U.S. unsure it can meet deadline to disburse funds to tribes
Source: Associated Press
Felicia Fonseca, Associated Press
Updated 2:12 pm CDT, Thursday, April 23, 2020
Photo: Gregory Bull, AP
IMAGE 1 OF 3
FILE - In this Jan. 20, 2020, file photo, a woman walks before dawn in Toksook Bay, Alaska, a mostly Yuip'ik village on the edge of the Bering Sea. Native American leaders are raising questions about how $8 billion in federal coronavirus relief tagged for tribes will be distributed, with some arguing that for-profit Alaska Native corporations shouldn't get a share of the funding.
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) The U.S. Treasury Department said it's unsure if it will be able to disburse $8 billion in coronavirus relief funding to Native American tribes by a Sunday deadline.
The department hasn't determined whether unique Alaska Native corporations are eligible for a share of the money, Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch told a federal judge Thursday.
Meanwhile, the number of tribes suing the federal government to try and keep the funding out of the hands of the corporations was growing. A handful of tribes, including the Navajo Nation, joined a lawsuit filed April 17 in U.S. District Court in Washington.
A trio of Sioux tribes has filed a separate lawsuit making the same argument that Congress intended the money to go only to the 574 tribes that have a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/article/U-S-unsure-it-can-meet-deadline-to-disburse-15221660.php
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)What bullshit.
sandensea
(21,604 posts)That loot would be deposited before they had to so much as ask for it.
Probably was.
BamaRefugee
(3,483 posts)niyad
(113,085 posts)ALWAYS some damned excuse. Absolutely disgusting.
Igel
(35,282 posts)There's a hearing tomorrow. If they distribute the money before the restraining order, knowing there's one coming, that's a problem. If they distribute the money then it's found that they did it incorrectly, reversing it might be a bigger problem than delaying distribution.
Meanwhile, somebody has to decide how, exactly, to partition it in the absence of any restraining order, in case the judge looks at it and says, "Toss it." If that's what happens, there's no legal excuse for delaying distribution by Sunday.
However, any partition will be challenged because there's money at stake. No matter how you slice and dice it, somebody will object--should it go by population? By documented losses to revenue streams due to lockdowns? But wouldn't that mean that tribes with low revenue because they're in the boonies, even if hit hard by COVID, get less than smaller tribes with large revenue streams? Should it go to pay for COVID-related expenses for taking care of the sick and dying--and perhaps some sort of payment for those who lost kin and might have lost an income-producer? That means the means has to have a ready-made argument for why it's the best of the possible candidates in the set of all possible distributions under a scrupulous reading of the CARES Act and any statutes, case law, or regulatory definitions that might hold.
Otherwise, even if the government wins, some tribes could continue to hold out and the monies are even more delayed.
I could argue any of them is a fair means of distribution. But that would constitute arguing that the others are unfair, and that's something I can't do. (Well, some of them I think sketchy. Just making up for revenue stream lost is not my favorite.)
marble falls
(57,014 posts)Alaskan Native Americans, remote as some are, are beginning to have their own problems with Covid19, particularly since the oil bust will probably have severe effect on the revenues from the State of Alaska. Certainly there could be an accommodation from the the tribes in the lower 48 until the Fed corrects its mistake/oversight in the funding of the Alaskan natives Covid fight.
mpcamb
(2,868 posts)(which he did to avoid their draft. Hmm, has a familiar ring, doesn't it?)
Igel
(35,282 posts)but not "Yuip'ik".
Glass half full or glass half empty?