Navajo Council drags feet on gaming credit

By John Christian Hopkins
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — A feisty Navajo Nation Council wrestled with the question of a $100 million line of credit Friday, finally pinning its hopes on more talk. They voted 56-8 to continue with the legislation and then by a narrow eight-vote margin to remand the measure back to Budget & Finance for more review.

The $100 million line of credit from JP Morgan Chase would be to establish gaming on the reservation.

But Delegate Pete Ken Atcitty questioned the legislation since its primary sponsor — Delegate Charles Damon — removed his sponsorship after questions of conflicts of interest were aired.

While Damon can remove his name, he can’t yank the whole legislation off the table, Chief Legislative Counsel Ray Etcitty said.

“All these co-sponsors are required to withdraw it,” Etcitty said.

“Where exactly in the code or floor rules that cites this?” Atcitty asked.

“Title 2 of the Nation’s codes addresses sponsorship of legislation — but there is nothing that specifically mentions a primary sponsor,” Etcitty said. He based his opinion of past precedence of the Council, he added.

If it does not say a primary sponsor can withdraw the entire bill, then it also doesn’t say that he can’t, Delegate Hope MacDonald-Lonetree said.

Delegate Ervin M. Keeswood questioned the validity of Etcitty’s opinion in deciding past precedence.

“This is a gray area,” Keeswood said.

The Ethics & Rules Committee debated this very same issue and voted to pass the legislation on despite

Damon’s withdrawal, Speaker Lawrence T. Morgan said.
Voting to delete the legislation based on Damon’s action could open a new door, Etcitty warned.

“If you withdraw it, then a delegate could delete legislation he doesn’t pass by signing on as a co-sponsor and then withdrawing the entire legislation,” Etcitty said.

His decision to let the bill proceed was based on a similar situation that arose about a year ago over a Navajo-Hopi bill, Etcitty said. The primary sponsor, Leslie Dele, withdrew his sponsorship, but Council continued on with the measure, Etcitty recalled.

But Delegate Katherine Benally recalled that incident differently. She said when Dele withdrew his sponsorship, the co-sponsor — former Delegate Duane Tsinigine — had to take the bill back through the entire legislative process.

“Since the prime sponsor withdrew the legislation, we are under the assumption that there is no document,” Keeswood said.

“I’m getting the impression that it carries on,” the speaker said.

When gray areas arise, the Council has always gone with past precedence, Delegate George Arthur said.

Delegate Raymond Maxx said he was the one who withdrew his sponsorship of the Navajo-Hopi bill, not Dele. He also said that there is procedure to follow when withdrawing legislation.

“You fill out a form to withdraw it,” Maxx said. “There is nothing attached to this document.”

After nearly an hour of wrangling, Council voted 56-8 to continue with the legislation.

Many of the questions delegates had were answered at Thursday’s special work session, said Derrick Watchman, a vice president for JP Morgan Chase. For loans of this size, banks often reserve the right to sell off portions of the loan to lessen its risk, he explained.

Some delegates had questioned whether tribal land could be taken if the Nation defaults on the loan.

“The terms and conditions do not include tribal trust lands,” Navajo Attorney General Louis Denetsosie said.

Because the loan agreement mentions “applicable laws,” Delegate Leonard Tsosie was worried that that would open the door for the state to try to enforce its laws on Navajo land.

The state is not mentioned in the agreement, Etcitty said. Only federal and tribal laws would apply, he added.

“Who does the legislative counsel represent?” MacDonald-Lonetree asked.

“I serve at the pleasure of the Council,” Etcitty replied. “I was asked a question by a delegate, a client.”

“Mr. Speaker, if you would, get a handle on this,” Keeswood cut in.

Council is just wasting time, Maxx said.

“A lot of these points and questions were what led to the work session; we’re going on like we didn’t have a work session,” Maxx said. “Let’s clean the slate and move forward.”

This whole matter needs to be referred back to the Budget & Finance Committee for more review, Keeswood said. He also said two representatives from each agency caucus should also be included in the discussions. B & F would be required to bring the bill back before Council within 60 days, Keeswood said.

The legislation was referred to B & F by a 39-31 margin.

John Christian Hopkins can be reached at hopkins1960@hotmail.com