State-recognized Indian tribes hopeful of winning federal recognition are finding fault with proposed legislation that would enable the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes to open more casinos around the state.

Dennis Jenkins, chairman of the Eastern Pequots of North Stonington, said it would be hypocritical of the state to allow the two casino-owning tribes to extend their gaming operations while at the same time opposing the relaxation of federal recognition standards that could lead to more tribal casinos.

State and tribal interests have been waiting for the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to act on proposed rules changes that would give the Easterns, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation of Kent and the Golden Hill Paugussetts of Trumbull and Colchester another crack at federal recognition. The Easterns and the Schaghticokes gained federal recognition more than a decade ago, only to have rulings that granted them the status reversed on appeal.

Federal recognition can entitle a tribe to federal aid for housing, education and health care, and the right to have land taken into trust for casino development.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the state's entire congressional delegation as well as dozens of municipal officials have urged the BIA to abandon the proposed rules changes, including one that would require a tribe to demonstrate that it has maintained a distinct community since 1934 rather than from its first contact with Europeans. Connecticut opponents of the changes fear newly recognized tribes could lay claim to privately owned land and pursue casinos.

"As the State of Connecticut and its Congressional Delegation continue the premeditated genocide of the remaining three state-recognized tribes, we find it hypocritical of them to now want to open three additional casinos," Jenkins wrote in a letter to The Day. "... Where is the outcry of opposition from those Connecticut citizens who wrote letters to the bureau opposing our recognition for fear of another casino? Where is the outcry of opposition from these twenty-nine towns that feared another casino in their towns? And finally, where is the outcry from Senator Blumenthal who said his biggest accomplishment while in office was getting our recognition taken away, preventing any more casinos in the State of Connecticut?"

Neither Malloy, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal nor other members of the state's congressional delegation have taken a public position on the casino bill, which surfaced little more than two weeks ago and has so far cleared the General Assembly's Public Safety and Security Committee. It faces scrutiny by other committees and, ultimately, votes in the Senate and House.

"If the legislature passes a proposal, we will carefully review it," David Bednarz, a spokesman for the governor, said Tuesday.

During a public hearing on the bill last week, Richard Velky, chairman of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, raised questions about whether the bill could be seen as restraining free trade. "Or, if it is a tribal gaming oriented law, will it automatically accommodate other tribes as they become federally recognized, or will that just lead to latent litigation?" he asked.

Velky also questioned whether the bill was about preserving jobs at Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun and among the vendors statewide that service them "or about maintaining the wealth of some very protected gaming companies?"

"If the two tribes seeking off-reservation gaming were so motivated to create Connecticut-based employment, why were they actively seeking licenses in multiple Massachusetts locations that would have potentially reduced employment and tax revenues here in Connecticut," Velky said.

The Mashantuckets and the Mohegans failed to win casino licenses they pursued separately in Massachusetts, and the Mashantuckets are now involved in a partnership seeking a license in southeastern Massachusetts. They have said that the implementation of the Connecticut casino bill would require renegotiation of their existing gaming agreements with the state. Those agreements give them the exclusive right to operate casinos in Connecticut.

They would operate the additional casinos as commercial, rather than tribal, ventures.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Steele, a critic of the bill and casino expansion in general, said the Easterns and the Schaghticokes were right to oppose the legislation.

"It is hypocritical for the state to be trying to block the revised BIA regulations on the grounds Connecticut is against more casinos when the legislative leadership is trying to approve three new satellite casinos for the state," said Steele, who represented eastern Connecticut in the 1970s. "This is a case where the state’s congressional delegation and legislative leadership are working against each other. Whether it succeeds or not, the legislative drive for the three new commercial satellite casinos could destroy the credibility of the state’s fight against the proposed BIA regulatory changes.

"You can’t have it both ways. More casinos are either good or bad for the state."

b.hallenbeck@theday.com

Twitter: @bjhallenbeck