It looks like I owe Manuel “Gil” Gurule an apology.
He called me at the end of last week about the casino happenings (and lack thereof) in Sacramento. His intention was to point out to me that the meetings between the governor’s staff and four City Council members may have been a Brown Act violation. The Brown Act is California’s public meeting law, which is intended to make sure that local governmental meetings and decisions (with some exceptions) happen in a public forum, with the community appropriately notified.
I blame casino outrage fatigue for not listening, though it’s really a lousy excuse. City Council members aren’t supposed to gather in large enough numbers to define a quorum — three or more in this case — without public notification of the meeting. Their meeting in Sacramento is most likely a Brown Act violation, though they amended the situation by reporting out the content of the meeting at the subsequent City Council meeting Monday.
I was dismissive of Mr. Gurule’s call, because I’ve grown tired of folks on both sides finding ways to pick pick pick at their opponents and trying to get the newspaper involved. I’ve also been made increasingly aware by our readership that most folks out there don’t care about the squabbling, just the results.
But while this particular Brown Act violation was fairly mild — they were just there to receive information, it appears, not to plan anything — there are potential serious repercussions when this happens. What other meetings could have taken place in Sacramento without our knowledge? Could there have been strategy sessions to deal with opposition to one project? Could they have discussed dumping the city’s agreement with one tribe or the other? These are all potential discussion subjects that are obligated to happen in public.
So I apologize for letting my frustration with the nature of this debate cloud my perception about what is happening in Sacramento. Gurule was absolutely right to be concerned and I appreciate his call, in retrospect.
“Ancestral Ties”
September 5th, 2007, 3:08 pm by Scott ShackfordThese words have been tossed around by those opposing the Big Lagoon/Los Coyotes casinos as the reasons the state legislatures won’t approve the compacts.
I would classify that claim under the “weaselly ways” legislators have managed to duck the issue. In reality, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not require such ties to the land to be considered for gaming. Here’s what it says:
That’s it. Now the other tribes the governor is obligated to consult with may object to the fact that the proposed tribes don’t have strong historical ties to the land, and that’s exactly what they’ve done, but that doesn’t obligate a particular decision from the state legislature. So again, they’re using a technicality to avoid taking responsibility for folding for money.
Again, I would point out that it’s not particularly shocking that tribes would use this method to try to stop a completing casino — it’s the legislators who are at fault for wimping out. (It’ll likely cost taxpayers millions of dollars if Big Lagoon restores their lawsuit over the state’s insistence they don’t build a casino on their environmentally sensitive reservation. But why should legislators care? — it’s not their money)
To be fair to the other side, the reverse is pretty much true as well. That the Chemehuevi won’t get permission to build a casino in Barstow is based on similarly arbitrary decisions by the government that work against them (that they already have a casino). We don’t have the power to alter the governor’s judgment in that area anymore than we have the power to alter the legislature in the matter of the Big Lagoon/Los Coyotes project.
Now if gambling were legal, none of this would be a problem at all. Though I suspect none of the tribes would be quick to give up their monopoly in exchange for such freedom.
Posted in: Commentary • Local Issues • Reader Feedback | 3 Comments »