S ile tz News
Chairman’s Report
Page2
at the point at which they would normally count
the ballots ón March 23, 1998, shall instead
proceed by shredding thè ballots individually
one at a time without counting them and
without inspecting their contents until all ballots
are transformed into shredded paper."/ The
decision in this matter (TC 98-02) is on appeal,
as well as the other related cases (TC 98-01 and
TC 98-03).
I feel very strongly that my actions were
solely motivated by my commitment to assuring
Tribal
that tiie Constitution is upheld and that all tribal
There have been many events that haves/ members are treated fairly. The Tribal Council is
occurred since I was elected Chairman. My first
currently reviewing the Election Ordinance , to
statement as your Chairman was that I will
incorporate detailed procedures for recall
continue to be fair in all my decisions. When I
elections. In the near future, you will be sent the
took my oath of office, I vowed to uphold the
draft ordinance for comments. If you would like
Constitution and to protect the rights of all tribal
further information regarding the court cases,
members. For the past year, as my voting record
please call me.
will show, I have always supported what I feel is
Siletz's new legal counsel deals only with
in the best interest of our Tribe and our
Indian tribes, has nationwide experience
membership.
¿ lU m irm cm s R e p o r t
S H PAT DUNCAN
Important ruling in Tribal Court affects
recall petitions and constitutional
ordinances.
Many of you have wondered why you have
not received this newsletter until now. I had
asked Michelle Batten to wait until there were
decisions in Tribal Court on the recall election so
that you could get complete information on the
issue.
This is the first time in nineteen years that the
Siletz Tribe has been faced with holding a recall
election. A recall election is, by its very nature, a
very politically divisive process. The Tribal
Council felt that it was extremely important that
these recall elections be held in strict adherence
to the Siletz Tribe's Constitution. Against the
Tribal Council's efforts to enact procedures
within a recall ordinance, which is mandated by
the Constitution (Article VII, Section 5) but has
never been enacted, the Election Board sent out
ballots and called for a recall election. Article
VII, Section 3 clearly delegates the authority to
call a recall election to the Tribal Council.
As a neutral party and as your Chairman
charged with protecting the rights of all tribal
members, I requested to view tire petitions to
ascertain whether any of the Election Board
members signed the petitions and to determine
if the Election Board had indeed verified the
signatures of the petitions. Since the Election
Board denied m y request, I petitioned the Tribal
Court. During the hearing held on March 16, it
was determined that at least two of the Election
Board members signed thè petitions, which I
feel was a definite conflict of interest and unfair
to the subjects of the recall petitions and those
who had signed the petitions. During the
hearing, if was also determined that the Election
Board did not verify the minimum number of
signatures required for a recall election to be
held. On March 23, 1998 Judge Andrew Viles
ruled that the Respondent (Siletz Election
Board) "conduct the election scheduled for
March 23, 1998, to the point of counting the
ballots," and'"that Respondent, once they arrive
with native issues.
On March 8,1998 a resolution was passed to
terminate the tribal attorney contract with Craig
Dorsay. I voted in favor of this for several
reasons. Our Tribe has so many diverse issues
that require legal advice that it is impossible for
one attorney to have the expertise in all areas or
the time to devote in assuring that all areas are
reviewed in a timely manner. Another major
reason, I felt, was that past contracts did not
fully protect oùr Tribe's best interests. The most
damaging * cóntract was the Comstock'
consulting agreement which resulted in our
Tribe agreeing to a settlement fee of $3,750,000
With an interest accrual of $372,009 as of
February 22, 1998; this obligation could have
been avoided if the contract had the appropriate
legal provisions in place.
For these reasons, I feel very strongly that we
need the diverse expertise available in a large
firm. I fully support retaining Hobbs, Straus,
Dean & Walker, a well-established law firm
specializing in federal Indian law. We now have
the legal representation to meet the needs of our
Tribe in all areas. And to allay any concerns, the
new legal counsel is paid out of the same
approved budget as was Craig Dorsay.
Established in 1982, Hobbs, Straus, Dean &
Walker provides a full range of legal services to
Indian tribes and Indian or Alaska Native
organizations throughout the United States,
including lobbying, litigation, administrative
agency representation and general counsel
services. The firm has 17 attorneys and three
legislative specialists in three offices
Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C., and
Norman, Oklahoma. Taking the lead in
representing the Tribe are the attorneys based in
Portland:
Geoffrey Strommer, who became a partner in
1997, joined the Portland office in 1992, and is
nowrits resident partner. He represents Indian
clients on a wide range of issues, specializing in
the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act. His Work under that Act
includes negotiating contracts, compacts, and
annual funding agreements with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service,
and bringing administrative appeals. In
addition to Self-Determination issues, Mr.
Strommer assists tribes on a variety of legal
matters, including drafting and revising
constitutions, bylaws and ordinances, and
negotiating contracts with private parties. Mr.
Strommer received his J.D. degree from the
Georgetown University Law Center in 1990, and
his B.A. degree from the University of
California, Berkeley (with distinction) .in 1986.
He is a member of the Arizona and Ofegon bars,
the Federal Bar Association and the Executive
Committee of the Oregon State Bar Indian Law
Section. He is also an adjunct professor of law at
Northwestern School of Law where he co
teaches a course on federal Indian law.
Robert Miller, an enrolled member of the
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, joined the
firm in 1995 following a clerkship with Judge
O'Scannlain of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and three years
practicing commercial law. He represents clients
in federal court litigation and before federal
administrative agencies. Mr. Miller is an adjunct
professor and has taught Indian law courses at
Northwestern School of Law and at various
Oregon colleges sincè 1993. He is ón the Board
of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
and is the current Chair of the Oregon State Bar
In d ian
L aw
S ection.
He
h as
published
num erous articles on Indian law issues in
journals, bar journals and continuing legal
educational materials. Mr. Miller graduated in
1991 magna cum laude from Northwestern
School of Law, Lewis & Clark College. He
received his B.S. degree from Eastern Oregon
State College in 1988. He is a member of the
Oregon bar.
Tohn Lowndes joined the firm in 1994. Since
passage of the Tribal Self-Governance Act in
1994, he has been involved in drafting and
negotiating proposed regulations for the imple
mentation of the Self-Governance program. He
is a member of the technical subcommittee for
the Joint Tribal/BIA Tribal Shares Process
Workgroup to establish an equitable process for
determining the availability, of programs and
funds under thè ISDEAA. He is the author of the
article, "W hen History Outweighs Law:
Extinguishment of Abenaki Aboriginal Title,"
Buffalo Law Review, voi. 42. no. 1 (1994).
Mr. Lowndes received his J.D. (magna cum
laude) from the Washington College of Law,
American University, in 1994. He received his
B.A. from Florida State University in 1988, and
his M.A. from the University of Rorida in 1991.
He is a member o fth e District of Columbia,
Oregon and Florida bars.