Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv—00820-PCD Document 95-2 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 1 of 2
p A STATE OP CONNECTICUT
‘ EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
;5¤E_ {ui'
` \/ if

M. JODI RELL
GOVERNOR
July ll, 2005
Honorable Peter C. Dorsey I
Senior United States District Judge
14l Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Dear Judge Dorsey:
It has come to my attention that on June 29, 2005, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA"),
through the Office of the United States Attorney, submitted an alternative Proposed
Amended Order ("BIA Alternative Order") in response to a Motion to Amend Scheduling
Order ("Schaghticol ("Schaghticoke"). As Governor of Connecticut, I urge you to deny the Schaghticoke
Motion and to reject the BIA Alternative Order.
As I am certain you are aware, on May 12, 2005, the Interior Board of Indian Appeals
vacated and remanded the final determination of the BIA that recognized the
Schaghticoke as a federal tribe. Days after the lBIA’s decision, the BIA, in a letter ("BIA
Letter"), stated "[u]nsolicited arguments, evidence, comments and briefings from the
petitioners and interested parties will not be accepted or requested . . . [during the 120
reconsideration period for the remanded Schaghticoke final determination]."
The BIA Alternative Order, if accepted, would constitute a reversal of the bar on the
- submission of new evidence to the BIA contained in the BIA Letter and further suggests
an additional 30 day extension for the issuance of the final determination on the
Schaghticoke petition.
In what has become an all too common practice, the BIA has yet again reversed itself by
suggesting that you accommodate the Schaghticoke by allowingthe Tribe to submit new
information that might demonstrate a higher rate of Indian-to-Indian marriages in the
mid—l9th century. This information is apparently needed as a result of the BIA’s own
revelation in 2004 that it used a flawed calculation method, which mistakenly overstated
the percentage of Schaghticoke—to-Schaghticoke marriages during the 19th century.
When calculated properly, the Schaghticoke intra-marriage rate fell to approximately 20
percent, far below the BIA's 50 percent recognition requirement.
STATE CAPITOL, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106
TEL: (860) 566-4840 · PAX: (860) 524-7596
WWW.S[2`l[€.CK.LlS/gOV€fI10l`

I Case 3:00-cv—00820-PCD Document 95-2 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 2 of 2
Most galling is the BIA suggestion that you approve an extension for it to issue a final
determination on this petition. This petition has been denied, awarded, vacated and
remanded and it is time for a final resolution. In light of the time already spent by the
BIA on this petition, there is no practical reason for granting the request for a 30 day
continuance.
There is a point at which this runaway federal agency must be held to its word. This
proposal to delay the issuance of a final determination and to re-open the process for
more evidence must be rejected. The BIA can not be allowed to continually change its
mind about policy and procedure in cases with as much impact on states as those of tribal
recognition. The Schaghticoke have had over a decade to provide the BIA with evidence
that it meets the seven mandatory federal recognition criteria. The tribe has hired
consultants, historians and experts and by its own words has submitted tens of thousands
of pages of documentation in its quest for federal recognition. The time for the collection
and review of evidence for purposes of the Schaghticoke petition has ended and a final
resolution must be reached. ·
This latest policy reversal by the BIA is not supported by any rationale that warrants a 30
day extension or the allowance of new evidence. The state would also add that it cannot
find any authority under the federal regulations that would allow for the submission of
the requested new evidence.
The recognition process must have consistency and finality if its decisions are to be
accorded respect and acceptance by the general public. This process must remain true to
its word and cannot be allowed to continually change, if public confidence is to be
maintained. Accordingly, I urge you to deny the Schaghticoke Motion and to reject the
BIA Altemative Order. The time has come to salvage the integrity of the recognition
process and to provide a resolution to the issues surrounding the Schaghticoke petition
once and for all.
Sincerely,
M. Jodi 1
Govern r I