The best Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs we're going to get

You protect Individual Indian Rights with the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs you have--not the Secretary you might want or wish to have at a later time.

"We’re all about executing the trust responsibility and protecting all Native people that have an interest in water,” [Larry] Echo Hawk said. “I’m here to tell you we will be vigilant in protecting the rights of allottees.”

The bottom line, he said, “speaking as the assistant secretary, this is the best deal that you’re going to get." (from the Billings Gazette)

"...the best you're gonna get?"

That's "being vigilant?"

"The best you're going to get?" Why does that sound so paternalistic again? Yes there is a lot of great stuff going on in the Crow Water Settlement. The Tribe is not arguing, the BIA is not arguing, but if they were, "somebody" would be listening. The fact that BIA leaves tribes out of consultation on many policy changes is a fact that is not easily forgotten. Tribes are heard when they complain, rightly so.

But what happens when individual Indian land owners complain-when they weren't given a chance to voice their concerns-after a decision has been made that affects them? "...this is the best deal that you're going to get."

Any idea now why the Elouise Cobell Settlement, made on "behalf" of all land owners is such a contentious issue? Probably not.

And that leaves us still wishing for somebody to protect our Individual Indian Land Rights by listening to the Individual Land Owners who have the greatest gauge of what kind of effect any legislation or policies will have on us.

I guess getting a real championship office of Tribal and Individual Indian Rights really does come down to "...a matter of production and capability of doing it."

Coming soon: An Assistant Secretary who will advocate for the acceptance that the Cobell Settlement is fair and just to individual Land Owners. (make sure you read between the lines though if you're an Individual Indian Land Owner)

Another reason why the Cobell Settlement shouldn't pass

One provision of the Cobell payout will pay some but not all. And it's not favorable or judicial the way it will pay out. Let's say my sister and I are .30 (30/100) undivided interest owners on our land. My aunt is .10 (10/100 ) and my convicted-in-prison cousin is a .30 (30/100) undivided interest owner.

My aunt and I each get direct pay from our farmer. My sister who lives in Arizona and my cousin who is a convict in Florida State Prison each get paid on their crop leases through their IIM (individual Indian Money) accounts through the Office of Special Trustee. They always have. My aunt and I have always gotten direct pay since we live on our rez.

So under the Cobell Settlement, any money that passed through the IIM account during 2000-2009 will count toward the settlement. My convict-cousin and my California sister will each get paid based on our land lease for all the money that passed through their IIM account. My aunt and I will not get paid at all because we got direct pay from the farmer to us. My aunt and I make up .40% of the ownership. My sister and my cousin make up 60% of the ownership. The farmer sent the lease (which was unethical) to my sister and cousin to sign. Since they control over 50% of the ownership, they controlled the lease. They didn't know better so they signed the unethical lease.

Now, as part of the Cobell settlement, they will also get paid because they had their payments made through their IIM accounts.

My aunt and I will not get a penny from a portion of the Cobell settlement because we were paid directly from our farmer. We also didn't have a voice into whether the unethical lease got approved or not.

Elouise Cobell argued for justice and accountability. The current settlement will further erode many peoples' trust in the Federal Government and Elouise Cobell if she continues to argue for what is now an unethical settlement.

Shame is on who?

Who is in charge of the Office of Special Trustee?

Sometimes it becomes comical, the happenings in the Great Puzzle Palace. Is it really okay to give the keys to the Ofice of Special Trustee to Donna Erwin? It seems like just yesterday that she was reprimanded for some less-than-favorable actions with some no-contest contractors at OST. And now she's in charge. I want to know if it should really be ok with Tribal Land Owners that the trustee's office is in the hands of the Fearsome-Foursome (see Office of Inspector General Memorandum, Fraud in New Mexico, and An Ugly History, and a related story on POGO Blog: Discipline Awaits for Indian Trust Officials Snagged in Corruptino Scandal)

The optimum Easter Bunny Present is that the Office of Special Trustee be swallowed up by some other agency who can run it through an industrial-strength shredder and we can forget the good idea ever was. "Sure it was a good idea at the time."

History, however, shows OST hasn't ever lived up to it's potential unless you're a contractor with friends in the Office of Special Trustee whom you can ply with golf outings. For the rest of us, well, we will have to once again hold our breath and see what happens when yet another group of Executive Level employees "Screw Up to Move Up."

In case you forgot, here are some reminders (below) of why the current situation is an important one and why the President of the United States needs to crack the whip over at the Interior so we can get some ethical, respectable, leadership in the Office of Special Trustee.

Here's How You Manage Leasing!
Two Cheers for Dirk Kempthorne!
Good Indians
An Administration's Task
The Poorest of the Poor
A Grand Contracted Mess
Return to the Scene of the Crime
A Penny For Your Appraisal

Larry Echo Hawk debated on Native America Calling

[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]

Native America Calling had a recent interview with attorney Scott Crowell and Shoshone Bannock Tribal Chairman Alonzo Colby on Monday February 16, 2009 regarding Larry Echohawk's possible appointment to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.

An informative, depending on who you are and what you're willing to accept, pod cast can be found at http://nac.unm.edu/archives/2009/feb/021609.mp3.


excerpts:

"Larry was clearly doing his job"

"I would opt for his brother Walter"

"not simply advising the governor...traveled the state advocating for the change in the constitution"

"You negotiate with Indian tribes in good faith based upon the laws of the book of the time"

President Obama's American Indian adviser on tribal policy

Any suggestions? There is still hope that despite whoever takes the BIA helm or the OST helm and is still subject to Federal Oversight and Federal Program Managers, we might still have a chance at an appointment who will be our voice. I believe that tribes would do well to assemble a top-to-bottom consensus for who we think might be a good choice.

A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.

The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.

Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.

In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.

The Politics of Larry Echo Hawk's vetting (7th in a series)

[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]

We are indeed hearing that there are letters going out supporting Larry Echo Hawk. That fact remains obvious. What is not obvious are the urgent conversations on the part of Larry Echo Hawk's team to "select friends" from back in the day. Do you think that any subsequent letters coming out from those select friends represents the whole tribe? I would think that is just "business as usual." Just because a Tribal Council signs a letter does not mean the entire Tribe supports what they say. Does a conversation and a hand-shake take into consideration the damaging history of Mr. Echo Hawk's actions against Tribal Sovereignty? It really isn't about gaming, it's about his interpretation of Tribes' Sovereignty, afterall.

And what is the content of those desperate conversations? Why can't he just issue a press release? If you want good word spread, then let every Indian know what is being said. If Larry Echo Hawk were to apologize to tribal leaders in private, shouldn't he do it publicly? Take this to Tribal people to vote on and you will find that many Tribal council members may turn red-faced when the people they are supposed to be representing express another opinion when given all the facts. Isn't the concept of the treaty-signers and non-signers a part of our history that just can't seem to be put to rest? What about coal deals, oil deals, coal bed methane deals, tribal membership, disenrollment? You see, just because you got the support of a tiny fraction of a minority of the people does not warrant an acceptance of that support as truth that all the people agree. I cannot recall any referendums being passed around any tribes in the last week to assess the entire population's decision on whether to support Larry or not.

So again, what does Larry Echo Hawk have to say besides "no comment?" If there is an apology, he would do well to remember that Indian people are notorious for being forgiving. Maybe that's half the battle, just being honest.

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.

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:

• 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.
  

You may not find this leader, at the top of any agency or at the top of any tribe, so the best of prayers goes out to those involved in the vetting process. We should all pray for them. It's a prayer for all of us. We all want a good and virtuous relationship. Nobody wakes up thinking "I wonder what we can argue about today." We should wake up looking forward to working with each other, for working toward a good relationship that will last beyond the memory of all the bad things that have happened in the last few generations.

An Administration's task

I am sitting here wondering who the next Special Trustee will be for the Office of Special Trustee. I'm already wondering who will replace Ross Swimmer. I'm wondering where Donna Erwin will go. I'm wondering where Doug and Jeff Lords will go. I'm hoping that the Carl Artman replacement will stay longer than it takes to confirm him. I'm hoping Majel Russell continues to do good things for Indian Country in any place but the Bureau of Indian Affairs Offices (which by the way are inside of Wash. D.C.). Who will President Elect Barack Obama appoint to replace all of them?

I'm hoping that somebody will finally hear what we've been saying for so long. Heck way back in 1999 even Senator Larry Craig had a good idea. So some of his time was well spent wherever he thought this quote up as reported in '99 on FCW.com by L. Scott Tillett:

"...Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned whether the management of the funds "really belongs within the government."

"There are no excuses. There should be no excuses," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Many companies manage trust funds without so much as "a dime" out of place, Craig said.

"Why can't we be smart enough to hire the right people to do the job?"

At issue is nearly $2.4 billion in money that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cannot accurately account for, although Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said it has not been stolen."

Amen to the words from Larry Craig back then. And then I wonder what Bruce Babbitt meant when he said the 2.4 billion wasn't stolen? That must have meant that he knew where it was. If it wasn't accounted for, then how do you know it wasn't stolen? It must have meant that Bruce Babbitt knew it was being "borrowed." It wasn't stolen so what other excuse is there? Borrowed to pay down government debts, which they now say is not a measurable benefit when Eloise Cobell asks where all the unaccounted for funds are at.

And the management of the [trust] funds: didn't belong within the government? Thanks Frank, but the loss from hundreds of years of mismanagement should have been straightened out before the government decided to get out of the trust fund mis-management.

So who does President Elect Obama appoint to Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2009? Who does he appoint to replace Ross Swimmer and Donna Erwin at the Office of Special Trustee in 2009? Who does he appoint who can accept the resignation of Doug and Jeff Lords? Who can say?

The only thing I would hope for is that it isn't a self serving Coal Chairman (wonder where Ross will go?) or a golf-happy trio (they need a fourth to tee off) that gets left at Office of Special Trustee. My hope is in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to cleaning office at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee in 2009.

I would hope like Senator Larry Craig said in 1999, that we're now "smart enough to hire the right people to do the job."

“The soul of Indian Country is at stake”
-Sally Willet from the Missoulian,
Administrative Law Judge
and Indian Land Working Group consultant