Council reduction to be mulled
on June 23

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — Negotiators will meet again June 23 to discuss settling a proposed reduction of the Navajo Nation Council, Frank Seanez, acting legislative council, said.

Seanez updated the Intergovernmental Relations Committee Monday on two petitions filed by President Joe Shirley Jr., which would slash the number of delegates from 88 to 24, and also give the president the power of line-item veto.

Seanez said the parties met Thursday and that following the meeting decided to have further discussions on the settlement and ask the hearing officer, John Chapela, not to issue the decision due Friday. Chapela agreed.

Seanez issued a letter Monday to Navajo Nation Council delegates relative to the June 12 letter from Speaker Lawrence Morgan’s attorney, Steven Boos, to Chapela, asking the hearing officer to hold in abeyance his decision on the motion to dismiss objections filed by Shirley, saying, “the parties feel that this action would be beneficial to settlement discussions.”

Boos said Shirley’s attorney, former Navajo Nation President Albert Hale, concurred with the request on behalf of his client.

“The parties have scheduled a second settlement discussion for June 23, 2008, and will contact you again after that meeting to let you know whether your decision should issue or continue to be held in abeyance,” Boos stated in his letter to Chapela.

Seanez said Council also has a work session June 23 but that he believes the settlement discussion will happen either before or after that. “Following that meeting the parties will let me know whether they're requesting the decision be held in abeyance for a further period of time.”

Regarding the delay, Seanez said, “I haven't seen an order from the hearing officer on this matter. Just like many of you, I read about it in the weekend paper, and in that article in the weekend paper, to the extent that it is accurate, it states that the hearing officer says that he will hold off issuing any decision until June 30.

“I understand that there are further attempts to have further meetings to resolve this matter and perhaps come to a common understanding relative to the path of Navajo Nation government reform. I don't know whether that will be a successful effort. A lot of it will depend, of course, on the willingness of all of the involved parties.”

Seanez said Chapela’s June 13 decision would not have been the final one on the matter but would have determined whether the hearing officer was going to proceed with hearing objections at that time or whether he was going to make a determination that the Navajo Election Administration would be joined as an indispensable party.

Objections to Shirley’s petition to have the initiatives placed on the November ballot were filed May 19 by the firm of Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel of Durango, Colo. On May 27, Hale, filed motions to dismiss the objections.

“The reasons for filing the motions to dismiss, as set forth within the motion and its memorandum, are that the president is taking the position that the objections were filed too early, that they're not right yet for determination, and as well that the Navajo Election Administration needed to be going to an indispensable party, a party without whom the hearing could not go forward,” Seanez said.

A hearing was set May 30 on the objections by then-Chief Hearing Officer Marcella King of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, who recused herself. “I believe that she had a conflict of interest in the matter and recused herself without providing any further elaboration or detail on the conflict,” Seanez said.

King swore in Chapela to be the hearing officer, “but frankly, we're not absolutely sure that she had that authority. She also at that time asked for Mr. Chapela’s pay to be donated by the two opposing counsels ,” Seanez said. “I am uncertain as to whether they will go with that request, but my thought is likely not.”

Following Seanez’s report, IGR failed to hear legislation sponsored by Delegates Leonard Tsosie and Raymond Maxx which would refer to referendum vote an amendment to reduce the number of Council delegates from 88 to 48.