The Brewster Report

FROM IndianCountryToday.com: Unkechaug meets tribal sovereignty, immunity criteria

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/65786187.html

MASTIC, N.Y. – A federal district court judge has ruled that the Unkechaug Nation, a state-recognized tribe, is a sovereign nation with immunity from being sued.

In a ruling issued Oct. 8, U.S. District Court Judge Kiyo Matsumoto for the Eastern District of New York said the Unkechaug Nation meets the Montoya test for tribal sovereignty.

“The court finds that defendants have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the three Montoya criteria are satisfied. Consequently, the Unkechauge meets the common law definition of a ‘tribe’ and is entitled to immunity from suit in the present action,” Matsumoto said, using one of the various spellings of the nation’s name.

Matthew Fletcher on the Unkechaug ruling There is a smattering of cases like this. The court held that a federally recognized tribe is immune from suit. The court also said non-recognized tribes can be held immune by a court if it meets a common law test named after a 1901 Supreme Court case called Montoya v. United States. This common law test, used during a period before Interior began to keep track of all the tribes, was used by courts in the 1970s to determine whether an Indian tribe could bring land claims. Unkechaug met the Montoya test, and according to the district court, it is immune from suit. The only other case I know of is from the Michigan Court of Appeals in Huron Potawatomi, Inc. v. Stinger – 1997 – it involved the tribe that is now the Huron Nottawaseppi Band of Potawtomi Indians, recognized shortly thereafter. That court didn’t use the Montoya test, and seemed to just be taking the tribe’s word for it – it did have a very strong case for recognition, which came through in 1998. The Montoya test is much more difficult to pass than Stinger, given that tribes like Unkechaug actually have to prove pretty much the whole panoply of criteria that shows up in 25 CFR Part 83, only to a federal court. One would think that proving tribal status to a federal court using virtually the same criteria would make the FAP (federal acknowledgment process) easier for this tribe, and definitely more interesting. Maybe other tribes should find a way to get into court to try the Montoya test route. Probably just as expensive as the FAP, but maybe less political, if you get the right judge and expert witnesses. Matthew Fletcher is a professor of Indian law at Michigan State University College of Law, director of MSU’s Indigenous Law and Policy Center, and an appellate judge for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and the Hoopa Valley Tribe. He is an enrolled member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

The present case is a long running lawsuit filed by tycoon John A. Catsimatidis, who owns, among other things, more than 50 Gristedes supermarkets located throughout New York City and nearby areas.

Catsimatidis claimed that the Unkechaug Indian Nation and the Shinnecock Tribe, both on Long Island, violated civil laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and statutes prohibiting false advertising and deceptive trade packages by selling untaxed cigarettes that undermined profits at his supermarket empire. He asked the court to force Indian retailers to buy cigarettes from wholesalers at the taxed price and sought $20 million in damages from the tribes.

All of the charges, including the RICO allegations, against the tribes and tribal members in their official capacities were dismissed. However, Unkechaug Chief Harry Wallace “as sued in his individual capacity and his capacity as owner of the Poospatuck Smoke Shop’s motion to dismiss. … is denied,” Matsumoto said. The only remaining allegation involves a claim of unfair advertising of “tax free” cigarettes.

“On the eve of Columbus Day, once again we have met and defeated a challenge to the nation’s sovereignty and existence as a people,” Wallace said in response to Matsumoto’s ruling. “The federal court acknowledged what we have known all along – that we have a right and a responsibility to do what is in our people’s best interests.”

“We will continue to challenge. … anyone else who wishes to make us a scapegoat for their economic troubles,” Wallace said.

Catsimatidis could not be reached for comment.

A substantial part of Matsumoto’s 89-page decision analyzes the Montoya criteria in light of the arguments presented by Dr. John Strong, professor emeritus of Long Island University, and by James Lynch, who argued on behalf of Gristedes, at a hearing.

Montoya v. United States is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined tribal status. The “three Montoya criteria” involve a group of people “of the same or similar race,” “united in a community under one leadership or government,” and “inhabiting a particular, though ill-defined territory.”

Strong has a Ph.D. in social studies from Syracuse University. He is an expert in Native Americans in colonial America, particularly the Indians of the East Coast and Long Island. His new book, “A History of the Unkechaug Nation,” will be published this fall.

Strong provided detailed evidence from documents and court records dating from the 17th century to present, accounts by visitors to the nation’s land, newspaper clippings, political and kinship connections, land conveyances, missionaries’ records, the establishment of an Indian school at Poospatuck, archeological research and more to back up his claims that the present day nation meets the three Montoya criteria.

He noted, for example, that the Unkechaugs, like other eastern coastal tribes, intermixed with Europeans and African Americans from the 17th century on, but always maintained their Indian identity and culture.

Lynch, on the other hand, presented a purity of race argument, claiming that intermixing with other races resulted in the Unkechaug not being “of the same or similar race.”

“Mr. Lynch relied on an account from 1883 that stated, in part, ‘there was never any tribe of Poospatuck Indians. They are much mixed with the Negroes and probably not more than three could be presented who have the Indian features,’” Matsumoto said.

In supporting his claim that the Unkechaug lacked a united community and leadership in the 19th century, Lynch relied on an 1850 document “replete with terms and overtones that would be considered racist by contemporary standards,” Matsumoto said.

The judge said the court questioned Lynch about his use of the Ph.D. designation on his curriculum vitae, “given that he does not, in fact, have a Ph.D. Specifically, Mr. Lynch’s C.V. states ‘Ph.D., anthropology/History (abd.) (Ethnohistory, Sociocultural Change).’ Mr. Lynch explained that the ‘(abd.)’ designation on his C.V. indicates ‘all but dissertation,’ which Mr. Lynch stated clarifies his status. The court respectfully disagrees. Without Mr. Lynch’s oral explanation, Mr. Lynch’s C.V. in combination with his chosen format appears to represent that he earned his Ph.D., even though he did not,” Matsumoto said.

When asked to describe his research methodology for reviewing historical documents, Lynch responded, “I believe if there’s no evidence to prove a point, the point is not proven.”

Lynch is well-known on the East Coast and beyond for his “research” against tribal nations seeking federal acknowledgment and his association with the anti-Indian sovereignty organization One Nation United. In Connecticut alone he has worked against the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation and the Golden Hill Paugussett Indians. He has provided “research papers” or testimony against the Mashpee Wampanoag and the Shinnecock Indian Nation. He has self-published two books about Connecticut Indians that were not peer reviewed.

Matsumoto noted that in nine out of 10 cases in which Lynch has testified as an “expert witness,” Lynch “found adversely” to the tribe’s bid for federal acknowledgment. In the single case in which he found in favor of the tribe, he was hired by a client that supported tribal recognition, Matsumoto said.

Lynch’s testimony on the Montoya criterion regarding community and leadership, is “particularly results-driven,” Matsumoto said. “It appears that Mr. Lynch ultimately chose what evidence to rely on and the weight to be given that evidence based on whether it supported his client’s position and his ultimate conclusions.”

Asked to respond to Matsumoto’s comments about his work, Lynch sent a 13-page paper reiterating his interpretation of the Montoya ruling and his views on why Unkechaug did not meet the Montoya criteria.

Pressure mounts for Obama to settle Native American farmer case

WASHINGTON – A group of tribal governments and some of the top Indian affairs lawmakers in the nation have added their voices to a growing chorus asking the Obama administration to rectify a discrimination suit involving the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Indian farmers. The lawsuit, known as Keepseagle v. Vilsack, involves hundreds of tribal plaintiffs from several states, who have long argued that agriculture officials denied or delayed a number of farm and ranch loans and emergency assistance applications by Indians.

An expert report prepared by the plaintiffs estimates that the Indians involved have been denied about $3 billion in credit, resulting in between $500 million and $1 billion in damages. Based on heightened calls for the Obama administration to settle the case, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., sent a letter requesting clarification to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in late September.

Earlier in the month, the five tribes of North Dakota pressed for a settlement and requested congressional attention. “While we are not opining on the merits of the case, we are concerned that the department is moving forward with foreclosures without these serious allegations being resolved first,” the lawmakers wrote. They learned the department in early September took actions involving foreclosures and debt collections that could negatively affect the financial outlooks of Native Americans directly involved in the litigation.

The lawmakers also requested an update from the department on its progress toward alleviating civil rights issues involving Indians. The National Congress of American Indians has also taken action. A resolution approved Oct. 16 by the organization of tribal governments noted that the lawsuit is based on a similar one filed on behalf of black farmers, called the Pigford case, in which the USDA settled with black farmers who had suffered discrimination involving the department’s loan programs.

Since the case was settled in the late-1990s, black farmers who were not part of the initial case have received financial incentives by way of last year’s farm bill and intense maneuvering by the Congressional Black Caucus. NCAI leaders said the Pigford case illustrates that a settlement is possible and resolved to support a negotiated settlement of the Keepseagle case “as quickly as possible.” The NCAI resolution also urged the Obama administration to reinstate a moratorium on foreclosures of Native American farmers and ranchers until the Keepseagle action is resolved.

Without such a moratorium on foreclosures, lawyers for the plaintiffs said large numbers of Native American farmers and ranchers who allege the USDA discriminated against them could lose their land before they have their day in court. The USDA has never agreed to compensate Native Americans for their lost property and income caused by the agency’s discrimination. Department officials said they can’t comment on the case because it is ongoing. Joe Sellers, a lawyer for the tribal citizens, said he is optimistic that the new expressions of support will help bring the case to the attention of President Barack Obama.

“I’m hopeful that the administration is paying attention. Now is the time. I would think that this administration and this president in particular would be interested in trying to treat the American Indian people fairly.” Sellers said Obama officials have not talked about a settlement to date. Some legal experts believe tribal leaders may bring the case up at a planned Nov. 5 gathering of tribal leaders with Obama in Washington.

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/home/content/65772652.html

In the Abramoff case another former Bush official is sentenced to prison

FROM GovernmentExecutive.com

By Robert Brodsky rbrodsky@govexec.com October 16, 2009

David Safavian, the former head of federal procurement policy during the Bush administration, was sentenced on Friday to 12 months and one day in prison for lying about his dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He will be on supervised probation for 24 months after his release from prison.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, however, ruled that Safavian would not have to surrender to authorities until after his pregnant wife, Jennifer, gives birth. It is not clear when she is due to give birth.

Prosecutors had been asking for a prison sentence of 15 to 21 months.

Friedman appeared moved by the emotional speeches from David and Jennifer Safavian, in which the couple pleaded for mercy and urged the judge to consider the toll that the lengthy case -- which has spanned two trials and an appeal -- has had on their family, including their 6-year-old daughter.

"Please give our daughter and unborn child an opportunity to have a father in their life," Jennifer Safavian asked Friedman before the sentence was handed down.

David Safavian "begged for mercy" and said there was no chance he would ever make such a mistake again. "My situation is an abject lesson for everyone," Safavian said. "I am the poster child for staying away from the gray areas of ethics; how not to act and what not to say."

Safavian conceded multiple lapses of poor judgment, but he continued to argue that his behavior, while inappropriate, was not criminal.

Defense attorney Richard Sauber said his client had suffered more than enough already without enduring prison. Safavian is bankrupt, will lose his law license and never will be able to work or contract for the government again, he said.

But Friedman pointed out that Safavian had abused the public's trust and lied to investigators, and he needed to be punished. "At some point, a light bulb should have gone on," Friedman said.

Safavian, who also served as chief of staff at the General Services Administration, was convicted in December 2008 on four counts relating to an elaborate golf trip he took with Abramoff and several others in 2002. In the weeks leading up to the trip, prosecutors said Abramoff lobbied Safavian for help in purchasing or developing two GSA properties. Safavian was found guilty of obstructing a GSA investigation into the trip, providing false statements to a GSA ethics officer and to the FBI, and lying on a financial disclosure form about the trip's cost. He was acquitted of providing a false statement to a Senate committee.

The trial was the second for Safavian. He originally was convicted of five counts in June 2006 and Friedman later sentenced him to 18 months in prison. Safavian was allowed to stay free on bail pending his appeal.

In June 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to vacate Safavian's conviction, throwing out two charges and granting a retrial on three others. The appeals court noted that Friedman should have allowed Safavian to call an expert witness and castigated federal attorneys for presenting "tenuous" legal arguments.

Months later, the Justice Department reindicted Safavian on three of the original counts and added two new charges.

The case dates back to 2002, when Safavian, then with GSA, was invited by Abramoff, a friend of several years, to attend a golfing excursion to Scotland and London. Safavian told a GSA ethics officer -- and later repeated the same statement to Senate investigators and to the FBI -- that Abramoff "did not have business with GSA" and that he worked only on Capitol Hill.

Abramoff was sentenced to six years in prison on charges of corruption, fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion.

On Thursday, the trial of another Abramoff associate, Kevin Ring, ended in a mistrial.

Safavian's attorneys have 10 days to decide whether to appeal the conviction. Safavian declined to comment after the sentencing, as did his attorneys.

NY governor endorses Shinnecock federal acknowledgment

Indian Country Today

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/northeast/63272687.html

ALBANY, N.Y. – Gov. David Paterson has written to the secretary of the Interior Department, expressing support for the Shinnecock Indian Nation’s federal acknowledgment, an unprecedented public gesture of tribal support from a state governor.

The Shinnecock Nation was among the first Indian nations in the country to file for federal acknowledgment in 1978 under what were then the BIAs newly established regulations. It was fourth on the list of petitioners waiting to be reviewed.

“To say federal recognition of the Shinnecock is long overdue would be an understatement,” Paterson wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Sept. 22. “It is my understanding that the Shinnecock has included in its petition over 40,000 pates of documentation, demonstrating the attributes of a federally-recognized Indian tribe, including evidence of self-government that dates back to 1641. In fact, throughout New York state history, the government has maintained a government-to-government relationship with the Shinnecock.”

The nation’s journey to federal acknowledgment has been strewn with lawsuits, controversy and delays.

In 2005, a federal judge bypassed the BIA recognition process and ruled that the state-recognized Shinnecock Indians are indeed a federal tribe, but the Interior Department refused to recognize the judge’s ruling despite a law saying tribes can be federally recognized by the BIA process, by Congress or by a federal judge. The nation sued Interior, and last May the parties reached a settlement requiring the BIA to issue a Proposed Finding on the tribe’s petition for federal recognition by Dec. 15.

“I’m hopeful that the Proposed Finding that will be issued this year will find the Shinnecock Indian Nation as a federally recognized Indian tribe,” Paterson said.

In addition to the Dec. 15 deadline for a Proposed Finding, the agreement cuts in half the comment period following the Proposed Finding from a maximum of 360 days to 180 days, though it could be as quick as 90 days. Overall, the agreement ensures that a final decision will be reached in 2010, possibly as early as June.

Shinnecock leaders welcomed Paterson’s endorsement, calling him “a man of principle.”

“New York state Gov. David A. Paterson is a true leader who has demonstrated that he understands the history of the Shinnecock people and our government-to-government relationship with New York state. Gov. Paterson also recognizes that in order for the Shinnecock Indian Nation to have a fair chance at economic opportunity and a better quality of life that the time has come for us to join the ranks of federally recognized tribes. As with other federal tribes, recognition can open a door for us leading to adequate housing, expanded health care, and economic parity for our people. We thank the governor and the state of New York for this support and pledge to work with the state in a spirit of cooperation,” Randy King, chairman of the nation’s three-person board of trustees, said.

The Shinnecock nation has around 1,300 members, more than 600 of whom live on its 1,200-acre reservation next to the Town of Southampton on the ritzy East End of Long Island, according to the nation’s Web site. The nation’s aboriginal territory stretched from what is known today as Easthampton west to Brookhaven.

In addition to federal funding for housing, health and education, federal acknowledgment would give the nation the right to open a casino under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The Shinnecock could begin Class II gaming on its reservation, but the nation has faced local opposition from residents who worry that a casino would create a traffic nightmare in an already overburdened highway infrastructure. The nation is considering instead a full-scale – and much more profitable – Class III gaming operation elsewhere. The Aqueduct Race Track in Queens has been eyed as a potential site, but so far that plan has not moved forward.

In order to conduct gaming beyond its reservation, Shinnecock would likely have to purchase land and ask the Interior to take it into trust. That would require a legislative fix to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Carcieri ruling last February that the Interior secretary does not have the authority to take land into trust for tribes federally recognized after the Indian Reorganization Act passed in 1934.

On Sept. 24, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced legislation in the Senate to amend the 1934 IRA to say the Interior secretary has the authority to take land into trust for all federally recognized tribes. There are indications that opposition to the bill is growing, however.

The Interior Department would also have to undo the Bush-era “commutability guidance memorandum” issued in January 2008 by former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. The memorandum cited “commutability” as a new standard for denying off-reservation trust applications for gaming purposes.

Last May, Paterson wrote to Salazar urging him to reverse the commutability guidance memorandum.

“During his tenure, Secretary Kempthorne took several actions that were not in the best interest of New York state and this specific policy prevented critical economic development that the legislature and governor’s office approved. I am confident Secretary Salazar will be more attuned to the needs of New York’s residents and our Indian nations,” Paterson said about his letter.

Senators want tribal contract shortages addressed

From Indian Country Today

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/northeast/63851187.html

WASHINGTON – A group of senators has requested that President Barack Obama strengthen tribal self-governance and support self-sufficiency by funding longstanding shortfalls in the federal contract support system.

“…[C]ontract obligations must at long last be paid, and employment under contracted programs serving Indian communities thereby restored,” the senators wrote in a letter to the president dated Sept. 29.

The document was signed by Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, Tom Udall, D-N.M., Max Baucus, D-Mont., Jon Tester, D-Mont., Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.

The lawmakers said the Indian Self-Determination Act and Education Assistance Act of 1975 allowed tribes to take control over the welfare of their tribal citizens by managing federal programs for the benefits of Indians, without diminishing the trust responsibility of the United States.

Under the law, the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services have contracted with tribes to administer $2.3 billion in programs that would otherwise be administered by the federal government.

Tribes therefore manage a variety of services for Indian citizens, including hospitals, police departments and education programs.

The law requires tribes to be paid in full for contract support costs, but tribal leaders have long noted that this is not happening. As a result, some positions are left empty in the various service areas.

IHS recently reported an estimated contract support cost shortfall of $159 million for fiscal year 2011. The BIA has estimated its shortfall in the same year will be at least $80 million.

The lawmakers stated their understanding of the problem and the ramifications: “To be clear, health care, law enforcement and other positions are not being filled because the government is failing to pay full contract support costs,” the senators wrote.

“The government would never underpay ordinary procurement contractors their agency-approved costs in running government contracts, and a different rule should not apply here.”

The lawmakers added that the Supreme Court in 2005 reaffirmed the binding nature of the government’s duty to pay tribal contract support costs under International Swaps and Derivatives Association contracts.

The letter further noted that the BIA fulfills its goal of Indian self-determination through the Tribal Priority Allocation account within its budget, which is a primary source of funding for many tribal governments.

The senators said without more support for the account, the promise of Indian self-determination “cannot be fulfilled.”

Obama included a proposed increase for contract support costs in his fiscal year 2010 budget.

Call for Obama officials to improve Native voting rights

FROM Indian Country Today

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/northeast/63850477.html

WASHINGTON – Voter rights advocates are calling on the Obama administration’s Justice Department to improve the system for Native Americans.

The calls have grown louder since the release of a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union, which concludes that American Indians continue to face discriminatory policies and actions that deny them their constitutional right to vote.

The report, titled “Voting Rights in Indian Country,” provides a historical overview of systemic discrimination against American Indians that has limited their ability to participate in local, state and national elections.

It also highlights ACLU-backed lawsuits challenging unlawful election practices on behalf of Native Americans in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Danna Jackson, a tribal law expert with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, sees the report as a call to action.

“As this report indicates, much work needs to be done to preserve the heralded principal of ‘one person one vote’ in Indian country, despite great efforts by advocates,” said Jackson, who authored the 2004 policy manual “Eighty Years of Indian Voting: A Call to Protect Indian Voting Rights.”

Jackson believes now is the time for the Department of Justice to step up its efforts, particularly by reviewing changes to election law and enhancing minority voting rights.

She said many Indian voter rights advocates are especially hopeful for positive changes given the recent confirmation of Thomas E. Perez to serve as the assistant attorney general in charge of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

Perez previously served with the division as deputy assistant attorney general and was once a special counsel to the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Some Republicans have opposed Perez due to his disagreement with English-only statutes.

Jackson said Indian voter rights advocates want Perez to appropriately enforce the Voting Rights Act and step up the education process many say is needed in minority areas.

Daniel McCool, a professor of political science at the University of Utah, agreed that now may be a time of change in terms of election law affecting Indians and the Department of Justice.

He said the department didn’t file as many Indian voting rights suits as some would have liked during the Bush administration. Plus, DoJ leadership under President George W. Bush was overtly hostile on issues affecting minority voters, according to McCool.

“I think the DoJ under Obama will be more proactive,” said McCool, who co-authored the 2007 book “Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights Act, and the Right to Vote.”

McCool said many in his field were waiting to see what happened in the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District case, which was a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The case was decided in late June, with an 8-1 vote in favor of upholding the section.

Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the U.S. attorney general, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

“The next big challenge will be the redistricting that will take place following the 2010 census,” McCool said.

“As a result of population changes documented in the Census, there will be numerous changes to districts and other political jurisdictions. There is a significant probability that these changes will provoke challenges under both Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

Tribal leaders also have a role in enhancing Indian voter rights, according to advocates.

“It is difficult for Native leaders to demand a true ‘government-to-government’ relationship unless they have the power of the Indian vote backing them up,” Jackson said.

“Despite barriers at the polls that unfortunately continue to exist, Native leaders need to press upon their membership the importance of fully participating in the voting process. As always, knowledge is power.”

McCool said the most important thing Indian country leaders can do in the voting rights arena is to document all election law changes: Attend meetings, take notes, survey local media, and read all local and state government documents regarding changes in election laws.

“Any evidence of discrimination, racial polarization, or efforts to reduce the voting power of American Indians should be carefully documented.” 

Mohegan Sun & Foxwoods credited with 12 % of Connecticut’s job growth since 1992

A comprehensive study of gambling in Connecticut reports that Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort Casino pumped almost $5 billion directly into the state and municipal governments since 1992, but also found that those funds were not distributed equitably, largely because the state has glommed a bigger share of the revenue over the years.

“Of the various forms of legalized gambling in Connecticut, Indian gaming has had the most pronounced impact,” the report states. “The two destination casino resorts, Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun, attracted 24 million visits between them in 2007. They draw revenues into Connecticut from out of state that, in turn gets redistributed to create even more jobs and profits – all of which leads to the consumption of goods and services from other businesses and industries. Such a scenario is vital to the establishment of a strong and competitive economic base.”

The almost 400-page report, called “Gambling in Connecticut: Analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts” was conducted by Spectrum Gaming Group for the state’s Division of Special Revenue, and released at the end of June. Spectrum’s mission was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the social and economic impacts of all forms of legal gaming in Connecticut.

The study found that the two casinos are responsible directly and indirectly for $1.2 billion worth of personal income in Connecticut.

According to the report, “Since 1992, they have accounted for about 12 percent of the net new jobs growth in Connecticut.”

The casinos contribute 25 percent of their gross slot machine revenue to the state and business has increased hugely since Foxwoods opened. In fiscal year 1993, when the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation first put slot machines in Foxwoods, the state’s take was $30 million. In fiscal year 2008, that figure had ballooned to $411.4 million with expansions and the addition of Mohegan Sun.

For FULL article

Native American Tribes urged to support renewable energy legislation

[printed in Indian Country Today, written by By Rob Capriccioso] -- Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate that would allow tribes to hold an un-penalized equity position in renewable energy projects built on their reservations. The political climate is right, tribal advocates say, to make progress in an area that would spur job creation and clean energy production on many reservations.

The bill that’s got tribal energy folks excited at the moment is known as the Fair Credit Act. Its long name is the Fair Allocation of Internal Revenue Credit for Renewable Electricity Distribution by Indian Tribes Act.

Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., introduced the legislation, which is similar to a bill he offered up last year that went nowhere, in mid-June. He said its passage would bring tribes one step closer to economic self-sufficiency and help to address the climate crisis facing the nation.

How would the legislation assist tribes?

In short, it would alter the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The change would allow tribes to transfer their share of the production tax credit to private entities that finance joint venture renewable energy projects on tribal lands. Tribes would then be able to offer 100 percent of the tax credit to their partners.

Under current federal law, tribes are tax-exempt and are therefore not allowed to take advantage of the production tax credit. Also, private groups that partner with tribes for renewable energy projects on reservations can only get 50 percent of the credit, rather than 100 percent if they chose to invest in such projects on private lands.

Tribes end up facing a penalty, and are deterred from trying to reap the benefits of pursuing renewable energy projects, tribal energy experts say. FULL ARTICLE

NEWSDAY: On Long Island, NY - Shinnecock Nation moves forward

Shinnecock Nation moves closer to federal recognition 

BY MARK HARRINGTON | mark.harrington@newsday.com 11:23 PM EDT, May 27, 2009

With a judge's signature, the Shinnecock Indian Nation in Southampton moved closer than ever to securing long-elusive recognition from the federal government that would mean money for schools and health clinics and the right to open a long-sought gambling facility. An agreement signed Tuesday in federal court in Central Islip stipulates that the Department of the Interior will make a decision by Dec. 15 on the tribe's request for federally recognized status. Shinnecock leaders, hopeful of getting that status by mid-2010 or sooner, say all signs point to approval - so much so that they are fast-tracking talks for a casino on Long Island. Only tribes that are recognized by the federal government can operate Class II gambling facilities with video lottery terminals on their reservations. But the Shinnecocks want a larger casino off their reservation with a wider selection of casino gambling. That requires state and federal approvals. "We finally see light at the end of the tunnel," Randy King, chairman of the Shinnecock trustees, said from his weathered double-trailer headquarters on the reservation Wednesday. "It's been a 30-year, arduous journey for many of our elders, living and deceased. We finally have it in our grasp." A spokeswoman from the Bureau of Indian Affairs didn't return repeated calls for comment Wednesday, and a spokesman for the Justice Department, which also signed the agreement, declined to comment. But one government source said, "It looks like this is going to speed [recognition] up for them." A lot riding on tribe status There's much at stake. Federal status means access to Housing and Urban Development funds, educational and health care grants, and programs and subsidies to form a reservation police force and court system. As it now stands, said King, banks won't write mortgages for home renovation or new construction, and the 500 tribal members who live on the reservation do so without access to town or county police and other essential services. "We're surrounded by one of the wealthiest communities in the country, and they've been hard-hit," King said. "Just imagine what we've been going through." Whatever the social benefits for the tribe, discussions quickly turn to where and how the Shinnecocks would open a downstate casino. Letter to the governor In a letter to Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday, Shinnecock trustees said, "We trust that you will recognize that it's time for the state of New York to sit at the table with us and conclude earnest negotiations to ensure that our quest for economic justice is not delayed any longer." They added, "We are fully prepared to pursue that economic justice, including gaming opportunities, so that our people have the housing, health care, schools and jobs that we need." Paterson's response Wednesday was noncommittal. Spokesman Morgan Hook said the governor would "monitor" the petition's status. "At this time, it is premature to discuss New York's position with respect to a possible casino for the Shinnecock Indian Nation," he said. Shinnecock trustees said the tribe at this point was not focusing on any location for a casino. King said the Shinnecocks' preference is to open any casino in a region that wants it, including as far away as Belmont or Aqueduct racetracks as well as in Suffolk. Other locations discussed have included the EPCAL facility in Calverton and the scrapped Shoreham nuclear power plant. Tribal leaders said they had not heard Shoreham mentioned before and laughed at the suggestion. Suffolk leaders appeared ready to push for a casino on their home turf, pointing to the thousands of jobs and tax income it would draw. "They're a Suffolk tribe and this belongs in Suffolk," said Suffolk Legis. Wayne Horsley...

For FULL story go to Newsday