process concern, specifically, that having an active member of the NIGC serving as the Director of the Office of Self-Regulation creates a severe point of conflict for fairness of review. In its most recent iteration, the proposed rule, specifically at 25 C.F.R. § 518.2, would seemingly allow the NIGC Chair to appoint a Director to the Office of Self-Regulation without that individual necessarily being a member of the NIGC. However, while such appointment is permitted, it is not required, which still leaves room for concern should the Chair appoint a current, sitting NIGC member. If the Director of the Office of Self-Regulation, who is the individual advocating for the revocation of a certificate, is to also serve on the Commission, who is tasked with deciding whether the decision maker has met their burden of proof under §518.14, there would be a stark potential for a conflict of interest. We recommend that, in the event that the Director of the Office of Self- Regulation is asked, as an active Commissioner of the NIGC, to participate in a revocation hearing, that the Director recuse himself/herself from the matter. III. CONCLUSION We hope that these comments will be accepted in the collegial spirit with which they are submitted. The IGA, as well as our member Nations and Tribes, appreciate your consideration and hope these comments prove useful to the Commission in determining whether and to what extent revisions to the regulatory provisions discussed herein are warranted.
4
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs