Tribal Leaders Respond Harshly to Gov. Inslee’s FPIC Betrayal

In a strongly worded response to Gov. Jay Inslee’s veto of the Native consent provisions in an important climate change bill, the offices of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe and the Vice President of the Quinault Nation, Fawn Sharp, blasted the governor’s first offer to reach a compromise. The response, authored by Snoqualmie and senior advisor to President Sharp Matthew Randazzo, called Inslee’s offer “adding insult to injury.”

At issue is Inslee’s veto of the consent provisions in the state’s Climate Commitment Act that would protect Native American sacred sites, burial grounds and locations of cultural significance. The bill, which Inslee signed into law on May 16, originally included provisions to ensure the right of Washington tribes to have free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for any actions resulting from the bill that might impact tribal land. But one hour before signing the bill, Inslee announced he was vetoing the consent provisions.

“This decision [by Gov. Inslee] was a policy and political disaster that was roundly and broadly criticized in the harshest terms by even his closest allies,” Randazzo wrote in his October 19 response.

“Significantly worse” than old laws

Last week Inslee offered a proposal to tribal nations on how to move forward after his unexpected veto. Randazzo notes the proposal is “significantly worse” than previous, decades-old laws

“The Governor’s offer increases his personal authority to unilaterally overrule tribes when it comes to projects that desecrate their sacred sites, burial grounds, and archeological sites,” Randazzo writes.

The governor’s proposal also limits which tribes have a right to be consulted. Any impact the new law would have on land that’s located off a tribe’s reservation, such as upstream from tribal land, for example, would be made “on the basis of 19th century treaties and executive orders…” In essence, this frames cultural resource protection as a treaty right, when in reality it is not dependent on a treaty or executive order from the federal government.

Randazzo writes, “…using ‘treaty rights’ as a foundation of this conversation is offensive, inadequate, and incorrect.”

The depth of the governor’s betrayal

Randazzo notes the governor used the support of Washington tribes to get the bill passed by the Washington State Legislature, then betrayed tribes at the last minute. Leaders of Northwest tribes were not even invited to the signing ceremony.

Paul Chiyokten Wagner, Protectors of the Salish Sea, and others stop the signing ceremony of the Climate Commitment Act on May 16 at Shoreline Community College. The. water protectors demanded to know why Gov. Jay Inslee betrayed Washington tribes by vetoing the bill’s tribal consent provisions that would have protected sacred sites, burial grounds, and archaeological sites. Inslee refused to answer. Paul and others chanted, “Shame! Shame!” State patrol officers were summoned and escorted them outside.

Through the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, 57 tribes, including Washington’s 19 federally-recognized tribes, crafted a consultation process, which was then passed into law by the state legislature. This consultation process took years to develop. But Inslee not only robbed tribes of free, prior, and informed consent in regard to the bill, his current offer also completely changes the previously established consultation process.

Without the input and support of Northwest tribes, the Climate Commitment Act would have faced much greater difficulty being passed. In addition, Tribes supported Inslee’s 2020 presidential campaign and helped write and support Initiative 1631, which would have financially penalized large emitters of greenhouse gases.

Tribal support is an important political power source for the governor. His last minute betrayal of tribes by vetoing the FPIC provisions of the Climate Commitment Act have tribal leaders feeling used. Vice President Fawn Sharp, has gone on record calling Inslee a snake.

Insult to injury

Randazzo lists four ways the governor’s latest proposal is adding insult to the injury of betrayal.

First, not only does Inslee deny the right of tribes to give or deny consent, he also replaces it with a requirement for consultation that is even weaker than the previous consultation process. Randazzo points out consultation “is an inherent sovereign right” and “does not require a treaty, executive order or law.”

Second, Inslee proposes creating a state agency tribal consultation process, but he gives no specifics as to what this new process would be. It is essentially a “blank to be filled in at a later date.”

Third, Inslee would retain the right to overrule the wishes of tribes regarding their own cultural resources and sacred sites.

Fourth, tribes are sovereign nations, while the state is not. The State of Washington is a provincial government that's subsidiary to the federal government. There is no true government-to-government balance of power between tribes and the state.

Inslee’s proposal implies the state is sovereign, like a separate nation, when in reality the only sovereign governments involved in the proposal are the tribal nations. For the governor to be the only one with the power to say yes or no to a sovereign nation is absurd. A true government-to-government relationship would give this power equally to both sides.

“We are confident,” Randazzo concludes, “that the rights of sovereign tribal nations to protect their most sacred lands from desecration will be recognized in Washington State law. We are prepared to work relentlessly, systematically, and unapologetically towards that goal however long it takes.”