tribal law experts think bia will reject tribal compact amendment

2
1 Media Contact: Michael Beightol 312.339.0055 [email protected] January 7, 2015 Experts Agree That Bureau of Indian Affairs Should Reject Most Recent Compact Amendment for Forest County Potawatomi Community The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin recently received two separate expert legal opinions from lawyers outside the state who agree that the Bureau of Indian Affairs should reject the proposed compact amendment between the Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCP) and the State of Wisconsin. The opinions were authored by Penny Coleman, formerly with the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, Indian Affairs division; and George Skibine, former interim Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) and past Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Ms. Coleman wrote in her letter to Menominee leadership that the FCP compact amendment should be rejected for four reasons: “First, another tribal nation’s trust acquisition and revenue sharing agreement are beyond the permissible scope of compact scope of compact negotiations between the State of Wisconsin and the Community. Second, the Amendment attempts to circumvent IGRA’s intent by forcing third party tribes to pay a tax, charge or fee. Third, the Amendment attempts to revise IGRA by adding prerequisites to the Governor’s decision on whether to concur with the Secretary’s decision-making under 25 U.S.C. 2719. And finally, approving the compact may violate the Department’s trust responsibility for the Menominee Tribe. Separately, in his letter to the Menominee, Mr. Skibine said:

Upload: vickipy

Post on 18-Jul-2016

79 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

BIA has until 1/9/2015 to approve or reject arbitrators ordered amendment to 2005 gaming compacts. If BIA rejects it, there is no taxpayer liability for Kenosha Casino

TRANSCRIPT

1

Media Contact: Michael Beightol 312.339.0055 [email protected]

January 7, 2015

Experts Agree That Bureau of Indian Affairs Should Reject Most Recent

Compact Amendment for Forest County Potawatomi Community The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin recently received two separate expert legal opinions from lawyers outside the state who agree that the Bureau of Indian Affairs should reject the proposed compact amendment between the Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCP) and the State of Wisconsin. The opinions were authored by Penny Coleman, formerly with the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, Indian Affairs division; and George Skibine, former interim Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) and past Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Ms. Coleman wrote in her letter to Menominee leadership that the FCP compact amendment should be rejected for four reasons:

“First, another tribal nation’s trust acquisition and revenue sharing agreement are beyond the permissible scope of compact scope of compact negotiations between the State of Wisconsin and the Community. Second, the Amendment attempts to circumvent IGRA’s intent by forcing third party tribes to pay a tax, charge or fee. Third, the Amendment attempts to revise IGRA by adding prerequisites to the Governor’s decision on whether to concur with the Secretary’s decision-making under 25 U.S.C. 2719. And finally, approving the compact may violate the Department’s trust responsibility for the Menominee Tribe.

Separately, in his letter to the Menominee, Mr. Skibine said:

2

“In my opinion, the main reason why the Secretary should disapprove the Compact Amendment is because it includes a key provision that is not germane to the operation of Class III gaming activities. That provision requires the Menominee Tribe or the State of Wisconsin to make annual mitigation payments to Forest County for lost revenue from Class II gaming activities, food and beverage, hotel and entertainment activity earned at the Forest County Milwaukee gaming facility, in addition to lost revenue from Class III gaming activities. There is no question that reimbursement for lost revenue from Class II gaming activities, food and beverage, hotel, and entertainment activities are not issues that are in any way directly related to the operations of Class III gaming activities, and are thus outside the scope of provisions that can be included in a compact.”

# # #

About the Authors Penny Coleman – Ms. Coleman is experienced in Indian law generally and gaming law specifically. Since the establishment of her law firm, Coleman Indian Law, in 2011, Ms. Coleman provided litigation assistance on a successful Supreme Court case and expert witness testimony in other cases. She serves as a commissioner for a judicial oversight commission and served as the chair for a gaming commission. She also writes articles and testifies before Congress on Internet gaming.

Ms. Coleman has provided advice on Indian lands, negotiated a tribal-state compact and assisted a tribe seeking federal recognition. From 1994 to 2010, Ms. Coleman worked for the National Indian Gaming Commission, most of that time as its lead counsel. Prior to 1994, she worked for the Division of Indian Affairs, Office of the Solicitor in the Department of the Interior. Ms. Coleman is a graduate of the University of South Dakota and is licensed in South Dakota and Virginia. George Skibine – Mr. Skibine is of counsel in Dentons' Public Policy and Regulation and Native American Law and Policy practices. He has extensive knowledge of all aspects of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, especially in the areas of class III gaming compacts, revenue allocation plans for the distribution of per capita payments and provisions pertaining to gaming on newly acquired lands.

Mr. Skibine has been extensively involved in the federal acknowledgment process, contracting under the Indian Self-Determination Act, compacting under the Tribal Self-Governance Act, the land-into-trust process and tribal government matters. He is an enrolled member of the Osage Nation of Oklahoma. His undergraduate degree is from the University of Chicago; his law degree is from the University of Minnesota.