"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught."
~J.C. Watts
Ok.....shhhhhhhh.... Nobody watch the Bureau of Indian Education. Let's see what they do about SIPI losing their accreditation if nobody's looking.
And on March 24th then we'll look-after the Higher Learning Commission has left. There will be no Find-A-Word puzzle that will fix any of the shortcomings, however.
Showing posts with label Bureau of Indian Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bureau of Indian Affairs. Show all posts
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Elouise Cobell Settlement could have been so much more
The "Cobell settlement" which is on the mouths of landowners as the "Cobell Sellout" will forever go down in history as one of the pivotal points at which justice was once again used to tease Indians. Like a piece of meat held too high for a starving dog to snatch.
The Cobell Sellout was analyzed and at first was embraced by all as a good effort to "make" the Federal Government show how much we were owed.
If you "Lose the Initiative" on the battlefield, you are prone to seek out any new goal far short of what your objective originally was. Suddenly just living seems so much more appeasing than actually following through with your mission.
So it is with the Cobell Sellout. We were all behind her when she had the vision before her to compel an accounting. Maybe 10 years into it, maybe 13 years into it, she lost the initiative. And now we are all being forced into a pen of acceptance for a pittance of what is really owed and everybody in the Federal Government knows it. We are forced into an acceptance of a pitiful settlement while the memory of a "Compelling Accounting" for what we are owed, is now forever forgotten. The original objective sits on the memory map of so many who are now poised to lose that one chance to show that our generations before us were wronged, our ancestors suffered and the proof was forthcoming.
The Cobell Sellout could have contained so much more. As she shared in Indian Country Today, Angelique Eagle Woman had an idea for where this could have been steered. It would appear that when President Obama signs the Settlement legislation, Eagle Woman's and our hopes for "major positive sustainable changes" will forever go down in history with scant explanation or time due for positive dialogue.
Eagle Woman's "Remediation, Accounting, an Apology, and a More Just Monetary Compensation Plan" will go down, ignored with the pleas from the landowners who are in abundance, who do not support this poor excuse for a settlement, despite the questionable terms Cobell team used when they said the "majority of Indian Country" supports this settlement.
In every battlefield, the lieutenant who loses initiative will have a few bold sergeants who will make corrections in the heat of battle because somebody must. Maybe the Commander In Chief will take note of a select few shining examples of some brilliant leaders in the field of Indians and take pause to listen, right before he signs the Cobell Sellout.
The Cobell Sellout was analyzed and at first was embraced by all as a good effort to "make" the Federal Government show how much we were owed.
If you "Lose the Initiative" on the battlefield, you are prone to seek out any new goal far short of what your objective originally was. Suddenly just living seems so much more appeasing than actually following through with your mission.
So it is with the Cobell Sellout. We were all behind her when she had the vision before her to compel an accounting. Maybe 10 years into it, maybe 13 years into it, she lost the initiative. And now we are all being forced into a pen of acceptance for a pittance of what is really owed and everybody in the Federal Government knows it. We are forced into an acceptance of a pitiful settlement while the memory of a "Compelling Accounting" for what we are owed, is now forever forgotten. The original objective sits on the memory map of so many who are now poised to lose that one chance to show that our generations before us were wronged, our ancestors suffered and the proof was forthcoming.
The Cobell Sellout could have contained so much more. As she shared in Indian Country Today, Angelique Eagle Woman had an idea for where this could have been steered. It would appear that when President Obama signs the Settlement legislation, Eagle Woman's and our hopes for "major positive sustainable changes" will forever go down in history with scant explanation or time due for positive dialogue.
Eagle Woman's "Remediation, Accounting, an Apology, and a More Just Monetary Compensation Plan" will go down, ignored with the pleas from the landowners who are in abundance, who do not support this poor excuse for a settlement, despite the questionable terms Cobell team used when they said the "majority of Indian Country" supports this settlement.
In every battlefield, the lieutenant who loses initiative will have a few bold sergeants who will make corrections in the heat of battle because somebody must. Maybe the Commander In Chief will take note of a select few shining examples of some brilliant leaders in the field of Indians and take pause to listen, right before he signs the Cobell Sellout.
President Obama's final step before the fall known as the Cobell Settlement
It would seem as if the "forgotten" Native Population will once again be told what is best for them by what would seem to be a non-appointed voice for us all. Reminds one of the treaty-signers and what they gave away for the rest of their respective tribes. Elouise Cobell is set to pull the wool over one of the brightest minds in the Nation, Barack Obama Black Eagle.
When President Obama signs the Cobell Sellout, the Federal Government will breathe a giant sigh of relief. "Whew, we got through that one cheaper than we should have" will be a thought in many legislators minds.
"We could have ended up giving them what we gave the Black Farmers. We could have given the tribes 1.4 billion outright - good thing the process will prevent them from ever using all the money in 10 years. We'll get some of this back, in the meanwhile it'll earn interest. We could have granted generous funding to clear the back log of land sales currently on the books. We could have granted generous funding to create a bunch of Indian Surveyors so the tribes could have been more self sufficient to fix their Cadastral surveys. We got off easy on this one because we'll continue to be a pass through to all the contracted surveyors. Good vote getter there!
Did you catch that freakish clause where we're gonna give 'em 60 million for college? Wasn't that great? Considering we already covered that with each treaty that was a steal!
We could have actually been forced to come up with an accounting which we could not have done. Well, we couldn't have done it without spending more of our money to fix the accounting errors. On a good note, because of this case, we got all the land title documents under lock and key in our super secret cave in Lenexa, Kansas. "
Despite some of the greatest minds in the field of law and policy speaking out on behalf of the landowners, President Obama will instead "forget" that justice requires dialogue and with a history of people, good-willed or not, speaking on our behalf, we return once again to a scene where one will speak for many. One legal team will get off on their take while we get 1/50th of what another legal team got for their black farmers. One land owner who would have only gotten a tiny payment every year will instead take home 15 million dollars despite the lack of proof that millions were spent according to her own tax records. (check the link here) (she showed on her own records that she didn't even work some months and she put it out there for everybody to see)
123 years of injustice: uncounted millions lost
362 tribes who still don't have a sound land management advocate: cheap when you get a Secretary who has never lived on his own reservation and has no concept of what real life issues take place daily on the rez, but can cry on demand when speaking in front of a camera.
Stealing their 1 last shot to infuse justice into the situation: PRICELESS!
I guess there will be a ceremony where a drum will be beat to the heartbeat of very few. There will be a photo op in a plush room with a cast of very well-known players. And then the checks will start rolling in with nary an explanation-just like our checks come now. No receipt, no statement, no explanation for why we're getting it. Certainly no justice from the Federal Government who issued it.
Thanks be to President Obama for making it all happen with the swipe of a pen. Indians never did like paperwork and we still don't.
When President Obama signs the Cobell Sellout, the Federal Government will breathe a giant sigh of relief. "Whew, we got through that one cheaper than we should have" will be a thought in many legislators minds.
"We could have ended up giving them what we gave the Black Farmers. We could have given the tribes 1.4 billion outright - good thing the process will prevent them from ever using all the money in 10 years. We'll get some of this back, in the meanwhile it'll earn interest. We could have granted generous funding to clear the back log of land sales currently on the books. We could have granted generous funding to create a bunch of Indian Surveyors so the tribes could have been more self sufficient to fix their Cadastral surveys. We got off easy on this one because we'll continue to be a pass through to all the contracted surveyors. Good vote getter there!
Did you catch that freakish clause where we're gonna give 'em 60 million for college? Wasn't that great? Considering we already covered that with each treaty that was a steal!
We could have actually been forced to come up with an accounting which we could not have done. Well, we couldn't have done it without spending more of our money to fix the accounting errors. On a good note, because of this case, we got all the land title documents under lock and key in our super secret cave in Lenexa, Kansas. "
Despite some of the greatest minds in the field of law and policy speaking out on behalf of the landowners, President Obama will instead "forget" that justice requires dialogue and with a history of people, good-willed or not, speaking on our behalf, we return once again to a scene where one will speak for many. One legal team will get off on their take while we get 1/50th of what another legal team got for their black farmers. One land owner who would have only gotten a tiny payment every year will instead take home 15 million dollars despite the lack of proof that millions were spent according to her own tax records. (check the link here) (she showed on her own records that she didn't even work some months and she put it out there for everybody to see)
123 years of injustice: uncounted millions lost
362 tribes who still don't have a sound land management advocate: cheap when you get a Secretary who has never lived on his own reservation and has no concept of what real life issues take place daily on the rez, but can cry on demand when speaking in front of a camera.
Stealing their 1 last shot to infuse justice into the situation: PRICELESS!
I guess there will be a ceremony where a drum will be beat to the heartbeat of very few. There will be a photo op in a plush room with a cast of very well-known players. And then the checks will start rolling in with nary an explanation-just like our checks come now. No receipt, no statement, no explanation for why we're getting it. Certainly no justice from the Federal Government who issued it.
Thanks be to President Obama for making it all happen with the swipe of a pen. Indians never did like paperwork and we still don't.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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"
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.
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
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.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Sovereign masses
In part of his introduction to the book Sovereign Bones titled Rolling Those Sovereign Bones, Eric Gansworth wrote:
those people from indigenous communities who have chosen the artist's life understand that theirs is a gamble for survival. Their subversive acts, keeping their cultures alive, by necessity, use the tools of the oppressors: the English language, written forms of communication, Western publishing models, digital technology, film, the blog, installation, and myriad other forms of current information transmission. The risk inherent in learning to use the oppressors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
And I believe it. There is a point where if you argue with Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you're seen as the rabble-rouser. There is a point where if you say a person in a position who just happens to be an Elder did something wrong, you are the person who is wrong. Let me tell you there are Elders who were not doing good things when they were young, so what is the difference if they do that now?
There are always people who will say that people just point their fingers just to be pointing fingers. If you are pointing at a Tribal member in the Bureau of Indian Affairs who is really doing something disastrous to Tribal members' rights, are you really the bad guy?
When realty staff tell tribal members "just sign the lease, stop being so difficult," I have an issue with that. When OST staff misquote 25 CFR (their guiding bible) I have an issue with that. When the Regional Directors of Bureau of Indian Affairs do not budget for a superintendent for every reservation, I have an issue with that. When tribes are submitted to a process with obvious blind spots such as the Cadastral Surveyor process which would put people with political conflicts of interest on our reservation surveying and acquiring sensitive information, I have an issue with that. When the Office of Appraisal Services neglects to protect tribes' appraisal contracts from being sub-contracted to two levels away from the contractor, I have an issue with that. When the same appraisal office neglects to identify how an appraisal firm came to a appraisal decision in a State of non-discolsure I have an issue with that. When tribes everywhere are not included on appraisal contracts as clients, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government loses all original surveys for three reservations, a Trust duty, and then require Tribes to pay for re-surveys, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government requires the Tribes to gain comments on Fee to Trust from local lower governments (mainly states and counties and towns) I have a problem with that because nobody asked us the impact that moving from Trust to Fee would have on us when they took our land.
When they continually put people into the office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs who have never worked at the ground level I have an issue with that.
These are Native Issues. If you are on the government side of the Native Issues, you had better be prepared to actually defend your stance with a proper citation of Title 25 the Code of Federal Regulations. If you are the realty specialist who told a land owner to just sign an agricultural lease without being difficult, the shame should be on you. If you are the person who could change the surveying scheme, and you don't do anything about it, you are the problem.
In the Army Drill sergeants tell new privates, "if you see a piece of garbage on the ground, it is now your garbage." In Native issues if you see something and don't do anything about it, it is your fault.
If you are a land owner who will sign a lease and then later complain because of what is in the lease, you need to start reading your lease. If you are not going to read your lease, then don't point a finger at the people who would warn you when your farmer takes full advantage of you on the lease you signed.
Am I confrontational? You had best bet that I am just as confrontational as the obstacle to change is toward me.
The risk in learning to use the oppresors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
Well know this, we should all be confrontational to the processes undertaken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee with the right balance of confrontation just to sway the effect to justice.
I would hope that the Native Issues that are problems would be addressed. I would hope that if you are part of the problem in a Native Issue, you would read your bible, 25 CFR whether you're a land owner, or a Federal employee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee or any of their supposedly beneficial Contractors.
Do you want to know the quickest way to shut up a "finger-pointer?" Give them the responsibility. They'll either take the responsibility with the thought that their name is on it or they will fail miserably and then they won't complain.
Well, it would seem....ready for this?....that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee have stopped complaining....because they are failing miserably. Understand, there are a multitude of people who are trying and looking out for their fellow tribal people. But the people who need to admit that many of the tasks carried out by Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special Trustee are not beneficial, are not working, and are failing miserably, have stopped complaining.
Even if it was to complain that there is too much work to be done, those leaders need to be complaining and stop labeling. Quite to the opposite, your whining and labeling come back to you in the way of medicine, self administered. It is good to advocate for Native Issues. It is not good to fail to admit that the Native Issues exist.
The truth just keeps coming back to you no matter how many times you deny it.
If it wasn't true, you should just say so.
those people from indigenous communities who have chosen the artist's life understand that theirs is a gamble for survival. Their subversive acts, keeping their cultures alive, by necessity, use the tools of the oppressors: the English language, written forms of communication, Western publishing models, digital technology, film, the blog, installation, and myriad other forms of current information transmission. The risk inherent in learning to use the oppressors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
And I believe it. There is a point where if you argue with Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you're seen as the rabble-rouser. There is a point where if you say a person in a position who just happens to be an Elder did something wrong, you are the person who is wrong. Let me tell you there are Elders who were not doing good things when they were young, so what is the difference if they do that now?
There are always people who will say that people just point their fingers just to be pointing fingers. If you are pointing at a Tribal member in the Bureau of Indian Affairs who is really doing something disastrous to Tribal members' rights, are you really the bad guy?
When realty staff tell tribal members "just sign the lease, stop being so difficult," I have an issue with that. When OST staff misquote 25 CFR (their guiding bible) I have an issue with that. When the Regional Directors of Bureau of Indian Affairs do not budget for a superintendent for every reservation, I have an issue with that. When tribes are submitted to a process with obvious blind spots such as the Cadastral Surveyor process which would put people with political conflicts of interest on our reservation surveying and acquiring sensitive information, I have an issue with that. When the Office of Appraisal Services neglects to protect tribes' appraisal contracts from being sub-contracted to two levels away from the contractor, I have an issue with that. When the same appraisal office neglects to identify how an appraisal firm came to a appraisal decision in a State of non-discolsure I have an issue with that. When tribes everywhere are not included on appraisal contracts as clients, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government loses all original surveys for three reservations, a Trust duty, and then require Tribes to pay for re-surveys, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government requires the Tribes to gain comments on Fee to Trust from local lower governments (mainly states and counties and towns) I have a problem with that because nobody asked us the impact that moving from Trust to Fee would have on us when they took our land.
When they continually put people into the office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs who have never worked at the ground level I have an issue with that.
These are Native Issues. If you are on the government side of the Native Issues, you had better be prepared to actually defend your stance with a proper citation of Title 25 the Code of Federal Regulations. If you are the realty specialist who told a land owner to just sign an agricultural lease without being difficult, the shame should be on you. If you are the person who could change the surveying scheme, and you don't do anything about it, you are the problem.
In the Army Drill sergeants tell new privates, "if you see a piece of garbage on the ground, it is now your garbage." In Native issues if you see something and don't do anything about it, it is your fault.
If you are a land owner who will sign a lease and then later complain because of what is in the lease, you need to start reading your lease. If you are not going to read your lease, then don't point a finger at the people who would warn you when your farmer takes full advantage of you on the lease you signed.
Am I confrontational? You had best bet that I am just as confrontational as the obstacle to change is toward me.
The risk in learning to use the oppresors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
Well know this, we should all be confrontational to the processes undertaken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee with the right balance of confrontation just to sway the effect to justice.
I would hope that the Native Issues that are problems would be addressed. I would hope that if you are part of the problem in a Native Issue, you would read your bible, 25 CFR whether you're a land owner, or a Federal employee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee or any of their supposedly beneficial Contractors.
Do you want to know the quickest way to shut up a "finger-pointer?" Give them the responsibility. They'll either take the responsibility with the thought that their name is on it or they will fail miserably and then they won't complain.
Well, it would seem....ready for this?....that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee have stopped complaining....because they are failing miserably. Understand, there are a multitude of people who are trying and looking out for their fellow tribal people. But the people who need to admit that many of the tasks carried out by Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special Trustee are not beneficial, are not working, and are failing miserably, have stopped complaining.
Even if it was to complain that there is too much work to be done, those leaders need to be complaining and stop labeling. Quite to the opposite, your whining and labeling come back to you in the way of medicine, self administered. It is good to advocate for Native Issues. It is not good to fail to admit that the Native Issues exist.
The truth just keeps coming back to you no matter how many times you deny it.
If it wasn't true, you should just say so.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Majel Russell Part Deux?
I am wondering if there is any chance Majel Russell might be seeking to get back into Carl Artman's office? Does she still have the keys?
I am in the earnest corner of "I hope she doesn't" because my opinion is that her stance on sovereignty thus far has not been within even the lightest shade of what True Sovereignty should be.
And because so many are oblivious to the facts surrounding her recent stint as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Indian Affairs means that not all Native Americans are the best judges or the best references for Majel. Instead ask Eugene Little Coyote of the Northern Cheyenne Nation what his opinion on Majel Russell may be. (she signed an order recognizing a new Northern Cheyenne President in opposition to a Northern Cheyenne Constitutional Court Opinion). Ask members from California's Table Mountain Rancheria whose sovereignty was wiped clean by the efforts of an enthusiastic lawyer (Majel Russell) as their leadership was being turned upside-down what their opinion is on her view of Sovereignty. All this happened as she and her clients sought to "peacefully take over leadership." (Again she was party to a leadership dispute under circumstances which at least in part appears to have been undermining tribal sovereignty, as she tried to figure out who had jurisdiction on the reservation? duh! Tribal police: think "Sovereignty") At the heart of the matter is that both the incumbent and the "dissident" faction on the Table Mountain Rancheria had the reigns put on them by the Tribe. They wanted to decide who would lead them together, AS A WHOLE TRIBE. They did not need the outside "expertise" of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or some fancy lawyer who was not mediating, but instead intimidating by throwing the "Casino Percapita Bone" out in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In an unexplainable move, Kevin Gover, the BIA Secretary at the time, issued recognition for the dissident faction, because of violations of a gaming allocation plan by the incumbent Tribal Chairman. Funny, I never knew the GAMING ALLOCATION PLAN would trump a LEGAL ELECTION by the people. (funny, just like the Northern Cheyenne's overturning, the Tribal Constitution is what should have prevailed, not the opinion of an outsider like a lawyer from another tribe, or an Assistant Secretary who didn't set up the Tribes' Constitutions)
Remember one of the glaring points of this blog is that "right does not necessarily mean it's good." Follow the rules until following them defeats the entire purpose (in relation to the trust responsibility and the benefit to the tribal member). The American Indians have a long trail of Federal Court rulings that we will all tell you are not ethical or beneficial to us as Nations. Just because you followed a case in a court of law does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or ethical. I tend to believe Aristotle's and Socrates' view that True Politics meant the pursuit of the "Common Good."
"Common Good" for Native Americans should mean equal treatment across the board, and the best and most economical treatment should be to let tribes decide for themselves to exercise their own sovereignty. And in the absence of them exercising sovereignty-in-action, let that remain as one of their options. Everything comes to an end eventually. It doesn't take a lawyer from outside a tribe to end a dispute. I believe talented people like Majel Russell may have a place in some courts for the Tribes. Her accumen has been sharp thus far, but like Saul, maybe she needs to take the talent she's been given and pour it into a new direction, a better direction, in support of True Sovereignty. Maybe. Maybe like life, the tribal disputes across the nation will run their course and lessons will be learned from the snail's-pace flow of action. At any rate, tribes do not need a court to define sovereignty. In fact, if you start to define sovereignty, you begin to limit it.
The day you tell someone what sovereignty is you should not stop talking...forever, (the definition is infinite) or you should just hand over the keys to your leadership office. Well in light of the fact that, in a small part of the Native American Public Opinion, Majel Russell stepped all over sovereignty in the Northern Cheyenne Nation just recently, I would hope that the whoever gains the Presidency would ask a very short list of people for references if she ever seeks another leadership position at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee, or the Department of the Interior. I'm hoping we don't hand the keys to our BIA leadership offices over to her if she ever pursues a leadership position under the next Administration.
I am in the earnest corner of "I hope she doesn't" because my opinion is that her stance on sovereignty thus far has not been within even the lightest shade of what True Sovereignty should be.
And because so many are oblivious to the facts surrounding her recent stint as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Indian Affairs means that not all Native Americans are the best judges or the best references for Majel. Instead ask Eugene Little Coyote of the Northern Cheyenne Nation what his opinion on Majel Russell may be. (she signed an order recognizing a new Northern Cheyenne President in opposition to a Northern Cheyenne Constitutional Court Opinion). Ask members from California's Table Mountain Rancheria whose sovereignty was wiped clean by the efforts of an enthusiastic lawyer (Majel Russell) as their leadership was being turned upside-down what their opinion is on her view of Sovereignty. All this happened as she and her clients sought to "peacefully take over leadership." (Again she was party to a leadership dispute under circumstances which at least in part appears to have been undermining tribal sovereignty, as she tried to figure out who had jurisdiction on the reservation? duh! Tribal police: think "Sovereignty") At the heart of the matter is that both the incumbent and the "dissident" faction on the Table Mountain Rancheria had the reigns put on them by the Tribe. They wanted to decide who would lead them together, AS A WHOLE TRIBE. They did not need the outside "expertise" of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or some fancy lawyer who was not mediating, but instead intimidating by throwing the "Casino Percapita Bone" out in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In an unexplainable move, Kevin Gover, the BIA Secretary at the time, issued recognition for the dissident faction, because of violations of a gaming allocation plan by the incumbent Tribal Chairman. Funny, I never knew the GAMING ALLOCATION PLAN would trump a LEGAL ELECTION by the people. (funny, just like the Northern Cheyenne's overturning, the Tribal Constitution is what should have prevailed, not the opinion of an outsider like a lawyer from another tribe, or an Assistant Secretary who didn't set up the Tribes' Constitutions)
Remember one of the glaring points of this blog is that "right does not necessarily mean it's good." Follow the rules until following them defeats the entire purpose (in relation to the trust responsibility and the benefit to the tribal member). The American Indians have a long trail of Federal Court rulings that we will all tell you are not ethical or beneficial to us as Nations. Just because you followed a case in a court of law does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or ethical. I tend to believe Aristotle's and Socrates' view that True Politics meant the pursuit of the "Common Good."
"Common Good" for Native Americans should mean equal treatment across the board, and the best and most economical treatment should be to let tribes decide for themselves to exercise their own sovereignty. And in the absence of them exercising sovereignty-in-action, let that remain as one of their options. Everything comes to an end eventually. It doesn't take a lawyer from outside a tribe to end a dispute. I believe talented people like Majel Russell may have a place in some courts for the Tribes. Her accumen has been sharp thus far, but like Saul, maybe she needs to take the talent she's been given and pour it into a new direction, a better direction, in support of True Sovereignty. Maybe. Maybe like life, the tribal disputes across the nation will run their course and lessons will be learned from the snail's-pace flow of action. At any rate, tribes do not need a court to define sovereignty. In fact, if you start to define sovereignty, you begin to limit it.
The day you tell someone what sovereignty is you should not stop talking...forever, (the definition is infinite) or you should just hand over the keys to your leadership office. Well in light of the fact that, in a small part of the Native American Public Opinion, Majel Russell stepped all over sovereignty in the Northern Cheyenne Nation just recently, I would hope that the whoever gains the Presidency would ask a very short list of people for references if she ever seeks another leadership position at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee, or the Department of the Interior. I'm hoping we don't hand the keys to our BIA leadership offices over to her if she ever pursues a leadership position under the next Administration.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Dismal Cobell Dismissal
MARY CLARE JALONICK has a report just out: Judge says Indians owed $455m in trust case
U.S. District Judge James Robertson has summarily dismissed any billion dollar claim the Cobell plaintiff's had against the government. He has issued an opinion saying that Indians are entitled to 455 million dollars as part of the broken Trust duties of the United States. That's not even 1 million to each of the 562 tribes across the nation. Really? Really enit? They (the U.S. Government) were that accurate from 1887? Wow! Somebody nominate this government for a Quality Management Award!
Judge James Robertson says that Eloise Cobell et al. didn't prove that damages included benefits to the United States that the U.S. received as part of mis-use of the Trust Funds, despite the fact that it was argued that the trust funds were used to down-size some government debts.
Funny part is that he says in his ending statement, "The Cobell case will no doubt stand, in some respects, as a cautionary tale about the limited ability of a court to right historical wrongs that could have been — and should have been — settled by the same political branches in recognition of their own failure to preserve the trust."
Aint it the truth?
U.S. District Judge James Robertson has summarily dismissed any billion dollar claim the Cobell plaintiff's had against the government. He has issued an opinion saying that Indians are entitled to 455 million dollars as part of the broken Trust duties of the United States. That's not even 1 million to each of the 562 tribes across the nation. Really? Really enit? They (the U.S. Government) were that accurate from 1887? Wow! Somebody nominate this government for a Quality Management Award!
Judge James Robertson says that Eloise Cobell et al. didn't prove that damages included benefits to the United States that the U.S. received as part of mis-use of the Trust Funds, despite the fact that it was argued that the trust funds were used to down-size some government debts.
Funny part is that he says in his ending statement, "The Cobell case will no doubt stand, in some respects, as a cautionary tale about the limited ability of a court to right historical wrongs that could have been — and should have been — settled by the same political branches in recognition of their own failure to preserve the trust."
Aint it the truth?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
JOB OPPORTUNITY: Did MAJEL RUSSELL resign as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Indian Affairs?
It would seem that Majel Russell is no longer with us as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Did Majel Russell resign? The Puzzle Palace (federal government) seems to do a fine job of shredding either the principles of the people we keep sending there, or their morals, or just their sense of duty or their morale. I know of good people who have gone there with hopes of "changing things." They quickly find out that isn't what's going to happen. I know of some people who go there with self-driven motivations. I would hope that they don't last long there, but some of them are still there, and flourishing.
So it would seem that Majel Russell's former position is once again open, as well as Carl Artman's position. Round and round we go, and where we stop, nobody really does know. Majel Russell will do well with her background. I would hope that the experience she had in the Bureau of Indian Affairs would be beneficial in some way for all of us, including her. George Skibine recently in Reno gave words about Majel to the effect that she wasn't a "bad person". I agree. It was Majel Russell's actions that gave us reason to pause. Majel Russell is a tribal member, a land owner, and on some issues, the best advocate. Maybe not the best advocate for all, but an advocate indeed. If it was "Benny Two-Hops" who did the same thing, I feel that the same reaction would have come to mind.
I hope that the Department of the Interior chooses someone of high caliber to replace Carl Artman and Majel Russell. They were brave for having stepped up to the plate. We owe them that. Maybe this time around they pick two leaders from large land-based tribes out West, where the issues are still live for us, just as they were back in the day.
So it would seem that Majel Russell's former position is once again open, as well as Carl Artman's position. Round and round we go, and where we stop, nobody really does know. Majel Russell will do well with her background. I would hope that the experience she had in the Bureau of Indian Affairs would be beneficial in some way for all of us, including her. George Skibine recently in Reno gave words about Majel to the effect that she wasn't a "bad person". I agree. It was Majel Russell's actions that gave us reason to pause. Majel Russell is a tribal member, a land owner, and on some issues, the best advocate. Maybe not the best advocate for all, but an advocate indeed. If it was "Benny Two-Hops" who did the same thing, I feel that the same reaction would have come to mind.
I hope that the Department of the Interior chooses someone of high caliber to replace Carl Artman and Majel Russell. They were brave for having stepped up to the plate. We owe them that. Maybe this time around they pick two leaders from large land-based tribes out West, where the issues are still live for us, just as they were back in the day.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD NEWS!
I think Ted Baxter said it best when he said those kind words. It was a rather simplistic mantra. Sometimes it comes true. Indianz.com reports that George Skibine will take the helm, although it will a quasi-super-secret-squirrel event. George Skibine will fill the top post as Bureau of Indian Affairs Secretary but not in an "acting" position.
"He is not acting," said Nedra Darling. Well, I should hope he is taking it seriously! But seriously, I don't want to take just one sentence out of context, so I should not make light of it.
But, ("but" cancels everything out you just said you know) I have to wonder why others weren't chosen to take the helm. I do not question George, I question the fact that we have many people in the top seats (echelons above god) who can't seem to assume the leadership according to the chain of command. Isn't that why there is a chain of command?
I am happy that in this case the chain of command wasn't followed. What continues to be my problem is that we have a bunch of weak links in the chain.
It should be self-evident that if they're not man (or woman) enough to step up when the next level up leaves, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Right? Right?
I kind of think of Bureau of Indian Affairs much like I used to remember the antics of the Mary Tyler Moore Show right now. And that is why the Ted Baxter quotes appear today.
Mary Richards: Ted, do you trust me?
Ted Baxter: Well, sure I do.
Mary Richards: Okay, take off your left shoe.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now take off your left sock.
Ted Baxter: Mary...
Mary Richards: Do you trust me, Ted?
Ted Baxter: Sure.
Mary Richards: Take off your left sock.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now, the next time I'm talking to someone and you think of a comment you just have to add to the conversation, I want you to take that sock, and stuff it down your throat.
Ted Baxter: What about the shoe?
"don't tempt me"
So who is Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Or how many people get to play Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Good night and good news to you too George Skibine. May the good news be all of ours.
"He is not acting," said Nedra Darling. Well, I should hope he is taking it seriously! But seriously, I don't want to take just one sentence out of context, so I should not make light of it.
But, ("but" cancels everything out you just said you know) I have to wonder why others weren't chosen to take the helm. I do not question George, I question the fact that we have many people in the top seats (echelons above god) who can't seem to assume the leadership according to the chain of command. Isn't that why there is a chain of command?
I am happy that in this case the chain of command wasn't followed. What continues to be my problem is that we have a bunch of weak links in the chain.
It should be self-evident that if they're not man (or woman) enough to step up when the next level up leaves, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Right? Right?
I kind of think of Bureau of Indian Affairs much like I used to remember the antics of the Mary Tyler Moore Show right now. And that is why the Ted Baxter quotes appear today.
Mary Richards: Ted, do you trust me?
Ted Baxter: Well, sure I do.
Mary Richards: Okay, take off your left shoe.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now take off your left sock.
Ted Baxter: Mary...
Mary Richards: Do you trust me, Ted?
Ted Baxter: Sure.
Mary Richards: Take off your left sock.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now, the next time I'm talking to someone and you think of a comment you just have to add to the conversation, I want you to take that sock, and stuff it down your throat.
Ted Baxter: What about the shoe?
"don't tempt me"
So who is Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Or how many people get to play Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Good night and good news to you too George Skibine. May the good news be all of ours.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Majel Russell's Background Check
Majel,
our little darling. She certainly had our eye when she was among us. She had us all fooled I think. She earned the trust of so many Natives.
Advocate.
Fighter.
Leader.
On March 28, 2006, there she was testifying before the Senate on the Probate Reform Act of 2005.
our little darling. She certainly had our eye when she was among us. She had us all fooled I think. She earned the trust of so many Natives.
Advocate.
Fighter.
Leader.
On March 28, 2006, there she was testifying before the Senate on the Probate Reform Act of 2005.
- She argued for the protection of Tribal sovereignty.
- She said, "I believe strong, effective Tribal governments will insure that Indian people remain distinct political groups"
- "I remain interested in the “one-stop shopping” concept,"she said.
- She told the public that, "the Crow Tribe has been surveyed three times about the willingness of individuals to sell their fractional interests in land. All three surveys overwhelmingly indicated that Crow Indians who owned small fractional interests of lands preferred to sell the lands and in some cases to even donate the interests to the Tribe."
- She further said she would, "propose expanding land consolidation efforts to include financing for individuals to purchase fractionated interests. Developing mechanisms for individuals to consolidate lands, invest capital and practice good stewardship of land would most effectively protect trust land while also benefiting Tribes through stabilizing and protecting the reservation land base."
- Contrasting Point 1: In RECALLED TABLE MOUNTAIN LEADERS WANT NEW VOTE POWER STRUGGLE CONTINUES AFTER THE SECOND REJECTION OF A RECALL APPEAL reported by DOUG HOAGLAND & STEVAN ROSENLIND in the FRESNO BEE (Originally published 1998-10-06) The dissident faction says the law is on its side and that it is time for the incumbents to relinquish control of the 150-acre rancheria. "We are now working to negotiate ways to peacefully take over the tribal leadership," said Majel Russell, a Montana lawyer representing the dissidents. Those efforts have, to date, been unsuccessful, Russell said. Yet in December 28, 2007, Elected Tribal President, Eugene Little Coyote was forcibly removed from his office by a team of BIA SWAT officers. Since then a series of Appeals have come to a dead end when Majel Russell, Principal Deputy Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, preempted the Interior Board of Indian Appeals process (taken from The New Front Line) and denied an appeal by Eugene Little Coyote. One may argue that it is merely a personal matter, but with the world's largest undeveloped Coal Bed Methane Gas Field underfoot, the Northern Cheyenne may have more than a personal matter to look for. So in 2006 she is on the side of the dissidents and requests that the BIA step all over Tribal Sovereignty and recognize the new government? And then in Dec 2007, she again, now as the boot-heeled oppressor, steps all over Northern Cheyenne Sovereignty and declares the people-elected Presidency null and void? And then denies them the basic procedure of having their issue addressed by an objective institution (the Interior Board of Indian Appeals)? It may be some weird stretch of somebody's imagination to say she is really protecting Tribal Sovereignty when she, as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs ignores the Northern Cheyenne Tribe's Constitutional Court Decision to uphold the People-Elected President, Eugene Little Coyote.
- Contrasting Point 2: I would say she is 0-2 in this pursuit based on the above bullet. Rather to the contrary, she seems quite adept at disrupting Tribal Governments in a come one, come all paternalistic attitude.
- Contrasting Point 3: I have to admit, there is no contrast here. We will see that she does believe in One-Stop-Shopping, as long as she is allowed to cruise aisles haphazardly with carte blanc privilege.
- Contrasting Point 4&5: No argument here. She does believe that many fellow tribal members, family members and the like, would love to sell land back to the tribe; she just does not seem to think that the Tribe should shoulder the bill. She has also proposed to make land acquisitions by providing financing for individuals to buy fractionated interests. Unfortunately, instead of acting like a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, she is really acting like a lobbyist for only the Crow Tribe by proposing that the U.S. Government set aside 380 million dollars for land acquisition and consolidation of fractionated interests on the Crow Indian Reservation (as reported by the Billings Gazette). I'm Crow and I have land to sell but I can't find a buyer. I'm Crow and I have an urge to buy land, but I don't have money. Can anyone help us? Enter Stage Right, Majel Russell. Despite the limits of funding opportunities available she would seek to lobby for 380 million dollars for Just One tribe (hers) to consolidate and acquire land interests. One Stop Shopping made simple when you hold the keys to the store.
Background Check for Ross Swimmer
This article on Indianz.com titled, Swimmer can't recall Navajo involvement
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003 is what should have come up to the Public and Administration's minds before Ross Swimmer came to acquire his position as Special Trustee, Office of Special Trustee (OST). Well, it should have come up and then he should have been rejected for any position of advocacy for Indians. It probably did come up. Everyone from the President on down probably knew about it, but still welcomed him into the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and eventually the OST. They probably gave him a pat on the back as he was welcomed and said, "you're doing a heckuva job there Swimmer!"
It should be of note that at a recent Intertribal Trust Monitoring Association (ITMA) (of Trust Funds) meeting in April, 2008 in Albuquerque, NM, Ross Swimmer actually said that appraisal values should not be what people negotiate for on their agricultural leases. He said appraisal values should be the low end you receive for leases. This despite the fact that he may as well have worn the shoes of the LOBBYIST for PEABODY COAL when he screwed the Navajo Tribe, out of the royalty rate for coal. The LOBBYIST convinced an Indian Advocate, who went down swinging for our cause (feigning a twisted arm--anybody recognize Ross Swimmer?) may rest well only for a lack of conscience:
"In this case, the Court of Federal Claims found that the government met “secretly with parties having interests adverse to those of the [Nation], adopt[ed] the third parties’ desired course of action in lieu of action favorable to the [Nation], and then misle[d] the [Nation] concerning these events.
the [Navajo] Nation asked that the royalty rate be adjusted to a reasonable level, and Peabody had consented to such a reasonable adjustment explicitly in Lease 8580
Prior to the ex parte interference, (and the in-office interference) the Bureau of Indian Affairs had deemed proper and approved an increase in the royalty rate to 20%. Despite the mandate of § 1300(e) and the Nation’s request for an adjustment to a reasonable royalty rate, however, it is undisputed that Secretary Hodel refused to make this royalty adjustment permanent after meeting with Peabody’s representative, (There were probalby two Peabody Representatives when you think even for a second about it) whom the government conceded was “a former aide and friend of Secretary Hodel.
...the Secretary approved lease amendments with royalty rates well below the rate that had previously been determined appropriate by those agencies responsible for monitoring the federal government’s relations with Native Americans"
No Way? Really? He did that? All by himself? And then through a sudden change of heart over the course of time, he comes out telling Indians at the ITMA conference that they should negotiate leases advantageously, above the appraised value? In the words of Borat, wowie wow wow wow! Did he learn his lesson or is he merely attempting to put lipstick on a pig? Because no matter how well you dress up a pig, it's still a pig.
Your'e doing a heckuva job there Ross, heckuva job.......
details at 11 on indianz.com.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003 is what should have come up to the Public and Administration's minds before Ross Swimmer came to acquire his position as Special Trustee, Office of Special Trustee (OST). Well, it should have come up and then he should have been rejected for any position of advocacy for Indians. It probably did come up. Everyone from the President on down probably knew about it, but still welcomed him into the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and eventually the OST. They probably gave him a pat on the back as he was welcomed and said, "you're doing a heckuva job there Swimmer!"
It should be of note that at a recent Intertribal Trust Monitoring Association (ITMA) (of Trust Funds) meeting in April, 2008 in Albuquerque, NM, Ross Swimmer actually said that appraisal values should not be what people negotiate for on their agricultural leases. He said appraisal values should be the low end you receive for leases. This despite the fact that he may as well have worn the shoes of the LOBBYIST for PEABODY COAL when he screwed the Navajo Tribe, out of the royalty rate for coal. The LOBBYIST convinced an Indian Advocate, who went down swinging for our cause (feigning a twisted arm--anybody recognize Ross Swimmer?) may rest well only for a lack of conscience:
"In this case, the Court of Federal Claims found that the government met “secretly with parties having interests adverse to those of the [Nation], adopt[ed] the third parties’ desired course of action in lieu of action favorable to the [Nation], and then misle[d] the [Nation] concerning these events.
the [Navajo] Nation asked that the royalty rate be adjusted to a reasonable level, and Peabody had consented to such a reasonable adjustment explicitly in Lease 8580
Prior to the ex parte interference, (and the in-office interference) the Bureau of Indian Affairs had deemed proper and approved an increase in the royalty rate to 20%. Despite the mandate of § 1300(e) and the Nation’s request for an adjustment to a reasonable royalty rate, however, it is undisputed that Secretary Hodel refused to make this royalty adjustment permanent after meeting with Peabody’s representative, (There were probalby two Peabody Representatives when you think even for a second about it) whom the government conceded was “a former aide and friend of Secretary Hodel.
...the Secretary approved lease amendments with royalty rates well below the rate that had previously been determined appropriate by those agencies responsible for monitoring the federal government’s relations with Native Americans"
No Way? Really? He did that? All by himself? And then through a sudden change of heart over the course of time, he comes out telling Indians at the ITMA conference that they should negotiate leases advantageously, above the appraised value? In the words of Borat, wowie wow wow wow! Did he learn his lesson or is he merely attempting to put lipstick on a pig? Because no matter how well you dress up a pig, it's still a pig.
Your'e doing a heckuva job there Ross, heckuva job.......
details at 11 on indianz.com.
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."