Feb. 26, 2003 
Two states already have perpetual tribal gaming compacts
Minn., Conn. tribes have ongoing gaming deals 
By John Dipko
Green Bay Press-Gazette Madison bureau 

About Wisconsin’s deal
The tentative agreement would let the Oneida Tribe of Indians operate roulette, craps and additional games around the clock and with no state-imposed betting limits at its Ashwaubenon casino, one of the most successful operations of its kind in Wisconsin.

The state would receive $38 million over two years and a percentage of annual casino revenues after that. The payments are part of $237 million that Gov. Jim Doyle expects to receive from renegotiated tribal gaming compacts to fund a $48.8 billion budget for 2003-05.

From here to perpetuity

Two states with Indian gaming compacts without ending dates:

• Connecticut: 2 casinos, $319 million paid to the state in 1999-2000, plus at least $4 million to $5 million a year in annual regulatory fees

• Minnesota: 17 casinos, $150,000 paid to Minnesota Department of Public Safety for regulatory purposes, not including fees for related services

(For both states, numbers don’t include any payments to local governments.)

Source: Legislative Audit Bureau, state of Minnesota, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation


MADISON — The controversy that erupted last week in Wisconsin over a tentative Indian gaming deal surrounds an element that’s been in place for years in at least two other states.

Indian casinos in Connecticut and Minnesota operate under gaming compacts that exist in perpetuity, or without any set expiration date.

The concept, negotiated into a tentative deal between Gov. Jim Doyle and the Oneida Tribe of Indians, sparked outrage among state lawmakers and helped spur quick passage of a bill to gain legislative oversight over the agreements.

“I think society is evolving, and to say ‘in perpetuity’ is totally irresponsible,” said Sen. Robert Cowles, R-Allouez. “They’ve argued pieces of the compact would be reopened, but the language I looked at ... if you can’t open the whole thing, you’re not going to be able to effectively regulate them.”

Supporters say perpetuity would help tribes gain borrowing power to further invest in the community and make long-term plans.

Lawmakers took the unusual step of calling themselves into an extraordinary session on Thursday to consider the bill to give them legislative oversight over gaming compacts. The bill passed Friday, amid tensions between Republicans, who control both houses of the Legislature, and Democrats, who called the quick passage irresponsible.

All the legislative maneuvering may be for naught, because Doyle, a Democrat, can veto the bill. It would take two-thirds of the Legislature to override a veto.

Doyle wouldn’t say whether he would veto the bill, but he also said, “I don’t think the tribes have much interest in negotiating with 132 people.”

Doyle is counting on more gaming revenue from tribes to help balance the state’s $3.2 billion deficit.

The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act lets states decide how to negotiate gaming compacts with American Indian tribes.

Former Gov. Tommy Thompson negotiated the first round of compacts with the 11 tribes in Wisconsin in 1991-92. Lawmakers voted to have oversight in 1999, but Thompson vetoed the measure.

A more certain future

Perpetuity is clearly stated in gaming agreements involving the Mashantucket Pequots, whose Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut has the most gaming stations — slot machines, a wide array of table games and bingo — in the world, in addition to round-the-clock hours and sky-high betting limits.

“The compact cannot be amended except by written agreement of both parties, and if we and the state come to an agreement to amend it, we’d have to get federal approval,” said Jackson King, the tribe’s legal counsel. “In 10 or 11 years of the compact, neither we nor the state have ever seriously broached the subject of any amendments.”

Connecticut state Rep. Jim Abrams, a Democrat, said the compacts address slot machines because roulette, craps and other forms of gaming were already legal for so-called Las Vegas night events held for charitable purposes.

The statute legalizing such events was repealed recently, he said.

Doyle said the compact with the Oneidas would include triggers for further negotiations.

“Indian gaming is not going to go away,” Doyle said. “These are big operations. They operate under federal law. They are going to be there. The tribes are here ready to work with the state. We’re ready to work with them.”

King said he understands why there would be hesitation by a state government to have a compact last in perpetuity.

“If I was the state, I’d love to have that leverage,” he said. “But having an expiration date leaves tribes a little uncertain as to their future.”

Certainty has allowed the tribe to undertake many capital projects, including a new office building in a town that needs more business, King said.

“The benefits work both ways,” he said.

Hands tied

Minnesota state Rep. Sondra Erickson, a Republican, said she sees only drawbacks in having permanent compacts.

“I think Wisconsin has been smart about that in the past,” she said. “We are in a terrible situation because unless both sides are willing to, we cannot renegotiate the compact. At least in Connecticut they are getting some of the take at the casinos to assist them.”

The compacts address blackjack and so-called video games of chance in Minnesota, where lawmakers expect to debate several proposals to expand gaming. Erickson said doing so would level the playing field with Indian casinos and prompt them to reopen talks.

John McCarthy, executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, said a greater question of fairness is at stake between Indians and non-Indians.

“When infant mortality rates are on par, education and housing levels are on par, then we can talk about a level playing field,” McCarthy said. “None of those have happened.”