Tribal Council in violation of CSKT constitution
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
The following is from Article 9 — referendum of the CSKT Constitution and bylaws:
“Section 1) Upon a petition of at least one-third of the eligible voters of the Confederated Tribes, or upon the request of a majority of the members of the Tribal Council, any enacted or proposed ordinance or resolution of the council shall be submitted to a popular referendum, and the vote of the qualified voters voting in such a referendum shall be conclusive and binding on the Tribal Council, provided that at least 30 percent of the eligible voters shall vote in such election.”
The goal of the People’s Voice Inc. has been — through the CSKT constitutional petition process — to encourage the Tribal Council to put the issue of the payout of the remainder of the Salazar settlement up to a membership vote. The council has been fully aware of the majority of the membership’s desire for this money from the membership’s input at the district meetings beginning in the summer of 2012.
Some 1,400 tribal members signed a petition to the above, which the People’s Voice submitted to the council on Nov. 13, 2012. Chairman Joe Durglo’s response to the petition was to turn it over for legal and technical component review as well as enrollment office review. At this time, it seems that the council should have abstained from any further spending of the Salazar monies pending their review of the petition. (Under CSKT Ordinance 53A, an ordinance establishing rules for formulating and submitting petitions, the Tribal Council has 45 days to determine the validity of the petition. The People’s Voice did not receive a response until 72 days later, violating Section 6 of Ordinance 53A.)
Yet, two days later, during the Tribal Council meeting held on Nov. 15, 2012, the Tribal Council unanimously approved Resolution 13-039 approving a fiscal year budget for the Nez Perce v. Salazar settlement funds, and the tribes committed to a $4 million contribution to the Native American Rights Fund to be paid in three annual installments. The resolution was proposed by Vem Clairmont and Ruth Swaney of the financial management department, per the Char-Koosta News minutes of Dec. 20, 2012, page 2.
It appears that the council deliberately chose to ignore and defy the membership’s petition request before ever determining the validity of the petition by passing a resolution to quickly spend the money as they wished, therefore disregarding the membership’s constitutional right under Article 9 to the petition process. Council, you took an oath when you took office to uphold the CSKT Constitution and bylaws/ordinances.
