Michigan Indian

Confusion in Replacing Joe McCoy as Chair at Sault Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the release from saulttribe.com:

There will not be an election to fill the seat left vacant by Sault Tribe Chairman Darwin “Joe” McCoy, who announced his immediate resignation as the elected leader Tribe on Tuesday, May 10.

“After further review of our election ordinance and upon advice from our legal team and Tribal Election Committee, it has been determined that an advisory election to fill the vacant chairperson seat is prohibited under our Tribal Law,” said Lana Causley, Vice Chairperson. “Chapter 10 of the Tribal Code is the Tribe’s Election Ordinance. The relevant provisions are sections 10.107 (Notice of Election) and 10.203 (Date of Election) that state: “The date of the (special) election shall not be earlier than ninety (90) days after the Election Announcement. No Special Advisory Election shall be held if the election date shall be later than six (6) months prior to the posting of the Election Announcement for the next general election.’”

Under this Election Ordinance, the Tribe cannot hold a Special Advisory Election because, assuming the Board posted the announcement for the Special Advisory Election May 24, 2011, the earliest the Special Advisory Election could be held under section 10.203 would be August 22, 2011 (August 22 is ninety days from May 24, 2011), which is less than six months from the posting of the Election Announcement for the next general election, which is July 27, 2011.  In order to hold a Special Advisory Election, the Election Announcement would have had to been posted 90 days prior to July 27, 2011, which has already passed.  According to section 10.107 “The Notice of Election shall be sent to all Adult Members (at least one notice per household) by means of letter, and shall also be publicized in the tribal newspaper, on the Tribe’s official website, and posted at all Tribal Offices on the last Friday in January in the year in which a general election occurs”, which is 2012 in this case.

The board did consider a resolution which would allow them to have a special advisory election by changing tribal law eliminating the 6 months prohibition, and the resolution failed on a vote of six to five. Therefore, under the Election Ordinance, the Board may not authorize a Special Advisory Election to assist it in appointing a replacement to fill the unexpired term of former Chairman McCoy. There will not be a Special non binding Advisory Election.

Causley said the entire board apologizes to tribal members and other audiences about any confusion caused by reports that an advisory election could be held to fill the position. It is the first time the Tribe has had a chairman resign near the end of his term.

“Our goal is to make sure we are following our Constitution and Tribal Laws, which clearly state that calling a special election in this instance would be prohibited,” said Causley. “On behalf of the entire Board, I apologize for any confusion caused surrounding this issue.” Causley also cautioned to be aware of any notices surrounding this and other Tribal issues to be certain they are coming from the Tribe and not an outside source.  Continue reading →

IPR’s Points North Show on “Laughing Whitefish”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The mp3 is here.

“Laughing Whitefish” Profile on IPR’s Points North Tomorrow (Friday) Morning at 9AM

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Guests are Bill Castanier and Matthew Fletcher.

ICT Coverage of “Coalition of Large Tribes” (Quoting GTB Chair Derek Bailey)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the article.

An excerpt:

Given the limited attention the federal government pays to all tribal issues, frustrations can and do develop among the tribes, although you have to scratch beneath the polite, polished surface of the public positions of many tribal leaders, who prefer to present a unified front for tactical purposes. Tex G. Hall, the chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, explains his rationale for the tribal-unity approach: “We don’t always run things [in American society]. But one of the things in our control is our ability to lead and forge a common voice from within our own nations. That is a hallmark of leadership and one of the basic responsibilities that comes with elected office such as my own.”

The paucity of federal attention to Indian issues is an ongoing concern. “Unfortunately, Indians seem to have always had a problem getting heard on Capitol Hill,” Hall says. “The sad reality is that very few legislators, and certainly not Congress as a whole, have really ever paid attention to the bigger picture. It would be great if we actually had the luxury of being able to pick and choose the battles that we could win. But we really don’t have a sense that we are going to win on any single issue or at any particular time.”

So what’s a tribal leader have to do to get his or her concerns addressed? Forming a coalition has been the preferred answer. There’s the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), which bills itself as “the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization”; the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), which advocates for improved Indian health; United Southern and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET); the National Indian Gaming Association, for casino tribes; and many others. Some of these coalitions have had major successes, such as when NCAI, NIHB and others lobbied for reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act last year. At the same time, some tribes have been loath to join this or that coalition because of perceived slights, historical tensions and/or a firm commitment to the principle of tribal sovereignty.

Derek Bailey, the chairman of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, says he finds the various coalitions useful for educating legislators on issues that will affect Indian country on both the micro and macro levels: “Coalition-building amongst tribes, be it regional or for a more defined purpose, definitely assists in promoting any particular agenda,” he says. At the same time, he notes that tribes have historically held differing opinions “and there is a time and place for that, but on larger issues, Indian country’s collective voice is incredibly strong. We have to continue to exercise that voice, be it as a single sovereign nation or as a collective body of sovereign tribal governments.”

Federal Court Rejects Mich. AG Schuette Motion for Relief from Saginaw Chippewa/Granholm/Isabella County Reservation Boundary Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that order:

DCT Order Denying Michigan AG Rule 60 Motion

Here is the final settlement order from last December.

Sixth Circuit Affirms Conviction and Restitution in Theft of Ontonagon Reservation Timber

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Genschow.

The part of the opinion affirming restitution for a higher than market value of the timber is interesting:

Tribal land similarly holds unique value in that its pristine, natural condition allow tribes to partake in and to preserve tribal traditions. See Letter from Warren C. Swartz, President, KBIC, to U.S. Probation Office (July 1, 2009). Any court’s attempt to transform somehow this value into an actual market figure would most certainly be difficult and unreliable. Because we conclude the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis in Shugart was persuasive, we hereby adopt its rule and conclude that when destroyed property is unique or lacks an active market such that the actual cash value is unreliable or unavailable, using replacement value as a measure for restitution is proper under the MVRA. We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution.

And the briefs:

Genschow Brief

Appellee Brief-Genschow

Genschow Reply

And, finally, the lower court opinion.

Book Review of Laughing Whitefish

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, from Bill Castinier [for more on People v. Hildabridle, see this — People v Hildabridle]:

John D. Voelker, former Michigan Supreme Court justice (1956-1960) and author of The New York Times bestseller Anatomy of a Murder, called his book Laughing Whitefish “the toughest job of writing I ever tackled.”

First published in 1965 and out of print for decades, Whitefish also has been one of the toughest of Voelker’s 10 books to find. Writing under his pen name, Robert Traver, Voelker wrote five novels, three books on fishing and two books of essays and short stories.

But thanks to a chance meeting between Grace Voelker Wood, one Voelker’s sisters, and a board member of the MSU Press during a celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Anatomy, a new edition of Whitefish will be published in June by the Press.

The new edition also contains an introduction written by Matthew L. M. Fletcher, associate professor of law and director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University’s College of Law, that puts the seminal historical fiction novel in context by detailing how the book was based on actual Michigan Supreme Court cases regarding Indian property rights and tribal law and customs. Fletcher is a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

In a presentation to the Michigan Historical Society in 1970 about the novel, Voelker called the “basic story…rather simple.” He continued, “Most simply put, it was all about iron ore, Indians and infidelity to one’s promises.”

In the book, Voelker, writing as Traver, told the story of Charlotte Kawbawgam (in real life Kobogum), whose father, Marji Gesick, had been promised a “wee fractional interest” for his assistance in leading a group of businessmen to North America’s largest iron ore deposit. Problems resulted when neither Gesick nor Gesick’s heirs were compensated as promised.

Voelker told how he had learned of the fascinating story, which involves tribal customs, including polygamy, long before he wrote his blockbuster. But he had been derailed by his successful career and the amazing success of Anatomy, which was made into a movie shot on location in Marquette and Ishpeming.

Voelker said he adopted a pen name while he was a prosecuting attorney (1935-50) in Marquette. He was often quoted as saying, “I didn’t want the voters to think I was an author on company time.”

The lawyer and author had spent most of his life in the Upper Peninsula, when in 1957 he was tapped by Governor G. Mennen Williams to be a Supreme Court justice. He became noted for his literary-like decisions and dissents. His writing for the Court was also punctuated with his trademark sense of humor (if there is any doubt, read his writing inPeople vs Hildabride about police invading a nudist camp).

He later wrote that his “neglected Indian story receded even farther into the background.”

Continue reading →

Hannahville Indian Community Amicus Brief in State v. Collins & Mason

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Hannahville Amicus Brief

Other materials are here.

Cami Fraser on Advising Parents in ICWA Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Cami Fraser has published an outstanding paper in the Spring 2011 edition of the Michigan Child Welfare Journal titled “Should this ICWA case be Transferred to Tribal Court? Issues for Parents’ Attorneys to Consider and Discuss with their Clients.” It appears here on page 2.

Sault Tribe Chair Resigns

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Sault Tribe News:

Sault Tribe Chairman Resigns

Written by Communications Department

Tuesday, 10 May 2011

Sault Ste. Marie, MI – Sault Tribe Chairman Darwin “Joe” McCoy on Tuesday night announced his immediate resignation as the elected leader of the 39,000-member Tribe.

His brief resignation letter to the Sault Tribe Board of Directors provided no specific reasons for his decision to resign other than “circumstances beyond my control.”

McCoy had served for nearly three years as Chairman after being elected by members of the Tribe.

Under the Tribe’s Constitution:

1. Board Vice Chairperson Lana Causley will serve as interim Chairperson until a successor is appointed or elected.

2. The Sault Tribe Board will decide as soon as possible whether to either appoint a successor, as specified in the Tribal constitution, or call an advisory special election to fill the seat under Tribal law.

All Board members pledged a smooth transition to the new chairperson.