News

Little River Band Ottawa Signs Second Collective Bargaining Agreement Under Tribal Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

(March 22, 2012) Manistee, MI                                             

Second Collective Bargaining Agreement Signed under Tribal Law

The Little River Casino Resort and the United Steelworkers Union have entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering slot machine technicians.  This is the second collective bargaining agreement entered into by the Resort and the Union under tribal law.  The first, involving the Resort’s security guards, was signed in December, 2010.

“Like our first agreement, this is the product of hard work and long negotiations,” said Tom Davis, General Manager at the Resort.  “It reflects a lot of give and take from both sides of the bargaining table.”

In 2007, the Band enacted a law governing labor unions and collective bargaining modeled on state labor relations laws.  The law allows collective bargaining within the Band’s governmental operations, which includes its gaming operations at the Little River Casino Resort.  It requires unions to hold a license from the Band, and it provides a structure for resolving unfair labor practice charges.  “In designing our law, we found there was much to learn from the way state governments regulate collective bargaining in the public sector,” said Tribal Council Speaker Stephen Parsons. “In the end, however, this law reflects the unique values of our Ottawa community.”

Few Indian nations have laws governing collective bargaining. The short list includes the Navajo Nation and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.  “We decided that it was in the best interests of our community to give employees the right to bargain collectively,” explained Parsons. “As a sovereign tribal government, we have authority to grant employees those rights.” he said.

Continue reading →

Kickapoo Court Dismisses Charges against Tribal Elected Officials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the news coverage.

An excerpt:

In her decision handed down on March 12, Judge Wahwassuck found:

1. The Plaintiffs (have) failed to carry their burden of establishing that the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas and/or its agents (the Defendants herein) have waived tribal sovereign immunity in this matter.

2. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have a “property” right to their positions on the Gaming Commission, and thus have failed to demonstrate that their due process rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act were violated.

With these findings and her conclusion of law that the Defendants action was protected from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

IPR on Pending Sault Tribe Vote over Lansing Casino Proposal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

LTBB Considering Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here. H/t Pechanga.

IPR on the W. Great Lakes Salmon Fishery

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The intro:

Managers of salmon in Lake Michigan must soon decide how many fish to put into the lake each year. The salmon fishery is a man-made industry in the Great Lakes, produced by planting millions and millions of fish in the lakes. Keeping the salmon population in balance with the food supply is a challenge these days. Some scientists are raising new questions about the salmon’s demise in Lake Huron and whether it can be stopped in Lake Michigan.

Mohawk Ironworkers Story in WNYC

Kate Fort

Here.

At its peak in the late 1950s, there were 800 Mohawk ironworkers living in North Gowanus in a neighborhood nicknamed Little Kahnawake. They made up about 15 percent of ironworkers then. Today, they make up about 10 percent.

“Virtually every skyscraper … has been built by Mohawk and other Iroquois ironworkers including the new Time Warner building…Rockefeller Center, Empire State building, Chrysler, all these skyscrapers, virtually all the bridges,” said Robert Venables, a historian and former Director of Cornell University’s American Indian studies program.

via C.G.

NYTs: A Vision of Reviving Tribal Ways in a Remote Corner of California (Yurok)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here. Slideshow here.

Public Radio Coverage of Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, h/t Pechanga.

An excerpt:

The Hualapai council members say the unfinished site is an embarrassment to the tribe, which approved the project despite some internal objections about building on land roughly 30 miles from a place central to the Hualapai creation story. Traditional tribal belief places man’s origin on Hualapai lands.

“I believe the canyon is a sacred place. The Hualapai look at is as a church. Why take trash and throw it in the church. I voted against it,” said Philip Bravo, a former council member. “What does the tribe have out there? A half-finished building.”

Angry at the developer, the tribe passed an ordinance last year creating a legal path to effectively cancel the developer’s contract through the sovereign right of eminent domain.

The tribe set compensation for the seizure at $11.4 million, a sum they said represents the fair value of a project that the Las Vegas-based developer says is worth over $100 million.

“They took everything. And then the tribal court issued an order that we were trespassers if we were even there. You do understand this is like Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, don’t you?” said Troy Eid, a lawyer for the Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Corporation, which built the skywalk.

There is little doubt that tribes can legally seize property for the public good, much like a state or the federal government. But by seizing a non-tangible asset of a non-Indian company as a way to escape a contentious business deal, the tribe may have stepped into untested waters.

“I think on first glance the tribe is exercising a power that they have. Whether they are exercising it wisely is a different question,” said Addie Rolnick, an expert in Indian law at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

WSJ on Bankruptcy and Indian Tribes (In Light of W. Mohegan Bankruptcy)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

UN Special Rapporteur to Visit Sinte Gleska University on the Rosebud, May 1-2, 2012

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to hold Consultation at Sinte Gleska University, 

Sicangu Lakota Oyate/Rosebud Sioux Tribal Nation, South Dakota, 

May 1st – 2nd, 2012

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Professor James Anaya, will hold a consultation with Indigenous Peoples at Sinte Gleska University, Sicangu Lakota Oyate/Rosebud Sioux Tribal Nation, May 1st and 2nd, 2012, as part of his first official visit to the United States.  Traditional Treaty Councils, Tribal Governments representatives, Tribal Colleges and concerned Indigenous Peoples of all Nations are invited to attend this historic consultation, which is co-sponsored by Sinte Gleska University and the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC).

The purpose of the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the United States is to examine the situation of Indigenous Peoples in light of the inherent rights recognized and affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This and other consultations held around the country from April 23th – May 4th will provide an opportunity for Indigenous Peoples to share information with the Special Rapporteur on conditions that currently exist in the United States.

The Special Rapporteur, through meetings and consultations with federal, state and Indigenous governments and representatives, will assess ways in which the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the rights it affirms are currently reflected in U.S. law and policy, domestically and internationally.  He will identify areas of needed reform in light of the Declaration which contains the internationally recognized “minimum standards for the dignity, survival and well-being of the Indigenous Peoples around the world”. Following the visit, the Special Rapporteur will prepare a report containing his observations which will be made public and presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Issues addressed at this consultation will include:

1)    Treaties, land and resource rights

2)    Cultural Rights, language and protection of Sacred Sites

3)    Self-determination and self-government

4)    Food Sovereignty and environmental protection

5)    Education and health; social and economic rights

6)    Indian Child Welfare and removal of Indian Children from communities and families.

Representatives of Indigenous Nations, organizations and communities will have the opportunity to make oral submissions to the Special Rapporteur within the constraints of time. Representatives who wish to make a statement should register by email at shawn.bordeaux@sintegleska.edu, indicating the topic that they wish to address. Those who pre-register will be placed on a presenters list which will be posted prior to the meeting.   Participants can also register on site at Sinte Gleska University on May 1st, 2012. Please note that it may not be possible for all those wishing to make a statement to do so. A more detailed agenda will be disseminated and posted in the near future. A community dinner will be provided the evening of May 1st.

In addition to oral testimony, Indigenous Peoples, Nations, and organizations can submit written testimony to: indigenous@ohchr.org. For guidance on how to present written information to the Special Rapporteur, please visit: http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/comm/submitting-information-to-the-special-rapporteur. Written information to supplement the oral presentations will also be accepted at the consultation.

For additional information on this consultation and the Special Rapporteur’s US visit, log onto IITC’s web page: http:///www.treatycouncil.org or see IITC on Facebook.

For more information on the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for updates on the visit of the Special Rapporteur to the US, please visit: http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/.