[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.
Friday, January 30, 2009
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)
