Philip H. Tarbell, Kerney Cole, Randy Hart, Cecil Garrow, Glenn Hill, Sr., and Allen White v. Eastern Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 50 IBIA 219 (2009)
Interior Board of Indian Appeals
Linked as:Extract
Philip H. Tarbell, Kerney Cole, Randy Hart, Cecil Garrow, Glenn Hill, Sr., and Allen White v. Eastern Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 50 IBIA 219 (2009)
INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS Philip H. Tarbell, Kerney Cole, Randy Hart, Cecil Garrow, Glenn Hill, Sr., and Allen White v. Eastern Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs 50 IBIA 219 (09/17/2009)
United States Department of the InteriorOFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS 801 NORTH QUINCY STREET SUITE 300 ARLINGTON, VA 22203PHILIP H. TARBELL, KERNEY COLE, RANDY HART, CECIL GARROW, GLENN HILL, SR., AND ALLEN WHITE, Appellants, v. EASTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Appellee.Order Affirming DecisionDocket No. IBIA 08-29-ASeptember 17, 2009Philip H. Tarbell, as Chief Executive Officer (CEO); Kerney Cole, as Vice-CEO; and Randy Hart, Cecil Garrow, Glenn Hill, Sr., and Allen White, as Legislators of the current Constitutional Government (Appellants1), have appealed an October 31, 2007, "Determination of the Governmental Body of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe with whom the Bureau of Indian Affairs Shall Conduct its Government-to-Government Relations" (Decision) issued by the Eastern Regional Director (Regional Director), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In the Decision, the Regional Director recognized the Traditional Three Chief Government (Three Chiefs), rather than the Constitutional Government, as the governmental body of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (Tribe), with whom BIA would conduct government-to-government relations. Appellants, who allegedly were the last elected governmental officials under the Constitutional Government,2 challenge the Regional Director's determination that the Tribe has chosen to be governed by the traditional form of government comprised of a council of1responsibility to determine whether or not a tribe's interpretations of its own laws were reasonable. Id. at 150-52. Turning to the key issue of the adoption of the Constitution, the court first pointed out that BIA was obligated to abide by the clear meaning of statutory language if such language was plainly stated. Id. at 151. The court then determined that the 51 percent requirement set out in the Constitution for its adoption was unambiguous and established a clear and plain electoral benchmark for measuring whether the Constitution had been approved, a benchmark that undisputedly had not been attained. The judge faulted the in...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
