Indian Gaming: Federal Controls Did Not Detect Compact Approval Violation
RCED-98-45R
Published: Dec 19, 1997. Publicly Released: Dec 19, 1997.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO reviewed the implementation of gaming regulation by the National Indian Gaming Commission, the state of Washington, and several other states. GAO noted that the Nisqually Indian Tribe was operating class III (casino-type) gaming in Washington without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, which is required by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| National Indian Gaming Commission | The Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission, should take the steps necessary to bring the Nisqually Tribe's gaming operation into compliance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's requirements and with the Commission's regulations. |
The tribe had been operating a casino without a federally approved compact in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's requirements and the Commission's regulations. Since the tribe now has a federally approved compact, effective March 30, 1998, the recommendation is complete.
|
| National Indian Gaming Commission | The Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission, should determine if similar violations are occurring elsewhere. In addition, to avoid similar violations in the future, the Chairman should review and evaluate the Commission's current controls, including reporting requirements, processes, and procedures for overseeing class III gaming, and take appropriate steps to strengthen the controls to ensure compliance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's requirements and with the Commission's regulations. |
The Commission's review of all gaming tribes with state compacts found that this tribe's operation of casino gaming without a federally approved compact was a unique situation. The review and evaluation of Commission controls and procedures will be evolutionary and dependent on staffing levels which have been limited (See GAO/RCED-98-97). Furthermore, the Commission's funding from casino operations has been challenged in court and staffing increases at the Commission have been minimal during fiscal year 1998.
|
Full Report
Public Inquiries
Topics
Independent regulatory commissionsIndian landsInternal controlsLicensesNoncomplianceGamblingIndian gamingNative American gamingGamingRegulatory noncompliance