DATELINE TRIBAL november2011


NO LEVERAGE Minnesota tribal compacts unlikely to change


W


ith the state of Minnesota considering adding racinos and a possible commercial


casino in Minneapolis, the state’s tribes have plenty to lose and nothing to gain. While other states have arranged to share the wealth from Native American gaming operations, none of Minnesota’s 22 separate gambling compacts with its 11 Indian tribes requires Indian-owned gambling operations to provide any revenue or other benefits to the state. And to make matters worse, Minnesota’s compacts contain no provisions for renegotiation, ever.


Sources estimate new compacts could provide


the state treasury with $400 million to $1 billion in much-needed biennial revenues. But over the years, countless attempts to change the compacts have failed. Most recently, in the 2011 legislative session—with a new Republican majority, a gam- bling-friendly governor and a multibillion-dollar budget deficit—gaming proponents saw an oppor- tunity to break the tribal hold on the industry. But by the end of the session, the compacts remained intact with no changes in sight. John McCarthy, executive director of the


Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, said, “Part of the problem is that compacts were negotiated in


total good faith by both parties, and lo and behold, the tribes made a huge success out of the business, and, gee, that kind of surprised people.” McCarthy was involved in negotiating the original compacts with then-Governor Rudy Perpich. Back then, he said, “The term ‘revenue-sharing’ never came up.” For the compacts to change, the tribes and the


state must willingly come to the negotiating table. “There is no appetite for that on our side,” McCarthy said. “The tribes have always been inter- ested in sitting down with the state in a civil man- ner to talk about ways we could work together on things that are beneficial to both groups, but we’ve always run into the gun-to-the-head approach. There has never been a partnership attitude.” The state could proceed with expanding gam-


bling, and prepare to fight the legal battles that would result. Other obstacles would be political party divisions in the legislature and powerful lob- byists. In the past, politicians also have attempted to


exploit relationships between the state’s richer and poorer tribes. Today, the tribes appear to present a united front, partially due to an increased amount of cross-tribal financial aid from tribes that have prospered from casinos.


Casino Brings Clout North Carolina’s Cherokee tribe wields political power because of its casino


S


ince Harrah’s Cherokee Casino in Cherokee,


North Carolina opened in 1997, it has brought consider- able political power and vital jobs to the once-economically depressed Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Said Vice Chief Larry Blythe, “It has put us at the table. I would say that we’ve always been recognized and listened to as an important tourist destination. But the political influence? We didn’t have the influence we have now.” Whereas in the past, the tribe was seen as polit-


ically insignificant and, as a result, tribal leaders were unable to make political connections, now the Cherokee have the wherewithal to hire the top lob- byists in the state and nation, Blythe said. “Lobbyists can open doors, and we can truly now step through


12


them. And we can go en masse, and we can go in force,” he said. The changes the


casino has brought to the Cherokee tribe have been profound, said retired University of Tennessee at Knoxville


professor and Cherokee scholar John Finger. “I’ve seen the tribe become more economically prosper- ous, the end result of both the tourist and gaming industries. They seem much more in tune with modern American business and life,” he said. Prior to the casino, tribal members feared it would dimin- ish the tribe’s interest in its culture. However, Finger says, the casino has had the reverse effect. “The casi- no has made them more aware of their status as Indians, particularly Cherokee Indians,” he said.


Global Gaming Business • November 2011


FireKeepers Expecting 2012 Opening


Construction is on track for the expansion of FireKeepers Casino in Battle Creek,


Michigan, owned by the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi. The project, expected to be completed in fall 2012, will feature an eight- story, 242-room hotel with an indoor pool, fitness facility, restaurant and business center. In addi- tion, bingo operations will increase to 10,000 square feet to accommodate 500 players per ses- sion, and a new 2,000-person multi-purpose event center also will be completed. The project will create 125 construction jobs


and 400 permanent jobs. During the develop- ment of the casino, more than 700 construction jobs were created and more than $100 million in subcontractor contracts were awarded to local suppliers.


The casino also offers upward mobility to


employees. Many in management positions at the casino are tribal members who rose through the ranks. “Opportunities abound within our organization. There are people doing things that are beyond their wildest aspirations when they started at this organization,” said General Manager Darold Londo. When speaking to new hires, he frequently tells them, “I want you to look back in five years and see this as the defin- ing moment in your professional career.” And tribal casino employees also have an


extra incentive to make sure guests are happy: they earn a share of casino profits, which topped $7,000 last year for each of the tribe’s 14,000 members. “You do your job well, guests are happy, they stay longer and play more, the casino makes more money, and per-cap checks are high- er,” said employee trainer Al Lossiah. “That’s Harrah’s financial strategy. We treat


you well, you are satisfied; you take that to the guests, treat them well, we have job security and financial success,” Lossiah said.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68