‘Our Work In the News’ Section

The Register Guard
By Emily Smith

Saturday, Jun 20, 2009

FLORENCE — The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Florence citizen group can question the agreement between the governor and the tribes running the Three Rivers Casino that allows it to operate.

The People Against a Casino Town, their legal actions stalled in the courts for nearly six years, say that after the latest ruling on Thursdaythey will move forward with their case against the governor.

PACT attorneys argue that the Three Rivers Casino and casinos statewide exist against the Oregon Constitution, which outlaws casinos.

But the state has withstood the group’s challenge since it began filing lawsuits to halt the casino in 2003. With Thursday’s ruling, the group believes the state finally will have to defend itself.

“(The Oregon Supreme Court) cut through all the technicalities and said, ‘These people have a right to an answer from their governor,’ ” said Kelly Clark, an attorney representing PACT.

The Lane County Circuit Court first dismissed a PACT lawsuit to block the casino in 2004 before the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians had even broken ground on Three Rivers Casino.

Until June 2008, the group was “bounced from court to court to court,” Clark said. “The whole time we’ve been jumping up and down saying, ‘It doesn’t matter to us. We just want an answer to the question.’ ”

A year ago, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the case should be heard on its merits.

Attorneys for the group said then they expected to have their day in court.

Clark said after Thursday’s ruling, which upholds the 2008 appeals court ruling, the state has “literally” run out of loopholes and now the sides will have their day in court.

“It means we have our ticket to get into the game,” Clark said. “It’s a procedural win only, (but) I would say it is significant because of what the Supreme Court didn’t say. They didn’t say, ‘There’s no hope for you to win on the merits.’ ”

Clark said the decision applies pressure to the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, who own the Florence casino and have faced opposition from PACT since before it opened.

“It’s got the tribes rightly on edge,” he said. “They’ve gone into this thing knowing they were facing this trial and they decided to dump all this money into the casino anyway.”

Tribal Chairman Bob Garcia said the trial will not affect the tribes or its casino because tribes are free to operate casinos as long as Oregon remains a gambling state.

PACT’s argument will fail because tribes are exempt from state law and answer instead to federal law, he added.

“Everyone needs to understand that tribal lands are not Oregon lands,” Garcia said. “Oregon law does not apply on tribal land.”

He is confident that regardless of the outcome in court, Three Rivers Casino will continue to draw Oregonians who want to have a good time.

“It’s not the same thing as what you have in Las Vegas,” he said. “It’s a nice, very conservative locals casino. We’re not in the gambling business, we’re in the entertainment business.”

The case will return to Lane County Circuit Court, where Clark expects a hearing in the next few months and a trial in the fall. He believes a decision may be reached by the end of the year.

Garcia said that while a trial won’t hurt the casino or the tribe, it is a waste of state resources that could be better spent. In the midst of a budget crisis, Garcia said, “Why waste one dollar on this frivolous lawsuit?”

OPB.com

BY ETHAN LINDSEY
Bend, OR  June 19, 2009

A casino in Florence will face questions in court about its legality – after a ruling Thursday from the state Supreme Court.

Judges ruled that Florence residents can challenge the constitutionality of a deal that set up the Three Rivers Casino.

The Oregon constitution bans casinos.

But governors have, in the past, entered compacts, or made deals to let tribal governments in Oregon build casinos.

The Three Rivers case goes back to a lower court, in Eugene, where attorneys expect the state and tribes to argue the casino is a federal issue.

Kelly Clark is the lawyer for the Florence citizens group known as People Against a Casino Town.

Kelly Clark: “I don’t know the endgame. If we win, it means the casino is operating illegally. What happens next is up to the United States attorney, as to how they would enforce the law.”

Some hope the casino will be forced to close.

The $60 million tribal casino on the Oregon coast opened five years ago – it is owned and operated by the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Umpqua, and Siuslaw.

© 2009 OPB

KMTR.com
June 18, 2009

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) – The governor’s authority to approve the site for tribal casinos can be challenged under a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court.

In a unanimous opinion, the court said People Against A Casino Town, or PACT, could raise a constitutional challenge to Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s approval of a gaming compact with the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suislaw Indians.

The group has opposed the Three Rivers Casino in Florence, claiming the Oregon Constitution expressly prohibits casinos.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene for another hearing.

Siuslaw News
June 18, 2009

The Oregon Supreme Court today ruled that a citizens’ group has the right to challenge the constitutionality of the agreement by Governors Kulongoski and Kitzhaber to a compact siting the Three Rivers Casino in Florence, on the grounds that the Oregon Constitution expressly prohibits casinos. The citizens’ group, People Against A Casino Town (PACT) has been challenging the casino since shortly after it was approved, filing a string of lawsuits in state and federal courts.

The case will now go back to the Circuit Court for Lane County for a decision on the merits.

For the complete article see the 06-24-2009 issue.

by Lori Tobias,
The Oregonian
Thursday June 18, 2009

Opponents of the Three Rivers Casino in Florence will have their day in court.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that People Against A Casino Town, or PACT, have the right to challenge the constitutionality of a compact signed by former Gov. John Kitzhaber on the grounds that the Oregon Constitution prohibits casinos.

The compact is an agreement between the state and tribe regarding how the casino will operate, and paved the way for the opening of the Three Rivers Casino in 2004.

The case will go back to the Lane County Circuit Court for trial.

The lawsuit targets only the Three Rivers Casino; however, if the circuit court rules in favor of PACT and agrees the casino is in violation of the state constitution, the decision could have implications for every tribal casino in the state.

"We’re disappointed in the decision," said Bob Garcia, spokesman for the Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians. "But it doesn’t change the basic facts which are as long as the state engages in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the tribes have the absolute right to engage in the same gaming the state does."

PACT has been battling the casino since before the compact was signed. They started with a petition in 2003 signed by 2,300 voters asking Kitzhaber to oppose the casino and take the necessary legal action to stop it. Since then, the case has been in Oregon Supreme Court, Lane County Circuit Court, U.S. District Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals.

"For five years, we have been getting bounced around from court to court to court with every procedural trick in the book to avoid having to answer one question," Portland attorney Kelly Clark said. "Today, the court said, ‘You have to answer that question.’ And that is: How is it in a state whose constitution expressly prohibits casinos that our governors keep siting casinos?"

Clark said he expects a decision on the case by fall. If the court finds in favor of PACT, that would mean at least the Three Rivers Casino is illegally sited, Clark said.

"Then, the compact is null and void. Would they require them to shut it down? Would Congress pass some exception? I don’t know. But it would least get us a clear-cut answer," Clark said. "This casino was illegally sited from the beginning."

The U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to gambling on reservations in 1987 when it ruled in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians that tribes had the right to engage in certain kinds of gambling on Native American lands.

In 1988, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act gave states a role in negotiating how gambling could be conducted. The act requires a state to negotiate a compact with the tribe if the state already permits the type of gambling the tribe seeks to establish.

Other Oregon tribes began opening casinos in the 1990s. The Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians first opened their casino in a humble 16,000-square-foot facility that visitors sometimes likened to Quonset Hut. By December 2007, the tribe was ready to move into its new home, a $60 million destination resort six times the size of the original building. That made it the sixth largest casino in the state.

The casino employs about 430 people, with a annual payroll of about $12 million, Garcia said.

He called the lawsuit frivolous.

"All this lawsuit is doing is wasting taxpayers money," he said. "If the residents of the state of Oregon want to end tribal gaming, stop the Oregon lottery, stop the Oregon slot machines," Garcia said. "Then they can have a say in what tribes do in Oregon. Take care of your own house first."

The Daily Courier
June 18, 2009

The result was expected. The reasons why are still unknown.

The Grants Pass City Council Thursday night voted to fire City Manager David Frasher effective July 1, not once but twice.

They declined to give any reasons for the firing based on legal advice.

The first vote was on a motion and the second on a resolution. Both had the same result.

Councilor Lisa Berger said the councilors had received advice that both methods could be used.

City Attorney Doug McGeary advised the council to vote on Frasher’s status in the form of a resolution because that was how Frasher was hired.

Councilor Rob Pell, however, cited the same advice Berger noted and said a motion is “absolutely acceptable.”

However, Mayor Mike Murphy refused to bring forward the motion, citing McGeary’s recommendation.

Council President Bill Kangas then called for the question and he, Berger, Pell, Ward Warren and Mark Townes voted for the motion. Del Renfro voted no and Tim Cummins declined to recognize the vote. Richard Michelon missed the meeting.

Townes then moved to vote on a resolution and it passed 5-2, with Renfro and Cummings opposed.

The significance of the two votes is the mayor can veto a resolution, but not a motion. Murphy indicated he will veto the resolution.

Several hundred people attended the meeting in the Rogue Theatre and nearly five dozen testified, with a majority supporting Frasher.

Frasher declined to comment following the meeting. “I want to digest it first,” he said.

Townes, talking to many who testified in support of Frasher, said if they were sitting "up here" (on the council), they might not feel the way they do and he told them "you have to trust the council."

Berger said "we can’t give you any reason … it’s frustrating" and she encouraged citizens to look at the public record documents to find her reasons.

Cummings called the Frasher saga a "train wreck" and a "disaster." Renfro said he felt that the council was "thumbing its nose" at the majority of local residents in this instance. Cummings also said he thought it would be difficult to hire a new city manager under these circumstances.

Early on, Mayor Mike Murphy made a statement, saying that it seemed like many of the concilors’ minds were already made up concerning the future of Frasher. He encouraged the council to listen to the public testimony.

Frasher spoke and thanked the people who came out to support him. He also said it was clear the council could fire him without giving a reason, but alluding to a severence package in his contract, he said, "That’s why it’s expensive when you do that."

KDRV.com

By Andrea Calcagno
June 18, 2009

GRANTS PASS, Ore. – The Grants Pass City Council voted to terminate City Manager David Frasher Thursday night, in a 5-2 vote in front of a packed house at the Rogue Theater.

Councilors did not give a public reason for the termination, which takes affect July 1st because Frasher’s severance package was not budgeted into the current fiscal year. After the public comment portion of the meeting, Interim City Attorney Douglas McGeary advised the council not to give any reasons for the possible termination due to legal repercussions for the city and council members personally.

Before the meeting, a group defending Frasher protested in front of the theater. The group has begun efforts to recall six members of the city council. They filed paperwork last week to begin collecting signatures for an election to oust the council president and another member. The group says it will file petitions next dealing with four members who took office in January. State law gives officeholders six months before they are subject to recall.

KTVZ.com
Associated Press
June 19, 2009

For Immediate Release:
June 18th, 2009

For More Information:
Attorney Kelly Clark: (503) 306-0224

Salem, Ore.—In a decision with major ramifications for the casino gaming industry in Oregon, the Supreme Court today ruled that a citizens’ group has the right to challenge the constitutionality of the agreement by Governors Kulongoski and Kitzhaber to a compact siting the Three Rivers Casino in Florence, on the grounds that the Oregon Constitution expressly prohibits casinos.The citizens’ group, People Against A Casino Town (PACT) has been challenging the casino since shortly after it was approved, filing a string of lawsuits in state and federal courts, and seemingly being rebuffed at every turn.  No longer, thanks to today’s decision, according to Portland attorney Kelly Clark, who represents PACT:

"For five years now we have been asking a very simple question: how is it, in a state whose constitution expressly prohibits casinos, that our governors keeps siting casinos?  No one wants to answer that question, and we have been bounced from court to court, with the State of Oregon pulling every procedural trick in the book, until today. The Court today has said, quite simply: ‘Governor, you must answer the question and defend the constitutionality of your actions.’  This is all we have asked for—to gain some accountability by the Governor under the Constitution, which is quite clear, that casinos are prohibited in Oregon.  It is a good day for Florence and for the Oregon Constitution”

The case will now go back to the Circuit Court for Lane County for a decision on the merits. Clark said he expected that the briefing and decision from that court could come as early as later this year. “The issues are pretty clear cut– does the Constitution mean what it says, and does it apply to tribal casinos? The disagreement is not on the facts but on the law, so it should be pretty straightforward.We are looking forward to finally getting the answer to our very simple question.”

###

For Immediate Release
June 12, 2009

For More Information:
Kristian Roggendorf, attorney for the plaintiff
(503) 274-1168 or ksr@oandc.com

Gregory Tressel v. David Reeves, David Frasher, and City of Grants Pass

PORTLAND, ORE–Former Grants Pass Budget Committee member Greg Tressel filed suit in federal court today, alleging that the Grants Pass City Manager and Chief Financial officer illegally conspired to intimidate Tressel into leaving his appointed position through an intrusive and unlawful investigation into his private life.

Tressel is suing under federal civil rights law, Oregon’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization law (ORICO), and state tort law for the City’s investigation into his private life that included a visit to his house from Grants Pass CFO David Reeves demanding that he be allowed to look through Tressel’s personal effects.Kristian Roggendorf, Tressel’s attorney, said of the filing, “The attempts at bullying and intimidation by City Manager David Frasher’s administration will no longer be tolerated in Grants Pass.”

The complaint alleges that after Tressel was appointed to the City’s Budget Committee following the election of a new majority on the City Council, the City’s Chief Financial Officer David Reeves conducted an investigation into Tressel’s residency without any authority to do so under Oregon law or the Grant’s Pass Charter or Code.Not only did Reeves do things like look at Mr. Tressel’s personal checks, he also demanded that Tressel’s wife allow him to search Tressel’s residence after Tressel left for work one morning.Roggendorf noted that before the attempted search, “David Reeves already had all the information he needed to show that Mr. Tressel was qualified to sit on the budget committee.This was political intimidation, pure and simple.”Tressel intends to donate any proceeds form the suit to local charities.

###

View the Official Complaint.