Lawyers face off
in Council reduction fight

By John Christian Hopkins
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — One of the most important cases to come before the Navajo Office of Hearings and Appeals lurched to a sluggish start Friday, as the Memorial Day holiday was blamed for the need for a continuance to be granted.

The case involves government reform initiatives proposed by President Joe Shirley Jr.

Shirley is seeking to have two initiatives placed on the November ballot — to cut the Council from 88 delegates to 24, and to give the president a line-item veto.

Speaker Lawrence T. Morgan has questioned whether the president has such authority and, if the initiatives are allowed on the ballot, whether they need a two-thirds super majority to pass or the 50-plus-1 simple majority.

The Council is inefficient, micromanages tribal departments and spends recklessly, Shirley has argued.

Morgan countered that the Council is not inefficient and such a drastic reduction in delegates is bound to impact services and interaction with the community.

“It’s a matter of extreme importance to the Navajo people,” said attorney John Chapela, who was acting as the hearing officer. “It’s a case needs to be decided quickly.”

Notice of the meeting was sent to his Durango, Colo., office on May 23, but because of the holiday it was not delivered until Tuesday, attorney Stephen Boos of the firm of Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheffield, said. Boos was representing Speaker Lawrence T. Morgan.

Shirley was represented by former Navajo president, Attorney Albert Hale.

Boos had gone to Flagstaff on business before the notice had been delivered and only came from Flagstaff to Window Rock Thursday night, he explained.

“I’ve basically been up since I arrived here last night,” Boos said. “A week’s continuance won’t harm the case. This is a question of fundamental fairness.”

Hale had no objection to Boos’ request.

“I do believe a continuance is in the best interest of both parties and the Navajo people,” Chapela said.

But with three practicing attorneys involved, finding a date when all were available could prove difficult, Chapela said.

He offered a solution: Both parties could submit briefs on the two motions raised so far, and he could render his decision of whether to continue the hearing based on that, Chapela said.

The president’s legal team has motioned for dismissal for two reasons, one challenged the jurisdiction of the Office of Hearing & Appeals to hear the mater; the other objecting to the fact that the Navajo Election Administration isn’t a party to the case.

Hale and Boos agreed with that suggestion.

Boos is to have his response to the dismissal motion prepared by June 6; Hale’s response to that is due June 11. Chapela will render a decision on the dismissal motion June 13.

In the interest of full disclosure, Hale also revealed that he and Chapela had once been partners.

That was 25 years ago, and the two have not been partners since, Chapela explained. In fact, they have been on opposing sides on various cases, he added.

“I feel I have an impartiality to hear the case,” Chapela said.

Boos had no objection to Chapela’s hearing the case.
John Christian Hopkins can be reached at Hopkins1960@hotmail.com