Oregon Modocs Set Second Meeting to Discuss Benefits of Self-Government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 21, 2010
Contact: Perry H. Chesnut
pchesnut@indigenous-rights.org
425-770-7345

Modocs Seeking to Form Government Separate from the Klamath Tribes Set Second Meeting:
Will Discuss Economic Development, Tribal Membership Requirements and Ancestral Land Base
_______________

An informational meeting for Modoc Indians interested in the movement to dissolve the Modoc Tribe’s political relationship with the Klamath Tribes will be held between the hours of 6:30pm and 9:00pm on the evening of Friday, January 29, 2010 at the Commissioners Hearing Room of the Klamath County Government Center located at 305 Main St. in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Entrance to the building will be by the door coming off the rear parking lot on Pine St.

A previous meeting held in the same location on October 9th of last year drew approximately 30 Modocs. Perry Chesnut, an adopted member of the Modoc Tribe, stated that it was time to end 136 years of subservience to the Klamath Indians, and said that the only practical way to preserve the Modoc Tribe’s unique ethnic and cultural identity, and protect and advance the Modoc People’s political and economic interests is to set up their own government, separate from that of the current Klamath tribal government. He presented a document titled Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe (Mowatocknie Maklaksûm), which enumerates in 46 articles the natural, political and human rights of the Modoc People. Since that meeting, a number of “Declaration Bearers” have been circulating the document within the Modoc Tribe and gathering signatures for its ratification.

The upcoming meeting on Friday, January 29th, is open to all who wish to learn more about the separation movement and the opportunities it presents to the Modoc People.

M. Sean Manion, a Modoc Indian who is a civil engineer and has spent the last seven years in Iraq managing various rebuilding projects, will present an economic development model that has proven to be very successful for Arab tribes in Iraq. Mr. Manion states that the economic development model is especially well-suited to tribal entities and believes that it can be implemented successfully by the Modoc Tribe to create large tribally owned enterprises as well as smaller business ventures owned by individual tribal members. Mr. Manion will also speak to the issue of eligibility for tribal membership, contrasting the blood quantum standard now used by the Klamath tribal government with the lineal descent standard to which more tribes are now turning.

Perry Chesnut will speak about the opportunity for developing a large casino resort complex and present an architectural rendering of such a casino resort prepared by David P. Soderstrom of Soderstrom Architects, a Portland Oregon architectural firm. He will also present a map of the Modoc Tribe’s ancestral lands ceded to the government in the Lakes Treaty of 1864 and discuss the many opportunities for economic development presented by the five national forests included in these lands and by the potential restoration of the vast wetlands that constituted Lower Klamath Lake, Tule Lake and Clear Lake prior to the extensive “reclamation” projects of the early 1900s.

An extensive period of time has been set aside for questions and answers following the presentations of Mr. Manion and Mr. Chesnut. Declaration Signature Sheets will also be available for those who wish to ratify the Declaration with their signatures. Those who wish to circulate the Declaration can obtain a signature sheet from Mr. Chesnut after the meeting.

The Commissioners Hearing Room has a seating capacity of 70, so those wishing to sit should come early.
__________________________________________________________

Source: Modoc Land Recovery Project

Native Rights News is making this material available in accordance with a general press release. This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Social Justice Ministry.

Oregon Modocs Reassert Unique Identity & Right to Self-Government: to Separate from the Klamath Tribes

Modoc Land Recovery Project
Press Release: October 15, 2009

Oregon Modocs Take First Step to Separate from Klamath Tribes and Form Own Government — Issue Country's First Tribal Declaration Based on UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Approximately thirty Modoc Indians attended a meeting last Friday evening (10-09-2009) in the Klamath County Commissioner's Hearing Room in Klamath Falls, Oregon, where they listened to a presentation by Perry Chesnut in which he urged them to join the movement to reestablish Modoc self-government and sovereignty over their ancestral homelands by signing the Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe .

Chesnut, whose Indian name is Two Eagles, is a life-long social activist and champion of indigenous rights. In 1992, the late Miller Anderson adopted Chesnut into his family and made him a member of the Modoc Tribe. Miller Anderson is a direct descendant of Sloc-a-lot (known to white settlers as Chief George), who at the time of the Modoc Indian War of 1872-73 was the acknowledged La̕qi (Modoc for "Leader") or Headman of the Kokiwas Band of the Modoc Tribe.

The 11-page Declaration contains 46 Articles setting forth various inalienable rights preceded by a preamble containing 30 statements as to the reasons why the Declaration has been issued. It is believed to be the first such declaration issued by any Native American tribe or nation that is based on the provisions of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) approved by the UN General Assembly in September of 2007.

We must take decisive action to reassert our unique tribal and cultural identity

Mr. Chesnut opened the meeting by noting that the Modoc Indians of southern Oregon and northern California are living in a time of crisis. He stated that just two days before the meeting he had received a phone call from a Klamath Indian who "angrily told me that the Klamath Tribes are one people — that the Modoc Indians have no separate identity or culture, that they and the Klamaths are culturally indistinguishable."

"What could be more sacred to us than our unique identity as an Indian people? Yet that identity has been slowly slipping away for the last fifty or more years, being eroded and submerged into a mishmash of Indian peoples enrolled in the political organization known as the Klamath Tribes. And make no mistake, the Klamath Tribes is not a tribe. It is a political organization, an affiliation of three separate tribes, to which no law or moral imperative requires us to remain tied. Today very few people draw a distinction between the Klamath and Modoc peoples. Yet our Creator did distinguish between all other people and us, making us unique and giving us our own unique homeland and culture. We must take decisive action to reassert our unique tribal and cultural identity. And we must do it now, before it is too late."

Indisputable evidence of the unique identity and culture of the Modoc Indians

Mr. Chesnut noted archaeological evidence showing that the Modoc Indians have occupied southern Oregon and northern California continuously for the last 12,000 to 15,000 years and stated that there is no scientific evidence showing a similar history for the Klamath Indians. "Compared to us the Klamaths are relative newcomers to this region," Chesnut said.

Chesnut also cited ethnological field research by the University of Washington Laboratory of Anthropology in 1934 that concluded that the belief systems, values, patterns and practices of the Modoc Indians up to the time of the Modoc Indian War of 1872-73 "set their culture clearly apart from any other in the world, even from their immediate California neighbors."

Chesnut also cited a book titled Myths of the Modocs published in 1912, containing a large number of myths related to Jeremiah Curtin in 1884 by Ko-a-lak'-ak-a, a Modoc woman who was part of the group of Modocs exiled to Oklahoma at the close of the Modoc Indian War in 1873. According to the author's introduction to the 389 page book, "In childhood her grandfather had instructed her in the religion of her people, in other words, taught her all the myths of the Modocs, and to old age her tenacious memory retained many of them."

Chesnut stated that this book is "absolute proof" of the separate identity and culture of the Modoc people. As an example, he read from a passage in the story called "Kumush [Modoc for Creator] and His Daughter" that describes how the Creator made, named and gave to each of the Shasta, Pitt River, Warm Springs, Klamath and Modoc peoples their own lands and unique characteristics. Chesnut stated that the book is filled with mythical events that occurred at such places as Mt. Shasta, Lost River, Tule Lake, the Sycan River and Marsh, and Glass Mountain. "These references to culturally significant events associated with places can be used to verify and validate the extent and boundaries of our ancestral homelands," Chesnut said.

Chesnut also referred to the unique style and quality of Modoc baskets, which are prized by museums and collectors around the world. "It is not Klamath baskets that enjoy this distinction, but Modoc baskets."

Chesnut concluded this portion of his talk by stating: "It is beyond dispute that our people are a unique people with our own unique identity and culture. I have shared this with you because before we can do, we must be."

Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe

Holding up a copy of the Declaration, Chesnut stated that the document "is not a petition asking for relief from some higher authority, but a declaration of our fundamental rights as a people that reasserts our status as a unique tribe independent of any other." He said that it enumerates "specific God-given rights inherent to us as a tribe, including, but not limited to:

• the recognition of our political sovereignty,
• political and economic self-determination,
• the restoration and control of our homelands, which cover an area of between 5,000 and 6,500 square miles and include three national forests
• the right to protect our homelands and their resources from the detrimental actions of third parties,
• the right to preserve and protect our culture, including our language, arts, religion and sacred places;
• the right to bring home and reunite with our brothers and sisters who are living in exile in Oklahoma.

All of these rights can be boiled down to one overarching right — the RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT."

Chesnut declared, "Those who sign this document will be declaring their identity as a Modoc Indian, and they will be preparing the ground for the reinstitution of our own tribal government through the drafting, ratification and, if legally necessary, U.S. Government approval of our own constitution."

Constitution of Klamath Tribes 'fundamentally and fatally flawed'

Chesnut stated that the Constitution and Bylaws of the Klamath Tribes is "fundamentally and fatally flawed, and we will never be able to convince the ethnic Klamaths to fix it." He said that it is modeled on the constitutional framework offered to Indian tribes by the government under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1834. "What true government has 'bylaws'? Bylaws are something a club or a corporation have." He said that the Klamath Constitution creates a government with a weak single legislative body (General Council), a strong, directly elected executive body (Tribal Council) and a recently added Judicial branch. Chesnut stated that over the last ten years there has been a nationwide movement of tribes to reform their governments and rewrite their constitutions, moving away from the IRA model still in use by the Klamath Tribes.

Chesnut said that while such an IRA type constitution "might work" for some tribes, it has never worked for the Modocs. "As you all know, with the Lakes Treaty of 1864, the government forced the Modocs and Yahooskin Snake Band of Paiutes to remove to the Klamath Reservation, which was located entirely within the territorial boundaries of Klamath ancestral lands. This itself was a formula for failure, and, in fact was the most important cause of the [Modoc Indian] war and subsequent exile of our people to Oklahoma. But added to this is the fact that the three tribes, all of which have very different histories, beliefs, values and cultures, have been merged by this faulty constitution into a single General Council, in which all decisions are made or ratified by a simple one man one vote majority. The more than ten to one numerical superiority of the ethnic Klamaths over the ethnic Modocs and Yahooskins operates to effectively disenfranchise and subjugate them to ethnic Klamath rule."

A simple analogy

Chesnut asked those gathered at the meeting to imagine what would have happened if the founding fathers of the United States had not had the wisdom to create a bicameral legislative branch, "that is, if the Constitution did not provide for a U.S. Senate to act as a check on the power of the U.S. House of Representatives. Without a Senate, in which each state, regardless of population, has two senators, New York, California, Texas and two or three other states would make all the decisions, rendering the smaller population states effectively powerless, with representation in name only."

"This is the situation we Modocs and our Yahooskin brothers have faced for 136 years, and many of us, perhaps most, are tired of trying to work within a system that is structurally designed to make us powerless against the tyranny of the majority, who are the ethnic Klamaths."

The next step: 'our own constitution'

Chesnut said that after the Modoc people gain sufficient signatures on the Declaration, the next step will be to "draft and ratify our own constitution for the Modoc Tribe." He said that this process must be careful and deliberate because "if we just slap something together, we are likely to end up with a constitution just as bad or worse than the Klamath Tribes constitution we have now. We will need to hold numerous meetings to decide many difficult issues, such as how traditional and decentralized our government should or should not be, what particular governmental structures we need, and what our citizenship criteria will be. Above all, the constitution must reflect the values and culture of our people in order to have the legitimacy and stability necessary to promote political self-determination and healthy economic development."

The difficulty of our task — the inevitability of our freedom

During the question and answer session, Chesnut was told that many Modocs were afraid to sign the Declaration because officials of the Klamath Tribal government would retaliate by taking away their federal benefits or fire them from tribal jobs.

Chesnut responded, "This is going to be a long and difficult process. An independent self-governed Modoc Tribe will be opposed not only by the Klamath Tribal government but by many of the white owned farms and businesses that are making money off of our land. They want things to remain as they are. To the Klamaths our independence will mean a loss of federal dollars which are allocated on the basis of head count. So they see us only as so many dollars. Local farms and businesses are likely to fear that our independence will result in changes that will adversely affect them. So it's going to be hard, and we must expect vigorous opposition to what we are doing."

" But we can also expect support and help from various sources, including other Indian tribes, major university projects and institutes, environmental and human rights organizations, and even from individual white persons in this very community, who want to see the injustices of the past righted. Now that this movement has started, it cannot be stopped so long as we pursue our goal. Our liberation from 136 years of exile and oppression, the reestablishment of Modoc self-government and restoration of our ancestral homelands is inevitable."

"As to your specific concerns about retaliation against those Modocs who sign or promote the Declaration, let me point out that nothing in the Lakes Treaty of 1864 or the Klamath Tribes Restoration Act of 1986 took away our sovereignty as a tribe separate from the Klamath Tribe or Yahooskin Snake Band of Paiutes. In fact, both the Treaty and the Restoration Act list and recognize our tribes separately. Further, what we are doing now is exercising rights to self-government and self-determination authorized and encouraged by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1834, as amended in 1988, and by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975."

"Until our new constitution is ratified and, if necessary approved by the Interior Department, we will all remain enrolled members of the Klamath Tribes, entitled to receive all the federal benefits we are receiving right now. When our new constitution goes into effect, the BIA and IHS will be required by law to administer these same benefits to our people through our own government instead of the Klamath Tribal government. This transition should be seamless, with no interruption in the flow of benefits."

"In 1968, Congress enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act, which protects political activity and speech such as we are engaging in now. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also has jurisdiction over Indian tribes and nations and enforces regulations designed to prevent and punish discrimination in employment on the part of a dominant band or group."

"One can never prevent another person who is committed to violating the law from doing so, but any retaliation by the Klamath Tribes or its officials against the Modoc People will be immediately be reported to the federal government, and appropriate legal action will be taken. As a tribe we must protect and support each other. We must make the commitment now to financially support any Modoc who is fired from a tribal job in retaliation for exercising his or her right to free speech and political organization, while legal steps are taken to obtain that person's reinstatement and back-pay. And I can assure you, if anything like that happens, there will be serious legal consequences for the Klamath tribal officials involved."

Signatures obtained and Declaration Bearers

At the close of the meeting, thirteen adult Modocs signed the Declaration, bringing the current total number of signers to just over fifty. Additionally, four individuals volunteered to act as Declaration Bearers, that is, to carry and promote the Declaration to other Modocs and to obtain their signatures. These individuals include John Slaughter, Preston Miles and Diana Wright. Modocs wishing to learn more about or sign the Declaration of Rights and the movement to enact a Modoc constitution, or who wish to become Declaration Bearers themselves should contact any of the following persons.

Robert Wayne Anderson, 541-591-2956
John Slaughter, hatchat@charter.net
Preston Miles, 541-274-1330, 929miles@gmail.com
Diana Wright, 541-273-8874, dianawright1@charter.net
Perry Chesnut, 425-770-7345, pchesnut@indigenous-rights.org

A copy of the Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe is attached as a Microsoft Word .doc file. For more information concerning this press release, contact:

Perry Chesnut
Modoc Land Recovery Project
425-770-7345
pchesnut@indigenous-rights.org
________________________________________________________

Copyright 2009: Modoc Land Recovery Project

Native Rights News is making this material from [name of news source] available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.

Canada Ignores Pleas of Native Leaders, Adds to Poverty and Homelessness of Native Peoples in Preparation for 2010 Olympic Games

CANADA: Native Rights Concerns Cloud 2010 Games
By Jon Elmer

VANCOUVER, Dec 1 (IPS) - A coalition of indigenous elders, social justice activists and community organisers is voicing opposition to the upcoming Winter Olympics, promising to continue their protests up to and throughout the 2010 games.

Taking advantage of a three-day media briefing hosted by the official Olympic body in late November, the Vancouver Organising Committee (VANOC), activists and native representatives invited the local and visiting international media to an office in the heart of the what is commonly known as Canada's poorest neighbourhood, the Downtown Eastside, to hear "the other side of the Olympic story".

Rallying under the banner of "No Olympics on stolen native land", speakers representing nine native and community groups outlined connections between native poverty, dislocation and homelessness and the staging of the games in Vancouver and Whistler, 120 kms north of Vancouver.

Arthur Manuel, a former chief in the Neskonlith Indian Band of the Secwepemc nation, accused the Canadian government of attempting to whitewash the structural violations of native sovereignty. "We are the poorest people in the country," Manuel said. "Not because this country is poor, but because [the government] continues to violate the human rights of the indigenous people, by not recognising our Aboriginal title and our treaty rights."

Nearly all of the province of British Columbia -- including the land on which the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics will be staged -- is not subject to any treaty and the land has not been otherwise ceded or surrendered by its indigenous inhabitants, as Canada's highest court has recognised.

Manuel cited Canada's refusal to sign on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as evidence that the government does not intend to follow the principles of international law in dealing with native sovereignty. In September 2007, the U.N. declaration was passed 143 to four, with the United States, Australia and New Zealand joining Canada in opposition.

James Louie, a member of the St'at'imc nation whose traditional lands encompass the rapidly expanding Whistler mountain and resort, said the expansion of infrastructure and development for the Olympics undermines the status of his people's case before the Organisation of American States treaty process.

"Because we have no treaty with Canada, the imposition and encroachment of Whistler -- their hydro lines, their highways, their railroad, you name it, anything they do with our territory -- is illegal," Louie said.

The Olympics have spurred a construction and development boom in Vancouver and Whistler in particular, and in British Columbia in general. Between July and September 2007, 843 major capital projects were planned or underway throughout British Columbia, valued at U.S. 108 billion dollars, according to the provincial government's ministry of economic development.

A VANOC budget report last year pegged the operating costs for the games at 1.32 billion dollars. The provincial and federal governments have provided an additional 468 million dollars, primarily for venue construction, including ski hill development in St'at'imc territory. The official Olympics budget does not include major infrastructural projects undertaken by the government in preparation for the February 2010 games, including the 484-million-dollar expansion of the Vancouver-to-Whistler highway.

Seislom, a Lil'wat elder who is also known as Glen Williams, addressed the legacy of the expansion around Whistler and its impact on the environment. "When my grandfather took me up Whistler mountain, the land was pure. Now it's polluted, it's desecrated. I ask myself the question: what will my grandchildren get from all of this?"

According to VANOC, 20.5 million dollars in venue construction and 95,163 dollars in non-venue contracts have been awarded to Aboriginal businesses through an incorporated native society called the Four Host First Nations Society (FHFN).

Several speakers challenged the role of FHFN in their communities. Seislom said the FHFN "choose not to recognise traditional, hereditary chieftainships" and instead only "recognise their own chieftainships in terms of corporate development, in terms of the Department of Indian Affairs, in terms of anything to do with money and power."

Dustin Johnson, a Tsimshian activist and organiser, also questioned the legitimacy of the FHFN. "It is important to make a distinction between elected leaders under the Canadian Indian Act system and the traditional governments, the traditional leaders," he said.

Canada imposed the Indian reserve and band council system through Indian Act of 1876, nine years after the country was founded. It wasn't until 1953 that the Act was amended to allow natives to organise around a land claim, which had previously been illegal.

Johnson characterised the Four Host First Nation Society as a small group of "elite native capitalists who don't represent the majority of native people".

"They'll paint the picture that they are trying to create economic development and self sufficiency, but it's really twisting the logic of what our people stand for: a lot of our people stand for sustainable development and protecting what little we have left of our lands and resources," Johnson said.

____________________

Outgoing Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan, who presided over a sharp increase in homelessness during his tenure, has called the crisis "a civic, and provincial and national shame."

____________________

Arthur Manuel criticised the government and the FHFN for spending millions showcasing native arts and culture while ignoring the structural causes of the poverty. "They are using that money for the purpose of disguising the violations of human rights of the indigenous people of this country."

The BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition last week issued a report that showed BC for the fifth-straight year has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada, at almost 22 percent. The rate for native children is 40 percent but, the report notes, "the number would be significantly higher if the data had included children living on reserve." Recent statistics from the Canadian government's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs put the number of natives in BC at 122,000; about half live on reserves.

In Vancouver, the largest urban centre to host a Winter Olympics, there is likely as many as 8,000 homeless people, according to researchers at Simon Fraser University's Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction, a disproportionate number of whom are native.

The rates of child poverty and homelessness continue to increase.

Laura Track, a lawyer with the Downtown Eastside's Pivot Legal Society, said that over 1,400 units of affordable housing have been lost since Vancouver was awarded the games in July 2003. Hundreds of tenants have been evicted from single-room occupancy hotels in the Downtown Eastside, as the Olympic-borne real estate development boom has deepened the homelessness crisis.

Outgoing Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan, who presided over a sharp increase in homelessness during his tenure, has called the crisis "a civic, and provincial and national shame."

Vancouver is anticipating as many as two million visitors during the XXI Winter Olympic Games to be held from Feb. 12-28, 2010. According to VANOC spokesperson Suzanne Walters, more than 10,000 members of the media are expected for the games, including 2,900 print and photo-journalists.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44930


Native Rights News is making this Inter Press Service News Agency material available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.

Sekaquaptewa: Time for the Hopi to 'Get to Self-Governing'

Sekaquaptewa: Time for Hopi to ‘get to self-governing’
By Pat Sekaquaptewa
Story Published in Indian Country Today: Nov 26, 2008


I find myself in the ironic position of highlighting the great strides of tribal justice systems over the years for an ABA journal article while at the same time my own tribal government is in the throws of a constitutional crisis.

Recently, the Hopi Tribal Council managed to take out the entire tribal high court by resolution. The vice-chairman, who orchestrated the removal of our duly elected chairman, with the assistance of the formerly removed chairman, states that he plans to farm out our appellate judging to a regional intertribal appellate court. This, I believe, is an effort to remove the vice-chairman’s office and supporting members of the council from being immediately accountable to Hopi judges in a Hopi judicial system.

I must admit that despite the shortcomings of our governing document (originally drafted and pushed through by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1936), I never expected to see such a rapid deterioration of our key institutions and the rule of law. If this can happen at Hopi where we have had stable court system for over thirty years, it can happen to any tribal government operating under one of the Bureau’s governing document boilerplates. We should have reformed our constitution years ago and now we will have to take back our government.

The Hopi Tribe launched its tribal court under tribal law in 1972. Prior to that time the BIA ran its administrative court on the Hopi Reservation maintaining the Bureau’s version of law and order as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. With the establishment of the Hopi Tribal Courts in 1972 and the appointment of trial and appellate court judges, both rule of law and the Hopi common law had begun to grow. I joined the court team in 1993 as a young law clerk to a longstanding trial judge and then later as the senior law clerk to the appellate court’s three-judge panel. I have also served as a pro tem judge on the high court since 2002. Since 1993 I have been fortunate to be a part of the growth of the Hopi common law which has blossomed to respect the sovereign villages, and to incorporate deeply held traditional values, while at the same time making court processes more transparent and reinforcing fundamental fairness at both the tribal and village levels.

_________________

If this can happen at Hopi where we have had stable court system for over thirty years, it can happen to any tribal government operating under one of the Bureau’s governing document boilerplates.

_________________

The recent Hopi Tribal Council action (Resolution H-075-2008) has freed me from my judicial duties and now makes it possible for me to speak openly about what I see as the core issues facing the Hopi government and our villages today. The political roller coaster of the past two years sheds significant light on the fact that government by resolution is bad government and that the time has come for targeted constitutional reform.

Some argue that the 1936 Hopi Constitution has never reflected Hopi/Tewa sentiments but the Hopi/Tewa people have re-adopted it three times with amendments since 1936 (in 1969, 1980 and 1993). The Tribal Council over the years has also passed more than 50 ordinances including rules governing elections and the establishment of the court system. However, within the last two years, each time the political tides have shifted (often by reshuffling council seats or by secret, last minute meetings), that particular group of council members has attempted to overwrite, without formally amending, well-considered constitutional provisions and ordinances relied upon by generations of Hopi/Tewa people and prior councils.

In the case of Benjamin Nuvamsa’s election to the office of chairman, there are procedures for challenging an election in the Election Ordinance that Resolution H-036-2007 sought to preempt. The council’s subsequent suspension resolutions naming Mr. Nuvamsa (H-074-2008) and Justice Lomayesva (H-075-2008), similarly seek to preempt Article V of the Hopi Constitution that sets out the only means by which the legislative branch may unseat members of the executive and judicial branches. Conveniently some of our council members argue that we do not have a constitutional separation of powers requiring the legislature to respect or follow a court’s finding that they have not followed their own rules (as set out in the constitution or in earlier ordinances and resolutions). I must point out that this is despite the fact that Hopi Councils in 1981 and 1996 reiterated their commitment to a separation of powers in Resolutions H-3-81 and H-14-96.

It is true that our Hopi Constitution lacks text vesting the judicial power in a separate judiciary and it is true that we must trust our legislators to follow their own stated commitment to that principle as a last resort. But I must ask - is this approach working? Are the current tribal council members being good trustees for us given the awesome powers that a one-branch government vests in its legislators? The original Hopi Constitution was drafted by BIA employees who saw themselves as the final check on tribal government corruption - a duty the BIA is no longer eager to involve itself in. Today they leave us to our own devices as a matter of respecting our right to self-govern. So it’s time for the Hopi and Tewa people to get to self-governing then.

We Hopis and Tewas need constitutional reform in three key areas: (1) creation of a separate but equal judicial branch to watch-dog that our legislature complies with our Constitution and our ordinances; (2) the setting of requirements for what it takes to legitimately enact and amend an ordinance in a transparent way, and describing what makes an ordinance different from a mere resolution; and (3) the memorializing of the right of the Villages to select and remove their representatives to Tribal Council pursuant to their local ways, standards and rules.

Under Hopi constitutional law the steps for constitutional reform are that: (1) Any Tribal Council member may propose the amendment at any meeting of the Council; (2) At a second meeting of the Council, the Council may vote to approve the amendment by a majority vote; (3) If the Council votes for the amendment then it is forwarded to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior with a request to call a referendum (to put it to the Hopi/Tewa membership for a vote); (4) The Secretary then calls for a vote; and (5) the amendment will be adopted if a majority of adult Hopi/Tewa members vote (with at least 30 percent of those entitled to vote voting).

The original drafters made our Constitution very difficult to amend but it can be done if the Hopi and Tewa public is committed to the task and is ready to make sure that our representatives get it done. Then we need to mobilize our voters. We should all remember that our tribal government is neither Hopi/Tewa in origin nor reflective of the full American model with checks and balances. We were sold a defective model which encourages, at its worst, unchecked power grabs and at its best, unaccountable day-to-day decision making.

Only we Hopi/Tewa people can fix our government. It is far better that we do it with courage now than to leave this mess with cowardice to our children.

Patricia Sekaquaptewa was a Pro Tem Justice on the Hopi Appellate Court since 2002.

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/35154579.html


Native Rights News is making this Indian Country Today material available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.