 |
ARTICLES | > | EDITORIALS | COMMENTS | NEXT |
|
Native American Press/Ojibwe News Closing the books on the people’s right to knowState Commissioner re-classifies
casino audits as
non-public The recent decision by David Fisher to reclassify the tribal gambling audits submitted to the State as non-public information was astonishing, because of the fact that Fisher had already made one decision saying that Red Lake’s gambling audits are public information. In his opinion 01-951, made June 6, Commissioner Fisher gave several reasons for his decision upholding the public’s right to know philosophy of the State Data Practices Act, including that the casinos are on Indian lands located within the state, and that the language in the State-Tribal compacts providing that gambling audit “data not be disclosed ‘to the extent possible under state law’ does not itself override the presumption that the data are public under Chapter 13.” According to Department of Administration staff—Press/ON had not yet received a copy of Commissioner Fisher’s most recent decision at press time—Fisher’s decision was strongly influenced by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) arguments that Indian tribal gambling enterprise attorneys had threatened that the Indian tribal gambling enterprises would not provide the audits to the State unless the State reclassified the audits as “non-public” information. That kind of non-cooperation by the Indian casinos, a Department of Administration staff member told Press/ON, would make DPS’s job of regulating the Indian casinos “more difficult.” The Department of Administration’s position that state regulatory agencies should play the Governor’s patty-cake game with the folks they’re supposed to monitor, in order to make the state’s job easier, is a disquieting one. DPS’s argument about law enforcement problems which Indian casino’s threatened refusal to provide audits might cause DPS would be more persuasive if the state gambling enforcement agency had examined casino audits regularly as a part of their job of monitoring Indian gambling enterprises in Minnesota. But, the Gambling Enforcement Division of the DPS has never requested the audits. It seems that DPS has never even attempted to examine the overall operation of Indian casinos, never even made any effort to look for the kinds of skimming, kickbacks and other problems that thorough and regular scrutiny of casino audits could reveal.This lack of monitoring by DPS is an abrogation of the responsibility of public officials – and that they appear to be covering up their lax law enforcement by urging that their documents be classified as non-public is troubling. The state DPS seems to be sliding into the way that tribes conduct their business – in secret. The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to all of the citizens of Minnesota, to be open about the three billion dollar Indian gambling industry in Minnesota. People have a right to know what’s going on in the Indian casinos. But, it seems that David Fisher is doing his buddy Charlie Weaver a favor. The way the most recent decision at the Department of Administration was handled, it seems like there’s politics involved in what should be a legal decision resting on the Data Practices Act “sunshine law” presumption: that state government records are public records, and unless there is some compelling reason to restrict them, they are supposed be open to the public. The staff responsible for enforcing the state Data Practices Act briefed Commissioner Fisher on Thursday afternoon, August 16. According to Brooke Manley, of the Information Policy Analysis Division, the briefing took place at 12:30 p.m. We thought that Fisher would be making his decision public that afternoon, but for some suspicious reason he delayed it until Sunday evening, August 19, when he emailed his decision to the Data Practices staff. The next move is up to Attorney General Mike Hatch, who can either approve or disapprove the Commissioner of Administration’s ruling. Press/ON will wait to see what the Attorney General decides, before we take further legal action to obtain the release of the audits.
|