SY Band claims super-sovereignty

SY Band claims super-sovereignty
By Lana Marcussen, Guest Columnist

The Santa Ynez Band (Chumash Casino Tribe) on Sept. 16, presented an aggressive version of why they should be allowed to place 1,400 acres of land, an area the size of Solvang, into federal trust status.

The technical presentation by Professor Carl Artman (former assistant secretary of Indian Affairs and an Arizona State law professor and member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin) asserted that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians is the original local government of the entire area, and all land in the area should be under its “inherent sovereignty.”

There is no question that the Chumash Indian tribal groups were present before the arrival of the Spanish in the Santa Barbara area and had a thriving advanced culture. However, the Santa Ynez Band, recognized by the United States in 1978 as a “tribe,” has no surviving descendants of the Chumash group for which Mission Santa Ynez was founded.

In fact, “Chumash” was added to their name only because the band voted to amend their name, quite probably as the necessary tactic to “re-acquire aboriginal territory.”

According to Professor Artman, the Santa Ynez Band’s sovereignty is completely independent of the federal and state governments and does not derive in any way from the Constitution of the United States, because the tribal governments predate the United States. Indian tribes as “inherent sovereigns” write their own laws, make their own rules and are responsible only to their own members.

Professor Artman then applied his theory of omnipotent tribal sovereignty to explain that the fiduciary trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes cannot be terminated or modified by either Congress or the president to diminish or limit the Indian trust relationship. Professor Artman then opined that placing lands into federal trust status, the fee-to-trust process, is part of this unlimited fiduciary trust relationship.

The implication of Professor Artman’s position is that the restoration of tribal land to an Indian tribe by the United States is not subject to challenge by any non-member of the Indian tribe that would receive the land. Non-members include all persons, citizen groups, local and state governments, federal government officials and any other entity that is not part of the benefiting Indian tribe.

Professor Artman attempted to convince the audience that placing private fee land into federal trust status for the Santa Ynez Band – thereby removing it from all federal, state, county and municipal control – somehow restores “local control.” Under Professor Artman’s “super-sovereignty” theory, these extra-constitutional tribal governments were the first governments and therefore the only “legal” governments. Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta has also publicly asserted this notion.

This theory would be laughable, except that the Santa Ynez Band is not the only tribe attempting to enforce Professor Artman’s position. Currently, there are three Indian tribes suing the United States government, asserting that their sovereignty is inviolate even against officers and employees of the United States.

The Yakama tribe in Washington State is suing the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, claiming that all federal officials and employees must request the permission of the Yakama tribe before they can enter upon the Yakama Indian reservation. The Seneca Indian Nation of New York is suing the United States to require the BIA to acknowledge their absolute sovereignty over their “territory,” which is state land. The Cherokee Nation is asserting omnipotent sovereignty in reinterpreting an 1866 treaty with the United States that required them to give tribal membership to their former black slaves.

The Santa Ynez Band will undoubtedly attempt to use Professor Artman’s extreme theory of omnipotent “tribal sovereignty” to intimidate the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and perhaps other receptive politicians, into entering an intergovernmental agreement over the 1,400 acres or otherwise supporting fee-to-trust.

All over the country, politicians and bureaucrats disregard the tremendous disruption and negative impacts on communities caused by accepting the sovereign authority over land of hundreds of recently created Indian tribes. (Until 1978, there were only about 175 federally recognized Indian tribes. Today there are more than 565 tribes.)

Is the Board of Supervisors again going to undermine the property owners and citizens of the Santa Ynez Valley by allowing the Band to expand their already powerful political base into this “super-sovereignty” by entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the tribe or otherwise supporting expansion of their land or authority? There is no way to negotiate a mutually enforceable intergovernmental agreement when one side is claiming that neither state nor federal law applies to them. According to Professor Artman, only tribal law can be used to interpret any agreement entered into by the Santa Ynez Band and tribal law is whatever the tribe says it is. This also applies to any language for a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity built into an intergovernmental agreement. The tribe can claim that the language applies only as interpreted by their laws, making any possible waiver completely unenforceable.

The Santa Ynez Band is stating they need 1,400 acres of fee land in trust for their tribe for housing their members and descendants. According to speaker Dave Schaffer, executive director of the All Mission Indian Housing Authority, the Santa Ynez Band has 140 enrolled members and 1,300 descendants.

There is nothing that prevents the Santa Ynez Band from developing its property for housing like any other private property owner using the same state processes that everyone else follows. Professor Artman was obviously not familiar with California law when he said that state law gives less protection for development than federal law. According even to the Santa Ynez Bands’ own specific comparison that followed Professor Artman’s presentation, California environmental laws are at least as strict as federal law.

For example, California law requires developers to have utility guarantees that include water use and disposal plans in place before a project can begin. California law requires regional cooperation and coordination of utilities to encourage centralized waste disposal to prevent small dumps and waste treatment facilities from popping up all over an area. Larger waste facilities generally use better technology for controlling odor, insect vectors and controlling runoff. These facilities are then also subject to state inspection and compliance under far more stringent standards than federal law requires.

In addition, all federal military bases and federal building projects are required to meet California’s comprehensive development laws. Why should lands owned by an Indian tribe be subject to lesser requirements?

Accepting the Santa Ynez Band and Professor Artman’s assertion of “super-sovereignty,” by agreeing to place them outside county and state process and the Community Plan, would completely disrupt the justifiable expectations of private property owners in the Valley. As super-sovereigns, they say any property they own, or any property they later purchase, would be subject only to their own rules.

Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with Professor Artman’s theory of tribal “super-sovereignty.” Professor Artman is attempting to refute recent changes in federal Indian law that virtually shut down the federal fee-to trust process.

One of these breakthrough legal decisions holding that local people can be harmed by placing private fee lands into federal trust status for a tribe, was won against the Santa Ynez Band by two local citizen groups: Preservation of Los Olivos (POLO) and Preservation of Santa Ynez (POSY).

These same citizen groups after winning “standing” to sue to protect their property and other interests, were then able to cite two recent United States Supreme Court decisions to challenge whether the Santa Ynez Band is eligible under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 to have any lands placed into trust status, and whether the federal government even has the power to remove land from state jurisdiction by placing the land into trust status.

The Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA), when presented with these questions, dissolved the 2005 decision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Regional Director that the 6.9 acres could be taken into trust status.

Under the IBIA order, the regional director must allow POLO and POSY to participate in any administrative decision-making over the 6.9 acres and must also answer both questions as to the eligibility of the Santa Ynez Band to obtain trust land.

The IBIA order is now 18 months old, and no action appears to have been taken by the Sacramento Regional Office of the BIA on the 6.9 acre fee-to-trust application.

Given the current status of this fee-to-trust application, the Santa Ynez Band has not yet even filed an application to the BIA to have the 1,400 acres placed into trust status.

Even considering supporting expansion of land or authority of an entity claiming “super-sovereignty” directly assaults the rights of all other people under the U.S. Constitution. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, or any other politicians or bureaucrats that deliberately undermine decisions of the United States Supreme Court are themselves acting without legal authority.

The Board of Supervisors should carefully consider the ramifications of negotiating with the “super-sovereign” Santa Ynez Band.

Lana Marcussen is the legal advisor of Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, CERA, www.citizensalliance.org. CERA is the only national grass roots organization advocating we are all one people under law. CERA and Lana are involved in fee to trust cases from California to New York.

A must read for what Indian trust land does to communities

‘Cooperative agreement:’ An introduction
By James Marino, Guest Columnist

Several members of the Santa Ynez Valley community, including No More Slots, have asked me to review a “cooperative agreement” presented to the Santa Barbara County and Board of Supervisors. It is being presented by the tribe in an attempt to obtain support for the transfer of 1,400 acres of rural, bucolic fee lands that they own near State Routes 154 and 246. They are seeking to transfer title from fee to what is called Indian trust land.

Typically, tribes and casino gambling developers tout the creation of “jobs” without discussing either the fact the jobs are unprotected, low-paying jobs (other than initial construction jobs) and usually hoping that communities in economic distress will do anything for jobs, without considering the many negative impacts that will occur if the land were converted. Impacts that a non-Indian developer proposing any other development project would be required to mitigate heavily.

The Chumash government has a long history of disrespect for the Santa Ynez Valley community dating back to the importation of slot machines one night in 2003 and their opening of an illegal gambling casino that year and including their constant abuse of an outdated court doctrine giving Indian tribes immunity from lawsuit for their misdeeds, and taking advantage of the ability to operate a gambling casino and other businesses without paying needed taxes for public services and infrastructure that place great demands on the county. This is needed tax money that must then be made up by the other non-Indian taxpayers. This outdated legal “immunity doctrine” also allows them to evade the hundreds of laws and rules enacted to protect workers, customers in their casino and businesses and the health, safety, environment and quality of life in the rest of the community.

They attempt to hide the fact they pay no taxes to support public services and infrastructure by making occasional token gifts to police and fire agencies and a few charities. They count on the fact that even though these occasional gifts do not come close to paying for all the public services and infrastructure they use regularly, but the public is unaware these “gifts” do not even equal the millions they still collect in federal welfare and grant monies. Money that could be used by truly needy Indians in this country still living in abject poverty.

This is an especially outrageous practice for a tribe whose members receive more than a half-million dollars paid to each enrolled member every year from the profits generated by massive gambling losses at their casino.

It is for all these reasons and others that so many Valley residents are extremely concerned about the latest efforts of the tribe to take the Camp 4 property into federal Indian trust.


Facts about the Chumash proposal

Many years ago the Chumash tribal government made a “proposal” similar to the one they have now presented to the county this time to try to get the county’s support to bring the 1,400 acres of rural ranch property into federal Indian trust status.

The primary reason the tribe wants to bring this land into trust is to evade paying all the local property taxes, bed taxes and other assessments needed by the State, County and local government to fund the many public services and demands and infrastructure the tribe, it’s casino, hotel and other businesses place on the rest of the non-Indian taxpayers who have to foot the bill.

In addition, by placing land into trust that allows the tribe and any businesses on tribal trust lands to operate without complying with the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of laws enacted to protect workers, public customers in those businesses, and the nearby community, including zoning and planning laws enacted to protect the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the rest of the non-Indian community living in the county and in the Santa Ynez Valley.

The Santa Barbara News Press ran a large article the day after this earlier “proposal” was presented to the county, and it described the tribe’s proposal in a banner headline (front page, above the fold) as a “historic agreement.” What the newspaper didn’t know was the proposal was only presented to get the county not to appeal the proposed transfer of the 6.9 acres of land in Santa Ynez into trust. The following day, the tribal chairman sent a letter to the tribal business committee telling them not to worry; he, the tribal chairman, did not agree to anything and never waived any immunity from laws or lawsuits.

The ploy worked because the county did not appeal, but fortunately P.O.L.O. and P.O.S.Y. did appeal, and when they were successful the county tried to belatedly join the appeal – but the court ruled they were too late. Because of the efforts of P.O.L.O. and P.O.S.Y., the 6.9 acres is not in trust and is still governed by the state and local laws, including taxes to be paid and under local jurisdiction and control.

In the interim, the Supreme Court has ruled in a recent 2009 case [Carcieri v. Salazar 555 U.S. ____ 129 S.Ct. 1058] that tribes like the “Chumash,” that were not under federal superintendence and jurisdiction in 1934, are not eligible to bring land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act. So now, the tribal government is seeking to bring land into trust by getting some politician to introduce a Bill in Congress to transfer land into trust for them. That is what they are now attempting to do with the 1,400-acre Camp 4 property. Congress is more likely to pass such a Bill if it appears the local government supports the transfer to trust and particularly where handsome “campaign contributions” and lucrative perks and high paying do-nothing jobs may be in the offering. That is what this current “proposal” is all about.


Fact sheet and misinformation

In the so-called proposal, they are calling a “Cooperative Agreement,” the tribal government has made numerous false and inaccurate statements apparently in the hope the County will once again be fooled into supporting this largessé for the tribe and to the grave detriment of everyone else not raking in millions of gambling losses. Money, which is frequently used to buy influence and immunity from the laws and taxes everyone else has to abide by.

1. The tribe says it wants to expand economic development and housing opportunities.
That means it wants to build another casino, hotel and any other unregulated, unpoliced business it wants on the 1,400 rural acreage that would not be allowed under existing laws and zoning. They want to do this on trust land to evade taxes and laws that would apply to every other business.

At a press conference on the 25th of August 2011, they told the media the land was going to be for housing. Why is their reference to economic development in the cooperative agreement? Most of us saw the first plan for the Parker property a few years back that became public by mistake, showing the casino at the center of the property. The tribal government tried to explain that away as a “mistake by the architect.”

2. The tribe says absent this agreement the county has limited opportunity to influence mitigation measures or seek compensation for adverse environmental impacts.

FALSE: The 1,400 acre parcel of land owned in fee by the tribe is currently subject to all the taxes, state and local laws regulating any and all development and the tribe is not entitled to any special privilege and immunities for this fee land. [See the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case City of Sherrill New York v. Oneida Indian Tribe of New York 544 U.S. 197.] In fact, by entering into such an agreement, the county would in effect be cutting its own throat to support of a Congressional Bill or Administrative Action, which would result in a loss of tax revenue, loss of jurisdiction and control over this 1,400-acre Camp 4 property and the tribal government could thumb their noses at local government, as they have so many times before.

3. The tribe claims that these obviously vague, weak and likely unenforceable mitigation measures proposed in this “cooperative agreement” are made “in good faith.” That phrase was included in the original tribal-state compact signed by now deposed Gov. Davis and was immediately determined by the state to be worthless and unenforceable to compel casino tribes to mitigate their many negative impacts on the community environment and the health, safety and quality of life.

4. The tribe claims the agreement is recognition of “trust” and mutual respect and a government to government relationship. FALSE: The tribe and chairman Armenta have evidently already forgotten the appearance Mr. Armenta made before the County Board of Supervisors in Santa Maria, refused to answer simple questions, insulted the Board and Supervisor Firestone, and told the Board he did not have to consult with them about anything, could not even make a courtesy telephone call, and then basically stormed out. Hardly any example of the kind of trust and mutual respect now being alluded to.


Misstatements contained in the Background

A. THE LAND AT SANTA YNEZ
1. A group of Indians of mixed ancestry including Shoshone, Yaqui, Chumash and others, some of mixed blood, including Hispanic ancestry who may not have had any Indian blood at all were living near the Mission with the permission of the Archdiocese of the Catholic Church. A few began making threats that they had acquired adverse possession of those lands. A lawsuit and an agreement followed, in which the land currently occupied by the tribe (College Tract) was offered to the original five (5) families living on Mission lands for their use and occupancy.
During that period (1885-1925) the federal government authorized purchases of land with federal funds for the use and occupancy of displaced Indians in California. The report of the BIA Indian agency for this region (then it was the Tule agency) reported no such acquisition was needed at Santa Ynez because of the agreement reached with the Catholic church to allow the original five families to occupy, use and farm the College Tract at and adjacent to Sanja Cota, and that agreement was better than what the federal government could provide.

The Indian agent never waived any “rights of the affected Indians at Santa Ynez.” The Santa Barbara Superior Court judgment quieted title to all the disputed lands in the name of the Catholic Church and found against any claim of adverse possession because these Indian occupants were camped there with the Church’s permission.
The Superior Court recognized the private agreement between the Church, the Indian agency and the affected Indians, and that it was no more than an agreement to allow these Indians and part Indians to live on and use the approximately 79 acres of land then in the College Tract including a portion of Sanja Cota Creek. No reservation, trust or restricted fee lands were created by the court judgment or by any federal action or any act of Congress.

The land was never acquired in trust since then by the Department of Interior and no subsequent act of Congress ever created an Indian Reservation there. Later attempts to bring the College Tract lands at Sanja Cota into trust could not be accomplished because the original lawsuit (Cota case) quieted title in the Catholic Church and the College Tract land, that was provided to the Indians at Sanja Cota, contained a residuary clause providing that if none of the heirs and survivors of the original 5 families were living then the land was to revert back to the original owners and grantors who had agreed to let these Indians occupy and use the land.

Consequently, that land is not now and never was a reservation. It is not now and never has been held in federal trust or restricted fee, and it is not land eligible for any class II or class III gambling there, nor any exemption from taxes and state and county laws. [See for example the U.S. Supreme Court case of Yakima County v. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation.] [9th Circ. 2004] holding Indian owned lands subject to ad valorem taxation.


“The existence of any recognized or acknowledged tribe”

Before any group, band, tribe or community of Indians is entitled to be acknowledged and recognized by the federal government as an Indian tribe they must meet a number of mandatory criteria. These criteria were codified in 1978 in 25 Code of Federal Regulations part 83. Because of sloppy practices and procedures employed by California Indian agencies, these recognition criteria were often overlooked or falsified. Between 1885 and 1935, these agencies would find or buy small parcels of land around California and allow mixed groups of Indians, part Indians and homeless Indians of a variety tribal ancestry even non-Indians to locate on these lands. Within the Bureaucracy, references would often be made to a group of such Indians simply by the location of the land that they occupied. So Indians on a small Rancheria parcel at Jackson California became “The Jackson Rancheria.”

Over the years, this shorthand practice of referring to a particular group or community of Indians simply by the location where they were living morphed into an improper “tribal recognition” without validating the mandatory criteria required by law. Eventually when the federal list act was created in 1978 the names of these bands and groups would appear on lists created by the B.I.A. and by appearing there it was inferred they were properly acknowledged and recognized as a “tribe of Indians” simply because their name showed up on a list with the name of the location where they could be found.

There were several illustrations of this improper practice in California which, in effect, created Indian tribes or bands that never qualified using the mandatory criteria which was, and is, required by law as a prerequisite to be recognized. This is exactly what happened at Santa Ynez. When field agents located the community of mixed-race Indians, from a variety of tribal ancestry, even part Indians and non-Indian Hispanics in the late 1800s, they would be referred to administratively by their location where they were found, not by any tribal/political connection. So in the early years, the “Indians” in the Santa Ynez area were simply referred to in Department of Interior communications as “The Indians at Santa Ynez.” Later on, the B.I.A. and Department of Interior began referring to them as the Santa Ynez Indians, as if they were a homogeneous tribe of Indians by that name, when the reference referred only to where they were living. Before long, the “Santa Ynez Indians” became the “Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians,” even though the mandatory criteria, later codified in 25 C.F.R. part 83, had still never been verified. The “tribe” began operating an illegal gambling casino in 2003 at the Sanja Cota location using the old Bingo Hall.

In addition the 20 tribes named in the Mission Indians Relief Act did not include any Indians at Santa Ynez by any name or description. Finally, once a gambling compact was lawfully obtained from the state in 2000, when the voters approved Proposition 1A in the March 2000 election, the group of “Indians” at Santa Ynez, then calling themselves the “Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians” changed their name to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, all without ever complying with the many required criteria for recognition and acknowledgement and the complicity of the B.I.A. and D.O.I.

The statement on page 3 of the proposal that “the 99-acre Santa Ynez reservation was conveyed to the United States in trust for the tribe….” is a complete falsehood. That land has never been, nor has it ever been, conveyed to the United States in trust for the tribe. It is not now in trust and has never been a reservation to this day. An attempt was made in 1934 by the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to convey most of the land to the Secretary of Interior in trust for the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians. A deed was prepared and recorded in the county recorders offices but that attempted conveyance in trust was refused and rejected by the United States.

As set out above, the tribe desires to annex or transfer the 1,400 acres of fee land they purchased from Fess Parker, referred to as Camp 4, for the reasons they have privately admitted to. That is to remove the land from all jurisdiction and control of state and local governments, so they can do whatever they want to and ignore the hundreds of laws and rules protecting the public, the community, any workers in businesses located there, including all of the planning and zoning laws and rules, enacted to preserve the character of the Valley community and the quality of life here. They also seek to evade all the state and local taxes needed to pay for the public services and infrastructure used by the tribe and all of its businesses on a daily basis, and which would then become the tax burden of the non-Indian taxpayers and businesses.

The payments in lieu of taxes proposed are not only woefully inadequate; such an agreement is essentially worthless and unenforceable.

The following relevant and important legal facts and principles apply here:
A. The federal government, B.I.A. and Department of Interior do not recognize any restrictions or limitations that purport to have been agreed upon as a binding condition to the approval of a transfer to federal trust and as a condition for obtaining the support of any state or local government for any fee to trust transfer.

The federal government refuses to accept any such condition and take the position, the tribe can simply change its mind after the land is brought into trust, do whatever it wants, and the state and local governments can do nothing about it.
B. Once the land has been transferred from fee into federal Indian trust, it can never be taken back no matter what, unless the tribe and the Department of Interior agree. No one else has any standing or say so, even if there are purported “agreements.”

C. There is no source from which the county could collect monies it claims to be due under any agreement. The agreement purports to limit any and all recovery to the revenue from the casino that is distributed to the tribe. Paragraph 11 (a) No other asset or business can be used to pay money due. In addition, claiming sovereignty, this tribe like most, refuses to divulge any information such as income, expenses, etc., thus making it impossible to determine how much money might be owed, what deductions for overhead and tribal “salaries” and “benefits” are permissible and even if money from gambling losses is being “skimmed off.”

D. Normal methods to collect debts owed are basically useless when the debtor is an Indian tribe. For example, if the land is in trust, the county cannot put a lien upon it because the federal government owns the land and it is not susceptible to an attachment for a tribal debt. The slot machines are typically leased and not subject to any execution for an antecedent debt of the tribe and any other debts are entitled to first priority. A receiver cannot be placed in the casino to collect monies to satisfy any debt because the gambling operation is being conducted under the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act, giving only lawfully recognized Indians the right to run a casino. A creditor or its receiver would not have any such right even to collect a debt owed.

E. An existing and badly out-dated, court-created doctrine, entitles Indian tribe to a legal immunity from unconsented lawsuits. Currently being litigated before the Supreme Court is the law of New York (maybe all states), which a District Court in New York concluded that even if a tribe owes back property taxes the county (or state) cannot collect them by enforcing a tax sale of the affected Indian tribe’s land.

The court reached that conclusion by stating that in order to foreclose or enforce a tax lien that the county would have to sue the tribe and the tribe had immunity from lawsuits it did not consent to. There are numerous instances of tribal governments owing money under agreements with counties or local governments all over the country and tribes have simply refused to pay it, or delayed payment for years, or demand a “renegotiation,” reduction in amount, etc. These same tribes use and abuse this legal immunity whenever it suits their purposes.

F. Tribes who have appeared to have “waived” the legal immunity via some agreement are often found to have NOT waived it at all. The tribe may claim it was an invalid waiver. Perhaps because the person executing the agreement did not have the authority. It wasn’t approved by (take your pick) a vote of the tribe, a vote of the business committee, a vote of the gaming committee, the Secretary of Interior, not authorized by tribal constitution or any lawfully enacted tribal ordinance or maybe all of the above.

G. Besides the numerous legal hurdles facing any county, state or local government in supporting any fee to trust application which, in a case like this, provides little or no benefit to the county, there are numerous practical considerations. In the event of litigation, the county or other government must use tax revenue to prosecute any action. Typically, the casino tribe has an immense war chest of millions being collected from the massive gambling losses of gamblers rolling in every day. In addition they still collect millions in grant and welfare payments from the federal government and these funds are often mis-applied and not used for their intended purposes and, whenever it suits their purpose, call upon the federal government lawyers to defend them as part of the federal government’s trust obligation to Indians and Indian tribes.

As an example of this attrition strategy, five years ago the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the National Labor Relations Act applied to Indian businesses and their workers. That decision and its fall-out is still being litigated in Connecticut by a gambling tribe claiming it’s so-called sovereignty means it can enact (or decide not to enact) any and all laws regulating wages, hours and the working conditions of its employees, most of which are non-Indians.

Frankly, it would be foolhardy at best for the county to enter into any worthless agreement like this so-called “cooperative agreement” in order to support any proposal or legislation to transfer 1,400 acres of fee land from fee status which they can tax and regulate now, to lawless, untaxable trust lands – thus giving the tribe a license to a demonstrably irresponsible, untrustworthy tribal government, like the Chumash tribal government, allowing them to do whatever they want on it and thumb their collective noses at the state, the county and the non-Indian residents and citizens of the community.

James E. Marino, attorney and consultant on Indian gambling casinos and their impact on non-Indian communities.

Chumash and Drunk Drivers

The ongoing protests of Santa Ynez Valley residents are largely ignored in what defines Slot Barns elsewhere - lost local control.

Much as the 2 Connecticut Slot Parlors have dumped drunks onto local roads, Tribal Gambling venues wave the banner of Sovereignty and fail to protect the community.

When Beacon Hill conducted their sham public hearings and debates (that weren't debates), nowhere was the threat of DRUNK DRIVERS considered, yet in the grossly flawed legislation (prepared by Industry, behind closed doors), 24/7/365 FREE ALCOHOL was included.

These are the terms below:

limiting the sale, service and consumption of alcohol between the hours of 9 a.m. and midnight from Sunday to Thursday, and between 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday

COUNTY WITHDRAWS ITS PROTEST OF CHUMASH CASINO LIQUOR LICENSE

By Jeremy Foster, Staff Writer

Before long, the board majority voted 3-2 to send a protest letter to the state licensing department, on the grounds that the casino is within a half-mile vicinity of three elementary schools, Santa Ynez Valley Union High School, and the YMCA; would add to an already high concentration of liquor licenses in the area; and may worsen public safety problems in the Valley.

These conditions include banning sales, service or consumption of alcohol on the gaming floor and at the Chumash Café; barring patrons under 18 from using the gaming floor or showroom; ensuring that the sale of alcohol is commensurate with the sale of food; allowing Sheriff’s deputies to inspect the casino when alcohol is being served; requiring casino staff that sells alcohol to receive extra training in the sale and handling of alcoholic beverages; limiting the sale, service and consumption of alcohol between the hours of 9 a.m. and midnight from Sunday to Thursday, and between 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday; and preventing the sale and consumption of alcohol during concerts, boxing and cage-fighting events.

In a letter to Farr, Kathy Cleary, the President of Preservation of Los Olivos, wrote that she learned the Sheriff’s Department had not been sending ABC alcohol and drug arrest reports, which is required by law. She also questioned the wisdom of approving a permit when there have been more than 1,400 arrests reported at the casino (ABC notes it only counts incidences related to the licensed portions of the casino and resort).

Farr said she’s been deluged with emails from Valley residents alarmed about the potential impact of an expanded liquor license on public safety. She said she shared the concern.

“Today, in my district, the alcohol licensees and all of the negative impacts to this community and the public safety impacts are enormous,” she said. “It’s real serious in Isla Vista. This has become a serious issue in Los Olivos – and a very serious issue in Santa Ynez.”

According to Sheriff Brown, the state is poised to take a portion of Indian gambling revenue. These state funds reimburse local law enforcement agencies located near casinos; but this fund “has been held hostage” as state lawmakers propose to slash it from $30 million to $18 million. This would make it difficult to keep nine public safety positions (including five sheriff’s deputies) funded, Brown told the board.

A 28-year Los Olivos resident said she opposed any kind of expansion because of “the atrocious casino track record of drug and alcohol crimes that has been chronicled in the police blotter for the last five years.”

“There’s nothing but expense and fatalities that will result if more liquor licenses occur,” she said. “And there’s certainly no monetary benefit to the county by expanding the casino’s ability to get hard liquor to most of the facilities of the casino grounds and gambling floor. This is just the beginning.”

Farr told the Journal she was “very disappointed” with the board majority’s vote. “I was quite concerned to learn from the sheriff during the hearing that the funding for maintaining the current staffing levels of both law enforcement and firefighters in the Valley is forecast to be sharply reduced by the state during this current fiscal year.”

Today's rosy promises become tomorrow's budget cuts.

DOES THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) HOLD INDIAN CASINOS TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS?

The comments below raise pertinent issues about ALCOHOL consumption on Sovereign land.

In Connecticut, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have created comparable situations by allowing intoxicated patrons who have consumed FREE ALCOHOL on the premises to depart, making innocent people targets.
A few entries:
Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods: DUIs
Massachusetts House Speaker DeLeo jeopardizes public safety
Drunks: DeLeo jeopardizes safety of public for Gambling Industry


What we know is:

Drunken Driving Fatalities and Accidents Increase: Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have at least 50% more OUI arrests than any other State Police troop in CT. Drunken driving related fatalities almost doubled in the area during 2009 vs. 2008 because the casino revenue to the state decreased leading to budget cuts in police force.

Before “Happy Hours” were outlawed in Massachusetts in 1984, there were 411 drunken driving related fatalities compared to only 151 in 2008.

Casinos in Massachusetts will have Happy Hours 24/7/365!!!



Or the case in New Mexico:
Sovereignty as Protection from consequences

Shouldn't we be asking why Tribal Slot Barns are held to a different standard? If your family member were killed by a drunken patron of a Tribal Slot Barn, wouldn't you be asking?

DOES THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) HOLD INDIAN CASINOS TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS?
By Kathy Cleary, Guest Columnist

On July 5, the Board of Supervisors will be discussing the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indian’s application for expansion of alcohol sales at the Chumash Casino and Resort. Last year the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) granted a temporary permit for this expansion, allowing the expansion of alcohol sales while they reviewed the protests filed by the public, sheriff and Board of Supervisors.

There have been numerous oddities about this ABC review process. First of all, I found out that the Sheriff’s Department had not been sending the ABC alcohol and drug arrest reports, as was required by law. I informed the sheriff and the ABC. They now state that this has been corrected and ABC is receiving arrest reports.

Secondly, there was a “miscommunication” between the county’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and an ABC investigator, who told me that the sheriff and CEO had dropped their protests. When I asked Supervisor Doreen Farr, she said this was not her understanding. The ABC investigator disagreed with Supervisor Farr and told me that I needed to contact the sheriff and CEO to find out if they dropped their protests. I did this and later received an email from the ABC investigator saying there was a miscommunication; he should have said it was anticipated that they were going to drop their protests.

He also said it appeared that the ABC would approve this permit. When questioned about how this permit could be approved given more than 1,400 arrest reports, he explained that although there are hundreds of documented incidences of alcohol and drug -related crimes, the licensee (Santa Ynez Band) can only be held accountable for incidences related to the licensed portions of the facilities. In other words, the hundreds of drug deals and drunken arrests made in the parking lot, or in the casino or hotel, may have been because casinos draw drug dealers and users and drunks, versus there being a problem with the Willows Restaurant or other licensed areas that sell alcohol. (To see the crime reports, go to: http://www.santaynezvalleyjournal.com/archive/9/14/8170/.)

I then requested full copies of a sampling of police reports. After reading these reports, it appeared to me that the police may not be attempting, or be able to uncover where the drunk got drunk. After reviewing these reports, it is not surprising that this could be difficult. For example, in one report a female and male patron were involved – the following is from the report: The male kicked a casino sliding door, then said to casino security, “You want to fight me?” Then, “they all went to the ground,” security ended up “scratched in the process,” the female patron’s behavior “was rapidly escalating and becoming violent in nature,” she was placed in the patrol car, the male patron and security then “locked up and went to the ground,” and when on the ground the patron “bit security on the left side of his mid-section.” The wound “was approximately 1.5 inches in diameter...and was red and open.” In addition, the security guard “received scratches on his neck.” While this was happening, the deputy was having difficulty with the female patron in his patrol car, who was “kicking the windows of the squad car with her feet.”

This is just one example. Given the nature of the arrest reports that includes alcohol, heroin and guns, among many other things, this is obviously a complicated situation.

Another recent call to a different ABC investigator confirmed that the licensee (Santa Ynez Band) could only be held accountable for the licensed location, and not people who had arrived drunk or drugged up, or had been partying it up in the hotel, parking lot, restrooms or bushes for that matter. The investigator said that he did not know if the police had any mechanism to determine where the drunk got drunk.

This brings up a number of questions: It appears that determining where a drunk gets drunk is virtually impossible at the Chumash Casino and Resort because of its size. If this review of alcohol expansion is really an honest attempt to protect the public health, welfare, safety and morality, how is this going to be corrected? 1. The Sheriff’s Department is already stretched to the limit. Do they have the manpower hours to track down where a drunk gets drunk?

2. The Chumash Casino and Resort is absolutely not motivated to track this down, as it would jeopardize their license. Would this impede any attempts of getting this information?

3. Why didn’t the ABC figure out the police were not sending the crime reports, and the virtual impossibility of determining where the drunk gets drunk? Is this just a shuffling of paper, as it appears to be? In this case is the ABC doing anything really meaningful?

4. If patrons arrived drunk to the wine-tasting rooms, or partied it up in the parking lot, and the police were called and those patrons were arrested for drunkenness, and this happened hundreds of times, I think it is safe to say that the ABC couldn’t care less if they arrived drunk. They would shut down that wine-tasting room, and maybe all of them. However, the Chumash Casino and Resort owners are not held accountable for drunken behavior and arrests. Is the casino being held to different standards because it is an Indian casino? When is a non-Indian business owner going to notice the different standards and claim discrimination? 5. If the ABC is not overseeing the non-licensed portions of the casino and resort, who is?

Kathy Cleary is president of Preservation of Los Olivos, P.O.L.O., a grass-roots citizens’ group. Visit www.polosyv.org


CRIME ON LAND IN FEDERAL TRUST
By SYVJ Staff

Land held in federal "trust" for a tribal government, and the businesses and activity on land in trust, function outside local and state jurisdiction, and taxation rules, applicable to all other Americans. Decision making by government entities regarding businesses and activity on land in trust appears to be different. The United States Constitution does not apply on land in federal "trust." Tribal governments have their own tribal constitutions. Communities are being harmed by tribal governments that impact them, but these tribal governments have no accountability to them. Casino tribal governments are often very aggressive in expansion of land and authority.

The following crime reports document quantity and the type of crime that occurs on land held in federal "trust." In one example of different decision making for businesses on land in trust, the Alcoholic Beverage Control (having been provided with these crime reports) is moving forward with expansion of alcohol sales at the Chumash Casino. In addition, the Sheriff's Department has chosen to do no investigations (other than responding and writing the reports). Any other business with this level of criminal activity would, in all likelihood, not have been allowed to expand sales of alcohol, and possibly would have been penalized and/or shut down.

Below please find copies of reports written on land in trust at the Chumash Casino and Resort.

Click on Chumash Crime Report Introduction, 5 pages link to view as pdf

Click on Chumash Crime Report for January 2011, 13 pages link to view as pdf

Click on Chumash Crime Report for 2010, 157 pages link to view as pdf

[There is an extensive list of Crime Reports. Click on LINK to review them all.]