MacDonald opinion sought
Delegate wonders if ex-president violated conditions of his release

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — Not every Navajo Nation Council delegate was happy with the politicking surrounding last week's decision to settle the tribe's water rights within the New Mexico portion of the San Juan River Basin.

Wallace Charley of Shiprock for one. "Something this important should be debated. This is why I voted against it," he told The Independent. Charley was one of 18 delegates voting against the settlement legislation, which passed Wednesday, 62-18.

Speaker Lawrence Morgan cut off debate shortly after the proposed San Juan River Basin settlement agreement document was read into record about 5-1/2 hours of reading following a motion to "cease debate."

Another delegate unhappy with the politics, Oak Springs/St. Michaels delegate Curran Hannon, has filed a request for a legal opinion regarding whether actions by former Navajo Nation Chairman Peter MacDonald during the Dec. 15 special session, constitute a violation of MacDonald's conditions of probation or parole.

Hope MacDonald-Lonetree, Coalmine Canyon/Toh Nanees Dizi chapters and daughter of the former chairman, came under fire after stopping the Dec. 15 special session in its tracks by requesting that the nearly 200-page document be read into record.

Also at that session, MacDonald-Lonetree read into record information contained in a press release issued by her father several days prior, calling the proposed settlement "an attempt to preempt the Navajo Nation from claiming its rightful share of water within the basin of the four sacred mountains."

Chairman MacDonald was sentenced in 1993 to serve a 14-year sentence after he was convicted of inciting a deadly riot in July 1989 in Window Rock that resulted in the death of two of his supporters, and for taking bribes and kickbacks.

He received a pardon from Navajo Nation Council in 1995, the same year he was transferred to a Texas federal prison hospital for health reasons. His sentence was commuted in March 2001 by President Clinton, the day before Clinton left office. Unlike a full pardon, a commutation comes with certain restrictions.

Hannon, in a Dec. 23 memorandum to Navajo Nation Attorney General Louis Denetsosie, stated, "As you know, Mr. MacDonald was convicted of several felonious offenses and was released and/or paroled from serving prison time. Is there a condition of his release that he not involve himself in local political affairs?" Hannon asked.

He questioned whether any condition of MacDonald's release would be breached if he "publicly participates in taking a position against approval of controversial issues surrounding settlement of water rights of the Navajo Nation."

Hannon said MacDonald was observed Dec. 15 at the council chambers circulating a letter opposing the settlement while council was debating the issue. "There are certainly bitter disagreements on settlement and emotions are high," he said.

MacDonald-Lonetree said it's not because of her father that the request for legal opinion was made. "It's because of what he spoke out on. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been an issue," she said.

"What's crazy is, if he came out in favor of the settlement which would be totally opposite of what the people want nobody would say anything. It wouldn't be an issue of what his probation conditions are. It's just that they don't want to hear it.

"He could have come out and done an editorial on dog-catching, and nobody would have said anything. But he came out and spoke about the history and why we need to consider certain issues, and because certain individuals didn't want to hear it, now they want to question his probation conditions," she said Wednesday evening following approval of the settlement legislation.

MacDonald-Lonetree, who voted against the settlement, said that in January 2003 she took an oath to uphold the Treaty of 1868 and to protect and preserve the resources of the Navajo Nation. "I feel good about myself and my vote because I feel that I upheld that oath today," she said.

"All I know is, I have to be OK with my Maker, I have to be OK with my people that I represent. Now, the decision is over. I said my piece, or at least part of it not all of it and I voted no. So I can sleep comfortably knowing that I voted what I felt was right."

She said she asked that the document be read into record because if some of the delegates didn't take time to sit down and read it through, then all they would have to do is sit and listen.

"The second reason I wanted it to be read into record word for word was so that in the future, whenever it's referenced back, this is what was agreed to. ... Just listening to it again today, I heard other things that were wrong or that I had major concerns about," MacDonald-Lonetree said.

She agreed with Delegate Charley that all questions and concerns needed to be addressed. "It was sad that the council did not allow for that debate. Even right up to the voting, this issue deserved debate," she said.

"Moreover, if some delegates don't understand what's going on, we need to allow them that opportunity because they are representatives of the people."

She also took special exception to legal language in the document approved Wednesday.

"This one paragraph says, 'The expenditure of any money or the performance of any obligation by the United States under this contract shall be contingent upon appropriations or allotment of funds.

"Absence of appropriation or allotment of funds shall not relieve the Navajo Nation from any obligations under this contract. No liability shall accrue against the United States in case funds are not appropriated or allotted.'

"So essentially, 'You waive your water rights again, like the (San Juan) Chama thing, and we will decide whether or not we have enough money to fund you whatever we agreed to fund in this document, and we're not liable for anything; but you are bound to your waiver of water rights and limitations and everything else in this contract,'" she interpreted.

If any delegate had read just that one paragraph, she said, "Isn't that enough reason to question the legitimacy or the enforceability of this contract?

"When our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are looking back into the public record and see that it was the 20th Council who gave away our water rights, they're not going to say, 'Oh, certain people said no.' It will be this council that will be remembered for waiving it all," she said.

— Contact reporter Kathy Helms at khelms@frontiernet.net; call (928) 729-2331; or fax, 729-2446.