BIA's Sweeping Reforms of Surface Leasing do not "EASE FEDERAL PATERNALISM"

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

"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!

Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute in a dilema

"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught."
~J.C. Watts

Ok.....shhhhhhhh.... Nobody watch the Bureau of Indian Education. Let's see what they do about SIPI losing their accreditation if nobody's looking.

And on March 24th then we'll look-after the Higher Learning Commission has left. There will be no Find-A-Word puzzle that will fix any of the shortcomings, however.

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

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

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

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

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

That's "being vigilant?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama's final step before the fall known as the Cobell Settlement

It would seem as if the "forgotten" Native Population will once again be told what is best for them by what would seem to be a non-appointed voice for us all. Reminds one of the treaty-signers and what they gave away for the rest of their respective tribes. Elouise Cobell is set to pull the wool over one of the brightest minds in the Nation, Barack Obama Black Eagle.

When President Obama signs the Cobell Sellout, the Federal Government will breathe a giant sigh of relief. "Whew, we got through that one cheaper than we should have" will be a thought in many legislators minds.

"We could have ended up giving them what we gave the Black Farmers. We could have given the tribes 1.4 billion outright - good thing the process will prevent them from ever using all the money in 10 years. We'll get some of this back, in the meanwhile it'll earn interest. We could have granted generous funding to clear the back log of land sales currently on the books. We could have granted generous funding to create a bunch of Indian Surveyors so the tribes could have been more self sufficient to fix their Cadastral surveys. We got off easy on this one because we'll continue to be a pass through to all the contracted surveyors. Good vote getter there!

Did you catch that freakish clause where we're gonna give 'em 60 million for college? Wasn't that great? Considering we already covered that with each treaty that was a steal!

We could have actually been forced to come up with an accounting which we could not have done. Well, we couldn't have done it without spending more of our money to fix the accounting errors. On a good note, because of this case, we got all the land title documents under lock and key in our super secret cave in Lenexa, Kansas. "

Despite some of the greatest minds in the field of law and policy speaking out on behalf of the landowners, President Obama will instead "forget" that justice requires dialogue and with a history of people, good-willed or not, speaking on our behalf, we return once again to a scene where one will speak for many. One legal team will get off on their take while we get 1/50th of what another legal team got for their black farmers. One land owner who would have only gotten a tiny payment every year will instead take home 15 million dollars despite the lack of proof that millions were spent according to her own tax records. (check the link here) (she showed on her own records that she didn't even work some months and she put it out there for everybody to see)

123 years of injustice: uncounted millions lost

362 tribes who still don't have a sound land management advocate: cheap when you get a Secretary who has never lived on his own reservation and has no concept of what real life issues take place daily on the rez, but can cry on demand when speaking in front of a camera.

Stealing their 1 last shot to infuse justice into the situation: PRICELESS!

I guess there will be a ceremony where a drum will be beat to the heartbeat of very few. There will be a photo op in a plush room with a cast of very well-known players. And then the checks will start rolling in with nary an explanation-just like our checks come now. No receipt, no statement, no explanation for why we're getting it. Certainly no justice from the Federal Government who issued it.

Thanks be to President Obama for making it all happen with the swipe of a pen. Indians never did like paperwork and we still don't.

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?

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.

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.

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?

More "news" for Larry Echo Hawk on the Haskell Indian Nations University Status

Apparently, it is with some (righteous ?) anger that some are accepting the many-headed style of leadership at Haskell Indian Nations University. It appears from what has been posted (and as of yet unverified) that Dr. Warner is gone until January (really?) so another professor will take over acting duties until the man who was supposed to be acting president gets back, but then again no...On Friday Dr. Gillis will take over, until the man who was supposed to be acting president gets back from who-knows-where.

It would appear that the lack of leadership, and the lack of explanation, leaves one to fill in the blanks where honest apologies, and explanations should exist.

Perhaps as the un-verified information below states, Larry Echo Hawk can take a look at it and make more sense than the rest of us. The poster requests that Larry look at it, so it is being presented here with no valid citation, but then Indian Country never needed any more citation than a request from someone needing help.

"

Anonymous said...

That’s right eeny, meeny , miny, moe, pick a Haskell President before Washington D.C.’s Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn say’s they go.

Today ( Oct 12, 2009 ) this announcement was made from the Haskell’s President’s office :

During Mr. Redman’s absence this week from campus, Dr. Dan Wildcat will be acting President. Dr. Wildcat will depart for a conference one Thursday at which time, Dr. Karen Gillis will be acting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call the :

Office of the President.

Well at least we know there still is AN OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AT HASKELL, but which president are they talking about ?

Let’s start with Dr.Warner who has been detailed to New Mexico by her boss, Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn ( BIE out of Washington D.C. ) with a master’s degree in social work and no experience in education. A lot of the people Stephanie is in charge of under her SES title are more qualified and more educated then she is. It’s like boarding a commercial airliner and telling a passenger to fly it. Oh, sorry can’t do that because not everyone on board will be Native American and those who aren’t deserve a real pilot.

So, Dr.Warner is gone until January per Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn and she send in a nice young man to be Haskell’s Acting President by the name of Chris Redman, who is from Oklahoma. He has no background whatsoever in the running of a college, but never mind that. The man was made to sit in the Haskell Board of Regents meetings last week and this week he is not at Haskell at all ! Who knows where the poor guy took off running to after all of that ! He after all was just trying to follow his orders BE PRESIDENT OF A COLLEGE ! And try he has. Gotta have pity on the man from Oklahoma !

Next ! Dr. Dan Wildcat is going to to be Acting President of Haskell, but he too lacks the real qualifications to be a college president however he is trying and has stepped up to the plate at least until Thursday. The mystery is where is Dr.Wildcat going on Thursday that is so important, that Haskell will once again have two acting presidents in one week ? And all of this in less then a month !

And least but probably not last, Dr.Karen Gillis she will step up to the plate on Thursday as Acting President of Haskell but for how long ? Through the weekend until next week ? The answer lays below…

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, no one knows until Stephanie Birdwell-Bighorn catches you by the toe !

No wonder an AIS teacher is getting away with making BLOGGING a class assignment !!! It’s teach WHATEVER you want to teach at HASKELL SEMESTER, because there is no Haskell President.

Larry Echohawk you may want to check this out."

Posted on Native Issues on October 14, 2009 4:35 PM

Former Haskell V.P. (allegedly) makes a plea to Larry Echo Hawk

Against better judgement, I am re-posting what was left as a comment on this blog. If anyone knows the whereabouts of Dr. Ted Wright, please have him contact this blog with a comment about where I can verify or refute that this letter came from him.

There have been grumblings coming out of Haskell Indian Nations University over the practices or actions of Dr. Linda Warner. It was amazing to hear that the Haskell Foundation dismantled, and then the Board of Regents signed on, requesting more information about what was going on inside the Halls of Haskell Indian Nations University.

I spoke with some former professors who are still inside and the news was not good to hear. You expect that the professors who inspired you to go out and make a difference would not speak in such grave tones about what was going on. Now there are rumors of gag-orders across campus. There must be something going on. Whether it is good or bad, remains to be seen.

There are a select few students and "Dr. Wright" who wish to have an audience with Larry Echo Hawk, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I would hope that if there are valid concerns that more news would follow about how to go about this process. It takes a strong person to stand up and ask for help. I was thankful for Dr. Karen Swisher's open-door policy when she was President of Haskell Indian Nations University. We severely tested her knowledge, her forthrightness and her patience I am sure. But in the end, she came across as polite, professional, accountable, and more importantly, as someone who genuinely cared about the students and was cognizant that her actions had an impact that although not always welcome were taken with a heart for the future of the Indian Student.

What follows is complete heresay until Dr. Ted Wright can be reached to verify the information contained herein.

"Anonymous said...

HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY EX-VP BECOMES WHISTLE BLOWER

The Honorable Secretary Ken Salazar Department of the Interior Members of the United States Senate

Dear Sirs:

I have read with interest the comments and criticisms about recent Bureau of Indian Education actions, particularly at the post-secondary level. I know that employees within that organization have been threatened if they make unauthorized comments to the press; so, I am sure that most of those individuals would not risk their livelihoods to speak up as a single voice.

This letter is a request to do a thorough investigation of management practices at the post-secondary level, particularly at Haskell Indian Nations University.

Unfortunately, Haskell employs a group of about seven individuals who actively work against the administration. This group has been vocal, and since the Bureau of Indian Education ( BIE ) maintains a policy that does not allow administrators to respond, only misinformation, rumor, and innuendos are spread to the public, to the students, and to Congress.

I agree with a recent blog that said this should be embarrassing to BIE officials; it was embarrassing to me as a native person that the very group of people who should have native students in mind actually worked to create an environment of fictional drama on campus that was detrimental to the University’s attempt to live up to its potential.

Issues that need scrutiny :

1.

Dismantling of the federally legislated demonstration Health Education and Wellness Program program.
2.

Hiring practices at Haskell Indian Nations University and at central office, with oversight of post-secondary.
3.

Mismanagement of personnel issues at central office ensuring continuation of “hostile work environment.”
4.

Personnel who “cyber-bully” and promote misinformation to create dissonance.
5.

Ethics violations, such as advocating for your wife’s hire.
6.

Dismantling of The RED Center, the only connection to a university Haskell Indian Nations University can claim.
7.

A private bequest, used as Stephanie Birdwell’s private project account; $3M+ combined for both Haskell and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. (Specifically, why didn’t the money go to the congressional chartered non-profit the BIE helped establish for the purpose of raising money.)
8.

Central office’s support of the federal union, rather than its own managers. (Specifically look at the legal effects of dismantling the current negotiated bargaining unit for the entire BIE by setting precedent at Haskell). This doesn’t even speak to the impact on student’s lives.
9.

Expenditures for dialogue sessions where no one is allowed to talk except Central Office Staff: do these coincide with other travel and is Haskell paying for this idea?
10.

Dismantling of processes that promote fiscal accountability (saved $150K in food services to see it squandered now) and healthy lifestyles initiatives (try eating in the cafeteria now).
11.

Lack of follow through on Inspector General referrals for mismanagement of money (when directed by the Inspector General’s office to handle the matter).

You have many issues in Interior; I wonder where Native American Students fit in your priorities?

I realize that I will get a form letter back from your staff and that it is highly likely that you will never read this. I am forwarding copies to some of your colleagues in the hopes that someone finally takes the comments about personnel management and supervision seriously. I believe that Ms. Birdwell and others will suggest that you investigate me rather than look at these issues. I am hopeful you will do both.

I would welcome the opportunity to provide you with incidents.

Dr. Ted A Wright

Former Vice President of Haskell Indian Nations University.

Lawrence, Kansas"

Posted to Native Issues on October 14, 2009 4:29 PM

Kimberly Teehee is actually the #2 position in Indian country

Jackie Johnson Pata said [Kim Teehee's] job was really going to hone in on those [domestic] policy issues. Pata also said, Kim's job was like the No. 1 position in Indian Country.

Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."

Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!

Wow! Shiny enit?

So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?

Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.

Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.

Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.

The (RE)Confirmation hearing of Larry Echo Hawk

The Confirmation hearing of Larry Echo Hawk held in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee chambers is really not a confirmation hearing as much as it is a re-confirmation hearing. This is an assumption based on the witless list prepared by.....whom? Who knows, who cares? It is obvious that the confirmation has already taken place based on the fact that the list is a fairly short and lonely list. It lacks objectivity, it lacks an outside view, it is probably the best that anybody could come up given the extreme views of their wonder-boy Larry. I just hope the the vetting will take place someplace back here in the real world. It's somebody's idea that this is going to settle the question Indian Country-wide of whether Larry will continue to serve the Morman (sic, yes I know) beliefs that the tradition of gaming which pre-dates any European church does not fall under the Sovereignty of the Tribes to decide their own fate. This is supposed to settle the question of whether Larry still believes that Tribes should deal with states instead of the Federal Government--never mind that Tribes never made treaties with states, never mind that Tribes are still in the midst of Trust Issues that have never been fulfilled and continue to be neglected. This is supposed to settle the question of whether Larry was really sincere in his silent apologies to the Tribes in this area. Never mind that the minutes from his "Last Stand" against Tribal Gaming taking place in Idaho are on file at the University of Idaho Law Library, and that they clearly show he and his staff were absolutely taking a stance against Tribal Sovereignty. His excuse was that he had a "duty" to the state. What is never discussed is that his duty was to point out ALL options for the state of Idaho in its reaction to the Tribal Gaming Stance. He never points out to "his" state of Idaho that one of the options was to honor the sovereignty of the Tribes in Idaho and allow the gaming to take place under the current wording of the law that Idaho had set for its own state non-tribal citizens. Instead he made a case that it was of the most importance that the will of the people of the good state of Idaho be shown by the legislators and that they pass the end-run around their own law to effectively ban the tribal gaming in Idaho. Surprisingly (really?) the people of Idaho passed their own initiative which allowed the same gaming which Larry Echo Hawk sought to ban.
But then I'm sure that all of this will come out in the re-confirmation hearing of Larry Echo Hawk when Alonzo Colby and Larry himself speak to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Amen to expressing a Native American's point of view

The politics of Larry Echo Hawk's vetting

A further review of Larry Echo Hawk's reaction to state-tribal sovereignty disputes

Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an intergovernment relationship with ...STATES

Larry Echo Hawk's record on Indian Casinos

Larry Echo Hawk

More on Larry Echo Hawk

Larry Echo Hawk a poor choice among many great ones

The Sovereign masses

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

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"

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.

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.)

Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES (fifth in a series)

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

Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.

This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.

States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?

More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009 ) Larry Echo Hawk told a Sovereignty Symposium (of all places!) that "Future intergovernmental agreements by Indian tribes will be conducted with individual states."

Was he serious?

He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.

I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.

Qualifications for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs

There may always be a disputed argument about what Tribal members are looking for in a Secretary for Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are how many hundreds of languages between us? It is no wonder then that we all have specific issues. We all have different ways of saying things, and that is why it is believeable that a culturally-based, land-based tribal member is more capable of understanding what all the needs of tribal members are.

A large-land-based tribal member will advocate for issues which will exceed the needs and expectations of a non-large-land-based tribal member. A non-land based tribal member will advocate (generally) far short of what land-based tribal members need and expect.

In a local language here in the Northwest, the word for "Sunday" for a particular tribe directly translates to the "day when the flag is flown on the staff." Our language comes from our culture, and we continue that relationship from living on the land. The less assimilated a leader is, the more willing the entire tribal population will be to accept them. It is extremely hard to lie when you speak a Tribal Language because our words are so specific for each language. That attribute is what is needed in a leader who will stand before the Federal Government as the Federal Government itself attempts (or fails) to fulfill the promises made to each of our ancestors so long ago.

The short and dirty list of what may be a starting point for selecting an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:

• from a large-land based tribe
• proven track record of actually taking action in advocacy for all tribes (if they have been derided in OST/BIA circles, then it's a sure bet they're in)
• Have experience or can clearly demonstrate a knowledge of the problems tribes have in the land areas of contracted trust services, (surveys, appraisals, wills, probate training)
• Can clearly demonstrate ethics characteristics which will aid in restoring the current lack of trust in the Office of Special Trustee
• Ability to address the needs of a budget which has clearly been lacking in actually providing trust responsibility services
• Is able to make a statement about what sovereignty really means, to which a majority of Indians who still practice it can agree
  
• Can take the hard stance on the part of Native Americans in restoring the land base, by signing the pending Land-Into Trust packets (including those which have been waiting for 20 years)
• Can work through a quagmire of Federal inefficiency and clear all pending probates which are several years old
• Will agree that all federal documents related to Tribes, are jointly owned by the Tribes and the Federal Government. The current policy regarding documents in the Interior makes no such stipulation. The Federal government may have legal title to those documents, but the Tribes have Beneficiary Title which must be honored. We have agreements in black and white, so let's all take a look at them. I believe that even President Barack Obama could agree to some more transparency from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee.
  

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

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

1. ..."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."
2. ..."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."

Earlier it was disclosed that Timothy Egan from the New York Times, 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."

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.