Tribal representation in the federal government has long been criticized for a lack of native consultation and a failure to take Native tribes seriously as true sovereign nations. Over the past few months, tensions between Native organizations and the Department of Interior (DOI) have grown to historically high levels as hopes for meaningful reform have turned sour.
The Department of Interior has been drafting plans to reform its Indian Trust service for several years. After many failed attempts, the department organized a taskforce in early 2002 consisting of several senior department officials who were to meet with two tribal leaders from each of the twelve Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) regions over the next twelve months to discuss possible reforms. After the meetings took place, the DOI published the Comprehensive Trust Management Plan (CTM), on March 28, 2003, outlining its plans to reorganize its services. According to the document, the Plan’s goals include:
-
1. Beneficiary services that are trusted, accurate and responsive
2. Tribal self-governance and self-determination that increases participation in managing assets
3. Ownership information that is accurate, timely, and reliable
4. Land and natural resources management that maximizes return while meeting desires of beneficiaries.
5. Trust fund assets management that meets fiduciary principles
6. Administrative services that:
A. enable and empower the organization and workforce to be an effective fiduciary trustee, and
B. provide modern, appropriate systems and tools to manage the fiduciary trust.
In order to accomplish these goals, a number of bureaus are to be rearranged with the addition of high-level bureaucrats in Washington D.C. and more agents working in the field.
One of the most controversial proposals is the department’s intention to beef up the Office of Special Trustee (OST) with as many as 100 new employees and a budget increase from $152 million to $275 million. Most tribal leaders had expected department reforms to shrink or dissolve the organization which, in their view, has grossly outgrown its purpose since its inception as a two-person office in 1994.
Though the CTM explains that the taskforce for tribal consultation did not reach a consensus on draft legislation, it says that, “It did reveal the desires of the tribes regarding the kind of reorganization that would both strengthen trust functions and meet the beneficiaries’ needs.” It goes on to describe specific points upon which the taskforce agreed to recommend to Congress, including the creation of an Undersecretary for Indian Affairs, the establishment of a Director of Trust Accountability to report directly to the Undersecretary, and a restructuring of the BIA.
Although the CTM highlights these alleged agreements reached between policy makers and Natives, several tribal leaders insist that last year’s talks actually accomplished very little. Over the past month, Native organizations have expressed little but outrage at the Department’s plans and lack of Native consultation. The Navajo Nation, the United States’ largest Indian nation, has expressed harsh criticism of the department and is expected to file an injunction in an attempt to halt the reforms. In a June 5 memo to 20th Council Speaker Lawrence Morgan, Government Services Committee Chair Ervin Keeswood Sr. outlined the Navajo Nation’s chief concerns regarding proposed changes. According to the Gallup Independent, the Navajo’s five points include:
- The Navajo Nation president and/or council must be involved in the federal selection of the BIA’s region and agency directors.
- Indian preference in employment must be used for all BIA jobs.
- Navajo preference in employment must be enforced in all Navajo region BIA jobs.
- The authorities of the region and agency directors must be specifically stated in Norton’s reorganization manual.
- The authorities of the region and agency directors to make decisions for the region must be specifically stated in the manual.
Not one of these demands is met in the CTM.
The Navajo contend that instead of reorganizing the BIA to facilitate better interaction with the peoples it is meant to serve, the DOI has only created a larger, more complicated hierarchy for an already out of touch system. Morgan was quoted by the Gallup Independent as saying, “The BIA is being reorganized under the false impression that these changes will benefit the Navajo people. I think it’s pretty obvious that the concerns of the Navajo people have been greatly ignored.” The only way to achieve the recognition they deserve as true sovereign nations, tribal leaders contend, is to elevate the BIA to cabinet-level departmental status, making it equal in level to the DOI. This however cannot be done by the DOI alone; it legally requires an act of Congress.
The department is presently under extra scrutiny in an ongoing court case that could halt reorganization plans altogether. In 1999, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled against the government in a class-action suit filed by Elouis Cobell and other Native Americans who claimed that DOI mismanagement had cost them billions of dollars. Lamberth is currently overseeing a case to determine whether or not the Department is now capable of managing the trust funds. Cobell argues that the funds should instead be handed over to private receivers. Lamberth has already expressed doubt as to whether the Department’s proposed changes will help, leaving many wondering what will become of the BIA and OST if Lamberth rules them unfit to handle the funds.
Despite the ongoing controversy, the BIA pressed ahead, holding the first of twelve meetings on June 6 in Albuquerque, NM to inform local tribal leaders of the proposed changes. Government representatives were criticized for dodging questions and failing to offer any concrete plans during the meeting. Of chief concern was the question of where, exactly, the money will come from for the creation of several new high-level positions and the expansion of the OST. Tribal leaders expressed fears that it will be taken from their allotments, but the question remained unanswered.
At the final information session held June 27, Montana and Wyoming tribes walked out on department officials after reading aloud a Formal Tribal Consensus Statement addressed to DOI Secretary Gale Norton. The consensus cited lack of consultation and failure to be taken seriously as sovereign entities as grounds for opposition. The document also calls for a National Convention of Sovereign Tribes and President Bush to discuss future government-to-government relations.
These concerns led the National Conference of American Indians (NCAI) and Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. to organize an intertribal summit at the Gila River Reservation in Arizona on June 14. Speakers at the historic “One Voice for Change” summit aired frustrations with the DOI and the ongoing reorganization of the BIA. Some went as far as to call for the disbandment of the Bureau to allow Native leaders to deal directly with Congress and the White House.
The summit took place the day before the NCAI’s annual weeklong mid-year conference, also at Gila River. Acting head of the BIA Aurene Martin surprised members of the country’s oldest and largest intertribal organization with her presence there, which ended an unofficial six-month BIA boycott of the NCAI following a major dispute between the two organizations last year.
This peace offering, however, might be too little, too late as American indigenous peoples’ frustration with their lack of adequate representation in the federal government reaches unprecedented heights.
Department of the Interior. Comprehensive Trust Management Plan, March 28, 2003, p.19. Available: http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/pdf/doi_trust_management_plan.pdf
Department of the Interior. Comprehensive Trust Management Plan, March 28, 2003, p.52. Available: http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/pdf/doi_trust_management_plan.pdf
Maniaci, Jim. “Dine may seek injunction on BIA reorganization.” The Gallup Independent, June 7, 2003
Maniaci, Jim. “Dine may seek injunction on BIA reorganization.” The Gallup Independent, June 7, 2003
