Civic Academy
Tribal Budget, Appropriations & the Síhasin / Permanent Fund 101
≈ 9 min read · or listen, or skim the bold lines
A · Primary source Title 12 provisions below were read in the Navajo Nation Code Annotated. The published Code is current through 2009; check the OLS amendment index for later changes. How we verify →
How the Nation takes in money, decides where it goes, and saves for the future
When candidates argue about “the budget,” they’re arguing about how the Navajo Nation takes in money, decides where it goes, and saves for the future. Three pieces sit at the center of that: the annual budget, the Permanent Fund, and the Síhasin Fund. Understanding them turns a lot of vague campaign talk into something you can actually check.
In one line: The annual budget is this year’s spending. The Permanent Fund and Síhasin Fund are long-term savings the Council must vote to touch.
Where the money comes from
The Nation’s money arrives from several streams: federal funding for specific programs, revenue from leases and natural resources (grazing and ranch lands, and historically coal and other minerals), taxes, business income, and interest earned on savings. One point candidates raised repeatedly: much of the money earned on the Nation is spent off it — in border towns like Gallup, Farmington, and Flagstaff — which drains dollars that could circulate at home.
How the annual budget actually works
Each fiscal year, the Council (the legislative branch) holds the power of the purse: it appropriates the money. The President (the executive branch) proposes priorities and then implements the budget — making sure the divisions, departments, and programs are funded and doing what they’re supposed to. When those two branches don’t plan the year well together, friction follows.
Several candidates traced a familiar cycle: a budget that wasn’t fully thought through at the start of the year, an executive branch that has to come back mid-year asking for more, and a Council that — doing its job — asks hard questions about why. That back-and-forth is one root of the recurring executive–legislative tension, and candidates framed it as much a management and planning problem as a structural one.
Learn more · For the difference between running programs and overseeing them, see Government 101 → and Audit & Performance Review 101 →The Permanent Fund
The Permanent Fund was created by Navajo voters in 1985. A fixed share — 12% — of certain Nation revenues is set aside and invested. The key rule: the principal is protected. It is meant to grow over generations, and it can’t simply be spent to cover a shortfall. It exists so that when resource income falls, the Nation still has a foundation underneath it.
The Síhasin Fund
“Síhasin” carries the sense of hope or assurance for the future. The Síhasin Fund was built from a large federal settlement over the mismanagement of the Nation’s trust accounts, and it’s aimed at long-term investment — infrastructure and projects meant to pay off for years, not one budget cycle. Like the Permanent Fund, it isn’t a checking account: spending from it requires the Council to pass an appropriation. That’s why you’ll hear candidates talk about how Síhasin dollars should be released, and what counts as a wise long-term use.
Why this matters“We’ll fund it from Síhasin” is not automatic. Every dollar has to clear a Council vote — so a realistic answer names not just the goal but how the money would actually be appropriated.Why it’s in the 2026 conversation
Budget questions are where good intentions meet arithmetic. A promise to build, hire, or expand a program is only as real as the revenue behind it and the appropriation that releases it. Candidates who could talk specifically about revenue streams, the annual appropriations cycle, and the rules on the two funds showed they understood that the President manages the largest share of the Nation’s spending — and that growing new revenue, not just re-slicing what exists, is the harder long-term task.
The short version
The annual budget is set by the Council and run by the President. The Permanent Fund (1985, 12% of certain revenues) is protected long-term savings. The Síhasin Fund is settlement money for long-term investment. Neither fund can be spent without a Council appropriation — so “we’ll pay for it from savings” always has a second step.
Terms on this page are defined in the glossary.
Why Now — what’s true of the Permanent and Síhasin (“hope, or assurance for the future”) Funds? You can spend them freely to cover shortfalls · Neither can be spent freely — the Permanent Fund’s principal is locked behind a referendum of the Navajo people, and the Síhasin Fund takes a two-thirds Council vote with an expenditure plan · They belong to the federal government Both are long-term funds whose principal is protected — spending them requires the deliberate steps above.
Continue
All Civic Academy lessons · Task Guides · My Civic Journey
Official: the Síhasin Fund page at the Capital Projects Management Department — resolutions and expenditure plans.
Your voice: today’s Corner question · all surveys, by subject · the data so far.
What the law actually requires
A · Primary source Quoted from the Navajo Nation Code Annotated, Title 12 — Fiscal Matters. How we verify →
12 N.N.C. §§ 800–880 — the Comprehensive Budget
§ 800. Purpose. The Navajo Nation government “has a fiduciary responsibility to account for public funds, to manage finances wisely, and to plan for the adequate funding of services desired by the Navajo People.”
Among the Act’s stated objectives:
- § 800(A) — to protect the government’s policy-making ability “by ensuring that important policy decisions are made in a manner consistent with rational planning.”
- § 800(C) — to fund government “to the extent consistent with services desired by the public or mandated by Navajo law.”
§ 820(A). The government “shall operate pursuant to a Comprehensive Budget.”
§ 820(D). The budget “shall balance revenues and expenditures. Appropriations may not exceed available revenues.”
§ 820(F). Non-recurring revenue may not quietly fund recurring costs. This provision “may be amended or waived only by a two-thirds vote of the full Council.”
§ 820(B) — the sentence almost nobody knows
“All requests for appropriation of Navajo Nation funds shall be subject to budget impact analysis, which shall include, but not be limited to, needs and costs evaluations, based on objective criteria.”
Every appropriation request. A budget impact analysis is defined at § 810(C) as an assessment by the Office of Management and Budget of the fiscal consequences of funding — or failing to fund — a branch, division, department, program, office, entity, or activity.
So the law already says the budget must be tested against need, on objective criteria. Whether that happens, and whether anyone reads the analyses, is a question this site cannot answer. Nobody appears to have asked.
Who audits the Nation — and who pays them
12 N.N.C. §§ 1–4 — the Office of the Auditor General
What it may audit (§ 2(A)(1)): the financial records of “chapters, related Navajo Nation entities and contractors to the Navajo Nation.”
What else it must do (§ 2(A)(4)): “Assisting the Office of the Prosecutor and Ethics and Rules Office in the investigation of possible fraud and/or misappropriation of assets of the Navajo Nation.”
Where its reports go (§ 4(E)): to the Budget and Finance Committee of the Navajo Nation Council.
And now read § 3(B)
“The Auditor General may be removed at any time by majority vote of the Navajo Nation Council.”
And: “All other personnel shall be hired and compensated pursuant to Navajo Nation policies and procedures… subject to workload requirements and budgetary constraints.”
So the office that audits the Nation’s spending is funded by the Council, reports to a Council committee, and its head can be removed at any time by a Council majority. Its ability to hire investigators is expressly subject to the budget the Council sets.
A Council candidate told Cal Nez the Auditor General “couldn’t hire the special investigators to do some important work.”
That is a testable claim. § 820(B) requires a budget impact analysis of every appropriation request, including the consequence of failing to fund. Ask for it.
Should the budget follow the people’s priorities?
Three questions, and only two have answers here
1. Is there a law? Yes. 12 N.N.C. §§ 800–880. The budget must be comprehensive, balanced, based on rational planning, and directed at services desired by the public or mandated by Navajo law. Every appropriation request must undergo a needs-and-costs evaluation on objective criteria.
2. Does the budget follow the people’s priorities? We do not know. That would require reading the Comprehensive Budget against the budget impact analyses. Nobody has published that comparison. It is a research project this site would like to do.
3. Should it? That is a question for the Diné, not for this website. What we can say is that the Nation’s own law already points that direction — and that the law is checkable.
Quick check — the law behind the budget
Check your understanding — private, no grades
Under 12 N.N.C. § 820(B), every request for an appropriation must undergo…
Right. And the analysis must weigh the consequence of failing to fund, not only of funding.
Who may remove the Auditor General?
A Council majority, at any time (§ 3(B)). The office also reports to a Council committee and is funded by the Council.
Whose financial records may the Auditor General audit?
Contractors too — § 2(A)(1). That is a power almost nobody discusses.
Under § 820(D), appropriations…
The budget must balance. Non-recurring revenue may not fund recurring costs without a two-thirds vote of the full Council.
Budget impact analyses are required by law. Nothing requires publishing them. What should be public →