Just the Facts Vs Reef's Fiction

---

JUST THE FACTS: on Reef/Black Desert Supported Legislation, Economic Development Opportunities, Self-Determination, and Tribal sovereignty 

FICTION: The Band needs jurisdictional clarity to resolve civil disputes on trust land.

FACT: Existing law already provides a path—one that requires a tribal vote. Under the 1968 amendments to Public Law 280 (25 U.S.C. §1326), the Shivwits Band can convey civil jurisdiction to Utah today; all that is required is a special election in which a majority of adult enrolled Band members vote to accept state jurisdiction. No Congressional action is needed. Since the 1968 amendments, no tribe in the United States has voted to consent to state court jurisdiction. The only reason for the SJCA is to eliminate the Band’s right to vote on this question and force the jurisdictional transfer regardless of the membership’s wishes and concerns.

FICTION: The legislation gives the Band the same leasing ability already afforded to other tribes. 

FACT: Under current federal law (25 U.S.C. §415), the default maximum for tribal trust land leases is 25 years plus one 25-year renewal—a 50-year ceiling. The 2012 HEARTH Act allows tribes to self-authorize business and agricultural leases up to 75 years (25-year primary term plus two 25-year renewals) with BIA-approved regulations. The SJCA would push Shivwits to 99 years—nearly doubling the standard maximum and placing the Band in the same narrow category as only a handful of specifically named tribes, such as the Navajo Nation. This provision is designed for one deal: a luxury golf resort on 1,250 acres of reservation land. As Band member Mary Snow has noted, once a resort is built under a near-century lease, “it’s not going anywhere.”

FICTION: S, 1508 supports economic development and self-determination.

FACT: Despite numerous requests for transparency, no enrolled Shivwits member has been allowed to see the terms of the Reef Capital agreements. The agreements were negotiated behind closed doors by the former chair and council members meeting with persons from Reef Capital Partners/Black Desert Resort in Cedar City and Salt Lake City—far from the reservation—and repeatedly assured members that no business commitment would be made without a vote.  To date, no vote has been held. In December 2025, council members finally admitted that binding agreements had been signed during those secret meetings without ever being disclosed to, or approved by, the membership. This is not a dispute over process—it is the wholesale exclusion of a tribal community from a deal that would control their land and water for the next century.  A process that denies the tribal band members both a vote and basic transparency is not self-determination.

FICTION: The majority of the Shivwits members and leaders support the legislation.

FACT: The proposed legislation has caused deep divisions within the Shivwits Band and between the incumbent band council members and the Tribal Council, threatening the fundamental rights of Shivwits members to determine their elected leaders and ensure that their voices are reflected in shaping their economic future in accordance with their sovereign right and their Tribal Constitution. 74% of voters in the last election signed a referendum and initiative to remove Band Council support from Reef's development and from S. 1508 or any similar legislation. This bill is now on hold in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 

FICTION: This is about Tribal Sovereignty. Outsiders are interfering in Tribe business.

FACT: The actions of the Shivwits Band Council abort tribal sovereignty and disenfranchise the Shivwits people from their Southern Paiute constitution, bylaws, and legal protections, including the right to vote, right to free speech, and right to gather peacefully. The Band Council, after illegally removing the newly elected Band council chairman Philip Bushhead, is now attempting to unilaterally succeed from the Southern Paiute Tribe. 

As of July 2026, the remaining four Reef-aligned Shivwits council members are taking extraordinary measures to assert authoritarian control, intimidate dissent, and push Reef’s unwanted golf development through before the Shivwits members can stop it. 

The incumbents and their Pocatello attorney, Mark EchoHawk, are now contending that the Shivwits band is a separate, sovereign tribe in its own right rather than a constituent band of the Paiute Tribe of Utah, that the band council has absolute power over all decisions involving the Shivwits, and that the Tribal Council and Tribal Constitution afford no recourse for the Shivwits people. Please see Just the Facts below for details of this unilateral attempt to secede from the Tribe.

THE FACTS IS that the incumbent band council members continue to defy the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Tribal Council, the Tribal Constitution & Bylaws, the expressed will of their people, and ethical principles of good governance by: 

• Violating their compact with their own people in all the following respects.
• Admittingly lying in public meetings and saying they had not signed a development deal with Reef/Black Desert when they had.  
• Refusing to let band members see or know what's in the Reef development deal the Council signed on behalf of the Band with Reef, despite formal requests to the council and Shivwits Bylaw requirement. See the PDF at the bottom of this page for the text of the document request and the Band Council's refusal.
• Negating the valid vote of the band members for band chairman and ousting their newly elected band council chairman Phil Bushhead, See the following Just the Facts for details on the Bushmead's illicit removal. 
• Forcibly removing and manhandling Phil Bushhead's mother from the people's property by non-Indian Sheriff's deputies while the council attempted to invalidate her son's election,  
• Ignoring Southern Paiute Tribe leadership instructions to reinstate Phil Bushead as Shivwits Council Chairman, See the following Just the Facts.
• Violating band member Bylaws and Constitutional rights, See legal and voting rights for info on specific bylaw violations.
• Wholescale making up new Bylaws out of thin air and enacting them without informing or consulting the very people they purport to represent, Ask the Band Council for full public disclosure of the innumerable illicit bylaws passed by the council, secretly, and in contravention of actual bylaws.   
• Trash-canning validly signed recall petitions by 88 voters to recall two rogue council members and call a special election to replace them. See the PDF at the bottom of this page for the text of the recall petitions. 
• Scrapping a signed petition by 87 Shivwits voters out of 110 asking for a band-wide referendum nullifying the 99-year land and water lease to Reef and invalidating Reef's termination legislation. See the PDF at the bottom of this page for the text of the referendum petition.
• Discarding an initiative signed by 87 voters requiring band council opposition to Reef’s bill and prohibiting the council from supporting the transfer of legal power and authority to Utah. See the PDF at the bottom of this page for the text of the initiative petition.
• Tracking down, phoning, harassing, and bullying Shivwits elders and other voters who signed the recall, referendum, and initiative petitions until elders' verbalized fears of ongoing retribution.  
• Attempting to unilaterally secede the Band from the Southern Paiute Tribe (which it has belonged to since the early 1800s and still is one of five Southern Paiute Bands) without the consent or a vote of the Shivwits people. See the following Just the Facts
• Quelling dissent by instituting a new Tribal Constitution infringing ordinance which violates the civil, free speech and assembly, and due process rights of Shivwits Band Members, and withholds wages, and fines those who disagree. See the final Just the Facts section and a PDF of the ordinance at the bottom of the page.

Please note: This in an overview section. Refer the following sections and to the PDF documents at the bottom of this page for detailed documentation and data.   

THE FACT IS that the Shivwits Band Council invalidly removed the Chairperson elected by the Shivwits Members and refused to reinstate him even after the Southern Paiute Tribal leadership confirmed him as the new Shivwits Band Council leader and official representative of the Shivwits Band to the Tribal Council. 

After the Shivwits members elected Phillip Bushhead, an opponent of the Reef Capital Partners/Black Desert legislation and proposed golf courses, as their new band chairperson and representative on the Paiute Tribal Council, the incumbent band members aligned with Reef held a kangaroo court proceeding, had sheriff’s deputies remove all his witnesses, and purported to remove him before he could even take office. 

The Paiute Tribal Council then held its own hearing, where Mr. Bushhead was represented by an attorney and witnesses and evidence was examined. The Tribal Council determined on April 15 that the Mr. Bushhead is the legitimate Shivwits Chairperson and Tribal Council member, and his “removal” was invalid. 

The Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah's Tribal Council concluded: “The Tribal Council should and does defer here to the voices of the Tribe and Band’s members who elected Mr. Bushhead when the election was conducted such a short time ago. Councilmember Bushhead, as the Band’s elected representative, should be provided with a full and fair opportunity to perform the duties and requirements of his elected position." 

Now, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah and the other four Bands in the Tribe formally recognize Mr. Bushhead as the Shivwits Band Council Chairperson and the Shivwits representative to the Paiute Tribal Council. The four left-over council members then, without bylaw or constitutional justification, installed one of their own as “acting chairperson" in place of the actual chairman the people had just elected.

The Tribe’s efforts to resolve this impasse have been rebuffed by the incumbent Shivwits council members. They and their non-Shivwits attorney, Mark EchoHawk, are now falsely claiming that the Shivwits band is a separate sovereign tribe in its own right and they are not subject to the Tribal Constitution, meaning the Shivwits members are not protected by the Tribal Constitution. The band council is a now law unto itself, with no checks, no balances, and no rule of law. 

They have even changed the Band’s website to assert these untruthful claims. When the Paiute Tribal leaders came to the Shivwits band council meeting on June 22 to discuss these false assertions, the incumbent Shivwits council members shouted at Tribal leaders that they alone control all matters concerning the Shivwits people and property without any limitation by the Tribal Council or Constitution. Clearly, this situation must be resolved. 

The Paiute Tribal Council, composed of Band Chairpersons from Cedar, Indian Peaks, Kanosh, Koosharem has been forthright and clear.  We hope the Tribe will take the just action necessary to protect the Shivwits people and enforce the clearly established law defining the Shivwits as one of the five constituent bands of Utah Paiutes subject to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. When that happens, Mr. Bushhead and other Shivwits members will need expert legal representation from an attorney specializing in Indian Law. Please see the next Just the Facts section for more information on the band council's unilateral attempt to secede from the Paite Indian Tribe of Utah. 

THE FACT IS that the rogue Shivwits Band Council has unilaterally, without a vote of the Shivwits people, attempted to jettison the Paiute Tribe's Law, Bylaws, and Constitution.  

FACT: The Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah is a federally recognized, sovereign Indian tribe. The Shivwits Band, numbering approximately 311 enrolled men, women, and children, is federally recognized, not as a Tribe, but as one of five constituent bands of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. The Paiute Tribal Constitution, ordinances, and Shivwits Band Bylaws been the governing documents of every band, including the Shivwits, since they were approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1991.

The splinter group band council remainders have disavowed the Shivwits Band's federal status as one of five federally approved bands in the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, proclaiming itself instead to be an independent Tribe. Because the Tribal Constitution and ordinances of the Tribal Council are the supreme law of the Paiute Tribe and all persons subject to its jurisdiction, the band council legally cannot take action that is inconsistent with the Constitution, ordinances and resolutions of the Tribe. 

The Band Council’s assertions that it is “a law unto itself” are based on the insupportable theory that the Shivwits Band was recognized as a tribe before its termination, and that status somehow continued unchanged through termination in 1954, restoration in 1980, and the adoption of the Tribal Constitution in 1981. The problem? The Department of the Interior already debunked that notion six years ago. 

In 2019, Band Council attorney Mark EchoHawk drafted a demand based on the theory that the Shivwits Band is a federally recognized Indian tribe in its own right. At that time, the Paiute Tribal Council asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs to oppose the Band’s request, because the Secretarial Election procedures only apply to federally recognized tribes that have a constitution and bylaws approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Band’s request violated the Tribal Constitution. 

On November 8, 2019, Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Director Bryan Bowker denied the Band Council’s request to recognize the Shivwits Band as an Indian Tribe in its own right. He noted that while the Restoration Act of 1980 restored the Federal trust relationship with the Shivwits Band, it clearly established the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah as the federally recognized tribal entity. 

The plain language of the Restoration Act, as well as its legislative history and other Federal actions and documents, all showed “Congress unambiguously vested federal recognition and governing authority to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah as a whole.” The Tribal Constitution further confirmed that the Restoration Act intended to recognize a single Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah with each band acting as a constituent band of the unified Tribal entity. 

This proclamation of Shivwits Band secession from the federally recognized Paiute Tribe leaves the band council with near-dictatorial powers, unencumbered by the Tribal Constitution and Bylaws. And band members? They're left with a spectacularly unrepresentative government and utterly desiccated constitutional protections.  

Magical thinking and public pronouncements can't manufacture tribal status or eradicate tribal constitutional protections for Band members. Only an act of Congress could undo the Restoration Act and allow the Shivwits Band to be an independent tribe recognized by the federal government. And since that hasn't happened, and isn't ever likely to, the Shivwits Council's proclamation that the Band is now a Tribe is patently false. 

THE FACT IS that the rogue Shivwits Band Council is disenfranchising voters, disregarding voting rights, and violating Shivwits Bylaws and Tribal law by refusing to accept voter petitions for recalls, an initiative, and a referendum.   

Article XIII of the Shivwits Bylaws establishes that if the members are dissatisfied with any act or failure to act by the band council, they can take official action by forcing a referendum or initiative with a petition signed by one-third of the enrolled members and a recall of Shivwits Council Members.

On June 2nd, 2026, the Shivwits members presented the band council with petitions for referendum and initiative that were each signed by 87 enrolled members. For perspective, the 87 signatures represent 74 percent of the total of 117 votes cast in the March 26 election, which is far more than the required one-third. 

The Petition for Initiative signed by a clear majority of Shivwits voters, would require the band to oppose Reef Capital Partner's bill and prohibit the band council from enacting any resolution or ordinance supporting Reef’s bill or any other measure transferring jurisdiction to the State without the prior consent of the members by majority vote. 

If approved by majority vote, the Petition for Referendum, also signed by a clear majority of Shivwits voters, would declare null and void all actions the band council has taken concerning the use of Shivwits trust land or water by Reef Capital Partners and Black Desert or other entities for the construction or operation of golf courses or other facilities, any waiver of the band’s sovereignty or jurisdiction, and Reef’s termination legislation. 

Article XIV (1) of the Shivwits Bylaws requires the chairperson to call a special election on a petition signed by one-third of the enrolled members demanding the recall of any council member. On June 2nd, Shivwits members presented Petitions to Recall vice chairperson Hope Silvas and council member Sherwin Tillahash. Each recall petition was signed by 88 enrolled members (of 110 who voted in the last election), far in excess of the required one third. According to the Bylaws, the Secretary had 3 days from the filing of the recall petitions to rule on the validity of the signatures.

Rather than verifying that the members who signed the petitions were enrolled band members as is the law, the Secretary and Vice- Chairperson—who was the subject of one of the recall petitions—embarked on a campaign of harassment and intimidation, calling members, including vulnerable elders, at all hours, shouting at them, and demanding to know why they had signed the petitions. On June 5th, the Band Council Secretary issued a “ruling” that all four of the members’ Petitions were invalid based on fabricated requirements that are not found anywhere in the Bylaws. 

One hopes that the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah and the other constituent bands in the Tribe, who have exercised prudence and good judgement thus far, will continue to evidence a righteous concern for the Shivwits and increase their advocacy for the just application of Paiute constitutional rights and ongoing Tribal membership for the Shivwits people.  

Please refer to the PDFs at the bottom of this page for the texts of the initiative, referendum, and recall petitions signed by a clear majority of Shivwits voters. Please refer to Legal and Voting Rights, towards the bottom of the page for details on the Bylaw Violations.

The threats and job-related and financial retaliation against anyone who disagrees with EchoHawk, the Shivwits Band Council, and Reef's destructive development have now begun in earnest. Since Shivwits members’ objections and public outcry defeated Reef’s special interest legislation, the Shivwits opposition leaders have been subjected to a vindictive campaign of retaliation and intimidation by Reef’s accessories on the band council.

A recently adopted “Frivolous and Bad Faith Claims Cost Recovery Ordinance” threatens any Shivwits member who expresses their opinion or petitions for redress of any grievance with ruinous financial penalties imposed at the discretion of an “Enforcement Authority” from which there is no appeal. The PDF below is a draft version of that ordinance and is accurate except for the addition of one more paragraph the Band Council added which has not been posted on the Band website and which the Shivwits people have not yet been allowed to see. 

The stated purpose of this “Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians Frivolous and Bad-Faith Claims Cost Recovery Ordinance” is to “govern the conduct of members” and “establish enforcement mechanisms” for violations perceived by the incumbent council members or Mark EchoHawk, a Pawnee attorney from Idaho who is aggressively pushing to close Reef’s deal before the Shivwits members can stop it. 

Under this new ordinance, any member who brings a claim, petition, grievance, administrative

appeal or legal action involving the band in any respect will be subject to “investigation” by Mr. EchoHawk or another “Enforcement Authority” designated by the incumbent council members. If the “Enforcement Authority” considers a member’s conduct “frivolous or in bad faith,” the council members can impose a “cost recovery order” requiring the member to pay whatever “costs” they deem attributable to the purported “violation.”

• This Orwellian ordinance from the Shivwits Band Council's kangaroo court appears to be intended to discourage members from raising legitimate concerns and exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, to petition for redress of grievances, to equal protection and due process of law, and to freedom from excessive fines, which are guaranteed to all members by the Bill of Rights enshrined in the Tribal Constitution.
• The “cost recovery order” can be withheld from payments, benefits or wages the band owes the member or extracted through other collection procedures. The only right of appeal is to the band council—in other words, there is no appeal.
• Under the incumbents’ new ordinance, a “claim” is defined to include petitions and informal grievances made to the band in any way. The definition of a “claim” is broad enough to encompass any complaint – even a comment at a band council meeting. 
• The definition of “bad faith” includes “repeated” claims – meaning if a member raises an issue once and the council members shoot it down; the member cannot raise it again. If members file petitions calling for elections under the Bylaws and the council rejects their petitions out of hand, as they just did, the members cannot file new petitions without incurring an “investigation” by the “Enforcement Authority."
   

No competent court anywhere would permit such blatant violations of the Shivwits people’s legal and constitutional rights.