Indian Tribes Deny Members Casino Benefits

Enrollment lists, carrying the names of those who meet bloodline requirements, are being challenged like never before, now that being named is equivalent to receiving a trust fund.

Most, if not all, the squabbles about gambling across the United States revolve around one central issue: who gets the money. Racinos fight over whether funds should go to horse purses or slot management; Vegas casinos fight teachers' unions over taxation, each wishing to keep revenue; morals and family values are cited as cause to deny new gambling venues by groups curiously tied to existing venues.

Perhaps one of the ugliest arguments over distribution of gambling wealth involves the Indian tribes running casinos. Struck with sudden riches, the tribal members have in many cases found themselves infected with what had been viewed as a white man's sickness: greed.

The willingness to throw one's family aside for a few extra dollars in the face of astonishing wealth is appalling. After struggling through years of abject poverty, some tribal leaders are ok with kicking their neighbors and relatives back to the impoverished hell out of which casino revenue is bringing them all, for a larger cut of pie.

Tribes across the nation are in turmoil as membership becomes a primary issue. The methods of disbursement of gambling income at Indian casinos must be filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and generally involve regular stipends to tribal members.

Therein lies the problem; who is a member? Enrollment lists, carrying the names of those who meet bloodline requirements, are being challenged like never before, now that being named is equivalent to receiving a trust fund.

Some tribes determine enrollment by the decree of the tribal council. No appeal is available, no remedy if a name stricken may have a reasonable case that the person indeed is a descendant from tribal founders. The San Pasqual Tribe of California is not such a tribe; their membership is determined by BIA decision.

Yet the tribe has seen fit to exclude over 50 members, withholding casino checks due them at the rate of about $4000 per individual per month. The whole tribe is only 300 strong, so this result is significant.

Tribal leaders have decided a deceased member, Marcus Alto Sr., was adopted. The BIA ruled he was in fact full-blooded Indian, far beyond the one-eighth necessary to be listed on the enrollment.

Despite the BIA decision, families who have lived their lives on tribal lands, working in tribal offices, and grown up thinking of themselves as San Pasqual now find themselves evicted from their homes and barred from their jobs.

James Fletcher, the superintendent of the BIA in Southern California, has filed with the agency regarding a violation of rules regarding revenue sharing; if the Agency finds the violation to be accurate, they can fine the tribe or move to harsher measures.

Wouldn't it beironic if the BIA shut down the casino due to the disagreement? Might as well roast that golden goose and eat it, tribal members; it's your greed that killed it.