Salem City Council postpones casino MOU

By Nicole Montesano

Smoke Signals staff writer

SALEM -- The Salem City Council has postponed an agreement it was considering for how to provide city services to a proposed new casino in Salem until it has more information.

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz is seeking to build an off-reservation, class III casino in north Salem, to supplement income from the Chinook Winds Casino in Lincoln City. The endeavor is opposed by the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, which fears it would siphon off customers and staff from Spirit Mountain Casino.

The casino has not been approved by the Department of Interior, despite fears sparked late last year when the department signed the record of decision to approve an off-reservation casino for the Coquille Indian Tribe in Medford.

Grand Ronde also opposed that casino, stating that it violated the longstanding “one casino per Tribe,” policy in Oregon.

On Monday, Jan. 27, the City Council was considering a proposed memorandum of understanding intended to establish guidelines for providing city services to Siletz-owned land within the city, where the casino would be located if built. It would also establish payments to the city from the Tribe.

The council’s memo from City Attorney Dan Atchison noted that the vote, “does not establish or imply support or opposition to a possible casino located within the Salem area.”

However, the actual MOU did not spell out Atchison’s caveat. Tribal Chairwoman Cheryle A. Kennedy submitted a letter of testimony to the council about the proposed MOU.

Tribal Council member Kathleen George testified in person.

They asked the city to, at the very least, include a provision in the memo that explains the city is not endorsing the casino.

Kennedy’s letter went further.

“The executive order President Buchanan signed creating the Grand Ronde Indian Reservation states explicitly that it is created for the benefit of the Willamette Valley Tribes, and specifically those Tribes signatory to the treaty of Jan. 22, 1855 (the Willamette Valley Treaty). Full consultation with Grand Ronde as the primary consulting Tribe of the Salem area has not yet happened,” Kennedy wrote. “Grand Ronde and the city of Salem have enjoyed a beneficial intergovernmental relationship that, until now, evidently respected and promoted Grand Ronde’s deep ancestral ties to the landscapes of its Salem homelands. For the city to approve the proposed Siletz casino (MOU) would be to destroy that relationship and to completely demean Grand Ronde’s millennia old cultural interests, damaging both beyond repair.”

Atchison told the City Council that “There is no intent to disrespect the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde. We have had a working relationship with the Grand Ronde over the years; they have helped us in a number of ways regarding inadvertent discovery plans and a number of other issues throughout the community. I personally deeply appreciate the relationship we’ve had with the Grand Ronde and our work in this agreement was at the request of the Siletz; it really had nothing to do, from my perspective, with affecting our relationship with the Grand Ronde and I’m sorry to see the Grand Ronde’s letter, but I understand where they’re coming from.”

He explained at the meeting and in his council memo that, “The purpose and intent of the MOU is to ensure that the Tribe has the same rights and obligations as other residents and property owners within the city, with the understanding that the Tribe is a sovereign nation and exempt from many local, state and federal laws.”

The memo noted that, “The Tribe may obtain other city services on the same basis and cost as other residents or businesses.”

City Council members said they took the Tribe’s objections seriously.

Councilor Vanessa Nordyke moved to table the MOU until the council has had time to consult with both Tribes and the council’s attorney.

“We don’t want to rush things,” she said. “We don’t want to disturb long-existing relationships. I’m mindful of the fact that American governments do not have a great history of respecting the rights of sovereign nations, so this should be treated with respect, and I think it’s appropriate that we just take a pause and come back when we have a little more information.”

The motion passed unanimously. No date has been set yet for when the issue might go back before the council.