Bravo to Rep Lynch, Stephen F. , MA; Rep Kaptur, Marcy OH; Rep Lipinski, Daniel IL; Rep Quigley, Mike IL; and Rep Shuler, Heath NC. These distinguished people had an issue and they came up with a solution. They needed (?) Native American Iron workers. Or they wanted them, or they just saw an opportunity to help some Indians in need of work. At any rate, they have begun the long legislative journey to provide a means to that end: H.R.1129.
H.R.1129
This fancy piece of social work just passed by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and they liked it. This will provide (with "available" funds) an annual grant to someone, some corporation, some entity (National Training Center?) to train Indians how to become Iron Workers and then assist them with job placement. BRAVO! BRAVO!
Why didn't anybody do this instead of the current Non-Tribal-Contractor-Friendly Cadastral Surveying Program?
We can do that? We can provide necessary training for a specific need? We don't have to accept all these non-native contractors who will hold their hand out for money every year when we NEED cadastral surveys conducted? We don't have to accept State, County, and City Surveyors who are trained as CFEDS surveyors, and who also hold the distinction of having a conflict of interest as it relates to releasing the survey information publicly, and representing entities with whom we may have border disputes, and tax disputes? Wow!
Someone should make up a bill like this to replace the horrible CFEDS program. It's only feeding contractors annual jobs on our reservations and we get nothing more than a survey from it. We aren't becoming empowered; we really are at the mercy of a bunch of people, even within the federal government who will subvert our sovereignty, or who will release our National information to several government entities that never were empowered to sign treaties with us.
I'm sure that the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs would gladly look a bill like this over and pass it along. The Tribes would.
"Think outside the box because the box probably belongs to a contractor"
This isn't new; read more here:
Surveys on a reservation A penny for your appraisal
A Grand Contracted Mess Yet More Motivations
President Obama's Contract Reform memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess
Showing posts with label CFEDs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CFEDs. Show all posts
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
President Obama's Contract Reform Memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess
Recently President Obama issued a memorandum directing his Departmental and Agency Heads to re-think the whole government contracting process.
Specifically he called for a move away from non-competitive and cost reimbursement contracts except in exigent circumstances. He called for a move toward competitive and fixed-price (performance-based I assume) contracts. President Obama said that the contracting process should not interfere with inherently governmental activities either.
I would like to propose that the treaty obligations are part of the governmental activities. The oversight of the government's accountability to oversee the land held in trust for Indians must not be held by a contracting vendor. They are afterall "vendors," these contractors. They are not the U.S. Government. When an appraisal firm in a city near a reservation assumes an appraisal contract from the Northwest Office of Special Trustee, Office of Appraisal Services and then allows two levels of sub-contracted vendors onto the project, where has accountability gone? I would think that since it resulted in grave errors in more than one appraisal, and that project had to be re-appraised, that the accountability was gone along with a good dose of pride. When discrepancies are discovered by the Tribe for whom the appraisal was being done, how do they address the issue with the Office of Special Trustee? There is no "real" grievance processs that is working. When the vendors make serious (grade schoolers could probably do better) mistakes where is the record for their performance? Why aren't tribes being listed as clients on the appraisals for reservation-wide appraisals? Why aren't tribal land owners being listed as clients on the appraisals for their land? If they aren't listed as clients, they cannot access the documentation that is used to appraise their land, their crops, their timber, their minerals. Only the client can access that information. Who is the client? The client is the Office of Special Trustee, and asking them questions will result in tirades where they question your own qualifications for appraising according the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. What remains to be answered is how Appraisers reach their conclusions in "States of Non-Disclosure." But since the tribes aren't "clients" on the appraisal contract, somebody else will have to ask OST how the appraisers reach their conclusions. OST officers have not-too-kindly pointed out that the Tribe is not a client so they should just take the OST officer at his word.
When the vendors for surveying projects include contracted surveyors who are state, county, and city-hired surveyors who may also have a great deal of interest in boundary disputes and land taxes for the local tax payers, I would assume that there is a conflict of interest. When the Certified Federal Surveyors are state, county, city, and local government-elected officials, I would assume that they have a conflict of interest when they perform cadastral surveys for land being put into trust, for land that is in boundary dispute with either the local government or one of its constituents.
I would assume that if the CFEDS surveyors are members of an anti-sovereignty, or anti-indian organization, that there is a possiblity for a conflict of interest. If they display behavior that is less-than-objective what punishment exists to right the injustice? What happens? We jerk their contract and they go home to their home agency with their full-time job intact? If they bend the rules for themselves and they get caught, who will really press the issue for them to lose their licenses? The point is, appraisals, surveys, and wills are all of such a grave nature to the balance of accountability to the U.S. government that they should all be completed under the colors of the U.S. Government, not by a "vendor," over whom Indians hold no influence and no hope of justice in the event of any unjust actions.
For all these vendor-driven tasks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Special Trustee will tell you that the Tribes can make their own decisions about whether to accept the contracts or to reject them. That may be true in a perfect world but when the list comes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs employee, is it plausible to believe that they will tell superiors that the situation requires more work, more background checks? Will the BIA employees really reject a surveyor who is already on a list titled "CERTIFIED Federal Surveyors?"
I doubt it. Most Indians are oblivious to the entire process and therefore are not the ones to question about the problem. There are a few tribal land owners who are very conscious of the situation and can tell you that this is not the way things should be. Land owners, even though the vocal ones may be in the minority, are the fairest assessors of the impact from sending government responsibilities out to sloppy vendors, who will come back next year to sell us their services once again.
I am hopeful that President Obama and Secretary Salazar will steer the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee into spending the budget dollars in such a way as to have more GOVERNMENT surveyors, more government APPRAISERS, more government EMPLOYEES perform the trust duties. Since the great and holy probate judges require that trust land be probated with a will separate from non-trust interests, since they require such a level of sophistication that not every attorney will be familiar with the requirements--the Federal government should create more positions for probate specialists, more attorneys to work the probate process from creation of an "appropriate" will to probate hearing to probate appeal.
The budget process should be re-vamped; the services for which the U.S. Government is responsible should be maintained by the Government employee, not a vendor who despite his knowledge is not required to know all that is contained within the phrase "trust responsibility" as it applies to the honored tasks for which they have clearly not "just volunteered."
This isn't new.....
President Obama Contracting Memo
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-Subject-Government-Contracting/
The Only Good Indian..... (11-5-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-indians.html
Dirk Kempthorne had it right (9-11-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/09/two-cheers-for-dirk-kempthorne.html
Lacking a Contracting Accountability (3-21-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/grand-contracted-mess.html
Appraisals: Keeping the poor poor (3-18-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/poorest-of-poor.html
Here's how you manage leasing (2-20-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2009/02/heres-how-you-manage-leasing.html
Where Surveying Money should be spent (1-09-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/run-numbers.html
Contracting for Customers (1-8-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/yet-more-motivations.html
Fraudulent leadership plagues the Office of Special Trustee (12-18-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/return-to-scene-of-crime.html
A Penney for your thoughts on Reservation Appraisals (12-4-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/penney-for-your-appraisal.html
Indian Reservation Surveys (11-30-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/11/surveys-on-reservation.html
Specifically he called for a move away from non-competitive and cost reimbursement contracts except in exigent circumstances. He called for a move toward competitive and fixed-price (performance-based I assume) contracts. President Obama said that the contracting process should not interfere with inherently governmental activities either.
I would like to propose that the treaty obligations are part of the governmental activities. The oversight of the government's accountability to oversee the land held in trust for Indians must not be held by a contracting vendor. They are afterall "vendors," these contractors. They are not the U.S. Government. When an appraisal firm in a city near a reservation assumes an appraisal contract from the Northwest Office of Special Trustee, Office of Appraisal Services and then allows two levels of sub-contracted vendors onto the project, where has accountability gone? I would think that since it resulted in grave errors in more than one appraisal, and that project had to be re-appraised, that the accountability was gone along with a good dose of pride. When discrepancies are discovered by the Tribe for whom the appraisal was being done, how do they address the issue with the Office of Special Trustee? There is no "real" grievance processs that is working. When the vendors make serious (grade schoolers could probably do better) mistakes where is the record for their performance? Why aren't tribes being listed as clients on the appraisals for reservation-wide appraisals? Why aren't tribal land owners being listed as clients on the appraisals for their land? If they aren't listed as clients, they cannot access the documentation that is used to appraise their land, their crops, their timber, their minerals. Only the client can access that information. Who is the client? The client is the Office of Special Trustee, and asking them questions will result in tirades where they question your own qualifications for appraising according the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. What remains to be answered is how Appraisers reach their conclusions in "States of Non-Disclosure." But since the tribes aren't "clients" on the appraisal contract, somebody else will have to ask OST how the appraisers reach their conclusions. OST officers have not-too-kindly pointed out that the Tribe is not a client so they should just take the OST officer at his word.
When the vendors for surveying projects include contracted surveyors who are state, county, and city-hired surveyors who may also have a great deal of interest in boundary disputes and land taxes for the local tax payers, I would assume that there is a conflict of interest. When the Certified Federal Surveyors are state, county, city, and local government-elected officials, I would assume that they have a conflict of interest when they perform cadastral surveys for land being put into trust, for land that is in boundary dispute with either the local government or one of its constituents.
I would assume that if the CFEDS surveyors are members of an anti-sovereignty, or anti-indian organization, that there is a possiblity for a conflict of interest. If they display behavior that is less-than-objective what punishment exists to right the injustice? What happens? We jerk their contract and they go home to their home agency with their full-time job intact? If they bend the rules for themselves and they get caught, who will really press the issue for them to lose their licenses? The point is, appraisals, surveys, and wills are all of such a grave nature to the balance of accountability to the U.S. government that they should all be completed under the colors of the U.S. Government, not by a "vendor," over whom Indians hold no influence and no hope of justice in the event of any unjust actions.
For all these vendor-driven tasks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Special Trustee will tell you that the Tribes can make their own decisions about whether to accept the contracts or to reject them. That may be true in a perfect world but when the list comes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs employee, is it plausible to believe that they will tell superiors that the situation requires more work, more background checks? Will the BIA employees really reject a surveyor who is already on a list titled "CERTIFIED Federal Surveyors?"
I doubt it. Most Indians are oblivious to the entire process and therefore are not the ones to question about the problem. There are a few tribal land owners who are very conscious of the situation and can tell you that this is not the way things should be. Land owners, even though the vocal ones may be in the minority, are the fairest assessors of the impact from sending government responsibilities out to sloppy vendors, who will come back next year to sell us their services once again.
I am hopeful that President Obama and Secretary Salazar will steer the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee into spending the budget dollars in such a way as to have more GOVERNMENT surveyors, more government APPRAISERS, more government EMPLOYEES perform the trust duties. Since the great and holy probate judges require that trust land be probated with a will separate from non-trust interests, since they require such a level of sophistication that not every attorney will be familiar with the requirements--the Federal government should create more positions for probate specialists, more attorneys to work the probate process from creation of an "appropriate" will to probate hearing to probate appeal.
The budget process should be re-vamped; the services for which the U.S. Government is responsible should be maintained by the Government employee, not a vendor who despite his knowledge is not required to know all that is contained within the phrase "trust responsibility" as it applies to the honored tasks for which they have clearly not "just volunteered."
This isn't new.....
President Obama Contracting Memo
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-Subject-Government-Contracting/
The Only Good Indian..... (11-5-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-indians.html
Dirk Kempthorne had it right (9-11-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/09/two-cheers-for-dirk-kempthorne.html
Lacking a Contracting Accountability (3-21-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/grand-contracted-mess.html
Appraisals: Keeping the poor poor (3-18-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/03/poorest-of-poor.html
Here's how you manage leasing (2-20-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2009/02/heres-how-you-manage-leasing.html
Where Surveying Money should be spent (1-09-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/run-numbers.html
Contracting for Customers (1-8-08)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/yet-more-motivations.html
Fraudulent leadership plagues the Office of Special Trustee (12-18-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/return-to-scene-of-crime.html
A Penney for your thoughts on Reservation Appraisals (12-4-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/12/penney-for-your-appraisal.html
Indian Reservation Surveys (11-30-07)
http://nativelandguardian.blogspot.com/2007/11/surveys-on-reservation.html
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Run the numbers
Ok,
lets run some numbers.
In the 26th Status Report to the Court which is supposed to show Trust Reforms being taken to help settle the Cobell Lawsuit, Donald A. Buhler, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ) signed off on his portion of that same report that says that $16.4 millions dollars were proposed for appropriation to complete surveys in 2007/8/9. The value of the Indian Trust projects would total about $127.4 million dollars. For $16.4 million dollars we're going to fix $127.4 million dollars worth of property pieces. They fix them by performing surveys which is their contribution to managing the land.
But, what if we divided $16.4 million dollars by 200. $16,400,000/200=$82,000 dollars.
$16.4 million dollars
200________________
$82,000 dollars.
16.4 MILLION DOLLARS
200 SOMETHINGS
$82,000 dollars
What does it mean? Lets divide $82,000 dollars by 1/3. $82,000/3=$27,333 dollars
the other 2/3 looks like $54,666 dollars.
So we have $54,666 dollars per 200 somethings to play with.
What are those somethings? Why is 1/3 being set aside for those 200 somethings?
Give up?
If we divide $16.4 million dollars by 200 FEDERALLY-EMPLOYED-SURVEYORS we have a total of $82,000 dollars per surveyor to play with. Of that $82,000 dollars per surveyor we take 1/3 for benefits away leaving us with $54,666 dollars per surveyor for salary. If you look at a recent job advertisement on USA JOBS for a surveying technician in Cherokee North Carolina, I think the pay grade was GS 4/5 which is right around $30,000 dollars.
hmmmmm.....
Spend the Indians' money and make sure that they have to come back next year and spend more money
OR
Spend the money enabling them to do it themselves.
You could be the reason for 200 new federal surveyors in the Bureau of Indian Affairs or you could be anther one who spent the entire "tribal" priority allocation piece by piece, sending it out the window and down the street to a bunch of private firms who will show up next year to do the same thing next year. What do you do? That your final answer?
Spend the Tribal Priority Allocation Funds the way they were supposed to be spent and start up a new division in the BIA (we'd even let you design a cool unit patch for your Survey Crew) or continue to be the lackey who has a hand in destroying the Tribal Priority Allocation Funds' checking account. Maybe the Office of Special Trustee or the Bureau of Indian Affairs Trust Services needs to have the truth explained to them. Maybe even they don't know how these funds are going out the window, keeping Indians dependent on the Federal Government. Not much trusteeship going on here right now, maybe they're not even busy so it might be easy to get into an office way up there at the top of Office of Special Trustee. Somebody "s'plain this to them," and wait for the virtue and beauty to roll out the door! Yeah, well, maybe not in this generation eh?
Maybe it's because Honorable Bill Anoatubbe, Governor of Chickasaw Nation of OK; Bobby Brooks at Bank of Oklahoma; Mr David English, Law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia; Honorable Jim Gray, Chief of the Osage Nation, OK; Mr Edward Holland CEO Chota Capital Company; Mr Fred Matt, Confederated Tribes of Salish-Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, MT; Honorable Richard Milanovich, Chmn Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, CA; Mr. Loren "Bat" Pourier, owner Muddy Creek Oil and Gas Inc.; and Ms. Helen Sanders Chmn Allottees Association and Affiliated Tribes of the Quinault Reservation; who are all members of the Special Trustees Advisory Board don't know that this is going on right under their noses. Who knows?
At any rate, if I was in charge of spending my grandma's money at the store to get something to clean the counter off with, I damn sure wouldn't buy cheap napkins-I'd get maybe one or two dish towels so I could have something a year or two from now to do the job.
I would think the decision would be an easy one...but then methinks I think too much.
lets run some numbers.
In the 26th Status Report to the Court which is supposed to show Trust Reforms being taken to help settle the Cobell Lawsuit, Donald A. Buhler, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ) signed off on his portion of that same report that says that $16.4 millions dollars were proposed for appropriation to complete surveys in 2007/8/9. The value of the Indian Trust projects would total about $127.4 million dollars. For $16.4 million dollars we're going to fix $127.4 million dollars worth of property pieces. They fix them by performing surveys which is their contribution to managing the land.
But, what if we divided $16.4 million dollars by 200. $16,400,000/200=$82,000 dollars.
$16.4 million dollars
200________________
$82,000 dollars.
16.4 MILLION DOLLARS
200 SOMETHINGS
$82,000 dollars
What does it mean? Lets divide $82,000 dollars by 1/3. $82,000/3=$27,333 dollars
the other 2/3 looks like $54,666 dollars.
So we have $54,666 dollars per 200 somethings to play with.
What are those somethings? Why is 1/3 being set aside for those 200 somethings?
Give up?
If we divide $16.4 million dollars by 200 FEDERALLY-EMPLOYED-SURVEYORS we have a total of $82,000 dollars per surveyor to play with. Of that $82,000 dollars per surveyor we take 1/3 for benefits away leaving us with $54,666 dollars per surveyor for salary. If you look at a recent job advertisement on USA JOBS for a surveying technician in Cherokee North Carolina, I think the pay grade was GS 4/5 which is right around $30,000 dollars.
hmmmmm.....
Spend the Indians' money and make sure that they have to come back next year and spend more money
OR
Spend the money enabling them to do it themselves.
You could be the reason for 200 new federal surveyors in the Bureau of Indian Affairs or you could be anther one who spent the entire "tribal" priority allocation piece by piece, sending it out the window and down the street to a bunch of private firms who will show up next year to do the same thing next year. What do you do? That your final answer?
Spend the Tribal Priority Allocation Funds the way they were supposed to be spent and start up a new division in the BIA (we'd even let you design a cool unit patch for your Survey Crew) or continue to be the lackey who has a hand in destroying the Tribal Priority Allocation Funds' checking account. Maybe the Office of Special Trustee or the Bureau of Indian Affairs Trust Services needs to have the truth explained to them. Maybe even they don't know how these funds are going out the window, keeping Indians dependent on the Federal Government. Not much trusteeship going on here right now, maybe they're not even busy so it might be easy to get into an office way up there at the top of Office of Special Trustee. Somebody "s'plain this to them," and wait for the virtue and beauty to roll out the door! Yeah, well, maybe not in this generation eh?
Maybe it's because Honorable Bill Anoatubbe, Governor of Chickasaw Nation of OK; Bobby Brooks at Bank of Oklahoma; Mr David English, Law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia; Honorable Jim Gray, Chief of the Osage Nation, OK; Mr Edward Holland CEO Chota Capital Company; Mr Fred Matt, Confederated Tribes of Salish-Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, MT; Honorable Richard Milanovich, Chmn Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, CA; Mr. Loren "Bat" Pourier, owner Muddy Creek Oil and Gas Inc.; and Ms. Helen Sanders Chmn Allottees Association and Affiliated Tribes of the Quinault Reservation; who are all members of the Special Trustees Advisory Board don't know that this is going on right under their noses. Who knows?
At any rate, if I was in charge of spending my grandma's money at the store to get something to clean the counter off with, I damn sure wouldn't buy cheap napkins-I'd get maybe one or two dish towels so I could have something a year or two from now to do the job.
I would think the decision would be an easy one...but then methinks I think too much.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Surveys on a Reservation
The latest craze to sweep federal surveyors offices is the program called CFEDs. It's a training program for certifying surveyors to perform federal surveys, cadastral services, BLM surveys, surveys for Tribes.
The requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor are really loose. REALLY really loose. REALLY REALLY REALLY LOOSE!
Why is this so important? Well if your tribe needs a survey performed that is of a Federal survey type, or a cadastral survey for oh, lets say a border dispute between the Tribe (reservation) and a state or a county, BLM usually is the one to do that. BLM has always done tribal cadastral surveys I am told. This CFEDs program replaces BLM surveyors with CFEDs surveyors because BLM cannot keep up with the demand for surveys from tribes. Basically, they are contracting out their services, their role in the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government, their oversight of an ethical survey. (remember the ethics part, I'll address this later in this entry)
So how loose are the requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor? Well if you look at the CFEDs Site you'll find that you have to meet two requirements:
1. be a licensed surveyor in any state
2. have no (negative) disciplinary actions in any state regulatory board or court in the last five years.
That is all that is required. For anything else, the sky's the limit. hmmmmmmm.
"Anything else" covers a lot of ground doesn't it? It does indeed!
What is meant when I said "anything else?" Let's say you're a CFEDs surveyor working at your normal job, and you get a call from Bureau of Land Management, or a tribe to go to a reservation to settle a border dispute between the Tribe and the State. You go in you do your thing, you check titles, you check monuments, you recheck titles, you do everything to uphold the integrity of your profession and decide that the land in dispute goes to the State. Easy right? Too easy!
How can you uphold the integrity of your profession...recommend a boundary dispute resolution in favor of a state, between a tribe and the state, as a CFEDs surveyor...when you are a state or county elected-surveyor? Remember the only requirements are listed above. There are no restrictions on anything else! So, elected surveyors, and state and city employee-surveyors, can (AND ARE) participating in the CFEDs process!
Which God will this surveyor serve? Will he serve the state, county or city he is an employee at, or an elected official of, or will he serve the Tribe for whom he is under contract through the BLM?
I brought this up quite a long time ago (2 years ago at a BIA realty conference in Lincoln City Oregon) and there was no answer. Now the first class has graduated from the CFEDs course and within the first four pages of my print out from the list I have found three CFEDs surveyors who meet the ethical dilema I have described here. I have also found several who have written questionable material as it relates to Tribal cultures.
So, what about that crazy word "ethics?" Let's see what one of the coordinators of the CFEDs program has to say about ethics. Dennis Mouland, one of the training coordinators has a venerated book called Ethics for the Professional Surveyor. He also has a fan, William Schmidt, who wrote a glowing review of the book, for Professional Surveyor Magazine.
He describes Dennis Moulan's "thoughts" on the subject of ethics as a word that '...originally meant habit, or the way someone is disposed to act.' He also says the word means the "right way," or "the approved or a proven way."
Well I have news for Dennis Mouland. I do not approve of the way that they are randomly creating a plethora of ethical dilemas for a bunch of surveyors whose real jobs may depend on how they are "disposed to act," during a border dispute between the Tribe and their real employers.
And really now, how can anybody who works for any state (say California) understand the real complexities of a border dispute between a tribe and another state (say Idaho) when they are working for another state?
I don't know, what do you think? What is your stand on this?
What about background checks? How many people serve on organizations that purport to deny tribal jurisdiction exists and are on the list of CFEDs surveyors? (I'm looking at you--you know who you are, and it's only a matter of time before this becomes painfully evident to the world)
Talk to your tribal councils, talk to your chairmen, your presidents, your program directors, ask them if they understand how screwed up this program is in its implementation from the ground up.
A friend of mine from Haskell Indian Nations University who shall remain nameless to protect Cricket's identiy, (Hi Cricket!) has this on her page and I think it's only too appropriate:
He who serves two masters has to lie to one.
The requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor are really loose. REALLY really loose. REALLY REALLY REALLY LOOSE!
Why is this so important? Well if your tribe needs a survey performed that is of a Federal survey type, or a cadastral survey for oh, lets say a border dispute between the Tribe (reservation) and a state or a county, BLM usually is the one to do that. BLM has always done tribal cadastral surveys I am told. This CFEDs program replaces BLM surveyors with CFEDs surveyors because BLM cannot keep up with the demand for surveys from tribes. Basically, they are contracting out their services, their role in the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government, their oversight of an ethical survey. (remember the ethics part, I'll address this later in this entry)
So how loose are the requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor? Well if you look at the CFEDs Site you'll find that you have to meet two requirements:
1. be a licensed surveyor in any state
2. have no (negative) disciplinary actions in any state regulatory board or court in the last five years.
That is all that is required. For anything else, the sky's the limit. hmmmmmmm.
"Anything else" covers a lot of ground doesn't it? It does indeed!
What is meant when I said "anything else?" Let's say you're a CFEDs surveyor working at your normal job, and you get a call from Bureau of Land Management, or a tribe to go to a reservation to settle a border dispute between the Tribe and the State. You go in you do your thing, you check titles, you check monuments, you recheck titles, you do everything to uphold the integrity of your profession and decide that the land in dispute goes to the State. Easy right? Too easy!
How can you uphold the integrity of your profession...recommend a boundary dispute resolution in favor of a state, between a tribe and the state, as a CFEDs surveyor...when you are a state or county elected-surveyor? Remember the only requirements are listed above. There are no restrictions on anything else! So, elected surveyors, and state and city employee-surveyors, can (AND ARE) participating in the CFEDs process!
Which God will this surveyor serve? Will he serve the state, county or city he is an employee at, or an elected official of, or will he serve the Tribe for whom he is under contract through the BLM?
I brought this up quite a long time ago (2 years ago at a BIA realty conference in Lincoln City Oregon) and there was no answer. Now the first class has graduated from the CFEDs course and within the first four pages of my print out from the list I have found three CFEDs surveyors who meet the ethical dilema I have described here. I have also found several who have written questionable material as it relates to Tribal cultures.
So, what about that crazy word "ethics?" Let's see what one of the coordinators of the CFEDs program has to say about ethics. Dennis Mouland, one of the training coordinators has a venerated book called Ethics for the Professional Surveyor. He also has a fan, William Schmidt, who wrote a glowing review of the book, for Professional Surveyor Magazine.
He describes Dennis Moulan's "thoughts" on the subject of ethics as a word that '...originally meant habit, or the way someone is disposed to act.' He also says the word means the "right way," or "the approved or a proven way."
Well I have news for Dennis Mouland. I do not approve of the way that they are randomly creating a plethora of ethical dilemas for a bunch of surveyors whose real jobs may depend on how they are "disposed to act," during a border dispute between the Tribe and their real employers.
And really now, how can anybody who works for any state (say California) understand the real complexities of a border dispute between a tribe and another state (say Idaho) when they are working for another state?
I don't know, what do you think? What is your stand on this?
What about background checks? How many people serve on organizations that purport to deny tribal jurisdiction exists and are on the list of CFEDs surveyors? (I'm looking at you--you know who you are, and it's only a matter of time before this becomes painfully evident to the world)
Talk to your tribal councils, talk to your chairmen, your presidents, your program directors, ask them if they understand how screwed up this program is in its implementation from the ground up.
A friend of mine from Haskell Indian Nations University who shall remain nameless to protect Cricket's identiy, (Hi Cricket!) has this on her page and I think it's only too appropriate:
He who serves two masters has to lie to one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
