tainly by that time we were alert to the problems that those kind of agreements caused. Mr. DOLD. Does the gaming, the other gaming affiliation that you had said, the one that reviews the management contracts, what's that one? The WITNESS. The National Indian Gaming Commission. Mr. DOLD. The National Indian Gaming Čommission, it's their job to review the management type contracts like the ones you are referring to? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. BALLEN. But it's also your job as well? The WITNESS. It is our job to make the best interest determination, but it is their job to do the background checks of the individuals involved in the contract. Mr. DOLD. Do you know if the contract that they had entered into was indeed one that the management staff-not the management staff, the Mr. ELLIOTT. Gaming Commission. Mr. DOLD. The Gaming Commission was not going to approve, and therefore it would not have gone through without their approval? The WITNESS. At the time I didn't know what the analysis would be from the gaming commission, but that it's not likely, and I'm basing this on what I know now, I know now that they would not approve, but at the time, with a $1.5 million lease, my best judgment is they would not have approved it. EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: Question. How do you know now that they would not have approved it? Answer. Well, since then I have learned from Mr. Hartman more of the terms of the best interest analysis that he was going to use, and also the terms of the lease, and the lease in fact would have cost the tribes millions of dollars and extended it for 25 years, notwithstanding whether the gaming took place on the reservation or not, or on the casino land or not, so they were basically locked into a 25-year deal with no chance to guarantee that they would be paid. Question. And what did you learn specifically about the National Indian Gaming Commission? Answer. Well, they had sent back the application after their review, and I believe that was presumptive denial of the application. Question. Sir, is there any reason why the three applicant tribes could not have chosen another location for a fee to trust application close to a large market that could have provided to them the same, or perhaps better, economic benefits? Answer. That was certainly a possibility. I don't know whether they had explored every alternative. Question. Hudson was not in their reservation area, was it? Answer. Right. Question. They did not have to locate the gaming there? Answer. Right. The opportunities could have been-would have been best if they had been closer to their homelands. Question. Or perhaps found another community that was not close, that would concur? Answer. That would have been another option for them as well. Question. Are you aware of any involvement in this decision by Secretary Babbitt apart from the participation in the tribal dialogue in April of '95? Answer. No. I don't recall Secretary Babbitt's view being expressed in any way throughout this process. Mr. Duffy was located in the Secretary's Office, but I never recall him stating Secretary Babbitt has this view or he wants this done. Question. Are you aware of any contacts with the White House at the time concerning-with the Department of Interior concerning the Hudson casino matter? Answer. No. I learned about the White House contacts in the pleadings filed by the plaintiffs. Question. Did the White House influence your decision to reject the Hudson application? Answer. No. I had no contact with the White House. Question. Was there any political interference whatsoever in your decision? Question. Were you ever contacted by the Democratic National Committee about Hudson? Answer. No. Question. Were you ever contacted by Clinton-Gore or any other campaign committee about Hudson? Answer. No. Question. You based your decision on the merits in the matter? Answer. That's correct. Question. You based your decision on the recommendation of career civil servants? Answer. Yes. Question. You based your decision on the facts as you determined them and in trying to do your job? Answer. Yes. Question. Were you pressured in any way whatsoever to reach a particular result in this, by anyone? Answer. No. Question. Were you pressured to reach a decision by a certain date? Answer. There was certainly-no as to pressure. There was certainly an interest that I had, as well as the department had, in getting timely decisions out, and on the particular day that the decision went out, I was asked that it go, that I sign it that day by Mr. Chapman, and as I have testified in my Senate deposition. So there was certainly, because of the interest in this decision, I wanted to get it out timely. Question. But that didn't effect the merits of the decision one way or another? EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. The lease that we talked about just moments ago, with the parking lot, was that a curable problem? Answer. If they had omitted the terms completely, yes, curable. Question. Did you ever have a discussion with the environmental policy specialist in the Indian Gaming Management Staff? Answer. No. Question. Did you ever review a memorandum produced by the environmental policy specialist? Answer. No. Mr. BALLEN. But you did have discussions with Mr. Skibine that reflected environmental policy staff persons' point of view? The WITNESS. Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. So on it was all oral? Answer. Yes. Mr. BALLEN. You were in the middle of an answer, sir. Mr. DOLD. I'm sorry. The WITNESS. The only person that would have provided Mr. Skibine central office expertise would have been his own environmental person, so that's who I expected he was talking to. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. If the Department of the Interior, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Department of the Interior's policy is that they always take in information; no matter who sends stuff in on an application, they will keep taking it in and reviewing it? Answer. In an informal process, yes. Question. Would there ever be a need to extend a comment period or to reopen anything if it wasn't Answer. The only, the only need would be to have a time certain so as not seen as an open-ended time. I mean if we are going to try to reach a conclusion, it's best to give someone a target to shoot at. If they missed it by a few days or they had dramatic information, we would look at it. Question. But there would be no need, because the Department of Interior will accept and review comments on issues; there's no need to reopen a comment period; is that correct? Answer. Could you repeat that question? Mr. BALLEN. Was there a comment period to be reopened here, officially? The WITNESS. There was not an official. We certainly had-actually, I wasn't part of those discussions. I know that Mr. Skibine and Mr. Duffy had asked that comments be submitted by a certain date, but I think it's stating more than may be there to say that there was a comment period that closed and that we would not accept things beyond that, and it is much more informal than that. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. So the comment period, if somebody wanted to send something in, they could also do so before the decision? Answer. Yes. Now the risk in doing that is that we would reach a conclusion by the time they sent in their documents, so they are going to be much safer in sending it in by, in this case, the April 30 deadline. Question. Do you know if anybody visited Hudson, Wisconsin at the central office? Answer. I don't know. Question. There was nobody assigned to go out there and visit the site? Answer. I don't know whether the Indian Gaming Management Staff went there or not. Question. Do you know what environmental studies the environmental specialists would have reviewed to make their determination? Answer. Um, the studies would have been the environmental assessment prepared by the BIA area office, and that I assume would be the primary source of the documents. Whether, because it was a scenic national riverway, other, other offices of the department would have had information, the Fish and Wildlife Service or others, I don't know. Question. Did you take the letters people would send in on face value? Answer. From whom? Question. From local opposition or from those people that were in support? Question. Would only letters by local officials? Answer. That would carry weight, because we expect governments are making correct governmental conclusions. Question. And was there any attempt to verify letters or information contained in letters? Answer. If a town sent a resolution that said they opposed, we didn't go back to look at the vote to see if they truly did or not. Question. Barring that? Answer. No, there was no independent review. Mr. BALLEN. Of the local governmental decision-making process. The WITNESS. Right. There is certainly a review of the economic or the environmental impacts. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Is the area office simply a rubber stamp for proposals that Indian tribes make? Answer. No. The area office serves as a very valuable source of expertise in the government. It's not a final source of decision-making, but certainly as the initial stop for review, it's a very valuable place. One of the problems of relying, of relying solely on the area office is that they don't always have the most current information. By the time it reaches the central office in Washington, and the information is more up-to-date at that point, and that's when decisions are sometimes made at that point. So that's one of the deficiencies of relying solely on the area office. Question. When the application goes from the area office to the central office, do communique from the Indian tribes go directly from the tribes then to the central office, or do they go through the area office? Answer. They generally go straight to the central office at that point. Question. Do you think the requirements under section 20 of IGRA were adequately addressed in this matter? Answer. Yes. Mr. DOLD. Mr. Anderson, on behalf of members of the committee, at least on the Majority side, we want to thank you very much for coming in today, and on behalf of myself, I sincerely appreciate you coming in voluntarily. The WITNESS. Thank you. Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you. The WITNESS. Can I ask a question off the record? [Discussion off the record.] [Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the deposition was concluded.] [The exhibits referred to follow:] Subject: Application of the Sokaogon Community, the Lac Courte Oreilles BAnd, and the Red Cliff Band to Place Land Located in Hudson, Wisconsin, in Trust for Gaming Purposes The staff has analyzed whether the proposed acquisition would be in the best interest of the Indian tribes and their members. However, addressing any problems discovered in that analysis would be premature if the Secretary does not determine that gaming on the land would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Secretary, based on the following, determine that the proposed acquisition would not be detrimental to the surrounding community prior to making a determination on the best interests. FINDINGS OF FACT The Minneapolis Area Office ("MAO") transmitted the application of the Solzogon Chippe wa Community of Wisconsin, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin ("Tribes") to the Secretary of the Interior ("Secretary") to place approximately 55 acres of land located in Hudson, Wisconsin, in trust for gaming purposes. The proposed casino project is to add slot machines and blackjack to the existing class III pari-mutuel dog racing currently being conducted by non-Indians at the dog track. (Vol. I, Tab 1. pg. 2)' The Tribes have entered into an agreement with the owners of the St. Croix Meadows Greyhound Park, Croixland Properties Limited Partnership ("Croixland"), to purchase part of the land and all of the assets of the greyhound track, a class III gaming facility. The grandstand building of the track has three floors with 160,000 square feet of space. Adjacent property to be majority-owned in fee by the Tribes includes parking for 4,000 autos. The plan is to remodel 50,000 square feet, which will contain 1,500 slot machines and 30 blackjack tables. 03194 'References are to the application documents submitted by the Minneapolis Area Office. Another 20,000 square feet will be used for casino support areas (money room, offices, employee lounges, etc.). Vol. I, Tab 3, pg. 19) The documents reviewed and analyzed are: 1. Tribes letter February 23, 1994 (Vol. I, Tab 1) 2. 3. 4. Hudson Casino Venture, Arthur Anderson, March 1994 (Vol. I. Tab 3) An Analysis of the Economic Impact of the Proposed Hudson Gaming Facility on S. Various agreements (Vol. I, Tab 7) and other supporting data submitted by the Minneapolis Area Director. 6. Comments of the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, April 30, 1995. 7. KPMG Peat Marwick Comments, April 28, 1995. 8. Ho-Chunk Nation Comments, May 1, 1995. The comment period for Indian tribes in Minnesota and Wisconsin was extended to April 30, 1995 by John Duffy, Counselor to Secretary. These additional comments were received after the Findings of Fact by the MAO, and were not addressed by the Tribes or MAQ. Comments from the public were received after the MAO published a notice of the Findings Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The St. Croix Tribal Council provided comments on the draft FONSI to the Great Lakes Agency in a letter dated July 21, 1994. However, no appeal of the FONSI was filed as prescribed by law. NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY CONSULTATION To comply with Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Aa 25 U.S.C. §2719 (1988). the MAO consulted with the Tribes and appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other nearby Indian tribes, on the impacts of the gaming operation on the surrounding community. Letters from the Area Director, dated December 30, 1993, listing several suggested areas of discussion for the "best interest" and "not detrimental to the surrounding community" determination, were sent to the applicant Tribes, and in letters dated February 17, 1994, to the following officials: Mayor, City of Hudson, Wisconsin (Vol. III, Tab 1′′) Chairman, St. Croix County Board of Supervisors, Hudson, WI (Vol. III, Tab 2o) "response is under same Tab. The Area Director sent letters dated December 30, 1993, to the following officials of federally recognized tribes in Wisconsin and Minnesota: 1) President, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (Vol. III, Tab 5o) 03195 |