Spilyay Tymoo, Warm Springs, Oregon
January 4, 2017
Page 3
Agreement: tribes,
state agree on
cannabis project
Jayson Smith/Spilyay
The drum at the Miss Warm Springs Pageant.
Timber Co.: Council okays through 2017
(Continued from page 1)
Instead, the legal recourse
is limited to the LLC itself.
The Timber Company
appears to be the first LLC
of the Confederated Tribes,
Hamstreet said.
The Tribal Council agreed
to form the company last
year, after Warm Springs
Forest Products Industries
became insolvent. At the
time, around late spring of
last year, the WSFPI insol-
vency meant that some of
the timber resources—tim-
ber on the ground in the for-
est, for example—were in
jeopardy of going to waste.
It was also important to
go ahead with already-
planned timber sales, be-
cause the 2016 tribal budget
anticipated some of this rev-
enue.
The LLC was the choice
to move forward, and the
company was successful in
making sales; although wait-
ing for an approval from
the BIA, some of the logs
on the ground were lost to
bug infestation.
Still, the company as a
start-up had a successful
year. At first there was a
matter of re-establishing the
credibility of the tribal tim-
ber sales, as fallout from the
WSFPI insolvency created
doubt among major players
in the regional market,
Hamstreet said. The good
reputation has since been
restored, he said.
The Timber LLC will be
the sole purchaser of tribal
timber in 2017, with the ex-
ception of one sale of about
6 million board feet. This
sale will go directly to a com-
pany that will harvest and
haul the logs. This will be
used as a test, to compare
benefits to the tribes of the
two approaches.
Meanwhile, the reserva-
tion timber allowable cut is
set at 25 million board feet.
In addition, there are about
11 million board feet from
2016 that were not har-
vested, and this timber will
be added to the 2017 inven-
tory.
Earlier in December,
when the Tribal Council con-
sidered continuing the Tim-
ber Co. in 2017, the vote on
the resolution was 3-0-6:
There were three in favor,
no one against, three abstains
plus three out of the room.
The result of this was un-
clear. Rather than debate the
question, Council decided to
read the resolution again and
have a re-vote.
This time it passed 6-2-0.
Councilman Ron Suppah
supported the resolution, but
nevertheless said he was con-
cerned that the BIA agency
superintendent had not been
present at these meetings re-
garding timber sales.
The BIA has a trust and
fiduciary duty regarding the
resource, and proceeding
with no BIA representative
is concerning, Councilman
Suppah said.
At the time of these meet-
ings, the BIA Warm Springs
Agency had no permanent
superintendent.
(Continued from page 1)
The state has no regulatory
jurisdiction on the reserva-
tion, and therefore cannot
impose regulation on tribal
cannabis production on-res-
ervation.
At the same time, the state
through the OLCC deter-
mines the products that are
allowed to be sold at cannabis
stores in Oregon.
So in order to have a vi-
able enterprise on the reser-
vation, the tribes and state
need an agreement allowing
the tribes access to the Or-
egon market. At the same
time, the sovereignty of the
tribes is to be respected.
To accomplish this, the
tribes’ Cannabis Commission
will be the regulatory body
for production on the reser-
vation.
The commission will en-
sure that the product meets
the state standards, including
aspects such as allowable fer-
tilizer and solvents, for ex-
ample.
When the tribal product
meets the state standards, the
tribes can then export the
particular shipment from the
reservation to the state mar-
ket. There is no plan for
sales on the reservation.
The inter-government
agreement includes provisions
regarding a scenario in which
the tribal product does not
meet the state standards. In
this case the state would be
able to prohibit, or embargo
the product from the state
market.
If this happens, the Can-
nabis Commission would
work with the OLCC on re-
solving the matter. An em-
bargo scenario would most
likely be mutually agreed
upon between the tribal and
state regulatory bodies, Ellen
Grover said.
The inter-government
agreement envisions a coop-
erative approach, which the
tribes have taken with both
the state and federal govern-
ment on this issue.
There is a dispute resolu-
tion process set out in the in-
ter-government agreement, in
case the Cannabis Commis-
sion and OLCC do not come
to a mutual agreement.
In an unlikely and worst
case scenario, an irreconcil-
able disagreement would end
up in state court in Marion
County. This was a point of
concern for Tribal Council-
man Jody Calica: The state at
times has been at odds with
the tribes, he said, in matters
such as fisheries and hunting,
and even the null and void
“treaty of 1865.”
The tribes’ legal counsel
said she would bring up the
matter with the state counsel,
in order to clarify this point
as to tribal sovereignty.
The inter-governmental
agreement is for a term of
ten years, with an automatic
renewal possible for another
ten years.
The tribal membership in
late 2015 passed the cannabis
referendum with more than
86 percent of the voters say-
ing yes. The referendum also
saw the largest turnout of
voters, for a referendum, in
tribal history.
Meanwhile, Ventures is in
the process of hiring an ex-
ecutive director of the can-
nabis enterprise.
Court issues big decision in Indian Child Welfare Act case
The Indian Child Welfare
Acts was passed by Congress
in 1978.
The Act is a federal law
that seeks to keep Ameri-
can Indian children with
Native families.
Congress passed ICWA
in 1978 in response to the
alarmingly high number of
Indian children being re-
moved from their homes by
both public and private
agencies.
The intent of Congress
under ICWA was to “pro-
tect the best interests of
Indian children and to pro-
mote the stability and secu-
rity of Indian tribes and
families.”
ICWA sets federal re-
quirements that apply to
state child custody proceed-
ings involving an Indian child
who is a member of or eli-
gible for membership in a
federally recognized tribe.
Over the years the act has
been misinterpreted or ig-
nored by local courts while
dealing with Indian parents
and their children.
After several years of
fighting with the Rapid City,
South Dakota, court system
to enforce the ICWA, attor-
ney Dana Hanna received
judgement from Chief Fed-
eral Judge Jeffery L. Viken
in the U. S. District Court.
The case that finally
reached the conclusion was
known as “Oglala Sioux
Tribe, and Rosebud Sioux
Tribe to protect the rights of
Madonna Pappan, and Lisa
Young, individually and on
behalf of all other persons
similarly situated.”
Plaintiffs
Madonna
Pappan and Lisa Young live
in Pennington County and
are member of the Oglala
Sioux Tribe and the Stand-
ing Rock Sioux Tribe.
The court classified them
as class representatives for
all similarly situated Indian
parents.
In a March 2015 court
order the judge found the
defendants had violated the
plaintiff ’s due process rights
under the 14th Amendment
during the course of the 48-
hour hearings. Among the
findings:
The defendants failed to
appoint counsel in advance
of the 48-hour hearing.
They failed to provide no-
tice of the claims against In-
dian parents, the issues to be
resolved and the state’s bur-
den of proof, and denied the
plaintiff ’s the right to cross-
examine adverse witnesses.
They denied Indian parents
or custodians the right to
present evidence in their
own defense, and removed
Indian children on grounds
not based on evidence pre-
sented in the hearing.
The December, 2016 or-
der applied a permanent in-
junction on the defendants,
stating that in their official
capacities they are “hereby
immediately and perma-
nently restrained and en-
joined from engaging in the
following activities:
Violating the constitutional
rights of plaintiffs guaranteed
by the Due Process Clause
of the 14th Amendment;
Violating the statutory
rights of the plaintiffs guar-
anteed by the ICWA and par-
ticularly those rights guaran-
teed by 25 U. S. C. s 1922 et
seq, and
Violating the constitutional
and statutory rights of the
plaintiffs as set out in the
Declaratory Judgement en-
tered on Dec. 15.