Chukchansi: The Greed and Corruption of Sovereinty

Chukchansi Indians tribal council dispute stalls
Rival groups contend they are in charge of Coarsegold tribe.
By Marc Benjamin - The Fresno Bee

Two groups claim to be in charge of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians tribal council. One holds meetings in a private banquet room on the top floor of the Chukchansi Gold Casino, self-exiled from the tribal council building. The other has been meeting 12 miles away in an Oakhurst community hall, trying to figure out how to take control of the tribal government.

The distance between their meetings is symbolic of the wide gulf separating the two sides after a contested election last month.

The key issue dividing them: disenrollments based on bloodlines. The group meeting in the casino favors disenrollment, while the Oakhurst group opposes it.

At stake is tribal council control of federal dollars, lucrative casino revenues, coveted committee appointments and deciding who stays in the tribe -- and continues to receive financial benefits.

Sorting out the standoff won't be easy. As a sovereign nation, the Chukchansi aren't subject to automatic supervision by any federal agency, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs. For the most part, the highest power is the tribal council itself.

Who's in charge?

The two tribal councils claim to be legally elected. But for now, only one of them has the power to issue checks, sign contracts and continue the work of tribal government -- the group led by Reggie Lewis, who was voted out in last month's election.

His group claims the election was tainted because one ineligible candidate won election. The tribe's election committee then invalidated the election and scheduled a new one, over the objection of committee vice chairwoman Rockele Lutz. Ten days later, Lutz lost her job at the casino, and she and her family are among about 150 Chukchansi who face disenrollment, tribal members say.

The loss of tribal membership also means loss of access to financial support for housing, utilities, education and food. By cutting the number of tribal members, the remaining members get bigger shares of casino revenues.

The old council has kept control of tribal financial records and has continued to offer day-to-day services, ranging from senior meal programs, government aid and scholarship money for students.

But the Lewis group says it chose to relocate from the tribal council building to a casino banquet room because of discord among tribe members, which was evidenced after pushing and shoving between the rival groups broke out at the Dec. 26 meeting shortly after Lutz had sworn in the newly elected council members.

The tribal council building is now closed to the public, and security guards surround it. Few people can enter, and only Lewis' group has access to tribal records. The group has set a new election for early February and a swearing-in at the end of that month.

Voted in, but locked out, is a tribal council led by Morris Reid, a winner in December's election. His group has been meeting with BIA officials in Sacramento, trying to forge a relationship with the agency and win recognition as the rightful council.

Reid said his group should be in charge.

"They have no business doing any business. They don't even have a quorum," he said of Lewis' group. "We're the council now."

BIA's role

Today, the federal government takes pains not to intervene because tribes have constitutions and are sovereign nations within the U.S.

Only five tribes of the 55 in the BIA Central California jurisdiction are in a category that allows for BIA intervention.

Even in tribes where the agency can intervene, the BIA has chosen a hands-off approach. Last month, for example, it took a federal judge to overturn disenrollment of members of the San Pasqual tribe in Southern California; the BIA had not intervened in the disenrollment.

BIA action on the disputed Chukchansi election -- if there is any -- will take time.
"No decision is pending, and I don't want to give anyone the impression that one is," said Troy Burdick, Central California Agency superintendent in Sacramento.

Reid's group has asked Burdick and other BIA officials to validate the election. But it's possible that Reid's group is out of luck, said David Wilkins, a University of Minnesota professor who is an expert on American Indian law and politics.

He has watched the Chukchansi disenrollments for several years, has seen documents for the disenrolled and is convinced their bloodlines qualify them for tribal membership.

But, Wilkins said, he doesn't expect the disenrollments will end soon, because the BIA likely will continue to recognize the Lewis group, given the agency's prior relationship with that council.

"The BIA ... usually offers its support to the group presumably wielding the air of 'legitimacy,' " he said.

Even though the Chukchansi nation is sovereign and its constitution leaves the BIA little room to intervene, the agency did weigh in on tribal election issues in the 1990s.

In 1992, tribal council chairwoman Jane Wyatt was recalled after missing meetings and firing staff, and the recall was upheld by the BIA. Wyatt's appeal was later rejected by BIA administrators. The process took 21 months.

In 2005, the BIA decided that election appeals must be handled by the tribe's election committee, which disagreed with the council over a 2004 election. The council wanted to hold an election, but the committee said disenrollments made it unclear who could vote.

The BIA ruled two months later that the election committee was correct in seeking a delay.

Today, the BIA tends to steer clear of these disputes, the agency's Burdick said.

John Peebles, a lawyer who represents Reid's group, said that eventually the BIA will have to recognize one council, because the agency needs a "government-to-government relationship" with the tribe.

He said the tribe gets federal grants and is restructuring more than $300 million in financing for its casino, so "a huge amount is at stake."

It's not clear what would happen if power changed hands and a new council disputed decisions -- such as contract awards -- that had been made by the other council. "There would be an issue about who you would sue because there is sovereign immunity and immunity for those people involved in their tribal duties," said Carole Goldberg, a UCLA law professor with expertise in American Indian issues.
Other options

As a sovereign nation, the Chukchansi tribe is beyond the reach of federal, state and county governments. Any appeals of tribal decisions go to the council. Beyond that, no legal system exists for appeals, which leaves disenrolled people or others with legal gripes no recourse.

In some parts of the U.S., tribes participate in intertribal councils that can serve as a court of appeal for tribal decisions, said Wilkins of the University of Minnesota. Tribes also have the option of creating a legal system with judges and courts.

But Valley tribes have no intertribal arrangement, he said, and it's unlikely they will form such a council because -- as casino owner-operators -- they compete with each other.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/01/13/2682686_p2/chukchansi-indians-tribal-council.html#storylink=cpy

Also:
Original Pechanga's Blog