Labor Rights And Tribal Sovereignty Collide At Indian Casinos

Posted: 06/15/2015 12:24 pm EDT Updated: 06/15/2015 1:59 pm EDT

In 2013, Gary Navarro took a job working the slots at the Graton Resort and Casino, an Indian-owned casino in Rohnert Park, California. He was just 45 days into the job when he learned that an effort to unionize the workforce was underway.

“I wasn’t too keen on the union at first,” explained Navarro, a registered Republican. “Because I didn’t know what a union was, I didn’t understand what the union stood for.”

Navarro hit it off with a union representative and had a change of heart. He took a lead role in the union effort, and now he and his fellow slot workers are members of Unite Here, a union representing service workers.

But Navarro now finds himself at the center of a clash between labor rights and tribal sovereignty. He is a Pomo Indian from the Round Valley Tribe. His casino is owned by Pomo Indians from a different tribe, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Many tribal casinos are now asserting that a U.S. labor law protecting workers like Navarro does not apply to tribal businesses on tribal lands. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle seem to agree.

On Wednesday, Navarro was among 60 workers from Unite Here, including 16 employees of tribal casinos in California, who donned red shirts emblazoned with the slogan “All-American rights for all Americans," and packed the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing for a bill that would exempt tribes from the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, the Great Depression-era law that covers collective bargaining in the private sector.

The bill reveals ongoing tensions between labor and native rights about whether the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, the agency that enforces the law, can adjudicate disputes between tribal businesses and their workers. The jurisdiction of the NLRB in Indian Country has been a contentious issue between unions and Indian Nations that extends back to the Indian Gaming Regulatory ACT of 1988.

Indian casinos are at the heart of the issue. In 2012, Indian casinos brought in $28.13 billion, representing 43 percent of all U.S. casino gaming revenue for that year. The largest market for Indian gaming is California, where the Graton Rancheria brought in $190 million during the first six months of 2014 before their partner, Station Casinos of Las Vegas, stopped publicly reporting its income.

To unions, Indians Casinos are big business. “The issue of tribal sovereignty is being used as a phony way to say, ‘We’re for sovereignty,’ when in fact, [they're] really just for the money behind this,” said Maria Elena Durazo, vice president of civil rights and immigration for Unite Here. Unite Here, which represents 270,000 hospitality workers in North America, including 6,000 workers from Indian casinos, insists that the NLRA’s jurisdiction extends to tribal businesses on Indian reservations.

Although Indian casinos may be operated by major players in gaming -- in Graton's case, the Las Vegas-based Station Casinos -- they are owned by tribal members, rather than the Donald Trumps or Sheldon Adelsons of the world. Many casinos are relatively small operations that use their revenues to fund vital services such as education, law enforcement and healthcare that would otherwise be severely underfunded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Tribes argue that the NLRA regulates relations between workers and private employers. As sovereign governments, tribes insist, the NLRA does not apply to them.

An exemption from the NLRA would prevent tribal casino workers from unionizing through the same legal framework that protects most U.S. workers. So far, the NLRB appears to be leaning toward the unions.

In a 2004 decision, the board dismissed the San Manuel Tribe’s petition for exemption from the NLRA. In its ruling, however, the board stated that exemptions might apply under specific treaties and also in disputes entirely internal to tribes.

Last week, the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction over the Chickasaw Nation’s WinStar World Casino in Oklahoma. In its decision, the board cited sovereign rights specific to the Chickasaw in the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.

Other tribes, such as the Saginaw Chippewa and Little River Band of Ottawa, both in Michigan, have also challenged NLRB jurisdiction. On Tuesday, an appeals court ruled that the Little River Band of Ottawa must stop enforcing provisions of tribal labor laws that conflict with the NLRA.

Meanwhile, the Saginaw Chippewa case against the NLRB is still being adjudicated. Like the Chickasaw, the Saginaw Chippewa have built their case on treaty rights, which they argue reserve “broad, general rights” of self-government to tribes on the reservation. But California tribes such as the San Manuel -- and Navarro’s employer, the Graton Rancheria -- do not have treaties that were ratified by the United States. Under the precedent set by the San Manuel ruling in 2004, the NLRA still presumably applies to Indian casinos in the state.

However, that could all change with the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, versions of which have been introduced in both chambers of Congress. The Senate bill passed a voice vote in the Committee on Indian Affairs on Wednesday. The legislation, which was introduced by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and sponsored exclusively by the eight Republicans on the committee, would amend the NLRA to exempt tribes as employers under the act.

Critics like Unite Here say the bill “will strip thousands of American workers from rights and protections.” Proponents, like Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the committee chairman, say the bill “will empower tribes and respect them as sovereign governments.” These two opposing positions suggest a tradeoff: You can have labor rights, or you can have native rights -- but you can’t have both.

The conflict has made Democrats uneasy, with many members of the Committee on Indian Affairs reluctant to comment on the issue. Democratic Sens. John Tester (Mont.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) are expected to cross the aisle and vote in favor of the bill. Both Senators hail from western states with strong tribes.

In a statement through his spokesperson, Tester explained, “I support the critical role the NLRB plays in protecting workers, but my vote on this issue is a vote in support of tribal sovereignty.” Despite having reservations about the bill, Tester consulted with tribal leaders in the state, who were unanimously in favor.

Navarro will testify at the hearing for the House version of the bill on Tuesday. The legislation has a strong chance of passing both GOP-controlled chambers, as Republicans in general have been hostile toward the NLRB, threatening its funding and powers. 

If the legislation makes it all the way to President Barack Obama’s desk, he will face the same political tradeoff as his fellow Democrats in Congress. Since his visit to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation last June, Obama has emerged as a strong advocate for Indian Country, particularly on issues facing youth. But despite his current battle with organized labor over his massive trade deal, the president has also been closely aligned with labor unions.

These divisions extend down to Navarro, whose background as a Pomo working the wildly successful casino of his kin is unique. (The vast majority of workers at tribal casinos are not Native American.) Navarro’s experience and family history reveal just how deeply this bill cuts into the fraught relationship between the first peoples of this land and workers over scarce resources and opportunities.

In the early days of the United States’ control over California, Navarro’s Pomo ancestors faced enslavement and massacre at the hands of settlers, and were eventually forced onto the impoverished Round Valley Reservation. Had Navarro’s ancestors fled south to live with their Southern Pomo kin, Navarro might have been an owner rather than a worker at the Graton Resort and Casino.

Instead, his great-grandmother grew up in a trailer with 14 siblings on the Round Valley Reservation before running away and marrying a migrant worker. Navarro, their great-grandson, has maintained that tradition of work. He believes union rights are important to preserving good work.

“I’m not super rich, I’m nowhere near it,” he said, “but I’ve worked my ass off for everything that I get, and I’m not going to stop!”



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/native-americans-labor-unions_n_7573322.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

"We're not Indians"

Perpetrating a fraud for Gambling $$$$!

From the Heroes at Stop the Casino 101 Coalition:

Casino Tribe Chairman Sarris' Cousin: "We're not Indians"

"Greg Sarris isn't telling the real story....I simply want people to know the truth."

A relative of Greg Sarris, chairman of the Federated Indian of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and Native American author who holds the Native American Studies Chair at Sonoma State University, has confirmed that the family line Sarris claims to have Indian blood has none at all.

For almost three decades, Sarris has declared that "Reinette Smith", the woman he claims to be his great grandmother, was the daughter of famous Pomo Indian medicine man Tom Smith of Sonoma County and a Native American woman named Emily Stewart of Marin County who had both Pomo and Coast Miwok blood. Sarris even submitted a genealogical chart to the federal government with this information as proof that he was a Native American of Coast Miwok and Pomo blood. The FIGR are an amalgam of both groups of Indians.

Now 68 year old Velia Navarro, Sarris' second cousin and herself the great granddaughter of Reinette, has exposed Sarris' claims to Native American ancestry as false. Ms. Navarro states categorically that Reinette, who was born Reinette Stewart and died Reinette Morton, was "... Irish, Scottish and German...(whose) parents were from Maine and Pennsylvania."

"I am choosing to speak out at this time because Greg Sarris isn't telling the real story of our great-grandmother Reinette Stewart Sarragossa Morton. I loved my great-grandmother, and I simply want people to know the truth," Ms. Navarro says in a sworn Declaration.

"We're not Indians," she states firmly.

Unlike Sarris, Ms. Navarro knew Reinette, who died in 1962 when Ms. Navarro was 18 years old.

Sarris has claimed that "Reinette Smith" was an Indian woman born in Marin County who didn't speak a word of English. Ms. Navarro, who routinely spoke with her "Grandma Reinette", states that English was the only language her great grandmother wrote and spoke.

In her four page Declaration (below), Ms. Navarro firmly dispels the myths Sarris has created, seemingly out of whole cloth, about Reinette, her first husband Arthur Sarragossa and their three children. In fact, Ms. Navarro is the granddaughter of the eldest of those three children, Juanita Sarragossa.

Sarris found the family he believes his in about 1982. Ms. Navarro, who was born in 1944, grew up knowing the family intimately, including the man Sarris believes to be his birth father, her first cousin Emilio Hilario, Jr., the son of Evelyn, the youngest of the three Sarragossa children.

It appears that Sarris knew the truth about the family, but ignored it. In the early 1990's, Sarris introduced Ms. Navarro to Indians from the Sonoma and Marin area. She relates, "He told me that these people are probably your cousins; I responded to him that they're not my cousins and we're not Indians. This made everyone in the room very uncomfortable."

Ms. Navarro also contradicts the majority of the statements made about her family in a 2005 YouTube video of a Sarris lecture ironically entitled "Tracing His Family History: An Evening with Greg Sarris".

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFNhNYCeVZc )

A transcript of the portion of the YouTube video pertaining to Reinette's family is available upon request.

Ms. Navarro's oral tradition of her family history supports the 2010 research done by Stop the Casino 101 Coalition in every respect. That research is available on our web site.

IN RE MATTER OF THE ANCESTRY ) DECLARATION OF OF THE HILARIO / SARRAGOSSA/ ) VELIA NAVARRO STEWART FAMILY ) ) ___________________________) I, Velia Navarro, declare as follows: 1. I am 68 years of age. I was born in Los Angeles in 1944, and I have lived in the Los Angeles area my entire life. My mother was Marguerite Martinez, who was the daughter of Juanita Sarragossa Martinez, who was herself the daughter of Reinette Sarragossa. 2. As a child and a teenager, I recall fondly my great-grandmother Reinette. When I knew her she was married to her second husband, Roy Morton. She died in 1962, when I was 18 years old, and was buried at Holy Sepulcher Cemetery in Orange. I knew Reinette well when I was growing up. I would frequently visit her at her small house on Canyon Acres Drive in Laguna Beach, next door to the home of her daughter Evelyn (my great-aunt) and her husband Emilio Hilario. I remember having long conversations with "grandma Reinette." We always spoke in English, which as far as I am aware is the only language she spoke. 3. My great-grandmother Reinette had three children with her first husband, Arthur Sarragossa. Arthur died long before I was born, I believe around 1926, so I never knew him. The three children were, in order from oldest to youngest, Juanita, Albert and Evelyn. I knew all three of them growing up, because the extended family would get together frequently for holidays. I grew up in Los Angeles with my mother Marguerite.. Marguerite was Juanita's daughter. Albert and his wife Dora also lived Los Angeles, and Evelyn and her family lived in Laguna Beach, next door to my great-grandmother Reinette. 4. When I knew her, my great-grandmother Reinette was a short, heavy-set woman, standing about five feet tall. She liked to spend much time cooking. I remember that she was always well-dressed, and that she always wore a nice hat when she went outdoors. Although I never met him, I know that my great-grandfather Arthur Sarragossa had very fair skin and blue eyes. I know this both from family photos and because my grandmother Juanita, who was Arthur's daughter, told me. I also understand, from my grandmother Juanita, that Arthur was a cigar maker and originally from Tampa, Florida, and that his father was from Spain and his mother was French, although whether she herself was born in France I don't know. 5. As I mentioned, Reinette's three children with her husband Arther were Juanita, Albert and Evelyn. I recall clearly that my grandmother Juanita had red hair and blue eyes. Albert, had dark skin, brown eyes and black hair. Evelyn had almond colored skin, medium brown hair and brown eyes, and I recall her as being slender. 6. Notwithstanding their vastly different appearances, I never heard any hint in the family that Juanita, Albert and Evelyn were anything other than full siblings and the children of both Reinette and Arthur. The three had similar facial features even though their skin color was different. 7. I do not recall ever discussing my great-grandmother Reinette's parents or ancestry with her. I do recall my grandmother Juanita telling me that Reinette's ancestry was Irish, Scottish and German, and that Reinette's parents were from Maine and Pennsylvania. I do remember once, as a young person, wondering whether the family had some black ancestry, based on my great-uncle Albert's appearing to be mulatto.. That got me in trouble, so I never asked about it again. I do know that, prior to Greg Sarris' arrival on the scene, nobody in the family ever suggested that we had any Indian ancestry whatsoever. 8. I know that Reinette lived in the Los Angeles area when she was married to Arthur Sarragossa. I also know that she lived in San Francisco for a period in the 1920s and 1930s, which I believe was after Arthur died, and later moved back to Southern California. One story my mother Marguerite and my grandmother Juanita liked to tell was from the San Francisco period. They were living in a particularly hilly neighborhood of San Francisco, and Reinette's mother Emily Stewart was living with the family. My mother and grandmother told me that Emily was even shorter than Reinette, who as I mentioned only stood about five feet tall. Reinette would have Marguerite, who was a young girl at the time, about three or four years old, accompany her great-grandmother on walks, and Reinette would warn Marguerite not to take Emily running down the hills. 9. I recall that Greg Sarris found the family at some point after Emilio Jr. had died young of coronary problems, but while Emilio Sr. was still alive. Emilio Sr. accepted Sarris into the family on the belief that he was Emilio Jr.'s son, so I have regarded Sarris as my third cousin since then. I do know that Sarris has long been focused on Indians. I recall one incident when Sarris was teaching at UCLA and living in the Hollywood Hills. This would have been in the 1990s. Sarris asked me to come over and cook dinner because he was having company. He introduced me to his guests, who were Indians from the Sonoma and Marin area. Sarris told me that these people are your cousins; I responded to him that they're not my cousins and we're not Indians. This made everyone in the room very uncomfortable. 10. I have watched the Youtube video of Greg Sarris explaining his purported ancestry, and also read a partial transcript of that video, attached. To say that Sarris is taking great liberties with our family story is an understatement. a. Sarris' claims about Reinette's supposed parents and grandparents are not anything that I have ever heard before. These claims were certainly not part of the family oral tradition when I was growing up. b. I never heard my grandmother Juanita, my great-uncle Albert or my great-aunt Evelyn, or anyone else, talk about attending the "Sherman Indian School" or running away and riding the rails to East L.A. If such colorful things had actually happened, I'm sure they would have talked about them. c. My understanding is that Juanita, Albert and Evelyn were all born in the Los Angeles area, contrary to Sarris' inference that they were from the North Bay. d. "Uncle Millie," as Emilio Hilario, Sr. was known to me, was a very masculine man and I simply cannot imagine him carrying around a woman's pink wallet, nor did I ever see him do so, after his wife Evelyn died. e. This is a minor point, but I do have to comment on Sarris' assertion Evelyn "was all over" Emilio Sr. Actually, the story I heard from my mother about Emilio Hilario's courtship of Evelyn is that he would come over to the house to give her a ride in his car, and Marguerite, then a girl of about eight years old, would be sent to go riding with them as a chaperone. f. I never heard anyone address Emilio Jr. as "chief," nor did I ever hear of anyone doing so. Emilio Jr. didn't look anything like an Indian, so there would be no reason for anyone to do so. Also, I recall hearing from my great-aunt Evelyn and my grandmother Juanita that many white girls in Laguna Beach were chasing after Emilio Jr., and that worried them because they were concerned that a young man of color could get into trouble dating white girls. I knew Emilio Jr. well. When I was a young girl, he would give me rides on his shoulders. I thought he was very handsome. g. Arthur Sarragossa was not "Mexican and Indian." As I stated above, in the family tradition he was born in Florida, his father was Spanish and his mother was French. 11. I understand that Linda Trujillo was quoted in an article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat published February 18, 2010. Trujillo is identified as working as a receptionist in the Graton Rancheria tribal offices in Rohnert Park. In the article Trujillo identifies herself as a granddaughter of Juanita Sarragossa. That is true, because Linda Trujillo is my younger half-sister. The article goes on to quote Trujillo as saying she "met" Juanita's mother, "'Nettie Smith,' an Indian who 'didn't speak one word of English.'" That last statement is incorrect in five different particulars. First, Reinette Sarragossa died in March 1962, several months before Linda was born in July 1962, so the two never met. Second, as I described above, English is the only language I ever heard Reinette speak. Third, I never heard anyone call her "Nettie." Fourth, her last name was not Smith. Her maiden name was Stewart, and her married names were Sarragossa and Morton. Fifth, she wasn't an Indian. 12. I am choosing to speak out at this time because Greg Sarris isn't telling the real story of our great-grandmother Reinette Stewart Sarragossa Morton. I loved my great-grandmother, and I simply want people to know the truth. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September 15, 2012 ______________________________ Velia Navarro (This is the text-only version of Ms. Navarro's Declaration for use in this email only. Please see the PDF version available at www.stopthecasino101.com for the bona fide signed copy of this Declaration) END DECLARATION

Back In Federal Court Soon!

A companion suit to the litigation currently in State court will be filed in the VERY near future in the federal court. This lawsuit will challenge the decision of the BIA to take the casino site into trust.

So stay tuned, and give to our legal fund! Donate any amount you can using the button below to donate through safe, secure PayPal.

of $50 or more and get a free kitchen magnet featuring Molly Eckler's beautiful Tiger Salamander painting featured on our Facebook page while supplies last. It's small, but pretty! (You must provide a mailing address.)

 

Original artwork by Molly Eckler

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Graton-Chairman-Sarris--Cousin---We-re-Not-Indians-.html?soid=1102324248697&aid=81nCPiOq8Rs

Fighting for a raise

Labor dispute at San Pablo Casino stretches to Windsor

Friday, August 31st, 2012 | Posted by PD staff

By CLARK MASON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The union that represents workers at an East Bay Indian casino is reaching out to residents of Windsor in an attempt to win a protracted labor dispute.

The reason for appealing to Windsor — about 60 miles and a couple of counties away — may not be obvious. But the tribe that owns the San Pablo Casino has plans to build a large, controversial housing project for its members on land on Windsor’s periphery.

The union includes about 220 employees at the casino owned by the Santa Rosa-based Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, or roughly half the workforce.

They have been working without a contract for three years, unable to reach an agreement on wages, health coverage and other issues with the San Pablo Lytton casino.

The union, Oakland-based United Here Local 2850, filed charges more than a year ago with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the casino owners are refusing to meet and bargain, and are denying union representatives access to the premises.

On Thursday, the union’s case was bolstered when the NLRB found cause for the complaint to proceed and ordered a hearing for Oct. 29 with an administrative law judge.

In the meantime, the union is trying another tactic to pressure the 270-member tribe: Sending mailers to Windsor residents alleging some casino workers were fired unjustly.

A number of tribal members live in Sonoma County, said Jessica Medina, a union organizer, and the tribe maintains an office near the airport north of Santa Rosa.

She said their neighbors should know “the tribe has forgotten about the people who made them all this money.”

But Larry Stidham, general counsel for the tribe, said “we think we are providing fair and reasonable benefits and wages,” based on a survey of other casinos.

The Lytton tribe for the past 10 years has steadily acquired land in west Windsor and has applied to have 120 acres put into federal trust to develop a housing and cultural center.

[Removing it from the tax rolls.]

The plans have frustrated Windsor and Sonoma County officials who say the 147 homes in the plan create much higher density than would be allowed on the rural property if the tribe were subject to local land use and zoning controls.

[Lost Local Control!]

The tribe continues to add to its holdings and has bought an additional 140 acres.

The numerous purchases have helped fuel suspicions that the tribe may be pursuing a second casino.

But tribal spokesmen have steadfastly denied any such intent. And legal experts say the federal law essentially prevents the tribe from building a casino in Windsor.

How much impact the union’s campaign in Windsor will have is uncertain.

“Windsor doesn’t have a lot of authority over what happens at the cardroom, or how they develop the land near us,” said Mayor Debora Fudge. “I can certainly understand everybody trying to get as much input to the process as they can in the hopes it would make a difference.”

Registered voters in Windsor recently began receiving colorful postcards from the union with pictures of former San Pablo casino workers with their children.

The workers pictured claim that they were dismissed unfairly. In one instance, one woman said she was fired from her casino job after nine years because management wanted her to return from maternity leave faster.

In another case a former casino worker, Nirmani Kalaki, said he was fired because he took a short time off from work for his father’s funeral.

“The Tribe’s members are good people. When they were here they took care of us. But after we made them rich, they moved to Windsor and forgot us,” stated the mailer signed by Kalaki.

Union President Wei-Ling Huber said the mailings are intended to gain sympathy and support. “We think the story of the casino workers is so powerful,” she said. “The more we can get the support of the broader community, the more it forces the tribe to really listen.”

Windsor Councilman Steve Allen said residents may have a hard time with what he characterized as a “nebulous” flier, and connecting the casino with what happens in Windsor.

“There seemed to be no point to the flier other than (to say) ‘these guys aren’t very nice,’ ” he said.

The union estimates the casino grosses more than $182 million annually, but pays workers little more than minimum wage, with food servers and janitors making $8 an hour.

The union said it wants to bring their employees up to scale with Cache Creek Casino and Golden Gate Fields, or closer to $12.50 an hour.

They also represent cashiers and bingo machine technicians.

Stidham, the Lytton attorney, declined to comment on the cases of the workers who were fired, saying they were personnel issues.

But he said the casino provides health and dental benefits to workers and has worked hard not to let employees go during the downturn in the economy.

“They have a right to do these things,” he said of the union mailers. “Whether they’re truthful or not, or effective, I guess we’ll leave up to the residents of Windsor.”

You can reach Staff Writer Clark Mason at 521-5214 or clark.mason@pressdemocrat.com.

http://windsor.towns.pressdemocrat.com/2012/08/news/labor-dispute-at-san-pablo-casino-stretches-to-windsor/

Tribe's link to Taunton essential to casino deal

Tribe's link to Taunton essential to casino deal

 

The Old Colony Historical Society's collection includes copper and wampum beads used by tribe members for trading and for self-adornment.Cape Cod Times/Jim Preston

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

July 01, 2012

TAUNTON — Hostilities between English settlers and Native Americans came to a head in this city that now, 331 years later, is welcoming a tribal casino within its borders.

In 1671, commissioners of the Massachusetts Bay Colony invited Metacomet, also known as King Philip, the son of Massasoit and then leader of Wampanoag Nation, to Taunton for a meeting with English settlers, according to S.H. Emery's "History of Taunton Massachusetts: 1637-1893."

 

"Philip was willing to proceed to Taunton Green, then called the Training Field, if hostages were left. Williams and John Brown consented to remain," Emery wrote.

 

Inside an old meetinghouse, colonists stood on one side in "formal garbs, close shorn hair and solemn countenances," Emery wrote. On the other side "appeared the tawny and ferocious countenances of Indian warriors; their long, black hair hanging down their backs; their small sunken eyes, gleaming with serpent fires ..."

 

Philip was confronted about reports he was planning an attack on Taunton and other settlements. "He was covered with confusion and in his panic acknowledged the truth of all their charges," Emery wrote.

 

Philip surrendered his weapons, which included guns, and "signed his submission," but in the next four years continued to stockpile weapons for a battle that history now refers to as King Philip's War.

That history could prove important because to win federal approval of its proposed $500 million casino project in Taunton, the Mashpee Wampanoag must prove to the Bureau of Indian Affairs it has historic and cultural ties to Taunton.

 

The tribe is asking the federal government to take 146 acres in the Liberty and Union Industrial Park into federal trust, along with 170 acres in Mashpee, for the tribe's initial reservation.

Environmental review

The federal bureau started an environmental review of the land two weeks ago that is expected to take several months. Meanwhile, the tribe is negotiating a compact with Gov. Deval Patrick for payments in lieu of taxes. An announcement could come as early as this week as the tribe races to meet a July 31 deadline imposed by the state law that authorizes three casinos and a single slot parlor. The tribe's land into trust application does not have to be completed by that date.

 

In a May decision that demonstrates the importance of the historical ties, the bureau rejected the trust application of the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians in California because it did not "demonstrate it had a significant historic connection to the site."

 

Making the link between Indians and Taunton is as easy as walking into the Old Colony Historical Society in the city, where volumes of books and records are preserved.

 

But making the connection between the Mashpee Wampanoag and the territory is not as clear, said William Hanna, a retired Taunton High School teacher and historian who authored "A History of Taunton, Massachusetts" in 2008.

 

Hanna spent hours sifting through records at the historic society where he says there is no reference in official records to specific Wampanoag tribes.

 

"Never, ever have I seen a distinction between the Mashpee Wampanoag, Aquinnah Wampanoag or other Wampanoag tribes," he said. "To say that the Mashpee Wampanoag have a historic tie to Taunton, nothing I see proves that."

 

Of course, nothing disproves it either, he said.

 

In his book, "The Wampanoag Indian Federation: Indian Neighbors to the Pilgrims," Milton A. Travers wrote about a Cohannet Wampanoag Tribe, which "occupied the territory including parts of the present towns of Berkley, Mansfield, Norton and Raynham, and also a portion within the present city limits of Taunton, Massachusetts."

 

The Cohannet are not among a list of state- and federally recognized tribes still in existence.

The Mashpee Wampanoag declined a request by the Times to release the documentation it presented as part of its application to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and instead issued a statement.

"There are strong ties to the region with excellent documentary support," tribal council Chairman Cedric Cromwell said. "Federal and state agencies acknowledge Mashpee connections to the archaeological record in the Taunton region. The preponderance of scholars who have written on the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe sees our influence historically as extending into the Taunton area, and there is linguistic support for that argument, as well. Beyond this written evidence, we know of this connection through our oral history, passed down from generation to generation."

false claims?

Other Massachusetts tribes unhappy about the tribe's federal status are already attempting to poke holes in their historical data.

 

At a bureau hearing in Taunton last week, representatives of the Pocasset Wampanoag and the Massachusett tribe both testified the Mashpee have no historic links to Taunton.

 

Pocasset leader George Buffalo Spring rejected the Mashpee tribe's claims to Taunton land. "The Mashpee leadership disrespects our Pokanoket ancestors and our lands by improperly making false claims to reservation shop in Pocasset Pokanoket territories," he said.

 

But representatives of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), the only other federally recognized tribe in Massachusetts, defended the Mashpee application, saying all of the Wampanoag Nation has ties to Southeastern Massachusetts.

 

Officials at the Robbins Museum in Middleboro, which is operated by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society and has an extensive collection of Wampanoag artifacts from the region, were reluctant to comment on the dispute except to say the region was a hotbed of Indian activity.

 

The Times requested the tribe's application and supporting documents in a Freedom of Information Act filing with the bureau. Thus far, the bureau has only released documents filed five years ago in support of taking 539 acres into trust in Middleboro, a proposal no longer on the table.

 

But as they did in Middleboro, tribe historians will likely point to the arrival of the Pilgrims and the "profound and enduring changes" that resulted in the past 400 years. According to the historical report drafted by Christine Grabowski for that 2007 application, "the contemporary Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe descends from a band of Indians that was part of the historic Pokanoket nation."

 

Pokanoket nation comprised a group of "allied sachemships," numbering more than 30, under the leadership of one Massasoit or supreme sachem, who when the Pilgrims landed was Ousamequin.

 

The various bands moved around to temporary settlements on a seasonal basis "rather than specific fixed land-holdings in the European fashion," Grabowski wrote.

PECK OF BEANS, JACKKNIFE

In his book "Mayflower," Nathaniel Philbrick writes it was a raid led by Miles Standish in 1623 on the Massachusett tribe and Massasoit's decision to befriend the Pilgrims that led to what is now referred to as the Wampanoag Nation.

 

Massasoit's hold on the region came as a result of the deaths of some influential Cape sachems, Philbrick wrote. "Over the next few years, Massasoit established the Indian nation we now refer to as the Wampanoag — an entity that may not even have existed before this crucial watershed."

 

Like the Indians before them, colonists were drawn to the region — known as Titicut and Cohannet — by the herring-rich Taunton River.

 

Elizabeth Pole, according to historical accounts, purchased land in 1637 for a "peck of beans and a jackknife," moving from Dorchester to Taunton where there was more room for flocks and herds.

 

Though there is no official record, the Pole legend is depicted on the city's seal.

 

The following year, 46 settlers purchased land in a deed that bears King Philip's name, and Taunton was incorporated.

 

In the years that followed, Massasoit-controlled Indians and the settlers lived a mostly peaceful existence, though by 1657 Massasoit's sons became increasingly troubled by the invasion of colonists into their territories.

 

"Just a few months later, (Massasoit's son Wamsutta) refused to part with a portion of the land his father had agreed to sell" to Taunton, Philbrick wrote.

Philip also did not see things the way his father did. In the years that followed that 1671 showdown with the colonists in Taunton, Philip continued to plot his attack, Emery wrote.

 

It is the murder of Indian John Sassamon in 1675 that triggered the start of King Philip's War — a bloody conflict that decimated the native population.

 

 

 

Taunton figured prominently in that war. On June 24, 1675, "Edward Babbitt of Taunton was killed by an Indian of Philip's band," Emery wrote.

 

A few days later, it was Taunton that was designated as a rendezvous point for colonists where they gathered under the command of Maj. William Bradford of Plymouth, according to Emery's book.

 

Philip was chased for a little more than a year in a far-ranging war. In the final days of the conflict, on July 31, 1676, Capt. Benjamin Church learned King Philip was about to cross the Taunton River with a view of attacking the towns of Taunton and Bridgewater, Emery wrote. The next day Church saw Philip on the banks of the river and fired at him, but he escaped.

 

On Aug. 6, 1676, with the help of an Indian informant, 26 Indians were captured in what is now Norton, Emery wrote.

 

The war ended that month with the killing of King Philip at Mount Hope in Rhode Island.

 

All the while, the Mashpee Wampanoag remained on Cape Cod, staying out of the conflict on land set aside for the tribe by Richard Bourne, a Sandwich selectman.

Tribes join

After the war, the Mashpee Wampanoag "absorbed the Coatuits, Satuits, Paupausits, Wakoquits, Ashimits and Weesquob tribes," Travers wrote.

 

Mashpee opponents, like the Pocasset and Massachusett tribes, will argue that's evidence Taunton and other areas of Southeastern Massachusetts north of the Cape Cod Canal are outside the Mashpee Wampanoag territory.

 

James Lynch, an ethno-historian hired by Pocassets and towns like Halifax to counter the Mashpee Wampanoag claims, has written the Mashpee can't make the historic and cultural claims necessary because they don't exist.

 

"The eminent historian Bernard Lewis once remarked that there are three kinds of history, recovered, remembered and invented," Lynch wrote. "Mashpee's claims to Taunton are of the third sort."

 

The Mashpee will likely counter they were part of one nation under Massasoit and they, like the Aquinnah, are the tribes that survived and continued to govern as a tribe throughout their history.

Unlike King Philip's War, it is a battle likely to play out in a courtroom.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120701/NEWS/207010335/-1/NEWS36

Tribal Casino proposal nixed by federal officials

Casino proposal in North Richmond nixed by federal officials

By: Robert Rogers|May 25, 2012

 

 

A 30-acre area of unincorporated North Richmond is not eligible for a casino, representatives from the U.S. Department of the Interior announced today.

The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians had sought to build a large casino on a 30-acre slice of land in North Richmond near Parr Boulevard on the Richmond Parkway. But according to a department press release, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Donald “Del” Laverdure determined that the tribe’s application does not qualify for gaming because the tribe lacks significant historical connections to the site.

“We determined that the Band’s parcels near the city of Richmond did not qualify as restored lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s equal footing exceptions because it could not demonstrate it had significant historical connection to the site,” Lavendure stated in the press release.

Similar reasoning also factored into a ruling in August, 2011, against the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians’ plans to build a casino at Point Molate, a former Navy fuel depot in the city of Richmond.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, which governs unincorporated North Richmond, also opposed the Scotts Valley casino plan. Board of Supervisors chair Mary Piepho sent a letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs dated May 17, 2012, reiterating the board’s objection to the casino on grounds that the Scotts Valley Band’s application did not meet the “restored lands” requirement.

On Friday, Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia said he was pleased with the decision.

“The county carried the major weight of the opposition from the outset,” Gioia said. “We expended over a million dollars in studies, analysis, filing briefs and other activities. It was clear that the impacts to the surrounding communities would have outweighed the benefits.”

Andres Soto, a local anti-casino advocate, hailed the decision as well. “This determination nails the coffin on any possibility of a casino in North Richmond,” Soto said. “The type of gambling proposed with this casino—Las Vegas-style slots in which players are pitted against the house—are associated with negative social and economic consequences.” Analyses by the county concluded that the surrounding urban area would have borne significant impacts, including traffic congestion, increased public health needs and potential affects to local crime.

The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California is a federally recognized tribe of Pomo and Wailaki Indians in Lake County, California.


http://richmondconfidential.org/2012/05/25/casino-proposal-in-north-richmond-nixed-by-federal-officials/

San Pablo casino, union locked in wage debate

San Pablo casino, union locked in wage debate
By Tom Lochner
Contra Costa Times

Casino San Pablo and its largest employee union are locked in an increasingly bitter stalemate over wages and benefits.

Unite Here Local 2850, representing more than 150 food service, housekeeping and miscellaneous workers, says the casino pays less-than-living wages and is squeezing the employees on health care coverage. The casino, owned by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, says it has been hit hard by rising health care costs and that the deal it offers the workers, even with a wage freeze, is a good one by the industry's standards.

Starting pay of Local 2850 members at Casino San Pablo ranges from $8 an hour, or the equivalent of minimum wage in California, for porters and food servers, to $14.12 an hour for the lead cook. The average hourly wage for Local 2850 members at the casino is $9.50 an hour, said union organizer Max Alper.

Workers had been paying $26 a month for family medical coverage; that went up to $75 a month this year.

Located on the 9-1/2-acre Lytton Rancheria on San Pablo Avenue at San Pablo Dam Road, the casino employs about 400 people. About half are union members, including the 150-odd Local 2850 members, and about 30 members of the Service Employees International Union.

Unite Here seeks raises ranging from 15 to 21 percent at Casino San Pablo, depending on the job. That's what it would take to match labor agreements achieved at two other Indian casinos, Cache Creek in Yolo County and Thunder Valley in Placer County, the union says.

The casino, however, contends its workers get substantially the same deal as workers at Cache Creek.

The casino says it has been hit hard by the cost of health care insurance and other benefits that have gone up by more than 200 percent since 2003 and by 30 percent just since last year.

"The Tribal Council has approved a substantial allotment of money that can be used either to increase hourly wages or to cover insurance costs," said Doug Elmets, spokesman for the Lytton Band.

The union upped the ante on July 15 by showing up with an entourage at the casino's public entrance to demand reinstatement of a food service worker, Nirmani Kalakheti. The union says Kalakheti was terminated in late June while he was in his native Nepal attending the funeral of his father, who had died suddenly. The casino says Kalakheti resigned voluntarily by being absent for more than two work days without notification.

The two sides differ on whether Kalakheti received permission to be absent.

But the union maintains the real reason Kalakheti was terminated is because he is a union activist. Two weeks earlier, a photo of Kalakheti had appeared on a union flier.

"Our hard work is what makes the Casino succeed every day," Kalakheti is quoted on the flier. "But at the end of the day, our families are not succeeding. We can barely make ends meet and we struggle to even pay our bills. All we are asking is that the management respects us enough to offer us a fair contract like the workers have at Cache Creek and Thunder Valley."

Elmets said the notion that the casino would fire anyone for union activism is absurd.

"There are plenty of employees active in the union," Elmets said. "Out of human courtesy we wouldn't do that."

"We have tried to accommodate this individual but the reality is that we're a business," Elmets continued. "It would make the situation difficult if not impossible to say to one employee, you can ... take three or four additional weeks off without any written or verbal confirmation from your supervisor."

Kalakheti said his supervisor, food and beverage manager Mark Vincent, gave him a verbal OK to take off and fill out paperwork upon his return. A call to Vincent at the casino's food and beverage office was not returned. Elmets said Kalakheti never got the approval to leave.

The union has filed an unfair labor practice grievance against the casino with the National Labor Relations Board in connection with Kalakheti's termination, as well as several other grievances alleging threats against employees, interference with communications between the union and its members, refusal to provide information, unilateral and repeated rules changes, and failure to bargain in good faith.

Said Elmets, "There is no merit to any of these charges. We have always had and continue to have a good relationship with our employees, whether they are union or nonunion."

Elmets said the NLRB already has dismissed the union's claim that the casino terminated Kalakheti because of his union activity and that he is confident all of the union's claims will be dismissed. Alper said he is not aware of the NLRB dismissing any claims.

The union says the tribe is making a lot of money from the casino and could well afford to be more generous to the workers. The casino is on track to make more than $160 million in gross gambling revenue this fiscal year, a figure arrived at by extrapolating from San Pablo's budget and the terms of a 2003 Municipal Services Agreement between the city and the Lytton Band. Elmets said the casino is a successful business, and as such, requires "sound policies and pay scales that are consistent with other similar enterprises."

"We are providing our workers better benefits than other neighboring businesses such as Cache Creek, Golden Gate Fields and Marriott Hotels," Elmets said.

"That is ridiculously untrue," said Local 2850 President Wei-Ling Huber. The Downtown Oakland Marriott and Golden Gate Fields horse racetrack in Albany give much better benefits to its workers, she said. Union organizer Lian Alan, who is more familiar with the contract at Cache Creek, said the benefits there are similar to Casino San Pablo, but workers at Cache Creek get significantly higher pay, he said.

Under the 2003 Municipal Services Agreement, the casino will pay San Pablo $1.75 million in lieu of taxes this fiscal year plus 7.5 percent of gross gambling revenue. San Pablo's fiscal 2011-2012 budget projects about $14.25 million in revenue from the casino, or 57 percent of the General Fund.

Several Local 2850 members, accompanied by Alper, took their case for better wages to the San Pablo City Council in April, asking it to weigh in on their behalf. But they got a chilly reception from Mayor Paul Morris, who told them the city could not intervene on their behalf.

Councilman Arturo Cruz, responding to an e-mail this week from Bay Area News Group about the labor stalemate and the union's wage demands, said he had no comment. Councilwomen Genoveva Garcia Calloway and Cecilia Valdez did not respond to similar e-mails.

Councilman Leonard McNeil said:

"As a retired union member my interest is focused on respect for fair labor negotiations and respect for collective bargaining rights. This is consistent with the Municipal Services Agreement. I understand that the union has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board for unfair labor practices. I would hope that Casino San Pablo would be recognized for providing decent wages and working conditions and good benefits. In my opinion, fair wages and working conditions contribute to higher morale and productivity. I hope the Lytton tribe will not place itself in a position to be subjected to further opposition to urban gaming by those in the community and in public office if there is a perception that the union workers are being mistreated."

McNeil added that he cannot interfere with the labor negotiations, and suggested that arbitration could move the two sides toward "a contract that serves working people and the business interest of the casino."

On July 15, Kalakheti and his delegation left the casino premises after a tense but peaceful standoff with casino managers and security officials, joined later by four San Pablo Police officers. Moments earlier, in a brief conversation with the casino's director of security, James Grant, that could not be heard over the din of the casino, Kalakheti said Grant promised a meeting the following week with a casino official.

But on Monday, Kalakheti said, Grant called him to say there would be no meeting and that Kalakheti is persona non grata at the casino. Elmets said that account is substantially correct.

Last Rites for Richmond Gambling Rights

BREAKING! Last Rites for Richmond Gambling Rights
by Rev. Austin Miles

After several years of hearings that began in 2003, with haggling, cajoling, coercing, threatening and payoffs, the proposed $1.2 billion Casino-Hotel-Resort at Richmond’s water front, has been given the last rites for the Richmond, Point Molate gambling rights. Even though the voters overwhelmingly made their opposition clear, the tribe of Guidivillle Band of Pmo Indians, with gambling profiteers behind the proposal, were determined to push this on the people. These tribal casinos were hatched by the mob using white guilt of past injustices to the Indians to gain traction for the scheme, in this case.the Guidiville Band of of Pomo Indians in front of the project.

Indeed at one of the hearings that this writer attended, one speaker who opposed the casino felt obligated to state that this was nothing against the Indians, he had no prejudice towards them etc. etc. etc. So white people were shoe-horned into a position to be called racists if they didn’t approve the Indian Casino because Indians were running it. Clever move on the part of the mob.

Millions upon millions of dollars of cash in the stash motivated by the speculation that the casino would take in $1 billion a year AS PROFIT!. This is of course serious money that would propel one to use any means necessary to accomplish the goal. That includes generous bribes and bribe offers.

And, there were takers, even though they knew in their hearts that this would be wrong for the city of Richmond, a city of constant violence, crime and murder. Still, they sold out their own values for bucks. Except for one man in particular who stood his ground in opposition as pressure was mounted against him to accept a bribe and publicly endorse the game plan.

Rev. John Anderson runs the Bay Area Rescue Mission in Richmond, a homeless shelter with 325 beds. His is a compassionate ministry which provides for the needs of the downtrodden. With case loads increasing due to the economic crisis, the mission is constantly in need of funds. Not enough, however, for Rev. Anderson to sell out his integrity

To deal with their opponents, the casino backers promised huge amounts of money EACH YEAR if the measure passed, and this included charity organizations like Rev. Anderson’s Bay Area Rescue Mission.

Slight pause for this observation: Gambling consists of games of chance (they say). So [if] it is by chance, how would the casino operators be able to state the exact amount of money, in the millions, that they could pay out if the measure passed?

The operators know for certain that a casino like the one proposed would take in over a billion dollars a year (their profit). They know that for fact. So is it really a game of chance? Or is it rigged to only pay out so much money? Just remember that those fancy hotels and glitzy casinos were not built by you winning!

Rev. Anderson went to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, where the measure would be discussed. He brought with him some clients of his shelter whose lives have been ruined by gambling. They testified that they had lost everything to gambling and wound up on the streets. They told how easy it is to become addicted to gambling.

Lisa Vorderbrueggen, writing for the East County Times reported that “nearly every opposition group has, or is negotiating a lucrative deal with the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians.” Then, she wrote, ,” behind the scenes, casino proponents have urged Rev. Anderson to meet with the tribe.”

He told them that he would not accept money from Indian casinos, ” since gambling goes against the principles that we believe and stand for.” He went on to say, “We were not angling for money. We see the devastation that would come about as a result of a casino like the one proposed.” And it appears that he is the only organization that rejected the proposed pay off.

Complications began two days after Rev. Anderson took his heroic stand. The Contra Costa Health Department suddenly showed up to inspect the facility. An inspector showed up a day or two later. When Rev. Anderson asked why the inspector was there, he blurted out that his visit was routine, “not the result of a complaint.” The inspector said it, not Rev. Anderson. Why of course, that visit, two days after he testified before the County Board of Supervisors, was purely coincidental.

Then the County Health Department demanded upgrades inside the shelter that would cost Rev. Anderson, $45,000. And this is a time when donations are down11 % and their expenses are up 18%.

Then, on the same day, he received a message from the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency regarding a property he wanted to buy in order to open a shelter there for women and children. He was contacted by Janis Glover, wife of Contra Costa County Supervisor, Federal Glover. She questioned him about “the mission’s religious activities.”

Now hold on… don’t jump to conclusions… this too was just a coincidence don’t you see. She was merely dealing with some ‘church and state issues’ that suddenly came up and was simply gathering information for the city attorney. That’s what she said. Sure! Let’s be sure we have all of this in order:

First of all, Mrs. Federal Glover, who has a political job with the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency is married to the Supervisor of Contra Costa County, Federal Glover. Glory be!. Another coincidence!

It was a fierce struggle to try and push this proposal through. One man stood in the way with his refusal to compromise on a moral issue by accept ing a bribe to endorse something that he did not believe in and would not be pleasing to God. Rev. Anderson cannot be bought. And today, the proposed gambling casino that would do more harm than good for Contra Costa County was roundly defeated. The tribe and its gambling backers lost the bet.

A tip of the beret to Rev. John Anderson of The Bay Area Rescue Mission, who stayed true to God and himself. He is the rarest of men….a man who cannot be bought. A minister of integrity who would never offend God. He is totally devoted to the ministry God has entrusted him with. His pure actions resulted in this headline in East County Times (11/22/09): “Shelter Denounces Casino Cash.” We need more ministers like John Anderson.