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 OST. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OST. 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!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Behind the scenes of the Cobell Opt Out
I can tell you opting out is on the mouths of more than a few Indians. The phone lines and emails are flying between Indians in D.C., South Dakota, Idaho, Montana and Washington. The main problem with opting out is that most lawyers are representing the Tribes. Anyone else is hesitant to take a case on a "contingency basis."
What is obvious to all the INDIVIDUAL Tribal Landowners is that the Cobell Settlement Lawyers did not adequately represent almost the entire great plains region or the Pacific Northwest where landowners lease their land, and where many got Direct Pay from their farmers for YEARS. Not a lot of our money went through IIM accounts. The Cobell Settlement seems to ignore the fact the 25 CFR part 162 has always allowed Native Landowners to receive direct pay from their farmer-operators. It short-changes generations of landowners under the payment schedule worked into the Cobell Settlement where payment is made based on an amount of money that passed through each individual IIM account.
The Elouise Cobell Settlement team did not represent any Direct Pay Native Landowner. Their pay should be commensurate with their level of incompetence and fall well short of 200 million dollars.
Somebody should whisper this in Congressman Doc Hastings ear at the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Indian Affairs meeting on Tuesday.
What is obvious to all the INDIVIDUAL Tribal Landowners is that the Cobell Settlement Lawyers did not adequately represent almost the entire great plains region or the Pacific Northwest where landowners lease their land, and where many got Direct Pay from their farmers for YEARS. Not a lot of our money went through IIM accounts. The Cobell Settlement seems to ignore the fact the 25 CFR part 162 has always allowed Native Landowners to receive direct pay from their farmer-operators. It short-changes generations of landowners under the payment schedule worked into the Cobell Settlement where payment is made based on an amount of money that passed through each individual IIM account.
The Elouise Cobell Settlement team did not represent any Direct Pay Native Landowner. Their pay should be commensurate with their level of incompetence and fall well short of 200 million dollars.
Somebody should whisper this in Congressman Doc Hastings ear at the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Indian Affairs meeting on Tuesday.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Dear Elouise Cobell Litigation Members
"Someone Tell Her" week of February 31, 2011
February 31, 2011
Dear Indian Country:
don't read between the lines because you might not like what becomes obvious:
This is the another letter in a series of openly bitter letters that I'm sending to Indian Country. The purpose of this letter is to confuse you about the settlement and to answer your most relevant questions that maybe 20 indians have as proof that Indian country "overwhelmingly" has no idea of what we've been up to.
As I reported in the another letter where I gave no side opposed to me any time to refute my claims, the parties agreed to extend the settlement for just the 40th time and yet another extension is required if we are to give Santa a chance to pass legislation. I will only consult our attorneys and allies on the Hill about that extension on behalf of oblivious land owners over the next few days.
In your last letter, you mentioned that Senator Barrasso (R - WY), Vice-Chairman, Senator Committee on Indian Affairs introduced an amendment that he says would "improve" the settlement agreement even though it would terminate the settlement, what is the status of his amendment? Thanks to the overwhelming support of maybe 20 Indians who favor my side, Senator Barrasso was unable to bring his amendment to the floor for a vote. Your letters and calls to members of Congress had a significant impact on the outcome. Unfortunately, Senator Barrasso still doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that Indian Country has 20 Indians who overwhelmingly support this settlement. According to statements reported in the press, he is more determined than ever to rob you of your victory in this case and it is likely that he again will attempt to introduce an amendment to terminate the settlement at some time in the future. We remain on guard against his efforts to further harm more than 20 individual Indians. Instead we will focus our efforts on robbing you by shifting millions of dollars away from the thousands of other Indians who oppose me and putting it in the pockets of my lawyers.
You also mentioned that the National Congress of American Indians was considering a resolution supporting the Barrasso amendment, what is the status of that resolution? The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association resolutions opposing my settlement will summarily be ignored and therefore do not exist as proof that more than 20 Indians overwhelmingly oppose my settlement. (In fact they only represent 73 tribes in 9 states) I attended an imaginary NCAI event in Rapid City, South Dakota beginning June 31, 2010. A small, rabid group of tribal representatives sought to support Senator Barrasso's amendment and, thereby, kill your settlement, but their effort was defeated soundly (even overwhelmingly) and NCAI passed a resolution urging Congress to reject the Barrasso amendment and pass authorizing legislation as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that the tribally-elected leaders I called Rabid could not be euthanized. It is important to remember that this class is made up solely of oblivious individual Indian trust beneficiaries; tribes have their own litigation (and, at times, the agenda of a few tribally-elected leaders is inconsistent with individual Indians' interests), but they don't represent your interests in this litigation. I do, so don't listen to them; listen to me; your non-elected leader.
Will any Interior contractors with experience on Indian issues be selected to assist with the distribution of settlement proceeds or to hold the funds pending distribution? Overwhelmingly not! This is a conflict of interest which does not serve my interests or my attorney's interests so it won't be tolerated. To allow the same contractors, who have been peddling their services that fail to deliver promised benefits to Indian Country, to have any role in the distribution of settlement funds would be insane. For the first time in history, your funds will be held securely, managed prudently, and distributed competently by able and experienced professionals, mostly to my lawyers but you will get enough to buy groceries and gas for a month-rest assured! I know of no Interior contractors that meet the highest fiduciary standards that you are owed; this is not dissimilar to your lack of knowledge of any lawyer who is really representing your interests.
While I'm at it, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't like ATNI, GPTCA, or Interior people. I'm only here to support "Individual Indians."
Where can I review the overwhelming amount of time the attorneys have spent on the litigation? Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, statements regarding counsels' billing rates and related records supporting daily time, expense and cost records will be filed with the Court and available to the public as long as you are standing just inside the courtroom doors or downstairs in the courtroom basement where the records are available for any Indian in this country to come and see, in person. (For the record, for reasons unexplainable to oblivious Indian Land Owners we will not publish the records anywhere where everybody can see them, like in a newspaper, or on my website, or on the Church Bulletin Board.) This documentation will be filed no later than 30 days following preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the Court. After the court signs. Not before the Court signs. Preliminary approval by the Court cannot occur unless and until Congress authorizes the settlement. We are not holding anybody hostage by withholding the billing information until after Congress signs the settlement. We are only holding papers people! Papers! As soon as the settlement is signed, we will surprise everybody with the billing information. We will not contest any settlement between 50 and 99 million dollars. We will agree that we are entitled to between 50 and 99 million dollars. That is irrefutable information that we will not contest. We will not contest that we are owed between 50 and 99 million. We agree that we are owed between 50 and 99 million dollars: plus 124 million dollars. Since no one will suggest 223 million dollars it will therefore be ok for us to suggest it. It will all make overwhelming sense if you don't think about it.
Prior letters which are truly objective cannot be found . We also have a "frequently asked questions" section which includes what I have deemed the most common questions we've received as well as questions and answers from prior harmless letters. With so many members of the class being so angry, I can't answer every question that you send. These letters will answer as many questions as possible, or two that I randomly choose as being harmless to my cause that are relevant to the entire oblivious class membership.
The most common question I receive every week relates to whether a particular person is included in this settlement. Unfortunately, I do not have that information, then again, maybe it's best I don't have that information. The settlement agreement provides general guidelines. But I also understand that many of you are still oblivious to the entire settlement agreement and still have questions. Thank you for your questions.
I hope someday to have an answer, after we've been paid for our time and service to all 20 of the Indians who overwhelmingly support me. Pay no attention to my tax records which are public and show that most weeks I only recorded to the IRS that I worked 2 hours a week for the organization which got grants to have me represent all the oblivious Indians in the pursuit of justice in this case. I will do my best to amend the records from 14 previous years that shows that we already paid for the financial services and the legal services of a few well known attorneys associated with this case.
Thanks for being an enrolled member which gave me numbers from which to claim I represent.
If no one answers any of the relevant questions of angry land owners please keep sending letters. We overwhelmingly welcome any letter, unfortunately we won't answer all of them or any that appear to be representing dissent from my opinion or my attorneys, ooops I mean our attorneys.
If you have a question, send an e-mail to someone. Otherwise you can send me a letter. To expedite the processing of your letters a contractor has set up a post office box in Ohio, smack dab in the middle of Indian Country! But I assure you I will see your letters. I just won't answer any that are too difficult to explain or that point out our shortcomings in representing the real overwhelming majority of you.
Thank you and keep your questions coming!
Best wishes for those expensive attorneys of mine
-your overwhelmingly best supporter
More articles are at the bottom of this page. Click here.
February 31, 2011
Dear Indian Country:
don't read between the lines because you might not like what becomes obvious:
This is the another letter in a series of openly bitter letters that I'm sending to Indian Country. The purpose of this letter is to confuse you about the settlement and to answer your most relevant questions that maybe 20 indians have as proof that Indian country "overwhelmingly" has no idea of what we've been up to.
As I reported in the another letter where I gave no side opposed to me any time to refute my claims, the parties agreed to extend the settlement for just the 40th time and yet another extension is required if we are to give Santa a chance to pass legislation. I will only consult our attorneys and allies on the Hill about that extension on behalf of oblivious land owners over the next few days.
In your last letter, you mentioned that Senator Barrasso (R - WY), Vice-Chairman, Senator Committee on Indian Affairs introduced an amendment that he says would "improve" the settlement agreement even though it would terminate the settlement, what is the status of his amendment? Thanks to the overwhelming support of maybe 20 Indians who favor my side, Senator Barrasso was unable to bring his amendment to the floor for a vote. Your letters and calls to members of Congress had a significant impact on the outcome. Unfortunately, Senator Barrasso still doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that Indian Country has 20 Indians who overwhelmingly support this settlement. According to statements reported in the press, he is more determined than ever to rob you of your victory in this case and it is likely that he again will attempt to introduce an amendment to terminate the settlement at some time in the future. We remain on guard against his efforts to further harm more than 20 individual Indians. Instead we will focus our efforts on robbing you by shifting millions of dollars away from the thousands of other Indians who oppose me and putting it in the pockets of my lawyers.
You also mentioned that the National Congress of American Indians was considering a resolution supporting the Barrasso amendment, what is the status of that resolution? The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association resolutions opposing my settlement will summarily be ignored and therefore do not exist as proof that more than 20 Indians overwhelmingly oppose my settlement. (In fact they only represent 73 tribes in 9 states) I attended an imaginary NCAI event in Rapid City, South Dakota beginning June 31, 2010. A small, rabid group of tribal representatives sought to support Senator Barrasso's amendment and, thereby, kill your settlement, but their effort was defeated soundly (even overwhelmingly) and NCAI passed a resolution urging Congress to reject the Barrasso amendment and pass authorizing legislation as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that the tribally-elected leaders I called Rabid could not be euthanized. It is important to remember that this class is made up solely of oblivious individual Indian trust beneficiaries; tribes have their own litigation (and, at times, the agenda of a few tribally-elected leaders is inconsistent with individual Indians' interests), but they don't represent your interests in this litigation. I do, so don't listen to them; listen to me; your non-elected leader.
Will any Interior contractors with experience on Indian issues be selected to assist with the distribution of settlement proceeds or to hold the funds pending distribution? Overwhelmingly not! This is a conflict of interest which does not serve my interests or my attorney's interests so it won't be tolerated. To allow the same contractors, who have been peddling their services that fail to deliver promised benefits to Indian Country, to have any role in the distribution of settlement funds would be insane. For the first time in history, your funds will be held securely, managed prudently, and distributed competently by able and experienced professionals, mostly to my lawyers but you will get enough to buy groceries and gas for a month-rest assured! I know of no Interior contractors that meet the highest fiduciary standards that you are owed; this is not dissimilar to your lack of knowledge of any lawyer who is really representing your interests.
While I'm at it, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't like ATNI, GPTCA, or Interior people. I'm only here to support "Individual Indians."
Where can I review the overwhelming amount of time the attorneys have spent on the litigation? Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, statements regarding counsels' billing rates and related records supporting daily time, expense and cost records will be filed with the Court and available to the public as long as you are standing just inside the courtroom doors or downstairs in the courtroom basement where the records are available for any Indian in this country to come and see, in person. (For the record, for reasons unexplainable to oblivious Indian Land Owners we will not publish the records anywhere where everybody can see them, like in a newspaper, or on my website, or on the Church Bulletin Board.) This documentation will be filed no later than 30 days following preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the Court. After the court signs. Not before the Court signs. Preliminary approval by the Court cannot occur unless and until Congress authorizes the settlement. We are not holding anybody hostage by withholding the billing information until after Congress signs the settlement. We are only holding papers people! Papers! As soon as the settlement is signed, we will surprise everybody with the billing information. We will not contest any settlement between 50 and 99 million dollars. We will agree that we are entitled to between 50 and 99 million dollars. That is irrefutable information that we will not contest. We will not contest that we are owed between 50 and 99 million. We agree that we are owed between 50 and 99 million dollars: plus 124 million dollars. Since no one will suggest 223 million dollars it will therefore be ok for us to suggest it. It will all make overwhelming sense if you don't think about it.
Prior letters which are truly objective cannot be found . We also have a "frequently asked questions" section which includes what I have deemed the most common questions we've received as well as questions and answers from prior harmless letters. With so many members of the class being so angry, I can't answer every question that you send. These letters will answer as many questions as possible, or two that I randomly choose as being harmless to my cause that are relevant to the entire oblivious class membership.
The most common question I receive every week relates to whether a particular person is included in this settlement. Unfortunately, I do not have that information, then again, maybe it's best I don't have that information. The settlement agreement provides general guidelines. But I also understand that many of you are still oblivious to the entire settlement agreement and still have questions. Thank you for your questions.
I hope someday to have an answer, after we've been paid for our time and service to all 20 of the Indians who overwhelmingly support me. Pay no attention to my tax records which are public and show that most weeks I only recorded to the IRS that I worked 2 hours a week for the organization which got grants to have me represent all the oblivious Indians in the pursuit of justice in this case. I will do my best to amend the records from 14 previous years that shows that we already paid for the financial services and the legal services of a few well known attorneys associated with this case.
Thanks for being an enrolled member which gave me numbers from which to claim I represent.
If no one answers any of the relevant questions of angry land owners please keep sending letters. We overwhelmingly welcome any letter, unfortunately we won't answer all of them or any that appear to be representing dissent from my opinion or my attorneys, ooops I mean our attorneys.
If you have a question, send an e-mail to someone. Otherwise you can send me a letter. To expedite the processing of your letters a contractor has set up a post office box in Ohio, smack dab in the middle of Indian Country! But I assure you I will see your letters. I just won't answer any that are too difficult to explain or that point out our shortcomings in representing the real overwhelming majority of you.
Thank you and keep your questions coming!
Best wishes for those expensive attorneys of mine
-your overwhelmingly best supporter
More articles are at the bottom of this page. Click here.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
COBELL SETTLEMENT IS A FAIR AND JUST SETTLEMENT...IN LA LA LAND.
The Cobell Settlement is a fair settlement a just settlement, in LA LA Land. (la la land: A state of mind characterized by unrealistic expectations or a lack of seriousness.)
Recently Barack Obama, Black Eagle, made the statement that the Cobell settlement was fair and just. Some have said that he was mistaken. It couldn't be; he wouldn't say that to the Indian faces throughout all the land. "Someone" should tell him the truth. "Someone" should have told him that he might have been confusing a fair and just settlement to the African American Farmers with the pile o'crap being served to the people who collectively adopted him. There are as many reasons Indians adopt someone into their Nations as there are Indian Nations. One of those reasons is so that when Indians have a problem, the Indians and adoptees alike share in those problems now. "Someone" should have let him know that since he's been adopted, the Indians' problems are now "our" problems together, he and us.
In a recent Indian Country Today article Richard Monette offered an explanation for why Black Eagle would utter such an insult to Indian people in public: “He’s either being duped, or he doesn’t know, and someone is intentionally not letting him know.” "Someone" sure gets a lot of blame to chew on enit?
In the same article Kimberly Craven posits that maybe Black Eagle is "totally unaware" that thousands of Indians are opposed to the settlement, "or if he is, he obviously doesn't care." Let's hope that Barack Obama, our Black Eagle, is just unaware because otherwise the possibilties get more and more depressing.
There are obvious differences between Land-less Indians and large land-based-Indians, between D.C. Indians and reservation Indians, between assimilated Indians and traditional Indians. If you are from an Indian Nation with 16 whole acres to call your reservation, you will have different perspectives from large-land-based-Indians. If your Indian Nation's boundaries are encompassed within 16 acres or in some cases, even less, you won't have the same needs. Land-less Indians won't have 19 file cabinets full of land titles. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why surveys and maps designating treaty agreements were lost. Land-less Indians aren't wondering when cadastral survey corner markers will be replaced. Back in the day like around the early 1900s surveyors used posts to mark legal corners. By posts we don't mean they buried a fencepost. They buried a 16 inch piece of fir pine with a marker on top which was either plowed under, removed, lost in flooding, or rotted away. Now to establish cadastral surveys those corners have to be re-established. They aren't necessarily done by measurement; they are "legally interpreted" by people who may be STATE-elected officials who may or may not be collecting land information for their government's use. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why every single proof of land transactions were either destroyed, lost, or hidden away in a cave in Lenexa, KS. Not hidden? Try identifying which box the document is in, which book it's in, and the title of the document which has changed drastically over the years. Then try to identify how many tribes are in the same book or ledger and which tribe the entire ledger is filed under. Landless Indians don't have a plethora of cultural sites they work ceaselessly to protect. Land-less Indians won't have a fisheries department with 25 employees. They won't have a forestry department. Land-less Indians won't have hundreds of land leases to negotiate each year. Land-less Indians won't have to wonder why nobody seeks justice for the thousands of trespasses that occur daily on our reservations. They won't have the responsibility for supporting an entire government's infrastructure. And that is primary reason number one why the mis-informed and the land-less indians will gladly accept a pittance of $1000 dollars. Something out of nothing for them and a continued "status quo" of the lack of treatment our Native land issues.
But if you're an Oklahoma Indian with a law degree, by god, you must know what you're doing. If you're that big toe to President Obama on Indian Issues, surely you must have thought that throwing a mere pittance of $1000 dollars to every IIM account holder will not fix anything. Surely an Indian Advisor by now would have advised to provide true justice by providing for free Cadastral Surveys by objective surveyors with no conflict of interest, free appraisals by the same token, free N.E.P.A. evaluations, and funding to support a true lease compliance staff to recover millions in reparations every year from every single trespass onto our lands. Only then would you begin to discuss individual payments.
Black Eagle really is an advocate; it's just that he's advocating for a group of African American Farmers to receive a just and fair settlement of $48,500 dollars per farmer, while the Indian people he's been adopted by will receive $1000 per account holder and a bonus of $500 dollars depending on how much money you can prove the government had their hands on; all while Elouise Cobell and her lawyer buddies will walk away with 116 million dollars.
For those of you keeping track that means Native Americans will each receive 3% of what each of the African American Farmers will receive, except for Elouise and Company. Indians will receive 3% of what African American farmers will receive for not getting loans on land that used to be Indian land. Indians will receive 3% of what African American Farmers will receive for decades and generations of mismanagement of trust responsibilities and lost revenues.
It's hard to find anybody in the White Puzzle Palace, Non-Indian and Indian alike, who will understand the real fallacy with using the words just and fair when discussing the Cobell settlement. One would have thought that a large land-based-Indian tribal member would have understood but after the comments by Jodi Gillette at ATNI, one wonders if the leadership has stars in their eyes from a position in life or if they're the ones confused about what a rip off the Cobell settlement will be. Elouise cobell has a national spotlight and uses it with vigor to proudly proclaim the thousands of Indians in support of her settlement. The thousands of Indians who in reality don't support her cannot access the press with any effect to show their disapproval. When the Nez Perce Members who signed their letter of support of the settlement tried to have their names removed from the list, they were told there was no way to remove their names by one of the Cobell staff members. If the thousands of Indians who truly understand what trust responsibilities have been mismanaged cannot gain the support of President Obama, then perhaps Black Eagle will find he doesn't have the support of those same thousands of Indians. The realization may come as a surprise and too late for Black Eagle to recover from. Maybe that's what it will take for those in leadership to realize how many are opposed to the settlement.
Who's really in La La land? Those who argue for the settlement or those Indians who are waiting for a truly fair and just settlement to appear?
Recently Barack Obama, Black Eagle, made the statement that the Cobell settlement was fair and just. Some have said that he was mistaken. It couldn't be; he wouldn't say that to the Indian faces throughout all the land. "Someone" should tell him the truth. "Someone" should have told him that he might have been confusing a fair and just settlement to the African American Farmers with the pile o'crap being served to the people who collectively adopted him. There are as many reasons Indians adopt someone into their Nations as there are Indian Nations. One of those reasons is so that when Indians have a problem, the Indians and adoptees alike share in those problems now. "Someone" should have let him know that since he's been adopted, the Indians' problems are now "our" problems together, he and us.
In a recent Indian Country Today article Richard Monette offered an explanation for why Black Eagle would utter such an insult to Indian people in public: “He’s either being duped, or he doesn’t know, and someone is intentionally not letting him know.” "Someone" sure gets a lot of blame to chew on enit?
In the same article Kimberly Craven posits that maybe Black Eagle is "totally unaware" that thousands of Indians are opposed to the settlement, "or if he is, he obviously doesn't care." Let's hope that Barack Obama, our Black Eagle, is just unaware because otherwise the possibilties get more and more depressing.
There are obvious differences between Land-less Indians and large land-based-Indians, between D.C. Indians and reservation Indians, between assimilated Indians and traditional Indians. If you are from an Indian Nation with 16 whole acres to call your reservation, you will have different perspectives from large-land-based-Indians. If your Indian Nation's boundaries are encompassed within 16 acres or in some cases, even less, you won't have the same needs. Land-less Indians won't have 19 file cabinets full of land titles. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why surveys and maps designating treaty agreements were lost. Land-less Indians aren't wondering when cadastral survey corner markers will be replaced. Back in the day like around the early 1900s surveyors used posts to mark legal corners. By posts we don't mean they buried a fencepost. They buried a 16 inch piece of fir pine with a marker on top which was either plowed under, removed, lost in flooding, or rotted away. Now to establish cadastral surveys those corners have to be re-established. They aren't necessarily done by measurement; they are "legally interpreted" by people who may be STATE-elected officials who may or may not be collecting land information for their government's use. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why every single proof of land transactions were either destroyed, lost, or hidden away in a cave in Lenexa, KS. Not hidden? Try identifying which box the document is in, which book it's in, and the title of the document which has changed drastically over the years. Then try to identify how many tribes are in the same book or ledger and which tribe the entire ledger is filed under. Landless Indians don't have a plethora of cultural sites they work ceaselessly to protect. Land-less Indians won't have a fisheries department with 25 employees. They won't have a forestry department. Land-less Indians won't have hundreds of land leases to negotiate each year. Land-less Indians won't have to wonder why nobody seeks justice for the thousands of trespasses that occur daily on our reservations. They won't have the responsibility for supporting an entire government's infrastructure. And that is primary reason number one why the mis-informed and the land-less indians will gladly accept a pittance of $1000 dollars. Something out of nothing for them and a continued "status quo" of the lack of treatment our Native land issues.
But if you're an Oklahoma Indian with a law degree, by god, you must know what you're doing. If you're that big toe to President Obama on Indian Issues, surely you must have thought that throwing a mere pittance of $1000 dollars to every IIM account holder will not fix anything. Surely an Indian Advisor by now would have advised to provide true justice by providing for free Cadastral Surveys by objective surveyors with no conflict of interest, free appraisals by the same token, free N.E.P.A. evaluations, and funding to support a true lease compliance staff to recover millions in reparations every year from every single trespass onto our lands. Only then would you begin to discuss individual payments.
Black Eagle really is an advocate; it's just that he's advocating for a group of African American Farmers to receive a just and fair settlement of $48,500 dollars per farmer, while the Indian people he's been adopted by will receive $1000 per account holder and a bonus of $500 dollars depending on how much money you can prove the government had their hands on; all while Elouise Cobell and her lawyer buddies will walk away with 116 million dollars.
For those of you keeping track that means Native Americans will each receive 3% of what each of the African American Farmers will receive, except for Elouise and Company. Indians will receive 3% of what African American farmers will receive for not getting loans on land that used to be Indian land. Indians will receive 3% of what African American Farmers will receive for decades and generations of mismanagement of trust responsibilities and lost revenues.
It's hard to find anybody in the White Puzzle Palace, Non-Indian and Indian alike, who will understand the real fallacy with using the words just and fair when discussing the Cobell settlement. One would have thought that a large land-based-Indian tribal member would have understood but after the comments by Jodi Gillette at ATNI, one wonders if the leadership has stars in their eyes from a position in life or if they're the ones confused about what a rip off the Cobell settlement will be. Elouise cobell has a national spotlight and uses it with vigor to proudly proclaim the thousands of Indians in support of her settlement. The thousands of Indians who in reality don't support her cannot access the press with any effect to show their disapproval. When the Nez Perce Members who signed their letter of support of the settlement tried to have their names removed from the list, they were told there was no way to remove their names by one of the Cobell staff members. If the thousands of Indians who truly understand what trust responsibilities have been mismanaged cannot gain the support of President Obama, then perhaps Black Eagle will find he doesn't have the support of those same thousands of Indians. The realization may come as a surprise and too late for Black Eagle to recover from. Maybe that's what it will take for those in leadership to realize how many are opposed to the settlement.
Who's really in La La land? Those who argue for the settlement or those Indians who are waiting for a truly fair and just settlement to appear?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Cobell Settlement gets worse and worse
The Opinion Piece in Indian Country Today, Eagle Woman: The Cobell Settlement is a great wrong to Indian people, further and more eloquently explains a lot of what is wrong with the Cobell Settlement. Angelique has simplified the facts, making it easy for everyone from legislators to Indian land owners to agree that the settlement as it stands is not even a slight shadow of what is owed. Nor is the current settlement one that should be allowed. It is a common sentiment among land owners that Eloise Cobell should not accept anything less than what all of us receive. There is now yet another refined explanation for why the settlement should not proceed further which all Indians should communicate to their senators in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and their nearby states.
Kimberly Craven and multiple others are speaking as Angelique Eagle Woman is: on behalf of Indian land owners. These ladies' articulate articles have become reasonable assumptions that what is on the table now is not acceptable, nor should oblivious Indian land owners be counted as support for this settlement. That the Cobell team went looking for support from tribal members is obvious; what is not so obvious is the fact that nothing was presented at her team's meetings with land owners that objectively presented all the facts. As one tribal member said after a recent meeting with the Cobell team, all he heard was pro settlement; he never heard the cons. Based on the skewed presentation, land owners whose tribes are not even part of the class action lawsuit, were fooled into signing petitions of support.
Now Angelique Eagle Woman has presented what is yet another article explaining why Indian land owners would once again be short-shrifted if the Cobell Settlement proceeds. Thanks to Angelique Eagle Woman, Kimberly Craven and the multiple other advocates is appropriate-as they have made obvious how disastrous this settlement could be. One would hope that President Obama's lead Indian policy advisor, Kim Teehee, is there to pick up the load from here.
It would be even more fortuitous if Congress listened to these two ladies and the rest of our advocates, whose explanations truly show that the Elouise Cobell Settlement is wrong.
Kimberly Craven and multiple others are speaking as Angelique Eagle Woman is: on behalf of Indian land owners. These ladies' articulate articles have become reasonable assumptions that what is on the table now is not acceptable, nor should oblivious Indian land owners be counted as support for this settlement. That the Cobell team went looking for support from tribal members is obvious; what is not so obvious is the fact that nothing was presented at her team's meetings with land owners that objectively presented all the facts. As one tribal member said after a recent meeting with the Cobell team, all he heard was pro settlement; he never heard the cons. Based on the skewed presentation, land owners whose tribes are not even part of the class action lawsuit, were fooled into signing petitions of support.
Now Angelique Eagle Woman has presented what is yet another article explaining why Indian land owners would once again be short-shrifted if the Cobell Settlement proceeds. Thanks to Angelique Eagle Woman, Kimberly Craven and the multiple other advocates is appropriate-as they have made obvious how disastrous this settlement could be. One would hope that President Obama's lead Indian policy advisor, Kim Teehee, is there to pick up the load from here.
It would be even more fortuitous if Congress listened to these two ladies and the rest of our advocates, whose explanations truly show that the Elouise Cobell Settlement is wrong.
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
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
An Administration's task
I am sitting here wondering who the next Special Trustee will be for the Office of Special Trustee. I'm already wondering who will replace Ross Swimmer. I'm wondering where Donna Erwin will go. I'm wondering where Doug and Jeff Lords will go. I'm hoping that the Carl Artman replacement will stay longer than it takes to confirm him. I'm hoping Majel Russell continues to do good things for Indian Country in any place but the Bureau of Indian Affairs Offices (which by the way are inside of Wash. D.C.). Who will President Elect Barack Obama appoint to replace all of them?
I'm hoping that somebody will finally hear what we've been saying for so long. Heck way back in 1999 even Senator Larry Craig had a good idea. So some of his time was well spent wherever he thought this quote up as reported in '99 on FCW.com by L. Scott Tillett:
"...Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned whether the management of the funds "really belongs within the government."
"There are no excuses. There should be no excuses," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Many companies manage trust funds without so much as "a dime" out of place, Craig said.
"Why can't we be smart enough to hire the right people to do the job?"
At issue is nearly $2.4 billion in money that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cannot accurately account for, although Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said it has not been stolen."
Amen to the words from Larry Craig back then. And then I wonder what Bruce Babbitt meant when he said the 2.4 billion wasn't stolen? That must have meant that he knew where it was. If it wasn't accounted for, then how do you know it wasn't stolen? It must have meant that Bruce Babbitt knew it was being "borrowed." It wasn't stolen so what other excuse is there? Borrowed to pay down government debts, which they now say is not a measurable benefit when Eloise Cobell asks where all the unaccounted for funds are at.
And the management of the [trust] funds: didn't belong within the government? Thanks Frank, but the loss from hundreds of years of mismanagement should have been straightened out before the government decided to get out of the trust fund mis-management.
So who does President Elect Obama appoint to Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2009? Who does he appoint to replace Ross Swimmer and Donna Erwin at the Office of Special Trustee in 2009? Who does he appoint who can accept the resignation of Doug and Jeff Lords? Who can say?
The only thing I would hope for is that it isn't a self serving Coal Chairman (wonder where Ross will go?) or a golf-happy trio (they need a fourth to tee off) that gets left at Office of Special Trustee. My hope is in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to cleaning office at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee in 2009.
I would hope like Senator Larry Craig said in 1999, that we're now "smart enough to hire the right people to do the job."
“The soul of Indian Country is at stake”
-Sally Willet from the Missoulian,
Administrative Law Judge
and Indian Land Working Group consultant
I'm hoping that somebody will finally hear what we've been saying for so long. Heck way back in 1999 even Senator Larry Craig had a good idea. So some of his time was well spent wherever he thought this quote up as reported in '99 on FCW.com by L. Scott Tillett:
"...Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned whether the management of the funds "really belongs within the government."
"There are no excuses. There should be no excuses," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Many companies manage trust funds without so much as "a dime" out of place, Craig said.
"Why can't we be smart enough to hire the right people to do the job?"
At issue is nearly $2.4 billion in money that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cannot accurately account for, although Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said it has not been stolen."
Amen to the words from Larry Craig back then. And then I wonder what Bruce Babbitt meant when he said the 2.4 billion wasn't stolen? That must have meant that he knew where it was. If it wasn't accounted for, then how do you know it wasn't stolen? It must have meant that Bruce Babbitt knew it was being "borrowed." It wasn't stolen so what other excuse is there? Borrowed to pay down government debts, which they now say is not a measurable benefit when Eloise Cobell asks where all the unaccounted for funds are at.
And the management of the [trust] funds: didn't belong within the government? Thanks Frank, but the loss from hundreds of years of mismanagement should have been straightened out before the government decided to get out of the trust fund mis-management.
So who does President Elect Obama appoint to Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2009? Who does he appoint to replace Ross Swimmer and Donna Erwin at the Office of Special Trustee in 2009? Who does he appoint who can accept the resignation of Doug and Jeff Lords? Who can say?
The only thing I would hope for is that it isn't a self serving Coal Chairman (wonder where Ross will go?) or a golf-happy trio (they need a fourth to tee off) that gets left at Office of Special Trustee. My hope is in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to cleaning office at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee in 2009.
I would hope like Senator Larry Craig said in 1999, that we're now "smart enough to hire the right people to do the job."
“The soul of Indian Country is at stake”
-Sally Willet from the Missoulian,
Administrative Law Judge
and Indian Land Working Group consultant
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Another American Indian Tribal Chairman Arrested by Police?
Another arrest warrant for a sitting American Indian Tribal Chairman?
First Eugene Little Coyote was arrested (December 28, 2007) when he resumed duties as Tribal President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after his Tribe's Constitutional Court ruled that he was indeed still President after a failed attempt to oust him from office. It was a contentious issue and the Council appears to have been divided for what some have called jealousy and others may believe that it is over the Natural Resource over which the Tribe's land sits: Coal Bed Methane. The largest untapped CBM reserve in the United States.
Now, in October 2008, we have Ben Nuvamsa of the Hopi Tribe who is under threat of arrest for apparently resuming his daily legal duty as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. What Tribal Court would arrest the Chairman? I'm of the opinion that they might impeach him, they might rule against his decisions, but arrest him? Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa despite being from opposite north and south ends of the United States of America might share crib notes and come up with the same conclusion. It isn't easy being on top, so whatever your reason, stick to it.
It is unfortunate though--unfortunate that the environment is what is most likely to take the hit for all the misgivings of our activities.
It's unfortunate that the Dirty Percaps have raised their head again as well. You know my concept of dirty percaps is where you keep the Native American populations poor enough so that they'll jump at the opportunity to make relatively little money off of what you want to mine, to exploit, to become rich over.
Mining jobs. Yes they make money. The economic multiplier from every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy.
You will do well to note the previous statements and consider their implications. I said that Natives could make "relatively little money" and "every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy." The money made is relatively little COMPARED to the money that Peabody Coal is making by feeding a really minor fraction of what is made toward the paychecks. "Every Dollar spent from those paychecks" means that the rest of the money, the big money, the money paid by foreign companies ends up in the corporate accounts and is spent wherever the corporate leaders happen to live. How much money? Well on their own site they quote a figure of $4.6 billion in revenues, and that their coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. Wow! Say, uh, where did they get that much coal?
They don't get rich by making others rich, who does? But they'll get by on the Hopi Reservation by providing a decent paying job to a few people. Is that really all they should give? Understandably, they provide the means to the market, but I tend to agree with Carl Venne of the Crow Tribe and Ben Nuvamsa, that the days of leasing are over. Carl Venne is making headway toward owning the mining process up north. "Equity Ownership is what we want," said Ben Nuvamsa in the October 29 issue of Indian Country today article 'Black Mesa Project Controversey Rises.' I hope that the eyes of all Indian Country see what that means.
I am not a big fan of destroying the water table anywhere, with polluting the entire railway (it does happen and then later has to be capped to be used and to prevent further pollution from whatever was on the trains), with coal and what it does to the environment. I guess it has to happen, but at what cost? If the case is to be made that it should be utilized then don't take what amounts to pennies on the dollar. It isn't that I encourage people to get rich off coal, but in the absence of any alternative efforts at providing subsistence to your people, own the process. Do not lease it because the longer you lease the resource right, the more the leasee makes, and like a well-fed stray dog, they do get more comfortable with coming back for more helpings year after year after year.
Do companies need to mine resources? Of course. Do they need to do it on a reservation? Of course they do--if you ask them. Do Natives need to LEASE the resource right off the rez? No.
If this is going to cost the health of the land, make all the money you can so you can repair it. Now this Peabody coal is making enough to apparently "restore" mining sites in Indiana, so they obviously have a lot of money. Where are they getting it? I'll bet from all the mines they extract from. How much is really going back into the reservations where they operate? When the mine is gone, what is left? What is really sustainable that the mine is leaving behind? And how much are they making off the resource extracted from Indian Land?
I would hope that in the interest of the environment, the greatest thinkers in Indian Country would come up with alternatives to these people who tear up the earth and leave it like an open scab and then walk away.
Then again, Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa and Carl Venne may be those great thinkers each with a different solution. Ultimately, the solution should come from their tribes. So for now we'll hope that Ben Nuvamsa doesn't fall victim to the same hand cuffs that bound Eugene Little Coyote. None of us can say what the best solution for them is. Only their respective tribes can.
Just keep your eyes open on your reservation when the corporate interests come knocking on your door. Don't let the $20 dollar-an-hour paycheck (dirty percaps) sway your opinion from what you and your heritage originally stood for before somebody put a dollar sign on your environment.
First Eugene Little Coyote was arrested (December 28, 2007) when he resumed duties as Tribal President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after his Tribe's Constitutional Court ruled that he was indeed still President after a failed attempt to oust him from office. It was a contentious issue and the Council appears to have been divided for what some have called jealousy and others may believe that it is over the Natural Resource over which the Tribe's land sits: Coal Bed Methane. The largest untapped CBM reserve in the United States.
Now, in October 2008, we have Ben Nuvamsa of the Hopi Tribe who is under threat of arrest for apparently resuming his daily legal duty as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. What Tribal Court would arrest the Chairman? I'm of the opinion that they might impeach him, they might rule against his decisions, but arrest him? Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa despite being from opposite north and south ends of the United States of America might share crib notes and come up with the same conclusion. It isn't easy being on top, so whatever your reason, stick to it.
It is unfortunate though--unfortunate that the environment is what is most likely to take the hit for all the misgivings of our activities.
It's unfortunate that the Dirty Percaps have raised their head again as well. You know my concept of dirty percaps is where you keep the Native American populations poor enough so that they'll jump at the opportunity to make relatively little money off of what you want to mine, to exploit, to become rich over.
Mining jobs. Yes they make money. The economic multiplier from every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy.
You will do well to note the previous statements and consider their implications. I said that Natives could make "relatively little money" and "every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy." The money made is relatively little COMPARED to the money that Peabody Coal is making by feeding a really minor fraction of what is made toward the paychecks. "Every Dollar spent from those paychecks" means that the rest of the money, the big money, the money paid by foreign companies ends up in the corporate accounts and is spent wherever the corporate leaders happen to live. How much money? Well on their own site they quote a figure of $4.6 billion in revenues, and that their coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. Wow! Say, uh, where did they get that much coal?
They don't get rich by making others rich, who does? But they'll get by on the Hopi Reservation by providing a decent paying job to a few people. Is that really all they should give? Understandably, they provide the means to the market, but I tend to agree with Carl Venne of the Crow Tribe and Ben Nuvamsa, that the days of leasing are over. Carl Venne is making headway toward owning the mining process up north. "Equity Ownership is what we want," said Ben Nuvamsa in the October 29 issue of Indian Country today article 'Black Mesa Project Controversey Rises.' I hope that the eyes of all Indian Country see what that means.
I am not a big fan of destroying the water table anywhere, with polluting the entire railway (it does happen and then later has to be capped to be used and to prevent further pollution from whatever was on the trains), with coal and what it does to the environment. I guess it has to happen, but at what cost? If the case is to be made that it should be utilized then don't take what amounts to pennies on the dollar. It isn't that I encourage people to get rich off coal, but in the absence of any alternative efforts at providing subsistence to your people, own the process. Do not lease it because the longer you lease the resource right, the more the leasee makes, and like a well-fed stray dog, they do get more comfortable with coming back for more helpings year after year after year.
Do companies need to mine resources? Of course. Do they need to do it on a reservation? Of course they do--if you ask them. Do Natives need to LEASE the resource right off the rez? No.
If this is going to cost the health of the land, make all the money you can so you can repair it. Now this Peabody coal is making enough to apparently "restore" mining sites in Indiana, so they obviously have a lot of money. Where are they getting it? I'll bet from all the mines they extract from. How much is really going back into the reservations where they operate? When the mine is gone, what is left? What is really sustainable that the mine is leaving behind? And how much are they making off the resource extracted from Indian Land?
I would hope that in the interest of the environment, the greatest thinkers in Indian Country would come up with alternatives to these people who tear up the earth and leave it like an open scab and then walk away.
Then again, Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa and Carl Venne may be those great thinkers each with a different solution. Ultimately, the solution should come from their tribes. So for now we'll hope that Ben Nuvamsa doesn't fall victim to the same hand cuffs that bound Eugene Little Coyote. None of us can say what the best solution for them is. Only their respective tribes can.
Just keep your eyes open on your reservation when the corporate interests come knocking on your door. Don't let the $20 dollar-an-hour paycheck (dirty percaps) sway your opinion from what you and your heritage originally stood for before somebody put a dollar sign on your environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
