Regarding the question concerning vendor licensing, we note that IGRA does not reference vendor licensing at all. Accordingly, we see no basis for the exercise of federal authority when it comes to vendors. It is our understanding that most, if not all, TGRAs operate programs for licensure and/or registration of gaming, gaming related, and/or non-gaming vendors, we are curious about the basis for NIGC’s questions in this regard. We believe that further discussion of this topic is needed. 2. “As to Class III gaming, compacts may require some states to conduct significant background investigations on prospective vendors. Those states typically maintain a matrix of approved vendors. Should the NIGC exempt individuals from state-approved vendors from the background investigation process? Or limit the investigation requirements? What do Tribes suggest should be included for limited investigation submissions?” As expressed above, there are serious questions as to the NIGC’s regulatory authority related to vendor licensing. Accordingly, we do not find vendor licensing an appropriate subject for federal rulemaking. 3. “Instead of promulgating these regulations, would it be better if the Commission used its authority under IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 27081, to request information from other government agencies, such as FBI, IRS, FinCEN, and OFAC, to provide information necessary for NIGC investigations of potential bad actors associated with gaming vendors, suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and consultants? Potential violations of law then could be referred to appropriate law enforcement, including federal, state, and tribal civil and criminal law enforcement agencies.” If the NIGC is in possession of information indicating that certain persons associated with a gaming vendor may be bad actors, we urge that the appropriate course would first be to bring such information to the attention of the TGRA for investigation. If the NIGC has evidence that a violation of criminal law has been committed by such person, a referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency is the appropriate course of conduct. The actions of administrative agencies are constrained by the agency’s statutory delegation. In relation to tribal gaming, TGRAs have the primary regulatory role, which should be respected and supported. B. Submissions of the Annual Audit (25 C.F.R. Part 571) 1. “The current audit regulations do not directly address instances where an auditor finds that the financial statements may be incomplete or inaccurate. Regulators need complete and accurate information to identify and prevent theft and to make regulatory decisions. . . . Under the proposed changes, tribes that submit an Adverse or Disclaimed Opinion as part of their audit will therefore be subject to an action for failure to submit an audit. As always the Chairman has discretionary enforcement authority.” We believe that this topic warrants additional consideration. Certainly, an adverse and/or disclaimed opinion raises concerns, but the effect of this revision would be to create a new basis for an enforcement action without an intermediate investigative step. It could also serve as a disincentive to submit the adverse or disclaimed opinion at all, since doing so would result in an
1
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs