Sunday, June 28, 2020
ARE Disenrolling Tribes FUDGING the CARES Act Funds Allocation Numbers?
Woke up this morning to a twitter response from a University of Washington Associate Professor answering my query if tribes had to publicly state their populations to get their CARES disbursement. Well, yes and no. But we are finding some interesting facts. And the traction in Congress on disenrollment may improve
The report from Harvard HARVARD Dissecting The US Treasury...
But first here was her quick rundown for us:
In brief, half of CARES $ is based on population; half is based on tribal govt FTE & budgets. For population, feds aren't using tribal enrollment. They're using Census data on # of AIAN on a rez or TSA.
CENSUS DATA? You mean from people actually LIVING on the reservations? Like say, MY cousins who are disenrolled? I'm getting a quick head count, but we know not a lot still live on the rez, but MY family does, I think close to 40. Was there count used? Isn't that a good question to ask?
Attorney Gabriel Galanda on twitter: Treasury didn’t like or trust the tribal enrollment numbers they originally requested, so they audibled to service area population data. Made it up as they went.
OP :NO WAY in Hell does Picayune Rancheria have MORE population than Pechanga after disenrolling HALF their tribe: Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians CA $7,991,043 $2,807,598 $5,183,446
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians CA Treasury HUD enrolled Difference $910,833 $2,863,067 ‐ $1,952,234 We are all working our way through the numbers (don't laugh, I've got experts in the family) and will have more. But the next letter to Steve Mnuchin will be good.
A final thought from Attorney Galanda: Interesting. If the base enrollment numbers are falsified—say, to include disenrolled members—there’s a federal False Claims Act play to be made against whatever tribal official signed the HUD data submission.
Should be no protection via sovereignty...