January 12, 2012

National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street, NW

Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Chairwoman Stevens, Vice Chairwoman Cochran and Commissioner Little,

We wish to take this opportunity to respond to the NIGC’s letter dated December 16,
2011 canceling the last two face-to-face meetings of our Tribal Advisory Committee
(“TAC”).

The TAC is troubled by the NIGC’s decision to unilaterally cancel these two
meetings. The decision - made without input from the TAC - was premature and
places a great deal of pressure on the TAC. We are also puzzled by the change in the
NIGC’s basis for cancelling our future work. The letter of cancellation cited costs
and concern over the work commitment of the TAC process. However, the NIGC’s
budget comes from the tribes. What better use of tribal resources than a “tribal
advisory committee,” and in the overall scheme of the NIGC budget, the cost for the
now cancelled meetings surely was known when scheduled. In fact, complimentary
court reporter services were provided by tribes to maintain a record of these public
meetings and NIGC unilaterally determined to take on this cost.

We were encouraged by Chairwoman Stevens’ statement at our first meeting in
Connecticut that the TAC is “our” committee (i.e., the tribes’). In that spirit, along
with the NIGC’s recognition of our collective expertise in Indian gaming distinct
from that of the NIGC, we have worked hard to assist the NIGC and provide valuable
advice in its review of Class II MICS based on our experience as the operators and
IGRA mandated primary regulators of Class II gaming. Needless to say our job has
been enormous since we must address issues with multiple Class II games
conducted by tribes of varying sizes and resources.

Throughout this process, we have tried to emphasize that a “one size” MICS
regulation does not, and in reality cannot, fit all. Likewise, since certain concepts
should drive MICS regulations, we have attempted to recognize those first principles
in our approach of identifying general standards, rather than mandating specific
procedures, as the current MICS do. We also understand the importance of
providing guidance documents that provide detailed explanation and specific
procedures whose satisfaction can establish safe harbor compliance with general
standards. Accordingly, we have tried to pay close attention to the specific language
in the TGWG’s proposed guidance documents on which you have sought our review
and advice.


While it may appear to those who have not gone through the drafting and analysis of
proposed Class II MICS that the need to meet face-to-face should stop this week, we
do not share that view. We have much to consider including more reflection on the
role of general standards and safe harbor guidance documents versus detailed, one
size fits all regulations. We have not concluded our work on that issue, including a
discussion of cost and benefits. Additionally, we have had no chance to even
consider the creation of checklists on each section. Finally, as we all know, various
MICS provisions/sections are interrelated. Thus, we feel that it is of the utmost
importance that the TAC sit down face to face, as the host forum to complete a final
review of the proposals made by the TAC throughout this process.

The NIGC’s new attitude of disinterest in a future meeting, as apparent from their
12/16/11 letter, is particularly troubling. We don’t understand why the NIGC,
which insisted on being present in our executive sessions because it was
“imperative they understand our thought process,” no longer wishes to participate
in our unfinished business. We are unaware of any new information that makes our
upcoming discussion less important than our prior work.

The value of in person meetings cannot be over emphasized. There is no better
method for the exchange and discussion of information, particularly in light of our
process of consensus based decision-making. In person meetings allow for
immediate member interaction with other TAC members, advisors, NIGC staff, and
the public that cannot be replicated by conference calls or emails. In addition, as our
procedural discussions have demonstrated, we never know when our work will
proceed at a slower pace than normal.

Based on these concerns , the members of the TAC have decided that at least one
more face-to-face meeting is needed in order to complete our work. Thus, as we
discussed with Commissioner Little, the TAC will be meeting as scheduled next
month in Arizona. The TAC invites the NIGC to attend this meeting, preferably in
person or at least via telephone conference, as we believe the NIGC’s presence
remains important to this process.

Sincerely,
Christinia Thomas Michele Stacona Matthew Morgan
Millie Lacs Band of Conf. Tribes of Warm Chickasaw Nation

Objiwe Springs


hy

Jason’ Ramos y Thomas Wilson
e Rancheria Stillaguamish Tribe Pascua Yaqui Tribe
IST > Halle L ly r/
Robi Steve Garvin Kathi Hamel
Miami Tribe of Ho-Chunk Nation Lytt ncheria
Oklaho
te A Tob “Gy DM"
Leo Culloo ia Tahdooahnippah Danial McGhee
Port Gamble S’Klallam Comanche Nation Poarch Band of Creek
Tribe Indians

Zyl “thee Wrage
BriaffCallaghan / John Magee V0

Pokagon Band of \ hanga Band of
Potawatomi Indians \Luiseno Indians