Gene Small Removal Hearing: Written Rules and September 30 Proceeding Leave Procedural Questions

LAME DEER, Mont. — The central question surrounding the September 30 removal proceeding involving Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Gene Small is not simply who asked the most questions. It is whether the proceeding followed the roles and safeguards established in the Council’s own written hearing rules.

Truth in Focus reviewed Resolution DOI-009 (2026), related correspondence, the September 30 public notice moving the proceeding to an alternate location, and portions of the proceeding available to the newsroom. Written questions were also sent September 30 to the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council and to President Small.

The written roles are different

Resolution DOI-009 designated Jeromena Beartusk as the hearing officer. The written procedure assigns the hearing officer responsibility for the evidentiary proceeding and procedural or evidentiary rulings while leaving the ultimate decision on removal to the Tribal Council.

The rules also allow the parties to be represented and to present and question witnesses. That distinction is important: an advocate may question witnesses without becoming the hearing officer.

Accordingly, Steve Kelly asking questions during the September 30 proceeding would not, by itself, establish an ethics or due-process violation.

What needs to be established from the complete record

During the proceeding observed by Truth in Focus, Kelly conducted questioning and appeared to direct substantial portions of the presentation. A complete official transcript or recording is still needed to determine whether he remained in an advocate/presenter role or exercised functions that DOI-009 assigned to the hearing officer.

The relevant questions include who ruled on objections, who decided what evidence would be admitted, who determined witness order and time limits, who controlled the manner of questioning, and whether the hearing officer independently exercised those functions.

Truth in Focus has not concluded that Kelly committed an ethics violation. The available material supports asking the role question; it does not yet support declaring the answer.

Gene Small’s absence does not answer the due-process question

Small was not present during the portion of the alternate-location proceeding observed by Truth in Focus. His absence alone does not establish that the process was unfair. The written procedure contemplated circumstances in which a hearing could proceed if the respondent received notice and a fair opportunity to appear and be heard.

The factual questions are therefore whether Small received notice of the changed location, when and how notice was provided, whether he attempted to participate, whether he had or declined representation, and what record the Council relied upon before proceeding in his absence.

Those questions have been sent directly to both the Council and Small.

What did “lockout” mean?

A public notice issued for September 30 stated that the hearing was moved to an alternate location “due to the lockout at the Little Wolf Capitol Building.” The Council’s prior scheduling materials had provided for an alternate location if the Council lacked access to the Capitol.

The word “lockout” therefore needs a precise factual explanation. People being physically present inside a building would not necessarily prove that the Council had the access, keys, security control or practical ability necessary to conduct its proceeding there. Conversely, a public description of a lockout should be supported by records showing what access problem actually occurred.

Truth in Focus has asked the Council to explain whether the issue involved keys, denial of entry, security conditions, control of offices or another specific circumstance and to provide any available documentation.

The Council’s final vote is not the same issue

The fact that Tribal Council members ultimately vote on removal is consistent with the structure described in the written procedure and with the Northern Cheyenne constitutional removal framework. The unresolved questions concern the process leading to that vote: neutral administration of the evidentiary hearing, notice, opportunity to participate, representation, the alternate location and the official evidentiary record.

Records requested

Truth in Focus asked the Council for the complete official transcript or video, minutes, evidentiary record, hearing-officer recommendation, final resolution and recorded vote from the September 30 proceeding. The newsroom also asked President Small for his account and supporting records concerning notice, participation and the location change.

This is a developing report. Any response or document that materially changes or clarifies the factual record will be added through a transparent update or correction.

Sources reviewed

• Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council Resolution DOI-009 (2026), adopted September 11, 2026 — copy reviewed by Truth in Focus.
• Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council public “Removal Hearing Update,” September 30, 2026 — copy reviewed by Truth in Focus.
• President Gene Small correspondence concerning the removal proceeding — copies reviewed by Truth in Focus.
• Northern Cheyenne Tribe official website and Constitution materials: https://www.cheyennenation.com/
• Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council February 20, 2024 minutes quoting Article VII, Section 2’s fair-opportunity standard: https://www.cheyennenation.com/nct/legislative/minutes/2023/Minutes%202.20.24%20Reg%20Session.pdf

Documents, corrections or firsthand information may be sent to news@truthfocus.net.