8 More Tribes Join Wilson Deal on Casinos

Since March, when a small San Diego County Indian tribe reached a historic agreement with Gov. Pete Wilson that would allow the operation of a state-approved tribal casino, eight more tribes have come to terms with the governor.

Six of those tribes operate relatively small but prosperous casinos in Central and Northern California and are generally less contentious than their counterparts who have loudly denounced Wilson’s conditions.

But two tribes in San Diego County, whose casinos are among the largest in California, also have agreed to abide by Wilson’s terms, grudgingly breaking ranks with the more than two dozen other gambling tribes that have pledged to duke it out with Wilson. The Barona Indians near Lakeside signed the agreement July 22, and the Sycuan Indians near El Cajon are about to do so, according to their attorney.

The San Diego tribes face perhaps the sternest federal judge in California dealing with casino litigation. While other judges are considering tribal lawsuits that have delayed federal agents from confiscating slot machines deemed illegal by the state, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff in San Diego recently warned the San Diego tribes that their slot machines may be confiscated quickly if they don’t sign a compact with Wilson by Sept. 5.

“We were in a sticky situation,” said Barona tribal spokesman Dave Barron. “After meeting with the judge, we knew we had to get to the table, or risk closure of our casino.”

Similarly, the Sycuan tribal council has told Wilson’s office that it would sign the compact--although it hasn’t yet done so. And a third San Diego County tribe, the Viejas Indians, near Alpine, signed the compact--but only after unilaterally deleting a key provision on workers rights. Consequently, Wilson’s staff does not consider that pact a done deal.

Gambling tribes elsewhere, including several in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, expressed disappointment at the deals.

“They’ve turned their backs on the other tribes,” said Henry Duro, chairman of the San Manuel tribe near San Bernardino. “They may have thought that what they gave up [in concessions to Wilson] was small, but for every inch they give up, it gets worse for the next tribe. But we all have to do what we have to do, to stay alive.”

Leaders of these gambling tribes vow to fight Wilson all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. As well, they predict that the agreements between the San Diego tribes and Wilson will not open the floodgates to more compacts.

“Our resolve is stronger than ever,” said Mark Macarro, chairman of the Pechanga Indians near Temecula. “I really doubt anybody else is going to fold.”

Macarro is best known these days as the TV commercial spokesman for Californians for Indian Self Reliance, promoters of Proposition 5 on the November ballot. That ballot initiative would circumvent Wilson’s compacts by asking voters to directly approve Indian casino regulations written by the tribes. Currently, terms must be negotiated with the governor and ratified by the state Legislature.

If approved, the ballot measure would allow the continued use of slot machines that are now deemed illegal by the state; Wilson’s pacts call for the Indians to operate video machines that mimic the state’s Lottery games.

As in San Diego, tribes in Riverside and San Bernardino counties face a similar judicial threat: U.S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts in Los Angeles has told Indian leaders that they have until Sept. 15 to sign compacts, or risk having their slot machines turned off by federal agents.

The Pala Indians in northern San Diego County, who currently don’t have a casino, were the first to initiate a compact with Wilson, striking a model for the others to follow. The six smaller tribes that quickly joined them in signing a compact have maintained that it was the right thing to do, both for their tribes and for the state.

Although the more contentious tribes say their sovereignty means they do not have to make concessions to a state governor, leaders of some tribes see sovereignty as the ability to strike accords with other governments.

“We have always believed that government-to-government negotiation is the most productive and responsible way for tribes to practice self-determination,” said Paula Lorenzo, chairwoman of the Rumsey Indians, and Vern Castro, chairman of the Table Mountain Indians, in a position letter issued Monday.

The compacts with Wilson, they said, “recognize our unique sovereign status and permit tribes to continue to advance economically, while sharing reasonable regulatory authority over gaming activities with the state.”

The other upstate tribes that have signed the compact are the Jackson, Trinidad, Mooretown and Big Sandy.

Federal law calls for Indian tribes and states to enter into compacts defining what kind of gambling can occur in reservation casinos, and how it should be regulated, as long as the gambling does not exceed the level allowed by the state itself.

Among the terms negotiated between Wilson and the nine tribes so far:

* A tribe can operate 199 video gaming devices that run on a similar principle as the state Lottery, in which gamblers bet against each other instead of the house. A tribe could also buy the rights to machines licensed to tribes that choose not to operate casinos--paying $5,000 per machine per year to that tribe--in order to operate a maximum 975 machines. (The Barona tribe successfully negotiated to allow itself about 1,050 machines--the number it now operates.)

* Service employees, including food and housekeeping workers, would be allowed to organize as a collective bargaining unit--and the tribal government would have to remain neutral during that organizing effort.

* Casino employees would be protected by the state’s workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance and disability insurance laws.

* A tribe would have to mitigate any off-reservation environmental consequences of the casino, and be subjected to an advisory vote of local citizens. Voter opposition to the casino could trigger a renegotiation of the compact to resolve the contentious issues.

The compacts negotiated thus far must still be ratified by the Legislature. In the face of strong lobbying by the opposing tribes, the Legislature has thus far refused. If and when legislative ratification occurs, the compacts must also be approved by the U.S. Department of Interior.

The Viejas tribe balked at the compact provision calling for the tribal government to remain neutral if its employees seek to organize.

“For us, that kind of gag order violates our 1st Amendment right to exercise our free speech,” said Viejas chairman Anthony Pico.

Attorney George Forman represents seven tribes that have refused to sign the compact, in part because “the state of California has no business dictating to sovereign tribal governments what its labor policies should be, any more than the state of California has the power to dictate to the state of Nevada what its labor policies should be. Nothing [in the federal law] allows the state to inject nonregulatory issues, such as labor relations, into a tribal-state compact.”

Since Wilson is far from a political friend of organized labor, his inclusion of the labor-friendly terms is seen by political observers in Sacramento as a means to win Democratic support of the compacts when they reach the Legislature for ratification.

Moreover, because of the inclusion of labor rights in the compact, organized labor is strongly opposed to Proposition 5, which does not include such protections.

Wilson’s chief negotiator, Dan Kolkey, defends the labor terms of the compacts as trade-offs that, on balance, serve the interests of the state and the tribes.

Although workers would be allowed to organize, the compacts contain a no-strike provision, allowing tribes to defer recognition of a union for up to a year, and to defer negotiating with union leaders for two years, Kolkey said.