Hopi treasurer hearing postponed until April 4
LaRance requests dismissal with conflict of interest

KYKOTSMOVI -In a packed Tribal Council Chamber, Hopi Chairman LeRoy Shingoitewa called the hearing to order March 7. He introduced Judge Carey Vicente as the presiding judge to hear the case of the Hopi Tribe vs. Russell Mockta - Removal for Serious Neglect of Duty-Financial Investments - while in his capacity as tribal treasurer.

Mockta has been on paid suspension for nearly one year, with formal charges not actually filed until late fall. The charges cite three specific areas of "neglect of duty," according to the Hopi Constitution.

Since last fall when Hopi Council authorized the three initial, original action item and resolution supported charges, Shingoitewa has added three charges of his own, making it six within the past six weeks. Special prosecutor for the Hopi Council, Norberto Cisneros, added his own additional charges, which is now up to 20 charges.

Cisneros countered Mockta's attorney, Gary LaRance, by saying his recent list of 20 charges, "were really just expanded factual evidence" to support the original three charges authorized by Hopi Council.

Neither Shingoitewa nor Cisneros have approval for these additional charges through Hopi Council authorization. According to the Hopi Constitution, the charges must state all charges must be formalized, which is one of the major points of contention regarding the hearing, according to LaRance.

The Hopi Council has selected as their special presiding judge for the Mockta trial, attorney Carey Vicente, of the Jicarilla Apache Nation. Vicente is a judge on his home reservation in Dulce, N.M. He has also served as chief justice to Chippewa, Yavapai Apache and Mississippi Choctaw. Vicente is a former law professor who has served as assistant provost to a western Colorado college. He has also served as a federal judge specializing in American Indian law.

Vicente opened the session after Shingoitewa formally called the meeting to order. He stated that "we've had a number of these types of proceedings before in this council chamber, and that because Chairman Shingoitewa and Norberto Cisneros did not succeed in mediation efforts with Mockta, we must go forward with the Hopi Council request for a trial."

Vicente was specific that Hopi council would be looking for "neglect of duty," in three areas - which specific duty was neglected, how was the neglect created and how was it seriously neglected.

Vicente also stated for the record that the Hopi Council must be left to their own "sound judgement" to make a final decision, that he would serve as the judge for the Mockta trial and the Hopi Council would serve as the jury.

LaRance stated for the record on behalf of Mockta that there were three specific areas of concern with the hearing.

Firstly, LaRance requested an "immediate dismissal of all charges" on behalf of his client stating that according to Hopi Constitution, Article 5, Section 2, that only the Hopi Council alone, has "sole and exclusive" authority to present formal charges against any officer for removal. He added on Dec. 7 the resolution that was approved cited only three specific allegations against Mockta, which both Shingoitewa and Cisneros separately expanded without notification or authorization by Hopi Council.

LaRance cited a recent court case in the Hopi Appellate Court that overturned another similar case in which Hopi tribal staff members added their own charges and the charges were found to be illegal.

Secondly, Mockta wanted Cisneros disqualified over what he believes is a "conflict of interest" in that Cisneros is acting in the current capacity as the "interim" general counsel for the Hopi Tribe and is also serving as "special prosecutor" for this case. Cisneros is representing the Hopi Tribe in a separate pending case of the three Sipaulovi Council representatives against the Hopi Tribe and also the Nuvamsa vs. the Hopi Tribe in which Mockta is named as a defendant making Cisneros representation a "violation of a liability issue."

Thirdly, Mockta felt a "full, entire Hopi Council" must be present. This would require 23 members in chambers. However, two of the current villages are battling their own internal village disputes, which have not allowed representatives to take their seats in council. There are currently only 14 members with the chairman and vice chairman at Hopi Council, making it 16. The question then is, how many members would truly be a "legal quorum" as required by the Hopi Constitution to make the required two-thirds vote to remove Mockta from office.

LaRance concluded his statement by saying that "it has been the practice of all former Hopi General Counsels to stay out of any removal hearings because of these potential conflicts."

Cisneros also felt that LaRance had a conflict of interest as well. He stated for the record, that because LaRance is representing the three Sipaulovi representatives against the Hopi Tribe, that LaRance also should remove himself from the Mockta case.

Discussion from the Hopi Council ensued, with choices of either a postponement or possibly even a dismissal. Kykotsmovi representative Nada Talayumptewa made the suggestion for dismissal, which did not receive a formal second.

Everett Calnimptewa, representative from Upper Moencopi, said, that he felt "it would be best to postpone the hearing so we can define the conflicts so we are not in any way, accused of misjudging this hearing. It's been almost a year and we cannot be playing politics by giving him so much time. Let's postpone it, but not over a month, but a short time."

Vicente concluded the discussion by saying to the council members, that "I do have some worries about what makes a full Hopi Council. Just for speculation, say the Hopi Appellate Court does say that all 23 members must be here, then this removal hearing for Mr. Mockta would be invalid. Also I would not want to jeopardize Mr. Cisneros because of this possible conflict of interest, because Mr. Cisneros could be seriously affected since this is his career profession."

A motion by Upper Moencopi Rep. Everett Calnimptewa to postpone the hearing for 20 days was seconded by Rep. Danny Humetewa, with a final vote of 12 in favor and three against, moving the hearing to 9 a.m. on March 28.

Hopi Council then moved the hearing date to April 4 due to prior scheduling conflicts. Council members stated they wanted to give the hearing their full attention since they knew the hearing would likely take an entire day of evidence presentation and discussion.

Donate to nhonews.com Report a Typo Contact
Most Read