NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website. The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR:	Begaye		DATE TYPED:	02/23/03		HB	620
SHORT TITLE:		Native Americans on Gaming Control Board				SB
					ANALYST:		Gonzales

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained		Estimated Additional Impact		Recurring or Non-Rec	Fund Affected
FY03	FY04	FY03	FY04
	None

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Gaming Control Board

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 620 requires that one of the five members on the Gaming Control Board be a member of a tribe. Tribe is defined as “an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo that is fully or partially contained in the state.”

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The gaming control board currently is comprised of five members: four appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate and one ex-officio member, the chairman of the State Racing Commission. Three of the appointed positions each require specific qualifications; one member with experience in law enforcement, one who is a certified public accountant and one who is an attorney.

Nothing in the Act’s qualifications for Gaming Control Board members prohibits a person with non-pecuniary ties to racetracks, nonprofit organizations, or tribal gaming entities from serving on the Board. However, the Gaming Control Board states that requiring, rather than allowing, a Board member to also be a member of a tribe (or for that matter, associated with a racetrack or nonprofit organization) assumes that the member will be a person with ties to the gaming industry. Such a requirement could erode public confidence in the integrity of gaming if it creates the perception that the Board is biased in favor of the industry and will put industry demands ahead of the Board’s obligations to protect the integrity of gaming and the public welfare.

JMG/yr