions

about it?

MR. CULLOO: Pretty straightforward.

MR. FISHER: So do you want to test it?

Are you ready to do that, or still looking at it?

MR. WILSON: My head is saying do I say

this, do I not say this, do I say this.

MR. MORGAN: Please have a recommended

solution, if you say it.

MR. FISHER: That's actually in the

operating procedures.

MR. WILSON: My struggle with the wording

in (a) is the same struggle that I have in the

current Class III MICS. When we talk about

establishing additional technical standards that

are at least as stringent or more stringent, it

gets into this debate about is what you're

proposing more stringent or less stringent. And

it just seems to me the mind-set is that if I

create an additional standard, is it in conflict

with something that's already established. It's

just this idea, I've had this debate on Class III

with our state regulators and even with NIGC in
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

533

terms of if I have to create something that is

more stringent, then we get into this whole

discussion about, well, how is this more

stringent or less stringent. So for me it's just

more of a term of I want to be able to

successfully argue for my tribe when we create

additional regulation on top of what's there;

that it's easy for me to do that and not diminish

the standard, but not have to hire a group of

attorneys to prove the word stringent, that this

could mean that or that. So my whole issue is, I

guess, that term "stringent" and is -- are we

saying the same thing, or is anything lost by

saying that creating additional controls that do

not conflict with the standards.

MR. MORGAN: I know Robert is trying to

provide an alternative solution, and I appreciate

that.

MR. FISHER: I can get rid of it if it's

distracting.

MR. MORGAN: I actually like that because

one of the things in law is because it's minimal,

it is implied, and you -- there's no way you can

go below that. So just restating that it's

minimal makes you in compliance with the law that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

534

you have to have. And then I think the important

part is you may establish additional technical

standards. It's already implied, if you apply

minimum, it's a floor. You can't go below the

floor. And if Robert's language accomplishes it

better in your mind --

MR. WILSON: It absolutely does.

MR. MORGAN: -- I am okay with you

replacing what's in (a) with that language, from

my chair.

MR. WILSON: Yes.

MR. MORGAN: If that allows you to move

forward.

MR. WILSON: Absolutely. It's a

pre-acknowledge that I accept the minimums. I

know I have to meet that. But I just -- if I

need to do other things, then I want to be able

to do that, but not have to prove --

MS. LASH: That it's one more level up.

MR. WILSON: Right.

MR. MORGAN: Are we okay with replacing

(a) with what's highlighted?

MS. HAMEL: Does what's highlighted also

give the TGRA the power to establish a standard

that's different or only additional?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

535

MR. WHEATLEY: I don't think you can say

different.

MR. MORGAN: Different means variance, at

least in my mind.

MR. McGHEE: Are you saying that allows

them to do something different?

MS. HAMEL: To achieve the minimum a

different way, is that strong enough to say that?

Because that just says establish and implement

additional.

MR. LITTLE: To me, that adopts controls

that exceed the minimum, not --

MR. McGHEE: It does say that.

MR. MORGAN: At least from the way I read

it, no, it does not. But I see it as two

different concepts. If you want to do something

different in the way that they prescribed it,

that's a variance question and you need to seek a

variance. If you want to do something in

addition, a higher standard than that, then that

does address that concept.

MR. LITTLE: That's the way I would look

at it.

MS. HAMEL: I think the new -- if the new

minimums don't have procedure in it, so this
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

536

should cover it.

MR. MORGAN: This is just a technical

portion of it. If we're comfortable with that --

I guess that's my question to the group, if

you're comfortable replacing the current

language, proposed language in (a) with what's

highlighted?

MS. HAMEL: Yes.

MR. MORGAN: So if we replace that, then

my same question, if you're comfortable with

that, are we comfortable with testing the

entirety of it, or do you want to go A, B, C?

MR. WHEATLEY: I have an issue with C. It

says, To extend the state's jurisdiction over

Class II gaming.

MR. MORGAN: I was hoping somebody would

pick that up. Again, I transferred that verbatim

from what's in 543 right now.

MR. WHEATLEY: I think 543 says, Class III

gaming.

MR. MORGAN: Does it? It could be a

Scribner's note. Did I miss it? If it is,

that's a very good catch.

MR. WHEATLEY: Just I don't want to apply

it if the state has jurisdiction over Class II
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

537

gaming in any form.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: It does say Class II.

MS. LASH: How about adding another

sentence to the end of this one up here that

we're looking at, just add to the end of the

sentence, That do not conflict with those set out

at this part? So it would say these are the

minimum standards and the TGRA may establish and

implement additional technical standards that do

not conflict with those set out in this part.

MR. FISHER: Is that it? I might have put

in an extra "standards" there.

MS. LASH: Yes.

MR. FISHER: You would either say "those"

or "the standards set out in this part."

MS. LASH: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So there's that

proposed change in (a). And then we have this

question here on (c).

MR. MORGAN: Jeff showed me on (c), it

does say Class III. That was my fault.

MR. McGHEE: They don't have any

jurisdiction.

MR. FISHER: So that's a get rid of, or go

back and put it in, say, Class III.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

538

MR. MORGAN: Yes.

MR. FISHER: Class III.

MR. MORGAN: That was the intent to say

that.

MR. FISHER: Got it. This became Class

III.

MR. McGHEE: It did say Class III.

MR. WHEATLEY: We're talking about Class

II technical standards.

MR. RAMOS: We just don't want them to

apply to Class III, so I think that does work.

MR. FISHER: So that's the proposal.

MR. MORGAN: Are we comfortable with that

to test it?

MR. McGHEE: Let's see. You'll know after

you test it.

MR. FISHER: He's testing the testing.

All right. Let's check it. So if you support

the changes to Section 547.2 displayed on the

screen as we changed them around, raise your

hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Voila! It's done.

MR. MORGAN: Finished my homework.

MR. FISHER: Thank you, Matt, for doing
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

539

that.

MR. McGHEE: You think the -- I think it

would go faster, if you don't mind, when we're

doing like a test like that, we just ask does

anyone object, raise your hand. Because it goes

a lot faster because then the person that objects

can get it out there, their problem. If nobody

objects, that means it's good.

MR. MORGAN: I think that's fine as long

as everybody is comfortable objecting.

MR. FISHER: If you're working together

and have the ability to do that, then we can

shift to that procedure.

MR. McGHEE: I don't see anybody here

scared to say what they want.

MR. FISHER: There have been a couple

times where we've tested things and where people

haven't raised their hands.

MR. McGHEE: When people are still trying

to look, at least they can say hold on a minute,

I'm not ready.

MR. FISHER: We've also had a couple of

occasions where people haven't necessarily

objected, but needed some more information to it.

It's up to you, whatever procedure you want to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

540

use.

MR. McGHEE: I think it will speed the

process up. Anybody object to that idea?

MR. RAMOS: Are we going to test it?

MS. LASH: Let's do what we've been doing.

We have a process set up. It's working.

MR. MORGAN: Just as a note, that language

in (a) that you changed, that will come up in

543.4 for y'all's purposes. It would be the

exact same language, and I assume Tom will have

the exact same change there as well, as a note

when we get into that section.

MR. FISHER: We can come back and check

that language.

MR. LITTLE: 543.4?

MR. FISHER: Yes. So, Matt, what you're

saying is they should consider that language to

carry over when they do their 543.4 comparison?

MR. MORGAN: Yes.

MR. FISHER: Okay.

MR. McGHEE: Without the technical part.

MR. FISHER: Right. Without the technical

standards.

MR. MORGAN: Actually, that's what it

says.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

541

MR. McGHEE: I know, but we don't want it

to say that.

MR. MORGAN: That is what it says in the

internal controls section. It does say technical

standards.

MR. FISHER: They took it from this.

MR. McGHEE: Because they're not technical

standards.

MR. MORGAN: I don't disagree.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So then it seems like

we're ready to move to the --

MR. McGHEE: So technical standards are

put to bed?

MR. FISHER: Yes. We should pause. I was

busy looking for the next document, but we

probably should pause to acknowledge completing

the work on the technical standards. And that if

memory serves me correctly, every single

recommendation that was proposed for

consideration was done unanimously. And so you

reached consensus on everything with respect to

section 547. So want to give each other a round

of applause?

(Round of applause.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. So what I'm projecting
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

542

on the screen again is the -- it has the cover

page from what was submitted. Then it has the

appendix. There's a blank sheet. Then it has

Appendix 1. And then it picks up with the red

line version of the Part 543 that comes from the

PDF version submitted to NIGC. Okay.

MR. WILSON: We're starting at 543.7?

MR. FISHER: Correct. So let me just flip

down to 543.7. Of course it might have been

easier if I looked up the page number.

MS. HAMEL: 8.

MR. FISHER: I'm on 6. We're rolling.

543.7. Okay. Let me just do a check here

because it's 10 of 10, and we're scheduled to

take a break at ten. So do you want to -- do you

want to launch into this right now and then take

our break later, or what's your preference?

MR. WILSON: Are we talking about a

ten-minute break?

MR. FISHER: We could take a ten-minute

break right now, take a stretch and we'll start

up at 10 o'clock.

(Recess taken at 9:50 a.m. to 10:01 a.m.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. So we're going to

start with 543.7. We have projected on the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

543

screen the TGWG red line version, and so where

are we going to start? I did hear this morning

that at some point you want to hear from NIGC

about their views on these various changes. So

what's the -- how would you like to proceed with

this?

MS. HAMEL: We'd just like to make one

comment or one -- where did he go? I'll do my

best to explain the document and this, quote,

unquote, "red line." I think that's an internal

red line from the TGWG's point of view. We were

all together as a group, finalized a document, I

believe in May; does that sound right?

MS. LASH: We had our last meeting in

June.

MS. HAMEL: Okay. And then as a group, we

put together a committee that tried to make --

tried to go through the entire document and make

sure that we were consistent that if we talked

about MICS and TICS and system of SICS, that we

use the same language in every section, or if we

talked about supervision. So these red lines you

see in this document may appear very confusing

because it was our communication to us as a group

that the last document we all agreed upon in June
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

544

changed slightly once our style committee came

together and put together the document. It's not

a comparison document against anything in the

past. The NIGC has made a comparison document to

other versions, so --

MR. FISHER: Just to make sure I

understand, the red line in this document is red

lines to previous TGWG drafts, not to anything

from the NIGC?

MS. HAMEL: That's correct.

MR. FISHER: So would it be useful to

eliminate the red lines from this?

MS. HAMEL: It probably would. My only --

MR. FISHER: We could just accept all the

changes in the document and then go from there.

MS. HAMEL: It just won't look like what's

published on the NIGC website, so that would be

my only caution. Accepting the red lines is fine

by me.

MR. FISHER: There is a version in what

was submitted to NIGC that is the clean version,

right?

MR. LITTLE: Yeah, that's in the whole

packet, right?

MR. FISHER: Right.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

545

MR. MORGAN: Is that explanation of the

red line confusing to people if you know that

going in? That the red line is internal

discussions of the Tribal Gaming Work Group

document only? Because if it's not confusing,

then there's no really need to go in and try to

change the format, only if it's confusing to the

group.

MR. FISHER: I don't think it's confusing

to the group. I guess I'm wondering whether just

it might be easier to be working in the clean

version than in the red line version.

MR. MAGEE: I think whatever you put on

the screen should match what's in the books.

MR. FISHER: Okay. And what's in the

books is the red line version. Good point.

Okay. Thank you, Kathi.

So back to the question about where do you

want to -- how do you want to kick this off and

how do you want to move ahead with this

discussion?

MR. MORGAN: There was a request that we

at least have a brief -- and I think just by

definition, it's going to be to have brief -- of

what you looked at from the NIGC's perspective
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

546

and maybe a general comment on the section as a

whole before we get into the discussion. I know

most of your probably comments are specific to

language in here, but just as an overview,

general comment, the example was pointed out that

in technical standards, Nimish, when he came to

the table said this is what I looked at and this

is how I did it. And if that is able to be done,

that was our request.

MR. WEST: You mean to start with (a) and

go down?

MR. LITTLE: Just overall, the whole

section.

MR. FISHER: Big picture view.

MR. WILSON: What do you think of the

concept?

MR. WEST: The concept or the document?

The document I could probably speak to. I mean,

it's similar to other MICS documents as far as

the section and standards, I mean, subsections,

whatever. One thing I noticed that we started on

these guidance comparisons, I think from the May

submission, for instance, (d), supervision, came

afterwards, so we have -- I think one of our

documents says that, you know -- it speaks to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

547

that. And it might not have been updated with

the July 28th. So there's some back and forth

between -- once we got asked to start looking

into documents, we started with the May

documents, and then we got July later. And a lot

of the comments that Dan and I were looking at

are on the guidance, so I think you guys probably

don't want to spend a lot of time on comments on

guidance. That's in the shall, will, things like

that.

I do have a question about variances,

though. There's no definition for variances, and

it's real confusing because the normal thought

process for me is variances are variances from

MICS standards, and you could request them from

the commission and after the TGRA, the records

prove them. But further on in the documents,

variances are what I think probably is being

discussed is numerical variances or percentage

variances, so that's kind of confusing to me.

MR. LITTLE: Any other parts --

MR. WEST: There's another section,

543.18, that speaks to variances, so you've got

kind of a conflict of section there.

MR. LITTLE: How about any other parts of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

548

543.7, was there any other areas --

MR. WILSON: So it sounds like you've got

this -- the term variance -- because the term

variance dealing in 543.18 is dealing with

creating a variance to the MICS. Whereas the

term variance being used what you're referring to

is about a variance, a discrepancy or, you know,

in a variance amount, the dollar amount.

MR. WEST: Correct.

MR. LITTLE: Maybe there's a way that that

could be clarified. That could be helpful for

us. I'm not sure.

MR. MORGAN: Is this overview useful or

y'all just want to start going into A, B, C? It

seems like we're trying to struggle to give an

introductory.

MR. LITTLE: Would it be easier to start

out with (a)?

MR. MORGAN: It could be.

MR. FISHER: It could be. It depends on

what level of the discussion you want to start

with. Are we talking about concepts or talking

about changes?

MR. MORGAN: If you want to hear similar

to what you did in techs, the concept on
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

549

543.7(b), though, was -- if you wanted to compare

previous versions of the MICS -- we had this

conversation earlier -- just scrap that whole

thing. And that's what made it hard for the NIGC

to compare it to, is because we scrapped the

whole thing and came at it from a view of what

needs to be controlled in bingo and tried to set

it forth that way. The first A, B, C, and I

don't remember is D -- I know A, B, C are boiler

plates. You will see them at the beginning of

every section. It was just boiler plate language

of general that we set forth in every section as

you come through it. So if you have comments

about A, B, C, those are comments that need to be

globally changed as we go through sections.

MR. McGHEE: So if you approve them now,

you could almost say I can understand why this

would be at the beginning of every section and I

would be okay with it.

MR. MORGAN: But, again, we started

this -- if you're in a bingo game -- and

remember, bingo is broad, session bingo, handheld

bingo, electronic bingo, just bingo, what items

need to be controlled was the thought process.

But sometimes we struggle in the Tribal Gaming
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

550

Work Group to keep that in mind. Yes, this works

great in a player station setting, but how does

this equate back to a session game that they can

still do this. And that sometimes the concept

may be broader than what you're thinking of, just

to try to incorporate some of those concepts, and

then not even talk about the handheld games, the

session bingo games, the CardMinder technology.

But that's kind of conceptually broad of at least

how we tried to approach this subject.

MR. McGHEE: And the idea was when we were

doing the bingo section, all right, the card, not

so much the paper, which is why you'll see a

reference of scratching out paper on it, card

being the word, was the bingo card has to have

the same control whether it's sitting on a table

in front of you or whether it's in a machine.

Some people say what about the communications.

That's all going to be in a different type

section where you have risks over electronic

type, anything electronic. So when you're

looking for the electronic references, you're not

going to see them a lot in the bingo section

because this is just about how you play bingo,

whether it's on a machine or anywhere.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

551

MR. MORGAN: For those that are familiar

with Class III, you know, in Class III, you went

to gaming machine section to -- that's a

different concept here, because we're talking

about the game of bingo, not actually the medium

in which you play bingo. It is the game of

bingo.

MR. McGHEE: Okay.

MR. WEST: Do you have specific parts of

543.7 that only apply to paper binger and

specific parts that might apply to electronic

bingo and/or both?

MS. HAMEL: Yes.

MR. McGHEE: And I think it was labeled

out, though.

MS. HAMEL: But that terminology was not

used in the -- in our recommendation, the word

physical inventory of cards would mean something

different than --

MR. McGHEE: Under the -- yeah, if there

was some kind of reference made, and I'm not

looking through it, it was stated. It would say,

you know, this applies to, you know, physical

this, that. But we really tried hard not to

confuse the lines. So I think that last section
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

552

that deals with technological, when you play

bingo, addresses a lot of those kind of things

that may not be what you're used to seeing in a

paper bingo setting. And we tried to outline the

risks you may have with that. But it's really

jumping around a lot. I would agree if we take

it section by section, it will make more sense

instead of jumping around to pieces.

MR. WEST: And I know we've been working

with this issue. And when we've gone out and

done audits of gaming operations, have actually

adopted the 2008 543, so we've got these

checklists. So we have these discussions, does

this one apply to paper bingo, does it apply to

electronic bingo or both. I'm talking about

confusion in some of your gaming operations that

may not have the expertise that the people around

the table might have; avoiding confusion.

MR. MORGAN: But in the way -- at least

I'm guessing here. In the way that you currently

audit, you're using a checklist at a MICS level.

Under our conceptual shift, you would have to go

in and write a checklist, theoretically, to each

gaming operations tribal internal control level

and not at a big global level, more at a local
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

553

level, in order to truly evaluate the risk

associated in that gaming operation, which is a

-- it is a big shift. When people currently

adopt the 2008 now, they are still adopting that

and it's still a procedural-based checklist,

which I agree causes confusion. We tried to do

that on our floor in trying to apply a different

standard to this bank which may be Class II as

opposed to this bank which is Class III. Our

front line people, it caused mass confusion. And

one of the reasons that we -- we actually pulled

it back because we tried for months in order to

come up with a system to make 543 mesh with 542.

We couldn't do it, to be quite honest with you.

And that's one of the reasons that we shifted

conceptually to, you know, we should be talking

about control and the risks associated with it

and then allow me to adopt and set forth the --

at a local level what the internal control is and

let the operations develop what their policy

procedure is on it. So when auditors come in,

you have to audit to that standard to evaluate

risk. But that -- you will hear us go back time

and time again to that concept because if there

is a concept of if there is a one checklist for
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

554

MICS, that concept goes away under this scenario.

MR. McGHEE: This, you have to look at the

bingo section and say has the bingo section

identified the risk involved in playing bingo,

and does it address those risks and state that

that tribal gaming commission or that operation

will need to come up with standards, procedures,

whatever you want to call them, to mitigate that

risk. So one, when someone goes into an audit,

they have to first say have the risks been

identified in the way you play bingo, and then

let me see your procedures in which you come up

to mitigate those risks.

MR. WILSON: I have a comment on 543.7(a),

if we're ready to move to that.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Yep.

MR. WILSON: And that's the document I

provided yesterday.

MR. FISHER: Yeah. Let me pull it up

here, and I then I got your --

MR. WILSON: My comment on 543.7(a) is not

surprisingly dealing with putting in the term

"risk" so that you get over -- the current

543.7(a) talks about procedures that provide at

least the level of control established by the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

555

standards of this section. And, again, from my

philosophical shift, what I think that that

should be addressing is that whatever standards

you come up with in your facility, that the

wording be changed. I can't bring it up on my

mine, and I can't see this.

MR. McGHEE: This same paragraph was

earlier, and you added language or suggested

language.

MR. WILSON: I did.

MR. FISHER: It's right here. I'm trying

to get it up on the screen.

MR. WILSON: So the procedures that

provide at least the level of control necessary

to mitigate the risks established by the

standards of this section. The risks being these

objectives that the Tribal Gaming Working Group

has identified as what needs to be mitigated. So

it seems like any controls or standards that you

come up with should be focused on mitigating the

risks that are identified in the document.

MR. WEST: Do you do your risk assessment

first before you even think about procedures and

checklist and everything else?

MR. WILSON: Essentially, yes.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

556

MR. McGHEE: So that training would

recommend more or less to be because that same

paragraph is at the beginning of the section. It

would be throughout.

MR. WILSON: It wouldn't just be there,

but it would be in the second in (b) where it

talks about computer controls. It's that same

wording and it would be changing that version as

well.

MR. FISHER: Let's pause for one second.

What's up on the screen is the original version

of the comparison document because that's what

Tom had put his changed language in. So it's not

the version -- the new comparison version in the

notebook.

MR. WILSON: But it's the same wording.

MR. LITTLE: The text hasn't changed.

Cleaner for clarity.

MR. WILSON: It's on Page 8 of our written

document.

MR. FISHER: Correct. Same text.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I can't see it. Can

you read it?

MR. FISHER: Yes. So the suggestion is

that the sentence would stay the same all the way
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

557

through to the word "control," and then it would

delete "established by the standards of this

section," and replace that with the language in

the box so that the whole sentence would read,

Subject to the approval and oversight of the

TGRA, each gaming operation shall establish,

implement, and adhere to internal control

policies and procedures that provide at least the

level of control -- this is the new part --

necessary to mitigate the risks established by

the standards of this section. So, in essence,

it takes out that word "established" that's in

there and replaces it with the phrase "necessary

to mitigate the risks" established by the

standards of this section.

MR. McGHEE: You don't really strike out

"established."

MR. FISHER: Correct. All you're doing is

adding right before the word "established,"

"necessary to mitigate the risks." That's the

change.

MR. WILSON: From my way of thinking, the

previous wording is a holdover from the MICS,

what I call the old way of thinking. Where this

just ensures that we're all focusing -- that risk
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

558

is what we're trying to mitigate here, and if the

standards are outlining the risks, then your

controls need to mitigate those risks.

MR. McGHEE: I call for a test on this

section.

MR. FISHER: Test on section (a)?

MR. McGHEE: Is that how we want to do it?

Yeah.

MR. WILSON: Can we -- if we're going to

vote on it, can we talk about (b) as well?

Because I'm proposing the same change in (b) as

well. Unless of course somebody has an issue

with any other parts of (b) or (a), but --

MR. McGHEE: Okay.

MR. FISHER: Go ahead. What do you say

about (b), Tom?

MR. WILSON: (B) would be where "and/or

procedures that provide at least the level of

risk mitigation," it's putting in that same

wording.

MR. FISHER: That same phrase right there.

MR. WILSON: Yep.

MR. FISHER: Yep. Okay. Everybody see?

I just put in this phrase right in section (b),

which is the same thing that was proposed for
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

559

section (a).

MR. McGHEE: This is also the section

where you're striking out the definition of

agent, the computer thing. This is a hitch off

of that part. If you want to have the agent

replaced by computer application, this is what

allows you to do it, the TGRA approval.

MR. MORGAN: Tom, since we're kind of

cracking that thing, what you're talking about

and what Rust is talking about, that you're going

to do a risk-based analysis first before you ever

get to this to try to identify --

MR. WEST: That's what I understand from

the two days ago, that was the committee's focus.

MR. MORGAN: Instead of saying risks

established in both, could we say risks

identified? Because you're identifying the

risks.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Makes it sound like you're

establishing, and this document is weak.

MR. MORGAN: Identified the risks.

MR. CALLAGHAN: I feel better about that.

MR. FISHER: Were you finished? Okay. Is

there any other discussion about -- did you want

to do all three, (a), (b), and (c), or did you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

560

want to test (a) and (b)?

MR. McGHEE: I think (c), to address

Rust's concern, we need a little more

conversation about what variance is.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Want to check on (a)

and (b)? I don't remember which way I'm supposed

to do it.

MR. McGHEE: If you had an objection,

we'll do the raise your hand.

MR. FISHER: If you support the 543.7(a)

and (b) as projected on the screen and changed as

part of this discussion, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. That got everybody.

Okay.

MR. McGHEE: I have a question. Is that

agreed as far as will we reapprove that at every

section? Because it's the same language.

MR. FISHER: That's exactly what I was

going to ask.

MR. McGHEE: It's a blanket statement at

the beginning of every section. Can we just say,

hey, we're good with that being at the beginning

of every section?

MR. FISHER: If it's the same in every
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

561

section, maybe you could have it as a general

section at the beginning of things. Did you

consider that?

MR. LITTLE: That's the question that I

have.

MR. MORGAN: We actually had that

discussion. The reason we did not do that is

because we felt like if you're on the floor in

some areas and you're looking for a reference, if

you're only working the bingo, you're only

pulling the bingo section and we didn't have to

pull bingo in this section. And one of our ideas

was we're trying to make subject matters flow

into a section, and that's one of the reasons we

placed it in each section.

MR. FISHER: It's the difference between

regulatory regulation simplicity and on-the-floor

use of the regulation.

MR. WHEATLEY: Right. Practical use.

MR. LITTLE: I know we're not comparing

the guidance, or you don't want us to, but is the

guidance then generally the same in each of the

sections?

MR. McGHEE: The guidance to these three

things?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

562

MR. LITTLE: Yes. Because that could

cause some confusion. So in that case then when

we do do comparisons, can we not have to

re-compare those three things?

MR. FISHER: You mean, not repeating the

comparisons?

MR. LITTLE: Would that be okay? Mike,

I'm saving you some work back there. Got that?

MR. FISHER: So there was nodding heads

yes around the table. So do you want to check

that?

MR. McGHEE: I would say we vote that (a)

and (b) language as provided be the standard

language for each section throughout the MICS

beginning with this .7.

MR. FISHER: So we don't have to do this

multiple times, unless somebody has -- raises a

concern, the request is to say that (a) and (b),

as we just did in the bingo section, would apply

to the other sections as well, right? To the

other sections where it appears. Why don't we do

it as where it appears. Or you can list them, if

you want to. Are you guys making a list for us?

MR. McGHEE: He's just doing a quick check

to make sure so everybody is educated. These two
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

563

sections or these two (a) and (b) appear in every

section except variance because it doesn't apply.

When you're applying for a variance, there's not

a computer application, there's not an internal

control. It's different.

MR. LITTLE: From .7 on, with the

exception of variance, it applies.

MR. McGHEE: Yes.

MR. LITTLE: Does that make sense?

MR. FISHER: Okay. So everybody ready to

-- everybody see what we're doing? Everybody

ready to say what you think? Okay. So if you

support this change to flow through to all the

other sections in the MICS other than the

variance section, raise your hand.

(All hand raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. That got everybody.

So I'm still marking what we agree on in yellow.

So that's the same way you can track that, too.

Okay.

So now do you want to talk about the

variance section -- or the variance reference

here, not the variance section, but the variance

reference in (c)?

MR. MORGAN: My understanding of what the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

564

confusion that could possibly exist is that the

variance section of this applies -- the term

"variance" is used to mean you want to do

something different than what is required in the

MICS. But in this particular subsection (c) that

we're talking about, we're talking about

statistical variances, what is that range, that

specific range on the subject matter that is

allowable, and when it exceeds that allowable

range, when you need to go in and do something

else, I guess, in essence. I'm just trying to

make sure I understand the concern. Is that

the --

MS. THOMAS: Can't you just call it

statistical variances?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I was thinking

numerical.

MR. WHEATLEY: It could be a number of

different things, or do we try to -- I think you

could try in the definitions section to give a

two-part definition to variance and add on the

fact that it could also be the application to

NIGC's variance to these proposed regs, or do we

change what a variance is titled or called that

you apply to the NIGC? Could it be called an
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

565

exception, an exception from the standards? Just

throwing that out there.

MR. FISHER: So there is no -- if I got

this right, there is no -- in the definitions

section, 543.2, no definition for variance?

MR. WHEATLEY: There is.

MR. FISHER: I don't see it then.

MR. WHEATLEY: I thought --

MR. FISHER: Goes from TICS to vault.

MR. WHEATLEY: You're right.

MR. FISHER: That is one way to handle it,

is to put a --

MR. WHEATLEY: Two-part definition.

MR. FISHER: -- two-part definition in

variance, depending on the usage, right?

MR. WHEATLEY: Uh-huh.

MR. WILSON: It would seem a two-part

definition of the same word, it might get

confusing as to ensuring that you're using the

right definition for when the word appears in a

section, that it might be a better approach to

change the definition of variance as far as

applying for a variance, to applying for, you

know, something else.

MR. McGHEE: Exception.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

566

MR. WILSON: Yeah. And then the

variance --

MR. McGHEE: Instead of variance, the

variance section from when you apply to NIGC, we

change that name to be something else

alternative. Procedure. Request for alternative

regulation. I don't know about that. And then

it gets rid of the idea of confusing that kind of

variance. It would be harder to stick a word on

the other variance to catch everything. It's

much easier to change the applying for a variance

to the NIGC.

MS. STACONA: In the section under the

bingo, we have the variance there, but in none of

these sections on there do you list variance or

talk about variance in anywhere, so are you

assuming you're going to have variance all over

this place in your draw, your payouts, your bingo

cards or your inventory. I guess you have a word

in there up above, but nothing really down below

that talks about it.

MR. McGHEE: In my opinion, if you were to

try to go through and identify where there would

always be a variance at everyone's site, it would

be too hard because you may have a certain thing
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

567

you do that could result in a variance that I

don't. And that would get back to that cookie

cutter thing. So more or less it's just saying

variance, whatever you identify within your

place, a variance could happen. You don't want

to go through it and, say, decide what variances

are. You want that blanket statement. I think

somewhere in here, it will say you have to have a

-- and I'm not sure, I'm just saying, you would

have to have a procedure that would tell you that

risk of variance and what to do. You don't want

to get into what I do when I have a variance. It

should be your decision as a TGRA. You should

know that the variance exists. You should decide

what the threshold is and you should take action.

MR. MORGAN: I do understand Michele's

point. If I restate it wrong, please correct me.

It's that you don't think it should be in bingo

because we don't really reference that term

anywhere that's not contemplated?

MS. STACONA: Right. If you're not going

to talk about it, don't put it in there.

MR. MORGAN: The reason it is there, it

was just one of those global boiler plate things

we put in every section except for variance just
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

568

to be applicable in there. And at least from my

recollection, at the Tribal Gaming Working Group

level, our thought process may be what your

concern and maybe we did something there that we

can go back to, but our thought process was more

relevant to the fact of instead of listing at a

federal level certain thresholds that

predetermined thresholds, that we need to

determine the risk associated with those

thresholds at a local level. And as long as your

regulatory body was okay with those thresholds,

then you should do it and not require -- you

know, for example, if it's more than three

percent and you know, Leo wants to say five

percent is fine with me, I don't have to take

that necessary step of asking the federal

government, is it okay if I go from three to

five. I already have that authority at the local

level to do it. That was, I think, the subject

of discussions where I'm from. Your point, I

think, may be a point that we really didn't

discuss intently there, which may be valid.

MR. McGHEE: Variances can occur in any of

these sections, correct? So it's a risk. So you

have to state it. What you have to do as a TGRA
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

569

is decide at what threshold that you would

determine this is a true variance and then at

what level you're going to review it as a TGRA to

see what happened. I mean, there's your risk and

what you need to do when you find a variance is

to review and see what happened. And first

identify what is a variance, and then review it

to see what happened. But you don't want to get

into the procedure of how you review it; it just

has to be done and reviewed. That's why it's its

own little thing.

MS. STACONA: Maybe we should put,

Establish the threshold level at which a variance

in these subsections should be reviewed, so you

know you're doing these underneath there.

MR. FISHER: So, Leo, do you want to go

and then --

MR. CULLOO: The whole thing with variance

is set by a percentage or a numerical dollar

amount. It's so different from property to

property. The impact it has from a small

property to a large property, one percent is a

lot of money, could be, so I definitely want to

stay away from that type of scenario where we try

to establish something where we set a percentage
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

570

or dollar amount because it's not conducive to a

lot of properties.

MR. MORGAN: I think your point was what

our concern was, that if this determination needs

to be made, it's more appropriate it's determined

at a local level and not a federal level.

MR. CULLOO: There's a lot of work to

respond in a variance. Particularly when it

comes to table games, the work to have to go

through it, it ties operations up a lot and it's

not -- every property is different.

MR. MORGAN: What's significant to you.

MR. CULLOO: Right.

MR. McGHEE: Obviously if variance is

listed under bingo, then this particular

reference only applies to variances in bingo.

That's why it's listed again in -- it's the one

section on variances and what to do with them.

Now, you can expand upon that or whatever, but

it's implied that it means everything to do with

bingo.

MR. LITTLE: Should you clarify it and add

something like "within this section"?

MS. STACONA: Let's put that.

MR. McGHEE: It's under the section
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

571

already. It doesn't hurt. It doesn't hurt.

MR. MORGAN: Doesn't help, but doesn't

hurt.

MR. McGHEE: You can just put it in every

section, too. So I don't have a problem if you

want to do that.

MR. MORGAN: You had suggested what?

MS. STACONA: The TGRA shall establish a

threshold level at which a variance shall be

reviewed -- I can't remember what I said -- which

a variance in these subsections shall be

reviewed --

MR. McGHEE: In this section.

MS. STACONA: Yeah, you want to do the

variance on these subtopics below.

MR. McGHEE: E is not a subsection, it's

just another section. Isn't it -- are we calling

like A a section? Or would you call A a

subsection? Just so I'm clear on what it's --

because if A is a subsection, then I agree with

that language. But if it's just a section of

this part, then the language needs to say

section. You understand what I'm saying? It

sounds elementary, but it's kind of important

when you're referring to something. I look at
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

572

the A, B, and C's as sections and anything below

that is subsections when it breaks off.

MR. FISHER: So I don't know whether this

language, the addition of this language works.

So if you look at the language in 543.18, it

starts -- which is the variance section. It

starts with should a TGRA grant a variance to any

provision of these MICS. So if you mirror that,

a variance to any provision in this section shall

be reviewed, right? So it mirrors the language

that's in 18. So did you sort that out, section,

subsection?

MR. McGHEE: It's really a federal

definition, because when they start putting this

stuff into code in the Federal Register, it's

rearranged and put into all these sections,

subsections, and parts. So when you refer to it

in the document, you need to refer to it legally.

MR. MORGAN: That's OMB. That's what OMB

does, to make sure that you've referenced it

correctly, whether it's a part, subpart, chapter,

section, that whole --

MR. McGHEE: They'll go through it

individually and wherever you meant to say

section, will they put that in?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

573

MR. MORGAN: The agency is supposed to do

it, but anything they've missed that doesn't make

sense -- because when you publish a regulation,

it goes from your agency over to OMB to be vetted

and approved. That's when they make those type

of --

MR. LITTLE: OMB has got -- I don't know,

they lock people in a room and all they do is

review these things. And I don't know how it

works, but they just review these things and just

-- and, I mean, they'll send it back to us and

say this is out of line, just for format, and

make sure it all complies. Mike is at OMB.

MR. FISHER: He's shaking his head.

MS. HAMEL: Why don't we just say 547.7?

MR. FISHER: You could do that.

MR. McGHEE: I think the whole thing is a

part. This is a part after small and charitable,

they're referring to this whole document as a

section. So I would call these Sections 543.14

is a section. It's not a part. Because this

whole thing is a part, the way they reference it.

MR. MORGAN: In my mind, if there is

confusion over the word, this section and part

doesn't really clarify for it for me. The
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

574

conversation and suggestions that Jeff made to

either change what you call a variance to the

MICS and/or put in some reference to numerical,

or whatever words you use, helps me at least

clarify. But in this unit, section or in this

part, that doesn't really help me add clarity to

my confusion. It tells me where to focus on, but

it doesn't really help me clarify.

MR. McGHEE: Kathi said just reference to

section number 542 point -- whatever bingo is,

and then do that in each one.

MR. MORGAN: I keep going back to not

where this variance applies to. I keep going

back to what is the purpose of this variance

language. The purpose is what Leo discussed on

numerical variances within the property, not

large variances in an alternative way to meet

this standard.

MR. McGHEE: We were trying to satisfy

Michele's.

MR. MORGAN: No, I understand.

MS. STACONA: You still got to put what a

variance really means to people out there. And

we're talking whether it's a dollar or an amount

or, you know, whatever, because I could just --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

575

if I gave this to somebody on my floor, they

would totally not pay attention to A, B, C, and

they'll just be going like this, and forget about

one of the main things in here is a variance.

And what do you do with it?

MR. McGHEE: Why would they ignore it?

They're not supposed to. I'm just saying, it's

there. But you're just going to be re-vetting.

You're not going to be giving them this.

MR. MORGAN: I agree with you. Under this

new scenario, you would have to come up with more

documentation, and reading the MICS really

doesn't suffice anymore because there's really

not anything in the MICS. You have to adopt

something in addition to.

MR. FISHER: Are you borrowing

Christinia's card?

MR. WILSON: I am. I am a/k/a Tom. If I

understand what you're saying, is that variances

could be any number of things. And if the intent

of the risk is the variance that we're trying to

mitigate dollars, meaning is it a dollar

variance, is it an inventory variance, is it a --

MR. CULLOO: Could be any of them.

MR. WILSON: But that's where I think --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

576

MR. McGHEE: Your risk analysis would

identify where a variance could occur and then

you have to address that.

MR. WILSON: But that is where, then, like

a guidance document has to somehow state that

variances can be in many forms. You can have

inventory variance --

MS. HAMEL: It does.

MR. WILSON: This is where I'm saying to

help through the process. What Michele is asking

for is she's asking, if I understand correctly,

that you want more guidance on what variances the

TGRA needs to address.

MS. STACONA: Right.

MR. WILSON: If the guidance document does

that, she's not seeing that, so this may be an

instance where it's helpful to bring up a sample

of the guidance document that she can get the

flavor of where that answer can be gained that

she has.

MR. McGHEE: Okay.

MR. FISHER: So while they're doing that,

Dan.

MR. LITTLE: This is a clarification as to

the whole section. I talked to Mike, and we
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

577

believe if you just reference section, that

refers to point 7, Section point 8. So if you

just leave section off. If you refer to part, it

would be the entire 543. That would probably be

fine.

MR.McGHEE: Okay.

MR. WILSON: Christinia has brought in a

comparison document. There was a section in

there about comments on the guidance for

variance, so that might --

MR. McGHEE: Where it says TGRA guidance,

that's a sample guidance that TGRA --

MR. WILSON: Yeah, it does a good job of

defining the different types of variances. If we

could pop that up, I think Michele can see that

connection.

MR. McGHEE: She's got it.

MS. STACONA: I've got it. But I don't

think I was the only one that was confused.

Because you don't want to confuse with the

variance that you could ask for if you want to be

a little bit different, too.

MR. McGHEE: Yeah, which is for the last

section at least.

MR. MORGAN: That is the difficulty
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

578

sometimes when you read just the MICS by itself.

And the confusion that we actually came into, I

think, the first time the group offered a

suggestion to the NIGC, if this is what we're

thinking, until you complete that thought and

look at those examples, it really doesn't

solidify in your mind, okay, yes, I grasp that's

what that means. I agree, it's helpful.

MR. McGHEE: And I think we just have to

remember when we get to the variance section,

that we change that instead of doing it now.

Right? Their actual variance section at the end.

MR. FISHER: So -- go ahead, Matt.

MR. MORGAN: I'm not disagreeing with

that. The only thing that I have, and this is

why I think it's going to start -- some of my

thoughts bleed into Class III, Class II. If I

have a Class III MICS that says I got to apply

for a variance and I have a Class II MICS that

says I have to apply for, for example, an

exception, does that create some undue influence?

And until they say we're going to change both of

them, or we need to recommend that -- --

MR. McGHEE: You can't let Class III hold

us back.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

579

MR. MORGAN: In addition to putting that

on there -- that's the reason I say I don't think

over time we can talk about Class II MICS as a

closed -- as we talk about Class II MICS, there's

no way really to talk about a Class II MICS,

especially if you're talking about from a front

line perspective or operational perspective.

You're not going to have a one cent per drop in

count when I hit a Class II bank versus when I

hit a Class III bank. That's when we do have to

keep that in mind that some of these concepts are

going to bleed over, and that's not our job to

look at that. That may be at least a

recommendation to the NIGC to say, hey, you guys

really need to be consistent in whatever you do

on that concept because that's a global concept

that affects the gaming floor. It's not a Class

II, it's not Class III concept; it's a global

concept.

MR. McGHEE: I do know on the agenda

sometime in the future, there's supposed to be a

discussion about Class III.

MR. FISHER: Where there's overlap.

MR. McGHEE: So definitely would be the

time to say that.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

580

MR. LITTLE: Jess is not in the room?

Okay. Good.

MS. STACONA: Would maybe "discrepancy" be

a better word?

MR. FISHER: So Tom has got his hand up.

And Michele just suggested perhaps using the word

"discrepancy" there.

MR. McGHEE: No. I think discrepancy is a

lot broader.

MR. FISHER: It could be that we need to

actually put this aside because this flows

through every section. There's a whole section

on variances. There's a whole conceptual

approach to variances and changes to the -- in

the standards versus what happens on the floor.

And you're trying to solve both a regulatory

problem and a practical on-the-floor problem at

the same time. And so it could be that we just

need to kind of get out what the concerns are and

then figure out a way to revisit this. Or we can

keep going, whatever the preference is. So Tom,

then Jeff, then Leo.

MR. WILSON: I'm okay because it's a

global thing to -- we know that we've got to

address this before we're all done-done. But I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

581

just wanted to make a conceptual comment about

this term "variance," that it seems to me that in

the section that you're calling -- when you apply

for a variance, that there's almost negative

connotations to that. What you're really asking

for is the approval of alternative procedures.

MS. HAMEL: Yes. It's a true variance.

MR. MORGAN: No, you're not asking our

concept of an alternative procedure because

you're now allowed to have alternative

procedures. You're asking for an alternative

objective, which --

MR. McGHEE: I don't know how many

requests you're going to have once you take away

all the procedure.

MR. WILSON: That's what I'm wondering,

when you're talking about applying for a

variance, a variance from what? A risk?

MR. MORGAN: Good question.

MR. McGHEE: You're applying for a

variance to the regulation.

MR. WILSON: I'm not sure that that whole

variance thing is a real thing anymore. I mean,

because under the old MICS, you applied for a

variance or a something, but that's different in
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

582

this context. What are you going to apply for a

variance for?

MR. MORGAN: I don't know. I'm almost in

agreement with you. I can't think of a thing --

how do you argue that this objective is not a

risk, you know, once it's identified through a

separate -- that this is a risk. You can argue

about how I mitigated the risk, but how do you

actually argue about the risk in the things, such

things need to be controlled? I don't know the

answer to that.

MR. WILSON: I suppose if you could make a

case that risk does not apply to your operation,

that you would be applying for a variance or

whatever to say that I don't need to create a

control over this particular risk because I don't

have that risk.

MS. HAMEL: You don't have to do anything.

MR. CALLAGHAN: If it doesn't apply, it

doesn't apply.

MR. FISHER: Okay. What you just said

questions whether you have a provision that does

this at all. It may be that we need to figure

out a way to revisit this section. So Jeff and

then Leo, and then we'll figure out what to do.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

583

MR. WHEATLEY: To Thomas's point, while we

here can't envision a situation where that might

occur, there's plenty of other operations around

the country that may come up with that situation,

so I don't think that we can foresee that enough

in the future to say that we need to strike that

section. As far as the variance as it applies

here, I think maybe if we just added a definition

of what this type of variance is in the

definitions, that would help to clarify, you

know, whether it be a financial, statistical,

inventory, but not limited to these examples for

a variance. That would help, I think, provide a

lot of insight to what this section is actually

referencing.

MR. CULLOO: My comment had to do about

looking at the potential to possibly change the

word "variance." It's such a

universally-accepted terminology in gaming that

if you change it, it could cause tremendous

amount of confusion to people. So I would

recommend we don't change the word.

MR. CALLAGHAN: When we're looking at

these MICS conceptually, are we looking at it

because we're going to present financial
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

584

statements that need to be audited and certified?

And when you look at risk, that -- to an external

auditor, risk means material statement of

financial statements. Are we looking from an

internal audit standpoint where we're looking at

risk, how much do we think is -- applies to

factors that's in there like from the Class III

world in slot machines, any variance over X

percent. And then or are we doing this with an

NIGC focus, one, to mitigate -- one, to allow the

TGRA to have more authority and not be

specifically driven by a set process, or is --

because my -- you mentioned, Rest, audits that

you do, going with the internal audit. There's

compliance audits, financial audits, functional

audits. It would appear to me that you're going

in and doing the compliance and financial audits?

MR. WEST: No. Just compliance.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Strictly compliance. So

when we look at this, you know, again, that's

what I'm trying to see. I'm looking at this a

lot from a financial standpoint, realizing that

you're going to try to come in and do a

compliance to see if we're in compliance with

this. So you, in essence, will have zero
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

585

tolerance to any -- there's no variance. If you

find something that they're not in compliance

with, it's a plus or -- it's an on or off switch.

So I guess my point is our focus on this is

financial statement driven and controlling the

environment and less so on being concerned about

the compliance factor.

MR. McGHEE: In this one little (c) here?

MR. CALLAGHAN: This fits into that when

we talk about variance. Again, what's a variance

to an external auditor opposed to an internal

auditor.

MR. McGHEE: I mean, wouldn't that be

determined by the TGRA? Not in here, though.

MR. FISHER: Leo then Jeff.

MR. CULLOO: The question is for Matt and

the work group. So you establish -- the TGRA

establishes the MICS and they come in, NIGC, and

they audit the MICS, and you haven't set or met a

standard that mitigates risk, that's their

finding. Does that create a variance, or what

happens there at that point?

MR. MORGAN: I don't know if they're

allowed to audit the MICS anymore, I guess is my

misunderstanding from that. Because what they
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

586

need to audit is their system of internal

controls.

MR. CULLOO: Your internal controls. You

establish and they come in and test them based on

locally, and the test fails their -- they don't

agree that your controls are sufficient to

mitigate risk. Then what happens?

MR. McGHEE: The same thing that would

have happened if they come in and said that your

MICS -- you weren't meeting your MICS. You're

going to do this, and you're going to argue it.

MR. MORGAN: Why did we get into it, kind

of those foundational questions. What we set

forth there is if they disagree, you give notice

to the tribe you disagree, give a reason why.

You sit down and craft a solution before you ever

get to -- eventually you're going to get to

enforcement, if we're all on the same page.

MR. WHEATLEY: To Brian's point, I think

that it's both. They are coming in and auditing

from a compliance standpoint. We've identified

that there's a risk of variances. We all know

they happen. Human error in any number of these

sections. I think they're not necessarily

worried at what level that we handle those
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

587

variances, but that we are handling them through

our TICS. So basically the compliance checklist

is going to be -- they're going to be

investigating and looking for variances and did

we handle them in accordance with our approved

TICS. That would be my thought.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Great.

MR. McGHEE: The language that's here --

MR. FISHER: Tom.

MR. WILSON: Oh, I'm good.

MR. MORGAN: It hasn't gone on the floor

yet.

MR. McGHEE: So the language that's here,

assuming we added section or whatever it was they

said to that, the only thing I hear right now on

the table outstanding might be that a definition,

you know. And then making sure the definition is

vague enough, because are you willing to throw

out there as examples. Really at the end of the

day, it will be a difference in so and so such as

blankety-blank, blank, blank.

MR. WHEATLEY: But not limited to 3 or 4.

MR. McGHEE: It is in the guidance

documents that would be produced. Here is a --

you know, here is an example on variance and
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

588

these are the kinds of variances that could

occur; here is examples of what you should do if

you find a variance. I guess I would like to

know with the language suggested of adding

section or whatever, is there any problems with

this, not the other section that's at the end of

the part, that's at the end of the book?

MR. FISHER: You mean this? And then add

the definition?

MR. WHEATLEY: I don't like "provision."

Sorry. To me, when I hear "provision," it sounds

like a variance from the actual regulations.

MR. FISHER: Okay.

MR. McGHEE: A variance within the

section, right?

MR. FISHER: So you want to, like, think

about the definition. So John?

MR. MAGEE: What I kind of agree with

Jeff, his statement earlier, we need some kind of

definition. I'd like to have it in there. This

all started because of Rest saying he didn't

understand or didn't see a provision or

definition what variances was. So it's kind of

circling back. If we could get back to that and

then draft a language that they're comfortable
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

589

with as well as us. I think maybe that's what

you were working on.

MR. FISHER: I started. Now I just --

MS. LASH: How about within the context of

this section?

MR. FISHER: Who's got an idea for the

definition, what definition?

MS. THOMAS: In the actual guidance

document, they already have a for example on what

variances are. That's actually pretty good

language. It reads, Exceptions against controls,

inconsistencies with established policies and

procedures or deviations from the expected

outcomes.

MR. WHEATLEY: To that point, really

quick, though, if you look at the comparison

document, I think the NIGC felt that was too

vague that definition of variance.

MR. WILSON: Let's talk about that.

MR. McGHEE: They were initially talking

about it should be a number.

MR. CULLOO: Percentage or number.

Numerical.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: We're not just

talking about numbers.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

590

MR. FISHER: If you turn in the comparison

document to the -- to Page 4, that's where the --

I'm in the bingo comparison document, Page 4. It

lays out the guidance and the NIGC comments.

Maybe we can use that as a basis for what to do.

MR. McGHEE: Use the definition in NIGC's

comments that says a variance will have at least

two sets of records originating from different

sources that produce results that are

inconsistent. That was y'all's definition more

or less. So you have -- such as provide the two

on the variance comparison document. The bottom

paragraph is the effect the TGWG proposed

amendment.

MR. FISHER: Page 4?

MR. McGHEE: Yes. And then the third

sentence says variance results from at least two,

blah, blah. If you buy into that, and then say

such as exception to controls and use the i.e.

if you wanted a control.

MR. WHEATLEY: Such as, but not limited

to.

MR. McGHEE: Merge both worlds.

MR. WILSON: The term that NIGC uses,

deviation from expected outcomes, is appropriate
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

591

in a risk-based environment because you're not

defining the -- the entity is defining the

expected outcome. But you're just identifying

that a variance -- when it deviates from whatever

your expected outcome is, that's a variance and

hence you need to put parameters around that of

whatever you're going to do about that. So from

a risk standpoint, that deviation from expected

outcomes fits that model in my perspective.

MR. McGHEE: That's up here in the

example?

MR. WILSON: Yeah, it's in the NIGC

comments. Well, it's up there, too.

MR. WHEATLEY: They're quoting what was in

the guidance documents.

MR. McGHEE: They're just quoting what was

up here. What about do you -- read this one here

in blue. Does that make sense to you?

MR. WILSON: The TGWG comment?

MR. FISHER: Yeah, the -- Kathi, go ahead.

MS. HAMEL: I just had a question. If we

only zero in on two sets of records and two

different sources, I will consider a missing

document a variance.

MR. McGHEE: From a comparison --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

592

MS. HAMEL: There may not be two sources.

Or if a signature is missing from a document,

there's -- it's not two sets of records. It's

not -- but it's still a variance to the

prescribed --

MR. McGHEE: Results from the comparison

documents originating from different sources.

MS. HAMEL: It may not be a comparison.

It may be something just missing.

MR. CULLOO: Missing document.

MS. HAMEL: Or incomplete or --

MR. WHEATLEY: Isn't that going back to

kind of the other definition of variance?

Because you're talking about a missing signature,

you're saying, on a document --

MS. HAMEL: It's an exception against a

control. But that language about two different

documents, two different records, it doesn't --

MR. FISHER: It's not comprehensive

enough. So this brings up -- for me, back to the

question of what problem are we trying to solve?

Because what's not -- we have a bunch of

different pulls and pushes going on here, but it

depends on which part of the variance and what

kind of variance and which part of the section
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

593

you're focused on, you potentially get a

different either definition or result. So a

variance in what context?

MR. McGHEE: A variance -- in the context

of this document. We're going to change the name

variance later, so right now variance only refers

to all the sections other than the variance

section. It sounds funny, but true. I mean,

it's true.

MR. FISHER: We're using the word to

define the word.

MR. WILSON: Just ignore the other --

MR. McGHEE: Ignore it.

MR. WILSON: Just ignore the other future

section called variance. We're not concerned

about that. What we're concerned about is the

definition of variance as used in these sections.

MR. FISHER: Okay. And so that gets you

to a definition of variance that encompasses --

how do you encompass the provision that Daniel

referred to in the NIGC comments and the kind of

variance that Kathi was explaining in terms of

incomplete or missing information?

MR. McGHEE: Assigning it to somebody at

lunch to do.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

594

MR. LITTLE: We're not going to lunch.

MR. McGHEE: Assign it at break.

Obviously it's not happening here.

MR. FISHER: It may be worthwhile to

continue to talk about it as a full group,

whether that's worthwhile. Leo and Jeff.

MR. CULLOO: I never heard a response from

down here in regards to your original question,

what is your objection that it's not clear that

they feel this is not -- what's the word they use

here? You want it elaborated upon. Can you give

an example? You say things like who investigates

and what. Does that include things like

statistical set numbers or percentages; what is

your objection in that proposal?

MR. WEST: This just covers the guidance

document. So it didn't really speak to the

definition of variance.

MR. WILSON: Well, if I read the last

section of the guidance document comment by NIGC,

allowing variance thresholds to be determined by

the TGRA without minimum guidance may lead to

thresholds so high as to technically circumvent

the standard. That's the rationale piece that

I'm trying to understand. In my mind, the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

595

implication of that statement is that without a

definitive threshold, that the TGRAs may -- the

concern seems to be that without a threshold,

let's say, a percentage or whatever, but for sake

of argument, a percentage, that a local TGRA or

the operation might come up with a threshold

that's much higher than that before they would

react. And I guess my response to that would be

I don't know any operators that -- I mean, there

is a common business rationale about this game

and what happens. And variances are something

that maybe can occur, but some variances are

definitely more significant than others, risky.

And so the only thing setting a threshold would

do is set this standard. But the fact of the

matter is, the variance that is risky for you is

-- could very well be a different threshold level

than what is appropriate for my property. So I

guess that's where I have the issue when you set

thresholds as the measurement to -- in which

somebody takes action. I think that that can

only be measured at the local level and not

something that can be dictated up at this level.

MR. WEST: I don't think we're doing that.

It's just speaking to the guidance documents.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

596

That would be normally what's in your standard

operating procedures for revenue audit, at what

point do they look at a cash shortage or

percentage deviation on a gaming machine or

something like that. So, I mean, I'm not --

again, it's just a comment that whoever reviewed

this probably -- I didn't do this one -- the

guidance part. So I think you're drilling down

too deep and getting away from the standards.

MR. WILSON: So it --

MR. WEST: This would be something that

the TGRA would decide in conjunction with gaming

operations; bingo paper shortage, shortage on

bill validators, electronic bingo.

MR. WILSON: So it sounds like -- and I

understand that maybe you can't say this

officially in your capacity, but the concept of a

TGRA establishing the thresholds at which

something happens, you as an individual don't

seem -- as an auditor, seem to be comfortable

with that concept?

MR. WEST: Yeah. I mean, if someone went

out -- especially your financial auditor, they

came out and they thought the threshold was too

high because you might have an impact on -- the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

597

internal controls and financial reporting are

what they're looking at. So maybe there is a

situation that they would object. The same with

us, it's not reasonable. But I think a TGRA is

going to set a reasonable threshold. Or

hopefully they will.

MR. FISHER: Jeff then Mia.

MR. WHEATLEY: I think to the point of the

guidance documents, and I'm just inferring to why

maybe there's no threshold in the guidance

documents. I'm assuming maybe the TGWG didn't

put it in there because it's going to be

different for every property so they didn't want

to be too specific. But the understanding being

that the TICS that are developed by each TGRA are

going to be more specific to their property. It

just gives examples of how you would frame a

variance, what a variance is, and then you are at

that discretion to set that level. I'm fine with

the existing language that was in there. If we

change what the -- applying for a variance still

over all regulations, if you change that, I don't

think there's that much of an issue. I don't

think you would need a definition of what a

variance is. Well, if you change the name of the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

598

other one, I don't think you have to. But it's

-- we certainly can attempt to do that to give

some level of comfort to others.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Well, I'm fine with

that. But if we are going to come up with a

definition of variance, I think that we should do

it in a small group and work on it and think

about it.

MR. McGHEE: I just threw a suggestion up

to start from if we were going to have a

definition.

MR. WILSON: I mean, the question then, I

think, becomes can we vote on (c) or not?

MR. FISHER: Right.

MR. WILSON: Right.

MR. FISHER: Correct. Or do you need to

do more work on it. If you need to do more work,

you should send it into a small group.

MR. WILSON: We've talked about it

legitimately that this has a meaning. But I

guess the question is in order to move forward,

have we beat it to death for purposes of this,

and either we can vote on it or we can't. And if

we can't, then we should --

MR. WHEATLEY: I say we vote and if it
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

599

doesn't pass, then we have to form a small group

to work on it.

MR. FISHER: What are you going to vote

on, this change or the way that you just proposed

dealing with it?

MR. McGHEE: What did you propose?

MR. CULLOO: There's been a few words

changed up there.

MR. WHEATLEY: With the section part in

there without the definition, is how I would vote

on it to see if that satisfies the group. If

not, then we know we need to work in a small

group to come up with perhaps a definition.

MR. FISHER: You'd vote on this.

MR. McGHEE: You can just say later let's

add a definition when you get to the definitions.

MR. FISHER: Let's do it in a two-part

thing, and we can also see what people think of

the definition and if you want to add it or make

more work. All right. So everybody ready?

So --

MS. STACONA: Wait.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: We added what?

MR. FISHER: We added within the context

of this section here.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

600

MS. STACONA: Question. I like where Jeff

was going, that he liked this, but wanted to

change the wording on the other variance at the

end.

MR. WHEATLEY: Yes.

MS. STACONA: That's what we need -- is

that what we're going to vote on, just that?

MR. FISHER: No. On the change to the

next section.

MS. STACONA: But on the conception that

we're going to change the variance?

MR. FISHER: Right.

MS. STACONA: To another name or

something?

MR. FISHER: Right.

MS. STACONA: Okay.

MR. FISHER: I think everybody has agreed

that you got to figure out a different way to

call that there. Okay. So if you're -- in other

words, if your acceptance of this language is

contingent upon a change to that later section,

you can say that, if you wish. Or we could make

that as an understanding we're going to go back

to that section.

MR. WHEATLEY: I think that will be the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

601

understanding.

MR. FISHER: We're going to visit that

section, which is 543.18, if I'm remembering

correctly, and change the language in there, the

names and the terms. All right. So let's check

it. So if you support the version recommended in

section (c) there, variances as we changed it up

on the screen, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okey-doke. That worked.

MR. McGHEE: Can you ask now the question

to be if you think a definition is needed, raise

your hand.

MR. WHEATLEY: Well, I think --

MR. McGHEE: A definition needed. If

everybody says yes, then we'll come up with one.

I'm just saying do we even want one anymore?

MR. FISHER: You want to check. Let's

just try this without asking for consensus yet.

Raise your hand if you think we still need a

definition of variance based on what we just did

above. Raise your hand if you think we need a

definition.

(No hands raised.)

MR. WHEATLEY: Nice.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

602

MR. FISHER: All right. So we have two

stops coming up. One is, by my clock it says

it's 11:20. At 11:30 we're scheduled to do

public comment, so we have to pause to check.

And then we did get requested to break around

11:45 in order to allow people to check out. And

do we know what time the lunch is going to show

up? I think the lunch is going to show up at

noon. So given that we just spent all this time

talking about variance, maybe it's an appropriate

time to take a short break right now. And then

we'll come back and check on the public comment

and then that will swing us into lunch and we'll

move down into the section.

MS. HAMEL: Did they get lunch charged to

the room, or are we checking out before it's

charged?

MR. LITTLE: That would be nice.

MR. FISHER: We'll take a 15-minute break.

(Recess taken at 11:21 a.m. to 11:48 a.m.)

MR. FISHER: So when we paused for our

break, we were at the point where we said we

would come back and pick up with public comment.

So we're schedule-wise, we're a little off from

where we're scheduled to do public comment. So I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

603

checked, and there is nobody that has signed up

for public comment. So if there's anybody in the

audience that wishes to provide public comment to

the TAC, now would be the time. And there's only

one public comment section today, given that

we're going to adjourn at 2:00 p.m. Okay. No

public comment today.

Okay. So we are at about 10 of 12. We

need to be switching to housekeeping things

around 1:30. That means we have a little over an

hour and a half to see if we can get through the

bingo MICS section. And so we could just pick up

where we left off, move through the rest of the

sections. So Daniel?

MR. McGHEE: (d) is not one of those ones

that would be considered a blanket statement.

The title of supervision is in each section, but

it reads differently for each section. So you do

have to consider section (d) by itself alone for

each section.

MR. FISHER: Whereas (a), (b), and (c)

were repeated in all the sections, this section

(d), even though it appears in the other sections

is tailored for each section. Okay. All right.

So let's see if there's questions or
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

604

comments or anything you want to pick up on from

what NIGC commented on in the comparison

document. So we're talking about section (d),

supervision.

MR. McGHEE: What I see, NIGC comments,

the guidance appears to be relevant, so I agree

with it. If you look at the TGWG guide, you just

expound upon why do you have to have that

statement there without getting into detail about

who it should be and those kinds of things. So

that might help you understand the concept on

that.

MR. FISHER: Anybody have any questions?

Is there anything to discuss there?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I want to bring up

the agent, or agent, and we kind of talked about

it yesterday.

MR. FISHER: Do you just want to raise

that and then --

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: (Nodding head up and

down.)

MR. FISHER: Did you want to talk about

the agent provision in that sentence?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Yeah, can we -- or

employee.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

605

MR. FISHER: This goes back to what we

were talking about yesterday.

MR. WHEATLEY: Technical standards.

MR. FISHER: Definition of agent.

MR. McGHEE: It could be from a contracted

employee to whatever your operation deemed it is.

MR. FISHER: So in the MICS, the

definition of agent is the same as what the TGWG

proposed for the technical standards, right? So

we never really did --

MR. McGHEE: We took out the computer

application part.

MR. WHEATLEY: In the technical standards,

but not in this part.

MR. FISHER: We also eliminated the word

"employee" out of the -- and I think that's in

the technical standards.

MR. MORGAN: In the technical standards we

eliminated references of employee.

MR. McGHEE: We didn't take it out of the

definitions.

MR. FISHER: So, Mia?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I will withdraw my

comment and then just it can be specified in the

guidance document.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

606

MR. MORGAN: If it's concern for

agents because it is a global term and we tried

to be broad. It's almost -- I know comfort

level, especially traditionally, it helps to name

especially an employee or a department, because

it's very clear. Under this conceptual change of

trying to make sure you can point out, you know,

or designate whoever you may fit your operation,

it's different. And then the other stretch, is

where appropriate, you can read it as a computer

application. But if it's not appropriate in that

context, then you really can't. But it's hard

to, I don't know, capture that within the

definitions.

MR. McGHEE: We call our people team

members. We don't call them employees.

MR. CULLOO: Teamsters?

MR. McGHEE: Leaders. Well, they call

them other things, too. But so that's why we --

agent was picked as one word for all.

MR. FISHER: Any other questions or

comments about this one? Would you like to --

you want to check whether this is acceptable to

everybody?

MR. WILSON: Are we voting on the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

607

acceptability of item (d)?

MR. FISHER: Yes. If you're ready.

MR. McGHEE: Only in this section, too,

because it's different in every section.

MR. FISHER: If you're ready. Ready? So

if you support the proposed change to section (d)

as put on the screen, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Took care of that one. Okay.

The next section is bingo cards. So, Daniel, did

you want to talk to us about bingo cards?

MR. McGHEE: Well, like I said, it's

almost best to look at it as a new section.

Everything that was once bingo was deleted in the

TGWG's version. You see some red things going on

here. And I think Kathi explained earlier what

has happened.

MS. HAMEL: Well, what really happened is

the NIGC received a draft of this document in May

that they obviously started work on, and the TGWG

made a final submission through the Poarch Creek

document, and those red changes are the

difference between the May document and the

Poarch Creek July document.

MR. McGHEE: So basically the final
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

608

changes in here represent the TGWG's final

thoughts on the matter.

MS. HAMEL: Right.

MR. FISHER: Right. So the -- essentially

what we've been doing is to check whether the

group is -- supports the TGWG -- recommends the

TGWG approach and language or whether there are

changes to be made.

MR. McGHEE: Then what this does, as you

go through the document, is -- let me get to the

page where it's at first. What we did is tried

to identify the areas of bingo that could pose a

risk. And so you identify bingo cards, the draw,

the payouts, the cash equivalent that goes over

that, and then the technological age to that.

And then we took those as the primary subjects of

bingo that need to be looked at. Underneath each

section, it will break down to what part of bingo

cards is important and where is the risk in that.

And we identified it to be physical inventory,

the sales, and that was it. The inventory of

bingo cards and the sale of -- you know. So if

you look at it from that concept, break it down,

and you would need to agree where it says, bingo

cards, physical inventory. And then the bingo
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

609

card inventory must be controlled in a manner

designed to prevent unauthorized access,

misappropriation, forgery, theft, or fraud. Such

controls shall address bingo cards exchanged

between agents, increases and decreases to

inventory and inventory reconciliation. We tried

to think of what could happen with bingo cards,

the topics, so you would know you need to write a

control to alleviate that. So you might identify

this is if you see anything else that might be to

add to that list.

MR. FISHER: So to a certain extent, the

way you might outline is going from section (e),

bingo cards, to the technologic aids section,

they kind of work together because they're

identifying different aspects of the risks

associated with bingo.

MR. McGHEE: So first off, you could say

let's talk about bingo cards specifically, and

then let's break it down and say physical

inventory of bingo cards, let's see if this

covers it, this paragraph. Is it -- how you read

it to see if this met all the areas where the

physical inventory of bingo cards could be

compromised.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

610

MR. FISHER: Another way we could do it is

kind of go to the end and say -- have the -- has

the TGWG recognized and addressed appropriately

the risks associated with bingo, and do these

parts work together, right? So you could just

try to say as a whole, does it work? And then if

it doesn't, then what pieces do you have to focus

on.

MR. McGHEE: You mean identify if bingo

cards, the draw, payouts, cash and cash

equivalent controls that are on -- and

technologic aids, are there six only main risks

identified with bingo?

MR. FISHER: Right.

MR. McGHEE: And if there are additional

ones, we could each put them up and then go back

to the details.

MR. LITTLE: That was exactly our idea;

are there any other areas that the committee

might think need to be addressed.

MR. McGHEE: Maybe you just want to type

those out so they can see them all. I mean, I

don't know.

MR. FISHER: Let's stay with the question

for a second. Are there any other risks that are
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

611

not identified in these sections that people

believe need to be addressed? So do you need a

few minutes to look this through to figure out

how it fits together or -- because nobody is

saying anything. So do you need some time to

look at it? Yes. Okay. Let's pause for a few

minutes and give people a chance to take a look

at it. You're just -- I put those five risks so

they can see them all, just the topics, which

would be bingo cards, draw, payouts, cash and

cash equivalent, technologic aids to the play of

bingo. Those are the primary risks outlined, and

then there's sub-risks. That's kind of the

overview, right?

MR. MORGAN: Shouldn't we add sales to

that list?

MR. WHEATLEY: It's there.

MR. FISHER: Sales is a subset of the

bingo cards, right?

MR. McGHEE: Sales of the bingo cards

would be a sub-risk to -- everything involved in

bingo cards. So bingo cards, if you want to

label that out, you can do a physical inventory,

and sales are the risks associated with bingo

cards. And then for the next one, it doesn't
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

612

have a subset. The only other one that has

subsets are technological aids.

MR. FISHER: Does anybody have any

questions?

MR. RAMOS: I got one comment. I know we

do it with playing cards, and I don't really see

it here. How about the destruction of old

inventory, are we worried about that?

MR. McGHEE: Let's see if it's addressed.

I'd have to look.

MS. HAMEL: Jason, that would be part of

the decreases of the inventory, and I think we

addressed that in the guidance document.

MR. RAMOS: Decrease of inventory is use.

MS. HAMEL: It could be use or

destruction.

MR. McGHEE: See, for example, like if you

would feel more comfortable saying increases,

decreases, and destruction of the inventory, it

perfectly makes sense to put it if you want it.

Because what you're saying is there's -- you're

making sure there's a risk that mitigates it.

MS. LASH: I think it makes sense to add

it in there.

MR. CULLOO: I do, too.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

613

MR. McGHEE: Especially if one person has

a thought whether or not decreasing meant that.

Might as well add it.

MR. FISHER: How should I put it in here?

MR. McGHEE: Increases, decreases, and

destruction to inventory. Put "of" instead of

"to inventory."

MR. FISHER: Okay. Any other comments or

-- so this was a question about any risks were

missing or anything that -- so I don't see

anything.

MR. WILSON: I just have two clarification

items. Not necessarily an issue, just in my own

mind. When we talk about technologic aids to the

play of bingo, what is that referencing? Because

I don't see a definition for it. So I'm just --

MR. MORGAN: CardMinder. The terminal to

control, to control the terminal, that isn't

electronic gaming; CardMinder, that would be the

physical and technological aid to the play of

bingo.

MR. WILSON: Does the guidance document

talk about what technologic aids are, just like

you said, in other words, does the guidance

document --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

614

MR. McGHEE: You need to check it.

MR. MORGAN: Set forth, like, examples of

it? Because one of the worries is if you start

listing, you're going to exclude something,

especially future things that may come into

existence. You kind of have a general idea grasp

of what those things are. I don't know if you

want a for example.

MR. WILSON: In my mind, it was just I'm

always looking for definitions for things, so

when I saw the term "technological aids," and I

have to create controls around whatever those

aids are, it's just clarity that -- and this

probably more has to do with my unfamiliarity of

certain aids surrounding bingo -- that this may

not be something -- for anybody else, it's

obvious what the aids are.

MR. MORGAN: In a session game, like Jeff

said, the blower, the blower of the balls. That

aids you in your play. You know, when we start

getting get into handheld, the CardMinder that

reads it, that's an aid. At a gaming clearing

station terminal, that box is an aid to play, to

displays. Because if that difference of bingo --

the bingo game itself is not a part of that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

615

equipment, but it aids you in your play of the

game.

MR. WILSON: Okay. The other question I

had is just --

MR. FISHER: Wait one second, Tom.

MS. LASH: I was going to respond to the

technologic aid, that it's defined in the statute

and it's already been interpreted by the courts,

so we don't need to go there.

MR. WILSON: Got you. And when we talked

about access, there's a term in here used that --

unauthorized access. And, again, I didn't see a

definition of what -- not who is authorized or

not authorized, but in other words, is the

presumption that each TGRA will establish who's

authorized or not authorized to something from

that standpoint, and that there's some criteria

that's applied to that? So, for example, in the

Class III world, you have to have a Class III

license to have access to certain areas of the

casino, but you don't have to have a Class III

license to have access to other areas of the

casino, so I'm just trying to understand in a

Class II world is --

MR. MORGAN: That general idea still
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

616

applies. Because you always have to consider

what IGRA or who IGRA says needs to be licensed

and what areas they go to or functions that they

perform. I know you'll have that latest

amendment where you can throw in the word "agent"

or you can identify certain functions. But it

does allow the TGRA to develop who they feel like

is authorized for this subject matter. Because

who's authorized in a session bingo game is

different than who's authorized maybe at a

player's station. Trying to create an

overarching standard of what that list is would

depend on what type of game you're using, maybe

even depend upon your operation or significance

you place on that risk.

MR. McGHEE: Authorized list, if you can

do it is not based on the license, it's just

based on what they're going to do. And TGRA has

to approve that list.

MR. WILSON: And in cases -- do all people

that are on that list, for whatever purposes that

they're serving, do they also happen to be

licensed?

MR. McGHEE: We license everybody.

MR. WILSON: Everybody. And I guess
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

617

that's the fundamental question in my mind, is if

somebody isn't licensed, are they automatically

an unauthorized person for purposes of this, or

no?

MR. McGHEE: That would be up to you.

MR. CULLOO: I don't think so. We also

have put in the job descriptions, explain that

level of authority or access to various parts of

the building. So through either your control or

you write up or through that access the job

descriptions that we authorize people to be where

they can and can't be.

MR. MORGAN: Remember on licensing the

individuals, it's always in the context of that

job. It's either 556 or 559. So as a minimum,

your gaming ordinance, you have to bring over

that group of people because the statute says at

least this. But in your gaming ordinance, you

can add to this. And in certain states and

compacts, you license people that are

non-employees, depending on what their function

is. So a lot of that depends on what your

situation is, your level. So therefore we give

that ability at a local level to make that

decision who falls in that group.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

618

MR. WILSON: The only clarification that

you provided was just that, again, in the Class

III world because of compacts and things, that

it's very specific and what people have to be

licensed. So I just didn't know in the world of

Class II that there's such a -- the same kind of

existence that all people have to be --

regardless of anything else, if you're not

licensed, you can't participate in the process, I

guess, is the best way to put it.

MR. FISHER: Kathi and Daniel. And then

in case you didn't notice, our lunch has showed

up. And after those two comments, we can pause

momentarily to get lunch.

MS. HAMEL: Tom, maybe to help answer your

question, in the guidance document, we tried to

give some examples of authorization levels and

potential titles that may help explain

unauthorized access.

MR. WILSON: Okay.

MS. HAMEL: That you would establish what

is authorized, and everything outside of that

scope would be unauthorized.

MR. McGHEE: So as I'm listening, I

believe we're doing some good comments and a lot
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

619

of it comes from getting what I now call the

details of the primary risks. And I haven't

heard if there was any other primary risks --

MR. FISHER: I haven't heard any.

MR. McGHEE: -- identified. Because then

we can take each one and start getting the

details of different things.

MR. FISHER: Why don't we pause for --

MR. McGHEE: I don't know if anyone right

now has one. Nobody has thought of another one

yet?

MR. FISHER: Nobody has mentioned

anything.

MR. McGHEE: Then if we start with each

one, we may then identify something to add to it.

MR. FISHER: So let's pause for lunch.

When we come back, we're going to review the

section on bingo cards.

(Recess taken at 12:17 p.m. to 12:27 p.m.)

MR. FISHER: What would you like to do

here, you want to ask people --

MR. McGHEE: I don't think they can vote

on it if they're okay with it because something

might develop. But since there's none to add to

it now, let's start with physical inventory and
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

620

the details of it.

MR. FISHER: Okay. But that formulation

that's in the physical inventory, that's also

repeated in various ways throughout the comments?

MR. McGHEE: Not really.

MR. CULLOO: Some of it is.

MR. McGHEE: Depends on what you're

talking about.

MR. FISHER: Let's check to see if people

have comments or questions about the physical

inventory section or the approach to physical

inventory.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I just want to make a

comment that just adding the destruction of

inventory, I did already interpret it included in

the definition -- or the increase in the

decrease, that it was included as a decrease.

MR. RAMOS: I'll say that while I respect

that opinion, this is a basic standard. So if

you leave it the original way, you're leaving --

you're allowing for unused bingo paper to either

end up in another facility, sold by other

employees. It's like if we're not going to use

it, then it's worthless. There should be some

consideration if it's not going to be used.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

621

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: And I agree, but

there's also, like, a cancellation, a void.

There's all sorts of other -- that now we're

saying that this is more important than those

others.

MR. McGHEE: Do you think it weakens it by

adding it?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I just thought it was

already covered.

MR. FISHER: For that phrase increases or

-- increases and decreases of inventory covered

that, and it covered the other things you

mentioned?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: It does.

MR. FISHER: Okay. What should we do with

that?

MR. McGHEE: I don't think adding hurts

it. I mean, depending on interpretation, some

people would say decreases takes care of the

destruction. But in the case where some don't,

it doesn't hurt to have it. Because it doesn't

weaken it necessarily. So from my point of view,

I could take it or leave it. I'm not opposed one

way or the other. Because if it weren't there, I

would assume that decreases meant that, but since
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

622

it's there, it just kind of cements it.

MS. HAMEL: How about "including but not

limited to"?

MR. FISHER: Right.

MS. HAMEL: So that you don't forget all

the other types of decreases.

MR. FISHER: Like that? Is that what

you're -- does that get at what you were saying?

MR. RAMOS: I think so.

MR. FISHER: Michele?

MS. STACONA: Refresh my memory, but are

guidance documents going to go out with these?

MR. McGHEE: Uh-huh.

MS. STACONA: Because I know all this is

really vague. And just making sure if the

guidance documents that talks about all this

other stuff that can come up that's not addressed

here is going to be kind of out there, too, then

I don't see problems arising if you get it to

this vague level, if you issue guidance

documents.

MR. FISHER: That's a very interesting

question about partly the -- well, the status of

the guidance documents and whether you're talking

about the concept of guidance documents or the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

623

specific guidance documents that were proceed by

the TGWG.

MS. STACONA: I don't care whether who

does it, but I believe -- we're getting into a

lot of issues out there that even the TGWG

guidance had examples of things in here that

address each of these, and I think some type of

document out there needs to be available because

this is -- it's gone down to a general idea now.

And you're going to miss people out there, I

guarantee it. I'm an auditor, an accountant just

by nature, and I get where this is going, but

you're going to have a lot of people that aren't

like that, that are going to miss this whole

concept of what else do I look for like at the

detail level. But if you have something like

that out there where they can refer to, I think

that will help.

MR. McGHEE: The guidance document will be

driven by what's here, so if you could think of

something, say, that you're thinking, well, I

don't see it up there, but it for sure should be

in that guidance document, it needs to be able to

at least -- whatever you're thinking of has to at

least tie to one of those words.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

624

MS. STACONA: And it did. What I was

thinking of from the moment you order the

documents to make sure that nobody can -- outside

your operation can get on your phone and call

your vendor and say, I want bingo cards delivered

to so and so, and do you have policies and

procedures to stop that. But when I look in the

guidance documents, it talks a little about that

kind of stuff.

MR. McGHEE: But that would be

misappropriation. Would that fall under what

you're thinking could happen?

MS. STACONA: Yeah.

MR. McGHEE: Would that fall under one of

those forgery, theft, or fraud?

MS. STACONA: Yeah, I tried to fit it in

all of those, but I kind of refer to the guidance

document going through my mind, okay, what if

this happened, what if this happened, what if

this happened, would it catch all that. But if

you don't think of all that like you do an

auditor or an accountant, you're going to miss

some of this stuff.

MR. McGHEE: Yeah, like the -- whichever

the -- if they go this way and NIGC provides
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

625

guidance documents, the people should be able to

look at that guidance document and say if I at

least do all of this in the guidance document, I

will have satisfied that risk, at least at a

minimum level. So it -- if it's a TGRA who

doesn't have a lot of experience in the area,

then they would want to rely on the NIGC

guidance, advice, technical assistance in trying

to say are my controls strong enough, you know

what I mean?

MR. MAGEE: To kind of pick up where

Michele left off or add to, part of the concerns,

listening to Matthew, is that, you know, you're

streamlining these regulations from 300 pages to

100 pages, however you put that. Which brings my

mind, you know -- prior life I sat on the council

for a number of years and we're always concerned

about protecting the tribe, protecting the image

of the tribe, integrity of the gaming. And if

it's not spelled out, and a lot of the

regulations are left up for interpretation and/or

left up to another tribe to insert, what begs the

question in my mind is the integrity of the

gaming, you know. Again, you want to leave it up

to the TGRA, but on the other hand, that just
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

626

leaves us a lot of room for interpretation. And

I can see that this in some respects weakens the

industry. And I'm not trying to be a hindrance

here, but I also need to think long term for the

industry and for my tribe and other tribes yet to

get into gaming, what are the possible downfalls

or the side effects of streamlining the

regulations. That's just a general comment that

I wanted to make and something that's been

bugging me for a couple of days.

MR. FISHER: Let's go to Tom and then

Matt.

MR. WILSON: The -- I think the difficulty

in -- and I won't even say this concept because

it's not a really a concept as it is just a --

MS. HAMEL: A proposal.

MR. WILSON: -- of this proposal is it

puts the responsibility on the tribes that they

have not had before. And so inherent with this

methodology is the empowerment that a tribe

through whatever mechanism, be it internally or

through -- you know, however they would come to

say we've got to give up the controls around

these risks. And on one hand, that is a very --

allows a great amount of what could be perceived
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

627

as freedom to a tribe, but I'm of -- myself and

my tribe are of the opinion that we are -- we are

perfectly capable of reaching the appropriate

controls to mitigate the risks. But more

importantly, if the NIGC did not exist, if the

MICS did not exist, we would still be controlling

our operation the same way. And that it's not --

what drives us is not having MICS. What drives

us is protecting the integrity of the game and

protecting the assets of the tribe. So if all of

this didn't even exist, we would still be taking

the same approach to how do we achieve this.

MR. MORGAN: I guess a global -- I don't

know if it's global. Going back to, John, your

comment. I do understand your concern. I mean,

that's something that we contemplated a lot, how

far is too far. Especially given public

perception of gaming, Indian gaming that exists.

And we want to make sure that you protect the

integrity. You want to make sure you protect the

reputation. If you don't have those two things,

you don't have players, you don't have an

operation. And something that's came out today,

which quite honestly I wasn't sure how it was

going to work out, but it seems this is the way
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

628

it keeps going back to is that when you read the

standards, when there's questions, it's almost

like we're agreeing that now that I've read the

guidance document, I can agree with that because

I understand it. So it's almost a question comes

back to do we somehow need to quote, unquote,

"bless" that guidance document. And if so, how

do we do that?

MR. LITTLE: Maybe you need to address a

general overriding, you know, point that --

MR. MORGAN: My suggestion is -- because

my worry is that if we get into a line-by-line

section, we're not going to get done. And I do

think it's incumbent upon us that we do need to

read those to help our understanding. But

basically if you don't have an objection to

something within the guidance document and you

can't agree that this is but one way to

accomplish that objective, that that is provided

as a recommendation to the NIGC that we do

recommend that you adopt this guidance document

to go along with this standard, you know. And

I'll say, I am going back to what I thought the

way it would work, because I was worried about

bogging down. But that seems to be helpful for
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

629

folks to do, if I read those, because the -- it's

kind of a total package. You can't read one side

without reading the other and get a good grasp of

it and would that be helpful to do that. And

maybe that goes to your comment, John. And I was

thinking, if it's pared down too much, we're just

not only talking about the standards. We're now

talking about the guidance document in support of

that standard, in a sense.

MR. MAGEE: Yeah, and I agree with you,

Matthew, but I'm just concerned long term for the

industry and for the tribe's reputation and that

if it's -- if we don't fill in those holes or

gaps with something, somebody is going to take

advantages that may not be in the best interests

of the industry at all in total. And I can think

of a number of examples. I think we all can.

But I'm not going to go down that road. I think

maybe you're right. You make a reference to the

guidance documents and someplace, somehow, maybe,

you know, NIGC says we can accept those as

guiding principles, I'm not sure. But at some

point, yeah.

MR. WILSON: The -- I don't think that

this can be successful without a guidance
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

630

document. If NIGC were to, let's just say, adopt

the MICS as they stand, but for whatever reason

decide we don't need to -- it's not our worry to

have to come up with a guidance document or

whatnot, I mean, it's clear that the fundamental

risk in this whole process is that somebody is

going to get it wrong. And that's the fear that

I hear you saying, that you know what, this is

all great conceptually, and for people that get

it, they get it and it makes sense. But for

people who might not get it, or more importantly,

who have designs to do something other than what

the right integrity thing to do is, could they

take advantage of this or claim, you know,

something that, well, gosh, I interpreted it this

way. I will say that one of the safeguards to

that is through the auditing. I mean, that is

part of the process. That is part of the control

that's inherent in having any process. But I

think that if we don't make a statement that

guidance has to be a part of this -- and from my

perspective, I view it as two separate things.

And maybe developing the guidance is another

process because, you know, here we're talking

about approving the risks that we're trying
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

631

mitigate. The guidance really helps to determine

the kinds of controls and things that you need to

consider and think about to get there. And so, I

mean, I'm just wondering if it's sufficient for

us to say that at the end of the day, there has

to be a strong guidance document that goes part

and parcel with the MICS in this type of mix,

otherwise you can't really adopt this type of

MICS and expect to have the success that you'd

like to have.

MS. LASH: I would just like to reinforce

Tom's point. I think it is very important that

we have guidance documents that go with these

MICS just for that clarification. And I think

it's also important that this group approve the

guidance documents. And this is kind of in

response to the question Matt put out there, how

do we do it. And I thought we would probably

address it more in detail at our next closed

session, but I'll throw it out there now. I

think a good way to do that would be to have each

person, as we go through these parts, each TAC

member review the guidance documents. And if you

have an issue or concern with something in the

guidance document, bring that forward and we can
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

632

discuss issues. And if there aren't issues or we

can make the changes, then we would approve the

guidance document and present that as a

recommendation for the NIGC, along with the MICS

as we're working on them. But I do think it's

important that we review the guidance documents

and we also approve those and for those.

MR. FISHER: I as well need to figure out

how we're going to do that. So Daniel, then Leo.

MR. McGHEE: I would disagree with trying

to approve the guidance document that came with

this to be the one used or going to be used.

They're longer and they're more detailed. And

experience has shown, even with such a small

statement as this, there's a difference of

opinion. When you get into this, several

difference of opinions on how exactly that should

go, it would take a really long time to settle on

one document. What I think we might want to

consider is that if we're going further with this

alternative procedure, that we don't recommend

this procedure, period, unless guidance documents

-- it's accompanied by guidance documents from,

you know, the NIGC. You know, they may use this

document. They may be -- at the end of the day,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

633

right now, from what I was hearing is, yeah, it's

the tribe's responsibility to make sure their

operation has integrity and this kind of thing.

But what I was kind of maybe hearing, and maybe

wrong, is sometimes it's helpful to be able to

say we also have the federal government, you

know, just doing this, but it adds to the

integrity. Maybe or maybe not. But at least we

can say if the NIGC issues this guidance document

and it says if I at least follow these, I will be

hitting the minimum, it's really no different

than the minimum approach than you had before.

So you would be no further away from a position

of integrity to the federal government than you

were before, you know what I mean? It's not --

the difference is it's not mandated as it once

was. Nothing wrong with having those controls

and then providing them. Because if I were new,

inexperienced, I would welcome it and say, okay,

I feel comfortable knowing I'm the first year

administrator of this mission; that if I at least

make sure these are all followed, I'm safe. And

then as I go along, I can strengthen them. So I

think we need to buy on we don't support this

document unless it is accompanied by guidance
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

634

documents. And then knowing that means there

will be guidance documents with this. Instead of

saying if there's a guidance document, it will be

a matter of yeah. I don't want to prove the

guidance document. We did guidance documents,

but even TGWG doesn't spend a lot of time as a

big group on them. It was just here's how we do

it, here's a good way of doing it. We've never

had a finding. You know what I mean? So I don't

-- a recommendation, we agree with

recommendations, but I don't review them as a

group. I do agree with reviewing them prior to

coming to the meeting as a supplement to you

coming to the big decision, but not --

MR. LITTLE: I would add on that, you

know, you may want to think about a

recommendation, overarching recommendation, like

both Dan and Matt and Tom and others have talked

about, that does provide some gravity to this

issue that this process that you're going down --

and once again, I'll say, the commission has made

a decision; we can support it or not. If you are

going to go down this, you should probably -- or

think about doing an overarching recommendation

that these guidance documents are imperative to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

635

the entire process here, and without them, I'm

not sure if it works. And then also, maybe

amongst yourselves, you should talk about how,

with that in mind, that you're going to be using

guidance documents that the specific regulations

may not necessarily need to be as specific as

they were without a guidance document. So just

something to think about as you move forward

here. It is important to the commission that

these recommendations that you make will have,

you know, gravity, larger gravity or heavier

gravity than notes that I'll be taking or we'll

be reading off the transcript.

MR. CULLOO: I agree with the importance

of the guidance documents. On example, a way to

comply. And if we start trying to approve them,

just on that one thing about the destruction of

the card, and then you heard some other, I don't

know how we'd come to a consensus on that. It

would seem to me that one example and then who

determines what that example is. And is that

example the clearest example we could give to the

group, to anyone looking at it. So fundamentally

I think it's great to have, but I don't know how

we get there and not get involved in minutia,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

636

whose example is the better example to use.

MR. MAGEE: Not to get too bogged down on

this, because I think we should get moving on. I

just made my comments along with Michele's as to

kind of, I don't know, just to give background

from where I'm coming from. But, you know, I

kind of agree in protecting the tribe's

sovereignty, tribal self-governments, you know.

I'll support that 100 percent. But, you know,

Tom has raised several times in the last couple

times is the risk, identify the risk. Well, the

risk of taking out some of these procedures and

putting them into a guidance document and not

having them included as part of the overall

regulations does create the risk. It creates a

risk of having somebody else interpret and

creates a guideline for -- create a situation

that might not be in the industry's best

interests, which overall affects the tribes, in

general, in our integrity to provide gaming. So

having said that, I mean, we could debate this

issue forever on the philosophy of putting it in.

But I wanted to pick up on what Tom was talking

about earlier, risk and, you know, he has the

ability, they would do this no matter what. But
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

637

not all tribes have that sophisticated -- and I

guess there are some people who probably would

not follow industry best practices. But I am --

I am supportive of moving forward, though.

MR. FISHER: It actually raised a really

important question, because people have been

referring to the guidance or this issue I can

take care of in the guidance. So how we and how

you decided to handle the guidance and the

relationship of the guidance to the

recommendations is a really important question to

figure out. Matt and Jeff.

MR. MORGAN: Just really quickly. One of

the things I try to keep in mind is that when you

devise internal controls, you can design the best

internal control, but you could never account for

human nature. I mean, if a person -- and that

could be multiple persons are going to do what

they're going to do no matter how well the system

is designed. That's when enforcement becomes

very important, unfortunately. That's the way

you have to turn to. And, you know, to try to

strive to do your best to design a workable,

flexible document that fits more people, more

situations, I think that it is true, you have to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

638

keep in mind -- there are going to be people out

there, in my opinion right now, that are not

following what they put down as very procedural.

That's just the truth. There are probably groups

out there that do that. And that's always going

to have an element out there and a risk.

MR. MAGEE: Somebody in our casino is

stealing from us right now. We just don't know

who it is.

MR. WHEATLEY: And I understand where John

is coming from, but I think there's still that

level of oversight there. And I just see from

your independent auditors to ensure that the

tribe has developed strong enough controls to be

able to comply with the new regulations. And,

you know, if the audit comes back from either

NIGC or your independent auditors that those

controls aren't large enough or strong enough,

they're going to report that and they're going to

make recommendations that will be strengthening

those areas. That's all I got.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So where does that

leave us? We've got a couple of different

suggestions, one of which was an overarching

recommendation that this -- the way that the, I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

639

guess, the structure of the -- of what has

developed here by the TGWG and what's proposed is

based on having guidance documents so that you

have an overarching recommendation of that.

We've had some people say maybe we should be

looking at the guidance documents, and other

people saying use them for reference purposes but

not go as far as to try to approve or recommend

specific guidance documents. So what's your --

how would you like to proceed here?

MR. MAGEE: Procedural issue. We don't

have guidance documents on the agenda for

approval. It seems to me that we should have at

the next agenda maybe a conclusion of this and to

stay on track with today's agenda, have that

discussion for later.

MR. FISHER: Later. Okay.

MR. WILSON: Are you comfortable with that

discussion later, that it doesn't preclude voting

on this?

MR. MAGEE: Absolutely.

MR. McGHEE: I'm just curious. I think

the part about saying that we support this

document only when it's accompanied by guidance

documents is important to do now. Because you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

640

don't really want to talk about the bingo section

without that. As far as the details of how you

want to deal with those guidance documents, look

at them closely, whatever, that should be later.

But we have to at least all agree that if these

-- if the way this is written were adopted

tomorrow by NIGC, we would only be comfortable

with that if it was accompanied by guidance

documents. That needs to be something we all

understand and say -- otherwise I don't even want

to look at this anymore if you're not going to do

guidance documents. At least as a

recommendation. That's all we can really do.

But that's got to be decided before we go any

further because why look at the small section,

because if they didn't produce a guidance

document with it, I wouldn't be in favor of

approving the bingo section.

MR. MAGEE: I think at this point the

guidance document is only a reference to the

sections, which is fine.

MR. McGHEE: I don't want this to be put

out there by NIGC without guidance documents.

MR. FISHER: Let's go to Steve and then

back to Dan.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

641

MR. GARVIN: I'm only comfortable voting

on some of these based on the guidance documents.

So could that possibly be part of your position

paper or the cover letter that we discussed where

you hit on the importance of it? That way I'll

know it's built in there and we all understood

that was going to be part of the -- part of our

discussion, part of our agreement.

MR. WILSON: I can do better than that. I

think we should just recommend right now exactly

what is being said, that the overarching

principle is if there's not guidance documents

associated with that document that we're

discussing, then it's a show-stopper, I guess.

Because we're all agreeing that without

guidance -- I mean, we all have different reasons

for wanting the guidance, but it seems like we're

in agreement, there's got to be guidance. And

maybe the issue isn't -- I'm not so concerned

right now about the technical look, feel, words

of the guidance, as I am about the concept that

there has to be guidance documents with this part

and parcel.

MR. McGHEE: We could still put it in that

paper. I just want to make sure everybody is in
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

642

agreement with that.

MR. WILSON: I would kind of like to leave

here today knowing that we all as a TAC believe

that principle. And I don't have any problem

speaking for my tribe going on record to that

fact.

MR. LITTLE: Can I raise a procedural

issue? The process to how it would play out is

that we would receive your recommendations and

then we would go into a notice of proposed rule

making. It would not include guidance documents,

to tell you right now. We'll publish it. We

will then open a comment period, and then we will

go and consult with tribes. Once that's

concluded, then we'll go for final rule making,

and if there's no major objection, only after the

rule became final is when we would then work on

guidance documents. If that was the path the

commission decided they wanted to go down. So

you should maybe think about that.

MR. McGHEE: That doesn't stop us from

recommending that.

MR. LITTLE: Am I correct, Mike?

MR. McGHEE: We're not asking it to be

published, guidance documents be published.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

643

MR. LITTLE: Am I correct in that?

MR. HOENIG: Yes, you're correct. And

then depending -- but, yeah, there's nothing to

stop them from suggesting the -- stop the group

from suggesting the guidance, but it won't be a

part of the rule-making process.

MR. WILSON: One quick point, though.

Could not the regulations state the NIGC has to

create appropriate guidance to support the

regulation, the implementation of the regulation?

And then that way, you are directed that you have

to create these guidance documents or something

in order for the effective implementation of the

regulation.

MR. LITTLE: That's a good point. I will

ask them. It depends on how we write the rules.

MR. HOENIG: It depends on how you write

the rule. And it depends on -- I mean, you could

probably reference them. I haven't done any

research on this exact situation, this exact

scenario. But you could reference guidance

documents. You know, I think -- I can't give a

definitive answer right now. I don't know. I

haven't looked at this particular situation.

But, yeah, I think that -- I don't see any reason
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

644

why the regs themselves couldn't reference a

general guidance document. You wouldn't want to

be too specific because -- and if certain

documents change, you don't want to have to go

back and amend the regulation again.

MR. McGHEE: For instance, like 543.5,

5(c), could technically be a section that somehow

it did that?

MR. HOENIG: I'm sorry, can you repeat

that?

MR. McGHEE: You're talking about

including it in here. You'd have to put it in

here at 543.5, blah, blah, blah, whatever we

decide to come up with the language here. It

could be in there and that would be -- the

guidance documents would be accompanied by, you

know --

MR. HOENIG: Yeah, you could.

MR. McGHEE: To be provided as needed,

whatever.

MR. HOENIG: Guidance documents or see

NIGC guidance documents or however it is. But

until -- I mean, just to raise another point,

until those guidance -- you want to have

everything ready at the same time because you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

645

don't want a rule going out that's referencing

guidance documents that don't exist, that are

then being talked over. Because then you have

some giant gap where what's being pointed to

doesn't exist.

MR. FISHER: That also might create a time

delay.

MR. HOENIG: Yes. Okay.

MR. FISHER: I started to write it down.

I don't know if this captures it or not. Jeff?

MR. WHEATLEY: So as a part of -- when

this new rule comes out, whatever the

commission's set of regulations is, there's going

to be a time frame in which tribes would have to

comply, correct, where they would have to -- each

TGRA would have to submit what their tribal

controls are that shows they're complying with

this new regulation. At that point, that's going

to give --

MR. LITTLE: No.

MR. WHEATLEY: Just have to have them?

MR. McGHEE: Have them in place.

MR. WHEATLEY: I'm not saying approve

them, but I'm saying they have to be on hand for

the NIGC to review to look at and be able to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

646

audit against.

MR. LITTLE: Right.

MR. WHEATLEY: At that point is when -- if

there are any deficiencies within that particular

operation and within their internal control

standards, that's when the work and guidance

documents can be provided to that operation to

assist them in strengthening their controls, is

my thought process behind that. So I don't know

that -- I mean, most operations already have

these in place. They already have their internal

controls in place, and they're pretty much going

to be complying immediately for the most part, is

my impression. So I don't see it -- if it's that

large of an issue, other than making the general

statement that obviously internal control

policies have to make this possible. They have

to be strong enough to comply with this

regulation.

MR. FISHER: Matt.

MR. MORGAN: This is to pick up an earlier

point in the day from Kathi. It's one of the

reasons that doing this in order was so

important, because 543.3 talks about a lot of

this stuff and how you set up this overarching,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

647

and I'll say system of internal controls of how

you take care of a lot of these things. It's

543(b) says, one, that the TGRA must, in

accordance with the tribal gaming ordinance,

determine whether and to what extent their TICS

require revision to ensure compliance with this

part; that's (b)(1). Now, (b)(2) says how long

do you have to come in compliance. (c) says

SICS. You know, SICS internal controls and the

gaming operation must develop and implement a

SICS that, at a minimum, complies with the TICS.

And if you go read the definition of what that

SICS is is an overall operational framework for a

gaming operation incorporating principles of

independence and segregation of function

comprised of written policies, procedures, and

standard practices based on overarching

regulatory standards specifically designed to

create a system of checks and balances in order

to safeguard the integrity of a gaming operation

and protect its assets. So you would go into it

knowing you have to kind of have all of this in

place in order to meet that. And so I do

understand your concern of how we do that. I

agree with the attorney. There are several ways
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

648

you could do that. And, hopefully, there will be

several guiding documents out there floating

around that could achieve that. But when you

adopt this rule, it already calls for that. And

that was one of the reasons that Kathi brought up

this morning that it's so important that you kind

of move in order there, because it does set the

framework of how all of this works together.

MR. FISHER: One thing we could do to move

ahead, given the time, is to go back to the bingo

section, see if there's anything in the bingo

section that on its face is a problem or needs to

be changed, and then kind of say tentatively, we

like it, but we have to make sure we're okay with

the beginning parts of the regulation first. And

then pick that up at the next meeting. So we

might be able to conclude the bingo section,

conditioned upon the other things happening. Or

we may have to figure out if we can do any more

work on bingo right now before we switch to our

housekeeping tasks.

MS. LASH: I just wanted to kind of touch

on the important aspects here. So we have the

MICS, and the MICS identify risks and set a

minimum standard of mitigating risks. So that's
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

649

the MICS. Secondly, then, we have the guidance

documents, and they provide a way to address the

risks. Thirdly, we have compliance with the

guidance documents, and that provides a safe

harbor of satisfying the MICS. And lastly, the

existence of guidance documents still allows

other ways of compliance. And I think that's

just kind of the framework to keep in mind as

we're discussing these points. We're dealing

with MICS right now.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Repeat number four.

MS. LASH: The existence of guidance

documents still allows other ways of compliance.

MR. FISHER: What do you want to focus on,

the overarching recommendation, or back to the

bingo provisions?

MR. WILSON: I'd like to call for a vote

for the overarching statement up there. You

know, we recommend that. Because I don't sense

from the group until we do that, that we can

really move on.

MR. FISHER: Okay. People want to take a

look at this language. I was just jotting down

things that I heard, so this may or may not

capture what you have in mind.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

650

MR. MORGAN: Last line, NIGC will create

the appropriate guidance; last line.

MR. WILSON: Create or adopt.

MS. LASH: Create or adopt appropriate

guidance.

MR. CULLOO: Shouldn't we add "needed"?

MR. WILSON: Appropriate guidance.

MR. McGHEE: My comment was only that as I

was thinking about it, it's not uncommon because

even in the current regs that are out there, it

says a minimum bank roll formula is available

upon request. They can call you and they can

provide you with guidance on what a minimum bank

roll formula looks like. Checklists are

available by request. All we're doing is saying,

please have guidelines, guidance documents

available upon request that someone could say,

Hey, I'm not comfortable, do you have something I

can go by that will put me in compliance? Yes,

here you go. So it's not uncommon.

MR. MAGEE: They also issue bulletins for

clarification as well.

MR. McGHEE: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: All right.

MR. WILSON: Let's test it.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

651

MR. FISHER: Okay. Let's test it. If you

support the recommendation that's up on the

screen, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: You switched hands. Just

checking to see if there was any significance to

that. Okay. That's good, everybody. It's good.

So I'll mark this one. Okay. So now you want to

go back to bingo?

MR. WILSON: My challenge to my fellow

TAC-ians is that we complete bingo.

MR. FISHER: Don't forget, we have some

housekeeping things to do, and we're scheduled to

adjourn at 2.

So here is the bingo card section. So

Daniel suggested we do these sections, the risk

categories category by category. So this is the

bingo card section.

MR. McGHEE: Physical inventory.

MR. FISHER: Physical inventory first.

MR. McGHEE: Period. Just that.

MR. FISHER: So you want to change this?

MR. McGHEE: I don't understand why it's

in parens, is all. It decreases --

MR. FISHER: Is that what you're saying?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

652

MR. McGHEE: That's not what I'm saying.

MR. FISHER: No?

MR. WILSON: Inventory reconciliations is

a control. Can somebody help me to understand?

Because I know we added that.

MR. FISHER: Can you wait. I didn't

understand.

MR. McGHEE: More or less like you had it.

It was decreases, comma, included but not limited

to destruction of inventory, comma. No parens.

MR. FISHER: You want it to say this?

MR. McGHEE: That's basically what was

suggested.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Tom?

MR. WILSON: Jason, I think what you --

I'm trying to understand.

MR. RAMOS: Mine wasn't reconciliations.

Mine was destruction.

MR. McGHEE: The only thing added was

what's in between the commas.

MR. WILSON: I just want to point out the

inventory reconciliations is a control you use to

determine if you have variances, I guess. I'm

just trying to understand the context of that

inventory reconciliations in there.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

653

MS. THOMAS: I would read it you have to

have controls for inventory reconciliation.

MR. FISHER: That's what it is. Such

controls shall address inventory reconciliation.

This is a long string.

MR. WILSON: Okay. That makes perfect

sense.

MR. FISHER: Anything else in the physical

inventory section?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Leo was pointing out

that increases and decreases, and then you put a

comma, and when you took it out of parentheses,

you're talking about destruction. Now you're

talking about destruction as increases and

decreases, where destruction is only to decrease.

But now you just changed it to refer to increase.

MR. FISHER: Do you understand what she's

saying?

MR. McGHEE: Yeah, I do.

MR. WHEATLEY: You could say increases and

decreases of inventory, destruction of inventory,

and inventory reconciliation.

MR. FISHER: All right. That would be

cleaner. Give me a second to get there, okay?

So anything more on the physical inventory?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

654

Ready to move on to sales?

MR. McGHEE: We're going by section,

right?

MR. FISHER: You wanted to vote on each

individual section? Okay. If you support this,

given the overarching recommendation that we did

immediately preceding this, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. Done.

Bingo sales. Okay. Anybody have

questions, comments, concerns, suggestions?

MR. McGHEE: I mean, could anyone think of

when sales involved -- is there any other thing

to consider besides recording the sales that

happen, tracking them, and reconciling them at

the end of the day, basically, that needs to be

mitigated? Because the part I remember including

voids was something that was added by -- we added

to it as what do we want to do when we want to

void something. It's not necessarily -- someone

thought of it later, so we had a concern. So it

may be something. We may be missing something.

Y'all need to look at it and make sure.

MR. FISHER: Anybody identify anything

that's missing in response to Daniel's request?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

655

MR. McGHEE: We tried to track out when we

had a session.

MR. FISHER: All right. So anybody have a

comment? No. Okay. So shall we test it? So if

you agree with --

MR. McGHEE: There's (ii) and (iii) to

that section of bingo sales.

MR. FISHER: That's what I forgot. Jeff?

MR. WHEATLEY: Can someone help explain

(ii) to me? Maybe it's my ignorance of session

bingo. But when a sale of -- the sale of bingo

cards is recorded manually, such sales must be

verified by an independent agent. So the sale

has to be watched by somebody else? I don't

understand.

MS. HAMEL: It's the recording has to be

-- when they're recorded manually, they have to

be verified by somebody independent of the person

that performs the sale.

MR. WHEATLEY: For each sale?

MS. HAMEL: No, it's the recording the

whole of those sales.

MR. WHEATLEY: For the day, like an audit?

MS. HAMEL: Yes, the sale of bingo cards.

MR. WHEATLEY: So in other words, an audit
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

656

of the manual -- the record of sales?

MS. HAMEL: It could be that it's -- it

could be a cashier; smaller operations it could

be a security officer; it could be helping you

guys, someone independent from the person that

sold the cards.

MR. WHEATLEY: Okay.

MR. FISHER: Did that answer your

question?

MR. WHEATLEY: I believe so.

MR. FISHER: I think that's the purpose of

saying "such sales," if I had to guess. Okay.

Any other questions of comments, bingo sales,

(i), (ii) or (iii)? So you ready to test it?

Okay. So if you support this recommendation

raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. All right. Next

section is on subsection -- I guess I should say

is on the draw. Any questions or comments or

suggestions? People need another minute to read

it?

MR. McGHEE: I think people are still

reading.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Take a minute to read
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

657

it.

Okay. Ready to test it? Yeah, I didn't

hear anything. Okay. So if you support the

recommendation for the draw, the draw language on

the screen, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. Done.

Next section is on what used to be manual,

now it's payouts. Okay. Any comments?

Questions about this section? Everybody ready to

test it?

MR. WILSON: Point of clarification.

Where it says the controls established in

subpart, and then Class II gaming systems, that's

all crossed out. But the new subpart is the

technologic aids in play of bingo, there's a

subpart called that; is that correct?

MR. WHEATLEY: Are you in cash or --

MR. McGHEE: We're in payouts.

MR. WILSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm anxiously

moving ahead.

MR. FISHER: Some of us are ready to move

ahead. Plus, time-wise, we need to pick up the

pace. Because we want to accomplish bingo before

we're done and we still have a couple of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

658

housekeeping things to do. So ready to test it?

So if you support changed -- or the language to

payouts listed on the screen, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. That's everybody in

the room.

Next is cash and cash equivalent. So Tom.

MR. WILSON: So at the bottom of Page 9

where it says equivalent controls established in

subpart, I just want to be clear there is a

subpart called technological aids?

MR. FISHER: You're asking if that's the

right reference?

MR. McGHEE: Subpart 543.14.

MR. WHEATLEY: It's referencing to the

cage section.

MR. FISHER: 543.14 is what are the

minimum internal control standards for the cage,

vault, cash and cash equivalent.

MR. WILSON: Oh, so 543.14 is technologic

aids?

MR. FISHER: It's cash equivalent, vault,

cage.

MR. WILSON: Okay. I got it. I have no

question.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

659

MR. FISHER: Okay. So this is a short

one. Let's test it. If you support this

recommendation, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: All right. That was a fast

one.

Okay. Here we are. Technologic aids.

MR. WHEATLEY: I don't see anything on

repair and maintenance. Does anyone have any

comments on that? To me, I feel it's a risk if

we don't list it as something that procedures

need to be established for, specifically

maintenance.

MS. HAMEL: That's operations, right?

MR. McGHEE: I mean, it can happen in a

lot of different places, but during a

malfunction, you're going to have to come and

repair. During the -- if you're doing a

modification. I'm not opposed to adding it for

clarification.

MR. MORGAN: You want it in the list?

MR. WHEATLEY: I'm thinking it's important

enough to make the list. I know the list says

not limited to, but I'm thinking, like, cleaning

bingo balls. Obviously the TICS are going to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

660

address how you do that and why you do that and

what interval you do that, but --

MR. McGHEE: You're saying malfunction and

repairs?

MR. WHEATLEY: No. I'm saying repairs and

maintenance specifically.

MR. McGHEE: You don't want to say

repairs? You want to say maintenance.

MR. WHEATLEY: I am more concerned with

maintenance, but I associate the two together

commonly.

MR. McGHEE: Just add maintenance.

MR. FISHER: Did you want to say repair

and maintenance, or just maintenance? It's your

proposal.

MR. WHEATLEY: I initially said both.

MR. McGHEE: Repair is different. One is

cleaning.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So we added a new (10)

there. I moved the "and" down. So you want to

go back to the whole test now, the whole

subsection?

MR. WEST: What did you say was covered by

technological aids, CardMinders and --

MR. MORGAN: Yeah, and bingo blowers, the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

661

balls themselves, the bingo balls.

MR. McGHEE: Player interfaces.

MR. MORGAN: Player interfaces. That's

what jumps out to me. Those are just examples of

things.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So should we -- ready

to test it? Okay. So if you support this

recommended subsection, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: That got everybody. And that

is the end of the bingo. It's the end of the

bingo language, not the end of the bingo

discussion.

You have a question?

MR. WEST: There was some information in

the 2010 -- there was a question in the 2010 MICS

about voucher systems. Was that moved somewhere,

or was that totally deleted?

MR. McGHEE: Included under cash or cash

equivalent. Because a voucher is cash or cash

equivalent.

MR. FISHER: That 543.14.

MR. WHEATLEY: Vouchers themselves or

voucher systems?

MR. WEST: Voucher systems.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

662

MR. McGHEE: A voucher system is a

component, right?

MR. WHEATLEY: I think it's 543.16,

standards for security and management of server,

server software and data associated with Class II

gaming systems. Because we considered the

voucher system to be a part of the Class II

gaming system unless it was third party, and then

we didn't worry about it. Actually it says in

here, control of physical and logical access

including voucher and cashless.

MR. FISHER: Does that answer your

question?

MR. WEST: Kind of, but that's more on the

IT side as far as access controls and stuff. I

don't know if that covers what was in the

original 2010 proposed, but I just wanted to

bring that up, see if the committee, TGWG, their

thoughts on that.

MR. MORGAN: Specific language.

MR. FISHER: Can you find the place in

the --

MR. LITTLE: It's in the comparison

document. Last page. Page 24, Page 25.

MR. FISHER: It's all that red.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

663

MR. McGHEE: Payment of a voucher, it

still talks about cash and cash equivalent. I

mean, it's the way it's here. Where appropriate

it would probably be in the section he's talking

about. Otherwise it would be in the cash and

cash equivalent section.

MS. HAMEL: And it's in the technical

standards.

MR. WHEATLEY: So my impression is these

would be answered in the guidance documents under

the cash and cash equivalent section because

they're very procedural.

MR. WEST: That's what I was thinking.

Yep.

MR. FISHER: Did you have other questions?

MR. WEST: No.

MR. LITTLE: We're good.

MR. FISHER: Anything else on the bingo

section? Well, in that case, we just had another

accomplishment. Round of applause.

(Round of applause.)

MR. FISHER: So we -- actually, that's

like a two-fer, that accomplishment, because it

means that we just completed our -- the first

part of the MICS and we actually completed all
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

664

the primary topics on our agenda except for the

housekeeping stuff we're about to move into,

because card games was a -- was the next topic if

we had time. So we don't have time for that. So

we accomplished the primary objective of the

agenda as well. And we incorporated into the

agenda time the time for the closed session and

for a couple of other things, and so we're

tracking. Okay.

Everybody ready to shift to some of

housekeeping things we need to do before we

adjourn? So one housekeeping thing is I want to

confirm that the agenda planning group that was

previously constituted with the addition of Mia

is now the -- is going to continue to keep

working and will work on the December agenda; is

that right? That's everybody's understanding?

Yes. Okay. Good. And so I'd like that group to

meet -- try to get that group to meet quickly

because we don't have a whole lot of time between

now and the December meeting, and we also had

have a holiday, federal holiday next week. Some

people will be taking part of the week off, so

could that group meet by conference call at 1:30

p.m. eastern time on Monday?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

665

MR. LITTLE: We'll get the conference call

information.

MR. FISHER: I think I checked with

everybody on schedules. I think that time should

work for everybody.

So then the second thing is you may

remember that -- well, on the meeting summary, so

we need to talk about two things on the meeting

summary. One is when people be going to get

comments on the October summary to us and when

we'll turn that document around.

And then secondly, in terms of what is

your expectation for the summary from this

meeting? What would you like us to do? We could

do -- we could not do the same format that we did

last time and we could do instead just a

compilation of the consensus recommendations that

shows, you know, the basic stuff, who attended

and a compilation of the recommendations. So I

need some feedback about what you'd like to see

in the November summary.

MR. WILSON: For me, as long as I'm

getting the notes or, you know, as we already

talked about --

MR. FISHER: Transcript, you mean?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

666

MR. WILSON: Well, I don't know, because

that's her thing and the -- the notes. Then for

me a compilation of just here's what we have

recommended works as well because then I'm able

to focus on that document. But if I have any

questions, I can look back on the minutes or

whatever we're talking, the notes.

MR. FISHER: Again, so that does present a

little bit of a problem. So because those notes

aren't being taken from the perspective of being

distributed, they were being taken for the

purposes of preparing a summary. So I didn't

realize you wanted that set of notes to accompany

you. You have a transcript, so I'm a little

confused.

MR. WILSON: We don't have the transcript.

MR. FISHER: Eventually you're going to

get a transcript.

MR. WILSON: But the notes, you already

sent those to us from the last meeting.

MS. HAMEL: That was a summary.

MR. FISHER: Yes, I did, because you

requested them. And so to facilitate moving

ahead, I sent those notes. I'm hoping there's

nothing embarrassing in those notes.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

667

MR. WILSON: If there is or isn't doesn't

matter to us. But I thought we had established

that you were going to provide us with those

notes.

MR. FISHER: That was not my

understanding.

MS. LASH: I think that was our intent.

MR. McGHEE: From now on. Not just from

the notes from the meeting, because I think the

request was could we have the notes from the

meeting. So we can say we want the notes from

all the meetings, if that's what we want to do.

MS. LASH: Do we have a consensus vote on

that?

MR. McGHEE: If you need to vote, raise

your hands.

MR. FISHER: We might need a different

process for creating the notes. If you want to

test your consensus, do that. But that might

mean we might have to have a different process

for creating the notes.

MS. LASH: So does --

MR. MAGEE: What's your justification?

MR. FISHER: Well, because it's not a

verbatim transcript of what's being said. And so
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

668

-- and I looked over a couple times, and Kim

hasn't been typing, so I don't know how much is

recorded in there versus what was said. And so

there's no guarantee that that's a complete set

of everything that happened.

MR. WILSON: We understand that it's not a

-- we understand what that -- what her notes are

designed for. I don't believe that we're using

them to say, oh, well, you didn't include this in

the notes or you didn't include that. It is

merely a reference point to jog things in your

mind as you're looking at this summary document

or whatnot. I mean, at least for me. I can't

speak for everyone else. But I'm not using it to

opine on her thoroughness or not thoroughness in

taking the notes.

MR. LITTLE: My only concern would be that

perhaps she had shorthanded some things to go

back eventually or different ways of, you know,

keeping track. And from the outside observer,

her comments may not be understood. And we all

know that once things go out, they become public

everywhere and that the outside observer could

confuse these notes as being an official

transcript, which we have over here. That's my
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

669

only concern. What you guys do with it or not,

it's just we know for a fact that once these are

distributed, they're all to everybody, not just

for this group.

MS. LASH: They're going to be sent to us

as a reference point for us to use, and I don't

see any of us broadcasting them or putting them

on websites or anything. And I think it's a

reference point. And there's some of us that

would like to see the notes and I don't --

MR. CULLOO: Can't you put a disclaimer on

there?

MR. McGHEE: Can't we do it upon request?

MR. GARVIN: Couldn't we ask Kim if she

objects to it?

MR. FISHER: She was listening intently to

what was being said to the committee.

MR. WILSON: What is the turnaround time

on the transcript?

COURT REPORTER: It will be three weeks.

You're looking at approximately 700 pages.

MR. FISHER: So I understand the question

is from the committee to get copies of notes that

are being taken from the meeting, and we'll

figure out what's the best way to produce those
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

670

notes that works and we have an official note

taker who understands that the notes are to be

distributed beyond just internal reference.

MS. LASH: Do you agree, for those of you

that wants the notes, that we have a consensus

that we can get the notes from our group?

MS. CHINO: I like the idea upon request.

We're having all the discussion, and I feel

confident that that's what their role is and that

we remember because of the stuff we're putting

together here. A request is fine. I certainly

wouldn't have time to read all of it, but some of

you probably do.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Is there going to be

a summary, or what?

MR. FISHER: That's where we started. I

asked what did you want in the summary; what

would be useful? And that's how we got around to

is it the summary plus the notes, or the summary,

a compilation of the consensus recommendations,

plus the notes?

MS. STACONA: Is it -- the yellow stuff

and we voted on and the big concepts, is what I'd

like to see in the summary.

MS. LASH: And what we need to do the next
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

671

meeting. Because I've got bullet points of

things that we need to do.

MR. FISHER: We can create an action item

list for what's, you know, in the summary, like I

did from the last meeting. And so we can do

that. Okay.

MR. MAGEE: What's the purpose of having a

note taker come, is it to provide like a minute

format of the action items, or is it just merely

a summary for the meeting? Because there is an

official, like, way of taking minutes and

approving minutes, but if it's just a summary of

the meeting according to someone's perception --

MR. FISHER: Right. So what is it that

you want? Because the way that we set out is to

just provide a summary, a summary of the key

things that were raised or needed to be raised,

plus the consensus.

MR. MAGEE: And that works for me.

MR. LITTLE: I got to ask if we could

change off topic for one second. Mike has got to

get to the airport, and he needs talk about --

quickly clarify an issue.

MR. FISHER: Let's put this on hold and

turn to Mike on --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

672

MR. HOENIG: I'm going to be really brief

and I do have to run. But I gave Nimish a stack

of my cards, so if anybody has any questions,

please call me. But basically I just wanted to

clarify, I know there's some questions that came

out after the meeting in Connecticut, and about

FACA and how it may apply to experts that come up

to the table. And it's kind of simple. The

exception that this group is operating under FACA

basically provides an exception for meetings

between federal officials and tribal elected

officials or their designated employees that are

authorized to act on their behalf. So if an

employee from one of the facilities wants to come

up as an expert, that's great. It's just that

employee needs to be designated by the tribal

leadership to act on their behalf and has to be

authorized to speak on their behalf. Because if

not, then they run into problems that there may

be a possible violation of FACA and who was

participating in the meetings. And based on the

two cases that are out there, the result of that

is a court could easily say we're not allowed to

use anything that you guys bring up here in

determining how we're going to move forward on
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

673

our regulations, so this would basically go

straight out the window. And I think everybody

here would hate to see that happen. So I think

the easiest thing to do is since everybody, it

sounds like, was already planning on saying

beforehand who was going to be coming to speak as

experts at the table, if you could submit a

letter with that from tribal leadership basically

saying they're designated and they're authorized

to speak for them. I think that would save -- I

think that would be more than sufficient, and it

would save any risk of all this falling apart

again.

MR. MAGEE: So would that mean that a

particular tribe could have more than one

representative at the table, then?

MR. HOENIG: Well, I mean, it's the

experts coming up. And the exception talks about

employees participating in meetings with the

commission, so -- I mean, I would think that if

you want your experts to come up and speak, that

that's what they have to do. Now, what level of

participation they take, I think it seems like

that was already decided.

MR. WHEATLEY: So quick question on that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

674

point. It was asked in Connecticut to see if we

had a pull tab expert available while in

Washington. So I have contacted somebody, and

they said tentatively they had agreed. They are

not a member or employee of a tribe that is

represented on the TAC, but are an employee of a

tribal member.

MR. HOENIG: That does bring up another

point in that bringing in other tribal employees

could also be seen as the TAC being opened up to

other tribes that weren't initially chosen by the

commission to participate in the TAC. So it

creates kind of a -- it could give the appearance

that the TAC is being opened up to other tribes.

MR. McGHEE: The person who used to do our

pull tabs still works here. We haven't -- don't

pull tabs in two or three years, but I could

check.

MR. FISHER: Is there more that you need

to tell us?

MR. HOENIG: No, that's about it. If

there are any other questions?

MR. FISHER: Any other questions?

MR. WHEATLEY: I just need to know how TAC

and NIGC wants me to handle that situation, if we
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

675

still want that person to come in and if they do,

how we handle that.

MR. MORGAN: How many tribal councils does

he have to go before and get written

authorization?

MR. HOENIG: We can suggest some language.

If you want a form to use, I'm happy to do that.

Another possibility is if that's a situation you

want, the commissioners and the NIGC can do a

break-out session with that person to get the

input we need to come back, and we'd just step

out and not participate in the --

MR. FISHER: You can do it in the closed

session.

MR. WHEATLEY: That seems like the easiest

way to do that. It's --

MR. HOENIG: It's just the participation

with the commission.

MR. MORGAN: Who is the commission?

MR. LITTLE: (Pointing at himself.)

MR. HOENIG: Also Nimish, any of our

employees.

MR. FISHER: It does not include us.

MR. LITTLE: If you'd like us to put

together a form letter where you can take it and
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

676

get it signed, that would be the easiest, but

that would be an option.

MR. MORGAN: I think it's easiest to go

into closed session.

MR. LITTLE: That's for your expert.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Maybe we can take that

up in the agenda planning group on how to handle

those things. Okay. I'm trying to keep this on

track and get back --

MS. LASH: We're still on the notes.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I think that tribes

that aren't here, too, would like to know what

kind of took place and --

MR. WILSON: Isn't that what the purpose

of the transcript is?

MS. LASH: That's where they'll get their

information, is from the transcript when it's

posted. This is for us. This is for the ones

who are here who were participating in the group

who would like a copy of the notes. It's not

difficult.

MR. FISHER: It's fine. We'll distribute

a copy of the notes. But for the next meeting,

we need to sort out an official note-taker and

what that official note-taker is going to do.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

677

MR. McGHEE: Or at least the person doing

this must be aware that the people seeing this is

going to be attached to a lot of work. It puts

the reputation out there, if they don't know who

did it, why they did it, and, you know.

MR. WILSON: Are these notes that Kim

takes from the NIGC standpoint archived or kept

part of a permanent record?

MR. LITTLE: No.

MR. FISHER: They're not part of NIGC's

records at all. At all. They're not -- well,

now they are because they got distributed to

NIGC. But up to that point, they had not been

distributed to in NIGC. They were just internal

to us.

MR. WILSON: So the note-taker is just

your resource to help you facilitate?

MR. FISHER: Correct, and to create the

summary. That was what was here for initially.

MR. LITTLE: Just look at the point, that

this is a cost for DOI. The commission is going

to be paying for a transcriptionist, which will

run probably close to $10,000. Not that much?

Well, we better use your company. Just to be

cognizant of costs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

MS. LASH: Notes are free. Giving them to

us is free.

MR. LITTLE: We need to decide if we want

to have a note taker versus a transcriptionist.

MS. LASH: What she's doing is fine.

That's all I'm requesting.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So what does that mean

in terms of what's in the summary?

MR. McGHEE: What's the question? Notes

as needed or notes to everybody?

MR. FISHER: I heard notes on request to

those who want them.

MS. LASH: So we agree? Can we have a

vote, please? Notes for those who request them?

(Indicating.)

MR. MAGEE: Back to the summary, does the

summary go out to everybody?

MR. FISHER: The summary goes out to

everybody on the TAC, and then it was intended

that the summaries would be -- once final, would

be published on the NIGC website.

MR. WILSON: I just want to say that we're

not -- we're not requesting by this request that

you have to get a different person or something.

That's strictly a decision that you would make in
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

679

terms of your comfort level with how those notes

are presented, I guess. I mean, I don't want you

to think that you have to hire additional

resources to meet the requests. That's not the

intent of the requests.

MR. FISHER: I hear that. But we are

going to have to figure out what the official

note-taker is doing now that there is a need for

an official note-taker.

MS. LASH: We're not asking for that.

Just like what I said, what was provided was

fine. That's fine.

MR. McGHEE: If y'all want to incur

additional costs, but basically they're fine with

the way you've been doing it with the costs you

have.

MR. FISHER: Okay. I understand what

you're saying.

MS. STACONA: Question. Did NIGC figure

out what was going on with Oklahoma and their

note-taker, did they get that straightened out,

iron all that out?

MR. LITTLE: It made it sound like -- I

mean, folks want an official transcript, so we're

going to provide that from the next meeting on
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

680

out. This time it's being funded by OIGA, and

we're hoping they're going to provide us a copy

to put on our website. But moving forward, we

will have a transcriptionist at every event.

MS. STACONA: So if we're going to do

transcripts, then are we still going to get a

summary?

MR. LITTLE: I think the idea is she's

here to help Robert develop a summary. And it

was kind of like if I take notes, do you guys

also want copies of my notes? That was kind of

the whole purpose of it, you know.

MR. McGHEE: She's working for him.

MR. LITTLE: Do you want Rust's notes?

MR. WILSON: From my perspective

initially, this was a concern for me from the

last meeting because I viewed that person as the

official scribe that was describing the things.

And so this -- the reporter thing,

transcriber/stenographer is something new that

came about. So for the reasons that I would have

wanted the notes for myself is less mitigated by

the fact that there are transcripts. But I don't

want to preclude somebody who thinks that they

need the notes for whatever.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

681

MR. FISHER: Okay. In terms of preparing

the -- you may remember I said yesterday that I'd

like a couple of volunteers to work with me about

how to present the consensus recommendations that

are developing with an eye towards how that would

become a final -- in the final report. Because

it's not that easy to -- there are a couple of

different ways to do it, and so I just want to

bounce that off of somebody on the TAC before I

create that and send it out.

MR. McGHEE: I'm volunteering.

MR. FISHER: How about one other person to

volunteer so we can bounce this off of two

people?

MS. HAMEL: Are you volunteering me?

MR. WHEATLEY: Not to volunteer somebody,

but I was thinking Thomas, since he's writing the

point paper that's going to go with the

recommendations.

MR. WILSON: I'd be happy to.

MR. FISHER: You're spared.

MS. HAMEL: No, that's fine.

MR. FISHER: So by my look on the

calendar, we have less than two weeks between now

and the next meeting. And so this -- if my
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

682

calendar is correct, this is the 17th and we meet

again on the 6th. And so that's two weeks from

this past Tuesday. No, three weeks. Two and a

half weeks. All right. So what -- in terms of

turning around the documents and things, we're

probably not going to be a two-week schedule to

turn around documents. It's likely that any

summary from the November meeting will not come

until right before the December meeting. If you

get the comments -- comments on the October

summary should be sent to me.

MS. LASH: I'll have mine in by Tuesday.

MR. FISHER: Anybody who has comments by

the end of the day on Tuesday, and then we'll

circulate a revised draft of the October summary

the week of the 28th, sometime the 28th. And

then I don't know how long it's going to take the

commission to do the comparison documents for the

next meeting, but they're likely to come right

pretty close to the meeting.

MR. LITTLE: Yeah, now that we got a

pretty good idea of what we're working off of.

This is a very helpful process because I think we

can churn them out pretty fast. It will be a

matter of getting them formatted, getting them
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

683

reviewed by Rust and Mike. And we'll get a copy

of the hard copy of the working group's document

to everyone.

MS. HAMEL: Are we going to look at 543.3

and 4?

MR. LITTLE: Yes.

MR. FISHER: That's where the agenda

committee will pick up.

MS. HAMEL: If they need to do something.

MR. FISHER: That's partly why the agenda

planning committee is meeting on Monday, so they

can begin the preparation of the comparison

document. Okay. Any other housekeeping things

that we need to take care of?

MR. LITTLE: I have a couple.

MR. CULLOO: I was just going to give

information on transportation on the airport.

MR. LITTLE: And this is -- well, I can

wait until we conclude. Everyone, I'm sure, has

a room blocked for Clearwater, but if you don't,

the deadline to get the block is tomorrow.

MR. WHEATLEY: We're covered.

MR. LITTLE: Everyone here, staff, just

the public.

MR. FISHER: Anything else?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

684

MR. LITTLE: I'll wait until the closing.

MR. CULLOO: I was going to tell everyone

it's about a 70-mile drive from the airport to

Clearwater, but it's 15 miles north of the

airport in downtown Seattle to take a passenger

ferry. It's a 35-minute cross, and then you're 7

miles away from the casino. The ferry schedules

are on the website. I'll send it to you if you

want.

(Discussion held off the record.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. Thank you for that.

And you'll circulate it.

MR. CULLOO: I'll send it out.

MR. FISHER: All right. Anybody else have

any housekeeping things? So if not, then let's

move into kind of closing round to see if anybody

has anything they want to say in closing.

MR. RAMOS: Sure. I just want to thank my

other TAC members. I know that sometimes this

things gets laborious and we're at each other

here and there, but I think this process as a

whole has been productive. And I think that at

the end of the day, we reach our objectives. And

I know it's been a real pleasure for me to

participate in the situation. So thank you all
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

685

and thanks to NIGC again for being an active

participant in this process.

MR. WHEATLEY: Nice work. Good job.

Thanks.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I'm happy, I think

it's -- this time it went a lot better.

Everybody seems to get along with each other a

lot better, and it went well.

MR. MORGAN: I echo Jeff's sentiments.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I want to thank

Nimish for all his help for the technical

standards.

MR. GARVIN: Yeah, thanks. In particular

I want to thank Tom for introducing the executive

session idea and us making use of that. And I

hope that's not viewed as a slight to NIGC or to

the facilitator. And I also don't want to view

it as an opportunity to avoid the transcript.

Because that wasn't -- that didn't have to do

with it at all. And I'm glad it became a

non-issue for us.

MS. STACONA: Ditto all that they said.

MR. MAGEE: You know, for me, it was

enlightening to see the level of expertise coming

out at this session. Truly broad-based knowledge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

686

here and experience. And for me, that was

enlightening. I think it was overall great.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Again, good to be here.

Good to be leaving. And I, too, recommend the

ferry. That's a beautiful way to see that area.

That is gorgeous.

MS. LASH: I think we had a great meeting.

I really enjoyed the executive session and just

the, you know, the closeness that we have and how

well we're working together. And I really

appreciate everyone's assistance and the comments

and thank you for your help with the documents,

the NIGC, and it was a very positive meeting.

MR. WILSON: Ditto.

MS. THOMAS: I could do the same thing, I

would agree. I am really excited we got through

the technical items.

MS. CHINO: For me it was interesting.

I've learned a little more than I knew. I

particularly appreciate everybody that was part

of giving the expertise and the information

behind some of the documents that are real

helpful to me. Am specifically because Navaho

Nation only has 120 machines, it was interesting

to hear all of this information that applies to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

687

that. And particularly probably for the

appreciation for our attorney, you know, who is

sitting back there and learning all this, and

she'll carry it forward when I'm relieved of my

duties. Other than that, thank you.

MS. HAMEL: I would ditto everyone's

sentiments. The only thing I can say is I wish I

could remember more of why we made decisions the

way we did on the TGWG to offer more assistance.

I'm glad to be here and able to participate.

Thank you.

MR. CULLOO: I appreciate everyone's

participation. I learned something every day

from this group, a wealth of knowledge here in

areas I'm not as knowledgeable on, and I

certainly appreciate that. And I appreciate the

way the team is coming together and the way we

get through this stuff. So for Tom, I'll give

you up top.

MR. McGHEE: Thank you for being here and

I look forward to the next meeting. I'm glad I'm

getting to know each and every one of you a

little bit better.

MR. LITTLE: I got a lot to say.

Thoroughly, I just want to thank everybody for
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

688

the extra effort you put all in here. I remember

the very first day when we met, we talked about

difficult situations and, you know, working

through these respecting everybody.

Understanding that mistakes are going to be made

and that, you know, we're in a safe zone here and

work through them. And I want to thank everybody

for, you know, not giving up and continuing to

work through these difficult subject matters. On

behalf of the commission, you know, even

contacting the commission, I'd like to say

Stephanie and Tracie are very grateful for the

sacrifices you all made to be out there in this

lovely warm weather. If they could be here, they

would. We've got a lot of things up in the air

right now. They're testifying before the Senate

Affairs Committee today, among other things.

I want to make a special thank you to our

staff. Obviously Nimish, he goes above and

beyond every day helping here with the training.

You know, he's on the clock 24/7. Nimish, thank

you for your help. Mike Hoenig, who left, he's

one of the hardest working attorneys who I've

ever met. One thing Mike will tell you, his dad

had a confirmation before the U.S. Senate this
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

689

morning to be the vice chair of the FDIC. I

thought that was really cool. So he was in the

back watching his dad at the hearing before the

Senate Banking Committee, so it was cool. Rust,

another hard working staff member here on the

commission, you know, he's doing this stuff 24/7.

He's been sick as a dog, but he's here. And he's

been on the road all last week. And then there's

the other folks back in the back. You all know

Rita, she busts her hump all the time. Tom

Bowman from our local office was here this

morning, and you might know him. And then just

the other folks in D.C. and the regions that

really work hard on behalf the commission putting

stuff on the internet and making copies, I want

to thank all of them. And, finally, I just want

to wish you all really safe travels home. I

really appreciate the dedication and sacrifice

that's you all make.

MR. FISHER: Okay. See you in December.

(The National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Advisory Committee Meeting was concluded

at 2:13 p.m., November 17, 2011.)

----------------
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

690

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA )

)SS.

COUNTY OF PENNINGTON )

I, Amy L. Zoller, Registered Merit Reporter,

Certified Realtime Reporter, and Tina Pruss,

Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that said

proceedings were taken by us stenographically and

thereafter reduced to typewriting under my

supervision; that the foregoing transcript is a

true and accurate record of the testimony given

to the best of our understanding and ability.

We further certify that we are neither counsel

for, related to, nor employed by any of the

parties to this case and have no interest,

financial or otherwise, in its' outcome.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set my

hand and affixed my notarial seal this _______day

of __________, 2011.

____________________ _______________________

TINA R. PRUSS AMY L. ZOLLER, RMR, CRR

Notary Public Notary Public

My Commission expires: My Commission expires:

7/12/2012