Leading the National Indian Gaming Commission is like walking a tightrope, former chairman Phil Hogen said.
“The challenge to the NIGC is to avoid the perception that we’re the cheerleaders for the Indian gaming industry. That’s not our role,” he told G2E attendees Tuesday afternoon. “It’s to be objective and listen carefully to help things move forward.”
Hogen was one of four present or former NIGC members who explained the workings of their operation, which was created as part of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to oversee Indian gaming,
“We need to maintain that objectivity to keep our credibility,” said Hogen, who served the longest term as NIGC chair, seven years, in the 2000s. “Sometimes you have to bite the bullet. Sometimes you help a tribe by saying ‘yes’ and sometimes you help them by saying ‘no.’
Hogan added that there’s a “dynamic tension” between the agency and tribes.
“How do we play nice with a constituency we are regulating? There’s a risk that sometimes you’re hesitant if you don’t take the enforcement step then the tribe gets into deeper water. My view was that IGRA was going to have us regulate, then by God we were going to regulate. If audits were late or fees weren’t paid on time … Sometimes you have pull the trigger even though you know it’s not going to be well received.”
Current NIGC chair Jonodev Chaudhuri, who took over in 2013, said he spelled out that balance as part of his confirmation process.
“One that came to mind was performing while not creating artificial roadblocks,” he said. “A great amount of credit can be given to the NIGC for balancing those two ideas.”
Still, he discussed concerns about what he called “gamesmanship” – the idea of vendors or tribal members angling for benefits different from the expressed objective of casinos existing as a means to support tribal members. Having good relations before a potential conflict surfaces helps both the tribes and the NIGC, he said.
Choudhury cited an example of a Midwest tribe that heard a casino manager’s proposal after he developed, outside of his regular job, a new game. The manager suggested that the casino could be a test site for his new game, with the casino providing floor space and tracking data.
“They asked us to help think it through,” Choudhury said. Eventually, the NIGC pointed out a problem: individuals could not be employees and licensed vendors at the same time.
While noting the NIGC has helped Indian gaming grow, Steffani Cochran, a consultant who was the NIGC’s vice chair in 2010, said the NIGC could step forward a little more.
“How are we going to best use the industry to serve its next generation?” she asked. “Training and technical assistance are huge.”
When asked about what NIGC could improve, Cochran said the commission could be more proactive.
“I still think we’re very reactive and regulating, sometimes, aspects of the industry that are kind of stagnant,” she said. “If there’s ever an opportunity and we have the mechanisms built in to be more proactive … skill-based gaming for example. There’s an opportunity for the agency to engage and anticipate what the future is.”
The NIGC oversees almost 450 tribal gaming facilities in the United States.
Hogen added: “To get the job done best and to try to keep those things in balance you need to focus on integrity in the gaming industry. You have to keep it squeaky clean. Then you need to keep fidelity to the IGRA as Congress wrote it.
“That’s not a perfect piece of legislation by any means, but that’s the law. There are things I would have said differently or more clearly. But if you follow it, the public, tribal, and congressional confidence will follow.”
Choudry concluded, “Without a doubt it’s an exciting time at the NIGC.” Nodding his head toward Hogan, he added: “They helped developed the car. Now we’re figuring out where that car is going to go.”
Native American casinos fund the NIGC. Previous rules were the NIGC could ask for up to 5 percent of a tribe’s revenues, but couldn’t get more than $1.5 million. Hogen noted that as the industry grew, “it wasn’t enough to keep the doors open.” So the funding formula was changed; now tribes pay up to 0.8 percent of their revenues.
