Turmoil, but no riot

W hen the Navajo Nation Council voted to place President Joe Shirley Jr. on leave in October, many tried to draw parallels to the last time this happened, exactly 10 years ago.

In the end, there was little to tie the two events together.

The council, when it discussed the bill, arranged for state, tribal and even BIA law enforcement officials to patrol the capital. Snipers perched atop the rocks, rifles pointed over the public, as officials feared such an action would lead to riots, as it had when the council placed Peter MacDonald Sr. on leave in 1989.

The council, during its fall session in October, voted to hear a series of reports on two failed business dealings that went sour, costing the tribe millions.

The council heard the reports in executive session, with armed guards standing in front of the chamber doors.

A week later, the council met in a single-day special session to discuss an emergency bill to place Shirley on leave during an investigation by the attorney general. The attorney general had previously stated there was not enough evidence to investigate the matter.

The council has not released any details of the reports publicly, or to Shirley.

The council voted 48-22 to place Shirley on leave. There were no riots, or even protests of any kind. Instead, Shirley stepped aside peacefully while his legal team prepared his case.

Meanwhile, the Navajo Times obtained a copy of one of the reports detailing the tribe's involvement with OnSat, a Utah-based telecommunications company that provided satellite Internet service to most of the reservation's chapters and several programs.

A tribal audit had found in 2006 the tribe overpaid OnSat by $600,000. Though that report has since been mired in the courts, the information led to the loss of OnSat's federal e-rate funding. OnSat cut off its services to the tribe in 2008, with each party claiming it was owed substantial amounts of money.

Though the report did not list Shirley's name as being directly involved in the business, it did find that his administration gave the company preferential treatment to entice OnSat to continue working with the Navajo Nation.

One of the remaining reports investigated BCDS, a Shiprock-based metal fabrications plant that all but imploded in 2007. A 2008 report found the company owed the Navajo Nation more than $4 million as the CEO, Hak Ghun mixed company money with his own. Ghun has since left the reservation.

During a Nov. 25 special session, a representative from the Department of Justice, said the attorney general has found enough evidence to hire a special prosecutor. He asked the council to continue to keep the details of the reports under wraps.

Shirley's strategy to wait on the sidelines as his legal team researched his case was successful. The team, led by Paul Charlton, former U.S. District Attorney for Arizona, filed for a temporary restraining order against the council on Dec. 7. The order would have prohibited the council from enforcing the bill it used to place Shirley on leave.

Although Window Rock District Court Judge Geraldine Benally had initially said she wanted to wait at least 20 days to hold a hearing in order to give ample time to notify the council, she scheduled a hearing for Dec. 14 to determine if the council deserved that delay.

During a six-hour hearing, Shirley's attorney's argued that the council acted outside its scope of authority when it passed the emergency bill. Specifically, the council did not follow its proper procedures - namely assigning the bill to two standing committees and placing it on an agenda for at least 15 days.

Benally agreed. She also agreed when Shirley's attorneys asked her to consider the leave bill null and void, since it was passed under questionable circumstances.

In her Dec. 16 ruling, Benally said the council's policy that omits emergency bills from the review process was ambiguous. Emergency bills must follow the same procedures as regular bills, she said. 

Shirley was back in his office that same night.

He still could face an appeal. He could even face charges filed by a special prosecutor, whenever the attorney general starts the process to hire one.

Back to top ^