The Spokane Tribal Council is currently deliberating whether to remove their vice-chairman, Rodney W. Abrahamson, from his position following his conviction on misdemeanor charges related to the illegal killing of bison in Montana. The core of the issue lies in Abrahamson’s alleged act of providing false identification to wildlife officials during the investigation, claiming affiliation with the Nez Perce Tribe, which possesses treaty rights to hunt bison, a right not extended to the Spokane Tribe. This incident has brought into question Abrahamson’s adherence to the Spokane Tribe’s constitution, which explicitly prohibits council members from holding office if convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving dishonesty.
The Incident and Legal Ramifications
The sequence of events began in February when Abrahamson participated in a hunting trip north of Yellowstone National Park, accompanying a group of Nez Perce hunters engaged in a lawful bison hunt. According to court records and subsequent statements from Montana wildlife officials, Abrahamson illegally killed two bison during this trip. When approached by Montana wildlife agents seeking identification, Abrahamson reportedly misrepresented his identity, falsely claiming to be a member of the Nez Perce Tribe.
This misrepresentation triggered an investigation that ultimately led to Abrahamson being charged with five misdemeanors: two counts of hunting out of season, two counts of possession of game taken out of season, and one count of obstructing an investigation. These charges reflect the severity with which Montana law addresses illegal hunting and attempts to deceive law enforcement officers.
The legal process took an unexpected turn when Abrahamson failed to appear at his scheduled court hearing on February 28th. This absence resulted in an automatic finding of guilt on all charges and the forfeiture of his $3,475 bond, which included restitution intended to compensate for the loss of the two bison. This outcome further complicated the situation and intensified the scrutiny of Abrahamson’s actions by the Spokane Tribal Council.
Constitutional Implications for the Spokane Tribe
The heart of the matter for the Spokane Tribe rests on the potential violation of their own tribal constitution. The constitution’s specific clause regarding the removal of council members convicted of felonies or misdemeanors involving dishonesty directly implicates Abrahamson’s actions. The key question for the Tribal Council is whether the act of providing false identification to a game warden constitutes "dishonesty" within the meaning of the constitution.
This determination carries significant weight, as it could set a precedent for future cases involving alleged misconduct by tribal leaders. The Tribal Council must carefully consider the implications of their decision, balancing the need to uphold the integrity of the council with the principles of due process and fairness.
The Spokane Tribal Council’s Response
In response to the allegations against Abrahamson, Rudy Peone, Chairman of the Spokane Tribal Business Council, announced that the tribe would conduct an internal investigation. This investigation was initiated to gather all relevant facts and assess the extent to which Abrahamson’s actions violated the tribal constitution.
Peone also addressed the situation in an April 16th letter to tribal members, acknowledging the concerns raised by an article in The Spokesman-Review newspaper detailing Abrahamson’s poaching charges. In the letter, Peone emphasized the importance of addressing any alleged violations of the Spokane Tribal Constitution in a timely manner. He further stated that the Tribal Council would develop a process to appoint an independent entity to investigate the alleged violations. This commitment to an independent investigation signaled the seriousness with which the Tribal Council was treating the matter.
Furthermore, Peone assigned the tribe’s attorney to review the incident and provide legal counsel to the Tribal Council. This legal review aimed to ensure that the Tribal Council’s actions were consistent with the tribal constitution and applicable laws.
The Perspective of Montana Wildlife Officials
Montana wildlife officials played a crucial role in uncovering Abrahamson’s false claim. According to Sam Sheppard, a Montana warden captain, two wildlife agents initially approached Abrahamson after he admitted to killing two bison. When asked for identification, Abrahamson claimed he could not locate his tribal ID and provided a false name belonging to a member of the Nez Perce Tribe.
The wardens’ diligence led them to uncover the discrepancy and eventually confront Abrahamson the following day, at which point he revealed his true identity. This sequence of events highlights the importance of vigilance in enforcing wildlife regulations and the potential consequences of attempting to deceive law enforcement.
The Significance of Treaty Rights
The incident also underscores the significance of treaty rights and the complex legal framework governing hunting rights for Native American tribes. The Nez Perce Tribe possesses treaty rights that allow its members to hunt bison in certain areas, a right not shared by the Spokane Tribe. This distinction is crucial, as it formed the basis for the charges against Abrahamson. His attempt to falsely claim affiliation with the Nez Perce Tribe in order to circumvent hunting regulations demonstrates a misunderstanding or disregard for the importance of treaty rights and the legal obligations that accompany them.
Rodney W. Abrahamson’s Position
Throughout this process, attempts to reach Rodney W. Abrahamson for comment have been unsuccessful. This lack of communication has added another layer of complexity to the situation, as his perspective on the events and his defense against the allegations remain unknown to the public.
Potential Outcomes and Implications for the Spokane Tribe
The Spokane Tribal Council faces a difficult decision with potentially far-reaching implications. If the council determines that Abrahamson’s actions constitute dishonesty under the tribal constitution, they may vote to remove him from his position as vice-chairman. Such a decision would send a strong message about the importance of integrity and accountability within the tribal government.
Alternatively, the Tribal Council may decide that Abrahamson’s actions, while inappropriate, do not warrant removal from office. This decision could be based on a variety of factors, including the specific interpretation of the tribal constitution, mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident, or concerns about the potential impact on the tribe’s political stability.
Regardless of the outcome, the Spokane Tribal Council‘s handling of this matter will undoubtedly shape the perception of the Spokane Tribal Council and its commitment to ethical governance. The case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by tribal governments in balancing traditional values with modern legal standards. The Spokane Tribal Council must now weigh the evidence, consider the legal and constitutional implications, and make a decision that is in the best interests of the Spokane Tribal Council and its members. The Spokane Tribal Council has a constitutional obligation to uphold.
The conclusion of this investigation by the Spokane Tribal Council will be closely watched by tribal members and other Native American communities across the country. The outcome will serve as an example of how tribal governments address issues of misconduct and uphold their constitutional obligations.