The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a video conference yesterday asking where is the Trustee? It seemed appropriate when you got done watching the live telecast. Oh, but then wait a minute, we don't exactly have a Special Trustee right now. We have Donna Erwin who has been "acting" for quite a while now at the Trustee thingy.
Let's see, we had George Skibine, acting everything, and doing a fine job of it; Vicki Forrest, newbie to the big picture, and Carl the-former-secretary Artman.
Ross Swimmer is busy running a bank, Donna Erwin is, is...where was Donna? Did anybody check the clubhouse? See if the missing foursome, might still be playing together.
We heard "enhancements" a great many times during the BIA presentation. What does the Office of Special Trustee have to say about that? We heard encumbrances hinder the Fee to Trust process. We heard the BIA does not control the Appraisal process. We heard the the NEPA processing takes time. (especially since they require "professionals" now complete even a basic Environmental ASSESSMENT) (different than a full blown EIS)
We didn't hear from the Office of Special Trustee (OST). We didn't get an explanation for why tribes and tribal land owners are not considered "clients" of their own appraisals on their own land. It's in 25 CFR for those intrepid enough to acutally see the truth. The problem with that is that if you want to see the appraisers notes, especially in States of non-disclosure, you won't. You are not the client, the OST is, as stipulated in the CFR. You have to somehow compell the OST staffer that they should go ask the contractor for those notes. And since the Cobell lawsuit, they won't even give you directions to the nearest water fountain let alone "notes" on your own appraisal.
You have to somehow also convince the OST that their contracted appraiser should not sub-contract two levels below him either. It has happened, a contractor for appraisals sub contracted to someone who sub-contracted to another pair of mostly appraisal-illiterate individuals. It's not a transparent process as outlined in the US Professional Appraisal Practices handbook.
We didn't hear about how "acting on behalf of tribal land owners," leasing specialists are taking a single bid for a lease and calling that a comptetitive bid. Ross himself said one single bid is not a competitive bid. Donna agreed with him. We didn't hear how that has been changed today. We also didn't hear how "acting in our best interest," leasing specialists will take the low road and just accept the appraised value for bids, no negotiating going on, just accept what they give us, after they share the appraisal with the farmers' advocates. It was unanimous when Gerald Ben from the Northwest Regional Office said all the BIA has to do is make sure leases meet the appraisal value. It has become the maximum instead of the minimum. You should always settle for the appraised value, not bargain up to it.
So, yes, I have to agree with the title of the conference, where WAS the Trustee?
And pose today's question: "Where IS the Trustee?"
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
10,000
Finally! The long wait to see who would be the 10,000th visitor is over. Congratulations to Indianhead Telephone Company of Hector Communications!
Indian Head Telephone Company
N3767 4th Street
Weyerhaeuser, WI
Phone: 715-353-2434
Email: itc@indianheadtel.net
This is not made up. Indian Head Telephone Company really does have a user who was the 10,000th visitor to Native Issues Blog. It is only fitting that out of all the different addresses that visit this site, a Native-Theme-Named company should stand out on such a milestone.
Good night, and good news!
Indian Head Telephone Company
N3767 4th Street
Weyerhaeuser, WI
Phone: 715-353-2434
Email: itc@indianheadtel.net
This is not made up. Indian Head Telephone Company really does have a user who was the 10,000th visitor to Native Issues Blog. It is only fitting that out of all the different addresses that visit this site, a Native-Theme-Named company should stand out on such a milestone.
Good night, and good news!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Peabody Coal and the Office of Surface Mining's activities are again called to question
The controversey around Peabody Coal still not only simmers, it has once again boiled over, or at least it looks to if things don't change in the immediate future.
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
Dairyman Blues
The Dairyman Blues was filmed near the Yakama people; it includes people from on the reservation or those concerned about the water/air quality on or near the Yakama Indian Reservation.
It certainly raises questions, whether you're against it or in support of the video, if you have unanswered questions, you are right with the people who live there and have questions about their own health.
Thank a local farmer or rancher for keeping his business going and keeping out monstrous operations.
click here to see "Dairyman Blues" by Michael Harris
Jan Whitefoot is a Yakama Nation Member who has questions that maybe we all ought to be asking. She certainly has a Native "land" Issue.
It certainly raises questions, whether you're against it or in support of the video, if you have unanswered questions, you are right with the people who live there and have questions about their own health.
Thank a local farmer or rancher for keeping his business going and keeping out monstrous operations.
click here to see "Dairyman Blues" by Michael Harris
Jan Whitefoot is a Yakama Nation Member who has questions that maybe we all ought to be asking. She certainly has a Native "land" Issue.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
More "news" for Larry Echo Hawk on the Haskell Indian Nations University Status
Apparently, it is with some (righteous ?) anger that some are accepting the many-headed style of leadership at Haskell Indian Nations University. It appears from what has been posted (and as of yet unverified) that Dr. Warner is gone until January (really?) so another professor will take over acting duties until the man who was supposed to be acting president gets back, but then again no...On Friday Dr. Gillis will take over, until the man who was supposed to be acting president gets back from who-knows-where.
It would appear that the lack of leadership, and the lack of explanation, leaves one to fill in the blanks where honest apologies, and explanations should exist.
Perhaps as the un-verified information below states, Larry Echo Hawk can take a look at it and make more sense than the rest of us. The poster requests that Larry look at it, so it is being presented here with no valid citation, but then Indian Country never needed any more citation than a request from someone needing help.
"
It would appear that the lack of leadership, and the lack of explanation, leaves one to fill in the blanks where honest apologies, and explanations should exist.
Perhaps as the un-verified information below states, Larry Echo Hawk can take a look at it and make more sense than the rest of us. The poster requests that Larry look at it, so it is being presented here with no valid citation, but then Indian Country never needed any more citation than a request from someone needing help.
"
Former Haskell V.P. (allegedly) makes a plea to Larry Echo Hawk
- Against better judgement, I am re-posting what was left as a comment on this blog. If anyone knows the whereabouts of Dr. Ted Wright, please have him contact this blog with a comment about where I can verify or refute that this letter came from him.
I spoke with some former professors who are still inside and the news was not good to hear. You expect that the professors who inspired you to go out and make a difference would not speak in such grave tones about what was going on. Now there are rumors of gag-orders across campus. There must be something going on. Whether it is good or bad, remains to be seen.
There are a select few students and "Dr. Wright" who wish to have an audience with Larry Echo Hawk, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I would hope that if there are valid concerns that more news would follow about how to go about this process. It takes a strong person to stand up and ask for help. I was thankful for Dr. Karen Swisher's open-door policy when she was President of Haskell Indian Nations University. We severely tested her knowledge, her forthrightness and her patience I am sure. But in the end, she came across as polite, professional, accountable, and more importantly, as someone who genuinely cared about the students and was cognizant that her actions had an impact that although not always welcome were taken with a heart for the future of the Indian Student.
What follows is complete heresay until Dr. Ted Wright can be reached to verify the information contained herein.
- "Anonymous said...
HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY EX-VP BECOMES WHISTLE BLOWER
The Honorable Secretary Ken Salazar Department of the Interior Members of the United States Senate
Dear Sirs:
I have read with interest the comments and criticisms about recent Bureau of Indian Education actions, particularly at the post-secondary level. I know that employees within that organization have been threatened if they make unauthorized comments to the press; so, I am sure that most of those individuals would not risk their livelihoods to speak up as a single voice.
This letter is a request to do a thorough investigation of management practices at the post-secondary level, particularly at Haskell Indian Nations University.
Unfortunately, Haskell employs a group of about seven individuals who actively work against the administration. This group has been vocal, and since the Bureau of Indian Education ( BIE ) maintains a policy that does not allow administrators to respond, only misinformation, rumor, and innuendos are spread to the public, to the students, and to Congress.
I agree with a recent blog that said this should be embarrassing to BIE officials; it was embarrassing to me as a native person that the very group of people who should have native students in mind actually worked to create an environment of fictional drama on campus that was detrimental to the University’s attempt to live up to its potential.
Issues that need scrutiny :
1.
Dismantling of the federally legislated demonstration Health Education and Wellness Program program.
2.
Hiring practices at Haskell Indian Nations University and at central office, with oversight of post-secondary.
3.
Mismanagement of personnel issues at central office ensuring continuation of “hostile work environment.”
4.
Personnel who “cyber-bully” and promote misinformation to create dissonance.
5.
Ethics violations, such as advocating for your wife’s hire.
6.
Dismantling of The RED Center, the only connection to a university Haskell Indian Nations University can claim.
7.
A private bequest, used as Stephanie Birdwell’s private project account; $3M+ combined for both Haskell and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. (Specifically, why didn’t the money go to the congressional chartered non-profit the BIE helped establish for the purpose of raising money.)
8.
Central office’s support of the federal union, rather than its own managers. (Specifically look at the legal effects of dismantling the current negotiated bargaining unit for the entire BIE by setting precedent at Haskell). This doesn’t even speak to the impact on student’s lives.
9.
Expenditures for dialogue sessions where no one is allowed to talk except Central Office Staff: do these coincide with other travel and is Haskell paying for this idea?
10.
Dismantling of processes that promote fiscal accountability (saved $150K in food services to see it squandered now) and healthy lifestyles initiatives (try eating in the cafeteria now).
11.
Lack of follow through on Inspector General referrals for mismanagement of money (when directed by the Inspector General’s office to handle the matter).
You have many issues in Interior; I wonder where Native American Students fit in your priorities?
I realize that I will get a form letter back from your staff and that it is highly likely that you will never read this. I am forwarding copies to some of your colleagues in the hopes that someone finally takes the comments about personnel management and supervision seriously. I believe that Ms. Birdwell and others will suggest that you investigate me rather than look at these issues. I am hopeful you will do both.
I would welcome the opportunity to provide you with incidents.
Dr. Ted A Wright
Former Vice President of Haskell Indian Nations University.
Lawrence, Kansas"
Friday, August 7, 2009
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs & Job Training
Bravo to Rep Lynch, Stephen F. , MA; Rep Kaptur, Marcy OH; Rep Lipinski, Daniel IL; Rep Quigley, Mike IL; and Rep Shuler, Heath NC. These distinguished people had an issue and they came up with a solution. They needed (?) Native American Iron workers. Or they wanted them, or they just saw an opportunity to help some Indians in need of work. At any rate, they have begun the long legislative journey to provide a means to that end: H.R.1129.
H.R.1129
This fancy piece of social work just passed by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and they liked it. This will provide (with "available" funds) an annual grant to someone, some corporation, some entity (National Training Center?) to train Indians how to become Iron Workers and then assist them with job placement. BRAVO! BRAVO!
Why didn't anybody do this instead of the current Non-Tribal-Contractor-Friendly Cadastral Surveying Program?
We can do that? We can provide necessary training for a specific need? We don't have to accept all these non-native contractors who will hold their hand out for money every year when we NEED cadastral surveys conducted? We don't have to accept State, County, and City Surveyors who are trained as CFEDS surveyors, and who also hold the distinction of having a conflict of interest as it relates to releasing the survey information publicly, and representing entities with whom we may have border disputes, and tax disputes? Wow!
Someone should make up a bill like this to replace the horrible CFEDS program. It's only feeding contractors annual jobs on our reservations and we get nothing more than a survey from it. We aren't becoming empowered; we really are at the mercy of a bunch of people, even within the federal government who will subvert our sovereignty, or who will release our National information to several government entities that never were empowered to sign treaties with us.
I'm sure that the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs would gladly look a bill like this over and pass it along. The Tribes would.
"Think outside the box because the box probably belongs to a contractor"
This isn't new; read more here:
Surveys on a reservation A penny for your appraisal
A Grand Contracted Mess Yet More Motivations
President Obama's Contract Reform memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess
H.R.1129
This fancy piece of social work just passed by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and they liked it. This will provide (with "available" funds) an annual grant to someone, some corporation, some entity (National Training Center?) to train Indians how to become Iron Workers and then assist them with job placement. BRAVO! BRAVO!
Why didn't anybody do this instead of the current Non-Tribal-Contractor-Friendly Cadastral Surveying Program?
We can do that? We can provide necessary training for a specific need? We don't have to accept all these non-native contractors who will hold their hand out for money every year when we NEED cadastral surveys conducted? We don't have to accept State, County, and City Surveyors who are trained as CFEDS surveyors, and who also hold the distinction of having a conflict of interest as it relates to releasing the survey information publicly, and representing entities with whom we may have border disputes, and tax disputes? Wow!
Someone should make up a bill like this to replace the horrible CFEDS program. It's only feeding contractors annual jobs on our reservations and we get nothing more than a survey from it. We aren't becoming empowered; we really are at the mercy of a bunch of people, even within the federal government who will subvert our sovereignty, or who will release our National information to several government entities that never were empowered to sign treaties with us.
I'm sure that the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs would gladly look a bill like this over and pass it along. The Tribes would.
"Think outside the box because the box probably belongs to a contractor"
This isn't new; read more here:
Surveys on a reservation A penny for your appraisal
A Grand Contracted Mess Yet More Motivations
President Obama's Contract Reform memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The ultimate insult to the Land Exchange
ok, here's a novel idea for those in the Puzzle Palaces across the United States who are looking for something good to do. For those who are at the level to effect some of the detrimental "policies," ruminate over this idea. If you're a Tribal member who is just trying to live, take a listen, think it over and just think how much better some of the things discussed on this blog would be if the policies were construed to really help the average Indian. If you had five minutes with Yvette Roubideaux, newly appointed Director of the Indian Health Service, would you consider discussing this? In Rapid City, Sioux San hospital is in a different IHS world. I know, I've been there. You have to wait hours to get in sometimes. That, however, is better than the lot most of us are dealt away from Sioux San, where we may wait days to get in to see a doctor, or in a few sad instances, the rest of our lives. This is our Indian version of a discussion on Health Care Reform.
The Indian Health Service Problem: Contract Health Services
Let's put some Indians out of jobs. That's all that some people will hear so let's just put that out there up front so at least it's acknowledged. We need to re-evaluate the money that is spent on contract health administration. The ADMINISTRATION of those funds is an area where we can make the greatest, quickest impact. Will we lose jobs? Yes. But when it comes to surgery, treatment, emergency room treatment, medication, dental work, the average Indian will take the treatment over some highly paid administrator's jobs.
When we have to literally be dying on the front steps of a clinic to get a referral for services that are not offered at the IHS clinic, it's high time to shift some of the money to the areas where it's needed. When we have to be the first one to call in the morning to get an appointment, it's time to re-think what injury means to the administrators. When you have to call the day before to get an appointment the next day, it's time to figure out how you're supposed to know if you're going to be sick the next day. When you have to wait weeks to have a dental crown finished, or when you have to go several days with a cavity because you weren't the first to call in for a same-day appointment, it's time to start requiring these highly paid administrators to stand in line at the IHS clinic with the rest of us when their teeth get a cavity. When several million dollars are sitting in reserve at any given IHS clinic, at any regional office, it's insulting that the IHS administrator will deny you a referral, will let you suffer, will let the condition worsen.
So, what to do, what to do? Centralize the process. Issue an IHS insurance card. Re-vamp the rules. If you're an Indian, you already know the obstacles to getting treatment. There is a ton of paperwork that needs to be completed....before you become injured, before a doctor places healing hands on you. If its not, well, guess who gets the bill when you heal? If you don't call within 72 hours of treatment, you get the bill. If you live outside your reservation, you have to prove economic ties to the community where you live, despite the fact that back home, your ancestors signed away land and asked that you receive medical treatment in exchange for that. If you're 18 and nobody ever explained this to you before you got injured, then IHS just saved several thousand dollars because you didn't jump through their hoops. If you never lived off your reservation and nobody explained the rules before you got injured after you moved to another reservation, the IHS Contract health workers will attempt to look woeful when they deny payment because you didn't fill out their paperwork BEFORE you got injured, despite the fact that you have lived in the area much longer than the minimum required as part of the "economic ties theory."
The agreement (treaty) stipulated that we'd exchange part of our land base for several provisions, chief among them, education, and medical treatment. These provisions were sealed in the battle-blood of our ancestors. They never envisioned, nor did they sign provisions, that an Indian Health service would take over the oversight of this health provision and put all kinds of obstacles in the way of meeting the U.S. government's obligation. Look at any treatment today.
We, the infirmed, the injured, the elders, have to "prove" we are "eligible" for treatment.
That wasn't in the treaty.
My grandfather's grandfather didn't expect this to be the way things were. They signed away part of their Native Land in exchange for several key provisions to take care of their grandchildren. They didn't expect for the same Indian Health Service to hold literally millions of dollars in "reserve" year after year after year. The cannons of treaty construction would mean that "reserves" should be construed for a "season," not for years after years after years.
If you read the CFR closely, Title 42 C.F.R 136.23, you will see that service will be provided to certain persons but the requirement for proof is not spelled out. In other words, it should, as any legal eagle will tell you, rest on the Federal government to prove that you are not eligible. There is no provision in the law that stipulates that the person will be penalized with a bill if they do not report their status prior to becoming injured within the boundaries of a service area other than their own service area, even though they have met the economic ties definition and have lived there long enough.
Or, Or, Or...§ 136.25 Reconsideration and appeals. (a) Any person to whom contract health services are denied shall be notifiedof the denial in writing together with a statement of the reason for the denial. ... and then:
(1) May obtain a reconsideration by the appropriate Service Unit Director of the original denial if the applicant submits additional supporting information not previously submitted...
That doesn't always happen, especially if you are dealing with a Contract Health Administrator who is charged with protecting a budget.
So, let's remove several highly paid administration offices, and centralize the process. Issue an IHS insurance card to every tribal member. Then pay the bills to meet the obligation that the United States signed on to in the treaty. The money follows the card, no matter where the tribal member lives. Even if they go to Haskell Indian Nations University, from an off-reservation address, their medical bills will be paid for by the United States in honor of our ancestors' wishes when they signed away some of their land base.
If Yvette Roubideaux was serious about "bringing reform to the IHS and improving the quality of and ACCESS to health care in the IHS," maybe this is a good starting place to generate some ideas about some out-of-the-box crazzzy version of change. Then again, if some crazy lunatic puts another rider on any congressional action, and somebody else is asleep at the wheel again, maybe nothing will change. Maybe Indians will continue to wait for surgeries, continue to wait for dental treatment, continue to wait to see specialists that the IHS doesn't have on staff. Maybe Contract health administrators will continue to get raises for going "under budget" and storing more away in the IHS reserves. Doesn't that seem strange? They do a "good job" by not expending funds that are set aside for our healthcare. Put it all on an IHS charge card and you will find out exactly how much it really costs to uphold the treaty provision. Something needs to change because at this rate we're not going to be getting any better all by ourselves.
"If we're not doing well in certain areas what can we do to make improvements..."
Shake the tree and see what fruit appears, I'm sure we'll all appreciate it.
The Indian Health Service Problem: Contract Health Services
Let's put some Indians out of jobs. That's all that some people will hear so let's just put that out there up front so at least it's acknowledged. We need to re-evaluate the money that is spent on contract health administration. The ADMINISTRATION of those funds is an area where we can make the greatest, quickest impact. Will we lose jobs? Yes. But when it comes to surgery, treatment, emergency room treatment, medication, dental work, the average Indian will take the treatment over some highly paid administrator's jobs.
When we have to literally be dying on the front steps of a clinic to get a referral for services that are not offered at the IHS clinic, it's high time to shift some of the money to the areas where it's needed. When we have to be the first one to call in the morning to get an appointment, it's time to re-think what injury means to the administrators. When you have to call the day before to get an appointment the next day, it's time to figure out how you're supposed to know if you're going to be sick the next day. When you have to wait weeks to have a dental crown finished, or when you have to go several days with a cavity because you weren't the first to call in for a same-day appointment, it's time to start requiring these highly paid administrators to stand in line at the IHS clinic with the rest of us when their teeth get a cavity. When several million dollars are sitting in reserve at any given IHS clinic, at any regional office, it's insulting that the IHS administrator will deny you a referral, will let you suffer, will let the condition worsen.
So, what to do, what to do? Centralize the process. Issue an IHS insurance card. Re-vamp the rules. If you're an Indian, you already know the obstacles to getting treatment. There is a ton of paperwork that needs to be completed....before you become injured, before a doctor places healing hands on you. If its not, well, guess who gets the bill when you heal? If you don't call within 72 hours of treatment, you get the bill. If you live outside your reservation, you have to prove economic ties to the community where you live, despite the fact that back home, your ancestors signed away land and asked that you receive medical treatment in exchange for that. If you're 18 and nobody ever explained this to you before you got injured, then IHS just saved several thousand dollars because you didn't jump through their hoops. If you never lived off your reservation and nobody explained the rules before you got injured after you moved to another reservation, the IHS Contract health workers will attempt to look woeful when they deny payment because you didn't fill out their paperwork BEFORE you got injured, despite the fact that you have lived in the area much longer than the minimum required as part of the "economic ties theory."
The agreement (treaty) stipulated that we'd exchange part of our land base for several provisions, chief among them, education, and medical treatment. These provisions were sealed in the battle-blood of our ancestors. They never envisioned, nor did they sign provisions, that an Indian Health service would take over the oversight of this health provision and put all kinds of obstacles in the way of meeting the U.S. government's obligation. Look at any treatment today.
We, the infirmed, the injured, the elders, have to "prove" we are "eligible" for treatment.
That wasn't in the treaty.
My grandfather's grandfather didn't expect this to be the way things were. They signed away part of their Native Land in exchange for several key provisions to take care of their grandchildren. They didn't expect for the same Indian Health Service to hold literally millions of dollars in "reserve" year after year after year. The cannons of treaty construction would mean that "reserves" should be construed for a "season," not for years after years after years.
If you read the CFR closely, Title 42 C.F.R 136.23, you will see that service will be provided to certain persons but the requirement for proof is not spelled out. In other words, it should, as any legal eagle will tell you, rest on the Federal government to prove that you are not eligible. There is no provision in the law that stipulates that the person will be penalized with a bill if they do not report their status prior to becoming injured within the boundaries of a service area other than their own service area, even though they have met the economic ties definition and have lived there long enough.
Or, Or, Or...§ 136.25 Reconsideration and appeals. (a) Any person to whom contract health services are denied shall be notifiedof the denial in writing together with a statement of the reason for the denial. ... and then:
(1) May obtain a reconsideration by the appropriate Service Unit Director of the original denial if the applicant submits additional supporting information not previously submitted...
That doesn't always happen, especially if you are dealing with a Contract Health Administrator who is charged with protecting a budget.
So, let's remove several highly paid administration offices, and centralize the process. Issue an IHS insurance card to every tribal member. Then pay the bills to meet the obligation that the United States signed on to in the treaty. The money follows the card, no matter where the tribal member lives. Even if they go to Haskell Indian Nations University, from an off-reservation address, their medical bills will be paid for by the United States in honor of our ancestors' wishes when they signed away some of their land base.
If Yvette Roubideaux was serious about "bringing reform to the IHS and improving the quality of and ACCESS to health care in the IHS," maybe this is a good starting place to generate some ideas about some out-of-the-box crazzzy version of change. Then again, if some crazy lunatic puts another rider on any congressional action, and somebody else is asleep at the wheel again, maybe nothing will change. Maybe Indians will continue to wait for surgeries, continue to wait for dental treatment, continue to wait to see specialists that the IHS doesn't have on staff. Maybe Contract health administrators will continue to get raises for going "under budget" and storing more away in the IHS reserves. Doesn't that seem strange? They do a "good job" by not expending funds that are set aside for our healthcare. Put it all on an IHS charge card and you will find out exactly how much it really costs to uphold the treaty provision. Something needs to change because at this rate we're not going to be getting any better all by ourselves.
"If we're not doing well in certain areas what can we do to make improvements..."
Shake the tree and see what fruit appears, I'm sure we'll all appreciate it.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Kimberly Teehee is actually the #2 position in Indian country
Jackie Johnson Pata said [Kim Teehee's] job was really going to hone in on those [domestic] policy issues. Pata also said, Kim's job was like the No. 1 position in Indian Country.
Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."
Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!
Wow! Shiny enit?
So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?
Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.
Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.
Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.
Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."
Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!
Wow! Shiny enit?
So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?
Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.
Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.
Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The (RE)Confirmation hearing of Larry Echo Hawk
The Confirmation hearing of Larry Echo Hawk held in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee chambers is really not a confirmation hearing as much as it is a re-confirmation hearing. This is an assumption based on the witless list prepared by.....whom? Who knows, who cares? It is obvious that the confirmation has already taken place based on the fact that the list is a fairly short and lonely list. It lacks objectivity, it lacks an outside view, it is probably the best that anybody could come up given the extreme views of their wonder-boy Larry. I just hope the the vetting will take place someplace back here in the real world. It's somebody's idea that this is going to settle the question Indian Country-wide of whether Larry will continue to serve the Morman (sic, yes I know) beliefs that the tradition of gaming which pre-dates any European church does not fall under the Sovereignty of the Tribes to decide their own fate. This is supposed to settle the question of whether Larry still believes that Tribes should deal with states instead of the Federal Government--never mind that Tribes never made treaties with states, never mind that Tribes are still in the midst of Trust Issues that have never been fulfilled and continue to be neglected. This is supposed to settle the question of whether Larry was really sincere in his silent apologies to the Tribes in this area. Never mind that the minutes from his "Last Stand" against Tribal Gaming taking place in Idaho are on file at the University of Idaho Law Library, and that they clearly show he and his staff were absolutely taking a stance against Tribal Sovereignty. His excuse was that he had a "duty" to the state. What is never discussed is that his duty was to point out ALL options for the state of Idaho in its reaction to the Tribal Gaming Stance. He never points out to "his" state of Idaho that one of the options was to honor the sovereignty of the Tribes in Idaho and allow the gaming to take place under the current wording of the law that Idaho had set for its own state non-tribal citizens. Instead he made a case that it was of the most importance that the will of the people of the good state of Idaho be shown by the legislators and that they pass the end-run around their own law to effectively ban the tribal gaming in Idaho. Surprisingly (really?) the people of Idaho passed their own initiative which allowed the same gaming which Larry Echo Hawk sought to ban.
But then I'm sure that all of this will come out in the re-confirmation hearing of Larry Echo Hawk when Alonzo Colby and Larry himself speak to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
Amen to expressing a Native American's point of view
The politics of Larry Echo Hawk's vetting
A further review of Larry Echo Hawk's reaction to state-tribal sovereignty disputes
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an intergovernment relationship with ...STATES
Larry Echo Hawk's record on Indian Casinos
Larry Echo Hawk
More on Larry Echo Hawk
Larry Echo Hawk a poor choice among many great ones
The Sovereign masses
But then I'm sure that all of this will come out in the re-confirmation hearing of Larry Echo Hawk when Alonzo Colby and Larry himself speak to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
Amen to expressing a Native American's point of view
The politics of Larry Echo Hawk's vetting
A further review of Larry Echo Hawk's reaction to state-tribal sovereignty disputes
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an intergovernment relationship with ...STATES
Larry Echo Hawk's record on Indian Casinos
Larry Echo Hawk
More on Larry Echo Hawk
Larry Echo Hawk a poor choice among many great ones
The Sovereign masses
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Yakama's dairy leasing mess
[Script in Green is Jan Whitefoot, reprinted in entirety with her permission]
"Please forward this. Thank you, Jan Whitefoot (509)-848-2539
Subject: Landowners beware
The antidote to the entire fiasco? It's your lease. Aggressively negotiate the leases ahead of time to include language that when the animals leave the lot, the waste must be removed by the corporate owner of the animals. Or have tribal councils pass land lease resolutions that specifically stipulate that any waste generated by corporate operations on tribal land must be removed with the animals. The Land owner didn't own the animals, they didn't own the feed, they didn't own the medicine given to all the animals, so why should they be left holding the bag full of you-know-what, and now be responsible for finding some safe way to get rid of the waste generated by the Corporation's animals? I would think that tribal councils would be the safest way to ensure that BIA doesn't sign off on leases that can't be negotiated with these corporations. Somewhere in recent, memory I believe that BIA officials thought that "best use of the land" was spelled out in the Reservation-Wide-appraisals with the damning statement, "agricultural use" or whatever term the appraiser uses. That means that if you disagree with the corporations offer and refuse to sign, (let your land go idle) that the BIA has a right to come in and say they are acting in your best interest and will get you money from a lease that they will sign--since you won't.
Either it goes in the lease before-hand, or Tribal Councils outlaw leases which leave land owners (including Tribal Councils themselves) holding onto 20 million pounds of Bullshit that is now toxic waste and endangers the water table of not only the tribe but the surrounding community members as well. That is a whole different liability issue I would think, when a community would come in and request relief (damages) from a tribe because their water table was polluted by the "tribal" dairy, chicken, or hog farm operation.
Like Jan Whitefoot asked all of us land owners to do, "examine your leases". Examine them early and often. If you don't understand it, ask someone to help you understand what is in in your lease, and what isn't in your lease that needs to be in the lease language. Fulfill the notion that we truly are the guardians of the land.
"Please forward this. Thank you, Jan Whitefoot (509)-848-2539
Subject: Landowners beware
Letter to the editor
Landowners Beware
Have you taken the time to examine your leases before signing them? After talking to several people about leases, here is some information you might find interesting.
Trust land is being leased to dairies and or LLCs (Limited Liability Corporations) in dairy’s names. These leases includes some land owned by the tribe. Why should you be concerned? The dairies are still being encouraged to do business on the Yakama Reservation.
The Dairy Industry has made it legal to compost their dead cows on site. What’s wrong with this? Many feedlot cows die from disease, not old age. These animals are not being tested for prions (Mad Cow). All the law requires is 2 feet of manure under the dead animal and 3 feet of manure on top. No barrier under the animal is required. In some places our water table is 4 foot deep. Do you see the potential for disaster? According to John H. Kirk’s, University of California Davis, “Pathogens in Manure,” study, there are over 400 pathogens in manure. Over 200 of these pathogens are harmful to humans. Some paid dairy experts will try and tell you that composting destroys all harmful pathogens. Not true. If you get on WSU’s, mortality composting website and dig a little deeper, you will find neither composting and or digesters can destroy all the heavy metals, prions and diseases in feedlot manure. To make matters worse, a local manure composter says he gets ponch from the local slaughterhouse and has seen dead cows in the manure he uses. He calls his manure “organic compost.” I see these piles of manure stacked near tribal members backyards. These piles of manure have the potential to pollute individual tribal wells and make people sick.
Another issue with some leases I have examined is that the bonding which is on a lease to protect the land, is being waived. What’s wrong with that? In Chino, CA, where many of the Yakima Valley Dairies have migrated from, dairies have created a “Brown Zone,” where nothing will grow. Who pays for these ecological disasters costing millions of dollars to clean up? Take a look at the Sunnyside feedlot that was supposedly cleaned up. It created a 700 foot pile of manure. After several years nothing will grow on this property. What is the value of this land now? Who is cleaning the groundwater?
According to government guidelines on leases, when the lease is up, your property is supposed to be returned to you in good condition. Who is monitoring this situation? No one. There is no enforcement, no protection on these leases.
What happens if the ground water is contaminated on your property? Who pays? Who is liable?
The huge mega dairy trying to go in near the Tri Cities is proposed to use 1 million gallons of drinking water a day. We have a 14,000 cow dairy near Harrah. Do the Math. How much of our drinking water are these factory farms depleting? Did you know some of these dairies are getting this drinking water for free? What is happening to the aquifer underneath your property?
Last summer, a Sunnyside dairy brought manure in from Sunnyside and applied it on land on Pumphouse Road. What’s wrong with that? Dairies are supposed to apply manure in agronomic rates. Some local dairies/feedlots are using poop sprinklers to get rid of their manure. This may super saturate the soil where some crops may become poisonous for consumption by animals and or humans.
The WA State Dept. of Ecology's Granger Drain Study said 150 tons of nutrient loading (manure) a day was going into the Yakima River. The report by Greg Bohmn said the source of this manure was 5 dairies. What about the fish? Who's watching out for them? No fines. No one cares.
No one monitors this either. Do we want the Yakama Reservation to become the dumping grounds for the whole state? Our we willing to let these mega, corporate polluters lease our land, and leave when they have used up and destroyed our health, land, air and aquifer? What can you do as an individual? Question the officials preparing your leases. Demand that your land and resources be protected from outside exploiters. Jan Whitefoot , Harrah, WA 509-848-2539"
Smart land owners, lessors, and activists, and advocates will educate every tribal member and every other concerned land owner to aggressively negotiate leases in favor of the land owners or to have the Tribal Councils nation-wide pass resolutions specifically addressing the ownership of the waste materials generated on these CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). The problem may lie in that your lease may say:
..."Joe Farmer will only farm Ben Dover yearlings delivered by Ben Dover, and sell any of the yearlings owned by Ben Dover Corporation to an authorized Ben Dover Buyer, while feeding Purino grain and feed products in accordance with an agreement between Ben Dover Corporation and Purino"....
The problem is that
- the Corporate (farm) Interests will own the delivered young animals
- The Yakama Owner/Operator/Land Owner will raise the animals to a marketable size
- The Yakama Owner/Operator/Land Owner will only use approved feed products (the corporation's friends)
- The Yakama owner will then sell the Corporate "cash cow" to the Corporate's friends or to the corporation itself.
- When it's all a done deal, the corporation walks away with a profit, and the Yakama land owner walks away with a profit.
- Then the waste is left behind, owned by........the Yakama Land Owner....
The antidote to the entire fiasco? It's your lease. Aggressively negotiate the leases ahead of time to include language that when the animals leave the lot, the waste must be removed by the corporate owner of the animals. Or have tribal councils pass land lease resolutions that specifically stipulate that any waste generated by corporate operations on tribal land must be removed with the animals. The Land owner didn't own the animals, they didn't own the feed, they didn't own the medicine given to all the animals, so why should they be left holding the bag full of you-know-what, and now be responsible for finding some safe way to get rid of the waste generated by the Corporation's animals? I would think that tribal councils would be the safest way to ensure that BIA doesn't sign off on leases that can't be negotiated with these corporations. Somewhere in recent, memory I believe that BIA officials thought that "best use of the land" was spelled out in the Reservation-Wide-appraisals with the damning statement, "agricultural use" or whatever term the appraiser uses. That means that if you disagree with the corporations offer and refuse to sign, (let your land go idle) that the BIA has a right to come in and say they are acting in your best interest and will get you money from a lease that they will sign--since you won't.
Either it goes in the lease before-hand, or Tribal Councils outlaw leases which leave land owners (including Tribal Councils themselves) holding onto 20 million pounds of Bullshit that is now toxic waste and endangers the water table of not only the tribe but the surrounding community members as well. That is a whole different liability issue I would think, when a community would come in and request relief (damages) from a tribe because their water table was polluted by the "tribal" dairy, chicken, or hog farm operation.
Like Jan Whitefoot asked all of us land owners to do, "examine your leases". Examine them early and often. If you don't understand it, ask someone to help you understand what is in in your lease, and what isn't in your lease that needs to be in the lease language. Fulfill the notion that we truly are the guardians of the land.
Here's how you manage leasing
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html
The only good Indians
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-indians.html
Tribal Chairmen arrested defending the use of their land
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-american-indian-tribal-chairman.html
Hog Farm Protest leads to arrests in South Dakota
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/04/protest-over-battle-for-of-all-things.html
Hog Farm Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr8SM8-WQg8
This is only Chicken manure! Think of Dairy manure on a grander scale
Sunday, March 15, 2009
President Obama's Contract Reform Memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess
Recently President Obama issued a memorandum directing his Departmental and Agency Heads to re-think the whole government contracting process.
Specifically he called for a move away from non-competitive and cost reimbursement contracts except in exigent circumstances. He called for a move toward competitive and fixed-price (performance-based I assume) contracts. President Obama said that the contracting process should not interfere with inherently governmental activities either.
I would like to propose that the treaty obligations are part of the governmental activities. The oversight of the government's accountability to oversee the land held in trust for Indians must not be held by a contracting vendor. They are afterall "vendors," these contractors. They are not the U.S. Government. When an appraisal firm in a city near a reservation assumes an appraisal contract from the Northwest Office of Special Trustee, Office of Appraisal Services and then allows two levels of sub-contracted vendors onto the project, where has accountability gone? I would think that since it resulted in grave errors in more than one appraisal, and that project had to be re-appraised, that the accountability was gone along with a good dose of pride. When discrepancies are discovered by the Tribe for whom the appraisal was being done, how do they address the issue with the Office of Special Trustee? There is no "real" grievance processs that is working. When the vendors make serious (grade schoolers could probably do better) mistakes where is the record for their performance? Why aren't tribes being listed as clients on the appraisals for reservation-wide appraisals? Why aren't tribal land owners being listed as clients on the appraisals for their land? If they aren't listed as clients, they cannot access the documentation that is used to appraise their land, their crops, their timber, their minerals. Only the client can access that information. Who is the client? The client is the Office of Special Trustee, and asking them questions will result in tirades where they question your own qualifications for appraising according the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. What remains to be answered is how Appraisers reach their conclusions in "States of Non-Disclosure." But since the tribes aren't "clients" on the appraisal contract, somebody else will have to ask OST how the appraisers reach their conclusions. OST officers have not-too-kindly pointed out that the Tribe is not a client so they should just take the OST officer at his word.
When the vendors for surveying projects include contracted surveyors who are state, county, and city-hired surveyors who may also have a great deal of interest in boundary disputes and land taxes for the local tax payers, I would assume that there is a conflict of interest. When the Certified Federal Surveyors are state, county, city, and local government-elected officials, I would assume that they have a conflict of interest when they perform cadastral surveys for land being put into trust, for land that is in boundary dispute with either the local government or one of its constituents.
I would assume that if the CFEDS surveyors are members of an anti-sovereignty, or anti-indian organization, that there is a possiblity for a conflict of interest. If they display behavior that is less-than-objective what punishment exists to right the injustice? What happens? We jerk their contract and they go home to their home agency with their full-time job intact? If they bend the rules for themselves and they get caught, who will really press the issue for them to lose their licenses? The point is, appraisals, surveys, and wills are all of such a grave nature to the balance of accountability to the U.S. government that they should all be completed under the colors of the U.S. Government, not by a "vendor," over whom Indians hold no influence and no hope of justice in the event of any unjust actions.
For all these vendor-driven tasks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Special Trustee will tell you that the Tribes can make their own decisions about whether to accept the contracts or to reject them. That may be true in a perfect world but when the list comes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs employee, is it plausible to believe that they will tell superiors that the situation requires more work, more background checks? Will the BIA employees really reject a surveyor who is already on a list titled "CERTIFIED Federal Surveyors?"
I doubt it. Most Indians are oblivious to the entire process and therefore are not the ones to question about the problem. There are a few tribal land owners who are very conscious of the situation and can tell you that this is not the way things should be. Land owners, even though the vocal ones may be in the minority, are the fairest assessors of the impact from sending government responsibilities out to sloppy vendors, who will come back next year to sell us their services once again.
I am hopeful that President Obama and Secretary Salazar will steer the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee into spending the budget dollars in such a way as to have more GOVERNMENT surveyors, more government APPRAISERS, more government EMPLOYEES perform the trust duties. Since the great and holy probate judges require that trust land be probated with a will separate from non-trust interests, since they require such a level of sophistication that not every attorney will be familiar with the requirements--the Federal government should create more positions for probate specialists, more attorneys to work the probate process from creation of an "appropriate" will to probate hearing to probate appeal.
The budget process should be re-vamped; the services for which the U.S. Government is responsible should be maintained by the Government employee, not a vendor who despite his knowledge is not required to know all that is contained within the phrase "trust responsibility" as it applies to the honored tasks for which they have clearly not "just volunteered."
This isn't new.....
President Obama Contracting Memo
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-Subject-Government-Contracting/
The Only Good Indian..... (11-5-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-indians.html
Dirk Kempthorne had it right (9-11-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/09/two-cheers-for-dirk-kempthorne.html
Lacking a Contracting Accountability (3-21-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/grand-contracted-mess.html
Appraisals: Keeping the poor poor (3-18-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/poorest-of-poor.html
Here's how you manage leasing (2-20-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2009/02/heres-how-you-manage-leasing.html
Where Surveying Money should be spent (1-09-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/run-numbers.html
Contracting for Customers (1-8-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/yet-more-motivations.html
Fraudulent leadership plagues the Office of Special Trustee (12-18-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/return-to-scene-of-crime.html
A Penney for your thoughts on Reservation Appraisals (12-4-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/penney-for-your-appraisal.html
Indian Reservation Surveys (11-30-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/11/surveys-on-reservation.html
Specifically he called for a move away from non-competitive and cost reimbursement contracts except in exigent circumstances. He called for a move toward competitive and fixed-price (performance-based I assume) contracts. President Obama said that the contracting process should not interfere with inherently governmental activities either.
I would like to propose that the treaty obligations are part of the governmental activities. The oversight of the government's accountability to oversee the land held in trust for Indians must not be held by a contracting vendor. They are afterall "vendors," these contractors. They are not the U.S. Government. When an appraisal firm in a city near a reservation assumes an appraisal contract from the Northwest Office of Special Trustee, Office of Appraisal Services and then allows two levels of sub-contracted vendors onto the project, where has accountability gone? I would think that since it resulted in grave errors in more than one appraisal, and that project had to be re-appraised, that the accountability was gone along with a good dose of pride. When discrepancies are discovered by the Tribe for whom the appraisal was being done, how do they address the issue with the Office of Special Trustee? There is no "real" grievance processs that is working. When the vendors make serious (grade schoolers could probably do better) mistakes where is the record for their performance? Why aren't tribes being listed as clients on the appraisals for reservation-wide appraisals? Why aren't tribal land owners being listed as clients on the appraisals for their land? If they aren't listed as clients, they cannot access the documentation that is used to appraise their land, their crops, their timber, their minerals. Only the client can access that information. Who is the client? The client is the Office of Special Trustee, and asking them questions will result in tirades where they question your own qualifications for appraising according the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. What remains to be answered is how Appraisers reach their conclusions in "States of Non-Disclosure." But since the tribes aren't "clients" on the appraisal contract, somebody else will have to ask OST how the appraisers reach their conclusions. OST officers have not-too-kindly pointed out that the Tribe is not a client so they should just take the OST officer at his word.
When the vendors for surveying projects include contracted surveyors who are state, county, and city-hired surveyors who may also have a great deal of interest in boundary disputes and land taxes for the local tax payers, I would assume that there is a conflict of interest. When the Certified Federal Surveyors are state, county, city, and local government-elected officials, I would assume that they have a conflict of interest when they perform cadastral surveys for land being put into trust, for land that is in boundary dispute with either the local government or one of its constituents.
I would assume that if the CFEDS surveyors are members of an anti-sovereignty, or anti-indian organization, that there is a possiblity for a conflict of interest. If they display behavior that is less-than-objective what punishment exists to right the injustice? What happens? We jerk their contract and they go home to their home agency with their full-time job intact? If they bend the rules for themselves and they get caught, who will really press the issue for them to lose their licenses? The point is, appraisals, surveys, and wills are all of such a grave nature to the balance of accountability to the U.S. government that they should all be completed under the colors of the U.S. Government, not by a "vendor," over whom Indians hold no influence and no hope of justice in the event of any unjust actions.
For all these vendor-driven tasks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Special Trustee will tell you that the Tribes can make their own decisions about whether to accept the contracts or to reject them. That may be true in a perfect world but when the list comes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs employee, is it plausible to believe that they will tell superiors that the situation requires more work, more background checks? Will the BIA employees really reject a surveyor who is already on a list titled "CERTIFIED Federal Surveyors?"
I doubt it. Most Indians are oblivious to the entire process and therefore are not the ones to question about the problem. There are a few tribal land owners who are very conscious of the situation and can tell you that this is not the way things should be. Land owners, even though the vocal ones may be in the minority, are the fairest assessors of the impact from sending government responsibilities out to sloppy vendors, who will come back next year to sell us their services once again.
I am hopeful that President Obama and Secretary Salazar will steer the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee into spending the budget dollars in such a way as to have more GOVERNMENT surveyors, more government APPRAISERS, more government EMPLOYEES perform the trust duties. Since the great and holy probate judges require that trust land be probated with a will separate from non-trust interests, since they require such a level of sophistication that not every attorney will be familiar with the requirements--the Federal government should create more positions for probate specialists, more attorneys to work the probate process from creation of an "appropriate" will to probate hearing to probate appeal.
The budget process should be re-vamped; the services for which the U.S. Government is responsible should be maintained by the Government employee, not a vendor who despite his knowledge is not required to know all that is contained within the phrase "trust responsibility" as it applies to the honored tasks for which they have clearly not "just volunteered."
This isn't new.....
President Obama Contracting Memo
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-Subject-Government-Contracting/
The Only Good Indian..... (11-5-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-indians.html
Dirk Kempthorne had it right (9-11-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/09/two-cheers-for-dirk-kempthorne.html
Lacking a Contracting Accountability (3-21-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/grand-contracted-mess.html
Appraisals: Keeping the poor poor (3-18-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/poorest-of-poor.html
Here's how you manage leasing (2-20-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2009/02/heres-how-you-manage-leasing.html
Where Surveying Money should be spent (1-09-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/run-numbers.html
Contracting for Customers (1-8-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/yet-more-motivations.html
Fraudulent leadership plagues the Office of Special Trustee (12-18-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/return-to-scene-of-crime.html
A Penney for your thoughts on Reservation Appraisals (12-4-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/penney-for-your-appraisal.html
Indian Reservation Surveys (11-30-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/11/surveys-on-reservation.html
Friday, February 20, 2009
Here's how you manage leasing!
If you ever wanted to know why land owners complain about the BIA leasing process, about Gross Revenue Crop Share versus Cash Rent Leases, read about how the Fort Hall Landowner's Alliance led by Ernestine Werelus has been effecting major change in how the leasing process is conducted on their land.
Read about how nefarious deals between a willing or un-educated employee and a farmer who bids low is now being stopped. Farmers will mail bids to the owners. No more Agency Letterhead sent to land owners who mistakenly have believed the bids to be under the approval of the agency employees.
A cautionary note to all landowners: make sure that the appraisals are kept under lock and key (literally) so farmers do not have access to the information of which they are not clients. (REMEMBER OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE DOES NOT EVEN LIST THE TRIBE AS A CLIENT ON APPRAISALS THAT PASS THROUGH THEIR OFFICE SO IN ALL EQUALITY, KEEP THE INFORMATION FROM BEING SHARED OPENLY WITH THE FARMERS)
There are a lot of subtle changes that make a vast world of difference: BIA and OST officials should not allow single-low-bids to substitute for competitive bidding. Ask Donna and Ross if they have audited any agencies who are allowing single bids to be a competitive bid. They have been made aware of this practice, and so have BIA officials but we still don't seem to have any changes, a year later.
One more note of caution: Somebody should really explain to the rest of the world after they explain to Indians, how appraisers reach appraisal Fair Annual Rental Rates in states of Non-Disclosure. Idaho is one such state so, if nobody is required to disclose information, how do appraisers reach conclusions?
Read about how nefarious deals between a willing or un-educated employee and a farmer who bids low is now being stopped. Farmers will mail bids to the owners. No more Agency Letterhead sent to land owners who mistakenly have believed the bids to be under the approval of the agency employees.
A cautionary note to all landowners: make sure that the appraisals are kept under lock and key (literally) so farmers do not have access to the information of which they are not clients. (REMEMBER OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE DOES NOT EVEN LIST THE TRIBE AS A CLIENT ON APPRAISALS THAT PASS THROUGH THEIR OFFICE SO IN ALL EQUALITY, KEEP THE INFORMATION FROM BEING SHARED OPENLY WITH THE FARMERS)
There are a lot of subtle changes that make a vast world of difference: BIA and OST officials should not allow single-low-bids to substitute for competitive bidding. Ask Donna and Ross if they have audited any agencies who are allowing single bids to be a competitive bid. They have been made aware of this practice, and so have BIA officials but we still don't seem to have any changes, a year later.
One more note of caution: Somebody should really explain to the rest of the world after they explain to Indians, how appraisers reach appraisal Fair Annual Rental Rates in states of Non-Disclosure. Idaho is one such state so, if nobody is required to disclose information, how do appraisers reach conclusions?
Amen to expressing a Native American's point of view
Talk Left .com ran an article during the recent presidential campaign.
It is relevant to discussing any of the appointments in President Obama's Administration.
Accordingly, it is also relevant that Native Americans should be following the appointments at every level of government. Question the footprints left in the appointees' history, not the person who made the footprints.
That's all this is about. And it's all that Evon Peters was purported to have been talking about: ("It's unfortunate that across America, our communities don't tend to dig deeper into the actual decisions that different leaders have made in their previous offices. ... My hope is that Native American people will be inspired to look into all candidates' track records on the tribal, state and national level.")
It's a recurrent issue: looking at who will have an impact on our way of life. Maybe we can be forgiven for pointing out the significant facts that are related to the people who the Federal Government appoints to serve the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
It would seem an easy thing to say that Heather Kendall-Miller fits the bill for evaluating how the Federal Government nurtures the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
http://www.adn.com/adn/features/indian_country/05a5.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec08/alaskawarming_07-10.html
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124560,00.html
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hpaied/people/miller.htm
It is relevant to discussing any of the appointments in President Obama's Administration.
Accordingly, it is also relevant that Native Americans should be following the appointments at every level of government. Question the footprints left in the appointees' history, not the person who made the footprints.
That's all this is about. And it's all that Evon Peters was purported to have been talking about: ("It's unfortunate that across America, our communities don't tend to dig deeper into the actual decisions that different leaders have made in their previous offices. ... My hope is that Native American people will be inspired to look into all candidates' track records on the tribal, state and national level.")
It's a recurrent issue: looking at who will have an impact on our way of life. Maybe we can be forgiven for pointing out the significant facts that are related to the people who the Federal Government appoints to serve the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
It would seem an easy thing to say that Heather Kendall-Miller fits the bill for evaluating how the Federal Government nurtures the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
http://www.adn.com/adn/features/indian_country/05a5.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec08/alaskawarming_07-10.html
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124560,00.html
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hpaied/people/miller.htm
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk debated on Native America Calling
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Native America Calling had a recent interview with attorney Scott Crowell and Shoshone Bannock Tribal Chairman Alonzo Colby on Monday February 16, 2009 regarding Larry Echohawk's possible appointment to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
An informative, depending on who you are and what you're willing to accept, pod cast can be found at http://nac.unm.edu/archives/2009/feb/021609.mp3.
excerpts:
"Larry was clearly doing his job"
"I would opt for his brother Walter"
"not simply advising the governor...traveled the state advocating for the change in the constitution"
"You negotiate with Indian tribes in good faith based upon the laws of the book of the time"
Native America Calling had a recent interview with attorney Scott Crowell and Shoshone Bannock Tribal Chairman Alonzo Colby on Monday February 16, 2009 regarding Larry Echohawk's possible appointment to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
An informative, depending on who you are and what you're willing to accept, pod cast can be found at http://nac.unm.edu/archives/2009/feb/021609.mp3.
excerpts:
"Larry was clearly doing his job"
"I would opt for his brother Walter"
"not simply advising the governor...traveled the state advocating for the change in the constitution"
"You negotiate with Indian tribes in good faith based upon the laws of the book of the time"
What is sovereignty? The Hualapai Tribe has the correct answer
This is a case regarding the Hualapai Tribe's inherent assertion of sovereignty over its own airspace.
The Arizona Daily Sun has reported about an issue that is pertinent to the discussion about the current appointments to key Indian positions in the government. The story in the Feb 18 issue of the Arizona Daily Sun, Hualapai, pilot at stalemate is a prime example of what sovereignty should mean. This is where our key appointed officials work with the Federal Government to spell out what sovereignty means.
In this case a pilot flew through Hualapai Tribal airspace and was subsequently detained so he could be cited for trespassing.
Cyndy Cole reports that the FAA said that the FAA has not given the [Hualapai] tribe any airspace rights.
In 1871 the U.S. stopped making treaties. In 1874 they moved the Hualapai (one could argue illegally) for the benefit of the Santa Fe Railroad. In 1883 they created the Hualapai Reservation by Executive Order. The FAA has never been given rights from the Hualapai Tribe. If the Hualapai had not stipulated what rights the United States had by 1871, then basically the United States cannot come in and say what they "think" the Hualapai Tribe meant to bestow on the States. And since the U.S. Government gave up making treaties in 1871, we should assume that the United States were never given rights from the Hualapai Tribe.
Treaties between the United States and Indian Tribes, are stipulations for what rights the Tribes gave up, and what the United States gave to the Tribes in exchange. I seriously doubt that the Hualapai gave up the right to govern their airspace. In other words they have a reserved right to everything that they didn't give up. Right? Right? There are a few ways to express that concept but for purposes of this conversation, we'll keep it simple.
Bravo to the Hualapai Tribe for exercising Sovereignty. Let's hope the Federal Officials learn about sovereignty from the Hualapai action.
Just so it's clear, THE FAA has no airspace rights to give to anyone over the Hualapai Reservation because the Hualapai Tribe never gave up that right.
hmmmm......what's Spectrum?
The Arizona Daily Sun has reported about an issue that is pertinent to the discussion about the current appointments to key Indian positions in the government. The story in the Feb 18 issue of the Arizona Daily Sun, Hualapai, pilot at stalemate is a prime example of what sovereignty should mean. This is where our key appointed officials work with the Federal Government to spell out what sovereignty means.
In this case a pilot flew through Hualapai Tribal airspace and was subsequently detained so he could be cited for trespassing.
Cyndy Cole reports that the FAA said that the FAA has not given the [Hualapai] tribe any airspace rights.
In 1871 the U.S. stopped making treaties. In 1874 they moved the Hualapai (one could argue illegally) for the benefit of the Santa Fe Railroad. In 1883 they created the Hualapai Reservation by Executive Order. The FAA has never been given rights from the Hualapai Tribe. If the Hualapai had not stipulated what rights the United States had by 1871, then basically the United States cannot come in and say what they "think" the Hualapai Tribe meant to bestow on the States. And since the U.S. Government gave up making treaties in 1871, we should assume that the United States were never given rights from the Hualapai Tribe.
Treaties between the United States and Indian Tribes, are stipulations for what rights the Tribes gave up, and what the United States gave to the Tribes in exchange. I seriously doubt that the Hualapai gave up the right to govern their airspace. In other words they have a reserved right to everything that they didn't give up. Right? Right? There are a few ways to express that concept but for purposes of this conversation, we'll keep it simple.
Bravo to the Hualapai Tribe for exercising Sovereignty. Let's hope the Federal Officials learn about sovereignty from the Hualapai action.
Just so it's clear, THE FAA has no airspace rights to give to anyone over the Hualapai Reservation because the Hualapai Tribe never gave up that right.
hmmmm......what's Spectrum?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
President Obama's American Indian adviser on tribal policy
Any suggestions? There is still hope that despite whoever takes the BIA helm or the OST helm and is still subject to Federal Oversight and Federal Program Managers, we might still have a chance at an appointment who will be our voice. I believe that tribes would do well to assemble a top-to-bottom consensus for who we think might be a good choice.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Politics of Larry Echo Hawk's vetting (7th in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
We are indeed hearing that there are letters going out supporting Larry Echo Hawk. That fact remains obvious. What is not obvious are the urgent conversations on the part of Larry Echo Hawk's team to "select friends" from back in the day. Do you think that any subsequent letters coming out from those select friends represents the whole tribe? I would think that is just "business as usual." Just because a Tribal Council signs a letter does not mean the entire Tribe supports what they say. Does a conversation and a hand-shake take into consideration the damaging history of Mr. Echo Hawk's actions against Tribal Sovereignty? It really isn't about gaming, it's about his interpretation of Tribes' Sovereignty, afterall.
And what is the content of those desperate conversations? Why can't he just issue a press release? If you want good word spread, then let every Indian know what is being said. If Larry Echo Hawk were to apologize to tribal leaders in private, shouldn't he do it publicly? Take this to Tribal people to vote on and you will find that many Tribal council members may turn red-faced when the people they are supposed to be representing express another opinion when given all the facts. Isn't the concept of the treaty-signers and non-signers a part of our history that just can't seem to be put to rest? What about coal deals, oil deals, coal bed methane deals, tribal membership, disenrollment? You see, just because you got the support of a tiny fraction of a minority of the people does not warrant an acceptance of that support as truth that all the people agree. I cannot recall any referendums being passed around any tribes in the last week to assess the entire population's decision on whether to support Larry or not.
So again, what does Larry Echo Hawk have to say besides "no comment?" If there is an apology, he would do well to remember that Indian people are notorious for being forgiving. Maybe that's half the battle, just being honest.
We are indeed hearing that there are letters going out supporting Larry Echo Hawk. That fact remains obvious. What is not obvious are the urgent conversations on the part of Larry Echo Hawk's team to "select friends" from back in the day. Do you think that any subsequent letters coming out from those select friends represents the whole tribe? I would think that is just "business as usual." Just because a Tribal Council signs a letter does not mean the entire Tribe supports what they say. Does a conversation and a hand-shake take into consideration the damaging history of Mr. Echo Hawk's actions against Tribal Sovereignty? It really isn't about gaming, it's about his interpretation of Tribes' Sovereignty, afterall.
And what is the content of those desperate conversations? Why can't he just issue a press release? If you want good word spread, then let every Indian know what is being said. If Larry Echo Hawk were to apologize to tribal leaders in private, shouldn't he do it publicly? Take this to Tribal people to vote on and you will find that many Tribal council members may turn red-faced when the people they are supposed to be representing express another opinion when given all the facts. Isn't the concept of the treaty-signers and non-signers a part of our history that just can't seem to be put to rest? What about coal deals, oil deals, coal bed methane deals, tribal membership, disenrollment? You see, just because you got the support of a tiny fraction of a minority of the people does not warrant an acceptance of that support as truth that all the people agree. I cannot recall any referendums being passed around any tribes in the last week to assess the entire population's decision on whether to support Larry or not.
So again, what does Larry Echo Hawk have to say besides "no comment?" If there is an apology, he would do well to remember that Indian people are notorious for being forgiving. Maybe that's half the battle, just being honest.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A further review of Larry Echo Hawk's reactions to State-Tribal Sovereignty disputes (6th In a Series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Who said this?
"State-law compliance is in fact a characteristic circumstance of most cases maintained under Young, see, e. g., Edelman, 415 U. S., at 655, which are brought not because the defendant officials are mavericks under state law but because the state law is claimed to violate federal law made controlling by the Supremacy Clause." (http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/19962673)
Souter, David H. souter, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.
And this is why I question whether Larry Echo Hawk is on the Sovereignty Team Roster, given his history which was widely reported in the New York times, the Desert News, and on the mouths of those so easily betrayed.
He wanted us to start dealing with States. Does this mean when there are boundary disputes (and buildings have already been built on the disputed land) that we turn to the State, County, or City surveyor's opinions? Are we, according to Larry Echo Hawk, to politely ask the State to remove their citizen from our land, and tear down his massive buildings? This is only one of a vast multitude of state-tribal issues that occur on a daily basis. For instance fishing was guaranteed in treaties. Mr. Echo Hawk again used legal wrangling to force Southern Idaho Tribes to stop fishing, and can anybody tell me if that was when the recreation fishing was still open?
The words of Justice Souter from above still ring true, just as they did during the Lake Coeur d'Alene Case. Can anybody tell me who has jurisdiction over the lake today? And who was the State Attorney General at the time, when a state was asserting that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over Treaty-guaranteed land and a lake of which Idaho, in it's own constitution establishing statehood, vowed never to touch? The history is there, it's not that Larry Echo Hawk was a bad person or even is today. The issue is that circumstances would suggest that he did not understand how Tribal Sovereignty applies in relation to States and has not given chance to show that anything has changed since then. That is all that should be developing from all of this. That he does not necessarily believe that he had effects detrimental to Tribal Sovereignty, does not excuse the fact that he did have detrimental effects; so he should come forward and tell us if he still believes that States are who the Tribes should be dealing with. Larry Echo Hawk should explain why he helped Idaho State; what went through his mind as he openly pushed the cart forward over the Tribes' Sovereignty to establish gaming on their own reservations.
I'm not converted yet and neither are some other Indians, despite what their own councils say. If it didn't come from a people-generated-vote, you can bet that not everybody agreed to what any Council said. One of my hopes is that any other council who may decide to support him, any other Indian Organization which may take the bitter pill, get something in writing from Larry Echo Hawk before you sign away any chance to hold the office of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs accountable.
Otherwise, one of us will be saying "I told you so." (If he gets confirmed, I sincerely hope all his supporters can come back here and say "I told you so" after a year or two into his position, otherwise, we'll all be waiting "again" for someone to take the BIA helm who really understands us.)
Who said this?
"State-law compliance is in fact a characteristic circumstance of most cases maintained under Young, see, e. g., Edelman, 415 U. S., at 655, which are brought not because the defendant officials are mavericks under state law but because the state law is claimed to violate federal law made controlling by the Supremacy Clause." (http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/19962673)
Souter, David H. souter, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.
And this is why I question whether Larry Echo Hawk is on the Sovereignty Team Roster, given his history which was widely reported in the New York times, the Desert News, and on the mouths of those so easily betrayed.
He wanted us to start dealing with States. Does this mean when there are boundary disputes (and buildings have already been built on the disputed land) that we turn to the State, County, or City surveyor's opinions? Are we, according to Larry Echo Hawk, to politely ask the State to remove their citizen from our land, and tear down his massive buildings? This is only one of a vast multitude of state-tribal issues that occur on a daily basis. For instance fishing was guaranteed in treaties. Mr. Echo Hawk again used legal wrangling to force Southern Idaho Tribes to stop fishing, and can anybody tell me if that was when the recreation fishing was still open?
The words of Justice Souter from above still ring true, just as they did during the Lake Coeur d'Alene Case. Can anybody tell me who has jurisdiction over the lake today? And who was the State Attorney General at the time, when a state was asserting that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over Treaty-guaranteed land and a lake of which Idaho, in it's own constitution establishing statehood, vowed never to touch? The history is there, it's not that Larry Echo Hawk was a bad person or even is today. The issue is that circumstances would suggest that he did not understand how Tribal Sovereignty applies in relation to States and has not given chance to show that anything has changed since then. That is all that should be developing from all of this. That he does not necessarily believe that he had effects detrimental to Tribal Sovereignty, does not excuse the fact that he did have detrimental effects; so he should come forward and tell us if he still believes that States are who the Tribes should be dealing with. Larry Echo Hawk should explain why he helped Idaho State; what went through his mind as he openly pushed the cart forward over the Tribes' Sovereignty to establish gaming on their own reservations.
I'm not converted yet and neither are some other Indians, despite what their own councils say. If it didn't come from a people-generated-vote, you can bet that not everybody agreed to what any Council said. One of my hopes is that any other council who may decide to support him, any other Indian Organization which may take the bitter pill, get something in writing from Larry Echo Hawk before you sign away any chance to hold the office of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs accountable.
Otherwise, one of us will be saying "I told you so." (If he gets confirmed, I sincerely hope all his supporters can come back here and say "I told you so" after a year or two into his position, otherwise, we'll all be waiting "again" for someone to take the BIA helm who really understands us.)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES (fifth in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.
This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.
States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?
More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009 ) Larry Echo Hawk told a Sovereignty Symposium (of all places!) that "Future intergovernmental agreements by Indian tribes will be conducted with individual states."
Was he serious?
He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.
I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.
This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.
States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?
More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009
Was he serious?
He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.
I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Qualifications for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
There may always be a disputed argument about what Tribal members are looking for in a Secretary for Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are how many hundreds of languages between us? It is no wonder then that we all have specific issues. We all have different ways of saying things, and that is why it is believeable that a culturally-based, land-based tribal member is more capable of understanding what all the needs of tribal members are.
A large-land-based tribal member will advocate for issues which will exceed the needs and expectations of a non-large-land-based tribal member. A non-land based tribal member will advocate (generally) far short of what land-based tribal members need and expect.
In a local language here in the Northwest, the word for "Sunday" for a particular tribe directly translates to the "day when the flag is flown on the staff." Our language comes from our culture, and we continue that relationship from living on the land. The less assimilated a leader is, the more willing the entire tribal population will be to accept them. It is extremely hard to lie when you speak a Tribal Language because our words are so specific for each language. That attribute is what is needed in a leader who will stand before the Federal Government as the Federal Government itself attempts (or fails) to fulfill the promises made to each of our ancestors so long ago.
The short and dirty list of what may be a starting point for selecting an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
A large-land-based tribal member will advocate for issues which will exceed the needs and expectations of a non-large-land-based tribal member. A non-land based tribal member will advocate (generally) far short of what land-based tribal members need and expect.
In a local language here in the Northwest, the word for "Sunday" for a particular tribe directly translates to the "day when the flag is flown on the staff." Our language comes from our culture, and we continue that relationship from living on the land. The less assimilated a leader is, the more willing the entire tribal population will be to accept them. It is extremely hard to lie when you speak a Tribal Language because our words are so specific for each language. That attribute is what is needed in a leader who will stand before the Federal Government as the Federal Government itself attempts (or fails) to fulfill the promises made to each of our ancestors so long ago.
The short and dirty list of what may be a starting point for selecting an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
- from a large-land based tribe
- proven track record of actually taking action in advocacy for all tribes (if they have been derided in OST/BIA circles, then it's a sure bet they're in)
- Have experience or can clearly demonstrate a knowledge of the problems tribes have in the land areas of contracted trust services, (surveys, appraisals, wills, probate training)
- Can clearly demonstrate ethics characteristics which will aid in restoring the current lack of trust in the Office of Special Trustee
- Ability to address the needs of a budget which has clearly been lacking in actually providing trust responsibility services
- Is able to make a statement about what sovereignty really means, to which a majority of Indians who still practice it can agree
- Can take the hard stance on the part of Native Americans in restoring the land base, by signing the pending Land-Into Trust packets (including those which have been waiting for 20 years)
- Can work through a quagmire of Federal inefficiency and clear all pending probates which are several years old
- Will agree that all federal documents related to Tribes, are jointly owned by the Tribes and the Federal Government. The current policy regarding documents in the Interior makes no such stipulation. The Federal government may have legal title to those documents, but the Tribes have Beneficiary Title which must be honored. We have agreements in black and white, so let's all take a look at them. I believe that even President Barack Obama could agree to some more transparency from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee.
Larry Echo Hawk's Record on Indian Casinos (4th in a Series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
- ..."Crowell’s statement also is misleading in that it suggests that Larry personally supported restricting Indian gaming or had a policy-making role in the matter."
- ..."EchoHawk clearly has a long and proven track record of advancing tribal sovereignty, his legal and ethical duty as Idaho’s attorney general was to provide legal advice to the governor and legislature. He did this according to his oath of office, and he did not advocate against Indian gaming specifically at any time."
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Enterprises Manager Nathan Small reacted quickly to the governor's statements, contending a special session would undermine any good-faith negotiations on a gaming compact.
"We feel it is an end run on Indian gaming," Small said in a statement. He also disputed Tribal Chairman Kesley Edmo's statement to Andrus that the tribes want to pursue "all types of gaming.""
And is there anything to show Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed the idea of Indian Casinos, that he was opposed allowing the mechanism for Tribal Casinos on Indian Reservations?
If you look at the July 28 1992 article in the Deseret news, and look at the 11th paragraph you see:"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk (3rd in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
There may be some confusion, now, although for multiple tribes in Idaho, there was no confusion at the time. A check of other tribal resolutions at the time will disclose that others, from other tribes, passed resolutions condemning Larry Echo Hawk's actions in 1992.
There was no confusion at the time as to the actions of Larry Echo Hawk. And if there is now confusion, err on the side of caution and seek an alternate choice to sit on the BIA hot seat. At least some of us haven't forgotten what happened. Timothy Egan from the New York Times, a Tribal Outsider, reported in 1994, "Idaho has a constitutional amendment against casino-style gambling, a law written in part, and defended in court, by Attorney General EchoHawk." (Click on any blue letters in this BLOG to follow a link to all the pertinent documents)
The Initial Scott Crowell Letter
(opposing Larry Echo Hawk initially)
The (current) Shoshone Bannock Council Letter in response to Scott Crowell
(suggesting that Larry Echo Hawk had nothing to do with the Idaho Constitutional Amendment in the 5th quarter enabling them to oppose Idaho Indian Gaming)
The Scott Crowell Response to the Shoshone Banock Council.
(Clarifying his position as correct the first time and reiterating that Larry Echo Hawk had a part in opposing Idaho Indian Gaming in the early 1990s)
There may be some confusion, now, although for multiple tribes in Idaho, there was no confusion at the time. A check of other tribal resolutions at the time will disclose that others, from other tribes, passed resolutions condemning Larry Echo Hawk's actions in 1992.
There was no confusion at the time as to the actions of Larry Echo Hawk. And if there is now confusion, err on the side of caution and seek an alternate choice to sit on the BIA hot seat. At least some of us haven't forgotten what happened. Timothy Egan from the New York Times, a Tribal Outsider, reported in 1994, "Idaho has a constitutional amendment against casino-style gambling, a law written in part, and defended in court, by Attorney General EchoHawk." (Click on any blue letters in this BLOG to follow a link to all the pertinent documents)
The Initial Scott Crowell Letter
(opposing Larry Echo Hawk initially)
The (current) Shoshone Bannock Council Letter in response to Scott Crowell
(suggesting that Larry Echo Hawk had nothing to do with the Idaho Constitutional Amendment in the 5th quarter enabling them to oppose Idaho Indian Gaming)
The Scott Crowell Response to the Shoshone Banock Council.
(Clarifying his position as correct the first time and reiterating that Larry Echo Hawk had a part in opposing Idaho Indian Gaming in the early 1990s)
More on Larry Echo Hawk
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
This is a second entry on Opposition to Larry Echo Hawk being appointed to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
What could happen if Larry Echo Hawk becomes appointed? He has shown a particular interest in opposing Indian Gambling. So does this spell a conflict of Interest for making decisions about Indian Gambling as the BIA Secretary?
Doesn't this sound familiar? Anybody else smell barbecue wafting through the halls of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or is it just me?
"Famous" Dave Anderson, excused himself from making any decision about gambling for ethical reasons. Will Larry Echo Hawk excuse himself as well? Or will he plod on, and with the stroke of an un-watched pen, will he strike down any more tribes' right to conduct gambling on their reservations. Will he oppose Sovereign Tribal Councils' decisions regarding gambling? Does he even belong in the appointment process?
Well when Dave Anderson stepped down, afterwards Julie Pelletier said "maybe he was ethically correct in removing himself." Then she said, "...then perhaps he was not the correct person for that position, since he had such a close tie to Indian gaming."
Wow. What will we do if Larry Echo Hawk, a Semi-Slayer of Indian Gambling, gains access to the highest Indian Office in the Land?
More importantly what do we do before it happens?
I think the staff at these offices will listen to our suggestions:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.Washington DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-3100
E-Mail: webteam@ios.doi.gov
Committee on Indian Affairs
United States Senate
838 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2251
comments@indian.senate.gov
This is a second entry on Opposition to Larry Echo Hawk being appointed to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
What could happen if Larry Echo Hawk becomes appointed? He has shown a particular interest in opposing Indian Gambling. So does this spell a conflict of Interest for making decisions about Indian Gambling as the BIA Secretary?
Doesn't this sound familiar? Anybody else smell barbecue wafting through the halls of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or is it just me?
"Famous" Dave Anderson, excused himself from making any decision about gambling for ethical reasons. Will Larry Echo Hawk excuse himself as well? Or will he plod on, and with the stroke of an un-watched pen, will he strike down any more tribes' right to conduct gambling on their reservations. Will he oppose Sovereign Tribal Councils' decisions regarding gambling? Does he even belong in the appointment process?
Well when Dave Anderson stepped down, afterwards Julie Pelletier said "maybe he was ethically correct in removing himself." Then she said, "...then perhaps he was not the correct person for that position, since he had such a close tie to Indian gaming."
Wow. What will we do if Larry Echo Hawk, a Semi-Slayer of Indian Gambling, gains access to the highest Indian Office in the Land?
More importantly what do we do before it happens?
I think the staff at these offices will listen to our suggestions:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.Washington DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-3100
E-Mail: webteam@ios.doi.gov
Committee on Indian Affairs
United States Senate
838 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2251
comments@indian.senate.gov
Larry Echo Hawk A Poor Choice Among Many Great Ones
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Well, it was a surprise when the news bounced around the inauguration balls that Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar was considering Larry Echo Hawk for Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs. It was an upleasant surprise.
It was once said Larry Echo Hawk had three strikes against him: He's Indian, He's Democrat, He's Morman. They had two out of three correct anyway.
There are a multitude of casinos out there. There are just as many tribes exercising sovereignty and managing casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk is Pawnee from Oklahoma. Now here's an interesting fact: There are Pawnee Indian-owned casinos...That's strange. Why wasn't Larry Echo Hawk openly opposing those casinos? Why wasn't Larry helping Oklahoma raise a legal battle against the Pawnee Indians?
He did it before in Idaho. He openly opposed casinos in Idaho. It was rumored that he had made promises to remain neutral, which to date are unsubstantiated. When he was elected to Idaho State Attorney General, he did not remain neutral on the subject of Indian Casinos. He did not openly support the Tribes. Instead, he openly opposed Indian Gambling in Idaho. Then when the Federal Government (Department of the Interior) had determined that Idaho could not legally oppose Tribal Gambling, Larry Echo Hawk helped the state negotiate a loophole that would create a state statute to oppose Tribal Gaming. This occured as Idaho was itself conducting it's own gambling.
Larry is Pawnee from Oklahoma. That is significant. They have what around 600-800 acres of land? Not Thousands of Acres, not hundreds of thousands of acres, not millions of acres. They have less than a thousand acres. They probably have approximately five 160-acre allotments. Wow! And now Larry is supposed to act like he knows what our issues are on reservations with over Three hundred thousand acres, over Seven hundred thousand acres, over a million acres? He has no cultural imprint from which to draw personal experience. He has probably never personally managed land leases on reservations on a daily, or yearly basis. He is probably not familiar with what it is to account for land held in trust. Has he ever personally had an interest in having land transferred into Trust Status. He couldn't have had land waiting 19 years to be transferred into trust? Could he? If not, how could he manage an agency that is supposed to be doing that and to date, is frought with mistakes, misinformation, and misguided principles? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have a Tribe's appraisals done by a third or fourth party contractor? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have surveys done by contractors who for all their efforts want all their survey information to be public knowledge; to have state elected officials performing cadastral surveys for reservations because the Federal survey certification is open to virtually every surveyor breathing?
So what does Larry Echo Hawk know? He knows he's a Morman. He knows he opposed Idaho Tribes gambling options. In his formative years, Larry Echo Hawk heard Robert Kennedy say: 'Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?'
I see things as they could be and say, 'Why not?' "
Maybe this explains why, in a region where Indians have always had gambling as part of their culture, before Mormons arrived here, Larry Echo Hawk looked and thought this state could oppose Indian gambling with a bit of legal wrangling so "why not?"
I am in admiration for his bit of legal wrangling, what I fail to understand is why he could not simply resign if his "religious" beliefs were in opposition to any Tribe's Sovereign Right to continue our gambling tradition. Yes it is a tradition. (stick games, horse races, foot races, and myraid other gambling opportunites dot our history) We are conducting the gambling ON OUR RESERVATIONS, and if Larry Echo Hawk didn't like it, he should never have set foot on the reservation.
But now, he will oversee many many gambling issues. Does he turn a blind eye yet again to every tribe who proposes to start gambling? Does he come down with the wrath of Joey Smith? What is an Indian to do? When an Oil Industry Surveyor's Son is faced with the truth behind how detrimental contractual surveying is to Tribes (conducted by Bureau of Land Management), does he turn away from the truth, or does he turn his back on the Tribes who are all suffering at the hands of so many Contracted Surveyors? Does Larry Echo Hawk understand the connection between lack of Trust Responsibility and forcing Tribes to pay for trust services like surveying, or appraising, or gathering records, or contracting for land leases, or oil leases?
It is doubtful that a landless-tribal member can enter this ring with any sense of what is expected of him. It is embarrassing that a "tribal member" who stood with a State Authority against multiple tribes, in direct opposition to their sovereignty, is now being considered for appointment to Bureau of Indian Affairs Secretary. We made treaties with the United States, NEVER WITH THE STATE OF IDAHO. Does Larry Echo Hawk's blatant lack of understanding of Tribes' sovereignty, of Tribes' land issues finally become obvious?
I think there should be much support for Scott Crowell and his statement in opposition to Appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
I agree with Scott Crowell that there may be wide-ranging support for Larry Echo Hawk, but just as in 1994, it may come from "Outside Idaho, [where] Mr. EchoHawk's candidacy has energized Indians throughout the West and become a cause," because very rarely does every tribe hear of every transgression and those who commit them against us. Maybe Ken Salazar has no idea what Larry Echo Hawk did either.
Today, it would not be hard to find tribal members from the Pacific Northwest, tribal members from large land-based reservations, that don't want Larry Echo Hawk in office messing up Tribal Sovereignty from a non-traditional, foreign religion's view of oppression.
No Indians should support the appointment of "an Indian" who will just as easily turn on their sovereignty at the National Level. He cannot be our voice. All of Indian Country should be hoping that Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar will look into more than the fluff and see the core issues of our problem with Larry Echo Hawk. If they don't they could find themselves on the receiving end of Larry's rebuke against Indian Gambling. Indian Country should be hoping members of the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs will consider another candidate for this post because Larry has shown he can put a State on his back while he runs haphazardly over Tribal Sovereignty.
Well, it was a surprise when the news bounced around the inauguration balls that Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar was considering Larry Echo Hawk for Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs. It was an upleasant surprise.
It was once said Larry Echo Hawk had three strikes against him: He's Indian, He's Democrat, He's Morman. They had two out of three correct anyway.
There are a multitude of casinos out there. There are just as many tribes exercising sovereignty and managing casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk is Pawnee from Oklahoma. Now here's an interesting fact: There are Pawnee Indian-owned casinos...That's strange. Why wasn't Larry Echo Hawk openly opposing those casinos? Why wasn't Larry helping Oklahoma raise a legal battle against the Pawnee Indians?
He did it before in Idaho. He openly opposed casinos in Idaho. It was rumored that he had made promises to remain neutral, which to date are unsubstantiated. When he was elected to Idaho State Attorney General, he did not remain neutral on the subject of Indian Casinos. He did not openly support the Tribes. Instead, he openly opposed Indian Gambling in Idaho. Then when the Federal Government (Department of the Interior) had determined that Idaho could not legally oppose Tribal Gambling, Larry Echo Hawk helped the state negotiate a loophole that would create a state statute to oppose Tribal Gaming. This occured as Idaho was itself conducting it's own gambling.
Larry is Pawnee from Oklahoma. That is significant. They have what around 600-800 acres of land? Not Thousands of Acres, not hundreds of thousands of acres, not millions of acres. They have less than a thousand acres. They probably have approximately five 160-acre allotments. Wow! And now Larry is supposed to act like he knows what our issues are on reservations with over Three hundred thousand acres, over Seven hundred thousand acres, over a million acres? He has no cultural imprint from which to draw personal experience. He has probably never personally managed land leases on reservations on a daily, or yearly basis. He is probably not familiar with what it is to account for land held in trust. Has he ever personally had an interest in having land transferred into Trust Status. He couldn't have had land waiting 19 years to be transferred into trust? Could he? If not, how could he manage an agency that is supposed to be doing that and to date, is frought with mistakes, misinformation, and misguided principles? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have a Tribe's appraisals done by a third or fourth party contractor? How does Larry Echo Hawk know what it means to have surveys done by contractors who for all their efforts want all their survey information to be public knowledge; to have state elected officials performing cadastral surveys for reservations because the Federal survey certification is open to virtually every surveyor breathing?
So what does Larry Echo Hawk know? He knows he's a Morman. He knows he opposed Idaho Tribes gambling options. In his formative years, Larry Echo Hawk heard Robert Kennedy say: 'Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?'
I see things as they could be and say, 'Why not?' "
Maybe this explains why, in a region where Indians have always had gambling as part of their culture, before Mormons arrived here, Larry Echo Hawk looked and thought this state could oppose Indian gambling with a bit of legal wrangling so "why not?"
I am in admiration for his bit of legal wrangling, what I fail to understand is why he could not simply resign if his "religious" beliefs were in opposition to any Tribe's Sovereign Right to continue our gambling tradition. Yes it is a tradition. (stick games, horse races, foot races, and myraid other gambling opportunites dot our history) We are conducting the gambling ON OUR RESERVATIONS, and if Larry Echo Hawk didn't like it, he should never have set foot on the reservation.
But now, he will oversee many many gambling issues. Does he turn a blind eye yet again to every tribe who proposes to start gambling? Does he come down with the wrath of Joey Smith? What is an Indian to do? When an Oil Industry Surveyor's Son is faced with the truth behind how detrimental contractual surveying is to Tribes (conducted by Bureau of Land Management), does he turn away from the truth, or does he turn his back on the Tribes who are all suffering at the hands of so many Contracted Surveyors? Does Larry Echo Hawk understand the connection between lack of Trust Responsibility and forcing Tribes to pay for trust services like surveying, or appraising, or gathering records, or contracting for land leases, or oil leases?
It is doubtful that a landless-tribal member can enter this ring with any sense of what is expected of him. It is embarrassing that a "tribal member" who stood with a State Authority against multiple tribes, in direct opposition to their sovereignty, is now being considered for appointment to Bureau of Indian Affairs Secretary. We made treaties with the United States, NEVER WITH THE STATE OF IDAHO. Does Larry Echo Hawk's blatant lack of understanding of Tribes' sovereignty, of Tribes' land issues finally become obvious?
I think there should be much support for Scott Crowell and his statement in opposition to Appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
I agree with Scott Crowell that there may be wide-ranging support for Larry Echo Hawk, but just as in 1994, it may come from "Outside Idaho, [where] Mr. EchoHawk's candidacy has energized Indians throughout the West and become a cause," because very rarely does every tribe hear of every transgression and those who commit them against us. Maybe Ken Salazar has no idea what Larry Echo Hawk did either.
Today, it would not be hard to find tribal members from the Pacific Northwest, tribal members from large land-based reservations, that don't want Larry Echo Hawk in office messing up Tribal Sovereignty from a non-traditional, foreign religion's view of oppression.
No Indians should support the appointment of "an Indian" who will just as easily turn on their sovereignty at the National Level. He cannot be our voice. All of Indian Country should be hoping that Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar will look into more than the fluff and see the core issues of our problem with Larry Echo Hawk. If they don't they could find themselves on the receiving end of Larry's rebuke against Indian Gambling. Indian Country should be hoping members of the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs will consider another candidate for this post because Larry has shown he can put a State on his back while he runs haphazardly over Tribal Sovereignty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
That’s right eeny, meeny , miny, moe, pick a Haskell President before Washington D.C.’s Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn say’s they go.
Today ( Oct 12, 2009 ) this announcement was made from the Haskell’s President’s office :
During Mr. Redman’s absence this week from campus, Dr. Dan Wildcat will be acting President. Dr. Wildcat will depart for a conference one Thursday at which time, Dr. Karen Gillis will be acting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call the :
Office of the President.
Well at least we know there still is AN OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AT HASKELL, but which president are they talking about ?
Let’s start with Dr.Warner who has been detailed to New Mexico by her boss, Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn ( BIE out of Washington D.C. ) with a master’s degree in social work and no experience in education. A lot of the people Stephanie is in charge of under her SES title are more qualified and more educated then she is. It’s like boarding a commercial airliner and telling a passenger to fly it. Oh, sorry can’t do that because not everyone on board will be Native American and those who aren’t deserve a real pilot.
So, Dr.Warner is gone until January per Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn and she send in a nice young man to be Haskell’s Acting President by the name of Chris Redman, who is from Oklahoma. He has no background whatsoever in the running of a college, but never mind that. The man was made to sit in the Haskell Board of Regents meetings last week and this week he is not at Haskell at all ! Who knows where the poor guy took off running to after all of that ! He after all was just trying to follow his orders BE PRESIDENT OF A COLLEGE ! And try he has. Gotta have pity on the man from Oklahoma !
Next ! Dr. Dan Wildcat is going to to be Acting President of Haskell, but he too lacks the real qualifications to be a college president however he is trying and has stepped up to the plate at least until Thursday. The mystery is where is Dr.Wildcat going on Thursday that is so important, that Haskell will once again have two acting presidents in one week ? And all of this in less then a month !
And least but probably not last, Dr.Karen Gillis she will step up to the plate on Thursday as Acting President of Haskell but for how long ? Through the weekend until next week ? The answer lays below…
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, no one knows until Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn catches you by the toe !
No wonder an AIS teacher is getting away with making BLOGGING a class assignment !!! It’s teach WHATEVER you want to teach at HASKELL SEMESTER, because there is no Haskell President.
Larry Echohawk you may want to check this out."