The poorest of the poor.

I listened to a human rights activist, whose heart is in the right place speak about some work he was doing in Africa. He said when he got there he was continually surprised to see the local population was always happy, always smiling, even though they had very little in material means.

My question then is, why would you change that? If they really are happy having school under a tree, why would you give them a modern building with doors that separate classes, separate cultural mentors from younger children, separate the student from the environment?

And then I reflect on how the reservation effects affected many of our tribal nations. The Navajo lost much of their culture when they were put in houses with separate rooms separated by doors. What was once a family classroom 24 hours a day in a one room hogan, was replaced by a "modern" house which instilled that "this room is mine, and this house is my family's, and this is our food in our refrigerator.

The Nisqually Indian Tribe were already in houses. So while reservations were made to centralize most other Indians, the U.S. Government created the Nisqually Indian Reservation and then gave them houses because they were too close, so while the effect was to herd up plains Indians, it was also to spread out other coastal tribes.

And now here we sit today and place values on the crops we cultivate on our reservations. Only, "we" is an appraiser contracted by the Office of Special Trustee to come in here with no exposure to a closed tribal market and place a S.W.A.G. (scientific wild ass guess) on the value of our land, our crops, our leases, our timber, our resources lost as a result of rights of way, and easements.

Now my only caution to any of you is that when you take an appraisal from the Office of Special Trustee, take the appraisal and neatly file it away in a quiet, secluded, dark corner, locked away for eternity.

An appraisal is the MINIMUM AMOUNT YOU SHOULD BE GETTING, NOT THE STANDARD! Think about it. Ever bought land? When you did, did you ask if the land had been appraised? Of course you did, because that is the maximum amount you wanted to pay. If you're a savvy buyer, then you pick the property apart to refute or even LOWER the amount you will offer to below the appraised value.

Ever looked at land to sell and wondered how to increase the appraised value if you were selling? Of course you did! You knew the appraised value held some value because it will be used against you. You will want your appraised value to be as high as possible because you know that a buyer will hedge against that value.

If you're sneaky, you don't get an appraisal, and sell to a unwitting buyer who either has a lot of money to throw away or has the credit line to swallow your enthusiastic selling attempt.

So, when your reservation gets a reservation wide appraisal, glance at the amount that land is going for, but don't stare at it. We don't want to get used to that amount. We want to actually NEGOTIATE like we mean it. If all else fails let BIA tell everyone that the lease meets the appraisal quote, like Gerald Ben said they do in this article on The Authentic Voice.

Gerald said, "The only thing the bureau has to do is make sure the rate meets the minimum approved rate."

hmmmm....would that minimum rate be the APPRAISED QUOTE? Hmmm?

That doesn't sound like much of a negotiation does it? Well let's hope that Gerald Ben isn't the one "negotiating" for your best lease on your land. As a matter of fact, lets hope that more tribal members are empowered with knowledge so that like Ernestine Werelus, we all negotiate the most advantageous leases from an obviously lucrative resource that all tribes share in common, the land.

And yet, he challenges us to question appraisals: at an ITMA Listening Conference at Wild Horse Resort in 2004, he responded to...
...a question from the audience about appraisals showing Indian land as less valuable than off-reservation land, Gerald Ben stated that if a landowner has questions about an appraisal, “ask them to come back and explain to you so you know for yourself that what you sold your property for was really what it was worth.” He said that the BIA is trying to get local appraisers how know the reservation to work on contract so that appraisals can be done more quickly.

But then he would never question the fact that BIA sends out requests for Authority for BIA to negotiate your leases for you; insted the BIA will merely sign off on leases that went to bid, with no respect to the the minimum approved rate because it is "in your best interest," according to 25 CFR.

And they smile at us at every conference, at every public engagement. They smile at fellow Indians whose leases rob them of the chance to be prosperous.

I would think that much like our fellow human beings in Africa, we'd be better smilers too if we had far less to deal with. Let me live on the land, let me be poor, just don't let someone else profit at my expense--it makes me feel abused. I guess my thanks for that feeling go to my friends, my fellow human beings, my fellow tribal members at the BIA who fail to speak up for me and for all tribal people. Don't feel guilty, just act for me, act for my aunties, my cousins, your relatives.

Restore the smiles we all had wayyy back when.

A penney for your appraisal

For today's discussion I will be drawing information from the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which is located on the appraisal foundation's web page. Now, there a few things you need to know when a firm is contracted to perform a reservation-wide appraisal to determine leasing stipulations.

Appraisals for Tribes/reservations are located under the Office of Special Trustee, office of appraisal services.


Now, you should also know that when an reservation-wide appraisal is performed, that office is also the "Client," not the actual tribe where the reservation-wide appraisal is done. So any requests for information must be done through the Office of Special Trustee's office of appraisal services. Ahhh, therein lies the ugliness of the process.

I looked at a reservation wide appraisal, and at first I was surprised at the fact that they sampled 15 different farming operations for determining fair value for leases. Unfortunately, the appraisal firm forgot to tell everybody that they were only talking to 6 farmers in all actuality. This meant that when questioned for fair market value, each farmer would get two votes for their 1/4, 3/4 crop share lease plan. 3 farmers would get three votes to cast for leases more favorable for them. That is an important omission of fact in my book. Now maybe it is not an "error of omission" as the USPAP would see it, but it is an omission never-the-less.

Now before you assume that I am being harsh, you should also know that I called the appraisal firm up to ask where they got their information to back up their recommendation that the leases should be 1/4, 3/4. Currently leases on the reservation usually go for 1/3, 2/3. Instead of calling me back, they called the office of appraisal services, because they are the client of the appraisal firm, not the tribe. We never did get an answer on this subject. I recommend to all land owners that if they want 1/3, 2/3 crop share then that is what they should ask for and if the farmers give their usual excuse that times are hard and they can't afford to pay 1/3, 2/3, then be fair and ask the farmer to open his books up to show that. Prove that 1/3, 2/3 is too much. So far, no farmers have opened their books. And neither did the appraisal firm that performed the appraisal. They can make recommendations to the Office of Special Trustee which they will use to tell BIA how much leases should go for, but they can't tell the tribe how they got that conclusion. That is hardly in the true essence of "employing those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal;" That would be standard 1-1 a for those of you following in the good book of USPAP. Credible means offering reasonable grounds for being believed according to a dictionary definition. I would like to believe the appraisal firm, but just show me one time how you came to your conclusion when you never interviewed any objective source.

Another strange thing is that Idaho is a non-disclosure state. So how did the appraisal firm come to their conclusion? If they used available information to come to their conclusion, lets all take a look at it. Because if not, then it could fall under the color of a secret hand shake. Now listen to that carefully. It's not that all appraisal firms work in collusion with farmers to screw the tribes. It just looks that way for now. It is that their process cannot be independently substantiated by the tribes who will later be regulated by their decision. It is that their process, especially in my case, will be advantageous to the local farmers, and not to the tribal Land Owners.

You see they can't have it both ways. The appraisal firms use farmer-fed-suggestions to arrive at a new leasing recommendation that the tribes must comply with, but they don't give the tribes any due process to refute these alleged facts, to have the real facts disclosed by farmers (open them books up!), to negotiate fair leases. I am not a fan of non-disclosure rules and apparently neither are a fair share of other people whose states are a changin' their ways.

A good read for realtors, appraisers, people interested in knowing how hard your realtor will work for you, and tribes would be Freakanomics. It is especially enlightening to the effects that knowing the secret price has on the sale of your property.

Now, what is the fix? How do we make this objective? Can everybody be happy? I don't know about happy. But then that should concern people. Why is it many farmers are so happy and so many tribal members are very unhappy with their leases? (or in many cases oblivious to the whole process)

The fix, is to have farmers back up their claims with an opening of their accounting books. Let's see where their money is really going. If it was so un-profitable, why do they keep coming back? We won't change the non-disclosure any time soon. So make them open their books. Not much else is going to change either so let's put the tribes on the contract as a co-client. Office of Special trustee should give tribes due process.

Ah, now you're thinking that tribes should just ask for this now anyways. Interesting, so that works in all situations except where BIA offices handle the leasing provisions for the tribes.

My friend Ron in the CFEDs program needed to hear that the tribes will not necessarily know things similar to this are happening, just like they don't know about the CFEDS appraiser selection process, and even if they are handling their own leasing office, they won't know in all situations that they should have some recourse. They won't understand how the process works enough to stand up and ask for their rights to be restored. The tribes have a right to be objectively, and culturally regulated and have leases negotiated by the BIA, with OST that defer to the landowners' determination that the lease is in their best interest, to the maximum extent possible.

Go forth and do not concquer, simply cooperate, and if you don't get cooperation, stand your line until they come to the line prepared to offer everything contained in the term fiduciary responsiblity.