which it was not. There were fundamental problems with the management contract and also with the terms of the deal with the tribe and Galaxy. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. But it is an endorsement that it is not—or it is his recommendation or position stating that it is not detrimental? Answer. Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: Question. Under section 20? Answer. Under section 20. Question. Did he reach that issue under Section 465? Answer. No, he didn't address the trust land issue, I don't believe. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Do you know who in the Indian Gaming Management Staff did the determination whether the opposition was valid, who specifically in the Indian Gaming Management Staff? Answer. Mr. Skibine certainly was involved in that determination. I am not sure who else on the staff worked on that issue. [Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. MA-7 was marked for identification.] EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Showing Mr. Anderson what has been marked as MA-7, it is a memo to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs through the deputy commissioner of Indian Affairs. I believe at that time it was Hilda Manuel? Answer. That's correct. Question. From George T. Skibine, and the subject is the Hudson Dog Track. I will give you a second to look over that. Have you ever seen this document before? Answer. No. Question. If we could just turn to page 4, if I can direct your attention to page 4, down at the last paragraph there, the first line, first, the signatories cite the removal of land from the local property tax rolls as one of the things that they were against. And we talked before that the tax rolls and taking land off the tax rolls was certainly a valid argument for detriment; is that correct? Answer. Yes. Question. The next page-this, by the way, is a letter sent by Sheila Harsdorf expressing opposition. The second thing that is stated in the Harsdorf letter is, Second, the representatives assert that the expansion of gambling is contrary to the public will in Wisconsin. Is that I think we've gone over this area a little bit with you with regard to just naked opposition to gambling. Are you following me there? Answer. I was looking for that Wisconsin reference. Question. The "will in Wisconsin," up here. The second line from the top. Answer. Oh, okay, yes. Question. Is it-and we talked before that just opposition to gambling would not, in your mind, be valid as an opposition? Answer. That's right. Question. Third, the letter states that off-reservation gambling may not foster economic development within the tribal nations. Was this your understanding or belief? Answer. No. Question. Again, this is a document, and it is undated, but under the consultation with the city and town, it reads, "The property, currently a class III gaming facility, is located in a commercial area in the southeast corner of the city of Hudson. Thomas H. Redner, mayor of the city of Hudson, has a strong vision and planning effort for the future that this proposed casino can apparently be accommodated with minimal overall impact, just as other development of this size. Do you have any idea when this document was written or drafted? Answer. No. Question. I know we talked before, you had mentioned before about the possibility of a cure. Was it your understanding that the way that the tribes would be able to cure this was to accept a rejection letter and start the process from ground zero? Answer. I mean, that certainly was one option. I mean if they had, before final decision-making had been made, brought in new information that the town now sup ported it or the traffic problem had been solved, then that was an option, too. But one option was just to have the decision letter go out, and then resubmit it. Question. Is there a policy to consult the tribes at the Department of Interior? Question. Do you know if that policy was followed in this case? Answer. I believe there was extensive meetings with the tribes and tribal representatives during this process. That was, again, a function of the area office initially, and then the Indian Gaming Management Staff later. Question. Were they ever told that their application was on a crash course for disaster, unless something got changed or altered? Answer. I don't know what the communications were between the two. I wasn't involved in those. Question. You said that that was one of the abilities, was to refile. What would be another one? Answer. Well, they could file a lawsuit challenging our standards, which is what they did. That's another option. Question. Is that the most advisable option? Answer. No, the most advisable option is to resubmit an application and cure the problems in a decision letter. Do an environmental assessment of the scenic riverway to get support of the local opposition, to get the support of the St. Croix or show that their information is invalid. There are certain fundamental facts that couldn't change. The location is not one they could change. They could certainly move to another area. Mr. BALLEN. Well, couldn't they change the location? Couldn't these tribes find a different location? They didn't have to location in Hudson; did they? The WITNESS. These three tribes already had casinos on their reservations, but they certainly could have found other locations, or at least looked for other locations, where a town supported them their application. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. You said before you were aware of a referendum done by the town, the city of Hudson? Answer. I have a recollection of the referendum; I don't remember if it's because I read it or because it was discussed at the time. I may have learned at the time that there had been a switch in the support. I don't remember at this time. Question. I'm just going to direct your attention to page 6 of the Skibine memo. Down near the bottom Mr. BALLEN. I'm sorry, just, because you are referring to the Skibine memo, do you know whether this was a memo that was written by Mr. Skibine? The WITNESS. I don't have any information on this memo at all. I don't know who wrote it. Mr. BALLEN. I want to note for the record it says "Draft." Were the views that were asked, that Mr. Dold is asking about in this letter, were these views that Mr. Skibine expressed to you orally during the decision-making process? The WITNESS. No. It wasn't expressed to me at all. It seemed, indeed, that his views are all the opposite of this. Mr. BALLEN. His views are the opposite of this? The WITNESS. Yes, because here it says that the mayor supports it, and my information was that the town opposed this application. So the information Mr. Skibine was providing me and discussed in the letter was not that there was support. Mr. BALLEN. In fact, he sent you a memorandum or a draft in the latter part of June; is that not correct? Do you recall that? The WITNESS. I don't recall a draft from Mr. Skibine of the draft letter. I recall a letter in Denver the week of————— EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. The letter in Denver the week of, was that the first letter you had seen? Answer. Yes, I believe so. Question. If I can direct your attention just above letter C here, it says, "Several thousand cards, letters, and petition signatures have been received in support of an Indian casino at the Hudson Dog Track." Do you know this to be true? Answer. No. Question. If the problem with the casino, if the problem with the Hudson casino was one of police or traffic that could be mitigated, would it not be easier just to let the tribes know, we need to mitigate the police and traffic problem before we can approve this application? Answer. Yeah, in the context of getting the town's support, yes. That certainly should have been communicated that you need the town's support for this application, and right now you don't have it, so please get it turned around. Mr. BALLEN. Curing local opposition, though, is not something that can be done by a simple it's not something that you can determine; it's something that has to be worked on. I mean this is a serious thing, local opposition. The WITNESS. What I would have asked for is updated, current resolutions that seem to be valid and not the work of one or two people on a council that basically says our council has changed our mind and here is our letter in support of this application, or resolution in support of it. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. But they had to have articulated reasons? Answer. In this case we had articulated reasons. Whether in every case we would have needed it is something I would have to look at the facts of the case to see. It's kind of a question I would have asked the solicitor's office probably, and Indian Gaming Management Staff, whether opposition without any rationale is something that would meet their standard of detriment. Question. Would it have met yours, in your opinion? Answer. Well, if it's far away, it most likely would have. If it's real far away, 100 miles, 200 miles, I would probably accept that. Question. Would you consider this real far away? Answer. Yes. This was the farthest one that I had been aware of. Coushatta was, it was close enough where eventually the tribe just bought the land between their off-reservation site and where they eventually located. Here, it's the furthest one I have encountered. [Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. MA-8 was marked for identification.] Mr. DOLD. Showing Mr. Anderson what has been marked as MA-8, it is a memorandum from I believe the President of the United States, and it's a memorandum for the heads of the executive departments and agencies, and it's dated April 29, 1994. EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDERSON: Question. Are you familiar with this directive? Question. Directing your attention down to paragraph B, it reads, "Each executive department and agency shall consult, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, with tribal governments prior to taking actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments. All such consultations are to be open and candid so that all interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals." Answer. Yes. Question. Do you know if this was done in this case? Answer. I expect it was. Question. Do you know if the tribes were given an opportunity or consulted about the matter in a fashion that would allow them to cure an application? Answer. Yes. I would expect that the tribe knew that they needed support of the local communities, and I expect that the Indian Gaming Management Staff communicated that to them. Question. And assuming they did have the support of the local community, that would be okay? That would have been enough to change your decision? Answer. No. The other factors are the St. Croix tribe opposing would have been another barrier to that, as well as the environmental problem, the environmental assessment. Question. The St. Croix was one that we discussed that could have been mitigated, though, if they were brought in or given money? Answer. Yes, if they became a joint partner or move their opposition, yes. Mr. BALLEN. But these are hypothetical questions we are asking with 20/20 hindsight. At the time these were not The WITNESS. Yes. As I understand it, it is possible in making a deal work here, yes. If the St. Croix tribe removed their opposition or supported it, if the town councils did, if the environmental assessment showed there is no environmental problems, yes, this could have worked. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Was it communicated that there was an environmental problem, that the St. Croix would be a barrier that they could not overcome, was that commu nicated to these tribes? I mean that's my basic gist. Was it communicated that, you know, unless you get the St. Croix tribe to come on board with you, we are not going to approve your application? Answer. I don't know the answer to that. I expect that the fact that it was known that we were communicating and the gaming management staff would talk to surrounding communities, including the St. Croix tribe, that that opposition or the view of another tribe would be given weight. I expect that was communicated to the three applicant tribes. Mr. BALLEN. But in addition, since we are having a parade of hypotheticals here, I mean the other factor that would have Mr. DOLD. I don't want to say-that wasn't a hypothetical, whether they were told Mr. BALLEN. Well, my questions were hypothetical. Mr. DOLD. Okay. Mr. BALLEN. So, if we are having a parade of hypotheticals, you would also have to consider the best interest test as well under section 20, which some of the staff, whether this particular deal was in the best interests of the three applicant tribes. The WITNESS. That's correct. And also, just 151, taking the trust, land into trust is the other ultimate hurdle, yes. There are a number of barriers. NIGC approval of the gaming management contract; I mean there is an elaborate process to make this work. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. And just so I'm clear on this thing, there is a two-pronged test, and I'm fully aware of that, that goes on the local opposition or the detriment to the community? Answer. That's right. Question. And the best interest of the tribe. And then from there, if that were to be accepted, then it would be the 151 hurdle, which would be the Secretary saying, okay, I think I want to do this, and it's okay to take the land into trust? Answer. Right. Question. And then once that decision was made, then they would send it to the Governor for the Governor's approval? Answer. Yes, under section 20, right. We could have sent the if we made a positive determination on section 20, that could have gone to the Governor, independent of the trust land acquisition. He could just concur that there is no detriment and it's in the best interest, but you have got the trust land application that's separate. Question. Is it normally section 20 determination, and then to the Governor, and then back to 151, or how is it normally done? And if you don't know, that's okay. Answer. It's usually concurrently, but there's a variety. Mr. BALLEN. Mr. Anderson, you mentioned the National Indian Gaming Commission. Did they have a view on this particular contract that you know of? The WITNESs. At the time I didn't know. All I knew from discussions from either Mr. Skibine or Mr. Hartman was that there were problems with the lease. I knew that the ga ning commission would have to-would authorize that. If it was found to violate IGRA in the statutory standards for shares of gross proceeds, that would have caused a rejection of the lease. I'm not sure at that time I knew whether the NIGC would have found that troublesome. I expect that they would have. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. In an earlier exhibit, I had shown you The New York Times article letter written to the editor from Secretary Babbitt, and in it it mentions that the Republican Governor of Wisconsin opposed the casino. Is that a correct statement? Answer. I don't know. Question. Were you aware when you were making the decision that the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, who I believe at the time was Tommy Thompson, was opposed to the casino? Answer. I don't remember if I knew his view at all. I mean I don't know. Answer. Because his role wouldn't actually come in the place until we recommended something to him. I'm not sure whether the gaming management staff sent a letter, saying, you know, coming your way is a section 20 application; please preview it. So I just don't know. Question. You're not aware of any communication? Answer. No. Question. Okay. Answer. The-I mean the Governor and the tribes have been involved in discussions about gaming issues. It may have been that he was discussing this issue in the press and other people read the press accounts of where the Governor stood. I don't recall if I ever knew where the Governor stood on this. Question. Were you aware of any requests made to the Secretary's office for information regarding the proposal? Answer. No. You mean written requests, or? Question. Or telephone conversations asking about Answer. No, no telephone. I was aware that Mr. Duffy had met with the Minnesota delegation. And also that the Secretary had met with the tribes in Wisconsin in April. Question. Right. That was the April 8th meeting, on or about? Answer. Yes. Question. Do you know if the Secretary's office always provides correct informa tion? Answer. They endeavor to supply correct information. Question. Fair enough. [Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. MA-9 was marked for identification.] Mr. DOLD. I'm showing Mr. Anderson what has been marked as MA-9, and it is a letter to Secretary Babbitt dated April 28, '95, from Representative Steve Gunderson, and I would just give you an opportunity to peruse that. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Have you ever seen this letter? Answer. No, I don't recall ever seeing this. Question. I have a specific question. I will allow you the time to read it if you choose, but I'm just focusing on one specific area down in the third paragraph. It reads: "According to your office, since Congress passed the IGRA in 1988, the Secretary of Interior has never approved the acquisition of off-reservation land to be used for casino gambling." Is that an accurate statement by, it would be Congressman Gunderson? Answer. No. I believe we had approved at that point, at least the Celest acquisition and the Sault Ste. Marie acquisition, and also the Potawatomie in Milwaukee. Question. Were you aware of any tribes that opposed the Hudson Dog Track? First, do you know which tribes opposed the Hudson Dog Track application? Answer. I know generally. The St. Croix certainly, the Oneida of Wisconsin, and I know there are Minnesota tribes opposed to it; I'm not sure which ones. I assume the Mille Lacs was probably the tribe that was opposed. Question. Why is that, just proximity wise? Answer. Just because they are well-known in the Minnesota delegation, to the delegation. They have a large facility. I'm not sure if it's central Minnesota somewhere. Question. Are you aware of any tribes that opposed the application at Hudson? Are you aware that they made any political contributions? Answer. Have they ever made? Question. I will limit it to 1996, unless you want to go back a little further, but 1996 is all I'm looking for. Answer. I'm aware that Oneida made contributions to the party in 1992, and I expect they made it in '96 as well. Question. Do you have any idea of the amount? Answer. No. I mean in 1992 I know the tribes gave, you know, thousands of dollars, and I suspect that they gave thousands of dollars later as well. Mr. BALLEN. You say you suspect. Do you know one way or the other? EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Do you know if MIGA, Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, made contributions? Answer. No. I thought that—it's MIGA, was a trade association. I didn't know they were a PAC. Mr. BALLEN. Your answer to that question is no? The WITNESS. I thought that MIGÅ was a trade organization; I didn't know it was a political action committee. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Do you know Marge Anderson? 48-493 98-2 |