NMAGO 99-02.

Case DateApril 27, 1999
CourtNew Mexico
New Mexico Attorney General Opinions 1999. NMAGO 99-02. April 27, 1999 OPINION OF Opinion No. 99-02 PATRICIA A. MADRID Attorney General BY: Elizabeth A. Glenn Assistant Attorney General TO: The Honorable Manny M. Aragon The Honorable Raymond G. SanchezCo-chairs, Legislative Council New Mexico State Legislature State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 QUESTIONS:(fn4) 1. What effect would arbitration under Section 7 of the Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact, NMSA 1978, Section 11-13-1 (1997) ("Section 7") have on the law as it exists, i.e., could the arbitrator change or invalidate the regulatory fees set out in the Compact and the statute? 2. Does the arbitration provided for in Section 7 extend to the revenue-sharing agreement entered into between the state and a tribe? If so, is an arbitration panel authorized to rule on whether an issue such as the specified revenue-sharing amount violates federal law; would such a ruling be binding on the state; and what review might the state seek of such a ruling? CONCLUSIONS: 1. An arbitration panel selected under the Compact could not change or invalidate the regulatory fees specified in Section 4(E)(5) of the Compact. 2. It is not clear that the revenue sharing agreement (codified at NMSA 1978, § 11-13-2 (1997)) is covered by Section 7 of the Compact, but if it is, the arbitration panel would not have authority to determine the legal validity of the revenue-sharing amount. Judicial review of any attempt by an arbitration panel to rule on the legal validity of either the regulatory fees or the revenue-sharing amount may be possible in federal court. FACTS: Some tribes that have entered into Compacts with the state have questioned the amount and validity of certain fees required to be paid to the state under the Compact and related revenue-sharing agreement. Tribes have sought to raise this question with an arbitration panel selected in accordance with Section 7 of the Compact. This, in turn, has raised an issue regarding the scope of the arbitrators' authority. ANALYSIS: 1. Effect of Arbitration Panel's Decision on the Compact and Statute. In pertinent part, Section 7(A) of the Compact provides: In the event either party believes that the other party has failed to comply with or has otherwise breached any provision of this Compact, such party may invoke the following procedure: 1. The party asserting noncompliance shall serve written notice on the other party. The notice shall identify the specific Compact provision believed to have been violated and shall specify the factual and legal basis for the alleged noncompliance. The notice shall specifically identify the date, time and nature of the alleged noncompliance. Representatives of the State and Tribe shall thereafter meet within thirty (30) days in an effort to resolve the dispute. 2. In the event an allegation by the complaining party is not resolved to the satisfaction of such party within ninety (90) days after service of the notice set forth in Paragraph A.1 of this section, the complaining party may serve upon the other party a notice to cease conduct of the particular game(s) or activities alleged by the complaining party to be in noncompliance. Upon receipt of such notice, the responding party may elect to stop the game(s) or activities specified in the notice or invoke arbitration and continue the game(s) or activities pending the results of arbitration. The responding...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT