429

 1 MR. FISHER: Okay. Are we ready okay?

 2 So just as a -- before we get started here,

 3 we had a brief conversation while we were gathering

 4 about the comments to the October meeting summary.

 5 And we concluded that -- that there are people that

 6 still want to provide comments, but given the timing

 7 it is not going to work out to -- to get them all in

 8 and for me to turn the draft around for tomorrow.

 9 So what we thought would be best is people to

10 review it, send the comments to us, we'll turn it

11 around between now and the next meeting, and then

12 we'll put it on the agenda -- the October summary on

13 the agenda for the next meeting.

14 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: The ones that you just

15 emailed this morning or last night, the 40-page, is

16 that going to get posted on -- online or is it just

17 going to be a summary? Because that will determine

18 comments.

19 MR. FISHER: I don't know any discussion

20 about that. So those are raw notes. 

21 Okay. So we'll talk tomorrow about timing

22 for getting comments and then turning that draft

23 around for your review in preparation for the December

24 meeting.

25 We'll also talk a little tomorrow about what
430

 1 you want to see in the summary for this meeting in

 2 light of the transcript.

 3 MR. McGHEE: We also had some changes out of

 4 the executive closed session.

 5 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 6 MR. WILSON: So we're prepared to recommend

 7 that in the definition of agent for the technical

 8 standards --

 9 MR. FISHER: Do you want me to do it up on

10 the screen?

11 MR. WILSON: We don't have it so if you want

12 to bring it up.

13 What we're prepared to recommend is that the

14 definition be revised to delete the last sentence

15 which is that this definition permits the use of

16 applications to form the function of an agent; that

17 that be stricken from the definition. 

18 And then the other pieces that determine

19 employee be corrected -- be removed from -- I forget

20 what section.

21 MR. McGHEE: 547.

22 MR. PUROHIT: Wherever the reference is in

23 547.

24 MR. WILSON: There was a specific one that

25 was --
431

 1 MR. McGHEE: Where it's an employee and an

 2 agent in the whole financial part.

 3 MR. WILSON: So it's wherever there is --

 4 where it says employee or agent, that it's just agent.

 5 MR. FISHER: Did I get that right?

 6 MR. WILSON: Yes.

 7 And then that the last sentence where it says

 8 this definition permits, that sentence be stricken. 

 9 MR. FISHER: That's this part. So it would

10 be -- right?

11 Is that it? 

12 MR. WILSON: The use of computer applications

13 to perform functions of an agent. That be stricken.

14 MR. FISHER: Okay.

15 That's it?

16 MR. McGHEE: Yeah.

17 MR. FISHER: Okay.

18 So you already tested all that so -- 

19 MR. McGHEE: We have not tested it. 

20 MR. FISHER: We'll test if for the record. 

21 Okay. So if you agree with this change

22 that's up on the screen as Tom described it in yellow,

23 raise your hand. Okay. Great.

24 Okay. So we're still working on the

25 technical standards just to check to see if anybody
432

 1 had anything else that they want to put before the

 2 group.

 3 MS. HAMEL: Did you get the 547 changes?

 4 MR. FISHER: Yes. 

 5 Our informal working group -- we had two

 6 informal working groups. One of them came back with

 7 proposed language. The other one is still working on

 8 it. And that is 547.12.

 9 And so who from that working group wants to

10 explain the -- I put the changes in.

11 MR. McGHEE: I gave him the changes.

12 MR. FISHER: Right.

13 MR. McGHEE: And what we did was number two

14 was identified as procedural in nature so we took it

15 out.

16 And then the blanket language that will

17 eventually come forth would cover that problem for

18 anyone else, the actual -- what it was saying.

19 Then in number four, what we did, we deleted

20 number four, but we added to number five that it shall

21 not affect game play or the integrity of the counting

22 data. So four, more or less, was combined to be five

23 and the procedural language was taken out.

24 And then number six, we added to Class II

25 gaming system must be capable of providing, and then
433

 1 left I through 6 in place. So we're really just

 2 rewording it to be more technical than procedural.

 3 MR. FISHER: I'll get the whole thing up on

 4 the screen.

 5 MR. McGHEE: We didn't want to have to be

 6 able to have to produce a log or anything. Just had

 7 to be that the Class II gaming system could be -- they

 8 could go to it and get it. That it will not be in

 9 some log that was predetermined.

10 Anything else anybody else wants to add?

11 MR. WILSON: I think we could vote.

12 MR. FISHER: Ready to test it?

13 If you support the changes to and agree with

14 the changes in 547.12, some of which is on the

15 screen --

16 MS. HAMEL: Isn't there -- did we already

17 do B?

18 Isn't there more after six?

19 MR. FISHER: Yeah, B. We did that yesterday.

20 So it's the changes to 547.12(a), downloads,

21 and so I can try to get it up on the screen if you

22 want me to.

23 Okay. So let's test this and then I have an

24 ASAP request. All right. So if you support the

25 changes that are up on the screen as proposed by the
434

 1 working group, to 547.12(a) raise your hand. Good.

 2 Apparently, we have to take a pause here for

 3 a moment and we need the number of sandwiches for

 4 tomorrow's lunch.

 5 (Off the record.) 

 6 MR. McGHEE: The conducting of download shall

 7 not -- my suggestion would be just to leave it back.

 8 Originally, we were going to have two sentences and

 9 then thought why don't you combine them into one. It

10 is download shall not affect the integrity of the

11 counting data. And the first one --

12 MR. WHEATLEY: What about if we say the

13 integrity of game play? Download shall not affect the

14 integrity of game play or accounting data. Because

15 that's really what the heart of it was.

16 MR. FISHER: Okay. So that's it?

17 That's what you suggested to do?

18 MR. WHEATLEY: Does that solve the problem?

19 MR. CULLOO: Remove integrity twice.

20 MS. LASH: Could I ask for permission for

21 assistance with the sentence? 

22 Is it okay with us?

23 MR. McGHEE: We're going to have to undo it.

24 MR. CULLOO: If it's an error, I don't care.

25 MS. LASH: Would you speak to that Mr. Green,
435

 1 please.

 2 MR. GREEN: The reason four is worded like it

 3 is is you don't want to stop the game of bingo until

 4 you reach your gaming pattern. The purpose of a

 5 download is to change game play, but you don't change

 6 it during the game till you reach the gaming pattern.

 7 The reason four is in there is because your

 8 download can affect the way the game is being played

 9 until you reach the game ending pattern.

10 When you put it over here that the download

11 should not affect the integrity of the game play, that

12 will probably work, but you are still missing the

13 point. You are not supposed to affect the game play

14 by the download until you reach the end of the game.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. FISHER: Okay.

17 So what should we do?

18 MR. WILSON: Is there --

19 MR. GREEN: What's why four was worded that

20 way.

21 MR. McGHEE: I think the one suggestion was

22 download conducted during operational periods shall

23 not affect game play. It wasn't a matter of -- so I

24 think the key word is download conducted during

25 operational periods shall not affect game play.
436

 1 MR. FISHER: Are you saying make that change

 2 to what's now number five or leave it in number four? 

 3 MR. McGHEE: My suggestion would be to just

 4 put it in number four and leave five as it was

 5 originally.

 6 MR. FISHER: So we would take this out of

 7 here and -- 

 8 MR. McGHEE: Can you just project that -- the

 9 change in number four?

10 MR. GREEN: If you put it back to the way it

11 was -- it is procedural. You don't stop a game mid

12 game. It can't affect it until the operational period

13 of that game is over.

14 MS. HAMEL: Cannot be designed to.

15 MR. GREEN: If you understand my point, you

16 can word it any way you want.

17 MR. FISHER: The recommendation -- all right.

18 MS. HAMEL: It's the process of completing

19 the download.

20 MR. PUROHIT: Do you want to use the words

21 interrupt game play? 

22 Download shall not be designed to interrupt

23 game play or anything along those lines?

24 MR. WHEATLEY: That's what it means to me

25 when I read it.
437

 1 MR. WILSON: Why would you do a download

 2 during game play?

 3 MR. WHEATLEY: Say you are downloading a new

 4 theme but the rest of your system is still up and

 5 operational. You want to still be able to download

 6 that theme while your other customers are enjoying the

 7 games that are still alive and ready for play.

 8 MR. GREEN: And Rocket and other venders will

 9 play a game as long as three months. Rocket

10 especially, because their prize-ending pattern is

11 really hard to reach. That way they don't have to do

12 the ball drop.

13 MR. FISHER: Does that get at it?

14 Okay. So let's just -- we'll just do kind of

15 a add-on check to just see whether this change is

16 acceptable to everybody and becomes a recommendation.

17 So you're -- if you're in agreement with this

18 change to 547.12(a)(4) and (5), because it changed

19 both provisions, raise your hand. Okay. Good.

20 All right. So that was -- anybody have

21 anything else in 547?

22 MR. McGHEE: The definitions.

23 MR. FISHER: Okay. Okay. So how do you want

24 to do this?

25 MR. McGHEE: A lot of the changes I was
438

 1 looking at are just a matter of capitalization. So as

 2 we go down we have already fixed agents, which was the

 3 first real change.

 4 The second one that has an actual addition to

 5 it is called cashless transaction. If you could go to

 6 that one. Adds the promotional account to that.

 7 MR. FISHER: This right here, right? Yeah. 

 8 MS. HAMEL: If we're removing cashless from

 9 the technical standard, it may not be -- it may not

10 need to be a definition because we determined that the

11 definition will include those types of transactions

12 that were part of the system.

13 MR. McGHEE: Cashless transaction is

14 mentioned in circuit boards.

15 MS. HAMEL: I think the suggestion was to

16 remove it from all the documents.

17 MR. WHEATLEY: I think we removed cashless

18 system, not necessarily transaction.

19 MR. McGHEE: Cashless transaction is also

20 under credit.

21 MR. WHEATLEY: It was under the testing

22 requirements this morning.

23 MR. FISHER: Do you want me to go back and

24 show you what you did?

25 MR. McGHEE: Can you do a search for cashless
439

 1 transactions? Cashless will do it. If you just

 2 search that and see how many there are.

 3 MR. FISHER: Twenty. So system includes the

 4 term transactions. This is the non cashable credit.

 5 That is in Section -- that's 547.9.

 6 MR. McGHEE: So it's in a few different other

 7 places.

 8 MR. FISHER: Right. Cashless transactions

 9 is.

10 MS. HAMEL: Can you search cashless systems?

11 MR. FISHER: That is in 547.11. 547.11 is

12 the minimum technical standards for money and that is

13 in -- okay. I'm going back up to the definitions.

14 MR. McGHEE: If there is no comment on

15 cashless transaction, the addition of promotional

16 account, we'll move to the next change. All right.

17 So do you want --

18 MR. FISHER: Daniel, do you want to test

19 these one by one or do it as a package on the

20 definitions?

21 How do you want to do it?

22 MR. McGHEE: I don't know because it's -- I

23 would hate to -- I guess do them one by one because

24 she may have something wrong with one definition and

25 you may have another on another definition and it's
440

 1 slowing up the whole process. So one by one.

 2 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 3 So if you agree with this change to the

 4 definition of cashless transaction, raise your hand.

 5 Okay. We're not quite there.

 6 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: What's the change?

 7 MR. FISHER: So to change the phrase at the

 8 end.

 9 MR. McGHEE: You are trying to say if you are

10 okay with what TGWG added.

11 MR. FISHER: Okay. So for those of you

12 that --

13 MR. CULLOO: What's the purpose of putting

14 examples down? Like the examples promotional account.

15 Why even put anything after the comma?

16 Why is that even necessary?

17 MR. FISHER: Oh, you mean why don't we put

18 the period after another?

19 MR. CULLOO: Yeah. I am curious why we put

20 the examples. Doesn't that limit us -- I am just

21 wondering.

22 Maybe someone has something on why.

23 MR. McGHEE: Well, the part that said to or

24 from a patron deposit account was already in what they

25 proposed. And then when we were looking at it we
441

 1 said, well, it also relates to a promotional account

 2 so we added --

 3 MR. CULLOO: Who proposed the first part? 

 4 It's like giving an example. Let the

 5 statement stand on its own.

 6 MR. McGHEE: I don't think there is an answer

 7 to why, but we can just take it out.

 8 MR. FISHER: So what you are suggesting is

 9 just put a period after another and remove the rest?

10 Okay. So that's the suggestion.

11 You want to test that?

12 Okay. So if you support that change to the

13 definition, raise your hand. Okay. That got

14 everybody.

15 Okay. So continuing to move down to the next

16 definition.

17 MR. McGHEE: Class II. It really was -- it

18 was more just reworded to say that it shall have the

19 meaning as defined in 25 USC something. It's just

20 reworded but it says the same thing.

21 MR. FISHER: Okay. Everybody with us?

22 If you support this change to Class II

23 definition, raise your hand -- class II game

24 definition, raise your hand.

25 Okay. That got everybody.
442

 1 MR. McGHEE: The next one was electromagnetic

 2 interference removed from the definition but yesterday

 3 it was actually put back in the technical standards so

 4 you may want to restate it. It originally wasn't in

 5 the technical standards.

 6 MR. FISHER: Okay, Tom?

 7 MR. WILSON: I had a question. I apologize

 8 for going back. On the definition for Class II gaming

 9 systems.

10 MR. McGHEE: It wasn't a TGWG change.

11 MR. WILSON: No. It's not the change, it's

12 the wording that seems a little confusing to me.

13 MR. FISHER: You're in the systems

14 definitions.

15 MR. WILSON: You guys went past that right?

16 MR. McGHEE: Yeah.

17 MR. WILSON: Well, what -- I have read

18 through this now several times and there is something

19 that seems confusing where it says all components,

20 whether or not technologic aids.

21 There is a quite a focus on the technologic

22 aids.

23 MR. PUROHIT: Why the focus?

24 MR. WILSON: Well, I guess, you know, all

25 components, whether or not technologic. It aids in
443

 1 electronic -- there is like a word missing there or

 2 something. That aids in, you know -- that aids in

 3 technologic.

 4 MR. PUROHIT: The technologic was referring

 5 to the nature of the components so it's saying that

 6 all components -- if you just take out the word

 7 technologic -- whether or not they aid in electronic,

 8 computer, mechanical, like that. So it's just

 9 describing the nature of the actual components

10 themselves.

11 Why they chose that word, I have no idea.

12 But that's what that definition is actually referring

13 to as far as the technologic. It's not something

14 after technologic. It's referring to the nature of

15 the components.

16 Does that make sense? 

17 MR. WILSON: Well, I guess. To me all

18 components is all components. Whether or not they are

19 technological component or not, they are part of all

20 components. I don't know. It may just be me. It

21 just seemed odd to me when we say all components are

22 part of the gaming system.

23 MR. McGHEE: I think if we say all components

24 that function together as the same thing as all that

25 stuff being mentioned. I think maybe it was mentioned
444

 1 for some kind of clarity because technological aids --

 2 MR. WILSON: I guess there is such an

 3 emphasis on this technologic aid piece and it's

 4 okay --

 5 Would people not know I guess is my question.

 6 Is all components. Would people not know that that

 7 includes all components?

 8 MR. PUROHIT: Right.

 9 I think if you look at the preamble part of

10 it, as well -- I know there is a couple people here --

11 and you can correct me if I am wrong -- but the way I

12 read the preamble and everything else, the reasons why

13 they are choosing that word as well because there were

14 two original companion pieces, I guess, if you may,

15 when these technical standards were introduced. The

16 first part was, what's Class II and what's not. The

17 second part was, if it's Class II and by the way we're

18 referring to only stuff that is technological here.

19 So I think it's a stay over from that part. 

20 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: That's how it's defined.

21 It's just really restating it. I am fine with that.

22 I think it's just strengthening that. We're not --

23 we're not getting away from the real definition of

24 Class II.

25 MR. WILSON: Well, if it's defined that way
445

 1 then that's the definition.

 2 MR. FISHER: Leo?

 3 MR. CULLOO: I have a question. I am

 4 confused. So where it says the function and aid the

 5 play of one or more Class II games, how can you have a

 6 system that has only one Class II game?

 7 MR. McGHEE: I think a game can be several

 8 systems.

 9 MR. CULLOO: So theme really does not apply?

10 MR. McGHEE: Yeah. 

11 MR. FISHER: Okay. So we ready to move off

12 the Class II system definition?

13 Sounds like we got it worked around just

14 leaving it as is. All right.

15 So now we're down to electrostatic discharge.

16 MR. McGHEE: It was originally removed

17 because it was never referenced in the standard at

18 all. So -- but yesterday it was put back in.

19 So the question is, to leave it, omit it, or

20 put it back in. But also what was put back in were

21 three or four other things. All of those other things

22 that aren't going to be defined either. So those four

23 or five areas may need to be defined or made a note of

24 along with this being reinstated along with the four

25 other components that had to be tested.
446

 1 MR. PUROHIT: Radio frequency and all of

 2 those in the hardware section.

 3 MR. McGHEE: Yeah. 

 4 MR. PUROHIT: You put it in testing, right?

 5 MS. HAMEL: Testing.

 6 Took it out of --

 7 MR. PUROHIT: There was a definition -- I

 8 think the committee adopted the language from the

 9 Washington State Jurisdiction, right?

10 I think it was -- there were some definitions

11 in the Arizona ones, as well, where they actually did

12 it and they also have the testing requirements. So I

13 think you can probably take some of the definition

14 piece from there and just put that into the definition

15 section up there.

16 MR. McGHEE: Yeah. I would just say

17 reinstate that definition and add definitions for the

18 other things that were added to the submission testing

19 section. I didn't write them down.

20 MR. FISHER: I can go back and figure out

21 what they are. Okay.

22 So did that capture it? 

23 The definition of electromagnetic

24 interference would be as in the current regulations.

25 Because the TGWG suggested striking it, this would
447

 1 leave it as is. And then add the definitions for the

 2 other items, radio frequency, those things that are

 3 listed in the submission.

 4 Why don't we say --

 5 MR. PUROHIT: I'll just put a word of caution

 6 for you to consider too. You just want the

 7 definitions, not the testing criteria? The tests

 8 criteria is generally captured in the testing section.

 9 Because the one that we copied and pasted from the

10 Arizona appendix, that actually had specific ways to

11 test the range for the electr -- electrostatic testing

12 and all that stuff so --

13 MR. McGHEE: Just define it.

14 MR. FISHER: Everybody see this?

15 Does that capture it?

16 Okay. Ready to -- anybody have any

17 questions?

18 Ready to test it?

19 So if you agree with this change in yellow

20 raise your hand, please. Okay. I got everybody.

21 Okay. Daniel, do I have another definition?

22 MR. McGHEE: The financial instrument

23 acceptor. Actually, these three, the financial

24 acceptor, dispenser, and components which are the

25 three definitions together, all that does is add an
448

 1 example to add clarity because some people were

 2 saying, well, what exactly is a financial instrument.

 3 Such as what? And that was why -- such as the drop

 4 box was put out there because drop box was the more

 5 common terminology used for it. But it's not used

 6 anywhere in the standards. So they wanted people to

 7 realize that a financial instrument storage component

 8 was actually a drop box.

 9 MR. FISHER: Right.

10 Did you want that on the record?

11 MR. LITTLE: No.

12 MR. FISHER: Okay.

13 So do you want to test the changes to those

14 three?

15 MR. McGHEE: Yeah. They either agree with

16 all of them or they don't.

17 MR. FISHER: Yes, because they do the same

18 thing.

19 Okay. If you support the changes to these

20 three definitions, financial instrument acceptor,

21 financial instrument dispenser, and financial

22 instrument storage component, raise your hand. Okay.

23 That worked.

24 Okay. Next Daniel?

25 MR. McGHEE: Patron. There was a definition
449

 1 added to the definitions.

 2 MS. HAMEL: Are we using patron in the

 3 document?

 4 MR. PUROHIT: I didn't find it anywhere.

 5 MR. FISHER: Do you want me to look for it?

 6 MR. MORGAN: I think --

 7 MR. FISHER: It's right there. It's right

 8 there.

 9 MS. HAMEL: That's the only place it is.

10 MR. PUROHIT: There is four right here.

11 There is a total of nine.

12 MR. McGHEE: Go find all of them.

13 MR. FISHER: Four of them are in these

14 definitions right here. That is what we added.

15 That's our thing, not the machines. And that's in an

16 explanation. But that's the definition of account

17 access component.

18 MS. HAMEL: So it's just patron dispute?

19 MR. FISHER: The next one -- it's only in the

20 definitions. So it's only in the definitions. It is

21 a term that's used and the term is used in the

22 definitions.

23 MS. HAMEL: And we never saw patron deposit

24 account in the technical?

25 MR. FISHER: Yes. It was there but we
450

 1 deleted it. It was in the cashless transaction

 2 definition and we deleted it.

 3 MR. LITTLE: Matthew, you started to talk

 4 about -- you tried to standardize. 

 5 Do you still believe that's a good idea?

 6 MR. MORGAN: I never attributed it to my

 7 idea. I was telling you what the grouped wanted to

 8 do.

 9 MR. LITTLE: You opened your mouth.

10 MR. MORGAN: For the record.

11 I was just trying to tell you some of the

12 decisions made and why they were made and one of the

13 decisions was definitions consistent from both

14 documents.

15 MR. McGHEE: If it wasn't used.

16 Originally patron was used in the definitions

17 so you defined what patron was. But since it was

18 removed --

19 MR. PUROHIT: Did you -- TGWG also removed a

20 definition that wasn't used in this document would be

21 electromagnetic interference, right? I mean they did

22 do that as well. So if nothing was used then you take

23 it out?

24 MR. McGHEE: So we're deleting both the --

25 MR. LITTLE: Do you guys want to make a
451

 1 recommendation that you pull out all the definitions

 2 that have no reference in the regulation? Then you

 3 could kind of skip doing all of the hand raising.

 4 MR. FISHER: So that would -- something like

 5 that? 

 6 Okay. So before we test that, Tom has his

 7 card up.

 8 MR. WILSON: I hate to keep going backwards,

 9 but my mind is working slow after lunch. On the -- I

10 just want to be clear, in my mind financial

11 instruments includes players rewards. And is that --

12 is that a correct assumption? 

13 And if it is, is there any consequences of

14 that in the definitions of financial instruments or

15 the standards surrounding it? 

16 Because when I look at the definition of a

17 financial instrument, any tangible item of value,

18 player rewards have value. And I just want to make

19 sure that that was part of the discussion when these

20 definitions came out. Or if it wasn't, is there

21 anything hanging out there that could be a problem

22 with player rewards in terms of technical standards.

23 MR. McGHEE: Player rewards like what,

24 points?

25 MR. CULLOO: It says, but not limited to.
452

 1 MS. HAMEL: And does that go into the

 2 financial instrument exception?

 3 MR. WILSON: Well --

 4 MR. McGHEE: That's not a financial

 5 instrument.

 6 MR. MORGAN: Could you read the definition of

 7 cash equivalents, because it interplays with the

 8 definition of financial instrument. And it may not be

 9 in the technical standards. It may be a definition in

10 the MICS.

11 MR. McGHEE: You're reading financial

12 instrument, the definition?

13 MR. WILSON: Yes. 

14 I guess my -- that's my question because I

15 don't know if in the Class II world that player

16 rewards are different or treated different or used

17 differently than in the Class III.

18 MR. McGHEE: It's not a financial instrument

19 because it's not tangible. It's not an instrument at

20 all. 

21 MR. WHEATLEY: I would argue against

22 converted into a financial instrument.

23 MR. McGHEE: Then it becomes money.

24 MR. WILSON: Well, from an accounting

25 standpoint it's definitely tangible.
453

 1 MR. McGHEE: Then you have to define

 2 tangible.

 3 MR. WILSON: Well, I mean, it's saying any

 4 tangible item of value. As a player, if I have

 5 points, that are redeemable for something, it's

 6 definitely tangible and it has a value.

 7 MS. HAMEL: At the game level or at some

 8 other avenue?

 9 MR. WILSON: Well, I don't -- I guess that's

10 my question. This may not even be applicable in the

11 technical standard. But I'm just saying that if

12 included in the financial instrument, are player

13 tracking rewards part of that definition or not? 

14 And if they are not, does it need to be clear

15 that it doesn't intend to address that?

16 MS. HAMEL: If it is an instrument that

17 has -- you can touch and feel and place into a

18 financial instrument acceptor, then yes.

19 MR. WILSON: If I have a player rewards card

20 and I have a machine --

21 MS. HAMEL: That's different than this.

22 That's part of the MICS. It's not a technical

23 standard.

24 MR. WILSON: Okay. 

25 MR. McGHEE: Financial instruments other than
454

 1 cash, the cash equivalent, or anything else of

 2 representative value to which the gaming operation had

 3 assigned a monetary value. Cash equivalent --

 4 MS. HAMEL: That's in the MICS.

 5 MR. McGHEE: But now, cash equivalents is

 6 nowhere mentioned in the technical standard so it's

 7 not really mentioned, but it is defined in the MICS.

 8 MS. HAMEL: I think it's in the definition.

 9 It's not used in the technical standards. That's one

10 of them we searched for.

11 MR. WILSON: Just to be clear. I'm not -- I

12 don't want to raise a point -- my only concern was

13 that are there any technical standards that need to be

14 applicable to a player rewards system?

15 Maybe that's a better way to put it. That

16 was my only concern.

17 MR. McGHEE: There are no technical standards

18 for player rewards.

19 MR. WILSON: So the answer would be no?

20 MR. McGHEE: I don't think it's a good idea

21 because you're being robbed in that area but it's not

22 in here.

23 MR. PUROHIT: There is nothing with the

24 player tracking. So, you know, it's just what the

25 tests are required in a lab setting and for
455

 1 manufacturers to design it. That hopefully clears it

 2 up. If you look at the testing requirements for

 3 putting aside the definition part of it, what are the

 4 testing requirements and what are the design

 5 requirements. And they focus on the bill acceptor

 6 which is the printing financial instrument itself. So

 7 I don't know if that satisfies the existing language

 8 or not.

 9 MR. WILSON: It does.

10 I just -- that's why I wanted to understand

11 how broad is this definition of financial instrument.

12 In my mind I could create all kinds of things that

13 have tangible value. But if it's strictly relating to

14 something you could stick in a bill validator, then I

15 get it.

16 MR. PUROHIT: If the testing requirements are

17 to be robust and all that stuff. I think it would be

18 like a card reader or something like that. And there

19 is nothing in the testing requirements for that so

20 hopefully that kind of captures that vagueness in

21 there.

22 MR. FISHER: Okay. That answer your

23 question?

24 MR. WILSON: I am satisfied.

25 MR. FISHER: So where we were was patron.
456

 1 MR. McGHEE: I think the last comment was to

 2 delete the definition of patron and patron deposit

 3 account; is that right?

 4 MR. FISHER: Well, then we got to that

 5 general recommendation that NIGC remove all

 6 definitions that are not used in the regulations.

 7 Do you want to test what is the broad concept

 8 or do you want to test those two definitions?

 9 MR. McGHEE: Do the broad.

10 MR. FISHER: Okay.

11 So if you are in support of that

12 recommendation highlighted in yellow on the screen,

13 raise your hand. Okay.

14 MR. McGHEE: The next one -- we already

15 tackled that. 

16 The only thing left was TGRA and not a --

17 MR. FISHER: You mean changing -- using the

18 letters TGRA every time it says tribal --

19 MR. McGHEE: Yeah. If you look at it --

20 there is blue there, but I don't really know if they

21 changed the definition or if they just added TGRA as a

22 definition.

23 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: I thought we wanted to

24 add primary gaming.

25 MR. McGHEE: Yes. We discussed it at length.
457

 1 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: We are going to come back

 2 to that one. 

 3 MR. FISHER: Okay. We were going to come

 4 back to that one. Okay. But this change -- this

 5 added the initials, the acronym, the initials.

 6 So do you want to test this one?

 7 MR. WILSON: I missed the part -- what was

 8 the part about we're not discussing about the term

 9 primary?

10 MR. FISHER: Because they are still

11 working -- they are still working on bringing back

12 something to the TAC on how to incorporate that idea

13 in to the technical standards. It may be in this

14 place, it may be somewhere else. We have to give them

15 a chance to finish their work.

16 MR. PUROHIT: Is it in the MICS document,

17 too? Did you define it the same way?

18 MR. FISHER: What's the it? 

19 MR. PUROHIT: The TGRA. 

20 MR. FISHER: TGRA is defined the same way.

21 So shall we test the change to this?

22 MR. WHEATLEY: Not yet.

23 MR. FISHER: Not yet. Okay.

24 Daniel, anything else in the definitions for

25 you?
458

 1 MR. McGHEE: That's it. The rest were just

 2 capitalization changes.

 3 MR. FISHER: All right.

 4 So we have now worked our way through the

 5 TGWG recommendations. We've worked our way through

 6 all of the other questions that have come up over the

 7 course of the discussion in the last day and a half.

 8 So does anybody have anything else that they

 9 want to raise with respect to the technical standards?

10 We still have a couple of open things to

11 return to.

12 Does anybody have anything else right now?

13 MR. McGHEE: Just one thing outstanding which

14 is the blanket statement of TGRA? 

15 MR. FISHER: Well, I counted it as two

16 because it's the blanket statement and it may be this

17 definition. So that's why I was counting it as two.

18 But they are related. One item, two parts.

19 Does anybody have anything else in the

20 technical standards to raise with the group?

21 So are we ready to close out the discussion

22 for now on the technical standards? 

23 And if so, then the request from this morning

24 was for the TAC to go into closed executive session

25 before we began the discussion on the MICS.
459

 1 Are we at that point? Yes.

 2 For those of us that are exiting, do you have

 3 a sense of how long this is going to take you?

 4 MR. WILSON: I think probably at least 15

 5 minutes. I am going to give you the Matthew answer,

 6 we're done when we're done.

 7 MR. FISHER: The only reason I am asking is

 8 because there are a bunch of people hanging out

 9 waiting to come back in. So if you could -- if you

10 see that it's going to go longer than about 15 or 20

11 minutes if you could send somebody out and let us

12 know, that would be much appreciated.

13 All right. So what that means is we're going

14 to go off the record and the TAC is now going to go

15 into closed executive session and that means all non

16 TAC members are respectfully requested to leave the

17 room.

18 (Executive session - discussion held off the 

19 record.) 

20 MR. FISHER: All right. So are you ready?

21 So is there anything you want us to know or

22 where should we start?

23 MR. MORGAN: I want to be clear on what

24 documents we're going to use when we start talking.

25 MR. FISHER: Okay.
460

 1 MR. WILSON: We do have a general statement,

 2 but if we can establish, first, which documents

 3 because there is some confusion with that because the

 4 general statement refers to a document and we want to

 5 make sure we're dealing with the right document.

 6 MR. FISHER: The general statement meaning?

 7 MR. WILSON: The general statement we're

 8 going to make.

 9 So one of the -- I mean, we've got a document

10 here, control standards for bingo, that I think is the

11 document that you guys said that you sent that has

12 your comments as well as -- and we just want to make

13 sure that's the document --

14 MS. HAMEL: It's twenty-seven pages long.

15 MR. LITTLE: That's the only one we sent out.

16 MR. FISHER: Just -- is Mike in the room? 

17 Did you send me the Word version of that

18 document?

19 MR. LITTLE: Nimish did also.

20 MR. FISHER: Okay.

21 MR. MORGAN: When we start going through the

22 MICS, the first thing we got to get into is the

23 application and then we'll move on so we don't jump

24 over that part.

25 MR. WILSON: Well, let's --
461

 1 MR. LITTLE: I think you should pull up the

 2 red line.

 3 MR. FISHER: Yeah. That's what I am trying

 4 to do.

 5 MR. WILSON: So we'd like to address one

 6 piece. Go to the purpose and application but that

 7 pertains back to the statement inserted into the

 8 technical standard; is that correct, Matt?

 9 MR. MORGAN: That is where that language is,

10 yes. Go back to our agenda. And basically says once

11 the technical standard discussion is complete then

12 we're going to move into the MICS and start with Class

13 II MICS purpose and application discussion. I think

14 that's what the agenda committee decided, we stick

15 with that.

16 MR. McGHEE: Bingo?

17 MR. MORGAN: No. Purpose and application.

18 MS. HAMEL: But that's not been distributed

19 by Robert, right?

20 MR. WILSON: I don't know that I have that.

21 MR. McGHEE: All I have is bingo --

22 MR. LITTLE: The agenda planning committee

23 identified three areas they wanted to focus on at this

24 meeting. And this was the MICS for bingo, MICS for

25 card games, and the definitions. And that's what we
462

 1 prepared comparisons for and that's what we sent to

 2 you.

 3 MR. WILSON: What's the document you are

 4 referring to?

 5 MR. MORGAN: If you look at the MICS, it

 6 starts out what part does this cover and it goes into

 7 the definitions and then interpretations and

 8 application of the -- that was in the --

 9 MR. McGHEE: And then bingo card games and

10 definitions.

11 MS. STACONA: Starting at 8:15 was supposed

12 to be the overview and discussion. And the first part

13 of that was Class II purpose and application. That's

14 pretty much where we're at.

15 MR. FISHER: Right. That's where we thought

16 we would start.

17 What I just heard Dan say is that --

18 MR. MORGAN: That did not get sent out.

19 MR. McGHEE: There is no red line version.

20 MR. LITTLE: Yeah.

21 MR. McGHEE: There is no red line version.

22 There was no changes.

23 MR. FISHER: There is no changes from the

24 TGWG in those sections?

25 MR. MORGAN: Well, the change is -- the one
463

 1 change there is -- I think there is a section in --

 2 tiers. Tear A, B, and C. That is a change in the

 3 definitions, but that's the language that comes back

 4 to the definitions that says this is what tier A

 5 means, this is what tier B means, and this is what

 6 tier C means.

 7 Did we actually change the thresholds?

 8 MS. HAMEL: It's 543.3. How do Tribal

 9 governments comply.

10 MR. MORGAN: Right. That would be the only

11 change I remember from our discussions because I

12 thought we changed the threshold on the tier.

13 MR. WHEATLEY: The thresholds are only in the

14 definitions, though.

15 MR. MORGAN: Right.

16 MS. HAMEL: And how do we comply?

17 MR. McGHEE: How do we -- and the how do we

18 comply part -- unless there was changes to the

19 definition of tier. And that's where you would have

20 changed the range.

21 MS. HAMEL: In the definition.

22 MR. McGHEE: So you want to check there and

23 you will know if that's where you remember it from.

24 MR. MORGAN: I don't have the red line

25 version. But my recollection was I thought we changed
464

 1 the threshold levels on tier determinations.

 2 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: Can we pull up the red

 3 line?

 4 MS. HAMEL: That's in the definitions.

 5 MR. WILSON: I don't see that in the

 6 definition.

 7 MS. HAMEL: Go to the tiers.

 8 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 9 MR. MORGAN: The only place that's really

10 going to come up is you don't read how to comply,

11 which points back to the definition. We're never

12 going to get a discussion on are you okay with that

13 threshold change for a tier A facility.

14 MR. McGHEE: In what was submitted -- that

15 wasn't pointed out in the submission. Now if they did

16 it in person, it should be there.

17 MR. WHEATLEY: The changes though, appear to

18 be in line with what the NIGC had as draft changes.

19 So it's something they were already proposing.

20 MS. HAMEL: Can you bring up the definitions

21 that you sent us?

22 MR. FISHER: You want me to bring up --

23 MR. WILSON: If I understand the change that

24 was made is that previously or under the current rule

25 or -- 1 to 5 million was considered a tier A facility
465

 1 and what the tribal working group has changed is that

 2 3 million to 8 million is tier A. The effect being

 3 that if you are less than 3 million in gaming revenue

 4 you don't have to comply with the MICS at all.

 5 MR. MORGAN: If you are a small or charitable

 6 gaming operation you would fall under that.

 7 MR. WILSON: Okay. Small and charitable

 8 gaming criteria.

 9 MR. FISHER: Okay.

10 Kathi, you asked that the definitions be

11 brought up.

12 MS. HAMEL: So if you go down to the tiers --

13 MR. FISHER: Isn't that all the way at the

14 end?

15 MS. HAMEL: Yes.

16 MR. WHEATLEY: Yeah. It's the last

17 definitions.

18 MS. HAMEL: A and B changed.

19 MR. MORGAN: I want to make sure because in

20 the original planning agenda documents we said before

21 we get into the substantive topics that we would cover

22 these parts.

23 The only substantive change I remember is

24 that we changed the threshold levels for tier A, which

25 affected tier B, and so 1 million moved to 3 million
466

 1 for tier A, and tier B now starts at 8 million. So if

 2 you don't make more than 3 million gross, then you are

 3 going to follow 543.6 under does this part apply to

 4 small and charitable gaming operation for guidance.

 5 And so for your smaller facilities that you

 6 say I am a tier A, now you are not a tier A until you

 7 hit 3 million.

 8 And are you okay with that change?

 9 MS. HAMEL: Because there is --

10 MR. FISHER: Okay. Can I -- we got multiple

11 conversations going on at the same time. So could we

12 have -- okay. So I interrupted because there are

13 multiple conversations going on. So let's just get

14 back to one conversation.

15 So back to you, Matt, because you were

16 explaining the changes and the significance of the

17 changes.

18 MR. MORGAN: Everybody follow how we got here

19 first?

20 Everybody hear my explanation? 

21 And we were supposed to talk about the non

22 substantive parts, the introductions to the MICS. The

23 substantive changes we made in those is we did change

24 the threshold level for a tier A facility from

25 $1 million up to now $3 million.
467

 1 Therefore, that affected tier B, so now you

 2 start at B -- you don't reach tier B status until you

 3 hit the 8 million. That's important because if you

 4 now fall below the 3 million you are not covered under

 5 the MICS anymore. You are covered under how do the

 6 small gaming operations comply with. And that was

 7 always the term for when you were less than a million.

 8 That does impact some small operations.

 9 And if you are okay with that change -- I

10 mean, it's just a number change, but that does affect

11 who gets lumped into that grouping now.

12 MR. MAGEE: How many did that affect?

13 MR. MORGAN: I don't know to be quite honest

14 with you.

15 MR. MAGEE: Why the change then?

16 MR. WHEATLEY: Inflation.

17 MR. WILSON: What was the rationale for the

18 change from three to one -- or from one to three?

19 MR. MORGAN: Daniel, do you have that

20 explanation in your document of the rationale for the

21 range?

22 MR. McGHEE: My document doesn't even have

23 the red line.

24 MR. FISHER: What's projected on the screen

25 is the NIGC's comparison document.
468

 1 MR. WHEATLEY: What we're doing is that it's

 2 also -- the levels that were changed are in line with

 3 what was drafted by the NIGC for their 2010 rule that

 4 was put on hold. So it's the same level that was

 5 proposed by the NIGC.

 6 MR. MORGAN: When we changed conversations to

 7 the MICS, they have been on the books but the

 8 effectiveness has never been -- that date has never

 9 been because it's been postponed once and now

10 postponed twice. So there is really nothing in

11 effect.

12 MR. WILSON: So the tribal working group was

13 comfortable with the change from 1 million -- or from

14 3 million and NIGC is going to put that change in

15 there.

16 MR. WHEATLEY: Initially proposed it.

17 MR. WILSON: Okay.

18 MR. McGHEE: We worked from the 2010

19 proposed.

20 MR. LITTLE: Let's make sure we clarify it.

21 Propose from --

22 MR. McGHEE: Sorry. Draft.

23 MR. LITTLE: Because these were not proposed

24 in 2010. They were posted on the website in 2010 but

25 these were not proposed rules. Let's make sure that
469

 1 was clear.

 2 MR. McGHEE: What came after the first TAC?

 3 MR. MORGAN: So you had the 542 document out

 4 there. And the tribal working group did look at 542.

 5 But we compared it to what was published in 2008 that

 6 was supposed to become effective in 2010 because when

 7 we did review it it was still effective. It was only

 8 after we submitted it did that rule again get

 9 postponed another year. Now we're looking at October

10 this year.

11 MR. LITTLE: No. We postponed it again.

12 MR. McGHEE: The draft was the most recent

13 thing that came out of the NIGC. And it's another

14 reason for this group to get somewhere.

15 MR. MORGAN: That's one of the reasons we

16 need to clarify what document we're working from.

17 MR. LITTLE: I personally had to sign twice

18 to extend it an additional year and this was a

19 document I never worked on.

20 MS. HAMEL: But only 543.7 was published.

21 Was bingo.

22 MR. MORGAN: Is that correct?

23 MR. FISHER: So what's the question?

24 MS. HAMEL: I didn't make a question.

25 This wasn't in 543.7.
470

 1 MR. MORGAN: No.

 2 MR. McGHEE: Yes, it was not. It was in the

 3 draft rule eight -- it was a TGWG agreement that left

 4 it as the draft in 2008.

 5 MR. WILSON: So is the question -- do we need

 6 to state that we're comfortable with that change?

 7 MR. McGHEE: Yes, because it's not official.

 8 There is no official -- yeah, you have to decide

 9 because the three to eight is now the TGWG document.

10 It doesn't exist anywhere except in some draft rule.

11 When we said we changed it were we changing

12 it from the final rule?

13 I think the TGWG, I think -- you have to

14 decide if it's acceptable.

15 MR. LITTLE: I've -- this is Rest West. He's

16 one of our senior auditors. He has a lot of

17 experience in this area so I asked him to address

18 this. 

19 MR. McGHEE: Well, I guess what they are

20 wondering is the TGWG proposed -- what we submitted

21 was the 3 and $8 million thresholds, which is what was

22 proposed in your draft rule. But the final rule is

23 1 million and 5 million so in looking at TGWG's

24 documents and this group deciding, okay, we like the 3

25 million and 8 million. They need to accept TGWG's
471

 1 proposed rule. Because really if you look at it, then

 2 it's really no change from your 2010 draft rule.

 3 MR. LITTLE: Exactly.

 4 MR. McGHEE: The question is -- what they --

 5 do we want it to be 3 million and 8 million, which is

 6 different from the final rule but the same as the

 7 draft rule? 

 8 But what does this committee need to express

 9 to you? 

10 MR. WEST: In the 2008 rule, the one that's

11 in effect right now and then the draft rule is the

12 proposed so the draft rule came after the proposed.

13 MR. McGHEE: That's what keeps getting pushed

14 off? Extended?

15 MR. WEST: Right.

16 So the committee looked at the draft rule is

17 my understanding as their starting point.

18 MR. LITTLE: If you want to adopt that as a

19 recommendation, go right ahead.

20 MR. McGHEE: Why don't we see where we stand.

21 Anybody have any problem with the 3 million?

22 MR. FISHER: The request has been made to

23 test this proposed change to the tier definitions in

24 the MICS in part 543. And so everybody --

25 Michele?
472

 1 MS. STACONA: Quick clarification. From what

 2 he just said was the 2010 draft rule is where the

 3 commission was starting at now, correct?

 4 MR. WHEATLEY: No. Where the tribal gaming

 5 working group started their work from based on the

 6 2010 proposed regulations. 

 7 Correct?

 8 MR. McGHEE: The initial 3 million and 8

 9 million, where did that come from?

10 MS. STACONA: The TGWG.

11 No?

12 MR. WHEATLEY: No. The NIGC.

13 MS. STACONA: The NIGC proposed the -- 

14 MR. WEST: It came from the last working

15 group that was formed.

16 MR. McGHEE: There you go. 

17 And NIGC chose to accept it.

18 MR. LITTLE: The last working group finished

19 up in spring of 2010. This is their work.

20 MR. WILSON: So -- as I understand -- the --

21 really nobody in this room knows the rationale for why

22 the dollar amount changed?

23 Is that a fair statement?

24 MR. LITTLE: Yes.

25 MR. WILSON: Okay.
473

 1 So for us, we're not able to glean any --

 2 anything further other than are we agreeing that we're

 3 okay with the change from one to three? Even though

 4 we don't know why. Okay.

 5 MS. LASH: Should we test it?

 6 MR. FISHER: Yeah.

 7 Do you want to test it?

 8 Okay. So why don't we just try this. Let's

 9 test -- so -- you could say --

10 MR. McGHEE: So you are going to test the

11 changes to A and B because C didn't change.

12 MR. FISHER: So this would be a change to

13 tier -- so that's one way to say this because that's

14 consistent with what I heard people saying is the

15 origin of those numbers.

16 MR. McGHEE: If you change A that means B has

17 to change.

18 MS. STEVE GARVIN: Are you saying you can do

19 A and B together? NIGC agreed with that? Then on

20 tier B, NIGC didn't propose -- well, I guess -- yeah,

21 they did.

22 MR. WHEATLEY: They would have had to.

23 MR. FISHER: Yeah. It's a conforming change

24 to pick this up right there if I understand how this

25 is set up.
474

 1 But we can do them one at a time if you want.

 2 MR. WILSON: I don't know that we need to do

 3 one at a time.

 4 MR. FISHER: Does this capture it in terms of

 5 what the recommendation would be?

 6 All right. So shall we test what's up on the

 7 screen -- the recommendation in yellow up on the

 8 screen to accept the changes in those definitions? 

 9 So if you support and accept that

10 recommendation that's up on the screen in yellow on

11 the tier A and tier B definitions, raise your hand?

12 Okay. All right.

13 So now what? Move to bingo or is there any

14 other preliminary things?

15 MR. MORGAN: I'm not bringing up anything

16 else.

17 MR. WILSON: I thought there were two things

18 on the agenda.

19 MR. FISHER: Well, we did -- the purpose and

20 applications sections were on the agenda. To the

21 extent that there needed to be any change -- because

22 those set the tone for the rest of the regulations.

23 And so the question -- we started there on -- with the

24 agenda group because that's the starting point for

25 the -- everything that follows derives from those two
475

 1 sections. So there is no proposed changes in those

 2 sections.

 3 MS. HAMEL: Was there any comments -- does

 4 that mean that NIGC doesn't have any comments to those

 5 sections?

 6 MR. FISHER: They didn't create a comparison

 7 document.

 8 MS. HAMEL: Because there was nothing to

 9 compare or was it just not prepared for this meeting?

10 MR. LITTLE: We did do a comparison. We

11 compared it. And you should all have the definitions

12 where you got the 2008 final rule, the one that's been

13 postponed. You have the draft rule. That was the

14 product of the last TAC. And then the TGWG document.

15 We don't have comment or a reasoning -- we don't have

16 that if that's what you are looking for.

17 MR. McGHEE: I think she's worried about

18 543.1 saying what does this part cover.

19 MS. HAMEL: So no comment.

20 MR. MORGAN: We're okay to move to bingo.

21 MR. FISHER: That's where we are trying to

22 get to. Nobody else has anything.

23 So we may -- recognizing that as we go

24 through this you may revisit these sections if that's

25 appropriate.
476

 1 So we are ready to move to bingo. So let me

 2 pull up the NIGC bingo document. All right. So how

 3 would you like to do this since we are embarking on a

 4 new section? We can do it the same way we did

 5 technical standards. 

 6 That's the NIGC. So what's the procedure you

 7 want to use to work our way through this? 

 8 Do you want to pick up with the NIGC

 9 document?

10 Do you want to pick up with the TGWG red

11 line?

12 Daniel?

13 MR. McGHEE: If I look at the submission that

14 TGWG submitted and then based it on the draft, then

15 the 2008 comparison -- I don't see where it really

16 needs to come into place. Because it really only

17 matters what -- from my understanding, especially my

18 comment on what TGWG submitted, and -- when you start

19 throwing all three of the versions in there, I found

20 it really confusing to follow. I can't really follow

21 how it's going.

22 Now, if you look at this, it's simple. You

23 know what I mean?

24 MR. FISHER: The TGWG red line document?

25 MR. McGHEE: Yeah.
477

 1 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 2 MR. McGHEE: You just may have to refer back

 3 for comments from people.

 4 MR. FISHER: So that's right here. If -- if

 5 this is the right version of the TGWG document.

 6 MR. McGHEE: It is not.

 7 MR. FISHER: If it is.

 8 MR. McGHEE: I'm telling you it's not.

 9 MR. FISHER: Okay. 

10 Let me tell you -- this is the document that

11 NIGC has. This is the document -- hang on here. We

12 got to make sure we're working from the right set of

13 documents. This document is what is posted on the

14 website which was received by NIGC so, Nimish, can you

15 tell us the origin of this document?

16 MR. PUROHIT: Yes. This one is -- the Word

17 document here was the one that was sent to the

18 commission and Laow (phonetic) and she forwarded it to

19 us so we could copy and paste to it for the

20 comparison, 547. And there is two versions, the red

21 line and the final changes. Because what was

22 submitted, that had the PDF version in there. So

23 that's why we're making sure this is indeed the same

24 draft in the Word version with the actual PDF as well.

25 And this was submitted on behalf of the TGWG with the
478

 1 cover letter and memo.

 2 MR. McGHEE: But that's not right.

 3 MR. FISHER: It's not the right document?

 4 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: No. I have the 7-28

 5 date. You have May 13.

 6 MR. McGHEE: I think what -- she tried to

 7 compare with the 2008 also.

 8 MR. FISHER: Why don't we take a short break

 9 while we try to figure out what document is what.

10 People can stretch and little bit. We'll figure out

11 how to get to the right document.

12 (Off the record.)

13 MR. FISHER: Okay. So let's get started. We

14 have a couple of things to sort out.

15 And go to Tom.

16 MR. WILSON: So we've got -- Matthew is going

17 to make a general statement just to give everybody an

18 overview of the rationale that was applied to

19 developing the MICS overall. Not just for bingo but

20 the MICS and the approach. And then when he's

21 through, I will make a follow-up statement that sort

22 of summarizes what we discussed in our executive

23 session that pertains to that.

24 But I would just like to go on the record and

25 state that we had this document issue about what
479

 1 versions we're working on and somehow we've got to get

 2 to a point where -- I want to come prepared. It's

 3 difficult to come prepared and read one document and

 4 then find out it's not the document that the

 5 expectation that was supposed to be discussed was

 6 the -- and I don't have any control over that. I have

 7 to rely on what is being sent by whomever.

 8 So I would only state that it would be much

 9 more effective if we can -- whatever safeguards need

10 to be put in place to ensure that the documents that

11 we get sent are the documents we're going to be

12 discussing.

13 MR. LITTLE: Not to make excuses, and you

14 know -- moving forward, we're going to have a little

15 more time. We were rushed here because there was only

16 three weeks between the last meeting and this one

17 here.

18 To be honest with you, it's confusing on our

19 part. We're working off of three drafts, basically,

20 or three different documents. And I think as we

21 look -- as we're looking forward, any subsequent

22 comparison -- we're going to compare apples to apples

23 with the working groups. That was just making

24 comparison off the 2010 draft. Okay. So that will

25 hopefully clear things up. 
480

 1 The two comparisons we have here, the bingo

 2 and the card games, there -- in most cases there

 3 really wasn't anything in 2008 so it is a comparison

 4 off of 2010. And they are -- you know, Dan and Mike

 5 went through them and they are correct.

 6 So the documents you have in front of you,

 7 you know, are correct. We did have a problem -- or we

 8 did not have a Word version of the latest. We got

 9 multiple copies of the working group document sent to

10 us.

11 And the first one put up was one of the early

12 documents. The only reason that it was put up is

13 because it was the only Word document that we had. We

14 don't have a copy of the final document in Word, just

15 PDF. I think Matt will be providing that to us soon.

16 That's where the confusion came from. We just had an

17 earlier copy of it.

18 I really think that the process of putting

19 the red line up there and making that has worked

20 really well so far. And that would be a nice way to

21 continue the process here.

22 But moving forward, we will get these to you.

23 My apologies for that. We were under a little time

24 crunch. And we'll make sure it's better identified so

25 that you know it's going to be working off of the 2010
481

 1 draft that was put on the website.

 2 MR. WILSON: So for purposes of this evening,

 3 can we discuss the PDF version document even though

 4 you don't have a Word version?

 5 MR. LITTLE: I think --

 6 MR. FISHER: I pulled it off the NIGC

 7 website.

 8 MR. LITTLE: We're trying to get a copy of

 9 the Word document.

10 MR. FISHER: Yes we could work off of that

11 and I can just display the changes in the different

12 form if that's where you get to.

13 MR. LITTLE: Anybody have it -- do you have a

14 Word copy of it?

15 MS. LASH: No.

16 MR. MORGAN: I have Sheila on the phone

17 trying to get that to you.

18 MR. FISHER: Until it shows up we can figure

19 out how to work it out.

20 MR. LITTLE: It's not as complicated as it

21 appears.

22 MR. WILSON: Okay. Because it did appear

23 very complicated. Everybody is off in their own

24 groups.

25 MR. FISHER: Kathi, did you want to say
482

 1 something?

 2 MS. HAMEL: Could I make a recommendation

 3 that no matter what document is distributed for us to

 4 discuss at any of these meetings -- many of us are

 5 going to have a hard copy -- that somebody put a file

 6 name and a date at the bottom of the document so that

 7 we all have printed and are working from the same

 8 document.

 9 MR. FISHER: All the documents that I

10 produced do that.

11 The documents -- so on the NIGC side, when

12 are you creating documents, they need to have the file

13 name and the date it's created so we're making sure

14 we're on the same version with the same dates.

15 MR. LITTLE: That would be fine. We'll do

16 that.

17 MS. STACONA: We found it.

18 MR. MORGAN: On the website, WWW dot Class II

19 regs dot com has everything in a Word format.

20 MR. WILSON: Are we ready for Matthew to give

21 his general statement?

22 MR. LITTLE: I think we can do that.

23 MR. FISHER: Yeah.

24 MR. MORGAN: In 1776 -- conceptually, this is

25 mainly for your records and note taking. But
483

 1 conceptually, the tribal gaming work group document,

 2 what we tried to do was to make the minimal internal

 3 control standards less procedural in nature and more

 4 to be objective standards that must be met.

 5 So there is going it be a shift in concepts

 6 of how you're used to reading the MICS. It is a --

 7 here is the objective that you need to meet format.

 8 And this is the information that you need to include

 9 within there. And then we used guidance documents to

10 give you one example of how you could meet that

11 objective.

12 And again, the guidance document is not the

13 MICS. It's only an example of what you could adopt at

14 a tribal level in order to meet the objectives that

15 the MICS requires you to meet. That is a big shift in

16 how you view the internal control standards.

17 I want to make sure that people understand

18 that going in of how we approached it because the page

19 numbers are greatly reduced now on what -- the work

20 product that was submitted by the Poarch Creek Band of

21 Indians. And I think that will help people's

22 understanding as they go through and participate in

23 our project or if they want to provide alternatives or

24 comments into it. That is at least somewhere out

25 there for them to read and understand of what our mind
484

 1 set was from a tribal gaming work group perspective on

 2 the submission of that document.

 3 MR. WILSON: So I would just like to follow

 4 up on that with sort of a philosophical example of

 5 this. On the document that I have, if you go to

 6 543.7(a), which is the document -- the PDF version.

 7 And the first section talks about internal control

 8 procedures. And fundamentally, one of the things that

 9 we discussed in our executive session is the mindset

10 shift that we believe needs to take place in order to

11 achieve the objectives of what the tribal working

12 group has submitted.

13 So an example of that would be if you read

14 the current definition of internal control procedures

15 and this -- this definition is reiterated throughout

16 the document.

17 What we would propose is a different wording

18 that would say, subject to the approval and oversight,

19 each gaming operation shall establish, implement, and

20 adhere to the internal control policies and procedures

21 that provide at least the level of control necessary

22 to mitigate the risk established by the standards of

23 this section.

24 The paradigm shift, if you will, of that

25 thinking is that it puts the idea that the whole point
485

 1 of these MICS are to mitigate risks. How you get

 2 there is not the primary objective of the MICS, but

 3 the primary objective is identifying the risks that

 4 need to be mitigated.

 5 And in our view that's a fundamental -- if

 6 you start from that point and then go down from it,

 7 what the tribal working group is proposing makes

 8 perfect sense. But it only makes sense if

 9 philosophically you can get on board with the concept

10 that risk is what we're trying to mitigate, not

11 controls. The controls are a -- an avenue that you

12 get to mitigate the risk, but that avenue can take

13 many different paths to get there.

14 The challenge for any regulator in that

15 mindset thinking is that the checklist mentality goes

16 away because it implies now that if I want to or if

17 NIGC or anybody wants to go in and see are you really

18 mitigating that risk, that's accomplished by going in

19 and understanding the tribe's internal control

20 structure that they have put in place to mitigate that

21 risk and then auditing against that to come to the

22 conclusion that the risk has been mitigated.

23 And this approach is not new. It's been

24 adopted in this country by the federal government

25 through the Office of the Comptroller General in terms
486

 1 of a risk-based environment when you are looking at

 2 trying to control or reach some objective.

 3 So it may be new to regulators, this concept,

 4 but it is not a new concept in the rest of the world.

 5 And so in the spirit of that, it's important for me

 6 and for my fellow TACions to -- to hopefully start

 7 with the concept that the NIGC, in fact, embraces that

 8 as a concept.

 9 And since we are supposed to be talking about

10 concepts, in our mind that is a very important first

11 concept that sets the tone for everything else that

12 follows when we're discussing MICS.

13 MR. LITTLE: I'm assuming you want me to say,

14 yes, we do agree with that concept, but clearly, you

15 know, I can't make a blanket statement for the full

16 commission. But you make some very compelling points

17 and is definitely something that we will definitely

18 look at.

19 MR. WILSON: So if we were to take a vote on

20 the wording to say what I threw out, you wouldn't be

21 opposed to that?

22 MR. LITTLE: I can't answer that. Yeah. If

23 you want to take a vote. I am not opposed to you

24 taking a vote. No.

25 This -- the recommendations you guys are
487

 1 making, that's absolutely fine. That's the whole

 2 purpose of this. But I can't tell you one way or the

 3 another if I agree or disagree with the concept or

 4 what you're trying to do there. I'm sure you all

 5 understand why.

 6 MR. WILSON: Well, I do. I just -- you know,

 7 what we don't want is the word risk to be a bad word,

 8 like a four letter word that you can't say because the

 9 fact is we've all talked about risk. We talked about

10 it in Connecticut. We talked about it here. What is

11 the risk we're trying to mitigate. 

12 And I think the take away that's so important

13 to this is that if you don't ask that question before

14 you create the regulation, then you will likely create

15 either over regulation or under regulation and not

16 achieve the objective that you are trying to achieve.

17 So philosophically, it's more of a mindset

18 that I think is a challenge for any regulatory body,

19 including my own, to come to terms with that it's okay

20 to look at things differently. And if we're

21 mitigating the risk, that's what's important, not the

22 procedural step of how you do that. And as long as

23 it's auditable, that's the standard that you are

24 working towards in that regard.

25 So I'll shut up now.
488

 1 MR. LITTLE: No. I mean -- I definitely can

 2 understand what you are saying. And like I said,

 3 there is a lot of very valid points. You know, the

 4 point of putting this TAC together was to bring you

 5 all together to provide some, you know, alternative

 6 concepts for us to think about when we do look at, you

 7 know, creating or, you know, updating or however we

 8 want to call it -- creating this rule.

 9 And if this is the direction that this

10 committee wants to go, then that's your prerogative.

11 And I'm not going to tell you one way or the other

12 what you are doing is right or wrong. If this is

13 something that you decide on, then I'm -- you know,

14 we're going to take any recommendation that you have

15 and give it full thought and consideration.

16 MR. WILSON: Okay. I said I would shut up.

17 But I will just make one more quick point.

18 As a regulator, the concern that one has is

19 how do I enforce something. And I just want to make

20 sure that NIGC -- you know, you've operated under one

21 realm of approach to this for many years now. And I

22 guess what I want to bring forth is that you can

23 enforce a risk-based model through auditing. It just

24 means, though, that you have to do more work as an

25 agency to understand.
489

 1 So instead of pulling off the shelf and

 2 saying everybody has to comply with this book, you

 3 now -- the onus is on you when you go out to audit

 4 that you have to understand that operation better in

 5 the context of how it operates to answer the question

 6 is the risk being mitigated. So it's a mind shift,

 7 but I just, you know, have to say that the rest of the

 8 world has adopted this. And so it's not -- while it

 9 may be foreign to NIGC or Indian Country, it is not a

10 foreign concept in the United States or most other

11 developed countries.

12 MR. LITTLE: Yeah. I clearly hear you and

13 understand what you are saying.

14 MR. WILSON: Thank you.

15 MR. FISHER: Go ahead.

16 MR. MORGAN: Since we're still talking in a

17 global nature as we go through, the way I look at the

18 MICS, you know. 

19 Am I understanding we're all good with a

20 543.1, 3, 4, and 6, so we're ready to move on to 7? 

21 And if we are okay with them, are we going to

22 vote as a group and proceed that we're okay with them

23 as written so that is a recommendation that goes up?

24 Dan keeps telling us that he wants as many

25 recommendations as possible from this group.
490

 1 If we're okay with those sections, can we at

 2 least get that --

 3 MR. McGHEE: What again?

 4 MR. MORGAN: One, what does this part cover;

 5 three, how do we comply with this part; four, what are

 6 the rules of interpretation and general application to

 7 this part; five is reserved; six, how does this part

 8 apply to small non charitable gaming operations.

 9 That is what we discussed earlier. The only

10 thing that we voted on was the definition changes in

11 there. And that's point two. We left open the

12 definitions to talk about as we go through.

13 Are those areas that we're okay with because,

14 again, we didn't make any -- I guess from the document

15 they are okay with them seemingly. From what I get

16 from y'all, if y'all are okay with those, I just want

17 to be able to put that recommendation into a vote if

18 that's, in fact, the case. And then we can move on to

19 bingo.

20 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: When we don't have the

21 documents, it's hard to do vote and be okay with them.

22 MR. FISHER: Matt, when you say you are

23 okay -- you are asking whether people are okay with

24 it, what version of those sections, the TGWG versions? 

25 MR. MORGAN: The Poarch Creek version.
491

 1 MR. McGHEE: We had no changes on the 2010

 2 draft.

 3 MR. LITTLE: I think I am with Dan, there

 4 really was no changes. Five was reserved.

 5 MR. FISHER: All right.

 6 Would that be in the document that's the red

 7 line -- let me just tell you. I pulled off the

 8 website -- is it in the red line version with remarks?

 9 Is that what you want me to pull up? 

10 Because there is the red line version with

11 remarks; there is the final version; and then each of

12 the individual sections has a version.

13 MR. LITTLE: Appendix one.

14 MR. MORGAN: I know you can't say, on behalf

15 of the commission, we're okay with it. So instead of

16 asking, if you are okay to move on, we just take a

17 vote and say we recommend that NIGC accept those

18 sections as written and we can do it as an entire

19 section since there is no changes. Just be done with

20 it and move on.

21 MR. LITTLE: That sounds good.

22 MR. FISHER: Okay. So it would be

23 recommend -- what --

24 Do you want to list the sections?

25 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: Well, I don't like that
492

 1 it refers to a website.

 2 MR. FISHER: So Mia, which sections were you

 3 focused on?

 4 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: 543.6(b)(III).

 5 MR. McGHEE: 543.6(b)?

 6 MR. MORGAN: Roman numeral three.

 7 MR. FISHER: I see.

 8 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: Yes, B. 

 9 MR. FISHER: So there is 543 point B.

10 MR. McGHEE: You would end it after

11 principles?

12 MR. WHEATLEY: Yeah.

13 MR. FISHER: This is the Word document I

14 pulled off of the website.

15 MS. HAMEL: But it doesn't match what's on

16 the NIGC website of the 337-page document.

17 MR. McGHEE: But you don't know that.

18 MS. HAMEL: I am looking at it.

19 MR. FISHER: I will pull it up. Here is the

20 NIGC document and it's Section 543.6 --

21 MR. WHEATLEY: It's right there.

22 MR. FISHER: That's off the website. If you

23 look right here I am on the NIGC portal. It's

24 page 266 of the PDF document. 

25 Okay. So we're still confused about
493

 1 documents. So that means there is multiple documents

 2 on the NIGC website.

 3 MR. McGHEE: They are looking at the website

 4 document.

 5 MS. HAMEL: This is what I pulled down from

 6 the website after our discussion. It's 337 pages.

 7 MR. WHEATLEY: So is mine.

 8 MR. FISHER: I'm on the website.

 9 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: Can we propose to print

10 it off and all of us -- distribute us a copy.

11 Is there a Kinko's here?

12 MR. FISHER: We were trying to avoid -- the

13 request from Tracy was to avoid printing documents if

14 possible.

15 MR. LITTLE: The original document they

16 provide on the website is the original document.

17 MR. WILSON: If we agree that the wording is

18 the same and it's just the look and feel, can't we

19 vote on the wording that we're trying to strike or

20 deal with?

21 MR. FISHER: Yes.

22 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: I mean, we're spending so

23 much time talking about it.

24 MR. FISHER: About which document is which.

25 Might just be easier to have hard copies of
494

 1 these documents.

 2 MR. WILSON: I appreciate Tracy had requested

 3 that, but I don't think she anticipated that there

 4 would be such confusion with all of these different

 5 electronic versions. Because, honestly, I don't know

 6 what version to read now. I'm so totally confused.

 7 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 8 Michele?

 9 MS. STACONA: If we're going to delete

10 websites also, you have other websites listed in this

11 document also. I believe 543.3 section little F has

12 websites also.

13 MR. FISHER: 543.3.

14 MS. STACONA: I'm looking on the original

15 MICS.

16 Is it still there?

17 MR. WHEATLEY: Not in the changes.

18 THE COURT: Now we're all using different

19 documents. Okay. So let's see if I can bring us back

20 to the -- can we move ahead now -- can we just --

21 okay, folks. Let's have one conversation, if we

22 could, and let's see if we can, just for purposes of

23 our work right now, figure out which document to work

24 from right now. And then see if we can move forward

25 with that.
495

 1 MS. HAMEL: Okay.

 2 I was looking at A three -- Roman A3 does not

 3 have websites. But five three has websites. It has

 4 the same language in both sites.

 5 MR. FISHER: So that means what is projected

 6 up there is the document from the NIGC website. So

 7 let's just confirm that.

 8 MR. JASON RAMOS: I'm on it. It's the same.

 9 Jeff's on it.

10 MR. FISHER: Okay. So there is the reference

11 to the FASB right there; and then you said you were

12 looking in A. Right there. Which doesn't have it.

13 Okay. So the A version -- the A section does

14 not have the reference to the website and the B

15 version -- the B section does.

16 Okay. So we were in the process of seeing if

17 it was possible to create a general recommendation

18 around the beginning sections of the MICS regulation.

19 And so we got stopped in the, what is included in the

20 list.

21 MR. McGHEE: She wanted the websites deleted

22 before she would approve one of those sections.

23 MR. FISHER: But it was 543.6.

24 MR. MAGEE: So nobody has copied the other

25 part of it, so four, five, and six with that one
496

 1 change --

 2 MS. TAHDOAHNIPPAH: One, three, four, and

 3 six.

 4 MR. FISHER: So you want to just test those

 5 three? 

 6 543.2 is the definition section and we have

 7 work to do in the definition section. All right.

 8 So let's test this. I didn't even have to

 9 ask. All right. So not everybody has their hand

10 raised.

11 MS. STACONA: I don't know what we're doing.

12 I pass.

13 MR. McGHEE: It's no new language. It's

14 just -- there were no changes.

15 MR. CALLAGHAN: And we reviewed this when?

16 When did we review this?

17 MR. LITTLE: There is no changes.

18 MR. McGHEE: Whatever the draft that was put

19 out by NIGC, the TGWG went through it. We didn't

20 change anything in their draft. 

21 The problem is you have to say you agree with

22 it. Or you don't have to.

23 MR. CALLAGHAN: I will say, I'd like us to be

24 a little better organized. I would like to see what

25 documents we're reviewing and I'd like to have an
497

 1 opportunity to review these in advance. I'd like to

 2 see an agenda that is consistent and not to be jumping

 3 around.

 4 I know it's late in the day and maybe I'm a

 5 little cranky, but I don't quite understand how we're

 6 getting where we're getting.

 7 And let me be clear, this is the NIGC's

 8 event. You are the ones that are telling us what

 9 records we should be looking at. I would expect the

10 Federal Government would be a little better organized.

11 MR. FISHER: Michele?

12 MS. STACONA: I want to go back to my

13 original question where I believe in 543.3, even

14 though it's in the original 2008 draft, but it wasn't

15 proposed for revisions or addition in the 2010 draft.

16 So I'm assuming it's got the same language as when it

17 first went out. It's got websites in there. If we

18 are going to fix websites everywhere else you better

19 fix it in the part you don't got in this one. 

20 MS. LASH: Just make a notation to take out

21 websites.

22 MR. FISHER: Okay.

23 MR. LITTLE: I have a question. Why wouldn't

24 you want websites that possibly could provide valuable

25 information to folks trying to comply with the
498

 1 regulations?

 2 MR. McGHEE: Because if it changes or adds a

 3 different little extra thing -- it's in your regs. It

 4 should.

 5 I'm answering her question. That's what I

 6 thought.

 7 MR. LITTLE: If there is even -- if you look

 8 at FSB (SIC) dot GOV this doesn't even work.

 9 MR. WHEATLEY: So it was already bad before

10 it got approved. Case in point.

11 MR. LITTLE: I just tried looking at it right

12 now and it's not coming through.

13 MR. McGHEE: I am trying to find the websites

14 in 543.3. I don't see them. I was trying to find it.

15 MR. WILSON: Whether they are there or not,

16 can't we just agree that if they are there we're going

17 to remove them?

18 MR. McGHEE: Sure. 

19 MR. WILSON: Rather than trying to find them

20 so we can get past this.

21 MR. FISHER: Well -- so -- is that what --

22 that's the purpose, right?

23 MR. WHEATLEY: I think I see where Michele is

24 seeing them at.

25 MR. FISHER: Do you want me to pull it up at
499

 1 the end?

 2 MR. WHEATLEY: I am looking at the 2008

 3 document. And at the very end of Section F, correct?

 4 543.3(f). And it appears to be a bunch of federal

 5 register NIGC notations type reference stuff.

 6 MR. FISHER: It's the actual existing

 7 regulation, right?

 8 MS. STACONA: Right. The first one.

 9 MR. FISHER: 543.3, right?

10 MS. STACONA: Yeah. Little F.

11 MR. WILSON: Robert, can I move that we vote

12 on what you typed up there? 

13 I mean, I don't know that it's important to

14 see whether it's there or not. I don't think we're

15 trying to prove that point. We're trying to say if

16 it's there they need to be removed. And that's what

17 that says.

18 MR. WHEATLEY: Except I think we might want

19 to look at it because the NIGC might have a reason

20 that it's there. And it might end up there anyway.

21 Because it appears to be -- I can't explain it without

22 looking at it and maybe the NIGC can if they are

23 looking at it. But it has to do with archives for the

24 federal register and the code and stuff, so it's

25 referencing different sections within the regulations.
500

 1 MR. WILSON: I thought we were talking about

 2 websites.

 3 MR. WHEATLEY: It is a website link. I just

 4 don't know that that particular website can be

 5 removed. That's the reason I am asking.

 6 MR. WILSON: Well, then if our recommendation

 7 said if it doesn't have to be there for some other

 8 purpose it can be removed. Because I don't know that

 9 you are going to know why a reference is there or not.

10 MR. LITTLE: No. This is long before my

11 time.

12 MR. McGHEE: Well, it was there in 08. In

13 2010 NIGC or another TAC decided it didn't need to be

14 there. And that's why it's not in this document.

15 If there is any other websites take them out.

16 And that particular one was already taken out.

17 MR. MAGEE: There is no red lines. There is

18 no objections, I guess, from NIGC, correct?

19 MR. LITTLE: No. There was no changes.

20 MR. McGHEE: There is a 2010 draft.

21 MR. MAGEE: Nimish, that means you are okay

22 with the websites?

23 MR. McGHEE: They are not in the 2010.

24 MR. LITTLE: We're not saying yes or no.

25 This is your committee. You do what you want.
501

 1 MR. McGHEE: Take them out. No websites.

 2 MR. FISHER: So, Kathi?

 3 MS. HAMEL: Comments have been made that

 4 543.3 was not changed. There were changes or

 5 additions to that section in the TGWG document that

 6 was submitted through Poarch Creek dated July of 2011.

 7 MR. McGHEE: There is no red line in your

 8 submission. She's saying there really was some.

 9 MS. HAMEL: I just wanted to put that on the

10 record.

11 MR. MAGEE: For the record what document are

12 we going to use?

13 MR. FISHER: Exactly. We're still

14 floundering around about which document to use. 

15 MR. WILSON: I have to say that I don't know

16 that we can have an effective conversation without

17 defining this document issue because I don't feel like

18 I can vote on anything. I am in a total state of

19 confusion right now as to -- you know, now we've got

20 the 2010 version. We got the 2008 draft proposed

21 something. I mean, these are all things that in my

22 head -- I just want in front of me a document that is

23 supposed to be discussed.

24 MR. FISHER: Brian?

25 MR. CALLAGHAN: The 7-28 -- the document that
502

 1 we're talking about, Section 2 -- 543.2,

 2 definitions -- does mention on page 5 of 35 the new

 3 tiers, tier A, tier B, tier C. So this appears to

 4 have already been adopted and changed because there is

 5 no black line version to this.

 6 MR. McGHEE: Yeah, but there is no numbers.

 7 MR. LITTLE: Are you referring to the

 8 definition?

 9 MR. CALLAGHAN: Yes.

10 MR. LITTLE: Okay. 

11 Just to clarify, we have not sent out any

12 versions of this -- the tribal gaming working groups

13 document. There is one copy that we put on our

14 website and that is the only one there. I don't know

15 of other documents that have been sent out or

16 circulated. They didn't come from us. There is one

17 version that we have and that's on line.

18 I don't -- I can't explain why others may

19 have different versions of it. This is the one that

20 we have on our website.

21 MR. MAGEE: Still doesn't explain what

22 document we're going to use to move forward.

23 MR. FISHER: We can't seem to land on one.

24 And so --

25 MR. WILSON: Now, Kathi, you are comfortable
503

 1 that what's being pulled down off the portal is in

 2 fact what you have because you had some questions

 3 about that?

 4 MS. HAMEL: Yes.

 5 MR. LITTLE: It should be because we didn't

 6 send one out. That's the only place that I am

 7 assuming you could have gotten it from.

 8 MR. WILSON: So is the document you have up

 9 here right now the document that's from the portal?

10 MR. FISHER: Yes.

11 But there are multiple documents on the

12 portal. And this document is labeled appendix new red

13 line proposed part 543 final 7-28-11.

14 MR. LITTLE: Let's clarify that.

15 MS. HAMEL: There are no Word documents --

16 MR. LITTLE: This is only one document on the

17 NIGC website.

18 MR. FISHER: Yes. Correct. I misspoke.

19 This is from the TGWG portal. The document

20 that's up there.

21 MR. LITTLE: Now, I've never heard of this

22 website, and I am not sure if you had access, but

23 there could be other versions coming from there.

24 That's not us. 

25 MR. McGHEE: I can't say it's accurate.
504

 1 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 2 MR. WILSON: I am wondering then, given the

 3 hour of the day, and where we're at, if it might not

 4 be best if we adjourn --

 5 MR. MAGEE: Second.

 6 MR. WILSON: -- and the goal is that

 7 tonight -- that tomorrow morning we are presented with

 8 the document that -- because even -- it appears that

 9 you are even pulling up not documents from the entire

10 package, but supplementary documents that are on the

11 NIGC website. And I think --

12 MR. LITTLE: That's not correct.

13 MR. FISHER: No, that's not correct.

14 MR. LITTLE: There is one document on the

15 NIGC website. And that is the exact PDF that was sent

16 to us from Poarch Creek. That's all that's there.

17 MR. WILSON: I don't know if that's all

18 that's there because I have pulled down three other

19 documents.

20 MR. LITTLE: Comparison documents.

21 MR. WILSON: I guess what I am saying is

22 whatever we're doing is creating confusion because --

23 I just want to know that -- definitively, that

24 everybody -- that we can all do our reality check and

25 say, yes, the document that I'm staring at is the
505

 1 document from the portal and it's from the entire

 2 package. Because you are talking about a document

 3 that was submitted -- the entire Poarch Creek

 4 document, 300-some-odd pages; that that is the source

 5 document that we should be using for our

 6 deliberations. And that the comparison documents are

 7 merely a -- an aid.

 8 MR. LITTLE: Exactly.

 9 MR. WILSON: And that's where I think I'm

10 seeing that there is different, maybe, versions of

11 comparison documents, versions even. I don't know.

12 But that's what's creating confusion for me because I

13 just want to get to -- I want to get to the

14 substantive document that when we're talking about a

15 change to, it's a change to that document.

16 My concern is that if we make a change to a

17 comparative document, an aid, then I'm not sure that

18 that is a true representation of what we're all saying

19 is the source document.

20 MR. LITTLE: And that's why I continually

21 said let's work off the red line that's on the screen

22 because that's the working group's document. And the

23 comparison document is just an aid to go through that.

24 We will -- if you want it, we will print off

25 15 copies of this. I don't know if I can have it to
506

 1 you for tomorrow morning. If everybody wants that, we

 2 will get 15 copies of this available for everybody.

 3 We will get printed copies of every single one of

 4 these documents if that's what you want. We will have

 5 it there.

 6 However, we cannot control -- when Robert

 7 sent out a version of these comparisons, he sent it

 8 one time. That is the only time we've ever

 9 distributed this copy. We can't control how those are

10 manipulated and how those are resent off to the group.

11 And it obviously has happened. It happened with the

12 547 comparison document. That's not our doing. We

13 can't control that.

14 So I think the group needs to police how

15 documents are distributed because we can't control

16 this. We haven't done this. We provided one document

17 that Robert sent out this week -- one email that

18 included the comparison documents and we've had this

19 on line. I don't know what more we can do.

20 MR. WILSON: I sense the frustration and I

21 think the rule that we have to all adopt is that that

22 is the document that we are all referring to

23 regardless of what the hell else you get sent by the

24 tribal gaming work group, by whomever, that that

25 doesn't matter. The document that you need to come
507

 1 prepared to discuss here at this meeting is that

 2 300-page document.

 3 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 4 Michele, you have your card up.

 5 MS. STACONA: Leave the screen up because I

 6 am going to ask some questions to clarify.

 7 So if you go up further to the top, I just

 8 want to make sure I understand all this that's on the

 9 NIGC website. 

10 MR. FISHER: What's projected is the NIGC

11 website.

12 MS. STACONA: So you got the current

13 regulations that were there in 2009. And then comes

14 July of 2010 where they relooked at it. Drafted it up

15 again. And then I believe, if I am correct, towards

16 the bottom, resource materials, is what the TGWG did

17 in response to that July 8, 10?

18 MR. LITTLE: If you could go -- if you could

19 scroll up a little bit. Stop right there. You will

20 see Poarch Band of Creek Indians under comments.

21 Now, the way that we are able to use this as

22 a starting document is through the president's

23 consultation and memoranda to all federal agencies

24 that we can use alternative proposals submitted from

25 tribes and that's what we've done. That's why it's
508

 1 under tribal comments received. That's why it was

 2 submitted through the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

 3 That's where it's located. That may have caused some

 4 confusion.

 5 If there is a way that we could probably

 6 clarify what that is, we could probably do that. But

 7 that's where the TGWG document is. Right there.

 8 MS. STACONA: But did they comment on your

 9 last drop of July 2010?

10 MR. LITTLE: Yes.

11 And then if you scroll down, you will see the

12 comparison documents. Those are all based off of

13 2010.

14 MR. WILSON: Just to be clear, the documents

15 up under the comment section, that is where you go.

16 It's that 300-page document.

17 MR. LITTLE: Right there.

18 MR. WILSON: That is the document that when

19 all else is in doubt is the source document that we

20 have to refer to so that regardless of any other

21 version, any other whatever, that's it?

22 MR. FISHER: Because that's the version that

23 was submitted to the NIGC and that's what you are

24 basing the alternative proposal review on.

25 MR. LITTLE: Right.
509

 1 MR. FISHER: Okay.

 2 And that document is in a PDF version, right?

 3 MR. LITTLE: Right.

 4 MR. FISHER: That's what was up on the screen

 5 previously.

 6 And we were looking for a Word version in

 7 order to be able to put changes in it and that's what

 8 we were trying to pull down from the TGWG website.

 9 That's the sequence. Okay. So, yeah.

10 So on -- so thanks for the reminder, Daniel.

11 Just as a pause here for a moment. The time is 5:40

12 and on our agenda at 5:30 is a public comment period,

13 which we are honoring. And I don't believe anybody

14 has signed up for public comment on the sign-in sheet

15 out there the last time I checked.

16 So if there is anybody in the audience that

17 wishes to provide public comment to the TAC, now would

18 be the time.

19 Anybody want to do that? Okay. All right.

20 So the suggestion was made that we

21 actually -- that we actually bring this to a close for

22 today and that we come back tomorrow with the -- and

23 starting from the document that we just identified on

24 the NIGC website.

25 And so -- anybody have anything else before
510

 1 we break for the evening?

 2 Everybody ready to break?

 3 Okay. So let's --

 4 MS. HAMEL: Yes.

 5 MR. FISHER: Go ahead, Kathi.

 6 MS. HAMEL: I thought we were voting. 

 7 MR. LITTLE: I just want to say, you know,

 8 these are tough issues, you know. And I want to

 9 applaud everybody for really sticking it out here.

10 Last night at six o'clock it looked like everybody was

11 so ready to go. And we probably -- it was a good

12 thing we did break at that time. I know it was

13 frustrating. I want to thank everybody for sticking

14 it out.

15 I, too, am a little frustrated. I am

16 committed to this process just like you all are. And

17 at the end of the day we're going to come up with

18 something that's going to work. And I really

19 appreciate everybody sticking it out today.

20 MR. FISHER: Okay. So we'll start up at

21 eight o'clock tomorrow morning.

22 MS. HAMEL: Do we want to have our session

23 before?

24 MR. WILSON: We would prefer that's on the

25 record that we went into executive session. 
511

 1 The other problem is, if we started in the

 2 morning and then we give you a time -- I don't know

 3 how long we might be in executive session. It should

 4 just be part of the record.

 5 MR. FISHER: We will start at eight o'clock

 6 with the understanding that you are going to go into

 7 executive session.

 8 So let's adjourn for the day.

 9 (The Nationnal Indian Gaming Commission

10 Tribal Advisory Committee Meeting was adjourned at

11 5:45 p.m., November 16, 2011.)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25