SILETZ ïBlBAL CÔÜfit CÂS'È WÔ. TC04-02
In the Tribal Court of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon
In the matter of: Alfred Lane III, Petitioner, v. The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Tribal Council, Respondent
Case No. TC04-02
Findings of Fact, Opinion, and Judgment
This matter came before the Court
for hearing on March 6, 2004, before
Chief Judge Calvin Gantenbein.
Petitioner, Bud Lane, represented
himself, and the Respondents were
represented by attorney, Craig Dorsay.
These Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Judgment are entered
pursuant to § 3.46 of the Siletz Tribal
Court Rules of Procedure.
Witnesses
The Court heard testimony from the
following witnesses: Edmond Ben,
Mary Fisher, Elouise Case, Douglas
Brown, Lillie Butler, Reggie Butler,
Jessie Davis, Jane John, Dave Hatch,
Rosemary Landis, and Delores Pigsley.
Plaintiff’s Exhibits
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
U.S. Supreme Court Case and
Cover Letter
Affidavit of Frank Simmons
Affidavit of Phil Rilatos and Letter
Employee Evaluation for Allied Lane
Certification of Election
Resolution #14
Resolution #15
Resolution #18
Resolution #19
Resolution #22
Minutes of Tribal Council Meeting
of01/16/04
Respondent’s Exhibits
1. U.S. Code Collection
2. Minielly v State of Oregon et al
3. Briggs v Merit Systems Protection
Board
4. Merle v U.S.
5. Historical Tribal Council Documents
6. Document signed by Edmond Ben
7. Florence Griggs Questionnaire
8. Meeting Minutes of 03/29/82
Relevant Laws
Siletz Tribal Constitution
Article II - Rights of Members
Section 1. Individual Rights
Each duly enrolled member of
the Confederated Tribes of Siletz
6
□
Siletz News
□
Indians of Oregon shall have the
following rights:
The right to equal opportunity to
participate in the economic resources
and activities of the Confederated
Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon.
Article IV - Branches of
Government
Section 1. Councils
The Tribal Council is empowered
to exercise all legislative authority ex
cept that vested in the General Council.
Article VI - Elections
Section 3. Tribal Council Election
Candidates for Tribal Council must
be duly enrolled members of the
confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of
Oregon who will be at least eighteen
(18) years of age on the date of election
and who have never been expelled in
accordance with Article VII, Section 4.
Indian Civil Rights Act
In 1968, The Indian Civil Rights
Act was passed under 25 U.S.C. § 1302.
The relevant section of this Act is:
No Indian tribe in exercising
powers of self-government shall -
(1 ) make or enforce any law
prohibiting the free exercise of
religion, or abridging the freedom
of speech ...
Tribal Ordinances and
Policies
The__ Tribal__ Council Ethics
Ordinance, Section 3.006, (d) states that
a tribal employee who has been elected
to the Tribal Council “shall be deemed
to automatically terminate his/her
employment with Tribal government...”
The Personnel Manual of the Siletz
Tribe, Section 1.604.9 states that a tribal
employee who has been elected to the
Tribal Council “shall be deemed to
automatically terminate his/her em
ployment with Tribal government...”
The Annual Plan of Operations
Manual of the Tribe, Section 416.11
May 2004
states that a tribal employee who has
been elected to the Tribal Council
“must automatically terminate his/her
employment with the Tribal govern
ment ...”
The Tribal Election Ordinance,
Section 2.49 states, “A tribal employee
who is elected to the Tribal Council will
cease working for tribal government
automatically upon taking office.”
Procedural and Legal History
On March 29, 1982, the Tribal
Council enacted a new section to the
Election Ordinance, which stated, “No
tribal member shall serve simultane
ously as a member of the Tribal Council
and as a tribal employee. A tribal
employee who is elected to the Tribal
Council will cease working for tribal
government automatically.”
This prohibition against being an
employee of the tribe and being an
elected Tribal Council member has
been perpetuated and is currently found
throughout the Siletz Tribal ordinances
and manuals.
Alfred Lane is an enrolled member
and is employed by the Confederated
Tribes of Siletz Indians in the Culture
Department as a Traditional Arts and
Language instructor. On February 7,
2004, Mr. Lane was elected to the Tribal
Council and immediately filed for a
Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the tribe from terminating his
employment pending the outcome of
this case.
Issues
1) Are the ordinances and policies
adopted by the Tribal Council
requiring an employee to terminate
his employment upon being
elected, constitutional?
2) Did the Tribal Council have the
authority under the Constitution to
set an additional qualification/
restriction upon being elected to the
Tribal Council?
and the authors were drafting the
Constitution, they considered the issue
of employees being elected officials.
However, they did not propose or adopt
any prohibition when the General
Council adopted the Constitution on
June 13, 1979.
The prohibition was first discussed
by the Tribal Council on March 16,
1982, and formally adopted on March
29, 1982, in the Election Ordinance.
This general restriction has continued
without interruption or challenge since,
and has been embraced in other
ordinances and resolutions.
Prior to trial on these issues, Mr.
Lane went before the Tribal Council
and requested that these ordinances,
resolutions, and policies be rescinded.
The Tribal Council in split votes denied
his request. The vote was 5 to 4 in favor
of rescission of the prohibitions;
however, a 2/3 majority was required
for passage.
On February 9, 2004, the Tribal
Council passed Resolution 2004-032 in
which the secretary of interior was
requested to hold a general election to
amend the Constitution to “prohibit
elected or appointed Tribal Council
members from being an employee of
the tribe.” This general election will
take place some time in the future.
Mr. Lane argues that to require him
to lose his tribal job in order to be an
elected Tribal Council member is a
violation of the Constitution. He further
argues that the tribe has ethics codes
and ordinances, which would eliminate
any of the conflict considerations that
the prohibitions were intended to cure.
The tribe argued that the Tribal
Council had the authority to enact the
laws. They feel that the longevity of the
prohibitions attests to their validity.
They further argue that the laws were
made to prevent conflicts of interest
and that there would be inherent friction
by an employee also being on the
council. Lastly, they argue that the
Findings of Fact
The facts of this case are not in
dispute. When the tribe was restored
See Court Case on page 7.