July 22, 1994 

Joseph Anderson 

Gail Decker 

Joanie Smith 

Morely Clause, I11 

Richard Kilgour 

Dower Davis 

d/b/a Tuscarora Tribal Business Council 

P.O. Box 1082 

Lewistown, New York 14092 

Dear Petitioners: 

This letter constitutes the decision of the National Indian 

Gaming Commission (NIGC) concerning your appeal, pursuant to 25 

C.F.R. Part 524, of the Chairman's April 13, 1994, disapproval of 

a gaming ordinance, submitted under 25 C.F.R. Part 522. The NIGC 

ikw affirms the Chairman's decision to disapprove the ordinance 

submitted by the petitioners. We find that the Chairman properly 

deferred to the Department of the Interior (D0I)'s determination 

that the Tuscarora Tribal Business Council (TTBC) is not the 

authorized representative of the Nation, nor are any of the 

petitioners "authorized tribal officials," within the meaning of 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 & 

w., and the NIGC definition of an Indian tribe, 25 C.F.R. 

5 502.13. Because NIGC regulations state that only a federally 

recognized tribe may appeal a disapproved ordinance, 25 C.F.R. 

S 524.1, in affirming the Chairman's decision, we find that you 

lack standing to make this appeal. 

BACKGROUND 

Our understanding of the Tuscarora Nation of Indians 

(Nation) is that it is a traditional Indian tribe of the Iroquois 

Confederacy. The Nation is recognized by the Secretary of the 

Interior as a tribe. 58 Fed. Reg. 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993). The 

Nation has long maintained its traditions without a written 

constitution, code or laws, or other written documents. The 

Nation government is composed of several chiefs, each of whom 

heads one of the respective clans of the Nation. They are 

collectively known as the Council of Chiefs (Council). See, 

Notice of Appeal, Ref. No. CO-94-03, Affidavit, Joan Smith, pp. 

1-2 (April 25, 1994); letter from Joseph E. Zdarsky, Esq. to John 

p +I' Duffy, Esq., Counsel to the Secretary of the Interior (July 27, 

1993). Governmental decisions are made by the Council. The 
w 

Council is currently recognized by the DO1 as the governing body of the Nation. See, letter from B. D. Ott, Eastern Area Director, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), to Chief Leo Henry (April 2, 

1993); letter from Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary - Indian 

Affairs, to Joseph E. Zdarsky, TTBC counsel, (October 18, 1993); 

letter from Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, to 

Michael D. Cox, General Counsel, NIGC, (July 12, 1994); letter 

from B. D. Ott, Eastern Area Director, BIA, to the Honorable 

Francis J. Sanzillo, Secretary to the Minority, New York State 

Senate (May 17, 1994) . 

According to petitioners, in late 1992 or early 1993, the 

Tuscarora Tribal Business Council (TTBC) was established "to help 

develop and make available employment and economic opportunities 

for the Tuscarora people." Affidavit of Joan Smith, Notice of 

Appeal, Ref. No. CO-94-03, Appendix, p. 3 (April 25, 1994). The 

TTBC provides educational and recreational opportunities on the 

Reservation. a. On March 14, 1994, the TTBC convened a meeting, 

at which time the TTBC alleges it was elected the new Nation 

government by those persons in attendance. On March 16, 1994, 

the election results were communicated to Ada Deer, Assistant 

Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, with a request that 

she meet with the TTBC. 

On March 16, 1994, the TTBC also submitted a gaming 

ordinance to the NIGC for the Chairman's approval. On March 25, 

1994, the Chairman declined to approve the gaming ordinance based 

on the fact that the TTBC is not authorized to submit an 

ordinance for approval pursuant to 25 C.F.R. 5 522.1, nor are any 

of the individual petitioners authorized under 25 C.F.R. § 

522.2(a). The Chairman also issued a Closure Order for the bingo 

facility being run by the TTBC at that time. By letter from 

Joseph E. Zdarsky, the TTBC sought an expedited review of those 

decisions. On April 5, 1994, the Chairman met with the TTBC and 

its counsel to further discuss the Closure Order. By letter on 

April 8, 1994, the Chairman reaffirmed his prior decision on the 

Closure Order. On April 25, 1994, the TTBC appealed the 

Chairman's decision. However, by a joint motion of the parties, 

the appeal of the Closure Order has been stayed. See, Joint 

Motion to Stay Proceedings (June 14, 1994). 

In addition, by letter of April 13, 1994, the Chairman 

reaffirmed that he could not approve the TTBC gaming ordinance 

submitted on March 16, 1994. On April 25, 1994, the TTBC filed a 

Notice of Appeal regarding the Chairman's decision not to approve 

the TTBC gaming ordinance. The TTBC claimed that the Chairman 

erred by deferring to the BIA rather than conducting an 

independent investigation of which body constituted the Nation 

government. See, Notice of Appeal, Ref. CO-94-03; pp. 3-4 

(April 25, 1994). 
The Chairman had informally requested information from the 

BIA as to the status of the TTBC. The Chairman was provided 

information to the effect that the Council of Chiefs was still 

recognized by the BIA as the governing body of the Nation. As a 

result of a written request to the Assistant Secretary required 

for another gaming ordinance submitted by Webster Cusick, the 

Assistant Secretary confirmed in the enclosed July 12, 1994, 

letter, that the Council of Chiefs is the governing body of the 

Nation and that the TTBC does not represent the Nation. 

While the March 25, 1994, Closure Order and the April 13, 

1994, disapproval of the gaming ordinance are linked, they 

constitute separate actions by the Chairman. Therefore, the NIGC 

shall review those actions separately. This opinion deals only 

with the April 13, 1994, gaming ordinance disapproval. 

ANALYSIS 

We conclude that the Chairman properly deferred to the 

decision of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs on the make 

up of the Nation's tribal governing body and that the TTBC 

consequently does not have standing to appeal this decision. 

The Secretary's designee, the Assistant Secretary - Indian 

Affairs, has the necessary expertise on which the Chairman can 

reasonably rely. IGRA, in mandating deference to the Secretary 

on recognition of tribes, implied that the Chairman should also 

defer to the Secretary's recognition of a tribe's governing body. 

Furthermore, following the decision of the lead agency on such 

issues promotes consistency in our government-to-government 

relationships with tribes. Therefore, the Chairman's decision to 

defer to the Assistant Secretary is reasonable. Regardless, the 

TTBC made no showing that it should be recognized as the Nation's 

representative. Consequently, because the TTBC does not 

represent a tribe and only a tribe can appeal an ordinance 

disapproval, the TTBC does not have standing to appeal the 

Chairman's decision. 

I. The Chairman should defer to the BIA in areas in which the 

BIA has expertise. 

Traditionally, courts defer to the executive branch agency 

expert in the field of the dispute at bar. Indian affairs is no 

exception. For more than 100 years the courts have deferred to 

the expertise of the executive branch with respect to recognition 

of tribal bodies. In United States v. Hollidav, 70 U.S. (3 

Wall.) 407 (1866), the Court stated: "it is the rule of this 

court to follow the action of the executive and other political 

departments of government, whose more special duty it is to 

determine such affairs.'' Td. at 419. Recent decisions reflect 

that the courts have continued to defer to the BIA in Indian 
affairs matters in which the BIA has developed expertise. James 

v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 824 

F.2d 1132, 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1987), Golden Hill Pauaussett Tribe of 

Indians v. Weicker, Jr., 839 F. Supp. 130, 135 (D. Conn. 1993). 

The BIA1s expertise in Indian affairs covers a wide range of 

activities. Congress delegated general Federal authority over 

Indian affairs to the Secretary of the Interior. 25 U.S.C. 

§§ l(a) and 2, 43 U.S.C. § 1457. The Secretary delegated his 

authority to act on Indian affairs to the Assistant SecretaryIndian Affairs, the administrative head of the BIA. 209 DM 8.1. 

Under that authority the Assistant Secretary has promulgated 

regulations on a wide variety of Indian affairs issues and 

programs including tribal recognition, 25 C.F.R. Part 83; tribal 

reorganization under a statute, 25 C.F.R. Part 81; and 

petitioning procedures for tribes reorganized under federal 

statute and other organized tribes, 25 C.F.R. Part 82. 

In several recent cases, courts have explicitly noted the 

BIA1s expertise in determining whether or not a group should be 

recognized as a tribe. See, Runs After v. United States, 766 

F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1987), James v. United States Dewartment of 

Health and Human services, 824 F.2d 1132, 1137 (D.C. ~ir. 1987), 

Golden Hill Pausussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker, Jr., 839 F. 

Supp. 130 (D. Conn. 1993). In Runs After, the court stated that 

l1it cannot be denied that the BIA has special expertise and 

extensive experience in dealing with Indian affairs." Runs After 

at 352. In a case last year the court noted that the BIA 

llemploys historians, anthropologists, and genealogists, James, 

824 F.2d at 1138, and has evaluated at least 143 petitions for 

recognition.I1 Golden Hill Pausussett at 134-135. The court also 

noted that the BIA has a regulatory scheme "to determine which 

Indian groups warrant recognitionIn and that the Itinquiry is 

extremely intricate and technical.If Id. at 135. The court went 

on to hold that: 

These factors and BIAfs administrative superiority in 

gathering the relevant facts and in marshalling them 

into a meaningful pattern, [citation omitted], obligate 

deferral of the question of plaintiff's recognition as 

a tribe to the BIA for determination. Congress1 

delegation of authority, the regulations adopted in 

implementation thereof, and BIA1s development of 

expertise appropriate thereto, amply demonstrate a 

scheme for determination of tribal status intended and 

best left at first blush to the BIA. Id. 

Thus, the BIA has achieved considerable knowledge and expertise 

in dealing with problems of tribal recognition. 

When the BIA has recognized a tribe it must then, as the 

lead Federal agency in Indian affairs, determine how it will 

w 

-4- 
maintain government-to-government relations with the tribe. This 

generally means interacting with the recognized tribal 

government. However, when there are two competing factions 

claiming to represent the tribe, the BIA is forced to chose one. 

In Thompson v. Eastern Area Director, 17 IBIA 39 (1989), a 

situation similar to the TTBC issue arose, that is two factions 

of a tribe claimed to be the legitimate representative of the 

tribe. The Board quoted at length from a United States district 

court case regarding the BIA's responsibility in such matters: 

Under the circumstances, the court finds that the BIA 

was obligated under its trust responsibility to 

determine who, for the purpose of relations with the 

BIA, was to be the tribal representative. . . . The 

simple fact is that the BIA was forced to recognize 

someone as the legitimate tribal representative and 

that to do so the Secretary was forced to review the 

procedures followed at and prior to the meeting to 

determine whether such procedures were in compliance 

with the Indian constitution. . . . However, the BIA 

sought only to determine, for the purpose of 

administering BIA affairs, the legitimate Indian 

representative. The BIAts review of the actions taken 

by the dissident faction was not primarily concerned 

with the actions of the tribal government. Rather the 

BIA was concerned with its own responsibility to 

administer its trust duties to the Indian people. Id. 

(suotinq Milam v. Department of the Interior, 10 1ndian 

L. Rep. 3013, 3015 (D.D.C. 1982)). 

See also, Naranjo v. Albuquerque Area Director, IBIA 92-203-A 

(1993); Rhatiqan v. Muskosee Area Director, IBIA 91-50-A (1992); 

Smallev v. Eastern Area Director, IBIA 90-79-A (1990); Pueblo of 

Zuni Concerned Communitv Citizens Committee v. Actinq Deputy 

Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (Operations) IBIA 85-47-A 

(1986). 

With this expertise in Indian affairs and specifically in 

the recognition of tribal governing bodies, the Chairman's 

decision to defer to the Assistant Secretary on recognition of 

the Council of Chiefs is reasonable. The Chairman is simply 

following the precedent established by the Federal courts which 

have historically deferred to the BIA as the lead Federal agency 

in Indian affairs with the expertise to make such decisions. 

11. That the Chairman should rely on the Secretary, or his 

designee, for guidance on what group constitutes the 

governing body of the Nation is implicit in IGRA. 

Recognition of the Secretary's expertise in determining the 

tribal governing body is implicit in the Act's reliance on the 

w 

-5- 
Secretary to establish which groups are tribes that can conduct 

gaming. IGRA states that the Chairman is required to deal only 

with tribes recognized by the Secretary. 25 U.S.C. 

§§ 2703(5), 2710(b)(l). The IGRA's definition of a tribe was 

codified in the NIGC regulations without change. Section 502.13 

of 25 C.F.R. provides that "Indian tribes mean any Indian 

tribe . . . that the Secretary recognizes . . . .I' The IGRA 

further states that: "An Indian tribe may engage in . . . class 

I1 gaming on Ind-ian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction 

if . . . the governing body of the Indian tribe adopts an 

ordinance or resolution which is approved by the Chairman.I1 

Thus, the plain meaning of the Act establishes that only tribes 

recognized by the Secretary, acting through their designated 

representatives, may engage in Indian gaming. 

A concomitant responsibility to tribal recognition is the 

recognition of the tribal government. Whenever the Secretary 

determines that a group is a tribe, he must decide what group 

represents that tribe for purposes of their government-togovernment relationship. It follows that Congress would assume 

that a Secretarial recognition of a tribe includes a Secretarial 

recognition of the tribe's government. Therefore, we conclude 

that because Congress intended the NIGC to rely on the Secretary 

for tribal recognition, it likewise intended reliance on the 

Secretary for recognition of the tribal governing body. 

w 111. The Chairman's deference to BIA prevents the chaos 

which would result if different Federal government 

agencies recognized different governing bodies for the 

same tribe. 

The Chairman's decision to defer to BIA promotes consistency 

among federal agencies that deal with Indian tribes. To do 

otherwise open the Federal government and the tribes to a 

potentially chaotic situation. For example, the chairman could 

recognize a faction of a tribe that opposed gaming while the BIA 

recognized a faction that favored gaming. The BIA recognized 

faction would therefore not receive approval of a gaming 

management contract or tribal ordinance from the Chairman even 

though the BIA recognized the group as the legitimate tribal 

representative. The BIA recognized group could, however, submit 

a gaming compact for Secretarial review and approval in an effort 

to conduct gaming without outside management. The Department of 

Justice, which represents the BIA and the Commission in Federal 

court, would have to be the final arbiter as to which group the 

United States would recognize for purposes of any legal actions 

arising out of this two-part recognition. Deference to the BIA 

prevents such chaos from occurring within the Federal government. 
W IV. The Chairman would have reached the same decision as 

the BIA based on the record. 

Lastly, even if the Chairman had conducted an independent 

investigation, as requested by the TTBC, the Chairman would have 

reached the exact same decision as the BIA. The TTBC has simply 

provided no documentation to support its claim or cause a change 

in the status quo. The BIA has a long-standing relationship with 

the Council. The Council has been continuously recognized as the 

Nation's governing body. In the BIA1s dealings with the Nation 

on treaty cloth, trust funds and education funding, it has dealt 

with the Council of Chiefs. The TTBC claims it was elected the 

new government on March 14, 1994. However, despite claims that 

written evidence of this change were forthcoming, none has ever 

been produced for either the Secretary or Chairman to review. 

Clearly the burden of proof is on the petitioner, and it has 

failed to meet that burden. Without more, neither the BIA nor 

the Chairman could recognize a major change in the Nation's 

leadership. 

V. Standing. 

Finally, we conclude that the TTBC does not have standing to 

appeal the disapproval of the gaming ordinance. This appeal is 

made pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 524.1 which states that only a 

federally recognized tribe may appeal the disapproval of an 

ordinance. Necessarily a tribe's appeal may be submitted only by 

a person or entity authorized by the tribe to file the appeal. 

Since we have concluded above that the TTBC cannot be recognized 

as the governing body of the Nation and the Nation has provided 

no other delegation of authority for the TTBC, the TTBC does not 

have standing to appeal the ordinance disapproval. 

CONCLUSION 

The Chairman's decision to defer to BIA's determination of 

which body to engage in government-to-government relations, when 

two competing factions of the Nation claim to be the legitimate 

representative, was not in error. The BIA has a relationship 

with one of the two groups that far predates the existence of the 

NIGC. BIA is the recognized expert in this area of Indian 

affairs. The Chairman, in order to fulfill his statutory and 

regulatory obligations while at the same time not interfering in 

the Nation's internal election dispute, deferred to the BIA's 

assessment that the Council remains the Nation governing body. 

Based on the record, we find no compelling evidence that would 

obligate the Chairman to be required, contrary to the BIA1s 

assessment and the implicit language of the IGRA, to deal with a 

body other than the Council. Therefore, for the reasons given 

above, we affirm the Chairman's decision. Furthermore, we 

conclude that the TTBC lacks standing to bring this appeal under 

VllYr9 

-7- 
25 C.F.R. § 524.1 because it is not a tribe, nor are petitioners 

W tribal officials, under the IGRA and the NIGC regulations. 

If you have any questions regarding this determination, 

please feel free to contact us at (202) 632-7003. 

Sincerely, 

Jan' McKeag 

~ssqciate Comm 

\ 

c: Indian Law Resource Center for the Council of Chiefs 

601 E Street, SE 

Washington, D. C. 20003 

Enclosure 
. . 

I 

TAKE- - 

PRIDE IN-; United States Department of the Interior - AMERICA - - 

w ( )l*'l.'l( :Is: 01; '1.1 I1 Sb:( ;I<F,'I'AI<\' Q I 

\V,I\~I~II~~OI~. I).(:. 202.10 I I 

Mr. Michael Cox 

General Counsel 

National lndian Gaming Commission 

1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 250 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Dear Mr. Cox: 

Thank you for your letter of June 7, 1994, regarding gaming ordinances submitted 

to the National lndian Gaming Commission (NIGC) by persons claiming to 

represent the Tuscarora Nation of New York. We apologize for the delay in 

responding. 

You requested a written determination of who the Bureau of lndian Affairs 

recognizes as the governing body of the Tuscarora Nation and who may act for 

that body in its dealings with the Federal Government. 

'1IWrur 

Currently, the Department of the Interior recognizes the traditional Council of 

Chiefs as the governing body of the Tuscarora Nation. To our knowledge, the 

Council of Chiefs has been recognized as the governing body of the Tuscarora 

Nation since the early 1700's. Our recognition of the Council of Chiefs was 

affirmed as recently as July 24, 1987, in a letter from the Assistant Secretary - 

lndian Affairs to the Tuscarora Nation. This letter specifically recognized the 

Council of chiefs as the governing body of the Tuscarora Nation and affirmed an 

April 1, 1986, resolution of the Council of Chiefs prohibiting all forms of commercial 

gaming in the Tuscarora Nation territory. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your 

reference. To date, we have no indication that the Council of Chiefs has changed 

its position regarding commercial gaming on the Tuscarora Nation territory. 

We conclude that neither the "Tuscarora Tribal Business Council" nor Chief 

Webster Cusick have been authorized to speak on behalf of the Tuscarora Nation. 

While the Tuscarora Nation does not utilize a written constitution, it is common 

knowledge in the New York lndian community and to this office that decisions for 

the Tuscarora Nation are made based on a concensus of the Council of Chiefs 

reached in an official meeting of the Council of Chiefs. Chief Cusick himself, in a 

May 26, 1994, letter, indicated that actions by the Tuscarora Nation, including 

enacting ordinances, must be done by the Council of Chiefs. This letter is 

w enclosed for your reference. Chief Cusick also indicated that, in his opinion, the 

Council of Chiefs had not officially met to conduct tribal business since 1987. This 
indicates that any gaming ordinance submitted by Chief Cusick to the NlGC was 

not enacted in a Council of Chiefs meeting. Additionally, we are in receipt of two 

letters, dated March 12, 1994, and June 5, 1994, signed by six of the eight Chiefs 

of the Tuscarora Nation, indicating that neither the "Tuscarora Tribal Business 

Council" nor Chief Webster Cusick are authorized on behalf of the Tuscarora 

Nation to enact and submit a gaming ordinance to the NIGC. These letters are 

enclosed for your reference. Based on this information, we conclude that the 

Council of Chiefs did not enact the ordinance submitted by Chief Webster Cusick. 

As such, Chief Cusick is not authorized to speak on behalf of the Tuscarora 

Nation. 

Regarding the "Tuscarora Tribal Business Council," we received a letter, dated 

March 16, 1994, from the Tuscarora Tribal Business Council indicating that the 

Tuscarora Nation had selected the Business Council to replace the Council of 

Chiefs as the Nation's governing body. While this letter indicated that written 

evidence was being prepared to document this significant change, such evidence 

has not been submitted officially to the Department for consideration. We 

understand that certain Tuscarora Nation members may be collecting petitions in 

support of a reorganization of the Tuscarora Nation government. However, absent 

clear and conclusive evidence that the Tuscarora people desire a form of 

government other than the traditional Council of Chiefs, the Department will 

'cluurr continue to recognize the Council of Chiefs as the governing body for the 

Tuscarora Nation. 

We will keep the NlGC informed in case of any further developments. 

Sincerely, n 

Ada E. Deer 

Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs 

Enclosures 
. nur- 2 

WIWUnited States Department of the Interior 

5- OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY --- I 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 

16PI 

Chief Leo R. Henry 

'$JL 24 1987 

I I1 Clerk, Countil of Chiefs 

Tuscarora Nation 

2006 Mt. Hope Road 

Lewiston, New York 14092 

..Dear Mr. Henry: 

I enjoyed the opport~~~ity to meet with you on July 23 to discuss 

the issues raised in your May 31 letter to President Reagan. 

The President has asked me to respond to your letter. 

We appreciate the notice you have provided in accordance with the 

Treaty of Canandaigua regarding the April 1, 1986, resolution of 

the Tuscarora Nation Chiefs in Council prohibiting all forms of 

commercial gambling in the territory of the Tuscarora Nation. 

We recognize and support the authority of the Council of Chiefs, 

as the governing body of the Tuscarora Nation, to enforce the 

laws of the Nation on Tribal lands. Accordingly, it is our view 

that commercial gambling activities operated on Tribal lands of 

the Tuscarora Nation are unlawful. 

Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs 
WEBSTER CUSICK 

-1'uscarora Nation 

2429 Upper Mounlain Road 

via Sanborn, NY 14132 

The Honorable Ada Deer 

Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs 

United States Department of Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Secretary Deer: 

Please be advised that I am the I lead Chief of the Tuscarora Nation, Snipe Clan, 

and have served as a member of the Council of Chiefs of the Tuscarora Nation for over 

40 years. I am currently recognized by the BIA as part of the governing body of the 

Tuscarora Nation. 

P" Acting in my capacity as Head Chief, it is my duty to officiate during all Grand 

Council meetings of the Tuscarora Nation. It is also my duty to carry messages for the 

other chiefs to outside governmental entities and to be on guard for any erroneous actions 

by any given sachem chief. Please be advised that for any agency or individual to 

undermine the authority of tribal leadership will be viewed as a denigration of the 

Tuscarora Nation's right to self-determination and self-governance. 

On March 1, 1994, I rnet with Jerry Cordova, along with other tribal members, in 

your office. At that time we presented evidence, including a letter from me, of the 

governance issues facin~ our tribe. My letter. dated October 22, 1993, mentioned that 

certain tribal members are attempting to act for the tribe. As I stated in my letter, their 

actions do not constitute the official action of the Council of Chiefs of the Tuscarora 

Nation. In fact, the Council of Chiefs has not met since 1987. Your actions, words and 

conduct, to the extent they confer tribal governance power on someone else, are incorrect 

because they do not reflect the will of the Tuscarora people. With regard to actions by 

the tribe, including enacting ordinances for the tribe, it is done by the tribal council. 

Therefore, at this time it is my duty to inform you that Leo R. Henry is not the 

head chief of the Tuscarora Nation, nor does he have any power or capacity to bind or 

speak on behalf of the Tuscarora Nation. 
It must be funher noted that all business is to be handled throughthe Tuscarora 

Nation's Head Chief unless you are so notified. Please feel free to contact me if you have 

any questions. 

Very truly yours, I ~4

Chief ebster Cusick 

Tuscarora Indian Nation 
To Whom it may concern: 

There are Sachem Chiefs and Sub-Chiefs.The difference being a sub-chief has no official 

status whatsoever. Except when a Sachem Chief can no longer fulfill his duties. 

The following are Condoled Sachem Chiefs: 

Webster Cusick - Head Chief Tuscarora - Snipe 

Leo Henry - Turtle 

Hibert Chew - Beaver 

David Patterson - Wolf 

Arnold Hewitt - Bear 

The following are Sub-Chiefs: 

Kenneth Patterson - Wolf 

John Hill - Deer 

Stuart Patterson - Beaver 

Chief debster Cusick 

Head Chief Tuscarora 
TUSCARORA NATld(jS 21 ~1 :LO 

T. HOPE ROAD - VIA: LEWISTON, NEW YORK 

March 12, 1994 

The Honorable William Clinton 

President Of The United States 

The White House 

Washington, D.C. 20500 

Dear President Clinton: 

"Greetings" 

It has come to our attention that certain individuals are 

planning to open a bingo hall within the Tuscarora Nation 

territory. Apparently, an ad hoc group calling itself the 

Tuscarora Tribal Business Council intends to construct and 

operate a bingo hall on our territory. This is to inform you 

that the Tuscarora Nation Council of Chiefs, the federally 

recognized ' government for th? Tuscarora Nation, has not 

authorized'gambling of any kind within the Nation territory. 

In 1937, the Council of Chiefs reaffirmed a longstandlnq law 

which prohibits all forms of gambling within the Nation 

-boundaries. 

Further, The Tuscarora Tribal Business Council is not a 

lawful body under Tuscarora law. Ths Council of Chiefs 

has not authorized its creation and ex?ressly disavows its 

activities. The proposed bingo operation plainly violates t5e 

provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C $ 

2701 et seq. The Tuscarora Tribal Business Council and the 

pzrsons planning to construct and operate the bingo hall are 

not an "Indian tribeu the only body authorized by the Act t.o 

own and operate class I1 gaming such as bingo. 

25 U.S.C. 4 2710 (b)(1)(2). Nor, has the Tuscarora Council of 

Chiefs, tho governing body.of the Tuscarora Nation adosted an 

ordinance authorizing any person to conduct gaming. . 25 U.S.C. 82710 (a)(l)(B). In fact, the Nation law expressly 

prohibits all forms of gambling. 

We ask that you exercise your responsibilities under the 

Treaty of Canandaigua of 1794 to maintain peace in our 

community. The Tuscarora Tribal Business Council psrsists in 

this course of illegal conduct;, in open defiance of our law 

and the federal gaming act. Tensions on our reservation are 

increasing, and measures must be taken very soon to stop this 

unlawful conduct and restore peace and tranquility to our 

- xnmunity. 
__-A . - 

-,- ---- . -&-.a - - -.. . . 3 .-4 -- L .- - - .- .. -.. 

. ; ,F-,9a9a 2 .;l.orei'io President -. ~l3nton -. -~ - . dared .. March .-.- . . 

12 ,--1994 ---- -.------ . . . *. , - . .. . . . . 77-. .- . .- -__ _-- -. - ---. -. A. = ...+ ;- r- x -. . 9.- .- - - -7.' - -. -.. . . t - - a <,-in?.'.-. - '. - - . .=- - . --. . - -- . . .- - . - . - -. . - - . - - . . . . . 

. P __ __ __ . -. -.-- -. 

. . - - - - - . .. 

, ______ .- .----- 

- '. .s .2-, . . - - - -. ',=' -.. . . d ... . . -. --- - . - --- -- - - . . - .- - - . .- .- 'Le; . -.' --- ... --. . -. . 

- .. 

a meting - vi th you or your delegats under .-:.---: . 7-. . .- 

. --. . 5-- 

Treaty of Canandalgua as-soon 48 convonl.nt,--_ 

to addross our urgent concerns. . -. ,A . --. . .- .- -.- 

- . . . . - A . . -. - - .-- .- . ... - 7 

. -.-- - --. .- -. - - .. -. - WO Look fortrard to your rasponre. - - - - - - . --" - . - 

1 .C - . . .- .. -.---,. ..' rrpL -.- .. . .C- ..._ . - i. 

. - .L < -.. . -HP - -. - .- .... -.. .-. .- ..-. -." - . -- - .. . - - On',),! ,.L..- --L...--- - - - - .-., .- . . -. - -- .. .- ..--- - -- . .- 

.' . ... -. . - . .- - .-- ... - ..- -. .-. -. . --. -. . 

cc:See Page 3 

4 
-- . . . .- 

-.- -. .- .- -. A. - -- .. .- .--- .- 1 . , . .,--A: -:;--,, . - - ---c - . .-. . . .- .. . .--. .. 

banator ~anirl K, fnouyr 

.Congrersman John *I. taYa1 ce . . . ... - -.-. -.' .- " ""P- - ' -. 

. .,,+.;. Cr~vecnor ~axio cumo .:, .-++ . g.. 

Curtis G. terkey. erq. 

' Harold H, Halperir. Esq. 

Plr. 8. 0. Ott 
HAUDENOSAUNEE 

TUSCARORA NATION 

2006 MT. HOPE ROAD -- VIA: LEWISTON, NEW YORK 14092 

June 5, 1994 

Mr. B.D. Ott, Area Director 

Eastern Area Office 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

United States Dept. of the Interior 

Suite 260 

3701 North Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, Virginia 22203 

Dear Mr. Ott: 

Greetings, 

In response to the recent letter which identifies an individual, 

herein identified as Chief Webster Cusick of the Tuscarora Nation, 

please be advised that under the cuatoms, usages, and traditions of 

the Tuscarora Nation, there is no title of "Head Chief" or any other 

designation which would put a Chief or anyone alse in a position to 

make a decision regarding Tuscarora Law. 411- Only the Tuscarora Chiefs in Council is authorized to make 

decisions concerning governance, laws, and policies of the.Tuscarora 

Nation. The Tuscarora Nation Council of chiefs has no legally-derived 

ordinance authorizing either bingo or any other form of gambling, and 

no chief or individual hag been authorized to enter any activity which 

would lead to such activities. 

Furthermore, the Tuscarora Chiefs council has existed since time 

immemorial and has followed the lawa, custome, and usages of the 

Tuscarora Nation and Haudenoaaunee of which ue are a member Nation, 

and we have long enjoyed recognition by the governments of the United 

States and New York State. The information in the ?resent instance 

in the form of a latter purportedly to describe powers of governance 

poeseesed by Webeter Cusick is in error. 

'IPureuant to our laws, customs, and usages, we are reviewing the 

origins and mandate of the title of authority held by thie individual 

and a determination will be made under our proceduree.' 

Meanwhila, please be advised, as per previous communications, 

that the individual in question has no authority to create or license 

any kind of gambling or bingo establishment in Tuscarora Territory, 

and that such authority resides exclusively in the Council of Chiefs YL -' tk Tczc~rcra Matiqn.