From the AP: “The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians said Thursday that its members have approved an agreement between five American Indian tribes and the state of Michigan over inland hunting and fishing rights.”
Michigan Indian
Daily Press article “Agreement Long Time Coming”
The Daily Press of Escanaba, Michigan recently printed an article on the 2007 Consent Decree entitled “Agreement Long Time Coming“. The author provides balanced information and a useful summary of the context of this important agreement. The author references the fact that when the 1836 Treaty of Washington was signed, Michigan had not yet achieved state status; they also mentioned that Michigan became a state in 1837. It is worth emphasizing that this order of events is in no way merely coincidental. The 1836 Treaty of Washington ceded an enormous land area directly providing the land necessary for the formalization of Michigan’s statehood. This point can not be over emphasized and is a critical part of our collective history. The direct connection between this treaty and Michigan’s founding should be seen as an important part of the context when we think about and discuss the 2007 Consent Decree.
Saginaw Chippewa v. Granholm Materials
Please find below the amended complaint, answers, and other court documents from this ongoing and important case — (scary, too, if SCIT loses).
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Votes to Approve Inland Settlement
BIG NEWS!!!!
From the Soo Tribe website:
Membership Approves of Inland Consent Decree
Written by Cory Wilson
Thursday, 18 October 2007
The Sault Tribe Election Committee released the unofficial election results pertaining to the referendum on tribal members’ inland treaty rights, indicating 3,476 voted to approve, 678 voted to disapprove, while 28 ballots were deemed spoiled or unrecognizable.
The Election Committee announced that 4,182 ballots were received out of 12,734 mailed to the membership, accounting for a 32.8 % voter turnout. According to these results, this referendum exceeds the 30% vote requirement and therefore, is considered a valid election as defined by the election code.
On August 14, the Board of Directors determined an issue of such importance should be sent to a vote of the people by referendum to decide whether or not the tribe should enter into a permanent agreement with the state and federal government regarding tribal members’ rights related to inland fishing, hunting, and gathering. Subsequently, the referendum ballot language was approved on September 17, which asked tribal members “Do you approve or disapprove of resolution: Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree?” The election ballot was mailed to members on September 27. The deadline to return ballots was 5 p.m. on October 17.
The “Inland Consent Decree” is an agreement between five northern Michigan tribes, the state of Michigan, and the federal government that defines and details the specific treaty rights of tribal members. An “Agreement in Principal” was signed by all parties last summer, which committed all those involved to work together to formulate an agreement or settlement.
Following the release of the election results Chairperson Aaron Payment stated, ”Despite strident opposition from select board members to letting the people decide this issue, an overwhelming response of over 80 percent should put the issue to rest. I am satisfied with the outcome. The people have spoken.”
According to the tribe’s lead attorney, even though a referendum was held, official approval by resolution is still required. A special meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Sunday, October 21 at 1:00 p.m. at the Kewadin Shores Casino in St. Ignace to accept the election results and to enact the resolution specifically outlined in the referendum.
The resolution titled, “Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree for U.S. v. MI” and states, “Whereas, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is currently engaged in the inland phase of the United States v. State of Michigan, informally know as “US v MI”, and the parties are: as Plaintiff, The United States of America, and as Plaintiff-Interveners, Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, versus as Defendants, State of Michigan, et al, and as Amicus Curiae, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Bay De Noc Great Lakes Sportfisherman, Inc, and U.P. Whitetails, Inc, and finally as Amicus Curiae, the Coalition to Protect Michigan’s Resources, Stuart Cheney, Robert Andrus, Walloon Lake Trust and Conservancy (“Parties”); and…the Parties agreed to a binding settlement of the inland phase of US v. MI by executing an Agreement in Principle; and…upon execution of the Agreement in Principle the Parties agree to prepare a proposed consent decree and a stipulation for the entry of the proposed consent decree based upon the terms and conditions of the Agreement in Principle; and…through lengthy negotiations the Parties have completed a proposed consent decree and are presenting it to their respective governing bodies for ratification. Now therefore be it resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby ratifies the Inland Consent Decree. Be it further resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Chairperson, or his designees, to execute a stipulation for entry of the proposed consent decree, or other implementing documents as my be necessary.”
The Board of Directors is also scheduled to meet with the judge presiding over the Inland Consent Decree case on October 22, to finalize any other legal matters related to the case.
More News Coverage of the Inland Settlement
From WLUC: “DNR officials say the agreement should be acceptable to both Indians and non-Indians. Generally, you won’t see an impact not only to the state-licensed anglers and their opportunities to fish, but also in terms of their harvest,” said Kelly Smith of the DNR Fisheries Division. On October 22, the DNR, the tribes and an Assistant Attorney General will present the agreement to a judge. If it’s accepted, it’ll become law.”
From the Escanaba Daily Press: “The state’s consent decree with five Michigan Native American tribes is the culmination of a process over a century in the making. It also avoids a disastrous outcome in which the state could have had no regulatory power over tribal hunting and fishing in a wide section of the state. The 1836 Treaty of Washington was reached between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa tribes of what later became Michigan. The state of Michigan did not exist at the time of the treaty (it was founded in 1837).”
American Indian Law & Literature — Speaker Bios & Abstracts
Please visit the Indigenous Law Conference website for links to the speakers’ bios, abstracts, and papers.
Formatting is a bit messy on this page — sorry.
Dates of Mich. DNR Public Meetings on Inland Settlement
As mentioned below, the Michigan DNR will be holding public meetings to distribute information and answer questions about the settlement agreement. Here are the dates for three of those meetings:
Escanaba, Tuesday, Oct. 16. The meeting will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. in Rooms 958-962 of the Joseph Heirman University Center at Bay de Noc College located at 2001 N. Lincoln Rd. in Escanaba.
Sault Ste. Marie, Wednesday, Oct. 17. The meeting will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Sault Ste. Marie High School Theater located at 904 Marquette Ave. in Sault Ste. Marie.
Traverse City, Thursday, Oct. 18. The meeting will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Garfield Township Hall located at 3843 Veterans Dr. in Traverse City.
We Made Indianz.Com!!!!
Here’s the short article — with a dashing photo of our keynote, Frank Ettawageshik.
Of course, Indianz profiled our conference from last spring as well. As did the State News.
Miigwetch!
Indian Tribal Businesses and the Labor Union Controversy
One of the newest and interesting topics facing gaming tribes, including the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, see here, and the Mashantucket Pequot Nation, see here, is the question of whether the employees of tribal casinos can organize labor unions. Many tribal casino employees in California have already organized — most of the California gaming compacts require it.
But in Michigan and most elsewhere, most Indian tribes haven’t agreed to allow employees to organize. The major legal and policy question is whether federal law, embodied in the National Labor Relations Act (the Act or NLRA) applies to Indian tribes.
The Act doesn’t say whether or not it applies to Indian tribes — it’s silent. Congress enacted this law in 1935 during a time of enormous legal, political, and often violent conflict between large corporate employers and their workers. The statute itself speaks of “industrial strife and unrest.” 29 U.S.C. § 151. Wenona Singel argued persuasively in her article, “Labor Relations and Tribal Self-Governance,” that Congress in 1935 did not consider Indian tribes to have the potential to become major economic players — and therefore would not have considered the Act to apply to tribal businesses. In fact, as Prof. Singel argued, a year earlier in 1934, Congress enacted the largest and most important piece of positive Indian affairs legislation — the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) — so it was clear they knew about Indian tribes. Section 17 of the IRA even authorized Indian tribes to charter federal corporations for business purposes. The fact that the NLRA never even mentioned Indian tribes in this historical context is a powerful clue that Congress would not have thought the Act would apply to tribal businesses.
And for decades, the federal agency charged with implementing the NLRA — the National Labor Relations Board — interpreted the Act just as Congress would have. In the 1970s, for example, the Board held that the Act does not apply to tribal businesses. Congress had decades to amend the NLRA to make it apply to tribal businesses, but it chose not to. Regardless, in 2005, the Board reversed almost 30 years of its own precedent and held that the Act did apply. The D.C. Circuit, required by federal constitutional law to defer to the expertise of federal agencies (so-called Chevron deference), upheld this decision.
Now national labor unions are beginning to seek to organize tribal gaming employees. Some tribes have adopted a right to work ordinance, see the Grand Traverse Band Code, Title 5, Chapter 8, and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Laws Title 28 [thanks to Trent Crable] — as most states have — that limits labor unions rights. Others are fighting the decision.
Copper and Nickel Mining Proposal in the UP
Once again, mining companies are promising wealth and prosperity (along with no pollution) to the residents of the UP, this time proposing to dig a mine under Big Bay.
From the Detroit Free Press: “The proposed Kennecott Eagle mine would be dug directly beneath the shimmering Salmon Trout River, home to the rare coaster brook trout, and its tunnel would be blasted below Eagle Rock, considered sacred by the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.