The Star - News, views and advertising of the Grand Coulee Dam Area

I have been bombarded with a litany of Facebook posts, copies of letters to the editor from the Tribal Tribune and the Star newspaper, and telephone calls/texts regarding a handful of supporters of a self-proclaimed “victim” currently serving on the Colville Business Council. I have heard many concerns regarding the misinformation, untruths, and failed logic presented by these supporters, and also concerns about the authoritative tone which these untruths have been presented and the effect that may have on the average person reading these “facts.”

It may be important to note that I, too, am an attorney. I am also a criminal that is on probation. I have sat in the lecture halls of law school and in jail cells. I’m sure that many people will want to discredit what I have to say because of my imperfections, and I can understand and appreciate that. It gives me great comfort knowing that such people, free from imperfections and mistakes, exist in our community. I also take comfort in knowing that such people, in being worthy of making proclamations regarding justice and fairness, will do so blindly, equally discrediting their children, parents, siblings, friends, and others who have also made mistakes in their lives. Heck, it may even occur to them that they, too, have erred, and they may find that their own opinions are suspect. In any event, if you are one of the few (or many) that question my character, feel free to move on to the next letter and never give this one a second thought. If you are one of those of us who are not so fortunate to be perfect, you are amongst friends and should feel free to read on if you are so inclined. Hopefully, those of us who can will think about something.

First off, this is not a gender issue. Nothing about the ethics charges, the process, the general disliking of the individual, the desire to hold the person accountable for their actions, or the inability of that person to work and get along with others in the workplace has anything to do with gender, despite the misappropriation of a few concepts and catch phrases heard in an undergraduate gender studies course. The attempts to draw sympathy based on gender and “victimization” are a tactic to steer intellectually lethargic people away from the facts and should be met with rancor, as there are real victims in our society and real situations where gender inequality exist. This isn’t it. Anyone who tries to use real issues to give this issue an iota of legitimacy should be ashamed, and anyone who is fed such trivialization and chooses to swallow it should learn how to self-administer the Heimlich maneuver so they don’t die choking on it. It’s gross.

Secondly, in one letter in particular, there is a lot of talk about “rights” and deprivations of those rights in handling the ethics charges that were filed against this councilperson. This line of propaganda, too, has a high likelihood of obstructing one’s trachea. Most of the “rights” jabbered about are rights that are ensured to people when they are accused of criminal acts (i.e. the rights related to unlawful searches and seizures; the right to not be tried twice for the same offense; to not be a witness against oneself; the right to a speedy and public trial; the right against excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments; the right to a jury trial; and, ironically given the author, the right to be represented by counsel). Given the time and attention to these “rights,” the only logical conclusion one can make is that the councilperson is accused of violating a criminal statute — otherwise, those “rights” are not rights at all, but rather a red herring being violently shaken in the face of the unsuspecting reader. Do you welcome being tricked into supporting an issue by being fed emotionalized information that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual matter at hand? Me neither.

Once stripped of all of the inapplicable distractions, very little is left to process, so let’s get to that.

Tribal law is not “sacred,” as is being asserted. Tribal law is law. It changes frequently, and is done and undone with some regularity. Even the Tribal Constitution, which is at its core a document lifted from the Federal government, has been changed many times. Anyone who thinks that law is sacred has not experienced sacred things, and probably should reconsider using those two syllables until such time as sacredness is experienced.

Speaking of the Constitution, a glance at Article II Section 7 informs the membership that the Council “shall be the sole judge of the qualifications of its members.” Article IV Section 2 says that a Councilperson can be expelled by majority vote. The membership can recall members of the Council, as well.

It is claimed that the original complaint was not in writing and was not notarized, both of which are required. That sounds simple, right? Let’s take a look at the code, Colville Tribal Code (CTC) § 1-8. Wait. The Code (§ 1-8-30) says that complaints “must be written, signed under oath and directed to the Chair of the Rules Committee.” There is not a requirement that any such complaint be notarized. Let me repeat that for you — the complaint does not need to be notarized. While I am not aware of a Tribal Code provision on this subject, even if one were to rely on State law (see RCW 5.28.010), a Notary is not required. If the Tribes have retained the right to make their own laws and be governed by them, I’m not sure how any one person can say, with any authority, that a notarized statement is required for the filing of an ethics complaint. If one needs to lie about something like whether or not a complaint needs to be notarized, what else — what thing that actually matters — is being lied about, too?

There have been allegations of “bootstrapping” a later complaint, and all sorts of rhetoric about how that was illegal. There is a real problem with the reasoning being offered, though. The argument made is that the “first” complaint was not valid (while we already know we were lied to about that, let’s assume that the other part of that claim, that the complaint wasn’t in writing, to be true). If the complaint was not valid, then there is no first complaint, there is only a second complaint, which is the first complaint. Then it is stated that there were no facts alleged in that complaint. If there was no first complaint, and the second complaint wasn’t a complaint, then what the heck are we even reading about, here? There must have been some complaint, some statement of some allegation, to get us to the point of having this discussion. Red herring alert: It is worth noting here that there is a line of argument about “standing,” and while I’m glad everyone made it to Civil Procedure class that day in law school, there is no “standing” requirement regarding being the injured party in CTC § 1-8-30, and the argument just simply does not apply to the discussion at all, but it sounds good.

It has also been stated that the complaint must be dismissed under §1-8-30 (c). Fair enough. Looking at the code, however, indicates that this decision is at the sole discretion of the Rules Committee Chair. Once that determination is made, if things go forward, they go forward. Whatever process the Chair decides to use in making that determination appears to be the prerogative of the Chair. If that determination is incorrect, there are several opportunities for the Committee as a whole to correct that determination, including dismissing the matter at the investigative hearing. In this case, the Committee chose to move forward with expulsion.

It is next alleged that there wasn’t proper notice given. This point may actually be correct, and if true, could be construed by the Committee as a jurisdictional barrier to hearing the case. I have not seen the notice or return of service to have an opinion as to whether or not there was a defect in the notice, but what I do know is that if it is true, the Committee apparently exercised its authority as the ultimate

authority and proceeded. Given the defects in logic and distortions of truth presented at this point, I am not willing to blindly accept this assertion.

The allegations regarding the 60-day time frame and restating the “standing” issue is invalid given the previous statements about the “first” complaint and lack of “standing” requirement. The next allegations take us back to the issue of whether or not the Councilperson committed a criminal act. The only time that there is a “right” to be represented is in a criminal matter. Since this is coming from the “defense” attorney, one can only make assumptions regarding these statements of rights.

Next it is alleged that the complainant must present their case. This is patently false. The Code is clear that the Committee has the authority to “prosecute” the case (§1-8-30 (h)(3)). I have personally sat through many hours of closed proceedings with the CBC on ethics issues and never once have I seen a case hinge on the prosecutorial skills of the complainant. In fact, I rarely if ever saw a complainant present at a hearing. This whole line of argument is incorrect.

Then next point is in regards to the Committee members recusing themselves. Any such recusal is at the discretion of each member of the Committee, or possibly the Committee as a whole. Asserting that members are biased and should be recused, while lying to the readership in an effort to direct pressure onto other councilmembers to support this person, is a preposterous double standard. For a general idea of the misapplication of ethical rules, see Gallaher v. Colville Confederated Tribes, 14 CCAR 11 (2018). For those wondering, references to “defense counsel” in that case are referring to the councilperson in question, and whose campaign slogans were, quite ironically, “Had Enough?” and “#teamethics”. Also, there are a number of cases on record with the Colville Tribal Court and Colville Tribal Court of Appeals where this councilperson has sued you, the tribal member, with the Tribes as a defendant, for a variety of claims, and sought money damages … yet always a victim.

Finally, there is a short tirade about the Committee members’ voices not being heard (being outsmarted or outvoted by the majority is hardly evidence of voices not heard … how come the majority vote is not “sacred” when it doesn’t support one’s flawed logic?), the Committee acting outside its lawful authority (thank you, your honor, et. al. PLEASE see the Constitution), a list of Council members who were removed for the equivalent of theft (#teamethics? Maybe it’s not what one knows that is the problem, but what most don’t know), and a condemnation of ORA for doing the job that ORA was established to do (imagine an ORA where the attorneys supplant their own moral judgements over those of their clients, the representatives of the majority of the membership).

“You cannot have a Right without a Remedy.” That’s funny, because, despite all of the claims made in the letter, there isn’t one “right” that the councilperson has that was violated. There is no right to her continued representation through an elected position (I imagine there were some folks yammering when Richard Nixon was impeached and their votes were “stolen,” but I’m sure this is different … at least he had the decency to resign). There are not any rights to representation, to a public trial, or any of the other criminal rights listed, unless of course there was criminal behavior, in which those rights would be applied in Tribal Court. There is not even a right to have a letter full of “facts” published in the newspaper. There are, however, checks and balances built into our system of government. The Rules Committee procedures are indicative of those checks and balances, and the Council’s vote on February 21 will constitute official constitutional action on the matter. The bottom line in this case is that the Rules Committee of the Tribal Government Committee is likely the ultimate authority on this issue (It is unlikely that the Tribal Court system would hear these matters, since there aren’t any rights that have been violated, despite cries to the contrary).

I can with 100% certainty say that the process that unfolded in handling this matter was not perfect. I can say with relative certainty that the law, as written, would be problematic even if it was perfectly executed. I can also say, with the same certainty, that for every person that agrees with any opinion on the issue, there is another that doesn’t agree. That being said, I’m not amenable to being lied to in order to try to gain my support, nor am I into being represented by someone that is totally ineffectual because they are so mean and nasty that nobody wants to work with them (over and over and over). I am not into being represented by somebody that is so incapable of being honest with themselves (let alone others) that they are constantly the “victim”… trivializing real issues like the abuse of women into their own personal, “trump”-ed up plights in order to gain support when sympathy is the only possible attractant because of an absolute absence of truth, influence or substance. Most of all, I find laughable the attempts to bamboozle the populace into feeling victimized in order to garner support — who knew Tokyo Rose was alive and well on the Colville Reservation?

In short, “Bye, Felicia.”

Dana Cleveland

Editor’s note: Although we don’t have a strict rule about letter length, we normally recommend keeping letters to under 500 words. Any further letters on this subject will be held to a 500-word limit. In the interest of fairness, the extraordinary length of this letter was allowed as a rebuttal to two letters last week that together took about the same space.