Sidney: Rules not applied consistently

By Kathy Helms
Staff Writer

KYKOTSMOVI — Former Hopi Tribal Chairman Ivan Sidney, whose ouster precipitated a special election and subsequent removal of newly elected Chairman Ben Nuvamsa after residency questions surfaced, says tribal council is not applying Hopi rules fairly and consistently.

Sidney took issue with council's announcement Monday that it would break for lunch and then hear from Nuvamsa when it returned. Sitting on a stone wall in the midday sun outside the tribal offices, Sidney said that as soon as Nuvamsa filed a legal complaint against council April 4, representatives were not supposed to talk to him directly.

"That's how the rules are played," he said.

Who talks to whom?
After filing his own complaint in tribal court, "I got a letter from tribal attorneys telling my lawyers, 'Don't go directly to the council people. Come through us.' And we accepted that," Sidney said. "The council can't talk to me; I can't go in there and talk about my case."

Nuvamsa "can't stand up there and use the tribal process" after filing his complaint with Hopi Tribal Court, Sidney said. "It has to be in the process of the courts. It's a mess."

Sidney said he supports those who say their voting rights have been violated, but added that Nuvamsa could bring the political situation that's been created to a halt. "If he doesn't meet the 'lived on' requirement in the Hopi Constitution, he could put a stop to it."

Sidney said the issue of Nuvamsa's residency raises other questions such as, "Where does IRS come in? Where does the state come in? He questioned whether Nuvamsa was getting tax breaks for living on Hopi.

"I would like to see Ben go to every village and say, 'This is why I say I live here.' It's to him to satisfy to the voters. He's rallying behind the voters: 'You violated my rights.' "

Nuvamsa, a former BIA superintendent at the Fort Apache Agency, was removed from there in December 2004 after requesting a Bill of Collection Action from the National Business Center for more than $9.3 million allegedly owed BIA by the White Mountain Apache Tribe.

Following his request, Nuvamsa was reassigned by BIA to the Pima Agency on the Gila River Reservation and is listed in BIA's 2005 directory of leaders as acting superintendent for Pima Agency.

Political quagmire
Jerry Sekayumptewa, Mishongnovi representative, also observed Monday's council session from the audience after being removed by the Kikmongwi following Sekayumptewa's vote to nullify the general election.

Sekayumptewa said, "Mr. Nuvamsa has had many opportunities to come clean with the Hopi people, but he's always skirted around the issues before the council. We all know that he bought a home in Pinetop. That's where his home is, not on the Hopi Reservation. "He claims to live in Hotevilla, where his mother-in-law lives. He claims to live in Shungopovi where his real mother and father live," Sekayumptewa said. "So, we don't know where he actually resides, up to today."

"But the plain fact is that the Constitution requires that in order to run for the chairman or vice chairman that you have to reside on the reservation two years. Now, there's been no change to that requirement.

"Ordinance 34 is subordinate to the Constitution. Whatever residency definitions the Election Ordinance says, can't apply to and overrule the constitutional requirement or criteria. It's been voted on by the Hopi people to be the basis. There's been no referendum to change the Constitution," he said.

According to Sidney, "This whole issue is beginning to become a political quagmire. Haven't we learned? Hasn't the council learned to address things in a process?"

In his case, he said, he was charged under the Code of Conduct and there was a procedure in place to address the matter, and he and his attorneys were following that process.

"Then a large group came, like today, and influenced the council to change everything. Basically, the group here today is the group that had me charged under the Constitution.

"I still have my court case. It hasn't been heard yet," Sidney said.

Two other representatives also have cases pending. "So how is this guy able to have his heard and we haven't?"

What this tells him is that three months ago, council should have said, "This is still in court. It hasn't been resolved, so maybe we shouldn't go on with the election yet," Sidney said.

Literally speaking
The three-time chairman said he goes by the literal interpretation of the Constitution and that is where his opinion may differ from others. "We're reading a lot of things into it that isn't there. The Constitution, for one, doesn't speak about residency. It speaks about 'lived on.'

"And if you go beyond that, there's a traditional interpretation of why you have to live here, physically, 24-7, because this involves more than just having a summer home. I accept the Constitution for what it is and that I'm removed," Sidney said.

According to the Constitution, council has the duty to be the ultimate authority, ensuring that the process is in place, including the constitutional rights of people, he said.

"That's what my case is about — not questioning the authority of the council. You're supposed to consider the United States' Constitution pertaining to my rights as an individual. ... I'm beginning to see two different types of interpretation," he said.

Sekayumptewa said that as far the authority of the tribal council to nullify a primary or general election, precedent was set in 1993 when the tribal council nullified a primary election.

"The authority under the Constitution clearly gives the tribal council the power to review any action of the committee or office that we delegate our authority to.

"In this case, we delegated to the Election Board the authority to carry out a fair and impartial election. We didn't delegate to the Election Board the authority to interpret or to change the meaning of the Constitution," he said.