A federal watchdog agency is probing allegations of fraud by a
local Indian leader, who claims that forged documents could help a
rival and her San Diego-based development partner improperly cash
in on the tribe’s ancestral lands, thousands of open acres of
rolling hills and streams northwest of Hollister known as Sargent
Ranch.
A federal watchdog agency is probing allegations of fraud by a local Indian leader, who claims that forged documents could help a rival and her San Diego-based development partner improperly cash in on the tribe’s ancestral lands, thousands of open acres of rolling hills and streams northwest of Hollister known as Sargent Ranch.
The U.S. Department of the Interior investigation marks the first time that federal officials with no connection to the local Amah Mutsun Indian Tribe – or its pursuit of federal recognition – have looked into charges of fraud in the tribe’s politics.
Two years ago, Amah Mutsun leader Valentin Lopez, who heads one of two rival factions claiming to represent the tribe’s 500-plus members, told officials at the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs that forged documents had been sent to the agency, according to records obtained from the BIA. He claims that the suspect documents benefited rival leader Irenne Zwierlein, who has struck a multimillion-dollar pact with Sargent Ranch owner Wayne Pierce to bring large-scale development to 3,000 acres, nearly half the ranch.
Santa Clara County officials have blocked the developer’s past efforts to build golf courses and hillside home on the land, but the deal with Zwierlein would allow Pierce to ignore county zoning regulations. Everything hinges on Zwierlein gaining control of the tribe through the BIA recognition process and placing the land under tribal sovereignty.
Lopez, who said his faction would allow some development but wants to preserve the vast majority of Sargent Ranch, claims that his rival’s leadership rests on forged documents and that she has no authority to negotiate land deals. Zwierlein, who denies any part in producing or mailing the alleged forgeries to the BIA, counters that the forgery issue has no bearing on the leadership dispute or the tribe’s recognition efforts.
For two years, BIA officials have ignored the forgery claims at the heart of the controversy.
But now, as a three-month congressional inquiry initiated by US. Representative Richard Pombo (R-Tracy) draws to a close, the DOI’s investigative agency is prowling around the case.
On Tuesday, Roy Kime, a spokesman for the DOI’s Office of Inspector General, confirmed that the agency has launched an inquiry triggered by a complaint Lopez filed in September. Kime did not have further details on the nature of the inquiry thus far, but multiple sources with direct knowledge of the investigation confirmed that OIG agents have already obtained tribal documents from the BIA.
Lopez confirmed that OIG officials informed him of their plans to look into the matter, but would not detail his discussions with those officials.
“It’s our understanding there is an investigation and we hope that the investigation continues,” he said. “We will do all we can to assist.”
In response to the latest developments, Zwierlein said that “while the allegedly altered documents may involve unethical and possibly illegal activity by some individuals or splinter group, they are absolutely irrelevant to anything at issue in our pending acknowledgment process. This comes directly from the Interior Department, which determined five years ago that despite the conflicting documents it would allow all interested parties to participate in the recognition process, even those not deemed the rightful governing council.”
A constellation
of interests
In September, Pombo asked the Office of Native American and Insular Affairs, a subcommittee of the House Resources Committee, to review the forgery allegations as they relate to the recognition process.
Pombo’s decision came two weeks after South Valley Newspapers reported on a trail of suspect documents sent to the BIA five years ago, shortly after Zwierlein was ousted as head of the original tribal council and formed a new governing body. The documents suggest that the original council members were, in fact, the ones to resign, and that she continued to run the tribe as its legitimate head. The BIA cited the documents in its decision to remain neutral in the leadership dispute that ensued.
While Pombo has asked for an informal congressional review of the case, he refused in September to trigger an independent investigation by calling the Inspector General’s office, the agency charged with probing fraud allegations at the BIA or any other branches of the Interior Department.
Pombo is on vacation this week and unavailable for comment, according to spokesman Brian Kennedy. He explained that “historically the congressman has always chosen not to intervene in rival factions of tribes – whether they are recognized or not recognized.”
Kennedy acknowledged that Pombo received $3,000 in campaign contributions in 2004 from the owner of Sargent Ranch, but said that the contributions from Pierce and his wife have no bearing on the congressman’s decisions.
“Contributions have absolutely nothing to do with the chairman’s legislative agenda, and never have,” he said.
Pombo has a reputation on Capitol Hill as a friend of development and as a leading critic of the BIA. He has placed reform of the backlogged agency at the top of his agenda, sponsoring legislation (HR 512) to fast-track BIA review of 10 tribal petitions that have collected dust for more than 15 years. The Amah Mutsun are not among the 10, but the clearing out of those petitions would leave them next in line for review.
As chairman of the House Resources Committee, Pombo stands in a key position to influence the Amah Mutsun’s fate. But he is not the only legislator whose efforts may further the tribe’s hopes of recognition.
U.S. Representative Mike Honda (D-San Jose) opposed development of Sargent Ranch as a Santa Clara County supervisor in the ’90s and he has not received any contributions from Pierce, but he remains an advocate of tribal recognition. In July, he authored legislation that calls on the BIA for expedited review of “Petition No. 120 for Federal recognition of the Amah Mutsun of Mission San Juan Bautista” – the name of Zwierlein’s faction. The Lopez group goes by the more-general “Amah Mutsun Indian Tribe.”
Both the Honda and Pombo legislation promise to shave a decade or more from the tribe’s recognition review, potentially hastening the development of Sargent Ranch.
Representatives for both congressmen say they have no intention of taking sides in the leadership dispute, and Honda’s chief aide said they plan to insert neutral language into the bill before it reaches a vote. Honda’s legislation (HR 3475) is idling in House Resources pending the results of the subcommittee’s review of the forgery charges. As chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over tribal affairs, Pombo has the power to bottle up the legislation indefinitely.
Kennedy said the subcommittee had completed “formal fact-finding” and expects to report to the congressman when he returns.
“Until then, I cannot comment on the findings,” he said.
Lee Fleming, director of the BIA’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment, refused to discuss the Amah Mutsun issues, referring all questions to the agency’s press office. A BIA spokeswoman did not arrange an interview by press time.
Zwierlein said that neither she nor any members of her tribal council have been contacted by the inspector general’s office or by the congressional subcommittee reviewing the forgery claims.
Pierce agreed that the forgery claims have no bearing on the recognition process, and expressed surprise at the OIG’s involvement.
“Just because someone opens up something,” he said, “doesn’t mean it’s going to go anyplace.”
Kime would not comment on the particulars of the case, but said that such investigations typically last at least several months.
“We do the investigations and then turn over the evidence to the [U.S.] Department of Justice,” Kime explained, acknowledging that “there are points at which we would terminate the investigation if it didn’t look like the results were going to be fruitful. What can happen is we can hand the results over to the Department of Justice, and they can accept or decline to prosecute.”
