Letters | Branch authority

Branch authority

Editor,

The Window Rock Judicial District Court permanently blocked two Navajo Nation Council resolutions that sought to place core Executive Branch responsibilities under Legislative Branch control – a major separation-of-powers victory for future Navajo Nation presidents.

In its Sept. 14 order, the court permanently prohibited Speaker Crystalyne Curley, the Navajo Nation Council and their agents and employees from advancing Council Resolutions CJA-07-26 and CJA-09-26, or legislation seeking the same or similar results.

CJA-07-26 sought to alter the powers and duties of the Office of the President and Vice President, including its authority over senior Executive Branch personnel and the Navajo Nation Department of Justice. CJA-09-26 sought to restrict presidential appointment authority involving the Navajo Board of Education.

This ruling is bigger than one president or one administration. It preserves the authority of the Executive Branch for every Navajo president who follows me, while making clear that the Legislative Branch cannot give itself powers that belong to the Executive Branch. The separation of powers means more than keeping our branches distinct on paper. It means ensuring that neither branch can take control of the responsibilities the Navajo people entrusted to another.

I had vetoed both resolutions. The Council, however, later introduced legislation to override my vetoes. The court then found that Navajo Nation presidents have a legally protected interest in operating the Executive Branch without improper Legislative Branch interference. Citing Shirley v. Morgan, the Court emphasized that Navajo law prohibits the concentration of governmental power within a single branch.

The court also recognized k’é as a guiding principle requiring the branches to work together for the benefit of the Navajo people.

Let’s call this what it was – a power grab by Speaker Curley and the Council to place the Executive Branch under Legislative Branch control. The court ultimately stopped it. No speaker and no council have the authority to rewrite our government’s structure or seize powers the Navajo people entrusted to another branch. The Executive Branch belongs to the Navajo people – not to the speaker, the Council, or any one administration.

The court further found that the resolutions would have substantially altered Executive Branch operations. They would have restricted senior personnel decisions, required political approval before entering legal settlements and interfered with the Navajo Nation Department of Justice’s ability to respond to major litigation.

The permanent injunction further bars the Council from placing the resolutions on an agenda, amending an agenda to include them, voting on them or otherwise advancing them. It also prohibits legislation seeking the same or similar results.

The ruling follows an August court decision permanently blocking legislation that sought to remove me as president and Vice President Richelle Montoya from office.

This latest ruling should end attempts to weaken the Executive Branch and allow both branches to return their attention to the Navajo people.

We have spent too much time fighting over political power while our people are asking for water, homes, roads, public safety, and basic services. The court has spoken. It reinforced what we already know from the Supreme Court’s decision in Shirley v. Morgan. I respect these decisions, and I call on the Council to respect these decisions as well.

Dr. Buu Nygren
President
Navajo Nation

---

Disability issues

Editor,

With Navajo Nation election coming up, disability issues must be part of the conversation.

The Native American Disability Law Center believes that people with disabilities and their families deserve a meaningful opportunity to ask candidates for the 26th Navajo Nation Council how they will address the barriers that affect their daily lives.

Disability issues touch many areas of life on the Navajo Nation, including housing, employment, education, transportation, voting access, public accessibility, health care and access to community services. The law center’s work includes advocating for the civil rights of Native Americans with disabilities and working to improve access to services and community participation.

That is why the Native American Disability Law Center is hosting candidate forums focused specifically on issues affecting people with disabilities. Our goal is simple: create a space where community members can ask questions and hear directly from candidates about disability-related issues.

Our first two forums in the Western and Chinle agencies demonstrated both the importance of these conversations and the need for continued community participation.

On Sept. 10, the law center hosted a forum in Tuba City. Twenty-one people attended and six of the ten invited candidates participated. Community members had an opportunity to ask questions and hear candidates discuss issues important to people with disabilities and their families.

On Sept. 16, we held a forum in Chinle. Approximately 10 people attended, including about five community members. Although none of the invited Chinle Agency Council candidates attended, one candidate had notified us of a scheduling conflict.

Crystalyne Curley, the speaker of the 25th Navajo Nation Council, and a candidate for Navajo Nation president, attended and participated in the discussion. She explained that she had been assisting community members with flood-related efforts, including helping with sandbagging. Despite arriving without having planned to participate in the forum, she agreed to answer questions concerning disability-related issues.

The difference in attendance and candidate participation between the two forums should not be viewed as a judgment of any individual candidate. Candidates have demanding schedules, and the Chinle forum occurred during a period of significant rainfall and flooding in the area. However, these experiences highlight why continued outreach and opportunities for direct community dialogue are important.

We need to hear the voices of people with disabilities.

If you live with a disability, have a family member with a disability, provide care for someone with a disability, or work with people with disabilities, your experiences matter. You know where the barriers exist because you encounter them.

Can you get into your local chapter house or other public building? Can you access transportation when you need it? Can your child receive the special education services they need? Can an adult with a disability find meaningful employment? Can people with disabilities access housing, health care, voting opportunities, and other community services?

These are not simply disability issues. They are community issues.

The law center is asking community members to use their voices and ask candidates about these issues. At the same time, we encourage candidates to listen to people with disabilities and their families, and to participate in opportunities where these concerns can be discussed publicly.

The Native American Disability Law Center will continue creating opportunities for these conversations because people with disabilities deserve to be included in discussions about the future of the Navajo Nation.

We need to hear your voice – and candidates need to hear your voices as well. Election is coming up on Nov. 3, 2026.

Our upcoming candidate forums provide additional opportunities for community members to participate. The law center’s current event schedule includes forums in the Eastern, Western, and Northern agencies.

If you are unable to attend a forum, we encourage you to contact the Native American Disability Law Center and share the disability-related issues that are important to you and your community.

Your experience matters. Your questions matter. Your voice matters.

Benita McKerry
Outreach team leader
Native American Disability Law Center
Farmington, N.M.

---

School spending

Editor,

When voters see Proposition 320 on the November ballot, the requirement that schools spend at least 60 percent of operational dollars on “direct instruction” may sound straightforward. Who doesn’t want more money in classrooms?

But voters should understand what the measure actually defines as instruction and what it leaves out.

Proposition 320 applies to districts with 7,500 or more students, as well as districts operating in counties with populations greater than 500,000. In Coconino County, based on current enrollment, Flagstaff Unified School District is the district affected by the 7,500-student threshold. FUSD served 8,225 students in fiscal year 2025.

Under Proposition 320, districts covered by the measure would be required to spend at least 60 percent of operational spending on expenses the auditor general defines as direct instruction. Districts below that level would have to increase the percentage devoted to direct instruction each year until reaching 60 percent.

Here is what concerns me as an educator: many of the people and services students rely on every day are not traditionally counted as instructional spending.

School counselors, psychologists, nurses, social workers, speech therapists and occupational therapists fall outside the instructional category. So do instructional coaches, teacher professional development, curriculum development, librarians, and instructional technology support. Principals, transportation, custodial services, building maintenance, heating and cooling, security, and food services are also accounted for outside direct instruction.

Those are not unnecessary expenses. They are part of what makes instruction possible.

There is another consequence voters should examine carefully. Proposition 320 does not simply establish a spending target. The official ballot language provides for reductions in Classroom Site Fund dollars when a district fails to meet the requirement, subject to limited waivers.

That matters because reducing funding does not create additional classroom resources. It leaves a district with fewer dollars while it is being required to change how its remaining dollars are categorized and spent.

Arizona’s auditor general reported that statewide instructional spending was 52.1 percent in fiscal 2025. The same report noted that districts continue to face declining enrollment and an increasing proportion of students requiring special education services. (Arizona Auditor General). Those realities make school budgets more complicated than a single percentage can capture.

I strongly support putting resources as close to students and teachers as possible. I have spent my career working toward that goal. But good education policy must also recognize that a teacher cannot teach effectively without the people and systems surrounding the classroom from counselors and special education professionals to bus drivers, technology staff and safe, and functioning school buildings.

Before casting a ballot on Proposition 320, I encourage Coconino County voters to look beyond the appealing 60 percent number and understand what is not counted as instruction, as well as what happens to a school district when it does not meet that threshold.

Our students deserve both strong classroom instruction and the essential services that make learning possible.

Cheryl Mango-Paget
Flagstaff, Ariz.

Get instant access to this story by purchasing one of our many e-edition subscriptions HERE at our Navajo Times Store.

---