Payments past due
Delegate's delinquent ranch payments raise questions of possible conflict of interest

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — The Navajo Nation Resources Committee asked for a status report from the Tribal Ranches Program in February.

Tuesday they got it and a lot more than they bargained for when the report indicated that a Resources member was among 14 tribal ranch leaseholders behind on their payments.

The meeting was nearly over before that person's name was brought forward, and then only after Resources' Larry Noble failed to get Vice Chairperson LaVern Wagner's name removed from the list.

According to the Tribal Ranch Program, Wagner received the lease in 2003 before she became a member of Resources Committee. Wagner leases 7,790 acres at Chaco Canyon Ranch 7, north of Pueblo Pintado. As a Navajo Nation Council delegate, Wagner represents Pueblo Pintado/Torreon/Whitehorse Lake.

Wagner is supposed to pay $3,360 per year but has not made a payment since receiving the lease. With penalties and interest, she is now behind $10,687.49.

Sources within the program said Wagner is trying to vacate the current ranch in favor of one closer to home. The problem is that she hasn't paid anything toward the current lease, allegedly will not sign a lease agreement, but did sign a questionnaire in the beginning attesting that she would accept the ranch "as is."

Division of Natural Resources Executive Director Arvin Trujillo, Land Department Director Mike Halona, Department of Agriculture Director John Blueyes, and Ranch Manager Fritz Roanhorse presented their report Tuesday following a Feb. 21 directive from Resources.

Presenters said revenue generated from 2006 grazing lease payments amounted to $143,637 which was collected from 53 leasees by Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture. The amount is based on information from Accounts Receivable.


Conflict of interest
At the start of the tribal ranch report portion of Tuesday's meeting, Resources Chairman George Arthur asked presenters to respond to the committee's first question regarding how much money the ranch leases were bringing to the tribe.

Arthur and committee members were advised by Legislative Advisor Peggy Nakai that there was a "conflict of interest," because a member of the committee currently has an issue with the tribal ranches.

Arthur said, "There is also additional discussion." Then looking at presenters, Arthur told them, "Obviously you guys don't talk to your bosses. I've been involved with this discussion and you're putting the committee at risk." He had had a discussion with the division's attorney already, he said.

Nakai recommended that if the committee was going to go into specifics, members should 'go into executive session if you're going to be discussing a particular ranch." She added that the committee member should recuse "herself" from the discussion. There is only one female member of the committee.

Arthur said he agreed with a statement made earlier in the meeting by Delegate Norman John II that the list of delinquent accounts is a matter of public record, "but it's not correct; that's what I'm trying to say. It's not correct information" according to his discussion with the division attorney, he said. "Part of that puts her into a very awkward position."

Delegate Larry Noble raised his hand and was recognized by Arthur.

"With all due respect to everyone here, I would like to maybe request at this time that we dispense with this report and direct my chair to deal with the (presenters) in letter form. I think we need to go that route and at same time request also to strike Number 6," he said, referring to Wagner's name on the list.

The reason, he said, is "because once we receive the report, this whole thing becomes public. If I strike Number 6, then it gives you that chance ... unless you want to keep it as such. Then I guess the cart is in your favor."

Arthur said that in order for that to happen, "You would need to make an amendment on your part to delete that portion of the discussion. Because of the circumstances, attorneys are involved."

Nakai advised the committee, "This is a program response, and as I know it, the committee has never amended a report that's presented to them from a program. So, since it's their report, you could just ask them to gather all the reports and delete that item. You could do that."

Public record
However, Norman John pointed out, "Anybody could go to the Controller's Office, Accounts Receivable, and get that information." Nakai agreed it was public record, to which John responded that it probably even was available on line.

Noble told the committee, "If this is not going to happen, well, so be it. If that's the case, it's in all programs, all divisions, that if something is pending litigation, pending legal review, then it is held back from the public yet until some kind of arrangements are made."

Regarding "public record," he said, "If it's on record that I'm requesting this but if my request doesn't go, then it becomes a public record. From there, however the legal system is going to carry on with this particular case, they'll go according to how they see fit. I always want to be on record."

Ranch Manager Roanhorse asked to make a comment. He told the committee: "You guys asked for this, you guys wanted it. This is the information you guys asked for, this is the information that comes from Accounts Receivable." The other names on the list are people, too, he told them. Two are grazing officials, presenters said.

Resources' Amos Johnson told the committee, "It would be a problem if we kept it (the report) and then somehow we lost it ... I would like to just say we read the report, and it would be better if we just give it back to you and you can do whatever you want with it."

Noble said the report was not stamped "Confidential," therefore it was on record whether they gave it back or not. "This particular person can come over to the office and request for a copy of the report that was made by the individual over here. It would still be available even though we took it back to them. It's still available as long as we accept the report as is," he said.

Arthur told them, "The problem is there are discussions that took place back in December. I walked out of that thinking it had been resolved. That's how it was understood. That's what I mean," he repeated, looking at presenters. "There's no discussion, obviously, between programs and certain management."

Delegate John advised the committee that during a Feb. 7 meeting, he stated that he wanted a report of how much revenue was generated from the 2006 grazing leases. "And it came in. That's it it's in. This is the report. In this discussion, we now came up with one individual," but he said, it's an "overall" report.

Arthur started to call for the motion when Wagner raised her hand and was recognized.

"Mr. Chair, thank you. Finally. I'd like to recuse myself, and at this point I'd like to call for executive session. It's very, very important," she said.

Arthur advised her, "Ms. Wagner, it would be not in the best interest of the committee and not in your best interest to recognize your motion to go into executive session." He called for the motion which passed 4-1.

Roanhorse said the tribal ranch program follows all tribal ranch laws and complies with the provisions of their ranch lease agreements. "We cannot bend the rules. It's not fair to our other leasees," he said.