Opinion ID: 2799544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Tribe’s October Letter

Text: The Board determined that the Tribe’s October letter was not a Title I proposal because it “is not clear in intent.” J.A. 5. We do not agree. The 15-page letter was entitled “Yurok Tribe Title I Request for the Yurok Department of Public Safety and the Yurok Tribal Court.” J.A. 18. The letter stated that the Tribe was submitting “this letter of interest for program inclusion and funding under Title I of the [ISDA].” J.A. 18. The letter detailed the particular request and why funds were needed. It was accompanied by a tribal resolution as required by statute. And the Tribe sent a follow-up email to the Bureau, entitled “Yurok Tribe – Title 1 Request and Council Tribal Resolution.” J.A. 35. 8 YUROK TRIBE v. INTERIOR None of the alleged deficiencies identified by the government demonstrate that the letter was not a Title I proposal. The government argues that the proposal was unclear because the Tribe sent it to the wrong office within the Bureau. The government does not explain which portion of the statute requires a tribe to send a Title I proposal to a particular office. And, in any event, the Bureau itself forwarded the October letter to the correct office, which then communicated directly with the Tribe regarding the proposal. J.A. 36. The government argues that the letter was not a Title I proposal because it used words that have legal significance in other types of contracts between tribes and the government. Even though the phrases “letter of interest,” “compact,” and “Annual Funding Agreement” may have legal significance for other types of tribal contracts, usage of these terms does not make the letter ambiguous when it identifies itself as a Title I proposal. The government argues the letter was not a Title I proposal because it did not include all of the details required for a proposal under § 900.8. The regulations speak precisely to this argument. The regulations require the Bureau to notify a tribe of missing details within 15 days. See 25 C.F.R. § 900.15(b). The Bureau did not do so here. Nothing the government complains of renders the letter ambiguous. Thus, deficiencies in an otherwise unambiguous request for a selfdetermination contract cannot excuse the government’s failure to act within the prescribed period. The Tribe’s October letter constituted a Title I proposal. As such, it triggered the 90-day deadline under the ISDA. Thus, we cannot affirm the Board’s dismissal on the first ground it found.