Larry Echo Hawk could not be further from the truth in making the statement in an Indian Country Today article (see here) that the “sweeping reform of federal surface leasing regulations for American Indian lands" will, "break the chains of paternalism that the federal government has held over tribes for too long."
It might in some areas, but when it comes to Tribes and Landowners who grow crops and who utilize a Gross Revenue Crop Share lease, this "sweeping reform" will sweep their rights right into the trash. This proposed reform requires IIM pay for any leases with more than 10 owners. Any leases with 10 owners or less HAVE to all agree to Direct Pay, even if the majority of the owners agree to Direct Pay.
IIM Pay is REGULATED PAYMENT BY CHECK FROM OST, for your crops on your land. And it usually has a time limit to be paid by. If you wanted to hold onto your crops until the market went in your favor by holding a ticket from your grain elevator, under this reform you will lose that ability. Many crops come into the grain elevators at one time. They all get put into a holding pattern until they get quality tested which may take until March or later sometimes. The problem with IIM Pay is that it will require payment by a deadline that fits one OST finance clerk;s misguided schedule in life.
This proposed reform does not eliminate Gross Revenue Crop Sharing being allowed in a lease, but it will confuse OST (big surprise there) in how they handle payments for a Crop Share Lease when payment is made in the form of a weighted share of the crop, which incidentally, is still allowed.
The best option is to leave the Direct Pay option the way it is currently in the CFR. If direct pay is negotiated in a lease, the burden of proof of payment (which is IN THE CFR) is on the person who pays the landowner. Simple. Not elegant, but it has to be more reliable than the years of mismanagement of trust that has been displayed in the Pre-Cobell era.
To the Finance Clerk in Office of Special Trustee who can't keep track of our Gross Revenue Crop Share leases: Please come to the rez to get instruction for how this piece of garbage will mess things up for thousands of land owners before this reform is signed into law.
related entries: bia' sweeping land leasing reforms
Showing posts with label Ken Salazar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Salazar. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
"BIA's Sweeping Reform" of Land Leasing
Click this link to see the Federal Register Release on the BIA's Sweeping Reform of the Federal Leasing Process.
In the proposed reform as seen on the above page, you will note the severe restrictions on Direct Pay Options. If you have 11 landowners on a piece of land, there will be no more direct pay. It will only be allowed on land with 10 owners or less.
And ALL 10 owners have to consent to the Direct Pay. This is a specific slant against direct pay, otherwise, you would have a proposed regulation that says that whatever the "majority" of landowners agree to, is what should be enacted on a lease. Besides that, according to the current CFR, Direct pay is an option already on the books and 100% is NOT REQUIRED for you to receive direct pay from your farmer. This will have disastrous results!
If OST comes in and requires a farmer to pay them for your lease by November 1st, you will not have any option to play the market and you will not get anything that says anything about your harvest.
All you're going to get is a check. There is nothing else given. You don't know WHEN your crop was sold, HOW much crop you had, WHAT THE PRICE/BUSHEL was for your crop. What a wonderful way for accountability to fly out the window with your crop.
This is a policy in direct opposition to Crop Revenue Sharing. There will be confusion and as usual the OST will listen to their finance clerk in Albuquerque who knows nothing of agricultural marketing/harvesting operations.
This should be at least one point that tribes and tribal members should be in opposition to in this proposed regulation.
Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk said on Native Times, "The revised regulations will bring greater transparency, efficiency and workability to the Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process, and will provide tribal communities and individuals certainty and flexibility when it comes to decisions on the use of their land.”
So how is it when I have a gross revenue crop share lease where my farmer pays me with a weighed share of my crops that, under this new leasing reform, I am going to get transparency, efficiency and workability? Under this proposed reform, all I am going to get is a check and that's it. The check doesn't even say what it's for. It doesn't tell me what my crops sold for, when they were sold, or what the total bushel per acre for my allotment was.
You know a funny thing about those crops: There is no guarantee that the protein levels for your crops can be determined before November 1st. There is no guarantee that the quality of the crop versus weed and waste content can be determined before November 1st. They do a seed test on many crops which takes about a month to determine if your seed crops are quality that can be sold. So, how am I going to get a check for my "supposedly sold" crop when it hasn't even been divided up and tested yet? Sometimes the crops in bumper years aren't totally quality-checked until March because of the backlog.
But rest assured, that ONE FINANCE CLERK at OST will rest easy knowing that all the numbers line up nice and straight.
This is a horrible piece of this reform. The current 25 CFR 162. 226 states the lease can be negotiated for "DIRECT PAY" from the farmer or operator. 162.227 even stipulates how payment must be made under Direct Pay options.
There will be even more confusion now for our poor OST Clerk in Albuquerque because, how in the world will they pay land owners who have Crop Revenue Share leases? Legally by November 1st? Talk about Trust Mismanagement! A clear case for screwing the land owners again. How long ago was the Cobell suit? The ink's not even dry and now this!
In the proposed reform as seen on the above page, you will note the severe restrictions on Direct Pay Options. If you have 11 landowners on a piece of land, there will be no more direct pay. It will only be allowed on land with 10 owners or less.
And ALL 10 owners have to consent to the Direct Pay. This is a specific slant against direct pay, otherwise, you would have a proposed regulation that says that whatever the "majority" of landowners agree to, is what should be enacted on a lease. Besides that, according to the current CFR, Direct pay is an option already on the books and 100% is NOT REQUIRED for you to receive direct pay from your farmer. This will have disastrous results!
If OST comes in and requires a farmer to pay them for your lease by November 1st, you will not have any option to play the market and you will not get anything that says anything about your harvest.
All you're going to get is a check. There is nothing else given. You don't know WHEN your crop was sold, HOW much crop you had, WHAT THE PRICE/BUSHEL was for your crop. What a wonderful way for accountability to fly out the window with your crop.
This is a policy in direct opposition to Crop Revenue Sharing. There will be confusion and as usual the OST will listen to their finance clerk in Albuquerque who knows nothing of agricultural marketing/harvesting operations.
This should be at least one point that tribes and tribal members should be in opposition to in this proposed regulation.
Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk said on Native Times, "The revised regulations will bring greater transparency, efficiency and workability to the Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process, and will provide tribal communities and individuals certainty and flexibility when it comes to decisions on the use of their land.”
So how is it when I have a gross revenue crop share lease where my farmer pays me with a weighed share of my crops that, under this new leasing reform, I am going to get transparency, efficiency and workability? Under this proposed reform, all I am going to get is a check and that's it. The check doesn't even say what it's for. It doesn't tell me what my crops sold for, when they were sold, or what the total bushel per acre for my allotment was.
You know a funny thing about those crops: There is no guarantee that the protein levels for your crops can be determined before November 1st. There is no guarantee that the quality of the crop versus weed and waste content can be determined before November 1st. They do a seed test on many crops which takes about a month to determine if your seed crops are quality that can be sold. So, how am I going to get a check for my "supposedly sold" crop when it hasn't even been divided up and tested yet? Sometimes the crops in bumper years aren't totally quality-checked until March because of the backlog.
But rest assured, that ONE FINANCE CLERK at OST will rest easy knowing that all the numbers line up nice and straight.
This is a horrible piece of this reform. The current 25 CFR 162. 226 states the lease can be negotiated for "DIRECT PAY" from the farmer or operator. 162.227 even stipulates how payment must be made under Direct Pay options.
There will be even more confusion now for our poor OST Clerk in Albuquerque because, how in the world will they pay land owners who have Crop Revenue Share leases? Legally by November 1st? Talk about Trust Mismanagement! A clear case for screwing the land owners again. How long ago was the Cobell suit? The ink's not even dry and now this!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY GETS AN AUDIENCE
Or at least part of HINU will get an audience. "Select administrators, faculty, and students" will have an opportunity to visit with Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk. Senator Pat Roberts call for somebody to investigate the alleged mismanagement of funds at Haskell will no doubt be topped by a literal smorgasboard of food in the Dining Facility.
We always knew when somebody "important" was visiting Haskell because the food suddenly looked foreign and plentiful. Just once I'd like to see an "important" somebody show up early or unannounced to see what the students are forced to accept from the dining facility. You know that is a tradition that dates to Haskell's early years in the late 1800s. Somebody important comes, and the kids suddenly have steaks on their plates. An unfortunate history that has crawled forward into the present day (meaning as late as 2004 anyway).
There has been no confirmation of any Open Forum for all the students and faculty to address their concerns. And in a boarding-school-generation of administrators and faculty, that means that many students will be forced to accept a grade demotion for a willful absence from classes, or suffer through knowing the Assistant Secretary is there on campus while they are forced to remain in session.
Not a complaint, just the reality of a boarding-school-trained staff environment to which the student population is subjected. I wonder if Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will inspect the daily room inspection logs. (oh but such clean rooms!)
The point is this: there is an environment that students are subjected to that means that if they disagree, they are classified as rabble-rousers by the boarding-school-trained staff. So a "select group of representatives" does not guarantee that the general opinion of the entire staff, faculty and student population will be presented. At the very least, one can hope that Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will hold the meeting during the evening hours when anyone who wants to or that needs to attend will be able.
The most important thing to ask yourself if you are the Assistant Secretary is how did things get to the point where an Assistant Secretary has to be called in? And where is the President of Haskell? Who is left to answer for what has happened? Where is the Bureau of Indian Education leadership in the midst of all of this? Has it come to this?
Let's hope Pat Roberts' call for a visit from Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk goes well, is transparent, and is open to all suggestions in the spirit of our Native traditions and the community spirit where each voice is equally heard.
We always knew when somebody "important" was visiting Haskell because the food suddenly looked foreign and plentiful. Just once I'd like to see an "important" somebody show up early or unannounced to see what the students are forced to accept from the dining facility. You know that is a tradition that dates to Haskell's early years in the late 1800s. Somebody important comes, and the kids suddenly have steaks on their plates. An unfortunate history that has crawled forward into the present day (meaning as late as 2004 anyway).
There has been no confirmation of any Open Forum for all the students and faculty to address their concerns. And in a boarding-school-generation of administrators and faculty, that means that many students will be forced to accept a grade demotion for a willful absence from classes, or suffer through knowing the Assistant Secretary is there on campus while they are forced to remain in session.
Not a complaint, just the reality of a boarding-school-trained staff environment to which the student population is subjected. I wonder if Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will inspect the daily room inspection logs. (oh but such clean rooms!)
The point is this: there is an environment that students are subjected to that means that if they disagree, they are classified as rabble-rousers by the boarding-school-trained staff. So a "select group of representatives" does not guarantee that the general opinion of the entire staff, faculty and student population will be presented. At the very least, one can hope that Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will hold the meeting during the evening hours when anyone who wants to or that needs to attend will be able.
The most important thing to ask yourself if you are the Assistant Secretary is how did things get to the point where an Assistant Secretary has to be called in? And where is the President of Haskell? Who is left to answer for what has happened? Where is the Bureau of Indian Education leadership in the midst of all of this? Has it come to this?
Let's hope Pat Roberts' call for a visit from Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk goes well, is transparent, and is open to all suggestions in the spirit of our Native traditions and the community spirit where each voice is equally heard.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Elouise Cobell answers. . sort of
In another Indian Country today article, Elouise Cobell explains that the receipts are forthcoming. Well this is welcome news to the fans of transparency. Maybe there is an explanation for the 15 million she's seeking to get from this class action lawsuit. But there's one thing that keeps bugging anyone who would look at part of what Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund does.
They fundraise. They raise funds. ( "We paid for it because it RAISED FUNDS for this purpose") There are literally millions being raised by them by grants or personal donations that went toward whatever it is that they do. So the 15 million that she will receive--will they go toward reimbursing whoever it was that DONATED funds toward her efforts? At this point it looks like fancy accounting footwork:
Here's 15 dollars now go any buy anything you want at the store.
And 14 years later, now we're going to "reimburse" her for whatever she bought at the store?
(in essence then she gets paid twice: once from the donor and then once from us)
Make us believers. Turn the tides around with at least some sort of explanation as to what is happening in light of what isn't listed on the tax returns.
The accounting firms that she says she had working on this and the expert witnesses are nowhere to be found on many years of tax returns for this organization. Where are the bills for them? They show up in 2008 (the bills to any contractors hired by this grass roots organization). Now to be fair, maybe before 2002 they were there. Guess we'll have to look at those tax returns when she presents them.
Examine the tax returns for the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund at the NCCS site and see if you come up with different opinions as to what she reported as contractors paid for by her organization. Otherwise, this doesn't look very believable. Maybe it is, but if receipts don't match up with the tax returns already available for public view, I would say that the overseeing court has to have some questions answered before they rule for the 15 million.
They fundraise. They raise funds. ( "We paid for it because it RAISED FUNDS for this purpose") There are literally millions being raised by them by grants or personal donations that went toward whatever it is that they do. So the 15 million that she will receive--will they go toward reimbursing whoever it was that DONATED funds toward her efforts? At this point it looks like fancy accounting footwork:
Here's 15 dollars now go any buy anything you want at the store.
And 14 years later, now we're going to "reimburse" her for whatever she bought at the store?
(in essence then she gets paid twice: once from the donor and then once from us)
Make us believers. Turn the tides around with at least some sort of explanation as to what is happening in light of what isn't listed on the tax returns.
The accounting firms that she says she had working on this and the expert witnesses are nowhere to be found on many years of tax returns for this organization. Where are the bills for them? They show up in 2008 (the bills to any contractors hired by this grass roots organization). Now to be fair, maybe before 2002 they were there. Guess we'll have to look at those tax returns when she presents them.
Examine the tax returns for the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund at the NCCS site and see if you come up with different opinions as to what she reported as contractors paid for by her organization. Otherwise, this doesn't look very believable. Maybe it is, but if receipts don't match up with the tax returns already available for public view, I would say that the overseeing court has to have some questions answered before they rule for the 15 million.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Elouise Cobell "Suffers" From Criticism
She deserves criticism if she is personally going to walk away with 15 million dollars while the rest of us will get the rumored 1,500 dollars. I thought she was arguing for justice. Where is the justice in walking away a millionaire? (for what kind of lost profits on her land?)
Maybe, maybe if she lost 15 million dollars in profit from her land I could jump on board her gravy train. If she personally lost 15 million dollars contributing toward the litigation, maybe I could pull her little red wagon. If she was charging appearance fees on my behalf though, well that is a different matter.
What a haul! "She" points out a discrepancy which we all know about, and she gets to rake in the millions? I'm sorry, I thought this was initially for accountability. So, I propose that Congress, and a few "Good Indians" come up with the documentation to show how we land owners are supposed to take 1,500 dollars each and Elouise walks away a millionaire. If she has those kind of bills stacked up, then in the spirit of transparency, show all of us land owners your losing hand.
Otherwise, how in the name of all that's Native does she expect us to swallow this story of her walking away with 15 million dollars? I am willing to accept this, with a resonable explanation. Congress should do the same. Indian Land Owners should also fall in step.
And there are a few other issues which deserve stage time, but which do not deserve to be repeated when somebody else has already provided the arguments in Indian Country Today.
Did we just get hoodwinked?
Maybe, maybe if she lost 15 million dollars in profit from her land I could jump on board her gravy train. If she personally lost 15 million dollars contributing toward the litigation, maybe I could pull her little red wagon. If she was charging appearance fees on my behalf though, well that is a different matter.
What a haul! "She" points out a discrepancy which we all know about, and she gets to rake in the millions? I'm sorry, I thought this was initially for accountability. So, I propose that Congress, and a few "Good Indians" come up with the documentation to show how we land owners are supposed to take 1,500 dollars each and Elouise walks away a millionaire. If she has those kind of bills stacked up, then in the spirit of transparency, show all of us land owners your losing hand.
Otherwise, how in the name of all that's Native does she expect us to swallow this story of her walking away with 15 million dollars? I am willing to accept this, with a resonable explanation. Congress should do the same. Indian Land Owners should also fall in step.
And there are a few other issues which deserve stage time, but which do not deserve to be repeated when somebody else has already provided the arguments in Indian Country Today.
Did we just get hoodwinked?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Peabody Coal and the Office of Surface Mining's activities are again called to question
The controversey around Peabody Coal still not only simmers, it has once again boiled over, or at least it looks to if things don't change in the immediate future.
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
Friday, August 7, 2009
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs & Job Training
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
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
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
Friday, February 20, 2009
Here's how you manage leasing!
If you ever wanted to know why land owners complain about the BIA leasing process, about Gross Revenue Crop Share versus Cash Rent Leases, read about how the Fort Hall Landowner's Alliance led by Ernestine Werelus has been effecting major change in how the leasing process is conducted on their land.
Read about how nefarious deals between a willing or un-educated employee and a farmer who bids low is now being stopped. Farmers will mail bids to the owners. No more Agency Letterhead sent to land owners who mistakenly have believed the bids to be under the approval of the agency employees.
A cautionary note to all landowners: make sure that the appraisals are kept under lock and key (literally) so farmers do not have access to the information of which they are not clients. (REMEMBER OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE DOES NOT EVEN LIST THE TRIBE AS A CLIENT ON APPRAISALS THAT PASS THROUGH THEIR OFFICE SO IN ALL EQUALITY, KEEP THE INFORMATION FROM BEING SHARED OPENLY WITH THE FARMERS)
There are a lot of subtle changes that make a vast world of difference: BIA and OST officials should not allow single-low-bids to substitute for competitive bidding. Ask Donna and Ross if they have audited any agencies who are allowing single bids to be a competitive bid. They have been made aware of this practice, and so have BIA officials but we still don't seem to have any changes, a year later.
One more note of caution: Somebody should really explain to the rest of the world after they explain to Indians, how appraisers reach appraisal Fair Annual Rental Rates in states of Non-Disclosure. Idaho is one such state so, if nobody is required to disclose information, how do appraisers reach conclusions?
Read about how nefarious deals between a willing or un-educated employee and a farmer who bids low is now being stopped. Farmers will mail bids to the owners. No more Agency Letterhead sent to land owners who mistakenly have believed the bids to be under the approval of the agency employees.
A cautionary note to all landowners: make sure that the appraisals are kept under lock and key (literally) so farmers do not have access to the information of which they are not clients. (REMEMBER OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE DOES NOT EVEN LIST THE TRIBE AS A CLIENT ON APPRAISALS THAT PASS THROUGH THEIR OFFICE SO IN ALL EQUALITY, KEEP THE INFORMATION FROM BEING SHARED OPENLY WITH THE FARMERS)
There are a lot of subtle changes that make a vast world of difference: BIA and OST officials should not allow single-low-bids to substitute for competitive bidding. Ask Donna and Ross if they have audited any agencies who are allowing single bids to be a competitive bid. They have been made aware of this practice, and so have BIA officials but we still don't seem to have any changes, a year later.
One more note of caution: Somebody should really explain to the rest of the world after they explain to Indians, how appraisers reach appraisal Fair Annual Rental Rates in states of Non-Disclosure. Idaho is one such state so, if nobody is required to disclose information, how do appraisers reach conclusions?
Amen to expressing a Native American's point of view
Talk Left .com ran an article during the recent presidential campaign.
It is relevant to discussing any of the appointments in President Obama's Administration.
Accordingly, it is also relevant that Native Americans should be following the appointments at every level of government. Question the footprints left in the appointees' history, not the person who made the footprints.
That's all this is about. And it's all that Evon Peters was purported to have been talking about: ("It's unfortunate that across America, our communities don't tend to dig deeper into the actual decisions that different leaders have made in their previous offices. ... My hope is that Native American people will be inspired to look into all candidates' track records on the tribal, state and national level.")
It's a recurrent issue: looking at who will have an impact on our way of life. Maybe we can be forgiven for pointing out the significant facts that are related to the people who the Federal Government appoints to serve the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
It would seem an easy thing to say that Heather Kendall-Miller fits the bill for evaluating how the Federal Government nurtures the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
http://www.adn.com/adn/features/indian_country/05a5.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec08/alaskawarming_07-10.html
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124560,00.html
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hpaied/people/miller.htm
It is relevant to discussing any of the appointments in President Obama's Administration.
Accordingly, it is also relevant that Native Americans should be following the appointments at every level of government. Question the footprints left in the appointees' history, not the person who made the footprints.
That's all this is about. And it's all that Evon Peters was purported to have been talking about: ("It's unfortunate that across America, our communities don't tend to dig deeper into the actual decisions that different leaders have made in their previous offices. ... My hope is that Native American people will be inspired to look into all candidates' track records on the tribal, state and national level.")
It's a recurrent issue: looking at who will have an impact on our way of life. Maybe we can be forgiven for pointing out the significant facts that are related to the people who the Federal Government appoints to serve the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
It would seem an easy thing to say that Heather Kendall-Miller fits the bill for evaluating how the Federal Government nurtures the relationship between Native America and the Federal Government.
http://www.adn.com/adn/features/indian_country/05a5.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec08/alaskawarming_07-10.html
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124560,00.html
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hpaied/people/miller.htm
Thursday, February 19, 2009
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"
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"
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.
Friday, January 30, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A further review of Larry Echo Hawk's reactions to State-Tribal Sovereignty disputes (6th In a Series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Who said this?
"State-law compliance is in fact a characteristic circumstance of most cases maintained under Young, see, e. g., Edelman, 415 U. S., at 655, which are brought not because the defendant officials are mavericks under state law but because the state law is claimed to violate federal law made controlling by the Supremacy Clause." (http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/19962673)
Souter, David H. souter, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.
And this is why I question whether Larry Echo Hawk is on the Sovereignty Team Roster, given his history which was widely reported in the New York times, the Desert News, and on the mouths of those so easily betrayed.
He wanted us to start dealing with States. Does this mean when there are boundary disputes (and buildings have already been built on the disputed land) that we turn to the State, County, or City surveyor's opinions? Are we, according to Larry Echo Hawk, to politely ask the State to remove their citizen from our land, and tear down his massive buildings? This is only one of a vast multitude of state-tribal issues that occur on a daily basis. For instance fishing was guaranteed in treaties. Mr. Echo Hawk again used legal wrangling to force Southern Idaho Tribes to stop fishing, and can anybody tell me if that was when the recreation fishing was still open?
The words of Justice Souter from above still ring true, just as they did during the Lake Coeur d'Alene Case. Can anybody tell me who has jurisdiction over the lake today? And who was the State Attorney General at the time, when a state was asserting that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over Treaty-guaranteed land and a lake of which Idaho, in it's own constitution establishing statehood, vowed never to touch? The history is there, it's not that Larry Echo Hawk was a bad person or even is today. The issue is that circumstances would suggest that he did not understand how Tribal Sovereignty applies in relation to States and has not given chance to show that anything has changed since then. That is all that should be developing from all of this. That he does not necessarily believe that he had effects detrimental to Tribal Sovereignty, does not excuse the fact that he did have detrimental effects; so he should come forward and tell us if he still believes that States are who the Tribes should be dealing with. Larry Echo Hawk should explain why he helped Idaho State; what went through his mind as he openly pushed the cart forward over the Tribes' Sovereignty to establish gaming on their own reservations.
I'm not converted yet and neither are some other Indians, despite what their own councils say. If it didn't come from a people-generated-vote, you can bet that not everybody agreed to what any Council said. One of my hopes is that any other council who may decide to support him, any other Indian Organization which may take the bitter pill, get something in writing from Larry Echo Hawk before you sign away any chance to hold the office of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs accountable.
Otherwise, one of us will be saying "I told you so." (If he gets confirmed, I sincerely hope all his supporters can come back here and say "I told you so" after a year or two into his position, otherwise, we'll all be waiting "again" for someone to take the BIA helm who really understands us.)
Who said this?
"State-law compliance is in fact a characteristic circumstance of most cases maintained under Young, see, e. g., Edelman, 415 U. S., at 655, which are brought not because the defendant officials are mavericks under state law but because the state law is claimed to violate federal law made controlling by the Supremacy Clause." (http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/19962673)
Souter, David H. souter, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.
And this is why I question whether Larry Echo Hawk is on the Sovereignty Team Roster, given his history which was widely reported in the New York times, the Desert News, and on the mouths of those so easily betrayed.
He wanted us to start dealing with States. Does this mean when there are boundary disputes (and buildings have already been built on the disputed land) that we turn to the State, County, or City surveyor's opinions? Are we, according to Larry Echo Hawk, to politely ask the State to remove their citizen from our land, and tear down his massive buildings? This is only one of a vast multitude of state-tribal issues that occur on a daily basis. For instance fishing was guaranteed in treaties. Mr. Echo Hawk again used legal wrangling to force Southern Idaho Tribes to stop fishing, and can anybody tell me if that was when the recreation fishing was still open?
The words of Justice Souter from above still ring true, just as they did during the Lake Coeur d'Alene Case. Can anybody tell me who has jurisdiction over the lake today? And who was the State Attorney General at the time, when a state was asserting that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over Treaty-guaranteed land and a lake of which Idaho, in it's own constitution establishing statehood, vowed never to touch? The history is there, it's not that Larry Echo Hawk was a bad person or even is today. The issue is that circumstances would suggest that he did not understand how Tribal Sovereignty applies in relation to States and has not given chance to show that anything has changed since then. That is all that should be developing from all of this. That he does not necessarily believe that he had effects detrimental to Tribal Sovereignty, does not excuse the fact that he did have detrimental effects; so he should come forward and tell us if he still believes that States are who the Tribes should be dealing with. Larry Echo Hawk should explain why he helped Idaho State; what went through his mind as he openly pushed the cart forward over the Tribes' Sovereignty to establish gaming on their own reservations.
I'm not converted yet and neither are some other Indians, despite what their own councils say. If it didn't come from a people-generated-vote, you can bet that not everybody agreed to what any Council said. One of my hopes is that any other council who may decide to support him, any other Indian Organization which may take the bitter pill, get something in writing from Larry Echo Hawk before you sign away any chance to hold the office of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs accountable.
Otherwise, one of us will be saying "I told you so." (If he gets confirmed, I sincerely hope all his supporters can come back here and say "I told you so" after a year or two into his position, otherwise, we'll all be waiting "again" for someone to take the BIA helm who really understands us.)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES (fifth in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.
This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.
States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?
More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009 ) Larry Echo Hawk told a Sovereignty Symposium (of all places!) that "Future intergovernmental agreements by Indian tribes will be conducted with individual states."
Was he serious?
He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.
I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.
This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.
States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?
More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009
Was he serious?
He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.
I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Qualifications for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
There may always be a disputed argument about what Tribal members are looking for in a Secretary for Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are how many hundreds of languages between us? It is no wonder then that we all have specific issues. We all have different ways of saying things, and that is why it is believeable that a culturally-based, land-based tribal member is more capable of understanding what all the needs of tribal members are.
A large-land-based tribal member will advocate for issues which will exceed the needs and expectations of a non-large-land-based tribal member. A non-land based tribal member will advocate (generally) far short of what land-based tribal members need and expect.
In a local language here in the Northwest, the word for "Sunday" for a particular tribe directly translates to the "day when the flag is flown on the staff." Our language comes from our culture, and we continue that relationship from living on the land. The less assimilated a leader is, the more willing the entire tribal population will be to accept them. It is extremely hard to lie when you speak a Tribal Language because our words are so specific for each language. That attribute is what is needed in a leader who will stand before the Federal Government as the Federal Government itself attempts (or fails) to fulfill the promises made to each of our ancestors so long ago.
The short and dirty list of what may be a starting point for selecting an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
A large-land-based tribal member will advocate for issues which will exceed the needs and expectations of a non-large-land-based tribal member. A non-land based tribal member will advocate (generally) far short of what land-based tribal members need and expect.
In a local language here in the Northwest, the word for "Sunday" for a particular tribe directly translates to the "day when the flag is flown on the staff." Our language comes from our culture, and we continue that relationship from living on the land. The less assimilated a leader is, the more willing the entire tribal population will be to accept them. It is extremely hard to lie when you speak a Tribal Language because our words are so specific for each language. That attribute is what is needed in a leader who will stand before the Federal Government as the Federal Government itself attempts (or fails) to fulfill the promises made to each of our ancestors so long ago.
The short and dirty list of what may be a starting point for selecting an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
- from a large-land based tribe
- proven track record of actually taking action in advocacy for all tribes (if they have been derided in OST/BIA circles, then it's a sure bet they're in)
- Have experience or can clearly demonstrate a knowledge of the problems tribes have in the land areas of contracted trust services, (surveys, appraisals, wills, probate training)
- Can clearly demonstrate ethics characteristics which will aid in restoring the current lack of trust in the Office of Special Trustee
- Ability to address the needs of a budget which has clearly been lacking in actually providing trust responsibility services
- Is able to make a statement about what sovereignty really means, to which a majority of Indians who still practice it can agree
- Can take the hard stance on the part of Native Americans in restoring the land base, by signing the pending Land-Into Trust packets (including those which have been waiting for 20 years)
- Can work through a quagmire of Federal inefficiency and clear all pending probates which are several years old
- Will agree that all federal documents related to Tribes, are jointly owned by the Tribes and the Federal Government. The current policy regarding documents in the Interior makes no such stipulation. The Federal government may have legal title to those documents, but the Tribes have Beneficiary Title which must be honored. We have agreements in black and white, so let's all take a look at them. I believe that even President Barack Obama could agree to some more transparency from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee.
Larry Echo Hawk's Record on Indian Casinos (4th in a Series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
- ..."Crowell’s statement also is misleading in that it suggests that Larry personally supported restricting Indian gaming or had a policy-making role in the matter."
- ..."EchoHawk clearly has a long and proven track record of advancing tribal sovereignty, his legal and ethical duty as Idaho’s attorney general was to provide legal advice to the governor and legislature. He did this according to his oath of office, and he did not advocate against Indian gaming specifically at any time."
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Enterprises Manager Nathan Small reacted quickly to the governor's statements, contending a special session would undermine any good-faith negotiations on a gaming compact.
"We feel it is an end run on Indian gaming," Small said in a statement. He also disputed Tribal Chairman Kesley Edmo's statement to Andrus that the tribes want to pursue "all types of gaming.""
And is there anything to show Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed the idea of Indian Casinos, that he was opposed allowing the mechanism for Tribal Casinos on Indian Reservations?
If you look at the July 28 1992 article in the Deseret news, and look at the 11th paragraph you see:"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk (3rd in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
There may be some confusion, now, although for multiple tribes in Idaho, there was no confusion at the time. A check of other tribal resolutions at the time will disclose that others, from other tribes, passed resolutions condemning Larry Echo Hawk's actions in 1992.
There was no confusion at the time as to the actions of Larry Echo Hawk. And if there is now confusion, err on the side of caution and seek an alternate choice to sit on the BIA hot seat. At least some of us haven't forgotten what happened. Timothy Egan from the New York Times, a Tribal Outsider, reported in 1994, "Idaho has a constitutional amendment against casino-style gambling, a law written in part, and defended in court, by Attorney General EchoHawk." (Click on any blue letters in this BLOG to follow a link to all the pertinent documents)
The Initial Scott Crowell Letter
(opposing Larry Echo Hawk initially)
The (current) Shoshone Bannock Council Letter in response to Scott Crowell
(suggesting that Larry Echo Hawk had nothing to do with the Idaho Constitutional Amendment in the 5th quarter enabling them to oppose Idaho Indian Gaming)
The Scott Crowell Response to the Shoshone Banock Council.
(Clarifying his position as correct the first time and reiterating that Larry Echo Hawk had a part in opposing Idaho Indian Gaming in the early 1990s)
There may be some confusion, now, although for multiple tribes in Idaho, there was no confusion at the time. A check of other tribal resolutions at the time will disclose that others, from other tribes, passed resolutions condemning Larry Echo Hawk's actions in 1992.
There was no confusion at the time as to the actions of Larry Echo Hawk. And if there is now confusion, err on the side of caution and seek an alternate choice to sit on the BIA hot seat. At least some of us haven't forgotten what happened. Timothy Egan from the New York Times, a Tribal Outsider, reported in 1994, "Idaho has a constitutional amendment against casino-style gambling, a law written in part, and defended in court, by Attorney General EchoHawk." (Click on any blue letters in this BLOG to follow a link to all the pertinent documents)
The Initial Scott Crowell Letter
(opposing Larry Echo Hawk initially)
The (current) Shoshone Bannock Council Letter in response to Scott Crowell
(suggesting that Larry Echo Hawk had nothing to do with the Idaho Constitutional Amendment in the 5th quarter enabling them to oppose Idaho Indian Gaming)
The Scott Crowell Response to the Shoshone Banock Council.
(Clarifying his position as correct the first time and reiterating that Larry Echo Hawk had a part in opposing Idaho Indian Gaming in the early 1990s)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
