ETA: The website does not allow a direct link to the posting. Go to http://www.sagchip.org. Click on “General” under employment in the bottom left corner of the page. The job was posted on 11/28/2012 and the ID number is 1002595. The keyword search does not seem to bring it up, but we were able to click through the list of job postings to find it.
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
Update in Sault Tribe Lansing Casino Proposal — Update to the Update
The City transferred the land to the Sault Tribe (here). Nothing all that terribly exciting — a chance to show off before the cameras.
In anticipation of today’s 11AM press conference at the Lansing Center (Casino Project Moves Forward – ADVISORY), casino opponents have issued the following preemptive comments:
Attribute the following statement to James Nye, coalition spokesman, for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi:
“For over a decade, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe has unsuccessfully pursued off-reservation casinos hundreds of miles from its reservation. These efforts have been rejected by the U.S. Congress, the State of Michigan, and the U.S. Department of Interior.
“People should not be fooled; this latest effort to build a casino in Lansing is just another loser. The Sault Tribe has argued that under the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act it can build a casino anywhere in the United States. That conflicts with federal law, and it violates the Tribe’s state gaming compact.
“We will continue to aggressively fight this ill-conceived casino at the federal and state level, and in the courts. We are very confident that this effort will fail just like the Tribe’s past efforts.”
Federal Court Denies Motion to Remand Serial DV Case to Tribal Court
Here are the materials in United States v. Pego (E.D. Mich.):
D.C. Circuit Briefs in Saginaw Chippewa Member Challenge to Adverse U.S. Tax Court Decision
Sixth Circuit Issues Opinion against EPA in Clear Air Act Ruling involving Natural Gas on the Saginaw Chippewa’s Isabella Reservation
Here is the opinion in Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA.
Update on NLRB v. Tribal Casino Cases (from Kaighn Smith at DWM)
Normally, we don’t post these kinds of updates from law firms, but this is so well done and has links to primary documents we crave (see bolded text under the fold), so here goes:
Three recent unfair labor practice cases leveled against Indian nation casinos by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have gone in three different directions. There may be ominous implications.
First, there was the complaint against the WinStar World Casino, owned and operated by the Chickasaw Nation, filed before the NLRB’s Regional Office in Oklahoma. The NLRB charged casino managers with violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by disciplining employees who engaged in union organizing activities. The Chickasaw Nation sued the NLRB in federal court and secured an injunction to stop the case on the ground that the NLRB has no jurisdiction over labor relations within the Chickasaw Nation’s territory. The NLRB has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It argues that federal courts have no authority to stop an NLRB unfair labor practice case until after the case has proceeded to final decision by the full Board. (Under a provision of the NLRA, parties can appeal final Board decisions to the federal courts of appeals.)
Second, there was the complaint against the Soaring Eagle Casino, owned and operated by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, filed before the NLRB’s Regional Office in Michigan. In that case, the NLRB charged the casino with violating the NLRA when it fired an employee for soliciting union support in violation of the casino’s non-solicitation policy. The Tribe sued the NLRB in federal court just like the Chickasaw Nation. This time, however, the federal court declined to hear the case. It said the Tribe needed to make all of its arguments to the Board before proceeding to federal court. The unfair labor practice case then went to hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the casino lost. The ALJ ordered the casino to reinstate the employee and pay her back wages. The ALJ also ordered the casino to post notices to employees announcing their rights under the NLRA, stating that it had violated the NLRA, and announcing that it would revoke its non-solicitation policy. The casino has now appealed the ALJ’s decision to the full Board in Washington, D.C. It argues that the NLRB has no jurisdiction over employment relations at its casino.
Third, there was the complaint against the Fort McDowell Casino, owned and operated by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. In that case, filed before the NLRB’s Regional Office in Arizona last February, the NLRB claimed that the casino maintained work rules that infringed on the ability of employees to engage in concerted activity in violation of the NLRA. Before the case proceeded to hearing before the ALJ, the casino settled with the NLRB. Under the settlement agreement on file with the NLRB’s Regional Office, the casino must post the following notice:
Ziibiwing Center (SCIT) Issues High School Curriculum on American Indian Boarding School History
Available here. Well worth the read.
ALJ Rules against Saginaw Chippewa in NLRB Jurisdiction Case
Michigan Indian Country Crime Report
HuffPo: Tribes Confront Abramoff
Here.
An excerpt:
Another tribe targeted by Abramoff and Scanlon was the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan. When the Chippewa tribal council was reluctant to offer a big lobbying contract to the two men in 2001, they poured money into tribal elections to elect a slate of tribal leaders who would approve a $150,000-per-month deal. (The previous lobbyist for the tribe had made $10,000 per month.) The new council would also approve a bloated contract with Scanlon’s consulting firm, which again split the profits with Abramoff.
Monica Lubiarz-Quigley, a lawyer who once represented the Chippewas, said she was pushed out of her job after she raised questions about the high-priced contracts that tribal leaders were signing. She views the reemergence of Abramoff as a voice of reform with skepticism.
“It’s business as usual in Washington,” Lubiarz-Quigley said. “Certainly the tribes and what happened to the tribes seems to be like an ‘Oh, well,’ and it doesn’t surprise me. … That’s how the insiders in Washington see it. They’re not terribly concerned with what happened to the tribes. And that’s how they got away with it in the first place.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.