May
1
2012
Kathryn is quoted in this Press Democrat article on the compact provisions for the Graton Rancheria's casino in Rohnert Park in Sonoma County, California. In short, the compact provisions require the tribe to reach additional agreements with the county and city to
alleviate a range of impacts. Not surprisingly, local officials are talking about alleviation in terms of dollars to the county and city.Compacting
Patrick to Begin Negotiating Compact with Mashpee Wampanoag
Mar
16
2012
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is set to start Class III compact negotiations with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe for a possible casino in Taunton. The Tribe had issued a formal request for compact negotiations earlier this week. Under IGRA, the Tribe's formal request triggers the state's duty to negotiate in good faith. 25 U.S.C. section 2710(d)(3) provides, "Any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which a class III gaming activity is . . . An Interesting Critique and Call for Reform
Nov
17
2010
In the latest issue of Casino Enterprise Management, former NIGC attorney Richard Schiff lays out the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seminole Tribe (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)), as well as the CRIT case out of the D.C. Circuit (Colorado River Indian Tribes v. NIGC, 466 F.3d 134 (DC Cir. 2006)) on federal regulation of Indian gaming. The article, provocatively titled, "The Illusion of Regulation in the Indian Gaming Industry," calls for Congress to "fix" Seminole and CRIT.Crist Signs Compact with Seminoles in Florida
Apr
29
2010
Florida Governor Charlie Crist has signed into law the renegotiated compact with the Seminole Indian Tribe. The compact had been approved by the Florida state legislature. Its terms, described in earlier posts, give the Tribe exclusive rights to table games at some of its casinos, and the right to operate slots at all of its casinos. In exchange for the promise of exclusivity, the Tribe will pay the state some $1.2+ billion in the next five years.
Update From Florida: House and Senate Approve Compact
Apr
20
2010
Yesterday, the Florida state house approved the latest version of the state's compact with the Seminoles. A few days earlier, the state senate had voted in favor of the compact as well. By a vote of 29 to 9 in the Senate and 74 to 39 in the house, the state legislature gave its "thumbs up" to the Seminoles' exclusive right to operate table games at three of the tribe's casinos and slots in all of its casinos, in exchange for revenue-sharing payments to the state expected to reach as much as $1.5 billion over five years. The compact still needs to be signed by Gov. Crist, who, as the state negotiator of the new compact, is sure to do so shortly.Agreement in Florida?!?
Apr
6
2010
Looks like we've got a[nother] compact in Florida! But is it a good one?Any compact in Florida is a good compact. At least, that's our thinking as we near 20 years of controversy over tribal gaming in the state. This latest compact, borne out of the necessity of the Florida Supreme Court's invalidation of the existing compact, seems to strike a balance between a benefit to the state in the form of revenue sharing, and a benefit to the tribe in the form of exclusive gaming rights throughout the state. It's not all wrapped up in a ribbon, though -- it still needs to be approved by the state legislature, but insiders are optimistic.
Kathryn Quoted on Compact Politics in Cape Cod Times
Feb
2
2010
Kathryn's quoted in this Cape Cod Times article on the politics of compact negotiations and tribal-state relations. In Massachusetts, as the Mashpee Wampanoag continue to pursue Class III gaming, the tribe and the governor are on different sides of another issue -- a wind farm in Nantucket Sound.A wind farm, of course, is not related to gaming, and under IGRA should not be an issue that enters into compact negotiations. But politics, unlike law, is not easily compartmentalized into relevant and irrelevant considerations. Here's what Kathryn said about the possible impact of the tribe's and governor's difference of opinion:
