Just when you think that the gambling policy in the State of Washington is settled, something big happens to upset it.

Last year it was the massive expansion of non-tribal gambling embodied in Initiative 892.

This year it was the proposed compact with the Spokane Tribe that would have upset the delicate balance we now have within tribal gaming, and unleashed a free-for-all among tribes and non-tribal gambling alike.

It is time that we regained some control over our state gambling policy.

Our gambling policy should be guided by 4 principles:

First, tribal compacts must be fair and consistent.

Second, non-tribal gambling should be limited and regulated. I am opposed to expanding the reach of gambling so that it touches every neighborhood in the state.

Third, state and local government should resist the temptation of revenue sharing.

Finally, policy direction in this area should come from the Governor and the Legislature after an open debate and consideration of all of the hidden social costs associated with more gambling. Policy should not be set by the Gambling Commission. The Commission should only regulate and enforce the rules that are set by the Legislature.

1. Tribal compacts should be negotiated fairly and consistently.

Gambling compact negotiations between the state and the tribes have been guided by principles that were agreed to by the state and the tribes in 1998.  The principles included: 

• Assumptions that all tribes would be treated consistently;
• Strict limitations on the number of video slot machines, betting limits, facility locations and hours of operation;
• Expectations that all tribal governments – large and small, urban and rural – would benefit economically;
• Commitments by tribal governments to make contributions from their so-called “two percent” funds to offset local impacts;  
• Consistency with federal laws.

All of the 27 compacts in place today were negotiated on the basis of those principles. 

The proposed Spokane compact was a radical departure from these principles and, in my view, would have opened the door to a breathtaking expansion of gambling.  It envisioned a 10-fold increase in the number of video slot machines, higher betting limits, extended hours, multiple facilities on reservations, and an off-reservation facility.

With one stroke of her pen, the Governor could have wiped out the delicate balance achieved over the years in the careful compact negotiations with each tribe in the state.

I commend her for rejecting this draft and sending it back for re-negotiation.

This is not, however, just a matter of tweaking the details.

The proposal went miles too far.

The compact must be negotiated in accord with the principles that have guided the compacts with all of the other tribal governments in the state.

If tribal gambling were allowed to expand to the extent envisioned by the proposed Spokane compact, every other tribe in the state would have the right to a similar agreement.

This would surely be followed by demands for more gambling opportunities by the card rooms and mini-casinos to keep up with the massive expansion in tribal gambling.

2. Second, non-tribal gambling should be more closely regulated and restricted.

Gambling expansion comes with a real cost, both to families and to government. 

There is a direct link between problem gambling and domestic violence, child neglect, substance abuse, personal bankruptcy and crime.

You do not build hope and dreams for our young people by building more casinos. The family unit is not strengthened by offering more convenient gambling in every neighborhood.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected Initiative 892 a year ago precisely because it would have expanded the number of locations where Las Vegas-style gambling would be allowed to virtually any community in the state.

The decision by the Legislature to permit house banked card rooms in 1998 set in motion the arms race we have today between tribal and non-tribal casinos.

The annual revenue generated by these private casinos has increased ten-fold since 1998, from $30 million to $300 million today, yet these casino operators continue to beg for more expansion, claiming that they are just trying to catch up with the tribal casinos.

Many in the Legislature now regret the size of this industry created by the 1998 legislation.

We should look at ways of containing the neighborhood casinos and not permit more expansion.

3. State and local government should resist the temptation of revenue sharing.

I am also troubled by the popular notion of state “revenue sharing” which was also included in the proposed Spokane compact.

While the idea of requiring tribal governments to share their gaming revenue with state government is appealing on the surface, I think it would place state government in a conflicted position as a business partner with the Tribe. 

We all know that the only way for the revenue to continue to grow is to continue to expand the types and limits of the games allowed at the casino.

The state cannot effectively regulate gambling and manage gambling policy when it has a vested economic interest in gambling expansion.   

This so-called "easy" source of revenue must be rejected by our state leaders.

4. The Gambling Commission should regulate gambling and enforce the policies set by the Governor and the Legislature.

 The Gambling Commission should not set policy and permit greater games or greater limits without specific instruction from the Legislature.

Last week at its monthly meeting, the Gambling Commission approved a rule doubling the card game "rake limit", the house cut from each hand.

At their January meeting, the Commission has agreed to consider several more measures promoted by private gambling interests to expand gambling, including one that would quadruple certain poker table betting limits from $25 to $100, and another that would double the limits on house-banked games from $100 to $200 per bet.

It seems that every year the Commission adopts more and more rules that allow for more and more gambling. These little rules have huge consequences, not always foreseen by the Commissioners and their staff.

The proposed Spokane compact is another example of the Gambling Commission staff straying far from its mission. It proposed a 10-fold increase in the number of video slot machines, higher betting limits, extended hours, multiple facilities on reservations, and an off-reservation facility.

The other 28 tribes would immediately want off-reservation casinos and 7,500 machines too. 

And if, tribal gambling were allowed to expand to the extent envisioned by the proposed Spokane compact, it would surely be followed by demands for more gambling opportunities by the card rooms, bowling alleys, bingo halls and others. 

This would be followed by tremendous pressure to site casinos in major cities throughout the state.

All of this would come from the policy created by the Gambling Commission staff.

I believe it is important for the Governor and the Legislature to restate the role of the Gambling Commission.

It is not the Gambling Commission’s role to make gambling expansion decisions or to set other gambling policies.

The Gambling Commission’s role is to regulate gambling and to implement gambling policy as established by the Legislature and the Governor. 

Any major changes in policy, such as the principles that have guided gambling compact negotiations with tribes over the past eight years, should result from an open and deliberate process of the Legislature, and keep faith with the mandate of the voters who rejected the notion of expanded gambling last Fall when they rejected I-892. 

I will propose legislation this year that clarifies and restricts the scope of the Gambling Commission's duties. The so-called "little changes" they have adopted over the last few years have permitted the massive growth in gambling throughout the state.

Conclusion

Our experience over the last seven years has shown that gambling policy is a delicate matter. Small changes can have huge impacts.

We can see that one bad compact can spoil the whole relationship between the state and the tribal governments.

What I am calling for is our state leaders to regain control of gambling policy away from appointed commissioners and their staff.

Let's bring these issues into the clear light of day where they can be fully discussed and debated.

Dated: December 2, 2005