Law firm investigates Joe Shirley
Vice president also being probed following allegations of nepotism

By Jim Maniaci
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — An Indian-owned suburban Denver law firm with Diné on its staff has been hired to investigate and decide whether to pursue possible tribal ethics law violations by Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr.

The tribal Ethics-Rules Office will conduct the parallel investigation and decision concerning Vice President Frank Dayish Jr.

Representatives of Fredricks, Pelcyger and Hester of Louisville, Colo., estimated it will take at least three months at the minimum to do the work and make its decision.

It all stems from a fact-finding mission, centered around nepotism allegations, conducted by the Navajo Nation Council's Government Services Committee in the early months of the Shirley-Dayish administration. The panel oversees the presidential offices and completed its often-closed-door meetings in June 2003, having spent several months embroiled in the controversy that began within months of the mid-January 2003 inauguration of the sixth President and the 20th Council.

Attorney General Louis Denetsosie took all the time allowed before deciding in August 2003 to decline handling the legal work involved and turning the matter completely over to the Ethics-Rules Office after Ethics Director Virgil Brown Jr. took the required step to ask the Navajo Nation Attorney General to hire an outside lawyer to handle the matter.

In carefully proceeding through the meticulous steps of the tribal bureaucracy, the bids were due by July 2004 with only two received on time. The Colorado firm and the Lewis and Rocca Law Firm in Phoenix submitted theirs on time, with the Arizona company's price being higher. A third offer was submitted about a week late by a suburban Los Angeles attorney. A three-person team from outside the ethics office, but within the Legislative Branch, screened the two applications, ranking and scoring them by the standards in the bid request.

Bid accepted
The ethics director sent a letter in September to Fredricks, Pelcyger and Hester and the firm accepted the contract award in late October.

"It takes a while to find the money. And it takes even more time for the tribal bureaucracy to set things up correctly. The way our system is set up, it just takes a lot of time for each little step in the process to be accomplished," he said.

"If money had been allocated in advance we would have, of course, proceeded then. As it was, it took some time," Brown said.

The ethics director added,"The public also has to understand we have a whole lot of cases. We've always requested additional help, either a presenting officer (prosecutor) or a third investigator, or both, but we've never gotten them because of budget limitations," the ethics director said.

During the Navajo Nation Council session just concluded Friday, Ethics-Rules Committee Vice Chair Francis Redhouse (Teec Nos Pos Chapter) advised delegates that Brown's office has almost 130 active cases worth more than one-third of a million dollars.

Outside investigation
"Nobody told us at the Ethics-Rules Office what to do or how to do it," he said. "These decisions have been mine, solely mine, based on the information I receive, so it would be done fairly and justly." And, he added, "For investigations to be done properly, regardless of who the subject is, also takes time."

The ethics director said that the data and information related to the allegations of any case must, as the investigation progresses, be substantiated, then analyzed for its importance and how it fits into the overall picture. "This means you cannot artificially hurry things along," he explained.

Brown continued, "To avoid any possibility of impropriety, it obviously was in the best interest of all of us in the Navajo Nation to use an outside law firm to investigate and issue a decision about whether prosecution would be warranted."

Under Navajo Nation law, if a presidential or vice presidential case reaches the Ethics-Rules Committee, and the panel's decision is removal, that decision goes to the full council as a recommendation for ratification.

In an ethics case, the process begins when someone submits a written request alleging violation of the Ethics-in-Government Law. (People often incorrectly call this a "complaint." However, a formal complaint lists the specifics and asks the committee for sanctions.)

After the initial intake, the office conducts a preliminary review to determine if the matter is, indeed, covered by the ethics law and if there is enough information to proceed to the next step, which would be a full investigation.

If research of documents and witness interviews provide sufficient proof, then a formal complaint is written. The ethics director then asks the Ethics-Rules Committee for an administrative hearing date and the complaint with a copy of the evidence is served on the respondent. If the defendant (respondent) does not agree to a plea bargain, the committee holds its hearing and issues a decision, which can be appealed to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court.

— To contact reporter Jim Maniaci, telephone (505) 371-5443.