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?
Showing posts with label Fiduciary Responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fiduciary Responsibility. Show all posts
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
President Obama's American Indian adviser on tribal policy
Any suggestions? There is still hope that despite whoever takes the BIA helm or the OST helm and is still subject to Federal Oversight and Federal Program Managers, we might still have a chance at an appointment who will be our voice. I believe that tribes would do well to assemble a top-to-bottom consensus for who we think might be a good choice.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
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.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Yet more MOTIVATIONS!
Take a look around and you will see that the Certified Federal Surveyors Program (CFEDS)is supposed to be self funded. Self Funded? No budget from the great white father? Cut off? For real? Why would they do that? Why would the great white father create a program in the federal government that isn't funded? What gives? Come on now, you can't create a school traffic warning sign without some sort of maintenance fee in this country. Why would you create a program and "hope" it grows up on its own?
1. Instead of enriching the program, instead of empowering tribes to become self sufficient, instead of teaching them how to fish, you drain their checkbook paying for each and every fish. Instead of putting funding into training tribal surveyors so that tribes can become self sufficient in at least one more area, you take TPA funds away from tribes across the board, and you pay those TPA funds into overpriced surveys on a piece-meal basis. Tribal Priority Allocations were meant in their infancy in the 1970s to pursue Indian self-determination by offering ways to set [TRIBAL] priorities and allocate funds for those activities they [TRIBES] wanted to fund, in consultation with BIA. BIA was supposed to give TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION FUNDS to tribes by funding TRIBALLY OPERATED ACTIVITIES or through SERVICES PROVIDED BY BIA as well as some of Bureau of Indian Affairs' management and administrative costs, according to A 1998 GAO report. The consultation went out the window. I know two years ago that when a regional BLM surveyor-type was made aware of the elected officials who would now be conducting boundary surveys, he said "I wasn't aware of that." And now apparently, neither is anybody else aware of the problem (the results) built into the Certified Federal Surveyor Program. Does the Certified Federal Surveyor program meet the test of being a TRIBALLY OPERATED ACTIVITY or a SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE BIA? Afraid not. Somebody at the Office of Special Trustee has made a horrible case for this program which will take a serious link out of the Indian Self Determination which Tribal Priority Allocations was supposed to create.
2. Instead of doing it outright, in front of GOD AND EVERYBODY, you make it sophisticated, covert, and you make believers of even the smartest people that it is in the best interest of the Indian population, when in reality it isn't. I really feel sorry for my friends at the Certified Federal Surveyor Program. I hope and I do pray that their eyes are opened to the sophisticated effects that are at work here. Remember it isn't the rules we care about in Indian Country. It's the RESULTS that we're concerned about. Do my friends, the Certified Federal Surveyor Program Coordinators really know what we're talking about here? Do they really know how they're being used to facilitate this egregious infraction against Indian Self -Determination? Why else would they willingly participate unless they didn't know? Why else would otherwise very intelligent, professionals so willingly participate? Why else would they cash the checks from the Tribal Priority Allocation funds like a Federal Spendthrift instead of advocating for these funds to be turned around and sent back to the Tribal Priority Allocation Fund coffers where some really advantageous work can be done?
3. Could it be because, the Certified Federal Surveyor program is now supposed to be SELF FUNDED? Could it be because the reputation as a manager, is on the line for a Certified Federal Surveyor Program Coordinator and staff? Could it be because they really put one over on him and his staff when they gave him about $400,000 dollars to start it up, and then "sell" the program to every state licensed surveyor who is at this moment clamoring to get in the class to "pad their resume?" Could it be because the Certified Federal Surveyor Program Coordinators on the ground level really aren't as experienced as they thought they were? Like maybe they didn't realize that the funds that went into starting this program now provides "the customers to raid the cash register?" Believe it- now the funds have been shifted through the Office of Special Trustee into paying for outrageous surveys. We pay now in some cases $15,000 dollars per survey and get what? Instead of providing funding at say $45,000 -$60,000 per surveyor per year to have them in-house in the tribes, or at BLM. Then if they screw things up, we have some accountability. As it stands now, we take away their contract and point and say "bad surveyor!" In a normal situation that would be sufficient. But in a Fiduciary Trust Model under the ownership of the Office of Special Trustee, it reaks of irresponsibility, and under-handedness, and a general lack of ethical fortitude.
We look for motivators to constantly evaluate how well we work for the "common good." Or do we? It isn't an easy thing to admit we've been hoodwinked. It isn't easy unless we think we have backing, unless we think we have support...when in reality we really do already have that support, that backing, when we withdraw from something less than honest (in a fiduciary trust model). All that support, all that backing will come from all those people we are supposed to remember we are supporting. When we really do come out in their corner, we find that they're there like they've always been: waiting for us to fight for them.
I'd shake the hand of somebody like that. I think the TRUE MOTIVATION is there for a whole "helluva lotta dem dere Indians" to shake the hand of someone who champions our cause, because then the results, the negative results, the disastrous results, would have one less protagonist.
Socrates would be proud.
1. Instead of enriching the program, instead of empowering tribes to become self sufficient, instead of teaching them how to fish, you drain their checkbook paying for each and every fish. Instead of putting funding into training tribal surveyors so that tribes can become self sufficient in at least one more area, you take TPA funds away from tribes across the board, and you pay those TPA funds into overpriced surveys on a piece-meal basis. Tribal Priority Allocations were meant in their infancy in the 1970s to pursue Indian self-determination by offering ways to set [TRIBAL] priorities and allocate funds for those activities they [TRIBES] wanted to fund, in consultation with BIA. BIA was supposed to give TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION FUNDS to tribes by funding TRIBALLY OPERATED ACTIVITIES or through SERVICES PROVIDED BY BIA as well as some of Bureau of Indian Affairs' management and administrative costs, according to A 1998 GAO report. The consultation went out the window. I know two years ago that when a regional BLM surveyor-type was made aware of the elected officials who would now be conducting boundary surveys, he said "I wasn't aware of that." And now apparently, neither is anybody else aware of the problem (the results) built into the Certified Federal Surveyor Program. Does the Certified Federal Surveyor program meet the test of being a TRIBALLY OPERATED ACTIVITY or a SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE BIA? Afraid not. Somebody at the Office of Special Trustee has made a horrible case for this program which will take a serious link out of the Indian Self Determination which Tribal Priority Allocations was supposed to create.
2. Instead of doing it outright, in front of GOD AND EVERYBODY, you make it sophisticated, covert, and you make believers of even the smartest people that it is in the best interest of the Indian population, when in reality it isn't. I really feel sorry for my friends at the Certified Federal Surveyor Program. I hope and I do pray that their eyes are opened to the sophisticated effects that are at work here. Remember it isn't the rules we care about in Indian Country. It's the RESULTS that we're concerned about. Do my friends, the Certified Federal Surveyor Program Coordinators really know what we're talking about here? Do they really know how they're being used to facilitate this egregious infraction against Indian Self -Determination? Why else would they willingly participate unless they didn't know? Why else would otherwise very intelligent, professionals so willingly participate? Why else would they cash the checks from the Tribal Priority Allocation funds like a Federal Spendthrift instead of advocating for these funds to be turned around and sent back to the Tribal Priority Allocation Fund coffers where some really advantageous work can be done?
3. Could it be because, the Certified Federal Surveyor program is now supposed to be SELF FUNDED? Could it be because the reputation as a manager, is on the line for a Certified Federal Surveyor Program Coordinator and staff? Could it be because they really put one over on him and his staff when they gave him about $400,000 dollars to start it up, and then "sell" the program to every state licensed surveyor who is at this moment clamoring to get in the class to "pad their resume?" Could it be because the Certified Federal Surveyor Program Coordinators on the ground level really aren't as experienced as they thought they were? Like maybe they didn't realize that the funds that went into starting this program now provides "the customers to raid the cash register?" Believe it- now the funds have been shifted through the Office of Special Trustee into paying for outrageous surveys. We pay now in some cases $15,000 dollars per survey and get what? Instead of providing funding at say $45,000 -$60,000 per surveyor per year to have them in-house in the tribes, or at BLM. Then if they screw things up, we have some accountability. As it stands now, we take away their contract and point and say "bad surveyor!" In a normal situation that would be sufficient. But in a Fiduciary Trust Model under the ownership of the Office of Special Trustee, it reaks of irresponsibility, and under-handedness, and a general lack of ethical fortitude.
We look for motivators to constantly evaluate how well we work for the "common good." Or do we? It isn't an easy thing to admit we've been hoodwinked. It isn't easy unless we think we have backing, unless we think we have support...when in reality we really do already have that support, that backing, when we withdraw from something less than honest (in a fiduciary trust model). All that support, all that backing will come from all those people we are supposed to remember we are supporting. When we really do come out in their corner, we find that they're there like they've always been: waiting for us to fight for them.
I'd shake the hand of somebody like that. I think the TRUE MOTIVATION is there for a whole "helluva lotta dem dere Indians" to shake the hand of someone who champions our cause, because then the results, the negative results, the disastrous results, would have one less protagonist.
Socrates would be proud.
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)
