Tribe Violates Public Trust

by Doug George-Kanentiio

There is a growing sense of frustration with the St. Regis Tribe over the giving of public money to immediate relatives of one of the tribal trustees.

Given that the Tribe is a corporate entity created by an act of the New York State Legislature in 1892 under a set of laws referred to as Article 8 it is therefore subject to State law. This was affirmed when the Legislature enacted Section 114 of the Indian Laws which established the St. Regis Tribal Police but only after tribal officials surrendered whatever questionable elements of “sovereignty” it had by virtue of this part of that law:

“The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe hereby waives its sovereign immunity from liability and action in New York state and federal courts, and hereby assumes liability and consents to have the same determined in accordance with the same rules of law as applied to actions against municipalities of the state of New York; provided that this waiver applies to liability for acts or omissions of officers appointed under subdivision two of this section...”

This means that all tribal officials, from the trustees (‘chiefs”) to the program managers and the police officers are bound to abide by all relevant State laws regarding their actions as officials under State jurisdiction. They must adhere to the State laws regarding nepotism, corruption, ethics and conflict of interest as codified under New York State Public Officers Law Article 4 sec. 74, subsection (3) and (f). In essence, that law affirms the rule against any official engaging in any act which in any way creates the impression or the suspicion among the people that he or she engaged in any conflict which violated the public’s trust.

It is also meant to dissuade all officials from using or attempting to use their position to secure unwarranted privileges or benefits for themselves or their immediate relatives, which might in any way impair their judgment or their objectivity.

It is vital that all tribal officials retain the trust and confidence of those elements among the Akwesasne community from which they draw their limited authority. The mere appearance of favoritism or nepotism is a serious breach of that trust and undermines the confidence and peace of the people who may then withdraw their support by impeachment and criminal prosecution.

In the past month two of the most powerful officials in New York State were sentenced for violating the anti-corruption laws. On May 3 former Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, 72, was slammed with 12 years in prison for taking millions of dollars in bribes. On May 12 former New York State Senate leader Dean Skelos, 68, was given a 5-year prison term after being convicted of extortion, conspiracy and bribery. He used his position to steer contracts to his son Adam Skelos, 33, who received 6 years in jail.

If two of the most influential politicians in New York have been brought to task for taking kickbacks and awarding contracts to their relatives should not tribal officials also be held accountable for their actions? And, if warranted and upon indictment or conviction, should not those same tribal officials either resign or be removed from office?

Recall that the mere suspicion of nepotism and favoritism is cause for investigation. Nothing is more sacred for any public official than to protect and preserve the authority and trust given to them by the people. In all democracies a governing agency is valid only insofar as it does the following according to Stanford University:

“Democracy is a system of government in which a country’s political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections. In a democracy, people have a choice between different candidates and parties who want the power to govern. The people can criticize and replace their elected leaders and representatives if they do not perform well. The people are sovereign—they are the highest authority—and government is based on the will of the people. Elected representatives at the national and local levels must listen to the people and be responsive to their needs.”

Another problem is the giving of any government contract to a convicted felon. The public needs to know if this is the case and which specific laws may have been violated. If there is any doubt then the contract must be either suspended or withdrawn pending a public inquiry. Questions as to oversight, decision and possible undue influence by the tribal council itself has arisen and must be answered until the community is satisfied that no ethical laws were broken. Without this, confidence is lost and the tribal council itself should resign.