Piliero Mazza & Pargament, PLLC   Vol. 5, Issue 7  July/August 2003

Addressing Tribal and Alaska Native Corporation
Legal and Business Issues


The articles shown here are excerpts -- if you'd like to subscribe to Tribal Advocate, please contact Susan Brock at (202) 857-1000 or at   


  A R T I C L E S


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING - D.C. Court of Appeals Upholds Native American Contracting Preference

COURT WATCH - An Indian Tribe Is Not A "Person" Under Section 1983


INTERVIEW - The Tribal Advocate Speaks with Carey Wold


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING

D.C. Court of Appeals Upholds Native American Contracting Preference

In a June 6, 2003 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held valid a set-aside program, contained in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Act), Pub. L. No. 106-79, 113 Stat. 1212 (1999), that favored Native American businesses. The decision, in American Federation of Gov’t Employees v. United States, No. 02-5142 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2003), is significant because it recognizes that Congress is empowered to establish federal contracting preferences favoring federally recognized Indian tribes. Because of the unique relationship between Congress and federally recognized tribes, such preferences are not subject to “strict” judicial scrutiny, and thus escape the general prohibition on race-based preferences established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

BACK TO TOP

COURT WATCH

An Indian Tribe Is Not A "Person" Under Section 1983

On May 19, 2003, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Inyo County v. Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, 123 S. Ct. 1887 (2003). As described in prior issues of The Tribal Advocate, the case involved consideration of the limits of immunity for tribal enterprises with respect to matters of local law enforcement. In an opinion written by Justice Ginsburg in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Breyer joined, the Court denied the Tribe a statutory damages claim for violation of its tribal immunity and vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was remanded for further consideration of federal common law. The Tribe sought redress for Inyo County’s execution of a California state court warrant against the Tribe’s casino under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the federal common law of Indian affairs. 

BACK TO TOP

INTERVIEW

The Tribal Advocate Speaks with Carey Wold

The Tribal Advocate recently had the pleasure of speaking with Carey Wold, who heads the 8(a) Business Development and Contract Procurement Program within the Department of Community and Economic Development for the State of Utah. Mr. Wold spoke to us about his work with tribal entities in Utah.
 
Tribal Advocate (TA):   Can you tell our readers a little about yourself?

Carey Wold (Wold):   I grew up in a rural environment close to reservations around North Dakota, and went to school in Utah, graduating from college with a degree in business management. After graduation, I moved back to the Uintah Basin area and worked as city administrator for a small rural community that neighbored the Northern Ute Indian tribe. Later, I became Economic Development Director for Uintah County.

TA:  What is your current position and how does it relate to the Utah Indian Tribes?
 
Wold: I work for the Department of Community and Economic Development for the state of Utah and my position focuses on 8(a) business development and federal contract procurement.

While working with the city and later the county, I had first hand knowledge that economic development drives everything. It drives the opportunity for people to create sustainable lifestyles, jobs, social fabric and all the things that make for a good community. In promoting economic development, I was faced with the issues of remoteness, lack of infrastructure, and high poverty levels. So I explored ways to take advantage of programs for the disadvantaged. I began by researching government programs, such as the Empowerment Zone Program that the United States Department of Agriculture BRAVO (USDA) offers, and the SBA’s 8(a) and HUBZone programs. After extensive research, I focused on the 8(a) program. I had researched the top 25 8(a)s in the country and learned that several were tribal companies. Some had graduated; some were still in place. I noticed that the ANCs in Alaska were being pretty successful in bringing contracts to their state and to their communities. So, basically, we looked at the successes and failures of many of the reservations and tribes throughout the country and started to chart our own course.

BACK TO TOP

 

© by Piliero, Mazza and Pargament, PLLC. All rights reserved. Disclaimer