05-Apr-1998 Sunday
The stakes are huge for every Indian tribe in California, not just the ones
with casinos or those hoping some day to cash in on gambling.
Leaders of many, if not most, of California's 104 tribes -- even the
smallest and most remote -- are heading to Sacramento for an
emotion-charged meeting tomorrow with the federal official who holds the
Pala gambling compact in his hands.
"On a scale of one to 10, it's got to be a 10," Barona's Clifford LaChappa
said of the scheduled nine-hour meeting with Kevin Gover, assistant
Interior secretary for Indian affairs.
Pala leaders are going to defend the compact they signed March 6 with Gov.
Pete Wilson. But a majority of other tribes -- gaming and nongaming -- hope
to scuttle the accord, saying it threatens the sovereignty of tribal
governments in ways that have nothing to do with gambling.
Sovereignty has a different meaning to Indians than to other American
citizens. It entails their last remnants of self-governance and
self-determination. Tribes want their governments to be recognized on a
par with others.
The debate over the Pala compact pits Indian against Indian, sparking
internal debate within tribes -- including Pala -- and tribal councils.
Although Wilson's staff denies it, critics contend this was the governor's
intent all along: to divide and conquer.
"This is what the state is trying to do to us. They've always had us fight
amongst each other," said Jamul tribal Chairman Kenneth Meza. "This thing's
been planned to work out this way."
The Pala compact introduces an unproven form of video gambling that, unlike
a slot machine, employs a lottery system. It caps the number of the devices
to be operated statewide, as well as within any casino, and offers tribes
that don't have casinos a chance to gain revenues by leasing their
allotments of machines to other tribes.
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is expected to rely on Gover's
recommendation on whether to approve or reject the compact. A decision is
due by April 26.
Gover scheduled tomorrow's "listening conference" because he was being
inundated with calls regarding the compact, said his special assistant, Rex
Hackler.
"The tribal leaders deserve the opportunity to say their piece in a
government-to-government setting," he said. "This is part of the review
process."
Pala has no casino, but wants one.
From the outset of negotiations in October 1996, the state intended the
Pala accord to serve as a model for California Indian gambling. However,
other tribes complain that the pact far exceeds the boundaries of the Pala
reservation in northern San Diego County. It sets a cap of 19,900 on the
number of machines statewide and limits any individual tribe to a maximum
of 975.
The compact -- a 132-page document written in legalese -- also makes every
California tribe part of a revenue-sharing system. Each tribe is assigned a
base allocation of 199 lottery devices. A tribe either too remote or
unwilling to open a casino could lease its allotment to gambling tribes for
up to $5,000 per machine.
The Los Coyotes Indian band would seem to be just such a tribe. Its
mountainous reservation near Warner Springs is among the most remote of the
18 reservations in San Diego County.
But Los Coyotes leaders want no part of the Pala compact. They say it gives
state and county officials ominous inroads onto reservations. Moreover,
they resent being lumped into a pact that their tribal council had no role
in negotiating.
"Not even going down any of the bad points in it . . . I would say no to
anything that is forced on us without representation," said Los Coyotes
Councilman Kevin Siva. "My God, the nongaming tribes, we were so
insignificant to these people there was no desire to even want us to be
represented. They said, `We'll throw these guys a bone and that will shut
them up.'
"The issue of sovereignty outweighs the issue of revenue," he said. "We
have a tendency of thinking in terms of immediate gain, not realizing what
might be lost."
Dan Kolkey, Wilson's legal counsel and lead compact negotiator, said his
office has "not heard any nongaming tribes contend that sovereignty will be
infringed" by the Pala compact or its terms.
Wilson spokeswoman Lisa Kalustian said the opposition is led by "tribes
that realize they are not going to be able to continue their illegal
gaming."
Gaming tribes are, indeed, under the gun. U.S. attorneys have given them
until May 13 to either adopt the Pala accord or shut down their video
machines and broker a better deal with the governor.
Because the machines generate most of their revenues, tribes see shutdowns
as devastating. But many see the Pala compact as worse.
They're exploring every alternative they can find. An expensive ballot
initiative campaign. Lawsuits. Help from the Legislature.
And they're hoping Kevin Gover and Bruce Babbitt will make the Pala compact
go away.
"Though gaming is the specific subject (of tomorrow's meeting), I find it
tragic that, once again, federal policies and law have been interpreted by
the state in such a way to divide Indian country and weaken our ability to
function as sovereign governments," Viejas tribal Chairman Anthony Pico
wrote in a March 30 letter to Gover. "That is the real, overriding issue."
Pala leaders, meanwhile, are circulating an 18-page, point-by-point,
rebuttal to criticism of the compact. They say other tribes, invoking the
issue of sovereignty, are in fact undermining Pala's sovereign right to
chart its own destiny.
"This is just one avenue that we took that we think was right for our
tribe," said Pala Chairman Robert Smith. "A lot of people are unhappy with
it. That's their choice."
Smith said only a handful of his 850 constituents are dissatisfied with the
compact. But some, asking not to be named, complain they were not
adequately informed of the compact's provisions before it was signed.
"The people of Pala feel like they haven't had a voice in the matter," said
one. "It's really divided the families."
Wilson spokeswoman Kalustian said the accord "strikes a fair balance
between the tribe and the state."
"As far as the issue of sovereignty goes . . . tribal members are citizens
of the United States, and they're citizens of California," she said. "The
tribes are subject to the criminal laws of the state of California.
Sovereignty is not an absolute, where they have the ability to do anything
they please."
But Jamul's Meza and other chairmen will ask Gover -- an American Indian
himself -- to view the debate in a historical as well as a legal context.
And they will argue that the federal law requiring tribes to have compacts
for casino gambling should not force them to knuckle under to states.
"It's like the Trojan horse -- once they're in, they're in," said Meza.
"Once we give up any part of sovereignty, we've given up everything. We've
lost everything."