Lower Brule Tribal Govt Response to HRW Report

LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Marshall Matz, mmatz@ofwlaw.com

THE LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE CONDEMNS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH’S BIASED AND INACCURATE REPORT

Lower Brule, South Dakota

“The report of Human Rights Watch attacking the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and its leaders is totally baseless and simply republishes misstatements of the past” said Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Chairman Mike Jandreau.

Human Rights Watch (HRW), an organization that claims to be “committed to maintaining high standards of accuracy and fairness” and maintaining high ethical standards, has released a remarkably inaccurate report that attacks Lower Brule Sioux .. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is constantly monitoring all Tribes under its trust responsibilities. In fact, Lower Brule has the lowest unemployment rate of any Tribe in South Dakota because of excellent and consistent Tribal management.
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe condemns the biased, error-ridden, defamatory attack on the Lower Brule Sioux leadership, Lower Brule Sioux sovereignty, and the Lower Brule Sioux people.

Said Chairman Michael Jandreau: “This report is absolutely baseless. It’s shocking that any credible organization would put its name on it. It’s full of factual errors, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. We’re exploring our legal options.”

The factual errors run from the ignorant (“The Lower Brule Sioux Reservation . . . is among the smallest . . . in the United States.”) to irresponsible and reckless inaccuracies. The report infers falsely that the stability of the tribal government is due to corrupt elections even though the current tribal council has new members critical of the previous council. The report wrongly concludes that the development of private sector businesses for sustainable future income involves the use of tribal funds. The report denigrates the long-established independent tribal justice system without any evidence that the tribal government prohibits, inhibits or discriminates against critics from reasonable and equitable access. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has advocated and supported, through resolution, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The report relies heavily on the false statements from political dissenters within the Tribe and treats the sovereignty of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe as simply a “problematic” and inconvenient barrier to its preconceived conclusions.

The report claims that Lower Brule Sioux tribal members have no way to hold Lower Brule Sioux leaders accountable for their decisions as leaders. To these claims, Chairman Jandreau says: “The attack entirely ignores the fact that every two years the Lower Brule Sioux people decide through their votes in open elections who will serve as leaders of the Tribe. Our government is completely transparent and open to Members of the Tribe.”

The report ignores the fact that any Lower Brule Sioux tribal member could bring an action in Tribal Court if Lower Brule Sioux leaders did not provide information they are entitled to receive.

The inconsistent and contradictory Human Rights Watch report, on one hand, portrays an oppressive tribal government while acknowledging that the government holds fair and open elections at which critics of the incumbents are elected and seated. The report does not allege that freedom of speech is suppressed, or freedom of assembly, or that there is no recourse to tribal and federal courts, or that the tribal government uses physically oppressive tactics of any kind. In spite of its allegations, the report omits he illegal conduct of the three elected tribal council members upon whom the report relies for much of its information. These three individuals attempted to physically take over the tribal government on December 12, 2014. Their wholly illegal and outrageous actions were enjoined in tribal court. While these three dissident tribal council members failed, their actions succeeded in revealing their complete lack of commitment to the rule of law and the thinly veiled and inappropriate political agenda at the root of the Human Rights Watch report. The Human Rights Watch Report is political pamphleteering of the worst sort. ###

Wiggins, Williams & Wiggins (ABQ) Seeks Indian Law Attorney

The firm of Wiggins, Williams & Wiggins, P.C. is seeking a lawyer with up to five years of experience in general practice with an emphasis on civil litigation.  Applicants with a strong academic background are preferred.  The firm offers excellent benefits and a flexible work schedule.  Please send a resume, references and a writing sample to Celina Salazar, Firm Administrator, P.O. Box 1308, Albuquerque, New Mexico  87103-1308 or by email to csalazar@wwwlaw.us.  All inquiries will be kept confidential.

US Intervenes in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc. (Washington Football Team Trademark)

Here are the new materials in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

41 Answer

46 US Notice of Intervention

Prior materials here.

Who Won 2014? Fourth Round — The Final Eight

Here are the category finals in all four categories:

Category 1 — Indian nations

#1 Alaska Native tribes v. #3 Bay Mills Indian Community

Alaska Native tribes knock off the Wisconsin Oneidas, who made a very good showing against the northwest leviathan, but Alaska wins 68 percent. And, yes, there is internet in the UP, or there are just plenty of downstaters (hearing me Port Huron?) banking on the BMIC casino? The Gun Lakers only garner 41 percent of the vote.

So the two big tribal winners of the year face off.

Category 2 — Laws, Doctrines, and other stuff

#1 ICWA v. #2 Tribal sovereign immunity

The Indian Child Welfare Act motors on with 64 percent of the vote over intra-tribal disputes. I think we’re all in denial. Too bad, too, cuz tribal sovereign immunity, one of the reasons we have such compelling intra-tribal disputes, also moved on, defeating VAWA narrowly with 54 percent of the vote.

Oil and water face off. We at Turtle Talk know for a fact that ICWA and tribal immunity cases absolutely dominate the federal and state cases we see almost every day here. You can make your living on these two, so long as you’re willing to work for next-to-nothing as an ICWA attorney and so long as you don’t try to make a living suing Indian tribes.

Category 3 — People and Parties

#1 Hon. Diane Humetewa v. #2 Justice Sotomoyor

Sarah Deer gave her a serious run for her money, but fell by a mere two percentage points in the most highly contested (the most votes that is) pairing of the third round. Judge Hemetewa prevails again but only to face the most recognizable and fabulous Supreme Court Justice in history. Yes, I said that.

Category 4 — Other things

#1 1491s v. #10 Tribal In-House Counsel Association

The 1491s sneak past the Cohen Handbookies with 54 percent of the vote. Did I call it or what? All four top seeds are in the final eight. They appear to be in serious trouble though as the Tribal In-House Counsel Association is gaining unbelievable momentum, absolutely crushing the Carcieri beneficiaries with 78 percent of the vote. Of course, that might merely be a question of popularity because who likes those guys anyway? TICA’s going to have to rely more on beneficence to defeat the staggering monolith that is the 1491s.

 

 

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Seminole Tribe v. Florida

Here.

The cert petition is here.

Reply Briefs in Agua Caliente Water Rights Case

Here are the new materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):

2015-01-09 – Dkt 104 – US Reply in Support of Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 105 – CVWD Reply to Opp by ACBCI to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 106 – CVWD Reply to Opp vy US to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 107 – DWA Reply to ACBCI Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 108 – DWA Reply to US Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 109 – ACBCI Reply to DWA Brief in Opp to ACBCI Motions for Summary Judgment on Phase I Issues

2015-01-09 – Dkt 110 – ACBCI Reply to CVWD Brief in Opp to ACBCI Motions for Summary Judgment on Phase I Issues

Response briefs are here.

Opening briefs are here.

Human Rights Watch Publishes Report on Lower Brule

Here is the press release:

US: Tribal Council Mismanagement
Millions of Dollars Missing; Services Undercut

(Sioux Falls, January 12, 2015) – Millions of dollars in public funds are missing in the impoverished Lower Brule Sioux reservation, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Lower Brule Tribal Government should account for the missing public funds and abide by its own rules on openness.

The 90-page report, “Secret and Unaccountable: The Tribal Council at Brule and Its Impact on Human Rights,” documents many of the problems with tribal governance at Lower Brule for the first time. It details how the Tribal Council has diverted millions of dollars in federal funds away from key social programs without explaining how those funds were spent. Human Rights Watch has obtained hundreds of pages of government documents detailing financial mismanagement and possible corruption and is making that information public for the first time.

“Since 2007, Lower Brule’s Tribal Council has lost tens of millions of dollars to mismanagement and possible corruption,” said Arvind Ganesan, director of business and human rights at Human Rights Watch. “This has severely undercut efforts to provide basic services that people across the reservation desperately need.”

The report is being released during a crisis in tribal governance with a split between newly elected Tribal Council members who have clashed with longstanding council members over government transparency and accountability.

The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is located on a small, extremely poor reservation in central South Dakota on the shore of the Missouri River. Some 40 percent of the local population requires food assistance, and the reservation’s poverty level is almost three times the national average.

The Tribal Council at Lower Brule serves as the legislative and executive branch of the government and is extraordinarily powerful on the reservation. Since 1980, the council chairman has been Michael Jandreau. Neither the local courts nor any other public institution exercise meaningful oversight over the council’s prerogatives.

Over the last two years, the Tribal Council is perhaps best known for its partnership with the Washington Redskins, the National Football League team.

Human Rights Watch found that the Tribal Government’s mismanagement of scarce financial resources has directly impacted basic services many tribal members rely on. For example, US$1.2 million was diverted between 2005 and 2007 from a federally funded program to supply potable water on the reservation. How the money was used has not been explained.

In another instance $2.6 million in federal funds meant for the school system and other programs for the poor were diverted from 2010-2011 for unexplained purposes. Since then the Lower Brule school system has effectively collapsed.

In perhaps the most brazen case of mismanagement, in 2009 members of the Tribal Council set up a series of shell companies to purchase the Westrock Group, a troubled Wall Street brokerage firm. By the time of the sale, the firm had been repeatedly sanctioned and fined by regulators for unethical business practices. Within two years of that purchase, Westrock was bankrupt.

The tribe made this dubious investment with the help of a $22.5 million federal loan guarantee, which the tribe subsequently sold for about $20 million in cash. That money is equivalent to nearly two-thirds of the Tribal Government’s entire annual budget and has since disappeared.

“The Tribal Council has consistently thwarted public efforts to secure information about government finances,” Ganesan said. “Council members’ secretive approach to governance has fostered mismanagement, abuse, and serious allegations of corruption.”

In 2007, tribal members began to openly protest the Tribal Council’s secrecy and mismanagement. In response, the council has withheld virtually all information and documentation about its activities from the public, in violation of the open records provisions of the tribe’s constitution and basic standards of good governance and human rights.

This information blockade has even extended to some elected Tribal Council members who wanted to look into the council’s financial practices, including three new council members that were elected on a reform platform in September 2014.

Indian reservations in the United States are sovereign entities with considerable authority to manage their own affairs. Sovereignty itself is not the cause of Lower Brule’s problems since many other tribal governments have robust mechanisms to hold themselves accountable and protect the rights of tribal members. The lack of any such mechanisms at Lower Brule, coupled with the Tribal Council’s refusal to abide by its own rules and constitutional norms, is the primary cause of the problems documented, Human Rights Watch said.

Even though Lower Brule has a sovereign government, US federal officials have an important role to play in securing accountability on the reservation. Federal officials were aware that the tribal government diverted federal funds earmarked for social programs, but has not done enough to address it. The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General has, however, has begun to examine why the Bureau of Indian Affairs extended a loan guarantee to the tribe to buy Westrock.

“The federal government can play an important role by helping to investigate and account for the millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that have gone missing at Lower Brule,” Ganesan said. “As a key source of tribal government revenue, federal authorities have the authority – and indeed the responsibility – to demand greater transparency.”

When the three reform council members were elected in September 2014, Chairman Jandreau and two other longstanding council members were reelected. Since the new council was sworn into office on October 1, the new council members have been denied access to government information by Jandreau and the incumbent council members.

The new council has not met to conduct official business since October. At the same time, the previous council secured the resignation of a newly elected chief justice of the tribal court just before the new council took office, and reappointed the incumbent judge who had come in third place in the September election.

On December 12, the new council members held a largely symbolic vote of no confidence against the chair and the other two council members, and voted to remove them from office and appoint the runners-up in tribal elections to their positions. Jandreau’s representative responded by petitioning the tribal court to remove the three new council members from office. The first hearing in that case takes place on January 12, 2015. These events have led to an increasingly tense environment on the reservation.

Human Rights Watch repeatedly contacted Tribal Council members in office during the period these events occurred, and other Tribal Government officials. They refused our requests for information, would not meet with us, and did not comment on these allegations.

“The people of Lower Brule have been deprived for years of information, desperately needed public services, and government accountability,” Ganesan said. “It’s time to end the stonewalling and secrecy and let the truth come out about where their money has gone.”

Upon release, it will be available at:
http://www.hrw.org/node/131578

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on business and human rights, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/topic/business

For more information, please contact:
In Sioux Falls, Arvind Ganesan (English): +1-202-612-4329; or ganesaa@hrw.org

Sonia Katyal on Engaged Scholarship (Big Indian Law Focus!)

Sonia Katyal has posted “Encouraging Engaged Scholarship: Perspectives from an Associate Dean for Research” on SSRN. The paper is forthcoming in the Touro Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

Today, there is little question that faculty scholarship is intimately related to the reputation of a law school, and also relatedly, to the law school rankings game. Central to this reality are some emergent administrative positions — the position of Associate Dean for Research, for example — which carry important possibilities for a law school, both internally and externally, in terms of promoting attention to scholarship. Yet this position, which has only recently emerged in law schools over the last twenty years, is also one that is largely fluid and often determined by the relative institutional capabilities of the rest of the University administration, in addition to the larger landscape of legal education. Because there is no precise one size fits all model for an Associate Dean, the fluidity of the position enables us to consider a range of variables that impact scholarly visibility, both internally within a law school community, and externally within the larger scholarly world. How can we, as Associate Deans, strive to support the productivity of faculty members in these shifting times? How can Associate Deans navigate complex social relations on faculties, where issues of gender, race, class, and other variables often abound? How can we draw attention to scholarly endeavors at a time when law schools are undergoing a massive transformation for the future? How can we ensure that legal scholarship remains relevant and important? How can we value the many types of scholarly contributions that our faculty can make, without imposing a narrow view of what counts as “serious” scholarship?

Answering these questions is not an easy task. Just as there are many different types of research and scholarship, there are many different roles for an Associate Dean for Research. As Associate Dean for Research at Fordham, and one of the small number of minority women who have held this position in law school academia, I have been struck by how many of these issues can be indirectly tied to traditional, institutional questions about building a law school community. Here, questions about identity, seniority, productivity, and interdisciplinary scholarship emerge, often without clear answers. Indeed, also, identity politics — not just demographic identities, but institutional identities — affect so many of the range of questions that surround productivity and the way in which research is valued and embraced in a law school community. Mainstream law review publications, clearly, are an essential part of every law faculty in the country, and should be valued and encouraged, but an administration, should also have a greater sense of the importance of other types of engaged scholarship. Here, I draw on the history and trajectory of American Indian legal scholarship as an illustrative example.

Note: This paper was prepared for a symposium on the role of the law school administration in encouraging greater visibility for scholarship.

Omaha Tribe Attorney Job Posting

Here:

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT

POSITION                  :           Assistant Attorney General

SALARY                     :           Negotiable

SUPERVISOR                        :           Attorney General

OPENING DATE       :           January 9th, 2015

CLOSING DATE       :           Until Filled

LOCATION               :           Tribal Administration Building

 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Attorney General of the Omaha Tribe provides legal advice, representation, assistance and support to tribal government and its departments and enterprises. The Assistant Attorney General, under the direction and supervision of the Attorney General, represents the Tribe in all aspects of tribal government, including but not limited to, contracts, employment and human resources, law enforcement, Tribal Code development, application of federal laws relating to Tribal agencies and enterprises, federal-state jurisdictional issues, taxation issues, economic issues, hunting and fishing rights, tribal environmental and natural resource law and policy, housing and land issues, social services and enrollment issues.

 

  Continue reading

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Job Postings

http://www.glifwc.org/Jobs/OutreachTEKSpecialist-022015.pdf
http://www.glifwc.org/Jobs/PolicyAnalystIII-022015.pdf

These positions are with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, located in Odanah, on the Bad River Indian Reservation.  Both positions are within the Division of Intergovernmental Affairs and will focus on the Commission’s climate change initiative.  Closing date is February 20, 2015.