The Olympian has been digging deeper on an interesting little dispute over a Thurston County property tax bill for a casino partially owned by the Chehalis tribe.
Surprise: an official with the Gregoire administration weighed in on the tribe's side:
[Thurston County assessor Patricia] Costello has accused the No. 2 official at the state Department of Revenue, the agency's tribal liaison, of using her influence to secure a ruling favorable to the tribe. Hundreds of e-mails and other documents obtained by The Olympian through public-records requests show that the official, Leslie Cushman, took an active role in the tax questions surrounding the resort and was in close contact with the tribe throughout the process that led to the ruling. The agency acknowledged "misunderstandings" during the process, and at one point, a Revenue official issued an opinion that the lodge should not be exempt from property taxes. Cushman has denied Costello's accusations.
No doubt Costello's concerns should simply be declared racist.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 27, 2008 07:59 PM | Email ThisMaybe you should make a public record's request from DOR for correspondence on this issue between DOR and the Governor's office.
Dan
Posted by: Dan Brown on October 27, 2008 10:29 PMMaybe you should make a public record's request from DOR for correspondence on this issue between DOR and the Governor's office.
Dan
Posted by: Dan Brown on October 27, 2008 10:29 PM"Here in Washington State, when we buy a governor, she STAYS bought."
Posted by: Hinton on October 28, 2008 01:11 AMHey, it works for Hussein.....
Posted by: iconoclast on October 28, 2008 07:37 AMDon't issue them a freaking permit unless you know they will pay for services.
Posted by: Andy on October 28, 2008 09:13 AMSecond, my understanding of the position is that tribal liaisons are supposed to advocate. Sometimes they advocate TO tribes on behalf of the State and sometimes they advocate TO the State on behalf of tribes. It's the nature of the position. So it sounds like Ms. Cushman was simply doing her job. Obviously, given that the decision went against the tribe, her influence was not undue.
Third, my Chehalis cousins aren't rich.
Fourth, tribes aren't monolithic any more than corporations are, some, perhaps many of their members are Republicans. Certainly it's the case in my tribe that our membership is about half Democratic and half Republican. So to suggest that the Chehalis have bought Gov. Gregoire is simply ignorant.
It's generally true that throughout the country most members of most tribes "vote Democratic but live Republican." Their values, virtues and principles are Republican in that most members of most tribes are conservative in the classical sense, they fit fairly neatly into Rod Dreher's "crunchy conservatism." Yet they most often vote Democrat because most of the liberal attacks against the rights of tribes come from corporate liberal Republicans.
Interesting, given that the other half of this case involves a corporation. This isn't just a tribal case, it's also a corporate case, which is why the decision went against the tribe: their partnership with the corporation.
Corporations often have more rights and privileges than individual Americans, yet on the right you have to go to the classical conservatives to find critics of corporations: a large number of Republicans support corporate liberalism, and corporate liberalism is often at odds with the classical conservatism of American Indian tribes.
When you spend as much time reading news pertaining to Indian Country as I do you quickly see this. It's why, despite a very strong play by the Obama campaign to gain support from Indian tribes, Senator McCain still has a very strong base in Indian Country.
Back to the tax issue, I am of course very interested to see how this will play out. No doubt the Chehalis and their corporate partner will appeal the decision and it may end up in federal court, I don't know.
What I do know is that this is one of those hybrid cases: it's both corporate and tribal law. As tribes venture further into corporate partnerships we will see more cases like this as the law evolves. As that happens, some on the left will demonize the corporate players, some on the right will demonize the tribal players, and most will simply respect the process for what it is and understand that it's pointless and silly to demonize either element.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on October 29, 2008 05:56 AMSecond, my understanding of the position is that tribal liaisons are supposed to advocate. Sometimes they advocate TO tribes on behalf of the State and sometimes they advocate TO the State on behalf of tribes. It's the nature of the position. So it sounds like Ms. Cushman was simply doing her job. Obviously, given that the decision went against the tribe, her influence was not undue.
Third, my Chehalis cousins aren't rich.
Fourth, tribes aren't monolithic any more than corporations are, some, perhaps many of their members are Republicans. Certainly it's the case in my tribe that our membership is about half Democratic and half Republican. So to suggest that the Chehalis have bought Gov. Gregoire is simply ignorant.
It's generally true that throughout the country most members of most tribes "vote Democratic but live Republican." Their values, virtues and principles are Republican in that most members of most tribes are conservative in the classical sense, they fit fairly neatly into Rod Dreher's "crunchy conservatism." Yet they most often vote Democrat because most of the liberal attacks against the rights of tribes come from corporate liberal Republicans.
Interesting, given that the other half of this case involves a corporation. This isn't just a tribal case, it's also a corporate case, which is why the decision went against the tribe: their partnership with the corporation.
Corporations often have more rights and privileges than individual Americans, yet on the right you have to go to the classical conservatives to find critics of corporations: a large number of Republicans support corporate liberalism, and corporate liberalism is often at odds with the classical conservatism of American Indian tribes.
When you spend as much time reading news pertaining to Indian Country as I do you quickly see this. It's why, despite a very strong play by the Obama campaign to gain support from Indian tribes, Senator McCain still has a very strong base in Indian Country.
Back to the tax issue, I am of course very interested to see how this will play out. No doubt the Chehalis and their corporate partner will appeal the decision and it may end up in federal court, I don't know.
What I do know is that this is one of those hybrid cases: it's both corporate and tribal law. As tribes venture further into corporate partnerships we will see more cases like this as the law evolves. As that happens, some on the left will demonize the corporate players, some on the right will demonize the tribal players, and most will simply respect the process for what it is and understand that it's pointless and silly to demonize either element.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on October 29, 2008 05:57 AM