The governing body of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Tribal Council, took decisive action on Tuesday, suspending President Bryan Brewer amidst a series of serious allegations. The accusations center around claims that President Brewer acted unilaterally, bypassing the required approval of the council on multiple occasions, and further, that he mishandled a financial contribution of $5,000 designated for the tribe. This action throws the tribe’s leadership into a state of uncertainty as they navigate these challenging circumstances.
Garfield Steele, a representative of the Wounded Knee district and a member of the Tribal Council, publicly confirmed the suspension. According to Steele, the council convened and, through a vote of 10 in favor and 5 opposed, decided to suspend President Brewer from his duties. This suspension is intended to be temporary, lasting until July 17th. On that date, a formal hearing is scheduled to take place, where the allegations against President Brewer will be presented and examined. The outcome of this hearing will determine whether President Brewer will be reinstated to his position or face the more severe consequence of impeachment.
Steele outlined the three primary complaints that led to the suspension vote. These allegations, if proven true, represent significant breaches of tribal protocols and potentially a misuse of presidential authority.
The first accusation alleges that President Brewer overstepped his authority by signing over the tribe’s power of attorney. This action was reportedly taken to approve bonds for the tribe, a decision that traditionally requires the explicit consent and approval of the entire Tribal Council. Granting power of attorney without due process raises concerns about transparency and adherence to established governance procedures within the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The nature of the bonds, their value, and the potential implications for the tribe’s financial stability remain central to the investigation.
The second complaint centers on the re-approval of a contract related to health benefits for the tribe’s former casino manager. Again, the core of the allegation is that President Brewer acted independently, without seeking or obtaining the necessary consent from the Tribal Council. This unilateral action raises questions about potential conflicts of interest, favoritism, or a lack of adherence to established procurement and contract approval processes. The details of the health benefits contract, its terms, and the justification for its re-approval are critical elements under scrutiny.
The third and final allegation concerns the mishandling of a $5,000 donation made by a business to the tribe. The specific details of the alleged mishandling remain somewhat vague, but the implication is that the funds were not properly accounted for or used in accordance with the donor’s intentions or tribal regulations. This accusation raises concerns about financial accountability, transparency, and the proper management of tribal resources.
Despite voting in favor of the suspension, Councilman Steele emphasized his support for President Brewer and acknowledged the positive contributions he has made to the tribe. He stated, "I support the president. I support a lot of things that he’s done. He’s done good things, and the reason why I voted to accept this was to allow him to give his side of the story." Steele’s comments highlight the delicate balance between upholding tribal laws and procedures and recognizing the contributions of a leader. His vote for suspension, he explained, was primarily to ensure that President Brewer has a fair opportunity to defend himself against the allegations.
The upcoming hearing, scheduled for July 17th, will be a crucial event in determining President Brewer‘s future. A tribal judge will oversee the proceedings, ensuring that due process is followed and that both sides have an opportunity to present their case. Following the hearing, the ultimate decision regarding impeachment or reinstatement will rest with the tribe’s 19-member council. A significant majority, specifically a two-thirds vote, is required for impeachment to occur. This high threshold underscores the gravity of the decision and the need for a broad consensus among council members before removing a president from office.
Efforts to obtain comments from President Brewer and his associate, Chuck Jacobs, late Thursday were unsuccessful. Their perspective on the allegations and the suspension remains unknown at this time.
In the aftermath of the suspension vote, the Tribal Council also approved a resolution, by a vote of 13-2, addressing President Brewer‘s authority over economic development programs. The resolution specifically stated that President Brewer did not have the authority to oversee these programs. Furthermore, the resolution asserted that President Brewer did not have the right to allow Raycen Raines to sign documents without explicit tribal approval.
The involvement of Raycen Raines in this matter was not explicitly explained during the council proceedings, leaving the nature of his role and the reasons for the resolution somewhat unclear. This lack of transparency prompted Councilwoman Robin Tapio to question the speed and basis of the resolution.
Tapio voiced her concerns during the debate, stating, "Where is the information? We should have had that information. We’re going to vote on this without even knowing that this is actually true?" Her questions highlight the importance of providing council members with adequate information and justification before making decisions that could have significant implications for the tribe.
This is not the first time President Brewer has faced the threat of impeachment. In December of the previous year, the Tribal Council unsuccessfully attempted to impeach him. According to reports in the Lakota Country Times newspaper, the council reviewed a 15-count impeachment complaint during a special session. However, after deliberation, the council voted 7-5 to dismiss the complaint, allowing President Brewer to remain in office.
Adding to the complexities surrounding President Brewer‘s leadership, he was arrested in June 2013 on a charge of writing a bad check. He was subsequently released after covering the cost of the check, which amounted to $191. The check was reportedly owed to a veterinary clinic in Gordon for services rendered on February 23, 2012. This past incident, while seemingly unrelated to the current allegations, may contribute to the overall perception of President Brewer‘s leadership and judgment.
The suspension of President Brewer marks a significant moment for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. As they navigate these serious allegations and the upcoming hearing, the tribe faces the challenge of maintaining stability and unity while upholding its laws and procedures. The outcome of this situation will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the tribe’s leadership and governance.