ON THE RECORD | OPINION & COMMENTARY
By Steven Bullcoming Haworth · Truth in Focus · October 8, 2026
I have been reporting on the Northern Cheyenne government dispute for some time now, and I will tell you something: it is confusing. At times, it gives me a headache. Every time I think a document has answered one question, another resolution, court order, recording or piece of correspondence raises three more. I see the stress this has caused, the work that has gone into it and the money being spent. I also see people trying to understand what is happening to their government.
I have listened to people on different sides, watched video recordings, reviewed transcripts and spent hours going through documents. I have reached out to officials and others, including people who no longer live in the area, asking whether they have records that could help us establish the facts. This has not been a quick review or a single Facebook post turned into a story. We have been organizing the records and comparing them one at a time. I cannot give you an accurate total of every hour or phone call, but I can tell you this investigation has taken considerable effort.
I studied journalism in school, and I have studied public administration, public policy and government. None of that makes me an expert on every aspect of Northern Cheyenne law or tribal sovereignty. In fact, examining this dispute has reminded me how important it is to respect the Nation’s own Constitution, courts, history and governing traditions. Northern Cheyenne governance did not begin with the United States or the Indian Reorganization Act. Understanding the relationship between those traditions, tribal law and federal agencies takes careful work.
I am not writing to tell anybody whom to support. I have personal opinions about what I have read and witnessed, just as any person might. But my responsibility as a reporter is to distinguish those opinions from what the record actually shows. When the evidence supports a Council statement, I should report that. When it supports something Gene Small has said, I should report that too. And when two accounts conflict, I should say so rather than pretend the dispute has been settled.
For me, democracy means people have a voice. Voters elect officials to represent them, but that does not mean the public’s role ends on Election Day. People should be able to say, ‘I disagree,’ ask how a decision was made and receive an explanation without being ridiculed or dismissed. I am not claiming to speak for any particular group. I am saying that public participation and access to reliable information matter in any government that serves its people.
That is why the September 30 presidential-removal hearing continues to trouble me. The Council has produced resolutions recording its decision, and those documents deserve careful consideration. But a recorded vote is not the same question as whether the Constitution’s requirement of a fair opportunity to be heard was satisfied. The controversy over closing the hearing, changing the location, giving notice and presenting a defense should be answered by the actual notices, hearing procedures, recordings and exhibits. I want to see how the process worked, not just be told the outcome.
The election questions are just as important. Who is running for the five Council seats in November? Where can voters find an official candidate list, polling information and clear instructions? A Council notice says write-in voting will be allowed and that no primary will be held, but people still deserve an understandable explanation of the deadlines and their options. If anyone paid a filing fee and now disputes how their candidacy was handled, what records explain the fee and what happens to the money? Those questions require documentation, not guesses. And the special presidential election contemplated by the removal resolutions is a separate matter that also deserves a public timetable.
Then there is the matter of spending and basic services. I see families worried about food, funeral assistance, heat, wood and propane as colder weather approaches. I also see arguments over pending checks, security and consulting work. The Council has publicly presented its account of the check delays, and Gene Small has disputed that account. I do not have the payment records necessary to decide who caused each delay. What I do know is that families waiting for essential assistance deserve clear instructions, timely decisions and an explanation of what is holding a payment up.
The Trustland Consultants matter particularly caught my attention. Reporting has connected Steve Kelly, who participated in questioning at the removal hearing, with a Council-approved consulting arrangement. That overlap raises fair questions about the contract, compensation, duties, disclosures and the difference between an advocate and a neutral hearing officer. It is not, on its own, proof of wrongdoing. Truth in Focus sought a direct response about the consulting work, but we have not received a substantive answer from Kelly as of this writing. A separate records inquiry received a response providing a request form; that is not the same thing as receiving the underlying records or an answer to the questions.
I also want to be precise about communication. The Council has issued public statements and posted materials. That is a form of communication, and it belongs in the record. But public statements do not necessarily answer specific questions sent by reporters or citizens. We have made numerous inquiries, and several remain unanswered. An unanswered email does not prove wrongdoing, but it can leave important factual questions unresolved. The more difficult the issue, the more valuable a clear, document-supported response becomes.
The public conversation has sometimes been harsh. I have seen or heard accounts of people being mocked or called degrading names because of which side they are thought to support. People have different experiences, different loyalties and different opinions. They should still be able to ask questions and participate without being reduced to labels. Criticism of public actions should be grounded in facts, not personal attacks.
I am not doing this for praise or self-gratification. I am doing it because people are affected by these decisions and because the public record matters. I would rather take extra time to check a resolution, correct a mistake or wait for another document than publish a claim I cannot support. The process is exhausting, but rushing would not serve readers any better.
What I want now is progress that people can see: accessible records, a clear explanation of the elections, answers about the hearing and contracts, and dependable information about services and payments. Government accountability should not depend on who someone supports. A decision may have been voted on, but the people still deserve to understand how it was made, what it means and what happens next. That is why I will keep following the records and asking the questions.
This is the author’s opinion and analysis, not a legal finding. Assertions about disputed actions remain attributed, and outstanding requests for comment and records may change subsequent reporting.
Background: Northern Cheyenne Amended Constitution and Bylaws; Buffalo’s Fire report concerning Trustland. The newsroom also reviewed the Council’s September 30 removal resolutions and October 2026 election notice.