Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1103353
label
American Indian Policy Review Commission
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1103353
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
American Indian Policy Review Commission
citationUrl
collections
Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)
Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files
subjects
Indians of North America
Independent regulatory commissions
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1103353
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-01-01
month
1
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
55ca72fc3614be0f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "American Indian Policy Review
Commission" of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 1 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Public Law 93-580
93rd Congress, S. J. Res. 133
January 2, 1975
Joint Resolution
To provide for the establishment of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission.
CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS
The Congress, after careful review of the Federal Government's
25 USC 174
historical and special legal relationship with American Indian people,
note.
finds that-
(a) the policy implementing this relationship has shifted and
changed with changing administrations and passing years, with-
out apparent rational design and without a consistent goal to
achieve Indian self-sufficiency;
(b) there has been no general comprehensive review of conduct
of Indian affairs by the United States nor a coherent investigation
of the many problems and issues involved in the conduct of Indian
affairs since the 1928 Meriam Report conducted by the Institute
for Government Research; and
(c) in carrying out its responsibilities under its plenary power
over Indian affairs, it is imperative that the Congress now cause
such a comprehensive review of Indian affairs to be conducted.
DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
Congress declares that it is timely and essential to conduct a com-
prehensive review of the historical and legal developments underlying
the Indians' unique relationship with the Federal Government in
order to determine the nature and scope of necessary revisions in the
formulation of policies and programs for the benefit of Indians.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That-
American In-
(a) In order to carry out the purposes described in the preamble
dian Policy
hereof and as further set out herein, there is hereby created the Amer-
Review Com-
ican Indian Policy Review Commission, hereinafter referred to as the
mission.
"Commission".
Establishment
25 USC 174
(b) The Commission shall be composed of eleven members, as
note,
follows:
Membership.
(1) three Members of the Senate appointed by the President
pro tempore of the Senate, two from the majority party and one
from the minority party;
(2) three Members of the House of Representatives appointed
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two from the
majority party and one from the minority party; and
(3) five Indian members as provided in subsection (c) of this
section.
88 STAT. 1910
(c) At its organization meeting, the members of the Commission
88 STAT. 1911
appointed pursuant to section (b) (1) and (b) (2) of this section shall
elect from among their members a Chairman and a Vice Chairman.
Immediately thereafter. such members shall select, by majority vote,
five Indian members of the Commission from the Indian community,
as follows:
(1) three members shall be selected from Indian tribes that
are recognized by the Federal Government;
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
(2) one member shall be selected to represent urban Indians;
and
(3) one member shall be selected who is a member of an Indian
group not recognized by the Federal Government.
Pub. Law 93-580
- 2 -
January 2, 1975
None of the Indian members shall be employees of the Federal
Government concurrently with their term of service on the Commis-
sion nor shall there be more than one member from any one Indian
tribe.
Vacancies.
(d) Vacancies in the membership of the Commission shall not affect
the power of the remaining members to execute the functions of the
Commission and shall be filled in the same manner as in the case of
the original appointment.
(e) Six members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but
a smaller number, as determined by the Commission, may conduct
hearings: Provided, That at least one congressional member must be
present at any Commission hearing.
(f) Members of the Congress who are members of the Commission
shall serve without any compensation other than that received for
their services as Members of Congress, but they may be reimbursed
for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them
in the performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(g) The Indian members of the Commission shall receive compen-
sation for each day such members are engaged in the actual perform-
ance of duties vested in the Commission at a daily rate not to exceed
the daily equivalent of the maximum annual compensation that may
be paid to employees of the United States Senate generally. Each such
member may be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence.
Investigation
SEC. 2. It shall be the duty of the Commission to make a compre-
and study.
hensive investigation and study of Indian affairs and the scope of
25 USC 174
such duty shall include, but shall not be limited to-
note.
(1) a study and analysis of the Constitution, treaties, statutes,
judicial interpretations, and Executive orders to determine the
attributes of the unique relationship between the Federal Govern-
ment and Indian tribes and the land and other resources they
possess;
(2) a review of the policies, practices, and structure of the
Federal agencies charged with protecting Indian resources and
providing services to Indians: Provided, That such review shall
include a management study of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
utilizing experts from the public and private sector;
(3) an examination of the statutes and procedures for granting
Federal recognition and extending services to Indian communi-
ties and individuals;
(4) the collection and compilation of data necessary to under-
stand the extent of Indian needs which presently exist or will
exist in the near future;
(5) an exploration of the feasibility of alternative elective
bodies which could fully represent Indians at the national level
of Government to provide Indians with maximum participation
88 STAT. 1911
in policy formation and program development;
88 STAT. 1912
(6) a consideration of alternative methods to strengthen tribal
government SO that the tribes might fully represent their members
and, at the same time, guarantee the fundamental rights of indi-
vidual Indians; and
(7) the recommendation of such modification of existing laws,
procedures. regulations. policies, and practices as will, in the
judgment of the Commission, best serve to carry out the policy
and declaration of purposes as set out above.
January 2, 1975
- 3 -
Pub. Law 93-580
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
SEC. 3. (a) The Commission or, on authorization of the Commis-
25 USC 174
sion, any committee of two or more members is authorized, for the
note,
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this resolution, to sit and
act at such places and times during the sessions, recesses, and
adjourned periods of Congress, to require by subpena or otherwise
the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books,
papers, and documents, to administer such oaths and affirmations, to
take such testimony, to procure such printing and binding, and to
make such expenditures, as it deems advisable. The Commission may
make such rules respecting its organization and procedures as it deems
necessary, except that no recommendation shall be reported from the
Commission unless a majority of the Commission assent. Upon the
authorization of the Commission subpenas may be issued over the
signature of the Chairman of the Commission or of any member desig-
nated by him or the Commission, and may be served by such person
or persons as may be designated by such Chairman or member. The
Chairman of the Commission or any member thereof may administer
oaths or affirmations to witnesses.
(b) The provisions of sections 192 through 194, inclusive, of title 2,
United States Code, shall apply in the case of any failure of any
witness to comply with any subpena when summoned under this
section.
(c) The Commission is authorized to secure from any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch of the Government
any information it deems necessary to carry out its functions under-
this resolution and each such department, agency, or instrumentality
is authorized and directed to furnish such information to the Com-
mission and to conduct such studies and surveys as may be requested
by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman when acting as Chairman.
(d) If the Commission requires of any witness or of any Govern-
Confidential
ment agency the production of any materials which have theretofore
materials.
been submitted to a Government agency on a confidential basis, and
the confidentiality of those materials is protected by statute, the mate-
rial SO produced shall be held in confidence by the Commission.
INVESTIGATING TASK FORCES
SEC. 4. (a) As soon as practicable after the organization of the 25
USC 174
Commission, the Commission shall, for the purpose of gathering
note.
facts and other information necessary to carry out its responsibilities
pursuant to section 2 of this resolution, appoint investigating task
forces to be composed of three persons, a majority of whom shall be
of Indian descent. Such task forces shall be appointed and directed
to make preliminary investigations and studies in the various areas
of Indian affairs, including, but not limited to-
(1) trust responsibility and Federal-Indian relationship,
including treaty review;
(2) tribal government;
(3) Federal administration and structure of Indian affairs; 88 STAT. 1912
(4) Federal, State, and tribal jurisdiction;
88 STAT. 1913
FORD
(5) Indian education;
(6) Indian health;
(7) reservation development:
(8) urban, rural nonreservation. terminated. and nonfederally
GERALD
recognized Indians; and
(9) Indian law revision, consolidation. and codification.
Pub. Law 93-580
- 4 -
January 2, 1975
(b) (i) Such task forces shall have such powers and authorities, in
carrying out their responsibilities, as shall be conferred upon them by
the Commission, except that they shall have no power to issue sub-
penas or to administer oaths or affirmations: Provided, That they may
call upon the Commission or any committee thereof, in the Commis-
sion's discretion, to assist them in securing any testimony, materials,
documents, or other information necessary for their investigation and
study.
(ii) The Commission shall require each task force to provide written
quarterly reports to the Commission on the progress of the task force
and, in the discretion of the Commission, an oral presentation of such
report. In order to insure the correlation of data in the final report
and recommendations of the Commission, the Director of the Com-
mission shall coordinate the independent efforts of the task force
groups.
(c) The Commission may fix the compensation of the members of
such task forces at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the
highest rate of annual compensation that may be paid to employees of
the United States Senate generally.
(d) The Commission shall, pursuant to section 6, insure that the
task forces are provided with adequate staff support in addition to that
authorized under section 6(a), to carry out the projects assigned to
them.
(e) Each task force appointed by the Commission shall, within one
year from the date of the appointment of its members, submit to the
Commission its final report of investigation and study together with
recommendations thereon.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
25 USC 174
SEC. 5. (a) Upon the report of the task forces made pursuant to
note.
section 4 hereof, the Commission shall review and compile such reports,
Report, sub-
together with its independent findings, into a final report. Within six
mittal to
months after the reports of the investigating task forces, the Com-
President
mission shall submit its final report, together with recommendations
of the
Senate and
thereon, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
Sweaker of
of Representatives. The Commission shall cease to exist six months
0 House.
after submission of said final report but not later than June 30, 1977.
All records and papers of the Commission shall thereupon be delivered
to the Administrator of the General Services Administration for
deposit in the Archives of the United States.
(b) Any recommendation of the Commission involving the enact-
ment of legislation shall be referred by the President of the Senate
or the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the appropriate
standing committee of the Senate and House of Representatives.
respectively, and such committees shall make a report thereon to the
respective house within two years of such referral.
8f STAT. 1913
88 STAT. 1914
COMMISSION STAFF
25 USC 174
SEC. 6. (a) The Commission may bv record vote of a majority of
note.
the Commission members, appoint a Director of the Commission. a
General Counsel, one professional staff member. and three clerical
assistants. The Commission shall prescribe the duties and responsi-
bilities of such staff members and fix their compensation at per annum
gross rates not in excess of the per annum rates of commensation pre-
scribed for employees of standing committees of the Senate.
(b) In carrying out any of its functions under this resolution. the
Commission is authorized to utilize the services, information. facili-
January 2, 1975
- 5 -
Pub. Law 93-580
88 STAT. 1914
ties, and personnel of the Executive departments and agencies of the
Government, and to procure the temporary or intermittent services
of experts or consultants or organizations thereof by contract at rates
of compensation not in excess of the daily equivalent of the highest
per annum rate of compensation that may be paid to employees of the
Senate generally.
SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated a sum not to
Appropriation.
exceed $2,500,000 to carry out the provisions of this resolution. Until
25 USC 174
such time as funds are appropriated pursuant to this section, salaries
note.
and expenses of the Commission shall be paid from the contingent
fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the Chairman. To the
extent that any payments are made from the contingent fund of the
Senate prior to the time appropriation is made, such payments shall
be chargeable against the maximum amount authorized herein.
Approved January 2, 1975.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
HOUSE REPORT No. 93-1420 accompanying H.J.Res. 1117 (Comm. on
Interior and Insular Affairs).
SENATE REPORT No. 93-594 (Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 119 (1973): Dec. 5, considered and passed Senate.
Vol. 120 (1974) Nov. 19, considered and passed House, amended,
in lieu of H.J.Res. 1117.
Dec. 16, Senate concurred in House amendment
with an amendment.
Dec. 18, House concurred in Senate amendments
to House amendments.
00
Interim Report.
American Indian
Policy Review
Commission
Honorable James Abourezk
United States Senate
1105 Dirksen Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Lloyd Meeds
House of Representatives
2352 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Gentlemen:
The Task Forces of the American Indian
Policy Review Commission are now in their
Contents
final quarter and developing conclusions
2 To the commissioners.
and formulating recommendations for both
3 Organization.
4 The schedule.
To the
Executive and Legislative action. This is an
appropriate time to report on our
5 Where we are.
commissioners:
responsibility to fulfill the Congressional
6 Major events.
mandate of PL 93-580.
8 Expenditures.
9 How it works.
This interim report outlines the high-
10 Preliminary Task Force reports.
lights of the review to date, including the
investigations, research, special projects,
14-15 Background Papers.
16 Indians on the Commission Staff
budget, administration and progress of the
Commission. During the remainder of the
July 1976
life of the Commission, the staff will continue
to develop a substantive report under the
direction of Congress and the Indian people.
We will also continue to set an example in
accountability by reporting our activities
while they are in progress. The final report
will satisfy Congressional commitment and
Indian expectations.
We believe that this interim report will
answer many questions being asked about
our progress by both Indians and the
Congress alike.
Very truly yours,
Emiestem
Ernest L. Stevens
Director
TASK FORCE 1:
TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AND
THE FEDERAL-INDIAN RELA-
TIONSHIP INCLUDING TREATY
LIBRARY
TASK FORCE 2:
i
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
THE SENATE
SIX (6) CON-
FIVE (5)
AND THE
GRESSIONAL
INDIANS
HOUSE OF
MEMBERS
SELECTED BY
07V839
REPRESENT-
THE CON-
ATIVES
GRESSIONAL
TASK FORCE 3:
MEMBERS
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
AND THE STRUCTURE OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS
TASK FORCE 4:
FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL
JURISDICTION
TASK FORCE 5:
INDIAN EDUCATION
Organization.
PROGRAM
DIRECTOR
GENERAL
STAFF
COUNSEL
ASSISTANT
TASK FORCE 6:
INDIAN HEALTH
TASK FORCE 7:
RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT
AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
SPECIAL
CONSULTANTS
TASK FORCE 8:
URBAN AND RURAL
NON-RESERVATION INDIANS
TASK FORCE 9:
INDIAN LAW REVISION,
CONSOLIDATION AND CODIFICA-
TION
STAFF
TASK FORCE
OFFICE OF
OFFICE OF
TASK FORCE 10:
CONSULTANTS
CONSULTANT
ADMINISTRA-
RESEARCH
TERMINATED AND NON-FEDER-
POOL
TION
ALLY RECOGNIZED INDIANS
TASK FORCE 11:
INDIAN ALCOHOL AND DRUG
ABUSE
3
The schedule.
7/21/75
8/8/75
10/21/75
1/21/76
4/21/76
GROUP A
SCOPE OF
QUARTERLY
REPORTS
DUE
WORK DONE
BEGIN
8/4/75
9/22/75
11/4/75
2/4/76
5/4/76
7/20/76 8/3/76 8/17/76
TASK
FORCE
1/2/75
7/11/75
STUDIES
GROUP B
SCOPE OF
QUARTERLY
REPORTS
DUE
FINAL TASK FORCE
ACT
TASK FORCE
WORK DONE
REPORTS DUE
APPROVED SELECTED
8/18/75
9/1/75
11/18/76
2/18/76
5/18/76
FINAL
1/20/77
COMMISSION
GROUP C
SCOPE OF
QUARTERLY
REPORTS
DUE
REPORT DUE
WORK DONE
6/30/77
COMMISSION
KEY
EXPIRES
Group A: Task Forces 1,2,3,4
Group B: Task Forces 6,7,11
Group C: Task Forces 5,8,9, 10
4
TASK FORCE 1: FEDERAL
TASK FORCE 2:
TASK FORCE 3: FED. ADMIN./
INDIAN RELATIONSHIP
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
BIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
RES
ANAL
CONCL.
REC.
BUDG.
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC
BUDG
RES. ANAL CONCL REC BUDG.
TASK FORCE 4: FEDERAL,
TASK FORCE 5:
TASK FORCE 6:
STATE & TRIBAL JURISDICTION
INDIAN EDUCATION
INDIAN HEALTH
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
50%
Where we are.
0%
0%
0%
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC.
BUDG.
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC
BUDG
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC.
BUDG.
TASK FORCE 7: RESERVATION
TASK FORCE 8: URBAN &
TASK FORCE 9: INDIAN LAW REVISION,
RESOURCE DEV. & PROTECTION
RURAL NON-RESERVATION
CONSOLIDATION & CODIFICATION
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
RES ANAL CONCL REC BUDG
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC
BUDG
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC
BUDG
TASK FORCE 10: TERMINATED
TASK FORCE 11: ALCOHOLISM
& NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED
& DRUG ABUSE
100%
100%
50%
50%
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS:
RES RESEARCH
ANAL. ANALYSIS
CONCL CONCLUSIONS
REC. RECOMMENDATIONS
0%
0%
BUDG BUDGET EXPENDED
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC
BUDG
RES
ANAL
CONCL
REC
BUDG
5
7
8
2
5
10
3
3
4
5
2
6
11
5
10
3
4
8
1
3
4
1
5
8
5
11
2
5
10
3
8
Д
5
4
6
5
3
11
10
8
10
10
Majo
10
4
8
11
1
5
6
10
8
6
10
4
1
3
3
5
8
10
8
10
7
7
7
7
5
5
10
8
3
8
5
1
11
5
8
4
3
8
11
10
5
6
11
3
4
4
1
2
2
4
1
9
11
5
6
6
9
6
4
KEY
11
5
10
4
8
Hearings
8
10
Site Visits
5
10
In addition to hearings and site visits the
Forces and the Commission Staff sent
Task various questionnaires to all Indian Groups
and naires were returned, as well as hundreds have of
organizations. Many of these question-
and memoranda. Several tribes
letters developed their own commission reports. the
These instruments will be a part of
permanent record.
6
8
2
5
10
3
3
5
6
11
2
10
3
8
5
1
5
6
1
3
4
11
2
5
3
8
A
3
6
5
10
5
5
10
10
F
10
8
10
1
8
8
10
Major events.
1
8
10
8
8
6
7
3
7
7
7
10
5
5
8
1
10
5
3
8
5
3
4
6
11
4
A
3
8
11
#
1
2
5
4
11
2
1
10
11
1
6
5
6
5 10
9
4
8
6
4
8
KEY
10
Hearings
Site Visits
5
10
In addition to hearings and site visits the
Task Forces and the Commission Staff sent
various questionnaires to all Indian Groups
and organizations. Many of these question-
naires were returned, as well as hundreds of
letters and memoranda. Several tribes have
developed their own commission reports.
These instruments will be a part of the
permanent record.
7
Expenditures.
ESTIMATED
Oct. 1-
Mar. 1-
July 1-
Oct. 1-
Jan 1-
Apr. 1-
June 1-
1976
June 30,
Sept. 30,
Dec. 31,
Mar. 31,
May 31,
Sept. 30.
June 30,
TOTAL
1975
1975
1975
1976
1976
1976
1977
1
TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AND THE
-
9,145
14,537
27,525
20,528
28,473
-
100,208
FEDERAL-INDIAN RELATIONSHIP INCLUDING TREATY
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
-
15,737
14,807
35,466
24,239
21,193
-
111,442
3
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
-
17,622
16,341
49,442
48,453
11,167
-
143,025
AND THE STRUCTURE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
4
FEDERAL, STATE AND
-
6,925
11,536
37,886
37,057
18,329
-
111,733
TRIBAL JURISDICTION
5
INDIAN EDUCATION
-
2,103
23,197
32,941
27,622
38,779
-
124,642
6
INDIAN HEALTH
-
3,674
5,745
20,780
31,848
18,053
-
80,100
7
RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT
-
6,283
15,659
23,634
27,232
37,865
-
110,673
AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
URBAN AND RURAL
-
11,608
25,879
41,547
28,603
2,223
-
109,875
NON-RESERVATION INDIANS
9
INDIAN LAW REVISION,
-
10,520
13,604
22,360
18,180
34,669
-
99,333
CONSOLIDATION AND CODIFICATION
10
TERMINATED AND
-
10,260
16,905
28,039
37,036
28,295
-
120,535
NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIANS
11
INDIAN ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
-
6,880
13,612
21,680
14,919
19,234
-
76,325
TOTAL, TASK FORCES
I
100,757
171,822
341,300
315,717
258,295
-
1,187,891
COMMISSION-CORE STAFF
51,084
97,584
131,955
209,342
294,903
264,203
263,000
1,312,071
TOTAL
51,084
198,341
303,777
550,642
610,620
522,498
263,000
2,499,962*
*Does not equal $2 5 million authorization due to round-off in 1977 FY request
8
How it works.
The Commission divided Indian concerns into
eleven areas of investigation, called Task
Forces. Each Task Force then designed its
scope of work to insure complete coverage of
all important aspects of Indian life. The intent
was to avoid duplication, but from the beginning
we chose the probability of duplication over
exclusion.
Task Force results at midpoint in the life of
the Commission indicate that this was an
appropriate decision. Where overlap occurs, it
serves to emphasize Indian priorities and the
depth of feeling on some issues. Although the
scope of our mission was limited by time and
funds, we feel that our problems have surfaced
in many ways, and the final report to the
Commission will reflect these views. It will also
reflect the high quality of the investigators
and their dedication to the cause.
We convened frequent conferences to
provide a forum for dissent and agreement, and
at times these sessions may have appeared to
outsiders as useless meanderings. This,
however, is the "Indian Way," and we are now
confident that the vigor of our heritage will
come through in our final report to the
Commission.
The eleven circles in the graph represent
the task forces. The red circle might represent
any one of the task forces and illustrates how
the interaction and interdependency of each
task force works.
9
1
TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AND
FEDERAL - INDIAN RELATIONSHIP
2
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Statement:
Statement:
Indian tribes are sovereign people; we have
We have the right of political existence and self-
territorial rights which are upheld by treaty with
government for our nations in perpetuity.
the United States. "Dormancy" in a trust relation-
ship does not extinguish that trust.
Support (Special Report):
Land Use and Resources Regulation-Historical
Support:
Review.
1. The Department of the Interior and the BIA have
Preliminary
not fulfilled the Trust responsibility invested in
Recommendations:
them by Congress.
1. Congress must reaffirm our rights to govern.
2. The following special reports also serve as
Task Force reports.
2. Tribes must reassert their rights to self-govern-
support:
ment, including authority over allotments, fee
Hunting and Fishing
lands, and non-Indians, as well as the right to
Forest Resources Management.
negotiate with states on all matters.
Demographic Studies.
California and Oklahoma Indians.
3. The positive elements of the IRA (i.e., prefer-
Use of 1812 and 1834 Authorities.
ence, tax immunities) should be extended to all
non-IRA tribes.
Recommendations:
4. Eligibility requirements of tribes for federal
1. Create a Department of Indian Relations and
programs must reinforce the powers and responsi-
Community Reconstruction providing us with
bilities of tribal governments through direct
access to the President and Congress.
congressional funding, and without incorporation
under state laws.
The Department will be at Cabinet-level and
5. The Self-Determination Act should include a
administered by a Secretary of Indian Affairs and
regulated by an Indian Board of Control.
minimum level of funding over 5 to 10 years.
Although Sec. 104 of PL 638 provides monies for
The Board will be appointed by the President from
developing administrative mechanisms, the need
nominations by our people.
for contracting, legal and technical assistance is
The Secretary and Board of Control will administer
equally essential. The funding formula should be
Indian Affairs through ten regional councils.
based on need, not population, to allow full
American Indian Regional Councils will have
participation by small tribes.
voting members selected by tribes.
The Councils will make budget, staffing and
personnel recommendations to the Indian
Relations Department.
3
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
2. Legislate an "American Indian Trust Responsi-
AND THE STRUCTURE OF
bilities Act" to confront the implications of the
INDIAN AFFAIRS
United States/Indian trust relationship.
3. Establish a permanent American Indian
Statement:
Research and Development Institute with satellite
Indians must have the right of self-government
units in key Indian areas.
without restriction.
These Task Force summary reports do not represent final positions which may be taken on these subjects.
10
Support (Special Reports):
fishing rights, water rights, and jurisdiction must
Historical Policies and Priorities: 1900-1975.
Legal and Structural Analysis of a new Independ-
ent Indian Agency.
4
be assessed and reformed to serve the best
interests of our people. Specific recommendations
FEDERAL, STATE
on each of these are being formulated.
Analysis of Interior/BIA Relations with Congres-
AND TRIBAL JURISDICTION
3. Indian tribes, bands and individuals hold vast
sional Subcommittees on Indian Affairs and
mineral and water resources. The jurisdiction of
Appropriations.
tribal use and development of land must be
Federal Agency Budget Process and Tribal
Statement:
clarified.
Participation.
Public Law 280 is a barrier to self-determination,
4. Recommendations on management of
BIA Management Study.
and we lack appropriate jurisdiction over our
non-taxable Indian lands and businesses are
lives and fates.
Recommendations:
being formulated.
1. Congress must establish an independent legal
5. PL 280-which transfers federal jurisdic-
Support:
authority to protect our rights and property.
tion to state governments-does not eliminate the
1. Law enforcement services by states are inade-
pre-existing jurisdiction of our tribes. Applications
2. Congress should enact legislation affirming that
quate within reservations.
of concurrent jurisdiction for resolving these
the federal government is the trustee with respon-
2. States exercise unauthorized tax authority
issues are being developed.
sibility to preserve, protect and guarantee our
over reservations.
rights and property without regulating the lives of
our people.
3. Zoning ordinances and local codes result in
expensive litigation and interference with Indian
3. Tribal membership must be determined by the
development.
tribal government and service must be provided
to individuals on any tribal lands recognized by
4. Jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservations is
tribal governing bodies.
complicated by historical inconsistencies and
5
INDIAN EDUCATION
opposing legal decisions.
4. We must have a direct way to obtain immediate
attention to complaints and claims. Congress
5. Child placement policies of State Social Service
Statement:
should create an Executive Oversight Office of
Agencies have not been culturally sensitive and
The existing education system provides inade-
Indian Affairs accountable directly to a Congres-
resulted in a significant loss of tribal population.
quate and inappropriate education to Indian
sional Committee for Indian Affairs.
6. Laws governing hunting and fishing rights are
people.
5. Congress must finance and support Indian
inconsistent and complex.
tribal governance on a sustained basis. Appropria-
Support:
7. Water rights are continually encroached upon
tions must be made to inter-tribal associations at
by non-Indian governments.
The definition of Indian used by Federal agencies
the regional and national level, based on member-
is arbitrary. This confuses and divides Indian
ship and at the request of a majority of participat-
8. PL 280, which transfers federal jurisdiction to
people, program administrators and the Congress.
ing Indian nations and tribes.
state governments, does not eliminate the pre-
existing jurisdiction of our tribes. Application of
These special reports also serve as support:
6. Legislation which establishes our rights to
concurrent jurisdiction for resolving these issues
State Policies in Finance.
participate in the legislative process as sovereign
is being explored.
U.S. Office of Education.
political entities must be enacted.
The following special reports also serve as support:
Perspectives on Education; Seven
7. Direct funding by Congress is needed to
Indian Groups
Indian Child Welfare.
strengthen tribal control over development priori-
Hunting and Fishing Jurisdiction.
Recommendations:
ties and reduce regulation of internal affairs by
Tax Status of Indians.
other governments.
1. A legislative policy statement reaffirming the
Water Rights.
8. All federal services and programs should be con-
government's obligation to assure educational
Lake Thunderbird Project.
solidated into an agency to avoid fragmentation.
services and opportunities to all our people.
Recommendations:
9. Community Planning Offices must be estab-
2. Funds providing technical assistance and staff
lished to integrate over-lapping federal programs
1. Retrocession of PL 280 should be legislated
development at the community level for long-term
to provide comprehensive development of tech-
including a plan supporting self-determination.
educational development.
nical capabilities and employment and training
2. All laws concerning law enforcement, state
3. A comprehensive legislative package to insure
programs on a more economic and efficient basis.
taxation, zoning, child placement, hunting and
adequate, qualitative educational services to
11
Indian people-including community control,
teach first aid and safety to our people as they do
4. Coordination among federal agencies responsi-
creation of a financial base, and provisions for an
other Americans.
ble for our programs is inoperative. Each operates
agency to implement the legislation.
10. We must have guarantees of Medicare and
in a vacuum without effect.
4. Legislative clarification to include all Indians as
Medicaid.
5. We do not control economic development
determined by the tribes in Federal education
11. A National Mental Health Center must be set
either on a Federal or Tribal level. Tribal govern-
programs.
up to study our mental health problems.
ments are dependent on federal sources for
funding and are not free to select programs which
12. We require management training to manage
would best promote development. Many domestic
6
health care.
assistance funds which could benefit us remain
13. Legislation giving tribal authority over the IHS
unused because we do not know how to obtain
is essential.
them.
INDIAN HEALTH
14. Legislation creating an Indian health agency to
6. The most valuable resources are leased to non-
specifically include Nutrition, Mental Health, Data
Indian contractors. Almost without exception, the
collection and a training center for professionals
Statement:
leases were negotiated in ignorance and contain
and paraprofessionals must be enacted.
inequitable provisions.
Health of Indian people is significantly below the
United States population. Most federal, state and
7. State taxation of Indian resources represent a
local agencies are unresponsive to our needs.
serious threat to our tribal economic development.
8. The Alaskan Native Claims Act presents special
Support (Special Reports):
RESERVATION DEVELOPMENT AND
problems in implementation and impact on future
Hearings Review.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
control and development of these resources by
Review of the Reservations Questionnaire
Alaskan natives.
Recommendations:
Statement:
9. Five years after the passage of the Act, only
500,000 acres has been conveyed. At this rate of
.1. Establish a free Basic Health Care Guarantee
Federal agencies do not have a strategy nor an
conveyance it will take the BLM 400 years to
for all our people to counter the existing "crisis"
evaluation system for development of our reser-
grant title to the land awarded by the act.
oriented health care system.
vations and protection of our resources based on
Indian goals and priorities.
10. Present easement procedures allow the
2. Establish a disease-prevention system.
Secretary to take native land without compensation.
3. Improve environmental health protection,
Support:
11. The real value of the Act's $1 billion settle-
mental health, nutrition, accident prevention,
1. The BIA is concentrating on its trust responsi-
ment has been reduced to an effective $250 to
transportation and accessibility, social services,
bility of preserving our land, but it is neglecting to
$300 million due to late payments, inflation and
self-determination, training and technical
provide us with the necessary aid to develop our
excessive legal fees.
assistance.
natural resources. Lack of BIA concern with
12. Federal agencies have cut funding to Alaska
4. Create and Indian Agency, funded by Federal
development has resulted in the loss of $40.5
because the natives are now" rich," even though
monies and operating on the cabinet level.
million in authorization by Congress for Indian
this is expressly prohibited in the act.
5. The tri-agency agreement between BIA, HUD
capital formation through the 1974 Indian
Financing Act.
13. The problem of Indian housing has reached a
and IHS in the area of environmental services is
critical stage.
not functional and must be redesigned.
2. Our land base has been severely eroded by the
lack of BIA land consolidation and acquisition
These Special Reports also serve as support:
6. The Food Stamp Program must be improved to
handle the problems of a lack of knowledge of
policy. Only $6 million has been obtained by the
Economic Development Administration;
BIA out of $84 million originally authorized by the
Housing.
money management and the high price of food
on reservations.
1934 Indian Reorganization Act for land purchase
Alternative Forms of Mineral Development.
by Indians.
Implementation of Alaskan Native Claims
7. USDA surplus commodities food program must
Settlement Act.
be upgraded, and food quality must be improved.
3. BIA Manpower Training Programs are deadends.
Impact of Alaskan Native Claims Settlement
The unemployed and unskilled are given minimum
8. A unique day care program must be established
Act.
training, and there is no provision for employment
for women, infants, children and the elderly.
Agriculture.
once programs have ended. There are no
9. Preventive accident/safety programs need to
programs to develop middle level business
Recommendations:
be strengthened. The National Red Cross must
management.
To remedy all these iniquities, a Development
12
Corporation, controlled by Indians, is proposed.
9. Urban Indian representation at the Inational
or internal agency regulations and is SO poorly
This corporation, Federally funded, should be the
level is essential.
organized as to render it useless.
result of creative innovation in Federal policy to
10. There is a need for more urban-oriented
correct the deficiencies and remove the barrier to
This special report also serves as support:
poverty and low income assistance programs for
Indian growth through economic development.
Attorney's Fees in Indian Litigation.
our people.
11. Alcoholism among our people must be treated
Recommendations:
8
in a manner equivalent to that of other Americans.
1. Consolidation of all statutes affecting Indians
into a single volume or single title of the Code.
URBAN AND RURAL
2. Inclusion of tribes in state-federal planning
NON-RESERVATION INDIANS
9
boards, which should become responsible for
LAW REVISION, CONSOLIDATION
enforcement on reservations of general Federal
AND CODIFICATION
Regulatory Statutes.
Statement:
3. The IRA definition of "Indian" must be amended
The government has no clear cut sense of urban
with regard to membership SO as to insure some
and rural non-reservation Indians and does not
Statement:
minimum criteria of "Indianness."
understand their problems and needs.
Laws concerning our people are SO complicated,
4. Legislation to clarify the status of Eastern
Support (Special Projects):
dispersed and contradictory that they are often
Oklahoma tribes.
unworkable.
Federal Resources.
5. Legislation to insure our people's participation
BIA Employment Assistance and
in federal domestic programs.
Support:
Relocation Program.
6. Legislation to correct health service benefits
1. Although the bulk of the laws affecting Indians
and to clarify BIAM.
Recommendations:
are located in Title 25 of the U.S. Code, many of
these laws are scattered throughout the 50 titles
1. The definition identifying an urban Indian must
of the Code.
be restated by Congress and must provide
uniformity and consistency.
2. In 1974, only 78 of 600 federal assistance pro-
10
TERMINATED AND
grams were used by Federally Recognized Tribes,
NON-FEDERALLY
2. The Federal Government must recognize off-
and only 39 by more than one tribe.
RECOGNIZED TRIBES
reservation Indian communities; relationships
must be clearly defined.
3. General Federal Regulatory Statutes do not
recognize tribal governments and fail to distinguish
Statement:
3. A standard for administering Federal grants
between tribal property rights and Federal
must be established. Grants in aid must be
Present laws do not appropriately include
property rights.
channeled through Federal departments to
terminated and non-federally recognized tribes.
off-reservation agencies.
4. If preference and other IRA benefits are
Support (Special Reports):
accorded on the basis of tribal membership, those
4. Federal policy to encourage cooperation
tribes which have a minimum blood quantum
Washington State Indians.
between urban and reservation communities must
criteria for membership will be at a great disad-
Oregon Federated Tribes.
be clearly stated.
vantage with regard to tribes which have no
New England and New York Indians.
5. BIA and IHS policies must be clearly defined
minimum blood quantum criteria.
Termination.
and strengthened to give urban Indians the same
Federal Recognition.
5. The sovereign status of Indian tribes and
privileges as other Americans.
Participation in Advisory Councils:
governments in Oklahoma requires recognition
Case History-Maine.
6. Indian census data collection for urban and
and classification by the Federal and state
rural non-reservation Indians must be improved
governments.
Recommendations:
to reflect the same accuracy as for other Americans.
6. The provision in 25 USC granting Indian Health
An Indian housing authority must include all our
7. Urban Indian centers-including employment.
Service benefits to non-Indian spouses of Indian
people.
manpower, and housing-must be created by
men and not to the non-Indian spouses of Indian
Federal recognition when a tribe meets the prima
Congress.
women is outdated.
facia requirements must be mandatory.
8. Supplemental education for our urban and
7. The Bureau of Indian Affairs manual system
All our people must have equal access to legal
rural non-reservation children must be developed.
(BIAM) does not comply with law, judicial decision
services as do other Americans.
13
Terminated tribes must have equitable access to
programs and activities made available to other
Indians and Americans.
11
INDIAN ALCOHOL AND
DRUG ABUSE
Statement:
The major Indian health problem is alcoholism,
and the United States has responsibility to help in
this area.
Support:
Present alcoholism and drug dependency pro-
grams are fragmented and are characterized by
duplication, poor communication and confusion.
These special reports also serve as support:
Fort Sill Indian School.
Legislative Analysis.
State Child Adoption Laws.
Criminal Laws.
Recommendations:
1. Provide funding to reduce alcoholism and drug
abuse among Indians to equal that of other
Americans, including priority to preventive
measures and education.
2. Congress must create an Indian alcoholism and
drug dependency program.
3. Tribal, city, state and federal justice systems
must be redesigned to alleviate alcohol and drug
abuse.
4. A cost/benefit analysis of Indian alcoholism and
drug programs VS. other American programs is
needed.
5. All Indian community programs must include
alcohol and drug rehabilitation and prevention
units.
6. Alcoholism should come under the purview of
the IHS or a new Indian Health Agency, and all
health education must include alcoholism and
drug dependence.
7. Recommendations will be developed from a
study of students at the Ft. Sill Indian School in
Oklahoma.
14
Background Papers.
In addition to the work of the Task Forces, it
accumulations in trust funds. It will identify and
recorded as part of the proceedings. They include
became apparent early in the review that special
value all Indian programs and trace the flow of
case histories, philosophical and theoretical
studies would be useful. A number of Background
funds earmarked for Indian peoples' goods and
approaches as perceived by Indians, working with
Papers have been prepared to elucidate the
services such as:
Indians, for Indians. The compendium will be a
unique Indian perspective. Some of these are:
Each line item in the "Indian" budget.
noteworthy addition to the literature on American
Division between Indian and non-Indian
Indian Development-1976.
Independent Indian Agency
expenditures.
This paper, which will suggest an alternative
Administrative costs for Indian staffing.
Economic Development
independent agency for Indian affairs, is in
Indian participation in budget processes.
An alternative proposal for Economic Develop-
preparation. It will review the historical formulation
ment which describes the Formation of an
of American Indian policy and will include a
Indian Policies and Practices
American Indian Trust Corporation. The paper
comprehensive tabulation of statutes and
Historical policies and practices from 1900 to
proposes that Indians can be trained, funded and
regulations.
1975 will be reviewed and will include recom-
helped to move from an economy based on Grants
mendations for the future such as:
to an economy based on their own free enterprise
Contracting
Retention and development of the land base.
corporations.
A comprehensive review of federal, state and
Reaffirmation and implementation of treaties,
local contracting to tribal and individual
executive orders, and agreements.
contractors, that includes suggested changes
General Papers
Assurances of civil rights.
and recommendations.
These outline and propose new directions for the
Federal Government on behalf of Indians and a
Specific Topics:
The BIA Management Study
challenge to Indians to grasp the hand of Congress
Government rules for Indian contracting
The BIA Management Study team was selected
on a new level of mutual respect, understanding
and procurement.
from an elite group of people from the private
and progress.
Government interpretation of the Buy Indian
sector and are at midpoint in this study. They are
Act, the Indian Self-Determination Act, and others.
reviewing the BIA management system from an
New Business Development
The value of contracts awarded to Indian-
independent viewpoint, and will recommend
Three papers outlining a procedure for the
owned economic enterprises.
changes in the organization, its systems,
development of new businesses which will make
Technical assistance to Indian tribal organ-
procedures and relationship to Indians.
an impact on American Indian future as well as
izations, contractors and grantees.
a significant contribution to American Security
Economic Development Conferences
and the Gross National Product. The projects are
Budget Review-Federal Expenditures for Indians
A group of papers by Indians presented at two
Jojoba, Guayule and Natural Gums from Alaskan
This is a two-phase review which identifies the
economic development conferences were
Seaweed.
15
Indian Commissioners
John Echohawk, Pawnee
John Borbridge, Tlingit-Haida
Alfred Elgin, Pomo
Louis Bruce, Mohawk, Oglala Sioux
Jerry Flute, Sisseton-Wahpeton
Ada Deer, Menominee
Karl Funke, Red Lake Chippewa
Adolph Dial, Lumbee
Ray Geotting, Caddo
Jake Whitecrow, Quapaw, Seneca-Cayuga
George Hawkins, Southern Cheyenne
Office of the Director
Jojo Hunt, Lumbee
William Johnson, Umatilla
Ernest L. Stevens, Director, Oneida
Yvonne Knight, Ponca
K. Kirke Kickingbird, General Council, Kiowa
Steven LaBoeuff, Blackfeet
Arnold T. Anderson, Special Assistant,
Peter MacDonald, Navajo
Mohawk-Tuscarora-Cayuga
Indians on the
Thomas M. Fassett, Director-Public
Phillip Martin, Mississippi Choctaw
Information and Communications, Seneca
Lilliam McGarvey, Aleut
Commission Staff
Kathy McKee, Missouri Cherokee
Commission Core and Staff
Bobbi Minnis, Colville
(Members, Assistants, Secretaries)
June 1976
Lorraine F. Misiaszek, Colville
Janice Bigbee, Comanche
Doug Nash, Nez Perce
Rosemarie Cornelius, Sioux-Oneida
Alan Parker, Chippewa-Cree
Mike Doss, Crow
Browning Pipestem, Otoe-Missouria and Osage
Ernestine Ducheneaux, Salish and Kootenai
Luana Reyes, Colville
Marilyn DuFrane, Seneca
Dr. Everett Rhodes, Kiowa
Lisa Elgin, Pomo
William Roy Rhodes, Pima
Wendell George, Colville
Rudy Ryser, Cowlitz
Katheryn Harris de Tijerina, Comanche
Helen Schierbeck, Lumbee
Amos Hopkins, Kiowa
Ken Smith, Wasco
Winona Jamieson, Seneca
Reuben Snake, Winnebago
Jana McKeag, Cherokee
John Stevens, Passamaquoddy
Dawn Oakes, Mohawk
Gail Thorpe, Cherokee-Creek
Chuck Peone, Wiyot
George Tomer, Penobscot-Maliseet
Grace Thorpe, Sac and Fox
Mel Tonasket, Colville
Toni Villagecenter, Sioux
Ronald Trosper, Flathead
Annette Young, Navajo
*Deceased
Task Force Personnel
Hank Adams, Assiniboine-Sioux
Designed, edited and produced by
*William Atcitty, Navajo
A.T. Anderson, Tuscarora-Mohawk-Cayuga
Earl Barlow, Blackfeet
Special Assistant to the Commission
Through courtesy of Union Carbide Corporation
James Bluestone, Hidatsa
Robert Bojorcas, Klamath
For information write:
Mathew Calac, Rincon
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Al Cayous, Apache-Cahvilla
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
Michael Cox, Creek
2nd and D Streets, SW
Sam Deloria, Sioux
Washington, D.C. 20515
16
JAMES ABOUREZK, D-S. DAK., CHAIRMAN
LLOYD MEEDS, D-WASH., VICE CHAIRMAN
LEE METCALF, D-MONT.
MARK o. HATFIELD, R-OREG.
SIDNEY R. YATES, D-ILL.
SAM STEIGER, R-ARIZ.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
INDIAN MEMBERS:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
ADA DEER, MENOMINEE, WIS.
JAKE WHITECROW, QUAPAW, SENECA-CAYUGA, OKLA.
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
JOHN BORBRIDGE, JR., TLINGIT, ALASKA
LOUIS R. BRUCE, MOHAWK-SIOUX, NEW YORK
2D AND D STREETS, SW.
ADOLPH DIAL, LUMBEE, N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
ERNEST L. STEVENS, ONEIDA, WIS., DIRECTOR
PHONE: 202-225-1284
KIRKE KICKINGBIRD, KIOWA, OKLA., GENERAL COUNSEL
MAX 1. RICHTMAN, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
October 3, 1976
Mr. Brad Patterson
Special Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Enclosed are two copies of Task Force 3's Management
Study Report on the U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Respectfully,
A.Hophin
A. Hopkins
FGRD
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
(PL 93-580)
Schedule of Activities
Task Force Reports Complete
September 3, 1976
B.I.A. Management Study Complete
September 10, 1976
B.I.A. Management Study Distributed
to Congress and All Tribes.
September 27, 1976
Task Force Reports, Certified
and Printed for Distribution.
October 1, 1976*
Task Force Report Evaluation Period.
September, October
Commission Formal Review of all
Recommendations and Evaluation of
Material.
Commission Direction
for Final Report (Public Meeting)
November 19-22, 1976
Commission Review and Discussion
of First Draft of the Commission
Final Report
(Public Meeting)
December 17-18, 1976
Commission Review of Final Draft
and Acceptance
(Public Meeting)
January, 1977**
Formal Submission of the Final Report
to President of the Senate and
Speaker of the House
February 18, 1977
Commission Report Distributed to
All Tribes and Organizations.
March 5, 1977
All Commission Records Delivered
to Archives.
June 14, 1977
End of A.I.P.R.C. Legislative
Mandate.
June 30, 1977
is
FORD
Commission Recommendations
Requiring Legislative Action Referred
To Standing Committees For Report No
Later Than.
February 17, 1979 ***
*
*
All Task Force Reports, Special Reports and the BIA Management
Study will be printed for distribution. Other copies will be
available from GPO.
** No date has been confirmed.
***
Pursuant to Section 5 (b), PL 93-580
" Such committees shall
make a report thereon to the respective house within two years of
such referral."
BIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The AIPRC will review and possibly endorse all or part of the twenty-
three recommendations contained in the report at their full Commission
meeting on November 19, 1976.
All Senators, Congressmen, federal Indian administrators, major Indian
organizations, tribes, and key individuals will have an opportunity to
review, evaluate and respond to the report since 1,000 copies will have
been circulated. They have all been asked for their impressions.
Indian organizations and tribes will have plenty of time to review,
discuss, and make recommendations to Congress and the Executive Depart-
ments prior to any major change. A majority of the proposals are non-
controversial however.
The Commission will include additional considerations or alterations
in its own Final Report, which will be presented to Congress on February 18,
1977. The recommendations related to BIA will be within the context of a
total federal administration overhaul.
The BIA recommendations, if implemented, could comprise a "transitional
management phase" to the establishment of a new "super" agency if recom-
mended and subsequently approved by Congress and/or the Executive Depart-
ments. If BIA remains in the Interior Department, then the management
recommendations still should apply within the context of the establishment
of a viable and efficient technical assistance and service agency for
Indian people.
FORD LIBRARY
The Congress, particularly the substantive Indian and budget subcom-
mittees, will have time to consider their possible actions between now
and the next session. For instance, Bureau of Indian Affairs reports
on progress and evaluation have not been submitted to Congress for many
years. The continuing inclination to inflate administration on the
part of the bureaucracy is now subject to subcommittee oversight as
part of the budget cycle. Additional oversight and even Congressional
sanctions may be necessary to assure that explicit action is taken in
a timely manner.
The Executive Departments will have time to consider the merits of
the recommendations and proposals; and, of course, OMB and the Interior
Department could begin at any time since the entire implementation of
the proposals is within the ordinary administrative discretion of
these Departments.
FORD
news
Abourezk
release
Senator James Abourezk (D. S. Dak.)
For further information contact:
Senate Office Bldg.
Allan Burke (202) 224-5842
Washington, D.C. 20510
FOR RELEASE: 11 a.m., Friday, Sept. 10, 1976
Statement by South Dakota Sen. Jim Abourezk
Press Conference on Investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
In proposing the establishment of the American Indian Policy Review Commission,
I was seeking an approach to Indian affairs that dealt effectively with Indian problems
and efficiently fulfilled Indian needs. Congress is looking for recommendations from
which to legislate meaningful approaches to fulfill the present and future needs of
Indian people.
This study of the management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs by this Commission
will accomplish this and go far to meet the needs of efficiency, effectiveness and
reasonable cost in the operation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The changes called for in this report will radically restructure the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and change the manner in which it deals with American Indians. The
proposed restructuring would result in an estimated annual savings to the taxpayer of
$122 million and a one-time savings of about $20 million.
This study touched on the need for changes and the inadequacies of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in the budget process, personnel administration, management information
and organizational structure.
One of the major changes is the structure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with
elimination of the 12 area or regional offices, placing increased authority at the local
agency office which would mean increased accessibilityfor tribes to decisionmakers, and
the establishment of six regional service centers to provide administrative support and
technical assistance to the tribes. At the heart of these changes is consultation by
the BIA with tribes and reliance of the BIA on tribal opinion and comprehensive tribal
needs analyses and long-range plans to guide allocation of capital and human resources
into strategic areas.
This will mean gains for the Congress in establishing a sound American Indian policy,
gains for the American Indian tribes in program effectiveness, and gains for the American
taxpayer in government efficiency.
*
LIBRANY GERALO FOR,
Stuay OI DA
ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL
September 11, 1976
Vould Close
Office in City
WASHINGTON (UPI) - A task
Sen. Dewey Bartlett, R-Okla., whose
amendment established the nine-week
force analyzing the Bureau of Indian
management task force study, also
Affairs concluded Friday almost every
applauded the 59-page report, saying
area of personnel management in the
the BIA was "in great need of im-
agency was "inadequate" and recom-
proved management and efficiency."
mended a massive restructuring in-
cluding closure of 12 BIA area offices.
"There will be a real savings real-
ized," Bartlett said of the recommen-
(One of the 12 area offices recom-
dations. "There will be much more ef-
mended for closure was the Albuquer-
ficient use of personnel."
que office. Ron Esquerra, director of
the Albuquerque office was not availa-
In its report, the task force
ble for comment Friday evening and
concluded there was "a notable abs-
Southwest Field Representative An-
ence of managerial and organizational
thony Lincoln would not comment on
capacity throughout BIA.'
the report except to say he had seen an
earlier draft.)
"Decisions are made on a day to day
basis with little long range planning,"
The task force said a new organiza-
it added. "Communication among the
tional structure must be implemented
organizational levels is poor, as are
to move decision-making closer to the
tribal level.
agency-tribe relationships."
The report by the American Indian
- The report said there was a "critical
Policy Review Commission task force,
ábsence" of information essential to
manned by 10 executives from private
éfficient administration; basic data
industry, envisioned an annual savings
was not available; and charts nd
of $122 million if the covernment
directories were often out of date.
adopts the recommendations.
"Employe attitude and overall mor-
The full AIPRC, created by Con-
ale suffer dramatically as a result of
gress early in 1975, plans to issue a
these inadequacies," it said, adding
final overall report next February.
"almost every area of personnel man-
agement in the bureau is inadequate."
The BIA said Commissioner Morris
Thompson was out of town traveling in
The task force said its recommenda-.
Alaska with Interior Secretary Thom-
tions would permit elimination of the
as Kleppe and there would be no im-
12 area offices and the creation of six
mediate comment on the report.
regional service centers, with a "ma-
jor change" in responsibilities for
Sen. James Abourezk, D-S.D., com-
service center managers.
mission chairman, told a news
confercnce adoption of the task force
Both Abourezk and Bartlett empha-
recommendations would "radically
sized the function of the bureau should:
restructure" the BIA and change the
be more of a technical support nature.
manner in which it deals with Ameri-
can Indians.
The 12 current BIA area offices are
located in Aberceen S. D.; Albuquer-
Abourezk said the BIA now controls
que; Anadarko, Ok.a; Billings, Mont.;
the daily life of American Indians.
Juneau, Alaska; Minneapolis; Musko-
"Every tribal decision throghout the
gee, Okla.; Window Rock; Phoenix;
United States is subject to BIA veto,
Portland, Ore.; Sacramento, Calif., and
every decision," he said. "That has to
Washington, D.C.
stop and the Indians must make their
own decisions.
Neither the senators, nor task force
officials, would speculate where the
six regional scrvice centers should be
located.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
The
American Indian
Commission Policy Review
What is the Commission?
Task Force 9: Indian Law Revision,
Consolidation and Codification
It is a Joint Congressional Commission composed
of congressmen and American Indians appointed
Task Force 10: Terminated and Non-Federally
by Congress to study the relationship between the
Recognized Indians
Federal Government and American Indians.
Task Force 11: Alcohol and Drug Dependency
Recommendations of the Commission will be
submitted for Congressional action.
After the reports are submitted, the Commission
will spend several months consolidating these
Why a Commission?
reports to form the final Commission report.
The Congress recognized that the relationship
between the Government and Indians had
Who are the people?
deteriorated because government policy toward
COMMISSIONERS:
them had been reversed several times. Moreover,
the last time the relationship had been reviewed
From Federally-Recognized Tribes:
was in 1928. This resulted in the Meriam Report.
Ada Deer, Menominee, Wisconsin
Congress now perceives that recommendations for
Jake Whitecrow, Quapaw-Seneca, Oklahoma
legislation by Indians for Indians is timely and
John Borbridge, Tlingit, Alaska
appropriate.
From Non-Federally Recognized Tribes:
Adolph Dial, Lumbee, North Carolina
When was the Commission created?
Urban Indians:
Public Law 93-580 was passed on January 2. 1975.
Louis Bruce, Mohawk-Sioux, New York
The final Commission recommendations are to be
From the Senate:
made to the Congress by January, 1977.
James Abourezk, Chairman (Dem., S.D.)
Lee Metcalf (Dem., Mont.)
How is the Commission organized?
Mark Hatfield (Rep., Ore.)
There are eleven Commissioners: five American
From the House of Representatives:
Indians, three from the Senate, and three from
Lloyd Meeds, Vice Chairman, (Dem., Wash.)
the House of Representatives. Three American
Sam Steiger (Rep., Arizona)
Indians are from Federally recognized tribes,
Sidney R. Yates (Dem., Ill.)
one from non-Federally recognized tribes, and one
from an urban area. These Commissioners
STAFF:
appointed a staff-headed by the Director-and
eleven task forces. Each of these task forces must
Director-Ernest L. Stevens
report to the Commission by August, 1976.
General Counsel-K. Kirke Kikingbird
Professional Staff Assistant-Max Richtman
Task Force 1: Trust Responsibility and the
TASK FORCES:
Federal-Indian Relationship,
including Treaty Review
1. Hank Adams, Chairman
Task Force 2: Tribal Government
John Echohawk
Doug Nash
Task Force 3: Federal Administration and the
Structure of Indian Affairs
2. Wilbur Atcitty, Chairman
Alan Parker
Task Force 4: Federal, State and Tribal
Jerry Flute
Jurisdiction
3. Sam Deloria, Chairman
Task Force 5: Indian Education
Mel Tonasket
Task Force 6: Indian Health
Ray Goetting
Task Force 7: Reservation Development
4. Sherwin Broadhead, Chairman
Task Force 8: Urban and Rural Non-Reservation
Judge William Roy Rhodes
Indians
Matthew Calac
5. Helen Scheirbeck, Chairwoman
Abe Plummer
Earl Barlow
6. Dr. Everett Rhoades, Chairman
Luana Reys
Lilliam McGarvey
7. Peter MacDonald, Chairman
Ken Smith
Phillip Martin
8. Al Elgin, Chairman
Gail Thrope
Edward Mouss
9. Pete Taylor, Chairman
Yvonne Knight
Browning Pipestem
10. Jojo Hunt, Chairwoman
John Stevens
Robert Bojorcas
11. Reuben Snake, Chairman
Robert Moore
George Hawkins
How is the Commission different?
Through this Commission, American Indians for
the first time have direct access to Congress in
recommending legislation for Indians.
What does this mean to you?
As an individual, a tribe or an organization
concerned with American Indians' affairs, you can
contribute by:
*
submitting your own report, for the record. as
part of the Commission report to Congress:
*
working with one or several of the task forces
in the development of their reports;
*
testifying at Commission hearings held in
your area;
*
answering promptly any questionnaires or
surveys.
The success of the Commission's work depends
on your involvement. For further information,
contact:
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY
REVIEW COMMISSION
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington. D.C. 20515
PHONE: 202-225-1284
INDIAN LEGAL INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICE
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
A Publication of
THE INSTITUTE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIAN LAW
Vol.3, No.
ONAP
Evaluation standards used by the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) to assess the effectiveness of
ONAP programs were published in the Federal Register on July 2, 1975. The extent to which programs
funded by ONAP conform to the new standards is a factor in ONAP's decision to renew or supplement finan-
eial assistance. Title VIII of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and Community Partnership Act of 1974
authorized ONAP to fund a variety of programs designed to meet the needs of Indians. (See Review Vol. 3,
No. 8.)
Housing
Administration of HUD Region IX Indian housing programs has been consolidated in the San Francisco Regional
Office. Previously, Indian housing programs within Region IX were administered jointly by the San Francisco
and Los Angeles Area Offices. Region IX encompasses all tribes and reservations in Arizona, California, Nevada,
New Mexico (except the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Reservations in New Mexico); the Navajo Nation
located in Utah; the Goshute Reservation located in Nevada and Utah; the Duck Valley Reservation located in
Idaho and Nevada; and the Fort McDermitt Reservation located in Oregon and Nevada.
Education
Interim regulations implementing the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 were published in the Federal Register
on June 24, 1975, by HEW's Office of Education. The Bilingual Education Act authorized financial assist-
ance for programs designed to meet the special needs of persons with limited English speaking ability. The
new regulations include definitions, criteria used in approving applications for assistance, and a list of the type
of programs eligible for funding.
Headstart
All organizations administering Headstart programs must meet minimum performance standards formulated
by the Office of Human Development, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Revised standards
were published in the Federal Register on June 30, 1975, along with specific objectives of the Headstart
program. The new standards are designed to ensure that Headstart programs will meet the needs of participa-
ting children. Authorization of the Headstart program was extended for three years by the Headstart, Economic
Opportunity, and Community Partnership Act of 1974.
Community
The Community Services Administration was created by the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and Community
Action
Partnership Act of 1974. As the successor agency to Office of Economic Opportunity, CSA will administer
Community Action and Community Economic Development Programs. Regulations governing implementation
of these programs were published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1975.
GLRALD FORD LIBRARY
1
COMMISSION AND TASK FORCE MEMBERS
AIPRC Appoints Task Force Members
Representing the urban Indians is Louis R. Bruce, BIA
Commissioner from 1969 to 1972. A Mohawk and Oglala
It was resolved by Congress that the Commission should
Sioux, Bruce aided in the formation of the Coalition of
be composed of eleven members: three members of the
Eastern Native Americans (CENA) of which be currently is
BACKGROUND
materials from any department of the Executive Branch of
Senate appointed by the President pro tempore, three
finance director. He has also been active in the development
the Federal government. Besides the power of subpoena,
members of the House of Representatives appointed by the
of the National Congress of American Indians, the National
The American Indian Policy Review Commission was
it is authorized to hold hearings. A third unique feature of
Speaker, and five Indian members. Of the five Indian mem-
Tribal Chairman's Association and the American Indian
created on January 2, 1975 with the signing of S.J. Res.
the Commission is that its legislative recommendation will be
bers, there should be three from tribes recognized by the
National Bank.
133. The idea for this bill originated with Senator James
referred to the appropriate Congressional standing committee
Federal government, one from an Indian group not recog-
Abourezk, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Indian
foreing them to respond to the respective house within
nized by the Federal government, and one representing
Affairs. The BIA takeover of 1972 and the Wounded Knee
two years of the referral.
urban Indians. The Commission was authorized to appoint
The fifth Indian Commissioner is Adolph Dial, a Lumbee
incident in 1973 dramatically pointed out the need for a
a Director of the Commission, a General Counsel, a pro-
Indian from North Carolina, who represents the non-
serious evaluation of Indian affairs.
The newly formed Commission will conduct a compre-
fessional staff person and clerical and supportive staff.
federally recognized tribes. He is chairman of the American
Indian Studies Department of Pembroke State University,
Senator Abourezk's bill called for the creation of a Con-
hensive, systematic study of current conditions, past and
Congressional members of the Commission are Senators
a member of the Board of Directors of the American Indian
gressional commission with Indian representation to do a
present Federal policies and legal status and legal
James Abourezk (D-S.Dak.), Chairman, Lee Metcalf (D.
Historical Society and a member of the American Indian
two year study of federal Indian policy. Although lay
of American Indian tribes. According to the Act creating
Mont.) and Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) and Representatives
Advisory Council of HEW's Office for Civil Rights. Dial
persons have served before on Congressional commissions,
the Commission, this will be accomplished by eleven task
Lloyd Meeds (R-Wash.), Sidney Yates (D-III.) and Sam
co-authored the recently published The Only Land I Know:
this is the first time Indians have been asked to serve on a
forces with the following areas of responsibility: 1) Federal-
Steiger (R-Ariz.). Congressman Meeds is Vice-Chairman.
A History of the Lumbee Indians.
commission studying Federal Indian policy. S.J. Res. 133,
Indian Relationship: Treaty Review and Trust Respon-
All are members of Congressional subcommittees on Indian
introduced by Senator Abourezk, was passed in the Senate
sibility; 2) Tribal Government; 3) Federal Administration
affairs, except Rep. Sidney Yates who is Chairman of the
Ernie Stevens of the Oneida tribe of Wisconsin, was
on December 5, 1973. The House began hearings on a
and the Structure of Indian Affairs; 4) Federal, State and
subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
appointed Director of the Commission on March 12, 1975.
similar bill introduced by Representative Meeds, Chairman
Tribal Jurisdiction: 5) Indian Education: 6) Indian Health;
which deals with funds for the Interior Department.
He has served as First Vice President of NCAI, Director of
of the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. The House
7) Reservation & Resource Development & Protection:
Economic Development for the BIA and in the recent past
adopted the language of the Senate bill and passed it on
8) Urban & Rural Non-reservation Indians; 9) Indian Law
The following is a brief profile of the Indian Commission
as president of American Indian Consultants, Inc.
November 19, 1974. The President signed the bill on
Revision, Consolidation & Codification; 10) Terminated
members. Representing the federally recognized tribes are
January 2, 1975, making it public law.
and Non-Federally Recognized Tribes: 11) Alcohol and
Ada Deer, Jake Whitecrow and John Borbridge. Ms. Deer is
Counsel for the Commission also appointed on March
Drug Abuse.
Chairperson of the Menominee Restoration Committee and
12, 1975, is Kirke Kickingbird, member of the Kiowa Tribe
American Indian tribes and the Federal government have
is considered the single most important force behind the
and graduate of the University of Oklahoma School of Law.
a unique relationship which has its roots in the Constitution.
The Commission will begin by putting the unique status
success of the Menominee Restoration Act which returned
He is a member of the Board of Directors of the American
Federal policies implementing this relationship have varied
of Indian tribes into proper moral and legal perspective with
the tribe to Federal trust status in 1973. The Menominee
Indian Lawyers Association and Chairman of the Federal
over the years from armed conflict, peace-making diplomacy,
regard to the United States Constitution and the nearly 400
Restoration Committee is drawing up a tribal constitution
Bar Association's Indian Law Committee. Formerly he was
assimilation, termination to self-determination. In short,
treaties signed by tribes and the United States. Then
and plans to hold tribal elections in the near future.
a member of the executive staff of the Bureau of Indian
the Federal government has had no consistent policy guiding
they will evaluate the administrative practices which have
Affairs and Executive Director of the Institute for the
their relationship to Indian tribes.
ignored or distorted early promises to Indian people.
Jake Whitecrow is director of the Inter-Tribal Council
Development of Indian Law.
Recommendations based on these studies will be trans-
of Northeastern Oklahoma, which represents the Eastern
Although there have been many studies of Indian affairs
mitted to Congress for possible legislative action. Kirke
Kickingbird, Counsel for the Commission, stated that AIPRC
Shawnee, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, Quapaw, Ottaw, Peoria,
The third professional staff person, Max Richtman, was
through the years, few have resulted in constructive change
plans to present a factually based, well-reasoned report with-
Miami and Modoc. Previously he served on the Muskogee
recently appointed on June 13, 1975. He is a graduate of
in Federal policy. The last intensive study was done forty-
Area Indian Advisory Health Board. Mr. Whitecrow is a
Harvard University and of the Georgetown Law School in
out resort to sensationalism.
seven years ago in 1928. At the invitation of the Depart-
member of the Quapaw and Seneca-Cayuga Tribes, both
Washington, D.C. Previous to this appointment with the
ment of the Interior, the Institute for Government Research
federally recognized. He is a former Quapaw Tribal Chair-
Commission he served for two years as a legislative assistant
compiled the Meriam Report, which documented Indian
In the past many issues such as the economy and the
man and has served on that tribe's business committee since
for Congressman Sidney Yates, member of the House Appro-
conditions. The report was shocking and helped foster an
energy crisis, have seemed to be more pressing to Congress
1953.
priations Committee. Richtman is a member of the Washing-
awareness of the need for Indian reforms in the early 1930's.
than the growing discontent of the Indian community.
ton, D.C. Bar Association.
According to Kickingbird, between January, 1977 when
John Borbridge is the head of Sealaska, one of twelve
The American Indian Policy Review Commission differs
the Commission report is compiled and June, 1977, the date
regional Native corporations established under the Alaskan
Eleven task forces have been appointed by the Commission.
from its predecessors in several ways. As mentioned earlier
of the Commission's termination, Commission members will
Native Claims Act. He is a member of the executive com-
The task forces, each composed of three specialists, a major-
in the article, this is the first Congressional commission with
visit members of Congress to explain the report. These
mittee of the Rural Affairs Commission of Alaska and is a
ity of whom are of Indian descent, will perform the real
Indian membership. This commission also has the power of
meetings will help to establish a higher priority for Indian
member of the financial advisory board of the American
core of investigative work, melding local with national
subpoena, which means it can secure witnesses and obtain
legislation and emphasize the need for change.
Indian National Bank. He also served as president of the
perspectives. Some will work out of the Commission's
Tlingit-Haida Central Committee.
Washington, D.C. office, but many members will remain
2
3
Task Force 4
Ken Smith
in their home area in order to provide local input. Each
(h) Home
General Manager
task force must submit a final report to the Commission one
(o) Office
Sherwin Broadhead, Chairman
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
year from the date of the appointment of its members. The
Box 35A
Task Force 1
Warm Springs, Oregon 97761
Commission, after comparing the findings of the task force
Readan, Washington
503/553-1161
reports with its own independent findings, will submit a
Hank Adams, Chairman
509/634-4591 (o) or 796-3706 (h)
final report with recommended legislation to Congress, no
Phillip Martin
P.O. Box 719
Judge William Roy Rhodes
Rt. 7 Box 21
later than June 30, 1977.
Tacoma, WA 98401
c/o Gila River Tribal Council
Philadelphia, Miss.
206/572-6425 or 456-1793(o)
P.O. Box 97
601/656-5636 or 601/656-6101
John Echohawk
Sacaton, Ariz. 85247
Task Force 8
1506 Broadway
602/562-3382 or 276-1857
NTCA vs. THE COMMISSION
Boulder, CO 80302
Al Elgin, Chairman
303/447-8760 (o)
Matt Calac
2901 Fulton Rd.
520 E St. Suite 103
On May 20, 1975, the National Tribal Chairmen's
Santa Rosa, Calif. 95401
Doug Nash
Association (NTCA) filed suit against the Commission in
San Diego, California 92101
707/528-9102 or 707/545-3289
P.O. Box 1539
United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
(714) 232-1016
Pendleton, OR 97801
Gail Thorpe
an attempt to bring its work to a halt. NTCA, a non-profit
503/276-8337
Task Force 5
5630 N. Sheridan Rd.
organization composed of elected leaders of certain federally
recognized tribes, was formed to represent member tribes
Helen Schierbeck, Chairman
Chicago, ILL. 60660
Task Force 2
312/641-1766 (o) or 334-1757 (h)
in their dealings with the Federal government.
9128 Maywood Lane
Wilbur Atcitty, Chairman
Fairfax, VA 22030
Edward Mouss
As the legal basis of the suit, NTCA claims that the Act
P.O. Box 203
638-6877 (o) or 703/591-8579 (h)
Rt. 1, Box 448
creating the Commission is unconstitutional because the
Window Rock, Ariz. 86515
Abe Pummer
Henryetta, OK 74437
method of electing Indian Commission members provided
602/871-4595 (o) or 602/871-4224 (h)
3748 Shaw Blvd.
918/756-8500 (o) or 652-3223 (h)
for in the Act violates the U.S. Constitution. In addition
Alan Parker
Westminster, CO 80030
to this contention, NTCA argues that the work of the
Task Force 9
American Indian Law Center
303/429-6538 (h)
Commission should be stopped because NTCA is not ade-
Pete Taylor, Chairman
University of New Mexico School of Law
quately represented on the Commission. NTCA claims that
Earl Barlow
1819 N. Lincoln St.
1117 Stanford NE
it is unable to carry out its purposes without adequate
Superintendent of Schools
Arlington, VA 22207
Albuquerque, N.M. 87106
representation on the Commission. At the heart of the suit
Browning, Montana
703/525-2187
505/277-4840
is NTCA's claim that the Commission is not representative
406/338-2715 (o)
Yvonne Knight
of "federally recognized, land based tribes."
Jerry Flute
1506 Broadway
P.O. Box 186
Task Force 6
Boulder, CO 80302
While the suit has received support from a few segments
Sisseton, S.D. 57262
303/447-8760
Dr. Everett Rhoades
of the Indian community, several member tribes of NTCA
605/698-3911 (o)
VA Hospital Rm. A 542
Browning Pipestem
have publicly opposed the suit. Regarding the legal and
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
200 E. Main St.
factual basis of the suit, attorneys familiar with the case say
Task Force 3
405/272-9876 or 918/567-2251
Norman, OK
that NTCA's allegations are simply without factual and legal
Sam Deloria, Chairman
405/329-3840 (o)
merit. For example, the claim that NTCA is not adequately
Luana Reyes
American Indian Law Center
represented on the Commission is simply untrue, as Com-
University of New Mexico School of Law
10516 Victory Lane
mission member John Borbridge is a member of NTCA and
1117 Stanford NE
Seattle, Washington
the Quapaw and Seneca-Cayuga tribes, of which Commission
206/329-0250
Albuquerque, N.M. 87106
The Legislative Review is a monthly publication
member Jake Whitecrow is a member, are represented in
505/277-4840 (o) or 898-3179 (h)
of the Institute for the Development of Indian Law.
Lillian McGarvey
NTCA. Richmond Allan, Commissioner Borbridge's attorney,
General Subscription $25; Indian Subscription $10.
4230 Tahoe Dr.
characterized the suit as "just plain silly."
Mel Tonasket
Colville Tribal Office
Anchorage, Alaska
Box 150
907/344-3310 (h)
Task Force 7
The Institute for the Development of Indian Law
Nespelem, WA 99155
is a nonprofit organization; donations and gifts are tax
Following is a list of task force members and their
509/634-4591 (o) or 826-4528
Peter MacDonald, Chairman
deductible. Vine Deloria, Jr. is Chairman, Board of
addresses. Readers may want to contact these persons about
Ray Goetting
Navajo Tribal Council
Directors; John Tiger is Acting Executive Director.
special concerns relating to task force topics or other
P.O. Box 208
Window Rock, Arizona 86515
relevant areas of interest.
Laguna, N.M. 97026
605/871-4595
GERALD
4
5
LIBRARY
Task Force 10
Legislative Status Report
Jojo Hunt, Chairman
Navajo Students Discover Careers
300 Rencan Way
S. 522 INDIAN HEALTH PROGRAMS: To implement
Herndon, VA 22070
federal responsibility for the care and education of Indian
703/471-4652 (h)
people by improving federal Indian health programs- By
In recent years, as the drive for Indian self-determination
IN-SCHOOL PROGRAM
John Stevens
Senator Fanin, February 3, 1975.
has gained momentum, efforts to increase the number of
P.O. Box 36
Indian professionals have intensified. Many Indian people
During the school year, students work in an intern
Mt. Vernon, ME 04352
To Senate Interior Committee
have come to realize that the skills of Indian professionals
capacity for 16 hours a month, and receive pay at the rate of
To Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
207/289-2831 (o) or 293-2941 (h)
are a valuable asset in the fight to retain a distinct political
two dollars an hour. Students may choose from a variety
Passed Senate May 16, 1975
and cultural existence. As a result of this increased interest
of professions, such as health, education, law, business
Robert Bojorcas
To House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
505 Nottingham
in professional training, several tribes have initiated pro-
administration, and engineering.
Hearing held with H.R. 2525
Eugene, Ore.
grams designed to encourage Indian young people to enter
503/688-6382 (h) or 503/686-3799 (o)
the professions.
Students interested in nursing, for example, work
S. 1328 REACQUISITION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
closely with professional nurses at the Chinle Public Health
Task Force 11
JURISDICTION: To provide for the reacquisition of
To begin meeting the need for more Navajo professionals,
Service Clinic in Chinle, Arizona. During the course of their
Reuben Snake, Chairman
jurisdiction of jurisdiction by Indian tribes and the U.S.
the Navajo Community College at Tsaile Lake, Arizona,
internship, they are introduced to various medical instru-
Education Project Director
over criminal offenses and civil matters in Indian country-
created the Kellogg-Navajo Internship Program. Funded by
ments and methods of recording medical information.
Sioux City American Indian Center
By Senator Abourezk, March 26, 1975.
the Kellogg Foundation of Battle Creek, Michigan, and
They also perform simple duties such as taking blood pres-
1660 W. 27th St.
initiated at Chinle High School, Chinle, Arizona, the pro-
sures, cleaning wounds, or preparing patients for examina-
Sioux City, Iowa 51103
To Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
gram provides an internship experience in selected pro-
tions. Students contribute to the work of the clinic by
712/255-4141 (o) or 277-8632 (h)
Tabled
fessions for Navajo high school students.
assisting non-Indian doctors who have patients with a limited
understanding of the English language.
Robert Moore
Guy Gorman, President of the Board of Regents of
Executive Director
S. 2010 INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPROVE-
Navajo Community College, explains the rationale for the
Students interested in teaching as a career receive a
American Indian Commission on Alcohol & Drug Abuse
MENT: To provide for the improvement of law enforce-
program in these words, "Why is it, after being exposed to
practical teaching experience at Chinle Elementary and
5775 Evertte Street
ment and the determination of civil and criminal juris-
education for 100 years, we have only one Navajo medical
Junior High Schools. In addition to duties as teacher aides,
Arvada, Colorado 80002
diction and law in Indian country - By Senator Jackson,
doctor, three lawyers, and a handful of teachers? We still
each student is given an opportunity to teach a class alone.
303/423-7800 (o)
June 25, 1975.
have to depend on non-Navajos to be our professionals. I
Lesson plans prepared each week give the student an under-
George Hawkins
To Senate Interior Committee.
think it's time we did something else." The intern program
standing of a teacher's responsibilities.
1301 S. Broadway
represents the Navajos' attempt to encourage their high
Edmond, OK 73034
school students to pursue professional careers by providing
Students interested in law are often placed in a legal aid
S. 2129 INDIAN CRIMES ACT: To provide for the
405/842-5951 (h) or 341-8710 (o)
practical experiences with trained professionals.
office on the Navajo Reservation. In past years, interns have
definition and punishment of certain major crimes when
assisted in writing court orders, researching cases, inter-
committed by an Indian; in order to insure equal treatment
The program is intended to broaden the student's
viewing clients, and writing legal briefs. One student worked
for Indian and non-Indian offenders - By Senator Fannin,
knowledge about the professions, motivate students to
on several legal problems facing the Navajo Nation such as
July 16, 1975.
enter college programs leading to professional careers, and
the Black Mesa environmental crisis.
provide guidance and counseling in selecting a career.
To Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Programs Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
The program enjoys a wide popularity among Navajo
provided first hand experience in business for other interns.
H.R. 2525-6
INDIAN HEALTH CARE: To imple-
high school students. In the 1973-1974 school year, over
They usually work closely with the financial manager, who
ment Federal responsibility for the care and educations of
250 students applied for the approximately 50 openings.
processes business loans used in setting up private businesses
the Indian people by improving Federal Indian health
Applications are carefully screened by the Project Counselor.
on the reservation or purchasing supplies and equipment for
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS
programs and encouraging maximum participation of
The final selection is made by a committee composed of
established businesses.
Indians in such programs - By Rep. Meeds, January 31,
teachers, counselors, and professional educators. A Review
Publication of the Legislative Review is dependent
1975.
and Selection Committee consisting of interns currently in
SUMMER PROGRAM
solely on financial support from our subscribers. In the
past, we have been able to publish on a regular, monthly
the program also participates in the selection process.
basis because most subscribers have faithfully paid the
To House Interior Committee
In addition to working with professionals during the
subscription charge. We remind those unpaid subscribers
To Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
Students are selected on the basis of the following
school year, interns participate in a summer program that
that continued publication depends on money collected
Hearings May 23, 24, 1975 in Gallup, N.M. and Talequah,
criteria: (1) degree of Navajo ancestry; (2) grade point
provides an opportunity for more intensive involvement in
from subscription charges, as we have no other sources
OK.
average; (3) letters of recommendation from teachers, and
the students' area of interest. Interns usually work eight
of financial support. New subscriptions also welcome.
Hearings August 5, 1975 in Anchorage, Alaska
(4) attendance record.
hours a day, five days a week, for one month. In order to
6
7
expose the students to off-reservation life, the summer pro-
Ms. Kahn saw her experience in Washington as relevant
gram operates primarily in major urban centers, such as
not only to her personal pursuit of a law career, but also to
Phoenix, Arizona, Washington, D.C., or Albuquerque, New
life on the reservation. "Now I know who to contact to get
Mexico.
funds for improving the health or education of Navajo
people. I don't have only my Congressman to write to. The
organizations here in Washington are very receptive to
During the summer program of 1975, six interms spent
Navajos and Indian people as a whole. I was really inspired
two weeks in Washington, D.C. visiting organizations and
by talking to Dr. Blue Spruce from the Office of Native
agencies working in Indian affairs. While in Washington,
American Programs. We need Indians in top positions to
they listened to presentations on Indian law, Indian educa-
bring change about faster," she commented.
tion, and the legislative process. They also visited the
American Indian Policy Review Commission, the Office of
The success of the Kellogg-Navajo Intern Programs is
Native American Programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
difficult to measure. If measured in terms of increased
and the Indian Claims Commission.
awareness of available professional careers, or new feelings
of self-confidence, the program is an unqualified success.
Written reports required of every student indicated many
Of particular interest to the group was a meeting with
intend to pursue a carcer introduced by the program. Many
Arizona's Congressional delegation. The students discussed
expressed a desire to continue their education in college,
issues of importance to Navajos with the Congressmen such
earn a degree, and return to the reservation. As one student
as the Navajo-Hopi land dispute. The students were some-
commented, "I often get discouraged thinking that many
what surprised by the Congressmen's lack of knowledge
Indian young people are using destructive and not con-
about Indian affairs, and the Congressmen were apparently
structive methods of resolving the conflicts and problems of
surprised by the interns' knowledge. As Marianna Kahn,
American Indians. This program has reinforced my faith in
student coordinator of the Washington itinerary, explained,
my fellow Navajo youth that our way out of our problems
"It was fun watching the expressions on the Senators' faces
is by getting involved in such professional fields as the
when they were popped questions by young people."
Kellogg Program introduced."
INSTITUTE for the
Non Profit Org.
DEVELOPMENT of
U.S. Postage
INDIAN LAW
PAID
927 15th Street, N.W.
Permit No. 44856
Suite 200
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Bradley Patterson
Old Executive Office Building
(Domestic Council)
Washington, D. C. 20500
INFORMATION BULLETIN
FROM
THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
A JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
(PUBLIC LAW 93-580)
OUR ADDRESS IS:
THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
2ND AND D STREETS, S.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
PHONE: 202-225-1284
FORD & 939839 LIBRARY
1
INTRODUCTION
The American Indian Policy Review Commission is a joint
Congressional Commission created by a concerned Congress that
has recognized the Federal Government's relationship with
American Indians. Federal-Indian policy has shifted and
changed over the years without rational design and without
consistent goals to achieve Indian self-sufficiency. It is
now recognized that direct Indian participation and Indian
self-determination is necessary to effectively and effici-
ently fulfill the needs of American Indians.
Historically, National Indian policy has been shaped by
a fragmented, piecemeal approach that has served to inhibit
rather than to foster development of the Indian tribal cul-
tures and resources. The gradual erosion of rights of
Indians has led to deep Indian anxieties, despair, frustra-
tions, apathy and antipathy that, in turn, has led to bitter
protests, occupation of the Central Office of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in Washington, and the armed clashes at the
seige of Wounded Knee.
It has been forty-seven years since the Institute for
Government Research made its in-depth report. The 1928 study
known as the Meriam Report, helped to foster a climate of
Congressional awareness of tribal concern and socio-economic
and cultural deprivation that led to widespread reforms in
the 1930's, including the passage of the Indian Reorganiza-
tion Act, Johnson-0'Malley Act and other measures such as
the repeal of the first section of the Dawes Allotment Act
of 1887. Since then, the original intent of these reform
policies has been compromised and distorted through
administrative blundering ignorance and neglect.
Finally, a concerned Congress has decided that the urgency
of the crucial problems facing Indians, and the confusion as
to the goals and method of alleviating these problems are of
utmost importance. In order to obtain a comprehensive study
of these problems and establish recommendations for attain-
ing comprehensive and workable goals and methods for dealing
with these problems, on January 2, 1975, after combining
H.J. Res. 1117 and S.J. Res. 133, the United States Senate and
the House of Representatives passed Public Law 93-580, "The
American Indian Policy Review Commission Act.
The American Indian Policy Review Commission consists of
three United States Senators, three members of the House of
Representatives, and five Indian members who are supported
by a distinguished group of eleven Task Forces, headed by a
Central Core Staff. The Commission has the power, qualifi-
cations and Indian participation to explore all of the
major problem areas. The Commission is dedicated to overall
Indian participation and will be able to submit recommendations
from which the Congress of the United States may legislate
meaningful approaches to fulfill the present and future
needs of the Native American Indian people and chart the
course of American Indian history for the next century.
The following is the text of Public Law 93-580 that created
the American Indian Policy Review Commission.
2
THE LAW CREATING THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Public Law 93-580
CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS
The Congress. after careful review of the Federal ( overnment's historical and special legal relationship with American
Indian people, finds that-
(a) the policy implementing this relationship has shifted and changed with changing administrations and passing
years, without apparent rational design and without a consistent goal to achieve Indian self-sufficiency;
(b) there has been no general comprehensive review of conduct of Indian affairs by the United States nor a
coherent investigation of the many problems and issues involved in the conduct of Indian affairs since the 1928
Meriam Report conducted by the Institute for Government Research; and
(c) in carrying out its responsibilities under its plenary power over Indian affairs, it is imperative that the Congress
now cause such a comprehensive review of Indian affairs to be conducted.
DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
Congress declares that it is timely and essential to conduct a comprehensive review of the historical and legal develop-
ments underlying the Indians' unique relationship with the Federal Government in order to determine the nature and
scope of necessary revisions in the formulation of policies and programs for the benefit of Indians.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That-
(a) In order to carry out the purposes described in the preamble hereof and as further set out herein, there is hereby
created the American Indian Policy Review Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"
(b) The Commission shall be composed of eleven members, as follows:
(1) three Members of the Senate appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, two from the majority
party and one from the minority party;
(2) three Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
two from the majority party and one from the minority party; and
(3) five Indian members as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(c) At its organization meeting, the members of the Commission appointed pursuant to section (b)(I) and (b)(2) of
this section shall elect from among their members a Chairman and a Vice Chairman. Immediately thereafter, such mem-
bers shall select, by majority vote, five Indian members of the Commission from the Indian community, as follows:
(1) three members shall be selected from Indian tribes that are recognized by the Federal Government;
(2) one member shall be selected to represent urban Indians; and
(3) one member shall be selected who is a member of an Indian group not recognized by the Federal Government.
None of the Indian members shall be employees of the Federal Government concurrently with their term of service on
the Commission nor shall there be more than one member from anv one Indian tribe.
(d) Vacancies in the membership of the Commission shall not affect the power of the remaining members to execute
the functions of the Commission and shall be filled in the same manner as in the case of the original appointment.
3
(e) Six members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a smaller number, as determined by the Commis-
sion, may conduct hearings: Provided, That at least one congressional member must be present at any Commission hearing.
(f) Members of the Congress who are members of the Commission shall serve without any compensation other than
that received for their services as Members of Congress, but they may be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other
necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(g) The Indian members of the Commission shall receive compensation for each day such members are engaged in the
actual performance of duties vested in the Commission at a daily rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum
annual compensation that may be paid to employees of the United States Senate generally. Each such member may be
reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence.
Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the Commission to make a comprehensive investigation and study of Indian affairs
and the scope of such duty shall include, but shall not be limited to-
(1) a study and analysis of the Constitution, treaties, statutes, judicial interpretations, and Executive orders to
determine the attributes of the unique relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes and the
land and other resources they possess;
(2) a review of the policies, practices, and structure of the Federal agencies charged with protecting Indian
resources and providing services to Indians: Provided, That such review shall include a ma agement study of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs utilizing experts from the public and private sector;
(3) an examination of the statutes and procedures for granting Federal recognition and extending services to
Indian communities and individuals;
(4) the collection and compilation of data necessary to understand the extent of Indian needs which presently
exist or will exist in the near future;
(5) an exploration of the feasibility of alternative elective bodies which could fully represent Indians at the
national level of Government to provide Indians with maximum participation in policy formation and program
development;
(6) a consideration of alternative methods to strengthen tribal government so that the tribes might fully represent
their members and, at the same time, guarantee the fundamental rights of individual Indians; and
(7) the recommendation of such modification of existing laws, procedures, regulations, policies, and practices
as will, in the judgment of the Commission, best serve to carry out the policy and declaration of purposes as set
out above.
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
Sec. 3. (a) The Commission or, on authorization of the Commission, any committee of two or more members is
authorized, for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this resolution, to sit and act at such places and times
during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of Congress, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of
such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to adininister such oaths and affirmations, to
take such testimony, to procure such printing and binding, and to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable. The
Commission may make such rules respecting its organization and procedures as it deems necessary, except that по recom-
mendation shall be reported from the Commission unless a majority of the Commission assent. Upon the authorization
of the Commission subpenas may be issued over the signature of the Chairman of the Commission or of any member
designated by him or the Commission, and may be served by such person or persons as may be designated by such Chair-
man or member. The Chairman of the Commission or any member thereof may administer oaths or affirmations to
witnesses.
(b) The provisions of sections 192 through 194, inclusive, of title 2, United States Code, shall apply in the case
of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpena when summoned under this section.
(c) The Commission is authorized to secure from any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive
branch of the Government any information it deems necessary to carry out its functions under this resolution and each
such department, agency, or instrumentality is authorized and directed to furnish such information to the Commission
and to conduct such studies and surveys as may be requested by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman when acting as
Chairman.
(d) If the Commission requires of any witness or of any Government agency the production of any materials
which have theretofore been submitted to a Government agency on a confidential basis, and the confidentiality of those
materials is protected by statute, the material so produced shall be held in confidence by the Commission.
4
INVESTIGATING TASK FORCES
See. 4. (a) As soon as practicable after the organization of the Commission, the Commission shall, for the purpose
of gathering facts and other information necessary to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to section 2 of this resolution,
appoint investigating task forces to be composed of three persons, a majority of whom shall be of Indian descent. Such
affairs, including, but not limited to-
(1) trust responsibility and Federal-Indian relationship, including treaty review;
(2) tribal government;
(3) Federal administration and structure of Indian affairs;
(4) Federal, State, and tribal jurisdiction;
(5) Indian education;
(6) Indian health;
(7) reservation development;
(8) urban, rural nonreservation, terminated, and nonfederally recognized Indians; and
(9) Indian law revision, consolidation, and codification.
(b) (i) Such task forces shall have such powers and authorities, in carrying out their responsibilities, as shall be
conferred upon them by the Commission, except that they shall have no power to issue subpenas or to administer oaths
or affirmations: Provided, That the: may call upon th Commission or any committee thereof, in the Commission's
discretion, to assist them in securing any testimony, materials, documents, or other information necessary for their
investigation and study.
(ii) The Commission shall require each task force to provide written quarterly reports to the Commission on
the progress of the task force and, in the discretion of the Commission, an oral presentation of such report. In order to
insure the correlation of data in the final report and recommendations of the Commission, the Director of the Cominis-
sion shall coordinate the independent efforts of the task force groups.
(c) The Commission may fix the compensation of the members of such task forces at a rate not to exceed the
daily equivalent of the highest rate of annual compensation that may be paid to employees of the United States Senate
generally.
(d) The Commission shall, pursuant to section 6, insure that the task forces are provided with adequate staff
support in addition to that authorized under section 6 (a), to carry out the projects assigned to them.
(e) Each task force appointed by the Commission shall, within one year from the date of the appointment of its
members, submit to the Commission its final report of investigation and study together with recommendations thereon.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
Sec. 5. (a) Upon the report of the task forces made pursuant to section 4 hercof, the Commission shall review
and compile such reports, together with its independent findings, into a final report. Within six months after the reports
of the investigating task forces, the Commission shall submit its final report, together with recommendations thereon, to
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Commission shall ccase to exist six
months after submission of said final report but not later than June 30, 1977. All records and papers of the Commission
shall thereupon be delivered to the Administrator of the General Services Administration for deposit in the Archives of
the United States.
(b) Any recommendation of the Commission involving the enactment of legislation shall be referred by the
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the appropriate standing committee of the
Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, and such committees shall make a report thereon to the respective
house within two years of such referral.
COMMISSION STAFF
Sec. 6. (a) The Commission may by record vote of a majority of the Commission members, appoint a Director
of the Commission, a General Counsel, one professional staff member, and three clerical assistants. The Commission
shall prescribe the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and fix their compensation at per annum gross rates
not in excess of the per annum rates of compensation prescribed for employees of standing committees of the Senate.
(b) In carrying out any of its functions under this resolution, the Commission is authorized to utilize the
services, information, facilities, and personnel of the Executive departments and agencies of the Government, and to
procure the temporary or intermittent services of experts or consultants or organizations thereof by contract at rates
of compensation not in excess of the daily equivalent of the highest per annum rate of compensation that may be paid
to employees of the Senate generally.
Sec. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 2 sum not to exceed $2,500,000 to carry out the pro-
visions of this resolution.
PROJECT FLOW CHART: KEY DATES IN THE COMMISSIONS'S LIFESPAN
Act Approved
1/2/75
First Full
7/21/75
Scope of Work
Quarterly
Commission
Group "A"
Due 8/8/75
Report Due
Meeting
Proceeds
Group "A"
10/21/75
5/2/75
Task Forces
1/21/76
(1) (2) (3) (4)
4/21/76
Final
Commission
8/4/75
Scope of Work
Quarterly
Task Force
Final
and Staff
Group "B"
Due 8/22/75
Report Due
Report Due
Commission
Review and
Task Force
Proceeds
Group "B"
11/4/75
7/21/76 "A"
Report Due
Approve
Studies Begin
Task Forces
2/4/76
8/4/76 "B"
1/20/77
Gen. Plan
(6) (7) (11)
5/4/76
8/18/76 "C"
5/5/75
Commission
8/18/75
Scope of Work
Quarterly
Selects
Group "C"
Due 9/1/75
Report Due
Task Force
Proceeds
Group "C"
11/18/75
Chairman &
Task Forces
2/18/76
Specialists
(5) (8) (9) (10)
5/18/76
6/13/75 &
7/11/75
Commission
Expires
6/30/77
6
SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 93-580
The planning processes and systematic implementation of Public Law
93-580 (The American Indian Policy Review Commission) is necessarily
complex. The carefully planned operation and administration was
designed so that no misunderstanding would arise as to the purposes,
goals and objectives of the Commission's mission. Specific guide-
lines have been extracted from the legislation and procedures have
been adopted for planned implementation of the law.
At the outset, systematic review of previous reports, investigations,
various task force studies, and oversight reports on Indian affairs
was conducted by the professional staff which determined that in all
previous studies, especially the famous Meriam Report, two (2) sub-
stantially important elements were missing in all previous studies
which were:
(1) Indian participation and opinion, and
(2) Documented proof in support of conclusions.
In order to supply these two crucial elements in its report, this
Commission has structured its work to actively seek direct Indian in-
put and opinion through a research and gathering process including:
Public hearing testimony, complaints, tribal resolutions, position
papers, seminars, questionnaires, letters, input gathered at site
visits and by mail, etc.
Just as important, opinion, conclusions, and recommendations, where
possible, should be proven by documented evidence. The Indian opinion
collected would be compared with and added to the Commission's review
of treaties, laws, regulations, budget analysis, management studies,
analysis of economic, social and cultural conditions, and other
aspects of Indian affairs. Therefore, new information, including
Indian opinion, will be included with that which has been recorded
in past studies or found in existing official records of hearings,
complaints, resolutions, letters, tribal studies, etc. Every effort
is being made to encourage tribes and organizations to submit offic-
ial resolutions on problems, issues, and recommendations, and to
participate in the AIPRC mission.
Where a planned approach to the research, analysis and review pro-
cess is followed and the product is verified evidence, a logical
sequence is established, thus:
a.
Identification of issues and problems as perceived by Indians
substantiated by previously recorded Indian opinion will lead to
b.
Identification of Indian views of their own goals, needs, and
objectives which in turn leads to
C.
Preliminary conclusions based on Indian views and backed by docu-
mented evidence, finally leading to
d.
Recommendations to Congress for necessary legislative revis-
ions in policy for the benefit of Indians; and as cogent reason
for beneficial legislative action, departmental action, agency
action, and for future Indian use.
GERALD FORD LIBRAST
COMMISSION
Hon. James Abourezk, Chairman
Hon. Lloyd Meeds, Vice Chairman
Planning and Review
COMMISSION STAFF
Charles Peone
ERNEST L. STEVENS
Special Consultants
Micheal Doss
Staff Director
A. T. Anderson
Ray Goetting
Jana McKeag
E. Ducheneaux
Adm. Asst.
KIRKE KICKINGBIRD
General Counsel
W. Jamison, Asst.
MAX RICHTMAN
Professional Staff Asst.
Rosemarie Cornelius, Asst.
STAFF
CONSULTANTS
Research
Communications and
Administration
Wendell George
Public Information
GIL HALL
MAX RICHTMAN
Ed Johnson
TOM FASSETT
Kathryn Harris,
Barbara Morgan,
Jack Peterson
Grace Thorpe
Asst.
Asst.
Gary Orfield
Asst.
Eleven Task Forces
Thirty Three Members
Eleven Task Force Specialists
E. DUCHENEAUX
1. Federal-Indian Relationship
2. Tribal Government
3. Federal Administration; Structure of
Indian Affairs
TASK FORCE
4. Federal, State and Tribal Jurisdiction
CONSULTANTS
5. Indian Education
6. Indian Health
7. Reservation & Resource Development and
Protection
8. Urban and Rural Non-Reservation Indians
9. Indian Law Revision, Consolidation and
Codification
10. Terminated and Non-federally Recognized
11. Alcohol and Drug Abuse
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW
COMMISSION ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
8
THE ELEVEN COMMISSIONERS OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
The Commissioners of the American Indian Policy Review Commission,
created by Public Law 93-580, are:
FROM THE UNITED STATES SENATE:
HONORABLE JAMES ABOUREZK, CHAIRMAN
James Abourezk, Democrat, was elected to the Senate in
1970 from South Dakota's Second Congressional District.
He is Chairman of the American Indian Policy Review Com-
mission, Chairman of the Senate Sub-Committee on Indian
Affairs, and Chairman of the Senate Sub-Committee on
Separation of Powers and is a member of the Select Com-
mittee on Small Business. As Chairman of the Indian
Affairs Sub-Committee, Senator Abourezk has fostered the
passage of several important Indian Bills, including
P.L. 93-580. He was born and raised on the Rosebud Sioux
Indian Reservation.
HONORABLE LEE METCALF, MEMBER
Senator Metcalf, a Democrát from Montana's First Congres-
sional District, was elected to the United States Senate
in 1960 after having served four terms in the United
States House of Representatives. The Senator is a member
of the Senate Sub-Committee on Indian Affairs, is the
Chairman of the Senate's Sub-Committee on Minerals, Mat-
erials, and Fuels, and is Chairman of the Sub-Committee
on Reports, Accounting and Management. The Senator has
been instrumental in the passage of favorable Indian
legislation, including the Comprehensive Indian Education
Act of 1972.
HONORABLE MARK HATFIELD, MEMBER
Senator Hatfield, Republican, was elected to the United
States Senate in 1966 after having served two terms as
the Governor of the State of Oregon. The Senator is
Ranking Minority Member on both the Energy Research and
the Water Resources Sub-Committees, and is a member at
large of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and
Human Needs. Instrumental in the passage of the Umitilla
Judgment Fund legislation and the Klamath Forest Bill,
he also co-sponsored Senator Jackson's Indian Health
Bill.
9
FROM THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HONORABLE LLOYD MEEDS, VICE-CHAIRMAN
Congressman Meeds, a Democrat from the Second Congres-
sional District of Washington, has served in the House
of Representatives since 1964. The Congressman is the
Chairman of the House Indian Affairs Sub-Committee and
is a member of the Sub-Committee on National Parks and
Recreation, Territorial and Insular Affairs, and the
Sub-Committee on Water and Power Resources. He backed
the Alaskan Native Claims Act, Indian Education Act of
1972, and the Menominee Restoration Bill for which he
received the NCAI Congressional Award. He is the Vice-
Chairman of the American Indian Policy Review Commis-
sion.
HONORABLE SIDNEY R. YATES, MEMBER
Congressman Yates has served in the House of Representa-
tives since 1948 as the Democratic Congressman from the
Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, except for a
two-year period during which he served as a United States
Representative to the Trustee Council of the United
Nations. Congressman Yates is Chairman of the Interior
Sub-Committee of the House Appropriations Committee and
is a member of the Transportation and Legislative Sub-
Committee.
HONORABLE SAM STEIGER, MEMBER
Congressman Steiger, Republican from Arizona's Third
Congressional District, has been a Congressman since
1966. He is a member of the Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee and serves as a ranking member of
the Sub-Committee on Government Labor, Sub-Committee
on Individual Rights, and the Sub-Committee on Public
Lands, and is a member of the Commission on the Review
of National Policy Towards Gambling.
10
FROM THE AMERICAN INDIAN SECTOR
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES
COMMISSIONER ADA DEER, MEMBER
Commissioner Deer is a Menominee Indian who is Chairman
of the Menominee Restoration Committee. She left law
school to defend her tribe against termination and is
credited with being the most important single force be-
hind the success of the Menominee Restoration Act.
COMMISSIONER JAKE WHITECROW, MEMBER
Commissioner Whitecrow is a former Quapaw Tribal Chair-
man who is Quapaw and Seneca-Cayuga Indian. He has
been on his Tribal Business Committee since 1953, and
is Director of the Inter-Tribal Council of Northeastern
Oklahoma that is a representative of the Eastern Shawnee,
Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, Quapaw, Ottowa, Peoria, Miami,
and Modoc tribes. (The Ottowa and Peoria Tribes were
terminated in 1956.)
COMMISSIONER JOHN BORBRIDGE, MEMBER
Commissioner Borbridge is the head of Sealaska Corpora-
tion that is one of the twelve Native Alaskan Corpora-
tions established under the Native Alaskan Claims Act
for which he lobbied extensively. Commissioner
Borbridge is a past-president of the Tlingit-Haida
Central Committee and is a member of the Executive Com-
mittee of the Rural Affairs Commission of Alaska. He
is also a member of the Financial Advisory Board of
the American Indian National Bank.
URBAN INDIANS
COMMISSIONER LOUIS R. BRUCE, MEMBER
Commissioner Bruce is Mohawk and Oglala Sioux and is a
former Commissioner of the United States Bureau of
Indian Affairs (1969 to 1972). He was active in the
formation of the National Congress of American Indians
and served on President Truman's Advisory Indian Com-
mittee (1947) He assisted in the formation of the
National Tribal Chairmen's Association and the American
Indian National Bank.
After leaving the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Commissioner
Bruce served as a Senior Fellow of the Antioch Law
School and assisted in the establishment of the Coali-
tion of Eastern Native Americans, and was an employee
11
of that organization in the capacity of Finance Director.
He is currently working on a major Indian project in con-
nection with the Smithsonian Institute.
NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES
COMMISSIONER ADOLPH DIAL, MEMBER
Commissioner Dial, a Lumbee Indian, is Chairman of the
American Indian Studies Department of Pembroke State
University and is a member of the American Indian
Advisory Council for the United States Department of
Health, Education and Welfare's Office of Civil Rights.
He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the
American Indian Historical Society.
Commissioner Dial is a co-author of the recently pub-
lished book, "The Only Land I Know: A History of the
Lumbee Indians". His book reflects extensive research
into the historical background of the North Carolina
Lumbee Indians.
12
THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL CORE, AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF
THE DIRECTOR
ERNEST L. STEVENS, 43, a member of the Oneida Tribe of
Wisconsin, is an ex-marine combat veteran of the Korean con-
flict who is married and has eight children.
Before being appointed Director of the American Indian Policy
Review Commission, "Ernie" Stevens was President of an Indian
owned and operated Arizona-Washington based business manage-
ment firm. He is a past Director of Economic Development and
past Director of Community Services for the United States
Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. He is also a
past First Vice-President of the National Congress of American
Indians and past Executive Director for the Inter-Tribal
Council of California.
Mr. Stevens has a long history as an advocate of Indian
causes. He has sought Indian preference in Federal employ-
ment, local control of Indian programs, programs for alco-
holism and drug abuse, health, education, welfare and
community services. He has worked for preservation of rights
of Indian traditionalists and to improve conditions for both
on- and off-reservation Indians. He first came to the
attention of the Government while serving as a member of the
Editorial Board for the book, "Our Brother's Keeper - The
Indian in White America".
GENERAL COUNSEL
K. KIRKE KICKINGBIRD, General Counsel, is an Oklahoma Kiowa
Indian who is a former member of the Executive Staff of the
United States Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He is the
Executive Director for the Institute for the Development of
Indian Law where he was deeply involved with Indian land
and water rights research and analyzing Indian legislation
for publication. Mr. Kickingbird is co-author of the book,
"One Hundred Million Acres" and was contributing author for
"Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties, a Vine Deloria, Jr.
book on Federal Indian law, treaty and Government problems.
He is Chairman of the Indian Law Committee of the Federal
Bar Association and is a member of the Board of Directors
of the American Indian Lawyer's Association. He is a member
of both the Oklahoma and the American Bar Associations.
GERALD
LISBARY
13
PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
MAX I. RICHTMAN, is a graduate of Harvard and the Georgetown
University Law Center, and is a member of the District of
Columbia Bar Association. While in law school, Mr. Richtman
worked as an investigator for the Public Defender and served
as Co-Director of the Neighborhood Youth Corps Center of the
Department of Recreation in Washington, D.C. After having
obtained his Juris Doctor, Mr. Richtman became a Legislative
Assistant to Congressman Sidney R. Yates where he worked
mostly in the area of Congressional appropriations.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSION
ARNOLD T. ANDERSON, was born on the Grand River Indian Res-
ervation in Ontario, Canada, and is a graduate of McMasters
University. He joined Union Carbide's Manhattan Project at
the Tonawanda, New York facility and now serves as manager
of their Public and Urban Affairs Office, where he organ-
izes and leads the Company on Equal Employment Opportunity,
Community Relations, and Social Responsibilities. Mr.
Anderson is a member of many societies and associations. He
has published a number of scientific papers, is a noted
author, inventor and businessman.
RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
GILBERT L. HALL, 34, is Legal Researcher and Research Super-
visor on the Central Core Staff. He is a graduate of the
University of Kansas with a degree in Political Science and
Economics (1963) and is a graduate of the American Univer-
sity Law School (1972). A member of the Bar of the District
of Columbia and of West Virginia, Mr. Hall was an attorney
in the Indian Affairs Division of the Department of the
Interior Solicitor's Office before his work for the Commis-
sion. Mr. Hall was in private law practice in Washington,
D.C. and has worked two years with Indians in Ecuador,
South America in rural community development projects.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
THOMAS M. FASSETT, Director, Public Information and Communi-
cations, an Allegany Seneca, came to the Commission from his
position as urban affairs officer of the Xerox Corporation.
He attended both undergraduate and graduate school in
Rochester, New York, where he received his B.A., B.D./M.Div.
degrees. Mr. Fassett has worked with national American
Indian interests and was Chairperson of the Indian Manpower
Planning Consortium, Rochester Manpower Development Council
sponsored by the Seneca Nation. He is an ordained minister
in the United Methodist Church.
14
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
TASK FORCE ONE
TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AND FEDERAL/INDIAN RELATIONSHIP
INCLUDING TREATY REVIEW
(Concerned with land, water, mineral rights; forest resources
management, review of treaty fishing, hunting rights; status
of tribal authority or Indian political rights and standards
of trust responsibilities and performance records of federal
agencies including adverse actions attributable to conflicts
of interest.)
Hank Adams, Chairman
1464 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Apt. 602
Washington, D.C. 20005
Office Telephone: 202-225-1284
Home Telephone:
202-483-5760
HANK ADAMS is Assiniboine-Sioux of Fort Peck, Montana. He is
a nationally known Indian author, lobbyist, tribal economic
consultant and para-professional legal assistant. He has a
long history of working to prevent termination of various
tribes and has argued cases dealing with Indian treaty hunt-
ing and fishing rights, state jurisdiction and taxation and
civil rights.
John Echohawk, Member
1506 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Telephone: 303-447-8760
JOHN ECHOHAWK is a Pawnee who is staff attorney for the Native
American Rights Fund. He served as Director of N.A.R.F. from
1973 to 1975. Mr. Echohawk received his B.A. and J.D. degrees
from the University of New Mexico and his five years with
N.A.R.F. dealing with Indian law, has made him an expert in
the field. He is a member of the Colorado Bar Association.
Doug Nash, Member
P. O. Box 1539
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Telephone: 503-276-8337
DOUG NASH is a Nez Perce who received his B.A. from the Uni-
versity of Idaho and his J.D. degree from the University of
New Mexico School of Law. A former staff attorney for the
Native American Rights Fund, Mr. Nash is now in private prac-
tice, specializing in Federal Indian Law.
WILLIAM JOHNSON, Umatilla, Research Specialist
KEVIN GOVER, Comanche, Research Specialist
15
TASK FORCE TWO
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
(Concerned with powers of self-government, judicial author-
ity, taxation, natural resources regulation, structure of
tribal government, financial and administrative stability
of tribal government.)
Wilbur Atcitty, Chairman
P. O. Box 203
Window Rock, Arizona 86515
Office Telephone: 602-871-4595
Home Telephone:
602-871-4224
WILBUR ATCITTY is a Navajo who, for the past four years, has
been employed as Director of the Navajo Tribal Office of
Administration and for two years, has been Executive Admini-
strator to the Navajo Tribal Chairman. He has also worked
in the Office of Navajo Economic Opportunity to provide
management and budgeting for reservation housing projects.
Alan Parker, Member
American Indian Law Center
University of New Mexico School of Law
1117 Stanford N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106
Telephone: 505-277-2828
ALAN PARKER, Chippewa-Cree, has been an attorney for the
Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office and for the
Indian Civil Rights Task Force. He was Attorney-Director
the American Indian Lawyer Training Program in Washington,
D.C., and now is with Amindian Center, University of New
Mexico School of Law. Mr. Parker organized and initiated
publication of the "Indian Law Reporter, a comprehensive
monthly report on developments in Indian law.
Jerry Flute, Member
P. O. Box 186
Sisseton, South Dakota 57262
Telephone: 605-698-3911
JERRY FLUTE became Tribal Chairman of the Sisseton-Wahpeton
tribe in January, 1975, after having served four years as
Tribal Secretary. He is a member of the National Tribal
Chairmen's Association and is Chairman of the United Tribes
Training Center in Bismark, North Dakota where he has pre-
viously served in the capacity of Secretary-Treasurer. He
has served on several Indian boards and task forces.
MICHAEL COX, Creek, Task Force Specialist.
16
TASK FORCE THREE
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND STRUCTURE
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
(Concerned with administration of the trust responsibility
by the Department of Interior and Justice Department, de-
livery of technical assistance to tribes and individuals
through Executive Agencies, how Executive Agencies should
be structured to improve responsiveness and structure of
Indian legislative institutions providing a direct inter-
face between tribal governments and the Congress.)
Sam Deloria, Chairman
American Indian Law Center
University of New Mexico School of Law
1117 Stanford N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106
Office Telephone: 505-277-4840
Home Telephone:
505-898-3179
SAM DELORIA is a Standing Rock Sioux who is Executive
Director of the American Indian Law Center at the University
of New Mexico. He received his B.A. from Yale University
and attended Yale Law School. Mr. Deloria has been a Plan-
ning Specialist with the Oglala Sioux Tribal Planning
Office and à Supervisor of Technical Assistance with the
University of South Dakota's Indian Community Action
Project.
Ray Goetting, Member
P. O. Box 208
Laguna, New Mexico 97026
Telephone: 202-225-1284
RAY GOETTING, an Oklahoma Caddo, is the Treasurer for the
National Congress of American Indians where he has been
extremely active in areas of Federal-Indian programs and
budget policies. He has extensive experience in administra-
tion in the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclama-
tion. He has been a Regional Procedures Analyst, Regional
Management Analyst, and Regional Administrative Officer in
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Goetting has owned a
business management consulting firm in New Mexico for
sixteen years with mining companies, manufacturers, ranchers,
and other business concerns as clients.
17
Mel Tonasket, Member
Colville Tribal Office
Box 150
Nespelem, Washington 99155
Office Telephone: 509-634-4591
Home Telephone: 509-826-4528
MEL TONASKET is a past Chairman of the Colville Confederated
Tribal Council and has been a member of the Council for six
years. He is President of the National Congress of American
Indians and has been Chairman of the Reservation Sub-Committee
of the Governor's Indian Advisory Council for the State of
Washington. He also presently serves the Indian Advisory
Board for Eastern Washington State College.
RUDY RYSER, Cowlitz, Task Force Specialist.
TASK FORCE FOUR
FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL JURISDICTION
(Concerned with Public Law 280, child welfare, jurisdictional
questions involving fishing and hunting rights, law and
justice, water rights regulation and protection by tribes
under the Winter Doctrine and jurisdiction impact of federal
agencies.)
Sherwin Broadhead, Chairman
Box 35 A
Reardon, Washington
Office Telephone:
509-634-4591
Home Telephone:
509-796-3706
SHERWIN BROADHEAD is working with the Institute for the
Development of Indian Law on Treaty Rights for four tribes
and serves as consultant for various tribes. Mr. Broadhead,
a lawyer, is a graduate of the George Washington University
School of Law and is a member of the Idaho Bar Association.
He has been a Congressional Relations Officer for the United
States Bureau of Indian Affairs and a Special Assistant on
Indian Affairs on the Staff of Senator James Abourezk,
Chairman of the Senate Sub-Committee on Indian Affairs. He
has a long history as an advocate for Indian tribal sov-
ereignty.
Honorable William Roy Rhodes, Member
c/o Gila River Tribal Council
P. O. Box 97
Sacaton, Arizona 85247
Office Telephone:
602-562-3382
Home Telephone:
602-276-1857
18
WILLIAM ROY RHODES, a Pima, is Chief Judge of the Gila River
Indian Community in Arizona and is President of the American
Indian Lawyer Training Program, a member of the National
Indian Court Judges Association, and a member of the Arizona
Governor's Task Force on Police/Community Relations. Before
being elected Tribal Judge, Mr. Rhodes was in law enforce-
ment with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Maricopa County,
Arizona, and Tribal Police Department. He is an authority
on jurisdictional problems. Judge Rhodes is the father of
eight children, including three foster children.
Matthew Calac, Member
520 E. Street, Suite 803
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: 714-232-1016
MATTHEW CALAC, Rincon Mission, is a past Rincon Business
Council member, past Area Vice-President of the National
Congress of American Indians, and past Executive Director
for Americans for Indian Future and Traditions (legal,
social health services, job training and placement) Program.
He is Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Law 280
(State Jurisdiction) for 29 Southern California reservations
and directs all the Inter-Tribal Council of California's
efforts relating to P.L. 280. He has been an active figure
in several California Indian organizations.
PAUL ALEXANDER, Special Counsel.
DON WHARTON, Task Force Specialist.
TASK FORCE FIVE
INDIAN EDUCATION
(Concerning federal policies and their impact on education
of American Indians, implementation of education policies
relating to Indians through BIA and USOE, policies of the
United States Office of Education and other agencies affect-
ing Indians and development of a working definition of
Indian education.)
Helen Shierbeck, Chairwoman
9128 Maywood Lane
Fairfax, Virginia
22030
Office Telephone:
202-638-6877
Home Telephone:
703-591-8697
19
HELEN SCHIERBECK is a Lumbee involved in several projects
relating to Indian education. She is Director of the
special project on History and Financing of Indian Education
for the Whitney Foundation and is Service Coordinator for
three major Indian educational organizations. From 1966
to 1973, she worked on Federal programs to improve education-
al opportunities for Indians. Ms. Schierbeck is author of
several award-winning articles on Indian education and is a
Doctorial Candidate at Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Earl Barlow, Member
Superintendent of Schools
Browning, Montana
Telephone: 406-338-2715
EARL BARLOW, Blackfeet, is Superintendent of Schools on the
Blackfeet Reservation. He graduated with a B.A. degree in
1947 from Western Montana College and received his Masters
Degree in Education from the University of Montana. He has
been Superintendent of Schools in both Hot Springs and
Stevensville, Montana.
Lorraine F. Misiaszek, Member
East 2718 Nora
Spokane, Washington 99207
LORRAINE F. MISIASZEK (Mrs. Anthony J.), is a former Tribal
Council Member for the Colville Confederated Tribes and is
an active member of the Board of Directors of Advocates for
Indian Education: Northwest Tribes. She has been on the
Washington State PTA Board of Managers and Pacific North-
west Indian Center's Board of Trustees. Ms. Misiaszek
received her B.A. Degree in Political Science with minors
in Journalism and Philosophy, and her Masters Degree in
Education from Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington.
She has had special training, including techniques on
applying a change process model from the University of Colo-
rado at Denver, and has held many important positions
including Director of Indian Education for the State Office
of Public Instruction, where she administered the Johnson-
O'Malley program for the State of Washington and supervised
statewide Indian education. Ms. Misiaszek has been a
consultant for the U.S. Office on the Education Professions
Department Act Proposals, consultant for the Washington
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and consultant
for the U.S. Office of Indian Education. She was a member
of the Indian Task Force for the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.
KATHY McKEE, Missouri Cherokee, Task Force Specialist.
MARIA FACHINA, Research Assistant.
20
TASK FORCE SIX
INDIAN HEALTH
(Concerning current health standards for the American Indian
and Native Alaska, federal responsibility for Indian health
and investigation of Indian Health Service, alternative
sources of health care, e.g., traditional medicine, national
health insurance.)
Dr. Everett Rhodes, Chairman
University of Oklahoma College of Medicine
800 N.E. 13th Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104
Office Telephone: 405-272-9876
Home Telephone: 405-848-2508
DR. EVERETT RHODES, Kiowa, is head of Infectious Disease Sec-
tion of the University of Oklahoma Medical Center and is a
member of more than a dozen societies and organizations
including the American College of Physicians, the Association
of American Indian Physicians (of which he was founder and
president in 1974), and NCAI. Dr. Rhodes has published forty
articles in professional journals and has had extensive experi-
ence in the practice and the teaching of medicine.
Luana L. Reyes, Member
10516 Victory Lane, N.E.
Seattle, Washington
Telephone: 206-329-0250
LUANA REYES of the Colville Confederated Tribes, is the
Executive Director for the Seattle Indian Health Board and
has been active on local and national Indian Health Boards
for fifteen years. She was Commissioner of the Seattle
Indian Services Commission that houses several Indian pro-
grams and has been active in other community affairs. Ms.
Reyes studied education and business at the University of
Puget Sound and University of Washington.
Lilliam McGarvey, Member
4230 Tahoe Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
LILLIAN McGARVEY is an Aleut from Alaska and is Director of
Health Programs for the Aleut League, a non-profit organi-
zation for the Aleut region. She is Alaska's representative
to the National Indian Health Board and is a member of the
Board of Directors of the Alaska Chapter of the American
Public Health Association. She assisted in the Comprehensive
Health Advisory Council of Alaska construct a state health
21
plan. Ms. McGarvey is Secretary-Treasurer of the Aleut
Corporation, one of the twelve regional corporations set up
under the Alaska Native Claims Act.
AL CAYOUS, Apache, Cahvilla, Task Force Specialist.
TASK FORCE SEVEN
RESERVATION AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION
(Concerning review of land use, access to capital and product
markets, potential for agriculture, mining, forest products
and manufacturing developments for tribes and individual
Indians along with housing and contracting.)
Peter MacDonald, Chairman
Navajo Tribal Council
Window Rock, Arizona 86515
Telephone: 602-871-4595
PETER MacDONALD has been Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council
for five years. He is a graduate of the University of Okla-
homa with a degree in engineering and is a former Hughes Air-
craft Company engineer and member of their Technical Staff.
Before being elected Chairman of his tribe, Mr. MacDonald was
Tribal Director of Management, Methods and Procedures and
Director of the Navajo Office of Economic Opportunity. He has
been active in national Indian affairs and state affairs.
Ken Smith, Member
General Manager
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Warm Springs, Oregon 97761
Telephone: 503-553-1161
KEN SMITH is a Wasco from the Warm Springs Reservation and is
a graduate of the University of Oregon with a major in finance
and accounting. Now General Manager of the Warm Springs
Reservation, he has been employed by the Warm Springs Confed-
erated Tribes for sixteen years. He has served three years
on his Tribal Council and has been active in civic groups and
organizations.
Phillip Martin, Member
Route 7, Box 21
Philadelphia, Mississippi 39350
Telephone: 601-656-5636, 656-6101
PHILLIP MARTIN, Mississippi Choctaw, is a member of the Tribal
Council and was elected twice as Tribal Chairman (1959 to 1965
and 1971 to 1975). He has been Chairman of the Board of Choc-
taw Housing Authority and Executive Director of the Choctaw
22
Community Action Program. Mr. Martin is President of the
Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Institute since 1970,
and has been President of the Board of United Southeastern
Tribes (two terms) and is a member of the National Congress
of American Indians and the National Tribal Chairmen's
Association.
LORRAINE RUFFING, Task Force Specialist.
TASK FORCE EIGHT
URBAN AND RURAL NON-RESERVATION INDIANS
(Concerning federal recognition, evaluation of BIA Relocation
and Assistance Program, effects of federal programs directed
towards urban and rural non-reservation Indians.)
Alfred Elgin, Chairman
2901 Fulton Road
Santa Rosa, California 95401
Telephone: 707-528-9102, 545-3289
REVEREND ALFRED ELGIN is a California Pomo who has a B.A.
degree in Exegetical Theology from Bethany Bible College. He
has been Project Director for Indian Centers Development
Services and is acting Executive Director for the American
Indian Community House in New York City. Rev. Elgin has been
Executive Director for the Intertribal Friendship House in
Oakland and a counselor for the Oakland American Indian Associ-
ation. He has been a leader in several California Indian
organizations including the Intertribal Council of California
and California Indian Education Association, and has served
as Board Chairman for the United Scholarship Service and as
Board Member for the Native American Legal Defense and
Education Fund.
Gail Thorpe, Member
5630 N. Sheridan Road
Chicago, Illinois 60660
Telephone: 312-641-1766, 334-1757
GAIL THORPE is a Sac and Fox and the eldest daughter of the
late Jim Thorpe, one of the world's most famous athletes.
Ms. Thorpe attended Haskell Institute, Chilocco Indian
School, and graduated from business school in Chicago. She
is manager of the Regional Office of the Girl Scouts of
America in Chicago and is President of the Chicago Indian
Council Fire, and the Secretary of Descendents of Jim Thorpe,
Inc. She has been an Illinois delegate to the Governor's
Indian Interstate Council and is President of Tipi, Inc., an
American Indian Speaker's Bureau.
23
Edward F. Mouss, Member
Route 1, Box 448
Henryette, Oklahoma 74437
Telephone: 918-756-8500, 652-3223
EDWARD MOUSS is Creek-Cherokee from Oklahoma and the Executive
Director for the Creek Indian Nation. He has been Manager of
New Enterprise Development for Oklahomans for Indian Opportun-
ity and consultant and staff research at the University of
Oklahoma. Mr. Mouss received his B.A. degree from Oklahoma
State University in Science-Management and his Masters in
Business Administration from the University of Tulsa and a
Masters of Regional and Urban Planning from the University
of Oklahoma.
JAMES BLUESTONE, Hidatsa, Task Force Specialist.
TASK FORCE NINE
INDIAN LAW REVISION, CONSOLIDATION AND CODIFICATION
(Concerning elimination of obsolete laws from statute books,
recommending revision of old laws or the creation of new laws
to.aid tribal development, recommendations of statutory
revisions enhancing the power of tribes and individuals to
effect implementation of existing laws, study of diversified
programs within various federal agencies, and problems aris-
ing from bureaucratic requirements and controls.)
Peter S. Taylor, Chairman
1819 N. Lincoln Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Telephone: 225-1284
PETER S. TAYLOR was Co-Director of the Indian Civil Rights
Task Force in the Department of the Interior's Office of the
Solicitor. For the past four years, he has worked extensively
on the revision and consolidation of Indian law. Mr. Taylor
is a graduate of the George Washington University School of
Law and is a member of the Virginia and District of Columbia
Bar Associations. Before his work on the Civil Rights Task
Force, Mr. Taylor practiced law in the District of Columbia
area for seven years.
Yvonne Knight, Member
1506 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado
Telephone: 303-447-8760
YVONNE KNIGHT, Ponca, has been a staff attorney for the
Native American Rights Fund since 1971 when she received her
J.D. Degree from the University of New Mexico Law School.
24
Ms. Knight is a member of the Colorado Bar Association and
is a member of six distinguished professional organizations.
Browning Pipestem, Member
200 E. Main Street
Norman, Oklahoma
Telephone: 405-329-3840
BROWNING PIPESTEM is an Otoe-Missouria and Osage, and is a
Council Member of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe. He is a
graduate of the Oklahoma State University Law School and
is a partner of the law firm of Pipestem, Rivas and Charlos
in Norman, Oklahoma.
KARL FUNKE, Red Lake Chippewa, Task Force Specialist.
TASK FORCE TEN
TERMINATED AND NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIANS
(Concerning the nature of the obligation and responsibility
of the U.S. to non-recognized Indians and a determination of
what constitutes "federal recognition" and "federal restora-
tion", evaluation of the funding of federal programs avail-
able to such Indians and their utilization and a compilation
of names and locations of such Indian groups.)
JoJo Hunt, Chairwoman
300 Reneau Way
Herndon, Virginia 22070
Telephone: 703-471-4652
JOJO HUNT is a Lumbee from North Carolina. She graduated
Cum Laude from Pembroke State University in 1970 and
received her J.D. Degree from Duke University Law School in
1973. She has been a law clerk with a Washington, D.C. law
firm and with the Washington office of Pine Tree Legal
Assistance of Calais, Maine. She has been counsel for the
Indian Affairs Sub-Committee in the U.S. House of Representa-
tives and has been active in several national Indian
organizations.
John Stevens, Member
P. O. Box 36
Mt. Vernon, Maine 04352
Office Telephone:
207-289-2831
Home Telephone:
207-293-2941
25
JOHN STEVENS, is a Passamaquoddy from Maine and has been
Commissioner of Maine's Department of Indian Affairs for
the past four years. He is past Director of the Passa-
maquoddy Community Action Program and has been active in
tribal affairs for 15 years while employed by a paper mill
where he was also a labor union leader. He is active in
several local and national Indian organizations and serves
on several state councils.
Robert Bojorcas, Member
505 Nottingham
Eugene, Oregon 97404
Telephone: 503-688-6382, 686-3799
ROBERT BOJORCAS is a member of the Klamath Tribe and works
with CETA as a Title III Coordinator. He is a former
counselor at the Central Oregon Community College and the
University of Oregon, and has been Business Manager and
Education Chairman for the Shoalwater Bay Tribe. He has
been active in affairs of the terminated Klamath Tribe as
a tribal council member and in the affairs of Northwestern
Indian organizations. He is college-educated and is a gradu-
ate of the Indian Manpower Training Center in Phoenix.
GEORGE TOMER, Penobscot-Maliseet, Task Force Specialist.
TASK FORCE ELEVEN
ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
(Concerning identification of causitive factors of substance
abuse; improvement of local, state and federal delivery
systems related to rehabilitation through Indian alcohol and
drug abuse programs, especially those dealing in prevention,
treatment and aftercare.)
Reuben Snake, Chairman
Sioux City American Indian Center
1660 West 27th Street
Sioux City, Iowa 51103
Telephone: 712-225-4141 or 227-6832
26
REUBEN SNAKE is a member of the Winnebago Tribe and is the
Education Project Director for the Sioux City American In-
dian Center. Mr. Snake has been a National Field Trainer
for Indian Education Training and the Educational Director
for Nebraska Intertribal Development Corporation. He has
organized a number of workshops on alcohol and drug abuse
and has assisted in the development of projects to deal with
these problems, such as in establishing an alcohol recovery
house in Winnebago, Nebraska. Mr. Snake is active in the
Native American Church.
George Hawkins, Member
1301 S. Broadway
Edmond, Oklahoma 73034
Telephone: 405-842-5951
GEORGE HAWKINS, a Southern Cheyenne from Oklahoma, has been
active in rehabilitation programs since 1966. He is a past
Director of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Alcoholic Rehabilitation
Center and is now theExecutive Director for the United
Indian Recovery Association of Edmond, Oklahoma, which he
organized. Mr. Hawkins has been involved in several other
state and national organizations on alcoholism and has been
active in Oklahoma Indian affairs.
STEVEN LaBOEUFF, Blackfeet, Task Force Specialist.
27
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP
Indian tribes, organizations and individuals everywhere can assist
AIPRC in its mission.
The Commission welcomes tribal resolutions, reports, letters and
complaints which identify specific problems and issues. The more
accurate, specific, concise and thoughtfully presented, the better,
although no specific format need be followed. It is enough, for
us to know exactly what the issues and problems are that confront
you, as Indian people in your area. But remember, proper certi-
fication and documentation adds to your report.
Any tribe, group, band, organization, or individual may submit
written material on problems and issues, local and national, and
give their views on what should be done and thus, help us identify
all the key issues. You may deal with a large number of issues,
as you see them, or with a specific case, and include your recom-
mendations of ways in which improvements may be made. You are
welcome to contact us by mail or to state your case at an AIPRC
hearing, or even telephone us for assistance.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO SUBMITTED MATERIAL
1.
You will receive prompt feedback and acknowledgment of your
input by return mail.
2.
Assistance by telephone may be provided.
3.
The Commission will provide a suggested format if requested.
4.
Any Indian input will be referred to the proper Task Forces
for review.
5.
Problem areas will be brought to the attention of Congres-
sional delegates, departments and agencies.
6.
The input becomes a part of the source records and informa-
tion upon which the final Commission Report will be made.
Thereafter, it will be placed in the permanent archives of
the United States as a permanent record.
7.
Position papers and complaints dealing with specific area
problems or national Indian policy will be carefully evalu-
ated as they are deemed to be crucial instruments for use
by AIPRC in accomplishment of its mission. Such papers
should be developed around issues, goals, objectives, con-
clusions, and recommendations for executive and/or
legislative action. Such papers may be developed by your
tribal council, tribal organizations, staff or legal counsel
and may analyze the issues and state your particular needs.
AMERICAN INDIAN
POLICY REVIEW
NEWSLETTER
COMMISSION
ERNEST STEVENS Director
SENATOR JAMES ABOUREZK Chairman
KIRKE KICKINGBIRD
General
Counsel
CONGRESSMAN LLOYD MEEDS Vice Chairman
April, 1976
LETTER FROM
JIM ABOUREZK
The eleven circles at left represent the
I am very happy to report at
eleven Commission members and
this time that we have been able to
eleven task forces of the American In-
resolve all constitutional questions
dian Policy Review Commission. The
regarding the Commission's right to
three red (gray in this reproduction)
exist. On February 19, 1976, in Na-
circles at top are the three Indians
tional Tribal Chairmen's Associa-
from Federally recognized tribes; the
three white circles on each side repre-
tion, et. al., V. James Abourezk et.
sent the three Senators and three Con-
al., Civil No. 75-0803, a Federal
gressmen on the Commission, and the
District Court in Washington
two bottom circles are for the Com-
granted a motion for summary
missioners who represent urban and
American Indian
judgement in favor of the Commis-
federally non-recognized Indians.
Policy Review
These eleven circles make up the
sion, dismissing the bid by the
larger circle of the traditional tribal
NTCA to stop the Commission's in-
Commission
council.
vestigation.
The background on this case is
as follows:
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT DRAGS FEET
On May 20, 1975, the National
Tribal Chairmen's Association filed
ON LAND ACQUISITION
a suit seeking to have the act
creating the Commission declared
According to recent Commis-
and 1937 Congress appropriated $1
unconstitutional, seeking to stop the
sion findings, less than $6 million
million annually under this provi-
work of the Commission, attempting
has been spent by the Bureau of In-
sion. In subsequent years there were
to have the appointment of the In-
dian Affairs since 1934 to acquire
progressively smaller amounts ap-
dian Commission members voided,
land for the Indians. This is less
propriated, until 1951 when ap-
and demanding that the Director
than seven percent of the amount
propriations under this provision
and General Counsel of the Commis-
authorized under the Indian
ceased entirely.
sion be fired.
Reorganization Act of 1934.
Because of the Constitutional
Our research so far has not pro-
issues involved, a three judge court
There can be no question that
vided a reason for this cessation, but
was convened to hear oral arguments
land use and ownership plays an im-
it is presumed that the influence of
in the Federal District Court of the
portant role in the relationship of
the termination policies of the
District of Columbia on December
the Indian population to the Federal
1950's at least partially explains the
12, 1975. In a unanimous decision
Government. One piece of federal
Federal Government's apparent lack
on February 19, the court granted
legislation which recognized this
of interest in protecting Indian lands
my (and the Commission's) motion
was the Indian Reorganization Act
during this period.
to dismiss the NTCA suit. In their
of 1934. This Act authorized the
order dismissing NTCA's suit the
Secretary of Interior to acquire
If the amount of money which
three Federal judges stated:
"land, interest in lands, water rights
was appropriated under the IRA
and surface rights to lands" on
since passage of the Act had been
The powers and respon-
behalf of American Indians.
the maximum authorized and was
sibilities vested in the
an amount consistent with the intent
American Indian Policy
The Commission is presently
of the IRA there would have been
Review
Commis-
assessing how much the authority of
a total of $82 million spent for ac-
sion are exclusively
the Indian Reorganization Act, as
quisition of land on behalf of In-
legislative
in
well as other federal statutes, has ac-
dians. This would have purchased at
nature
and
neither
tually been exercised by the govern-
today's prices something around 1
the creation of the Com-
ment to stabilize the land base of
million acres. Our research in-
mission nor the appoint-
reservation Indians.
dicates, however, that there has ac-
ment of its membership
tually been less than $6 million
by
Congress
is
($5,823,500) appropriated through
violative of the doctrine
1975 for this purpose.
of separation of powers or
The Reorganization Act
the appointments Clause
authorized annual appropriations of
By conducting our own research and
of the Constitu-
$2 million per year for the acquisi-
by asking the Bureau of Indian Af-
tion
The present In-
tion of lands for Indians. In 1936
(Cont. on P. 6)
(Cont. on P. 6)
.1.
INDIAN ALCOHOLISM PROGRAMS:
SHOULD THE
Smoke rose high above Indian
efforts.
country and floated toward the Na-
Stephen
tion's capital recently when the Ad-
ministration's proposed budget for
NIAAA is now funding 153 In-
alcoh
dian alcoholism programs (101
would
1977 called for the transfer of 16.1
million dollars in alcoholism and
reservation and 52 urban programs),
collab
drug abuse programs from the
with an additional 12 training pro-
power
Department of Health, Education
grams for Indian Counselors and
there
and Welfare's National Institute on
workers in the alcoholism field.
specif
Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse
These programs are funded through
gram
(NIAAA) to the Indian Health Ser-
a "special projects" branch of
projec
vice (IHS). The proposed funding
NIAAA, with no formal policy ad-
the
brane
for these programs, once moved to
dressing specifically Indian needs.
IHS, would be only 12 million
The project grants were originally
dollars, a 25% drop from the present
designed to be funded for three
All
level!
years; however, recent legislation
alcoh
(HR-12677) will extend NIAAA's
be tr:
Complete chaos resulted, with
programs for three more years. At
dian
few of the proponents understanding
the end of this time, the programs
cludi
the strategies involved in the pro-
are considered "mature" projects.
manp
posed move. As in any case that in-
Federal direction in the past
grams
volves misinformation or incomplete
decade has been moving toward
NIAAA had steadfastly taken
possibly compromise the urban
have
information, it became difficult for
decentralization and the funding of
the position that it wanted to keep
programs that are now funded, and
quasi-
interested parties to mount a concen-
block grants to the states, with the
the alcoholism effort "together" and
the future funding of urban pro-
progra
trated effort either for or against the
corresponding elimination of
that the total direction of alcoholism
jects, because IHS is a "reserva-
proba
proposed transfer, regardless of the
categorical programs. This direction
programs and support programs
tion" delivery system. Some feel
merge
funding level. Let's look through the
was dramatically emphasized
needed to be consistent. IHS on the
that monies would be taken off of
progra
smoke and see "what's happening".
January 21 when President Ford
other hand, has an "advocacy" role
the top for administrative costs. It
e.g.,
proposed to consolidate the NIAAA
for all Indian people and the legisla-
should be noted, however, that IHS
would
We must first accept the
project and state formulas grant pro-
tion for a comprehensive health
is now administering several "ur-
dian
grams into a massive block grant
assumption that Indian
delivery system to "reservation" In-
ban" projects which have been
togeth
scheme with the monies going to the
alcoholism is recognized
dians, whom they have traditionally
established through Congressional
dress
as the number one health
states. The Indian alcoholism pro-
served. It would appear that the
direction. Should the alcoholism
needs,
grams would have been included in
problem of the Indian
resource programs within IHS, i.e.,
programs be transferred to IHS, the
also .
this move. In theory, "local control"
people, and is just begin-
mental health, and health care
monies would be designated as
alcoho
is well intended, and supported by
ning to receive a higher
facilities, could be most responsive
alcoholism program monies and the
visibil
the Indian people; however,
priority in the nation's
to the special health needs of the
full amount would go to the pro-
becom
historical events have shown state
health programs. The for-
alcoholism and drug abuse pro-
grams. Any additional costs for ad-
handling of Indian monies to be
mation and placement of
ministering the alcoholism pro-
The
grams.
a coordinated alcohol and
somewhat suspect, with the Indian
grams would be absorbed by IHS.
could
drug abuse effort should
people fearing any state interven-
ISSUES
IHS
be the primary concern of
tion. The Indian people have always
IHS is presently operating at a
2/3 funding level and has looked
Should the Indian alcoholism
keepir
all involved.
supported local control in cases
where Federal funds are channeled
programs stay where they are, then?
new
askance at the proposed transfer
directly to Tribal entities and local
Where should the programs be
year)
BACKGROUND
with anything less than full funding.
organizations. State control,
placed if the proposal transfer takes
resear
In the late 1960's, the Office of
however, is steadfastly avoided.
Compounding the problem of
place? What are some of the options
trainir
Economic Opportunity (OEO) began
available?
NIAA
funding some alcoholism programs
It was, perhaps, with President
short funding is the lack of an ad-
mit th
Ford's budget message to Congress
ministrative structure to handle the
operated by the tribes and other In-
in mind that the Administration in-
Interestingly enough, several
jects
dian groups.
programs. IHS, with the passing of
itiated a proposed transfer of the
options are available and the ad-
depen
P.L. 93-638, the Indian Self-
urban
alcoholism programs to IHS. The
Determination and Educational
vantages and disadvantages should
be weighed carefully by the ad-
facilit
Then in 1970, the Comprehen-
proposed budget cut, on the other
Assistance Act, in January 1975,
Indian
sive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
hand, was a different matter, br-
ministration, Congress, and the In-
now has grant authority and is im-
inging a quick outcry from all
dian people:
"alcoh
Prevention, Treatment, and
plementing regulations which pro-
gram
Rehabilitation Act established the
quarters, including Congressional
vide for a grants management struc-
The entire Indian
resour
NIAAA within HEW for the purpose
supporters of alcoholism efforts.
ture. In all probability the
Alcoholism efforts could
of coordinating all Federal activities
Rumors and incomplete information
alcoholism programs would be
in the alcohol field, in order to ad-
left many of the Indian programs
remain in NIAAA, per-
Task
decentralized through the area of-
minister all alcoholism programs,
fices. IHS has asked for additional
mitting the focus for all
Alcoholism
and supportive organizations in a
federal alcohol initiatives
and to develop project grants and
quandry on "who did what to
administrative positions and monies
been deeply
contracts for the treatment of
whom?" and "why?" This type of
to handle the proposed transfer.
to remain in one agency.
date given to
alcoholics. Not until 1972, however,
situation makes it difficult to make
This would be ad-
of examinin,
did the OEO Indian alcoholism pro-
rational decisions and formulates
Additionally, it is feared that
vantageous for com-
aspect of the
grams come under NIAAA's um-
munication between In-
abuse field
strategies of support or non-support
any transfer of programs would
brella, along with IHS alcoholism
of issues.
dian alcoholism programs
through trea
(Cont. on following page)
and other national
measures. TI
-2-
PROGRAMS:
SHOULD THEY MOVE TO IHS?
by
Stephen La Boueff, Jr.
funding 153 In-
alcoholism programs, and
identified alcoholism and its related
programs
(101
would facilitate research
effects as their number one health
programs),
collaborations and man-
priority, and the allocation of
12 training pro-
power training. However,
resources and formation of programs
Counselors
and
there is not now a
at all levels to combat it are of ut-
leoholism
field.
specifically Indian pro-
most importance. The Task Force is
funded through
gram in NIAAA, as the
holding field hearings and on-site
branch
of
projects are funded out of
visits; gathering statistical data;
policy
ad-
the "special projects"
analyzing and evaluating existing
Indian needs.
branch.
and proposed Federal, state, and
were originally
local legislation, policy and pro-
for
three
--All of the Indian
gress; and conducting literature sear-
legislation
alcoholism projects could
ches in order to present a com-
NIAAA's
be transferred to the In-
prehensive report to the Commission.
more years. At
dian Health Service, in-
the programs
cluding research and
projects.
manpower training pro-
NIAAA and IHS are currently iden-
in the past
grams. This option would
tifying options for implementing the
moving toward
possibly compromise the urban
have the effect of a
transfer should it take place, and
NIAAA had steadfastly taken
the funding of
the position that it wanted to keep
programs that are now funded, and
quasi-Indian alcoholism
will be sharing them with the Indian
states,
with
the
program which would
alcoholism programs and national
the alcoholism effort "together" and
the future funding of urban pro-
limination
of
that the total direction of alcoholism
jects, because IHS is a "reserva-
probably have to be
Indian alcoholism organizations for
This
direction
review.
programs and support programs
tion" delivery system. Some feel
merged with an existing
emphasized
needed to be consistent. IHS on the
that monies would be taken off of
program effort under IHS,
President Ford
other hand, has an "advocacy" role
the top for administrative costs. It
e.g., mental health. It
the
NIAAA
for all Indian people and the legisla-
would permit keeping In-
EDITORS NOTE: There are ob-
should be noted, however, that IHS
rmulas
grant
pro-
tion for a comprehensive health
is now administering several "ur-
dian alcoholism projects
viously many more advantages,
block grant
delivery system to "reservation" In-
ban" projects which have been
together, but does not ad-
disadvantages, strategies and
going to the
dians, whom they have traditionally
established through Congressional
dress future funding
tradeoffs that might be considered.
alcoholism pro-
served. It would appear that the
direction. Should the alcoholism
needs, new projects, etc. It
This article was written April 26,
been
included
in
resource programs within IHS, i.e.,
programs be transferred to IHS, the
also would not give the
1976 and is merely intended to help
"local control"
mental health, and health care
monies would be designated as
alcoholism program the
clarify some of the issues that are be-
supported by
facilities, could be most responsive
alcoholism program monies and the
visibility it needs to
ing discussed today.
however,
to the special health needs of the
full amount would go to the pro-
become a viable program.
shown
state
alcoholism and drug abuse pro-
grams. Any additional costs for ad-
monies
to
be
grams.
ministering the alcoholism pro-
The "mature" projects
with the Indian
Task Force members are
grams would be absorbed by IHS.
could be transferred to
state interven-
ISSUES
Reuben Snake (Winnebago-Sioux),
IHS for administration,
have always
IHS is presently operating at a
Chairman: George Hawkins
Should the Indian alcoholism
keeping the funding of
in cases
2/3 funding level and has looked
(Southern Cheyenne), member; and
are channeled
askance at the proposed transfer
programs stay where they are, then?
new "demonstration" (3-6
Steve LaBoueff, Jr. (Blackfeet),
entities and local
with anything less than full funding.
Where should the programs be
year) grants and alcohol
specialist. Informal Task Force
State
placed if the proposal transfer takes
research and manpower
control,
hearings are tentatively scheduled
place? What are some of the options
training efforts within
avoided.
Compounding the problem of
for:
available?
NIAAA. This would per-
with President
short funding is the lack of an ad-
mit the selection of pro-
to Congress
ministrative structure to handle the
Interestingly enough, several
jects to be funded in-
dministration
in-
programs. IHS, with the passing of
dependent of issues like
PLACES
DATES
transfer
of
the
options are available and the ad-
P.L. 93-638, the Indian Self-
to
IHS.
vantages and disadvantages should
urban V. rural, and would
The
Determination and Educational
facilitate the entry of new
Sioux City IA
May 7
on the other
be weighed carefully by the ad-
Assistance, Act, in January 1975,
ministration, Congress, and the In-
Indian projects into an
matter,
br-
now has grant authority and is im-
"alcohol" oriented pro-
Buffalo NY
May 7
from all
dian people:
plementing regulations which pro-
gram with corresponding
Congressional
vide for a grants management struc-
coholism efforts.
--The entire Indian
resources.
Oklahoma City OK
May 13
ture. In all probability the
information
Alcoholism efforts could
alcoholism programs would be
Phoenix AZ
May 14
Indian
remain in NIAAA, per-
Task Force No. 11 on
programs
decentralized through the area of-
ganizations in a
fices. IHS has asked for additional
mitting the focus for all
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse has
Portland OR
May 17
federal alcohol initiatives
did
what
to
administrative positions and monies
been deeply immersed in the man-
This
type
of
to handle the proposed transfer.
to remain in one agency.
date given to it by Congress that
San Diego CA
May 20
difficult to make
This would be ad-
of examining and analyzing every
and
formulates
Additionally, it is feared that
vantageous for com-
aspect of the alcoholism and drug
munication between In-
abuse field from causative factors
or
non-support
any transfer of programs would
Informal hearings have already been
dian alcoholism programs
through treatment and preventive
held in Milwaukee, Navajo, Billings
(Cont. on following page)
and other national
measures. The Indian people have
MT, Anchorage, and Cherokee NC.
-3-
ALTERNATIVE ELECTIVE BODIES
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION TASK FORCE AIRS
TWO PROPOSALS
The "Inter-Tribal Legislative In-
Indian beneficiary. Two institu-
a continuing Legislative assembly
stitutions: Feasible Alternatives"
tional concepts were thought by the
fashioned after the League of Na-
Workshop held February 14 and 15
workshop to be feasible and consis-
tions. This institution would repre-
by the Task Force on Federal Ad-
tent with the needs and objectives
sent all Indian tribes and nations to
ministration and the Structure of In-
just described.
the extent that each would seek
dian Affairs has introduced two
representation by sending a formal
basic plans for alternative Indian
delegation. Each tribe or nation
elective bodies, which it has submit-
Concept No. 1: Election of Indian
would determine the powers of its
ted for review by tribes and
Congressional Delegation
delegation, and each may reserve the
organizations throughout the United
right to ratify actions proposed by
States.
This approach includes the
the Legislative assembly. Because
The workshop which was at-
direct election of two Senators and
the Union of Indian Nations would
tended by all of the Federal Ad-
three or more Representatives to the
conduct sessions equal to the ses-
ministration task force members and
House and Senate of the U.S. Con-
sions of the U.S. Congress, each tribe
representatives from many Indian
gress. The process would incorporate
would have the opportunity to
tribes and organizations
nomination of candidates through a
review its position regarding any
concluded that the Executive Branch
national general assembly of tribes
legislation set before the Congress in
takes actions which preempt Indian
and popular election of represen-
its early stages of development. The
representation in the policy making
tatives. This concept includes
Union of Indian Nations would in
processes of the Congress, result-
establishing an ongoing general
effect serve as a "recognized" unof-
ing in Executive action
assembly of tribes and an Indian
ficial committee of Congress.
without Indian representation. Fur-
thermore, it was concluded that the
Executive Branch abuses and
redirects the will of Congress in spite
of Indian efforts to gain favorable
legislation through the Committee
hearing process. It was finally con-
cluded that Congress frequently
enacts legislation damaging to the
interests of tribes because there is no
means by which the Indian voice
can be formally heard in the
Legislative Branch.
The workshop's overall conclusion
was, therefore, that there is a need
for an institution which represents
Indian tribes and groups of tribes.
This institution should reserve the
Ray Goetting, Task Force No. 3 Ernie Stevens, Commission Director
right of each tribe to ratify and con-
firm the policy and program
staff with an Executive Director who
The Union of Indian Nations
development activities of the na-
directly interfaces with a Secretary
would serve as a primary source for
tional government as expressed
of Indian Affairs a cabinet level
legislation which reflects the in-
through an inter-tribal legislative
officer in the Executive Branch. The
terests of a majority of tribes.
institution. The objectives of such an
Secretary of Indian Affairs would be
Specific tribal legislative interests
institution ought to be
responsible for all Indian Affairs
would be directly placed before the
Administration (all funds, assistance
Congress without action by the
--to perform oversight functions as
and services to Indians consolidated
Union of Indian Nations unless such
regards the activities of the
from the many different offices
action is requested by the tribe or
Legislative and Executive
working with Indians).
tribes concerned.
Branches;
The Congress would form a
The objectives of any such in-
--to protect the right of tribal self-
Joint Standing Committee of Indian
stitution would be to:
government and strengthen the
Affairs which would be made up of
the elected Indian Senators and
national government's trust
(1) Provide real Indian input into
responsibility;
Representatives. This Joint Standing
the budgetary process, both
Committee of Indian Affairs would
for Legislative and Executive
--to increase tribal influence over
have Indian Affairs budget jurisdic-
Branches. This includes pro-
the budget processes of the Ex-
tion as well as broad jurisdiction
gram definition, line item
ecutive and Legislative Branches;
over Indian Affairs issues.
control, and development of
and
Concept No. 2: Union of
rules and regulations for the
to insure the trustee's (U.S.
Indian Nations
administration. This system
Government) accountability to the
This approach would establish
(Cont. on P. 6)
4.
TASK FORCES INVESTIGATING
SEPARATE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
ALMOST CREATED A CENTURY AGO
(EDITOR'S
NOTE:
An
Indians, when "allocations" were
"internal memo" of AIPRC's
not "relative to denominational
Task Force No. 1 has stated
size.")
that it "will likely recommend
We have addressed two basic
creation of some form of a new
Department of Indian Rela-
points here: (1) That an indepen-
tions
&
Community
dent, cabinet-rank Indian Depart-
Reconstruction, headed by a
ment has been seriously considered
cabinet-level Secretary, and
in the past as having merit; and (2)
subject to certain measures of
There is national precedent in law
"joint control' by an indepen-
for "joint control" to be exercised by
dent Native American Board of
a departmental Secretary and an ex-
ternal authoritative unit such as
Control." Alternatives for
selecting membership to such a
suggested for a "Native American
Board of Control."
Board are only discussed brief-
Hank Adams
ly. The following are some ex-
In effect, the proposed new In-
character and reputation, as
cerpts from the background
dian Department would be under
well as to the welfare of our
given for their proposed recom-
the tri-partite control and direction
300,000 Indian popula-
mendarion.)
tion
of the President, the Congress, and
our 'Indian Affairs'
Indian people collectively.
deserves to be placed upon the
"Establishment of an indepen-
footing of a separate depart-
dent and separate Department of In-
The Bureau of Indian Affairs
ment, equal in dignity and in-
dian Affairs almost became reality a
has undergone, by its own terms,
fluence, because equal in im-
century ago.
"ten major reorganizations, plus
portance, with every other
other minor realignments" since
department of the Govern-
1965. These maladapted read-
ment."
justments in BIA structure and func-
The Great Peace Commission
A bill to create the department
tions obviously have not equipped
of 1867-1868 had initially recom-
was not acted upon by the Congress.
that ancient bureaucracy with either
mended unanimously the formation
The bill to transfer "full authority"
the capacity or the will to satisfy its
of such a Department, whose "head
to the War Department failed to pass
obligations to Indian people or the
should be a Cabinet Officer". The
the Senate.
American nation.
Commission, assigned to study the
The first BIC appointees in-
conditions of the Indian nations and
However, on April 10, 1869,
cluded three Presbyterians, two
to make treaties, was comprised of
Congress did establish a ten-member
Episcopalians, two Methodists, and
congressional and presidential ap-
Board of Indian Commissioners
one each from the Baptist, Quaker,
pointees, including active and
(BIC), empowered to exercise "joint
and Congregationalist religions. All
retired U.S. Army personnel.
control" with the Interior Secretary
were wealthy men, retaining in-
over departmental administration of
terests in a range of businesses and
Indian appropriations, contracts,
occupations, including banking; fur
In anticipation of the election
personnel, tribal funds, and treaty
trading; real estate; steel mills; min-
of their former General, Ulysses S.
provisions. Although its powers were
ing and railroads; dry goods mer-
Grant, to the Presidency, a national
subsequently reduced, BIC remained
chantry; textiles, cotton, and blanket
military lobby secured a change in
in existence until 1934.
manufacturing; steamship com-
the Commission's proposals. Led by
panies; insurance companies; educa-
its military members, its new majori-
President Grant, instead of
tion; and politics.
ty insisted that "full authority and
seeking an Indian Department, used
control over all Indians" should in-
BIC to shield himself from strong
In fact, BIC had been proposed
stead be transferred to the War
military demands for wholesale
by influential churchmen as an
Department.
appointments in the Indian Service
alternative to the Indian Department
and for maintaining full military
and to military maneuverings for
control over the Native populations.
control. Although the authority exer-
Commissioner of Indian
cised by BIC was minimal less
Affairs, and Peace Commission
The BIC was also Grant's
than that contemplated by the
President, N. G. Taylor, carried the
device for sharing responsibility
churches its original members
fight for the original position,
among America's Christian churches
were instrumental in securing
declaring:
for "civilizing" the Indian people,
discharge or resignation of Indian
while dividing the Indian popula-
Commissioners Ely S. Parker and E.
tions and territories among various
P. Smith on corruption charges,
"In view of the magnitude,
Christian denominations. (Religions
before BIC members themselves
complexity and delicacy of our
represented on BIC were later to
resigned en masse in 1874, pro-
Indian Affairs, in view of the
squabble that all except
testing their lack of powers and the
importance to our national
Episcopalians had been "cheated"
treasury and to our national
out of their proportionate number of
(Cont. on P. 7)
-5-
83% OF TRIBES IN US HAVE LESS THAN
1000 PEOPLE, TASK FORCE STUDY
INDICATES
The Commission Task Force on
Areas of study to be under-
--the future of small tribes with
Tribal Government has encountered
taken by the Task Force will thus
small populations; and
some surprising statistics in the
include the following issues of major
course of its analysis of tribal
interest to small tribes:
--the impact and utility of the
governments.
Indian Self-Determination Act for
--problems that small tribes are ex-
small tribes.
In examining populations of
Indian tribes in the lower 48 states
periencing in exercising basic
powers of self-government;
After data on the above sub-
and Alaska, it has determined that
jects has been computed and
52.7% of tribes have populations of
analyzed, the Task Force plans to
200 or less; 75.8% of tribes have
--delivery of BIA services and the
make recommendations to Congress
populations of 500 or less; and
effect of BIA area organization on
which will address the above pro-
82.9% of tribes have populations of
small tribal government opera-
blems, with major emphasis on pro-
1,000 or less. These alarming
tions;
tecting the future of small tribes, in-
statistics have convinced the Task
suring their tribal sovereignty, and
Force that special attention must be
given to the problems encountered
--federal policy regarding
adapting federal policy and federal
distribution of federal programs
funding procedures to accomodate
by small tribes today.
to small tribes;
the special needs of these tribes.
INDIAN
LETTER FROM
defined that no tribes will
LEGISLATIVE
give up their sovereignty, but
ABOUREZK (Cont.)
INSTITUTIONS (Cont.)
will in fact be provided a
method for exercising their
dian membership of the
Commission reflects the
rights as sovereign nations.
will provide a window or door
criteria for selection
to Congress which will enable
detailed
in
the
Indians to prevent Executive
American Indian Policy
action from being taken
The Federal Administration Task
Review Commmission Act
without their approval.
and the Director and
Force would appreciate any com-
General Counsel of the
(2) Provide oversight review in
ments or recommendations you
regards to the activities of the
might have on the proposed
Commission were ap-
legislative structures. Please address
pointed as required
Executive and Legislative
Branches. The purpose of the
your remarks to either Rudy Ryser or
by the Act. The
Bobbi Minnis, c/o Task Force No. 3,
American Indian Policy
review is to identify areas
Review Commission
where the Executive Branch
at the Commission Office in
Washington, D.C.
opened its offices on
changes the intent of Con-
March 17, 1975 and has
gress, to make Congress aware
been in continuous opera-
of such changes and to take
LAND ACQUISITION
tion since that date.
follow-up actions to correct
these inconsistencies.
(Cont.)
As you can tell from the articles
in this newsletter, our Commission
fairs to search their files, we are in
has been progressing steadily with
(3) Provide accountability of both
the process of determining how
its investigations over the past year.
U.S. to tribes and of tribal
much of that $6 million was actual-
On February 18, 1976 the task
representatives to their peo-
ly expended, how much land it
forces submitted their second
ple. This process will clearly
bought, the quality of the land, loca-
quarterly reports, and their third
define the responsibilities of
tion, etc. This information will be
quarterly reports will be finished
everyone dealing with Indian
extremely valuable in assessing the
this month. The Commission has lit-
affairs and establish an
overall impact of the Indian
tle more than a year left at this point
evaluation system whereby
Reorganization Act, providing some
in which to complete its work.
Tribes can determine how
measure of the Federal Govern-
well the General Assembly
ment's recognition of the importance
Our most sincere hope, then, is
and its delegates are perform-
of land to the American Indian, and
that all one-million American In-
ing.
providing a factual base for future
dians and Alaskan Natives will
recommendations.
abandon any personal animosities
(4) Provide a method for protec-
they may feel at this time, so that we
ting the inherent sovereignty
The results of this investigation as
can all work together in uncovering
of all tribes and strengthening
well as recommendations for policy
the shortcomings in federal pro-
the vehicle for carrying out
changes which would make the
grams serving Indians, and stand
the trust responsibility of the
government more responsive to
behind the passage of any legisla-
U.S. government. Throughout
Indians will be published in the
tion and policy changes which the
this system it will be clearly
Commission report in January 1977.
Commission finally recommends.
-6-
JURISDICTION TASK FORCES TO
is nothing wrong with having a
strong advocacy agency in govern-
HOLD PHOENIX HEARINGS
ment, committed to clear national
purpose, reasonable and worthy ob-
jectives, and accepted obligations of
trust and morality.
The doubts we have heard ex-
Task Forces on Tribal Government An open session has been scheduled
pressed about current governmental
and Federal, State, and Tribal during each hearing to give in-
directions, ranging from State chan-
Jurisdiction of the American Indian
dividual witnesses the opportunity to
nelled funding to the contracting
provisions of P.L. 93-638, from the
Policy Review Commission will hold
present their views.
Indian Trust Counsel Authority to
hearings on June 2 and 3 in
the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Phoenix, Arizona.
Affairs, support the view that Indian
people have no agencies of their own
The hearings will focus on current
in government and few reliable
T.F. Memo (Cont.)
advocates.
problems relating to jurisdiction and
tribal governments in the Arizona
non-cooperation of the Interior
and New Mexico area. In particular,
Department.
the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act
The most fundamental element
ABOUREZK (Cont.)
will be dealt with and the problems
of the trust responsibility is that of
of tribal justice and non-tribal taxa-
embracing and protecting the
Anything less than total unity
tion, zoning, and the efficacy of
sovereign character of Indian
in demands for large-scale policy
peoples; second, that of being
changes could prove lethal to these
tribal governments.
directed toward protecting the rights
demands. Thus, at the risk of
and resources maintained under the
repeating myself, I urgently request
Judge William Roy Rhodes of Task
sovereign control of the Native na-
that Indian groups or individuals
Force No. 4 will chair the hearings.
tions. Subsidiary relationships
who have any questions about the
The Task Forces will hear testimony
and subsidiary "trusts" may pro-
Commission, or who wish to advise
from tribal government officials and
duce different forms of protection or
us on any subject of Indian affairs,
action.
Indian people representing Arizona
contact us as soon as possible at the
The "conflict of interests" issue
American Indian Policy Review
area tribes and organizations as well
can approach resolution only
Commission, HOB Annex No. 2, Se-
as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
through establishment of an in-
cond and D Streets, S.W.,
state and local government officials.
dependent Indian department. There
Washington, D.C. 20515.
WICHITA CHAIRMAN TESTIFIES ON POSSIBLE BIA
WRONGDOINGS AT COMMISSION HEARINGS
"
the Government tells
stances where their duty was to pro-
"challenging one individual that
us that they have retained
tect the Indian's trust lands.
was filing for a 120 acre parcel," ac-
(in trust status) 4,151
cording to Lamar. When overruled
acres of land for our own
In 1934, according to Lamar, 1,356
on the claim for this land, the tribe
use. We have, to this day,
acres of land formerly within reser-
went to the BLM and BIA, both of
never
seen
that
vation boundaries had been neither
which assured the tribe that any
land
In our agree-
allotted nor homesteaded, and was
land not already bought (800 acres
ment with the Govern-
therefore eligible according to the
at the time) would be set aside for
ment, they agreed to set
Indian Reorganization Act for In-
them. Shortly thereafter, however,
aside for us 1,060 (in-
dian trust status. Without notifying
when Lamar "started the process of
dividual) allotments. We
any of the tribal leaders, however,
having this land restored to the
only got 966, so there's 99
the BIA Area Director for Anadarko,
tribe," Charles Delaney, Acting Area
allotments missing. The
Oklahoma, Sid Carney, notified the
Director at the time, "called me and
Area Director said they
Bureau of Land Management that it
said that the Bureau had not
(the BIA) didn't know
was not in "the public interest to
refrozen the land, that it was all
where it went."
have the land restored, and (that it
gone. I called Mr. Delaney and he
should be) made subject to disposal
said, 'Well, geez, we're sorry about
This statement, submitted by
in accordance with the regulations
that.'
Newton Lamar, Chairman of the
(of the Bureau of Land Manage-
Wichita Tribe of Oklahoma, refers
ment)."
Meanwhile, the Wichita Tribe is
only to the most obvious aspect of
supposed to receive all payments
the many questionable actions taken
From 1934 to 1968 the land re-
made to the Government for non-
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
mained untouched. In 1968, the
allotted Indian lands that the
revealed at hearings held by the
BLM issued a directive stating that
Government sells. The Wichitas
Commission in Denver on May 8
the State of Oklahoma could file on
claim, however, that they have never
and 9. Lamar's testimony suggests
the land for a one year period, after
seen the approximately $136,000,
that the BIA mostly through the
which any individual could buy the
which the Government netted from
Area Directors at Anadarko,
land. As soon as the Wichitas
their sales, let alone the $678,000,
Oklahoma has often operated in
realized that this land was still open,
which the Government would have
bad faith, even illegally, in many in-
they demanded that it go to them,
(Continued on page 8)
-7-
netted if it had sold the land for
--One lease on land appraised at
35,000 feet down; instead of just
$500 an acre the amount BLM
$10,590 was leased for $6,500.
paying for one lease, they must
files indicate it was worth instead
Another piece of land appraised
pay for three. In cases where the
of $100 an acre, the amount they ac-
at $5,500 was leased by the BIA
BIA has leased land for the
tually charged.
for $3,750. No reason has been
Wichita, however, Lamar claims
given as to why these lands were
that they have not zoned it, so that
Other BIA actions reported by
leased for under their appraised
the leasee has often turned around
Lamar included the following:
value.
and sub-leased the land, making
--Morris Thompson, BIA Commis-
thousands of dollars in profits,
--When tribal officials pushed to
sioner, declared one of the leases
which should have gone to the
gain control of land leasing
to a portion of the tribally owned
tribe. When the Wichita ques-
themselves, BIA employees
tioned the Bureau, the BIA
land illegal, then rescended his
specifically David Paddelty, an
responded that, "We don't have
decision, saying that the lessee,
Employment Assistance Officer --
the staff nor the resources to do
one Joe Macomas, could keep all
has lead the Wichita tribal
that (zone the land)."
profits for wheat grown on the
members to believe that termina-
land until a court decision is
tion will result if the tribe takes
These and other allegations made by
reached on the validity of the
over its own leasing.
Lamar and others testifying at the
lease. The Wichita feel that even
Commission hearings are presently
if the suit is decided in their
--When non-Indians lease land to oil
being investigated by the Commis-
favor, that in three years
companies, they zone the land so
sion, and will be presented, along
Macomas's lease will be up, and
that the company must pay for
with recommendations for changes
the Indians will not be able to ob-
subsurface rights for 0 to 15,000
in the management of the BIA, in
tain even a percentage of his pro-
feet down, for 15,000 to 25,000
the final Commission Report to be
fits.
feet down, and for 25.000 to
submitted in January, 1977.
THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
(IS RUNNING OUT OF TIME!
JUNE
MAY
LET CONGRESS KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT INDIAN ISSUES
WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, AS AN INDIAN
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED:
YOU CAN MAKE YOUR VIEWS PART OF THE RECORD
BY WRITING AND SENDING THEM IMMEDIATELY TO:
The American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
-8-
file
JAMES ABOUREZK, D-S. DAK., CHAIRMAN
LLOYD MEEDS, D-WASH., VICE CHAIRMAN
LEE METCALF, D-MONT.
MARK O. HATFIELD, R-OREG.
SIDNEY R. YATES, D-ILL.
SAM STEIGER, R-ARIZ.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
INDIAN MEMBERS:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
ADA DEER, MENOMINEE, WIS.
JAKE WHITECROW, QUAPAW, SENECA-CAYUGA, OKLA.
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
JOHN BORBRIDGE, JR., TLINGIT, ALASKA
2D AND D STREETS, SW.
LOUIS R. BRUCE, MOHAWK-SIOUX, NEW YORK
ADOLPH DIAL, LUMBEE, N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
PHONE: 202-225-1284
ERNEST L. STEVENS, ONEIDA, WIS., DIRECTOR
KIRKE KICKINGBIRD, KIOWA, OKLA., GENERAL COUNSEL
MAX 1. RICHTMAN, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Senators, Congressmen, and Congressional Aides
FROM:
Tribal Government Task Force
DATE:
April 8, 1976
RE:
April 16, 1976 Tribal Government Seminar
The American Indian Policy Review Commission will hold the eleventh in
its series of Congressional seminars on Friday, April 16, 1976, from 10 a.m.
to 12 noon in Room B-308 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The seminar
will be conducted by Task Force #2 on Tribal Government.
The seminar series is designed to alert members of Congress and their
legislative aides to major issues of concern to American Indians. The Task
Force on Tribal Government is conducting an analysis of structures, powers,
and functions of tribal governments in order to preserve and strengthen tribal
sovereignty.
As a result of the Task Force's studies to date, we have begun to
identify broad issues which are of major concern to tribal governments. At
the seminar, Task Force Chairman Wilbur Atcitty (Navajo), Special Assistant
to Peter MacDonald; Task Force Member Alan Parker (Chippewa-Cree) of the
American Indian Law Center at the University of New Mexico; and Task Force
Specialist Michael Cox (Creek) will discuss:
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
-2-
1. The need and desire of tribal governments to exercise
the full array of powers of self-government;
2. the critical lack of financial, technical, and human
resources needed to support even the most basic oper-
ations of tribal governments; and
3. the need for special federal policy which addresses
the problems confronting small tribes and tribal gov-
ernments.
Development of a consistent and long-lasting Congressional policy which
not only recognizes the right of tribal self-government, but which is commit-
ted to strengthening those tribal governments, is perhaps the single most
important recommendation which can emerge from this Commission.
Enclosed herein are some materials which may provide some background to
the work of the Task Force and the kinds of issues under consideration.
Your attendance at the April 16 Seminar would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Michael Cor
Michael Cox, Specialist
Tribal Government Task Force
MC/car
JAMES ABOUREZK, D-5. DAK.1 CHAIRMAN
LLOYD MEEDS, D-WASH., VICE CHAIRMAN
LES METCALF. D-MONT.
MARK O. HATFIELD, R-OREG.
SIDNEY R. YATES, D-ILL.
SAM STEIGER, R-ARIZ.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
INDIAN MEMBERS:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
ADA DEER, MENOMINEE, WIS.
JAKE WHITECROW. QUAPAW, SENECA-CAYUGA, OKLA.
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
JOHN BORBRIDGE, JR., TLINGIT, ALASKA
2D AND D STREETS, SW.
LOUIS Rt. BRUCE, MOHAWK-SIOUX, NEW YORK
ADOLPH DIAL, LUMBEE, N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
ERNEST L. STEVENS, ONEIDA, WIS., DIRECTOR
PHONE: 202-225-1284
KIRKE KICKINGBIRD, KIOWA, OKLA., GENERAL COUNSEL
MAX 1. RICHTMAN, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
TASK FORCE INFORMATION SHEET
(Task Force #2)
Name:
Task Force on Tribal Government
Members: Wilbur Atcitty, Chairman (Navajo)
602/871-4595
Jerry Flute (Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux)
605/698-3911
Alan Parker (Chippewa-Cree)
505/277-2828
Staff:
Michael Cox, Task Force Specialist (Creek) 202/225-1284
General Purpose: The Tribal Government Task Force will examine the
structures and determine the functions as they relate to the ability
of tribal government to respond to the needs and desires of tribal
members, to protect and enhance tribal sovereignty, to meet the
problems encountered by Indian tribes in the present and future, and
to make recommendations that will enable tribal governments to carry
out these functions.
To achieve this goal, the task force will utilize a questionnaire
which is aimed at yielding a picture of tribal government. It will
provide the most comprehensive assessment of what tribal governments
are doing, how they are organized to perform their functions, what
functions they would like to perform, and what problems legal,
administrative, or internal, they are experiencing and anticipate
in implementing their powers and responsibilities. It will enable
us to see what tribal governments of varying types want to do, and
what resources they require to do it.
Primary Tasks:
Survey and Analysis of Tribal Governments and Structures
Taxation Powers of Indian Tribal Governments
Land Use Control and Natural Resources Regulation
Judicial Powers
Report on the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
Historical Review of Tribal Governments and Sovereignty
Methodology:
Questionnaire survey of tribal governments
Field visitations to 35-40 reservations
Case study of approximately 6 reservations in the areas
of taxation, land use control and natural resources
regulations, judicial authority
Formal hearings
Topic Areas:
Powers of Self-Government: The extent to which tribes are fully
exercising these powers. Should they be expanded? What are the problems
in exercising these powers? What proposals are there for remedying
these problems?
Taxation: The extent to which tribes are adopting taxing schemes.
Tribal taxation as a means of financing tribal government.
Land Use and Natural Resources Regulation: The extent to which tribal
governments are developing and adopting comprehensive land-use plans
and regulating the development of their natural resources. The problems
in regulating these areas and possible solutions.
Judicial Authority: Do tribes who are now prevented from exercising
criminal and civil jurisdiction over the reservation desire to exercise
this power? What special problems does this pose for tribes who are
relatively small and poorly financied?
Structure of Tribal Government: Extent to which the tribal government
structure and tribal constitution impedes or frustrates the efficient
operations of tribal programs.
Organization and Operation of Tribal Government: Problems in securing
and managing grants and contracts. An exmaination of how tribal
governments determine their priorities and develop their budgets.
The extent to which the Bureau band analysis is used by tribes in
developing their budgets.
Other topic areas will be covered where appropriate.
Participation of Indian People: The Task Force values ideas and information
submitted by Indian people, tribes and individuals for aiding in the
conduct and completion of its work. Any person who wants information
considered by the Task Force should address it to us. Particularly,
information related to any of the above listed subject matters may be
useful.
Tribal officials or representatives may call us to inquire about infor-
mation that might have been developed by the Task Force, or overlooked
while being important to have brought to our attention. Tribal reports,
including lawsuits and legal briefs which may provide evidence or
important information relating to Task Force issues will be read fully
by the Task Force when submitted to it. Information from regions where
Task Force hearings will be held can be most useful when received in
advance of hearings.
When purpose might be served by the attendance of Task Force representatives
at inter-tribal, regional, or other broadly based meetings, the Task
Force will consider invitations to attend for listening to ideas, opinions
and for furthering its information and data gathering work.
Task Force on Tribal Government
JAMES ABOUR K. as. OAK CHAIRMAN
LLOYD MILDS. D-WARM VICE CHAIRMAN
LEA L-F: N°
MARK J. HATFIELD. ROREG.
SIGNEY R. YATI F. ILL.
SAM STEIGER, R-ARIZ.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
INDIAN MEMBERS:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
ADA DEER. MENOMINEE. WIS.
JAKE WHITECROW, QUAPAW. SENECA-CAYUGA, OKLA.
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
JOHN BORBINDGE, JR., TLINGIT, ALASKA
2D AND D STREETS, sw.
LOUIS R. BRUCF, MUHAWK-SIOUX, NEW YORK
ADOLPH DIAL, LUMBEE, N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
BRNIST L. STEVENS. ONEIDA. WIS., DIRECTOR
PHONE: 202-225-1284
KIRKE KICKINGBIRO KIOWA, OKLA., GENERAL COUNSEL
MAX 1. RICHTMAN, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
Major Issues - Task Force on Tribal Government
I. Financial and Administrative Stability of Tribal Government
Financial and administrative stability of tribal governments is a
persistent problem; financing the basic operations of government is a
significant problem for many tribes.
Some tribes have no independent source of income and rely totally
on federal grant and contract monies. Other tribes have some income;
however, their needs are so great that available funds are generally
inadequate to meet the needs of the tribal government. The Task Force
is concerned that all tribes have sufficient financial resources to perform
their basic governmental functions (e.g., protection of natural resources,
maintaining membership, supporting tribal council and tribal chairman's
activities). (Services to tribal members such as education, manpower,
and social services are not included here) The Task Force wishes to
explore the nature of these problems and possible responses of the federal
government. The Task Force will also identify the specific problems created
by the absence of tribal income to perform these functions and services.
Subissue 1:
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
How are independent tribal funds used? What problems are created
by an absence of sufficient funds to finance basic governmental functions?
a. If your tribe has independent income, how are those funds used?
b. Do oney support any of the basic functions of tribal government?
1/26/75
-2-
C. If not, how are tribal government functions financed?
d. What specific functions is your tribal government unable to
perform as a result of insufficient funds? (What kinds of
activities would you be doing if you had the funds?)
Subissue
2: Is the tribe able to pay for the costs associated with
the activities of its tribal council and tribal chairman?
a. Are your councilmen adequately compensated, for their services?
b. What problems, if any, are created if their compensation is
inadequate?
C. If your tribal chairman is not full-time, is this because of
lack of funds, or because his services are not required full-
time?
d. What problems, if any, result from the fact that you do not
have a full-time tribal chairman?
Subissue 3: Has the tribe ever felt forced to make major policy
decisions without the benefit of legal and technical advice and expertise
other than from the Bureau because it could not afford such assistance?
a. Has the absence of legal and technical advice ever been
a problem for you?
b. What types of assistance do you need most?
C. Can you provide us with some examples of situations in which
the absence of such advice resulted in an inappropriate
decision by the tribal government?
Subissue 4: Funds made available to tribes from the BIA are clearly
very important sources of dollars and services for most tribes. The manner
in which Bureau funds are distributed is, therefore, a critical issue
which the Task Force desires to examine.
a. To what extent does the present BIA budget system hinder
or aid tribes in developing and meeting tribal priorities?
b. Are there alternatives which would make it easier for tribes
to develop their planning capabilities?
C. Boes the BIA budget reflect the real priorities of your
tribe? If not, why not?
d. How does the tribe presently go about determining tribal
priorities?
-3-
Subissue 5: Many tribes have expressed a need for special orientation
for tribal council members, especially those serving for the first time,
to assist in understanding the operations of tribal government. The
Task Force is interested in learning about programs which have been
presented in the past, and your ideas concerning programs which sould
be made available in the future through federal resources.
a. Describe the orientation you have received and its
effectiveness.
b. What role do you believe the federal government should
play in providing such programs to tribal officials?
C. What action should the federal government take to assure
that all tribes have sufficient resources to perform
their basic governmental functions?
d. Are federal funds which are used for the support of
tribal government operations sufficient?
e. What additional resources should the federal government
make available?
Subissue 6: Document problems in administrative stability of tribal
government directly due to insufficient revenue or income.
a. Are there problems in:
Administering and managing programs?
Setting up or maintaining an adequate personnel system?
(Does there tend to be a total turnover in personnel
upon the election of a new tribal chairman and/or council?)
Managing property?
Acquiring legal assistance to protect tribal sovereign-
ty?
Training personnel to participate in the BAND analysis?
Training personnel in the skills necessary to solicit
federally funded programs?
Carrying out tribal planning and budget development
activities?
Accounting and financial management capabilities?
-4-
Subissue 7: A great deal of concern has been voiced about the problems
tribal governments have experienced in managing federal programs under
grant or contract. In light of the requirements of the Self-Determination
Act for contracting with the Bureau, and grant and contract requirements
of other federal agencies, it is essential that tribes have certain
management systems in place. The Task Force is interested in the percep-
tions of tribal government concerning their own capability, problems they
are experiencing, and action the federal government can take to help
tribes improve their capability in order to meet grant and contract requirements.
a. What problems are you having in planning, budgeting,
personnel systems, financial management, property manage-
ment, and other operations?
b. What assistance has the federal government provided to
assist your tribe to improve the capability of tribal
government operations? How useful has this assistance
been?
C. What are your major areas of need at the present time?
d. What do you think the federal government should be
doing to assist tribes improve their management and
operations capability?
01
Subissue 8: Requirements for various federal programs sometimes diminish
the role of tribal government and exclude certain tribes because of their
size. Program requirements which require a tribe to incorporate under
the state to secure contracts are seen by some tribes as a process which
involves relinquishing control to the state.
Federal policy set forth in the Self-Determination Act defines a
very clear role in grants and contracts for tribal government. The
Task Force wishes to examine the role of tribal government in any and all
federal programs.
-5-
a. Which federal programs do you believe have eligibility
requirements which diminish the role of tribal government?
b. What particular problems, if any, has your tribal govern-
ment experienced in relation to these programs?
C. What should be the federal policy on eligibility for
grants and contracts?
d. Should there be a separate staff for each program?
How does this affect the coordination of programs?
Does it interfere with accounting and management
procedures on a reservation-wide basis?
Subissue 9: In the past ten years many tribes have created the position
of tribal administrator or business manager to facilitate the conduct
of governmental business. The Task Force wishes to learn how tribes
feel about this approach, its pros and cons, and possible applicability
to the situation of other tribes.
a. Do you have a tribal administrator? If so, what is his
role and function and relationship to the tribal chairman
and tribal council?
b. Has his presence helped you tribal government to operate
more effectively?
C. Do you believe it would help you if you had the services
of a tribal administrator?
d. How should the federal government assist tribes in se-
curing the services of tribal administrators?
Subissue 10: What should be the overall role of the federal government
in strengthening tribal government particularly in light of self-deter-
mination?
-6-
II. Powers of Tribal Government
A. Tribal Sovereignty and Intergovernmental Relationships between
Tribal, Local, State and Federal Governments
Perhaps the most critical question that can be asked about Indian
tribal governments today is what powers are they exercising, and does
the exercise of those powers constitute the full exercise of tribal
sovereignty? In the past forty years many of the sovereign powers of
tribal governments have been infringed upon by federal, state, and
local governments. Therefore, it is difficult today to define tribal
sovereignty, or to describe in general terms the powers exercised by
tribal government since they vary SO greatly. It is essential to try to
reach for a definition of sufficient flexibility to allow for the broad
range of governmental powers exercised by tribes today.
The Task Force intends to document the extent to which state and
local governments have encroached upon tribal powers of self-government
and is reviewing the powers which are now being exercised by different
tribes, of differing sizes, located in different places, to try to
reach a definition of what tribal government really is and to develop an
approach whereby federal policy can reflect that status.
Subissue 1: Determining what powers a tribe exercises, and
the problems it is experiencing in the exercise of those powers is
an initial first step in examining the powers of tribal government.
a. What powers is the tribe now exercising:
Does the tribe regulate its membership?
Dees it have the capability to tax its members/or non-Indians
on reservation land?
-7-
Does it regulate or have control over the disposition
of reservation lands?
Are there judicial powers? Is there a court system?
Are there law enforcement powers?
Are there other powers? (Specify)
b. On each of the above mentioned powers, if the tribe does
not have the authority to exercise these powers, is the state
or federal government exercising these powers?
Which government is exercising which powers? Why?
C. What problems are you having or have you experienced in
each power specified above?
d. What conflicts have you had, if any, with state and local
jurisdictions in the exercise of these powers?
e. What kinds of jurisdictional conflicts have you experienced
with local, state or federal governments?
f. What do you think are the minimum powers a tribe must
exercise to be considered a viable government? What powers
do you feel are not critical to tribal sovereignty?
Subissue 2: The Task Force is interested in determining what powers
tribes would like to exercise that they do not have now. If they do obtain
these powers, do they have, or can they secure, the capability to exercise
these powers effectively?
a. What specific powers are you not exercising that you would
like to exercise?
b. If you were authorized to exercise these powers, would you
have the capability to do SO given the size and administra-
tive capacity of your tribe?
C. What assistance would you require if you were to exercise
these powers?
d. What other problems would you face in endeavoring to
exercise these powers?
Subissue 3: What role has the federal government played, or should it
be playing in helping tribes exercise their sovereignty?
-8-
a. What has the federal government done in the last
twenty years to enhance or diminish your ability to
exercise tribal sovereignty?
b. What should the federal government do in the future to
assist tribal governments to exercise tribal sovereignty?
Subissue 4:
Tribal sovereignty and BIA's role as Trustee or authority
of Secretary of Interior over Tribal Government.
As tribal governments have evolved to act more and more independently
from the BIA and the Department of Interior, the future role of the
Secretary of Interior deserves particular consideration.
The Bureau now approves a varying range of resolutions passed by
tribal councils. The legal authority for this action on the part of the
Bureau is in serious doubt; the Task Force wishes to determine the extent
to which the Bureau practices such discretion, and the impact of the
Bureau's role on the operations of tribal government.
a. In what areas is the BIA exercising its judgment over
the tribe's will and to what extent does the power of the
BIA to exercise its discretion effect the tribe's ability
to function as a government?
b. Should secretarial approval be required before tribal
resolutions and budgets are valid which are unrelated
to trust issues?
C. Do you know the authority on which the BIA bases this
action? Is there a provision in your constitution that
you must submit tribal council resolutions to the BIA
for approval?
d. Does such a procedure limit the ability of your tribal
government to function effectively?
e. How should federal policy be modified with regard to
BIA approval of tribal council resolutions?
-9-
f. Do you have any problem with the fact that the Bureau
provides such advice while it is carrying out its trust
responsibilities on behalf of the Department of Interior
which has such a strong interest in the development of
natural resources on tribal lands? Do you see a
conflict of interest problem on the part of the BIA
and/or the Department of Interior?
g. In what areas does there seem to be an undermining of
tribal sovereignty by the BIA in their trust role?
(i.e., program reulations, federal law)
h. What problems have you experienced in dealing with the
BIA that you feel undermine tribal sovereignty?
i. It is the feeling of some tribes that if tribes have the
capability to draw up their own constitutions, the BIA
should not necessarily have the authority to approve
constitutions. Should the BIA have the authority to
approve constitutional by-laws or amendments to the
constitution?
-10-
III. Special Problems of Small Tribes
Small Indian Tribes present a set of special needs and problems
in so far as federal policy toward tribal government is concerned.
Analyzing the unique problems of small tribes is a priority issue
for the Task Force. It is the intent of the Task Force to develop
policy recommendations which will help small tribal governments to
become viable. The question of federal policy in the distribution of
federal funds to small tribes will also be considered in depth.
Subissue 1:
An analysis of the powers exercised by small tribes and the
problems related to these powers will help to serve as a basis for
recommendations with regard to small tribes.
a. As the tribal chairman of a small tribe, what do you
believe are the special problems being faced by small
tribes today?
b. What powers of self government do you now exercise?
What powers do you wish to exercise?
Does your tribe presently have the capability to exercise
these powers?
What support or assistance would you require in order to
exercise these powers?
C. Given population and tribal resources, do you see a distinction
between the tribal government operations of small VS large tribes?
d. Does a small tribe experience more conflicts with the state because
of its size than larger tribes?
Subissue 2:
Role and relationship of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to small
tribes. The manner in which the bureau is organized to deliver services
to small tribes and in fact provides such services is a critical factor
in so far as their viability is concerned. An examination of that role
and relationship is basic to understanding the special problems of these tribes.
-11-
a. How is the BIA organized in your area?
b. What effect does this have on the ability of a small tribe
to contract?
C. Do you participate in the BAND analysis or BIA budget process?
d. Do you have a lack of trained personnel to participate in the
budget process?
f. Is there insufficient funding to make the establishment of
priorities a reality?
g. What special problems do you have as a tribal government in
working with the Bureau which might not be experienced by
a larger tribe?
Subissues 3:
Federal policy with regard to distribution of funds from other federal
programs is also a subject of concern to small tribes. Assuring that
all federal policy recognizes the uniqueness of their circumstances and
properly considers their needs is an important question.
a. Some federal policy seems to have been written which large
tribes in mind. What specific policies or procedures has
your tribe experienced which you believe work to the
detriment of small tribes? Give specific examples.
b. Should there be federal policy which is different for tribes
on the basis of size? (funding) If yes, how?
C. Do small tribes have difficulty in securing contracts in
competition with larger tribes?
d. Do you feel that federal funding on the basis of tribe size
is leading to the extinction of small tribes?
GERALD P.. FORD
Subissue 4:
The Self-Determination Act is intended to provide new opportunities
to tribal governing bodies to manage their own affairs. Some persons have
questioned the helpfulness of the Act to small tribes. The Task Force
desires to explore this problem and develop recommendations which might
make the Act more responsive to the needs of small tribes if appropriate.
-12-
a. What do you think the impact of the Self-Determination Act
will be on your tribe, if any?
b. Do you plan to contract under the Self-Determination Act?
C. What special problems does contracting pose for a tribe of your
size?
d. Do you believe there are adequate funds to make correcting
a reality for small tribes?
e. What particular areas of your tribal government need to be
strengthened? Can you estimate in dollars the amount of money
you would require to pursue these activities, under new
Self-Determination Grants Programs?
Subissue 5:
There is a great deal of controversy concerning the role which inter-
tribal groups should appropriately play in assisting tribal governing
bodies to perform certain types of governmental functions.
What special roles, if any, do you believe that inter-tribal organi-
zations can play in assisting small tribes to maintain their sover-
eignty?
Subissue 6: Many small tribes have expressed concern about their future
because of their small populations. The next twenty years may mean the
extinction of numerous small tribes unless certain changes occur immediately.
Recommending ways to safeguard the future of these tribes is a critical issue
for the Task Force.
a. Has your tribal government examined the question of tribal
survival in light of the small population and continuing
migration from the reservation?
b. What approaches, if any, have you developed to address this
problem?
C. What should the federal government do to help your tribe survive?
-13-
V. Tribal Government and Resource Development
The future of many tribes is dependent on decisions which are now
being made and which will be made in the future concerning the development
of the natural resources. The relationship of tribal government to these
decisions the manner in which they are made and how they are implemented--
is therefore critical.
a. What difficulty has your tribal government had in analyzing its
resources and preparing plans for the development of these resources?
b. How has the Bureau assisted you in this regard?
C. Do you believe that the Bureau's assistance has taken into account
the best interest of the tribe or is the Bureau caught in a con-
flict of interest role?
d. What should federal policy with regard to resource development
be?
e. What should the role of the Bureau, as trustee in resource
development decisions be?
GATAINS ABOUREZK, D-S. DAK., CHAIRMAN
LLOVS MEEC 5. D-WASH., VICE CHAIRMAN
LEE METCALP, D-MONT.
HATPIELD, R-ORFG.
211 Y N. YATES, D-ILL.
1AM STEIGER, R-ABIZ.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
INDIAN MEMBERS:
ADA DEER, MENOMINEE, WIS.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
JAKE WHITECROW, QUAPAW, SENECA-CAYUGA, OKLA.
JOHN BORBRIDGE, Jrt., TIJNGIT, ALASKA
House Ot RICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
LOUIS R. BRUCE, MOHAWK-SIOUX, NEW YORK
20 AND D STREETS. SW.
ADOLPH DIAL, LUMBEE, N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
FRNEST L. STEVENS, ONEIDA, WIS., DIRECTOR
PHONE: 202-225-1284
KIRKE KICKIN GSIRD, KIOWA, OKLA., GE NERAL COUNSEL
MAX '. RICHTMAN, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
July 13, 1976
Honorable James Abourezk
United States Senate
1105 Dirksen Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Lloyd Meeds
House of Representatives
2352 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Gentlemen:
The Task Forces of the American Indian Policy Review Commission are now
in their last quarter and are developing conclusions and formulating
recommendations for both Executive and Legislative action. All Task
Forces will have completed their final report by no later than August
17, 1976. This is a proper time to report on our responsibility to ful-
fill the Congressional mandate PL 93-580.
The Interim Report will outline the highlights of the review thus far,
including the investigations, research, special reports, budget, admi-
nistration and overall progress of the Commission. During the remainder
of the life of the AIPRC, the staff and its support will continue to
develop a substantive report under the joint direction of Congress and
the Indian people. We will continue to set an example in accountability
by reporting our activities while they are in progress. The Commission
will then finalize a report that will justify Congressional commitment
and Indian expectations.
We believe that this Interim Report will answer many questions being
asked about our report by Indians and the Congress alike.
Sincerely,
Ernest L. Stevens
Director
BERALD VORD
PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATIVE STUDIES
INTERIM REPORT
of the
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
July, 1976
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202-225-1284
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION
1
I. PURPOSE
2
II. BACKGROUND OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY
REVIEW COMMISSION
3
III. TASK FORCE INVESTIGATIONS
4
A.
Task Force #1, Trust Responsibility and
Federal/Indian Relationship,
Including Treaty Review
4
B. Task Force #2, Tribal Government
7
C. Task Force #3, Federal Administration and
Structure of Indian Affairs
8
D. Task Force #4, Federal, State and Tribal
Jurisdiction
11
E. Task Force #5, Indian Education
13
F. Task Force #6, Indian Health
14
G. Task Force #7, Reservation & Resource Develop-
ment & Protection
17
H. Task Force #8, Urban & Rural Non-Reservation
Indians
20
I. Task Force #9, Indian Law Revision, Consolida-
tion & Codification
22
J. Task Force #10, Terminated and Non-Federally
Recognized Indians
26
K. Task Force #11, Alcohol and Drug Abuse
27
IV. BIA MANAGEMENT STUDY
28
V. COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE WORK
30
A. An Historical Overview of Indian Affairs
30
B. AIPRC Analysis of Federal Expenditures for
Indians
31
C. Investigation of Indian Contracting and
Procurement
32
i
Page
D. Analysis of Proposed Independent Agency
for Indian Affairs
33
E. AIPRC Tribal Participation Project
35
VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION
36
VII. RATIONALE-AND PLAN FOR THE AIPRC
37
A. Legislative Philosophy
38
B. Final and Supplementary Reports of
the Commission
39
C. Task Force Mission
42
D. Evaluation and Explanation of Task
Force Work
43
VIII. NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION
SUIT (NTCA)
46
IX. AIPRC BUDGET AND FINANCIAL REPORT
47
X. TASK FORCE INVESTIGATIVE COVERAGE, CHART I
51
ii
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION
In this report, we have attempted to present the progress of
the various investigations of the Commission and its Task Forces.
We intend to provide the essence of what is being accomplished by
this joint Congressional Commission.
The Task Forces, completing their reports in July and August,
are arriving at conclusions about the nature of Indian problems
and proposing recommendations for solutions. These conclusions
are based on documentary and legal evidence and consultation with
Indian people. The Commission is receiving extensive input from
Indian tribes. In fact, several of them are submitting complete
Policy Review Commission Reports of their own, notably the Crows,
Yakimas, Colvilles, Quinaults, Oglalas, etc.
The coming months will see the evolution of a central theme
for the full report itself. Fundamental and recurring recommenda-
tions contained in the various reports will be emphasized in the
AIPRC Final Report due in January, 1977. For instance, there are
early indications that issues like treaty status and jurisdictional
definitions; reform of federal administration; special impact aid
in economic development, stronger tribal self-government; and land
consolidation and reform will be priorities as projected by Task
Force and other supplementary reports.
Reliance on Indian people for defining problems and proposing
solutions has been the fundamental philosophy and method of
pursuit in our investigations. A statement of Indian goals and
objectives as seen by Indian tribes and their members is our
essential task. Indian solutions to Indian problems are being FORD
proposed by Task Forces who have been charged with document
GEROLD LIBRARY
1
their findings. Finally, these same Task Forces must make admi-
nistrative and legislative proposals to Congress expressing the
Indian viewpoint and making way for new laws and policies.
The AIPRC was given a two and one-half year time limit to
accomplish its work. It is apparent at this stage that the Task
Forces and supporting staff are equal to the sense of urgency that
the time frame and budget compel.
This Interim Report will summarize our activities and present
an early indication of final conclusions and recommendations.
We are certain that the final Commission report, its indepen-
dent Task Force reports, and supplementary documents will be of a
quality to provide Congress with viable and specific administrative
and legislative proposals.
I. PURPOSE
This Interim Report is intended to inform Congress, tribes,
interested organizations, and individuals of the important investi-
gations, studies and findings which the AIPRC has conducted to date.
It is our hope that the activities and findings reported here will
serve to promote Indian economic and social development, self-
government, and to increase Congressional awareness of Indian
needs and goals.
The Commission and staff anticipate receiving comments and
suggestions from Congressional members, Indians, and individuals
reading this report in order to obtain their valuable insight. It
is this feedback which will aid the Commission in meeting the
expectations and demands of the Indian community through effective
legislation.
2
II. BACKGROUND OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Throughout the history of federal/Indian relations, there has
never been a comprehensive or consistent approach by the Congress
and the Executive that dealt effectively with Indian problems and,
at the same time, efficiently fulfilled Indian needs. Indian
policy has led directly to a situation of deep despair and frus-
tration among Indian people documented by countless alarming
statistics reflecting all aspects of the living conditions of
Indian people. This frustration has been physically manifested
in events such as the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the seige of Wounded Knee.
On July 16, 1973, Senator James Abourezk introduced Resolution
133 to establish the first Indian staffed Congressional Commission
to review American Indian policy. After brief hearings, Resolu-
tion 133 was referred to the Commission on Interior and Insular
Affairs on July 19 and 20, 1973, and on December 5, 1973, the Bill
was considered and passed by the Senate.
On May 13, 1974, Congressman Meeds introduced an identical
Bill on the House side, H.J. Res. 881, in the House of Representa-
tives. Hearings on the Resolution were held before the House
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, and the Bill passed the House on
November 19, 1974, along with an amendment providing for the
creation of investigating Task Forces responsible to the Commis-
sion. On December 16, the Senate concurred on the House amendment
and on January 2, 1975, the Bill became Public Law 93-580, creat-
FORD
ing the American Indian Policy Review Commission. In addition,
amendments were passed entitling the Commission to franking
LIBRARY
privilege and to accept volunteer services from both the public
3
and private sector.
III. TASK FORCE INVESTIGATIONS
The Task Forces are in the process of completing their indepen-
dent research and field investigative studies. These studies
required extensive documented search, legal review and field input
through on-site visits and hearings throughout Indian country. The
Task Force investigative coverage map (see Chart I) indicates the
intensity and area of field visits made by the Task Forces. These
visits do not include special visits made for special studies that
are also being conducted. Their efforts to date have resulted in
arriving at preliminary conclusions and recommendations d aling
specifically with major Indian problems and issues encountered
during the study.
A.
Task Force #1, Trust Responsibility and Federal-Indian
Relationship, Including Treaty Review
The Task Force on Trust Responsibility and Federal-Indian
Relations, Including Treaty Review, has been charged with "conduct-
ing a study and analysis of the Constitution, treaties, statutes,
judicial interpretation and Executive Orders to determine the
attributes of the unique relationship between the federal govern-
ment and Indian tribes, and the land and other resources they
possess"
Task Force #1 studies reinforce fundamental Indian claims
to autonomous rights of self-government, inherent tribal sovereign-
ty and territorial rights, as basic ingredients to the treaty
relationship and trust responsibility established by the United
States government. The United States has not adequately met its
responsibilities in the crucial realms of resources management and
4
rights protection, or in fulfilling critical obligations relating
to:
Adequate Indian land base
Water rights
Hunting and fishing rights
Federal commerce rights
Tide and shoreline decisions
Equitable boundary surveys
Territorial jurisdiction
Definition of Indian title
Tribal taxing authorities
Rights to security and economic independence
In order to sustain the obligations imposed by treaties
and the trust relationship upon the federal government, Task Force
#1 will recommend the creation of a separate Department of Indian
Relations and Community Reconstruction providing Indians with
direct access to the President and Congress. The Depar ent would
be under the direct administration of a Cabine+ evel Secretary of
Indian Affairs subject to joint control by an Indian Board of
Control. The Board will be appointed by the President from nomina-
tions submitted by Indian people. The Secretary and Board of
Control will direct the Commissioner of Indian Affairs who will be
responsible for the administration of the Department. BIA Area
Offices would be scrapped in favor of a system of Native American
Regional Councils performing continuous management planning, per-
sonnel resources coordination, evaluation functions for tribes,
reservations and other Indian populations in the various regions.
The system might include ten such regional councils as suggested
by the following:
1. Alaska
2. Oklahoma
3. California
5
4.
Northeastern States
5.
Southeastern States
6.
New Mexico, Colorado and Texas
7.
Great Lakes Region
8.
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
9.
Nevada, Utah and Arizona
Including all Navajo Territories in New Mexico and
Colorado
10.
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa
These permanently-staffed Native American Regional Councils would
be comprised of voting members selected by every tribe in each
region. The Councils would make budget, staffing and personnel
recommendations to the Department whose estimated minimum funding
level would be $25 billion for a ten-year period.
The federal trust responsibility, moreover, embraces the
sovereign entities of Indian tribes and their people, property and
rights. The negligence of the Department of Interior and BIA in
meeting their trust responsibility has resulted in gross mismanage-
ment of tribal and individual Indian natural resources. The Task
Force will recommend an "American Indian Trust Responsibilities
Act" designed to realistically enforce the obligatory standards of
the federal trust responsibility to Indian people. Also, a perman-
ent Washington, D.C. based American Indian Research and Development
Institute should be established with satellite units in key Indian
areas to provide an on-going resource center for the tribes and
federal and state governments.
6
B.
Task Force #2, Tribal Government
The Task Force on Tribal Government will respond to the
mandate in the legislation providing for a "consideration of alter-
native methods to strengthen tribal government so that the tribes
might fully represent their members and, at the same time, guaran-
tee the fundamental rights of individual Indians."
In conducting its investigation, Task Force #2 has con-
cluded that Congress should clearly recognize and express the
tribal right of permanent political existence and inherent right
of self-government through legislative policy. Tribes should be
allowed to exercise the full array of powers of self-government or
should have the right to negotiate with the states for the delega-
tion of its inherent powers when full assumption of these powers
is determined by the tribe to be unfeasible.
Its studies have shown that tribal governments may improve
their ability to operate effectively by:
The creation of a separate, independent judicial branch;
The creation of independent election boards;
Enactment of fiscal controls and guidelines and publi-
cizing all tribal financial matters;
Revision of Constitutional provisions dealing with recall,
referendum, and removal procedures.
Tribes, moreover, should be given increased responsibility in
determining the development of their own trust assets-if they so
choose. The federal government should provide financial, legal and
technical assistance to tribes to accomplish these ends.
The eligibility requirements of tribes for federal pro-
grams should reinforçe the powers and responsibilities of tribal
governments by requiring that:
7
1.
Tribal governments qualify as the prime sponsor for all
federal programs.
2. Tribes should not be required to incorporate under state
law as a federal program requirement.
3. Tribes be eligible for direct funding from programs presently
requiring funding through the state.
4. Tribal governments be recognized as a legitimate "unit of
government" for exemption from appropriate Internal Revenue
Service provisions.
In order for the Sec. 104 contracting provisions of the Self-
Determination Act to be implemented effectively, the term of fund-
ing of this program should allow tribes to realistically develop
the administrative capabilities required to contract and administer
programs. The contracting provisions of the Self-Determination Act
should include a minimum level of funding over a five to ten year
period. The formula for distribution of PL 93-638, Sec. 104 monies
should be based on need as opposed to population formulas to allow
maximum participation by small tribes. Finally, tribes do not have
the financial capability to support the basic operation of their
governments. Sec. 104 of PL 93-638 provides monies for developing
the administrative mechanisms needed for contracting, however, the
Task Force recommends that additional funding be made available to
provide assistance in developing tribal self-government.
C.
Task Force #3, Federal Administration and the Structure
Of Indian Affairs
The work of the Task Force on Federal Administration and
the structure of Indian affairs will include "a review of the
policies, practices and structure of the federal agencies charged
with protecting Indian resources and providing services to Indians.
The review shall include a management study of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs utilizing experts from the public and private sector. "
8
Task Force #3 has stated that their investigations have
shown that Indians must be afforded the right of self-government
without regulation of tribal internal affairs by an outside govern-
ment. Congress should create a technical assistance agency separ-
ate from the Department of the Interior which would serve in that
capacity. This agency would be structured to provide direct line
authority between a Central Office and local field offices. In
order to minimize conflict of interest and enhance tribal self-
government, Congress must establish an independent legal authority
responsible for supplying legal assistance to Indians to protect
Indian rights and property without diminishing the federal govern-
ment's overall trust responsibility. Indians should, in addition,
have direct access to an independent investigative and ad-inistra-
tive mechanisms which would give immediate attent on to Complaints
and claims. An Executive Oversight Office of Indian Affairs,
accountable directly to a joint Congressional Executive Oversight
Committee for Indian Affairs, would serve this function.
The administration of the trust responsibility extends to
the entire federal government. Congress should enact legislation
affirming that the federal government is the trustee with the
responsibility to preserve, protect and guarantee Indian rights
and property and that this responsibility must be carried out with-
out imposing regulations on the lives of Indian people. A compre-
hensive consolidation of federal programs would eliminate the
fragmentation of service delivery to Indians. A financial and
technical assistance agency, independent of the Executive Branch,
should be created by Congress to insure basic care assistance and
institutional requirements commensurate with locally defined needs.
9
Direct tribal funding by Congress would strengthen tribal
community controls over local development priorities and substanti-
ally diminish regulation of tribal internal affairs by the federal
government. Several negotiation teams should be created by Congress
authorized to enter into negotiations with individual tribal gov-
erning bodies on long-term funding assistance. Tribal Community
Planning Offices should also be established to integrate overlapp-
ing federal programs to provide comprehensive development of
technical capabilities and employment and training programs. All
federal services and programs and the funding for these programs
should be consolidated under a single umbrella agency.
Tribal membership and eligibility should be determined by
the tribal governing bodies. The federal government must establish
a tribal government recognition procedure which does not ii erfere
with the internal rules and institutions of membership. Further-
more, services should be provided to individuals not residing on
tribal lands as a result of recognition by tribal governing bodies.
Indians have the right of self-government and the ability to
develop effective governmental and political institutions capable
of representing the interests of Indians. Tribes, however, are
reluctant to organize in any manner which may tend to subordinate
individual tribal authority to any entity other than the federal
government. Congress should directly finance and support Indian
tribal governance on a sustained basis to each Indian nation and
tribe. Appropriations should be made to inter-tribal associations
at the regional and national level, based on membership and at the
request of a majority of those Indian nations and tribes partici-
pating. Congress should thoroughly consider enacting legislation
10
which firmly establishes the right of Indians to directly partici-
pate in the legislative process as sovereign, political entities.
D.
Task Force #4, Federal, State and Tribal Jurisdiction
The primary emphasis of the Task Force studying federal,
state, and tribal jurisdiction is "the collection and compilation
of data necessary. to understand the extent of Indian needs which
presently exists or will exist in the near future."
Task Force #4 has found that Public Law 280 is a serious
barrier to tribal self-government. The law enforcement services
provided by the states are inadequate within the reservation
boundaries. States are exercising unauthorized tax authority over
Indian rights and property within reservation boundaries. The
application of zoning ordinances and local codes by state or local
authorities is questionable at best, resulting in expensive liti-
gation and interfering with tribal projects such as tribal housing
development. The issue of jurisdiction over non-Indians on
reservations is compliated by historical inconsistencies and oppos-
ing legal decisions, status of land ownership, the integrity of
Indian V. non-Indian court systems, etc.
Therefore, an amendment of PL 280 should be legislated
providing for a tribal option to exercise such powers that they
would like, provided that their resolution is accompanied by a
comprehensive plan providing adequate time, financial resources,
and commitment by the federal government to accomplish an accept-
able resolution supporting the principle of self-determination.
The Task Force will analyze present law and determine equitable
recommendations.
11
PL 280 which transfers federal jurisdiction to state
government does not, in pure legal theory, eliminate the pre-exist-
ing jurisdiction of Indian tribes and bands. The resulting situa-
tion can be termed "concurrent jurisdiction" wherein both the
tribe and the state share jurisdiction. The Task Force report will
explore the possible application of concurrent jurisdiction as a
means of resolving the situation.
The child placement policies of state service agencies
have resulted in a significant loss of tribal population. The social
service concepts and regulations and training social workers is
culturally inappropriate to Indian country. The Task Force will
recommend measures to strengthen tribal jurisdiction in this area
and to create culturally-sensitive social service agencies.
The issues related to hunting and fishing rights are clear
and court decisions have consistently upheld Indian rights regard-
ing jurisdiction and legal responsibilty. Resource management and
conservation issues are used by states and non-Indian groups to
complicate or confuse the question of jurisdictional rights. The
Task Force will develop recommendations based on legal alternatives
documented by their investigations. Indian water rights have been
continually encroached upon by federal and state governments. The
various uses and development of water resources has drastically
affected the rights and economic growth of tribes. Indian tribes,
bands, and individuals do not have clear mandates which define the
extent and nature of their rights and moreover, they often lack the
expertise to assure the inviolability of the resources from non-
Indian interests. Recommendations for protection of these rights
will be a critical aspect of the Task Force report.
12
Indian tribes, bands and individuals hold land which con-
tain vast mineral and water resources. The development of these
resources oftentimes conflict with federal, state, and local land
use controls. The jurisdiction of tribes in deciding the control,
use and development of their land will be outlined in the Task
Force report. The non-taxable status of Indian lands and businesses
significantly upsets non-Indian governmental officials.
Indians oppose taxation by state and local governments as
being inconsistent with Indian claims of the authority to tax non-
Indians residing on the reservation. The Task Force will develop
the issues relating to this problem in their report.
E.
Task Force #5, Indian Education
The Task Force on Indian education is primarily responsible
for "the collection and compilation of data necessary to understand
the extent of Indian needs which presently exist or will exist in
the near future.' "
Task Force #5 is documenting their conclusions that the
federal government has a specific role and legal obligation to
assure educational services and opportunities to all Indian people.
The Task Force will recommend a legislative policy statement to
this effect.
The Task Force has found that the definition of Indian,
for purposes of recovering services from various federal agencies,
appears to be arbitrary. The inconsistencies in these administra-
tive definitions have served to confuse and divide Indian people,
program administration and the U.S. Congress. The Task Force will
recommend legislative clarification which permits the participa-
tion of all Indians in federal educational programs. In addition,
FORM
13
LIBRARY
the Task Force will recommend that, for purposes of service, Indians
should be defined by the local tribe, community and organization,
and not by a federal agency.
The present service delivery systems do not provide a
viable mechanism for the delivery of educational needs for Indian
people. An alternative services model is-needed which would be
charged primarily with the distribution of funds and providing
technical assistance in program planning, implementation and staff
development where requested by the grantee. Its policy component
must be focused at the community level to insure the flexibility
needed for long-term educational planning and development within
the local community.
The shortcomings of the present network of programs that
provide educational services to Indians is an administra ve night-
mare. In order to insure adequate, qualitative educational ser-
vices to Indian people, a comprehensive legislative package will
be necessary. The legislation should include a community control
of these services and institutions; creation of a financial base
that insures operational and supplemental funds; and provisions
for an agency that will be charged with the responsibility for
implementing the legislation.
F.
Task Force #6, Indian Health
The Task Force on Indian health is primarily responsible
for "the collection and compilation of data necessary to under-
stand the extent of Indian needs which presently exist or will
exist in the near future."
The Indian Health Task Force has compiled "conclusive
evidence" to show that the health level of Indians is significantly
14
below the level of health of the general United States population.
Major problem areas in the Indian health field are:
1.
Inadequate policy to solve the problem of Indian health.
2.
Lack of adequate appropriations to implement whatever
policy exists.
3.
Lack of adequate and strong mechanisms for the delivery
of health care.
4.
Lack of oversight and accountability at all levels of
the Indian Health Service (IHS).
The Task Force has developed a set of basic remedies and
recommendations to be submitted to Congress. They are as follows:
1.
Development of a "Basic Health Care Guarantee" to
guarantee health care to any Indian.
2.
Making available supplementary benefits to insure
the prevention of health problems and assist Indian
tribes. Specifically, more services are needed in
environmental health protection, preventative and
outreach mental health, nutrition, accident preven-
tion, transportation and accessibility, social
services, training and technical assistance.
3.
The Health Task Force has concluded that most federal,
state and local agencies are not responsive to the
needs of Indians. In order to consolidate all the
services and make the delivery system more responsive,
an Indian agency funded by federal monies and operat-
ing on the Cabinet level should be created.
The Health Task Force has concluded that the Indian Health
Board system seems to have several deficiencies and is not working
as it should. Further, in the area of environmental services, the
tri-agency agreement between BIA, HUD and IHS is not working out.
There is a lack of coordination among the agencies and lack of
determination of responsibility. The Food Stamp Program has also
proven inadequate because of the lack of knowledge of money manage-
ment and the high price of food on the reservations. The Task Force
also feels that there must be a facility for Indians to learn
nutrition, dietetic and health education procedures.
15
According to the Task Force studies, the USDA surplus Com-
modities Food Program needs to be upgraded. Particularly, the
quality and nutritional value of the food issuance. This program
is gradually being phased out as a result of the Food Stamp Act.
Indians presently receive marginal benefit from both programs. How-
ever, if these programs are to be continued, both would require
special attention in meeting the needs of Indians.
Women, infants and children need far more services. There
is a great need for day care centers, better staffed Head Start
Programs and more programs for the elderly which start at a lower
age than normal. The Task Force has also concluded that:
1.
Preventative accident/safety programs need to be
strengthened;
2.
IHS programs for self-determination and tribal health
boards are limited;
3.
Urban and off-reservation health, jurisdiction,
financial and isolation are significant problem
areas;
4.
"There is no active mechanism for insuring that an
Indian perspective is included or at least considered
during the legislative process";
5.
IHS does not have adequate management standards.
The Task Force has sponsored specific recommendations such
as a basic guaranteed health care package to counter the present
crisis oriented health systems and the establishment of a National
Mental Health Center to study mental health problems of the American
Indians and Alaskan Natives; the Task Force also supports improve-
ment of Indian medical education on all levels, and training of
Indians to manage health care systems. Further, the Task Force has
fielded the idea that the responsibility for environmental health
services should go to HUD in the absence of a new super-agency.
16
A tribally-controlled nutrition program for Native Americans should
be established.
Also recommended are: enactment of legislation giving
tribal health agencies specific policy authority over the IHS, more
funding for the National Indian Health Board and at least two basic
guarantees of Medicare and Medicaid.
Other recommendations are:
1.
Basic health care package should be made available to
all Indians;
2.
Adoption of a federal policy for Indian health programs
with specific set asides for Indian tribes;
3.
Review of all proposed health legislation by IHS and
ONAP (in regard to Indians);
4.
Indian participation in the health policy debate;
5.
Make IHS part of the super-agency on Indian aff. .rs;
6.
Establishment of a National Indian Health Data Center.
G.
Task Force #7, Reservation and Resource Development and
Protection
Task Force #7 on reservation and resource development and
protection has been mandated to determine "Indian needs which pre-
sently exist or will exist in the near future" in the field of
reservation development and to record their findings by document-
ing "the attributes of the unique relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes and the land and other resources they
possess.
"
The Task Force finds that the BIA is concentrating on the
preservation and management of Indian land and natural resources
and is neglecting to provide tribes with the necessary aid to
develop their resources. BIA has, in fact, never designed a
R.COMAD
prehensive development plan, let alone made an effort to secure
LIBRARY
17
funding for it. The BIA's lack of concern for Indian development
has resulted in the loss of $40.5 million authorized by Congress
under the Indian Financing Act.
The Indian land base has been severly eroded as a result
of the lack of BIA land consolidation and acquisition policy. Land
consolidation is a necessity for the success of any development
plan since current checkerboarding makes it impossible to implement
any effective land use policy. Only $6 million has been obtained
by the BIA out of $84 million originally authorized by the 1934
Indian Reorganization Act for land purchase by Indians.
As a consequence of the absence of a BIA development
policy, the most valuable land and resources are leased out to
non-Indian producers. Almost without exception, the BIA boiler
plate leases were negotiated in ignorance and therefore contain
inequitable provisions which do not provide fair market prices, do
not allow for readjustments of royalties or rents, do not assure
environmental protection, and do not obtain preferential employment.
BIA Manpower Training Programs are deadends. The chronic-
ally unemployed and unskilled are given minimum training but there
is no provision for their steady employment once the programs have
ended. Although lack of management personnel has been cited in
GAO studies as the obstacle to Indian development, there are no
programs to develop middle level management.
The Task Force will show that the federal agencies have
no specific strategy for Indian development based on Indian goals
and priorities. Moreover, in the absence of articulated policy
goals, it is impossible for these agencies to evaluate their own
programs. There is no program coordination among the federal
18
agencies responsible for Indian programs. Consequently, each pro-
gram operates in a critical vacuum and fails to fulfill management
and training requirements to improve Indian development capabilities.
Indians do not control economic development either on a federal or
tribal level. Tribal governments are dependent on federal sources
for funding and subsequently are not free to select those programs
which would best-promote development.
The Alaska Native Claims Act presents special problems in
the implementation and impact of the Act on future control and
development of these. resources by Alaska natives. Title to only
500,000 acres has been conveyed to Alaska natives. At this rate,
it will take the Bureau of Land Management 400 years to convey
title. The BLM Alaska Policy discriminates against Alaska natives
through the easement provision of the Act which is being used to
acquire native land and resources without compensation. For
example, BLM has given free use permits to the Alaska State High-
way Department for sand and gravel which is on corporation land.
The 7 (i) provision of the Act concerning revenue-sharing
among the regional corporations is vague and because the Secretary
of the Interior has not defined "revenue", the corporations have
become tied up in legal battles on this definition.
Another problem is that the real value of the Act's one
billion dollars has been reduced to an effective $250-$300 million
due to late payments, inflation and excessive legal fees necessary
to force implementation of the Act.
Villagers are having a hard time making the transition
from subsistence to corporate finance, and are in desperate need
of technical assistance. However, even through strictly prohibited
19
EERA FORD LIBRARY
in the Act, federal agencies have cut funding to Alaska because the
natives are now "rich". Thus, the federal government is trying to
terminate its services.
To remedy BIA gross neglect of economic development, lack
of a federal development strategy or coordination and lack of
Indian control, the Task Force proposes a federally funded develop-
ment corporation controlled by Indians and expanded in function to
provide all necessary factors for development either through grants
or loans.
H.
Task Force #8, Urban and Rural Non-Reservation Indians
The Task Force has been investigating and addressing the
needs of urban and rural non-reservation Indians. The Task Force
is also completing an examination of the statutes and pro .res
for granting federal recognition and extending serv Jes to Indian
communities and individuals.
The Task Force, in its investigations on the problems
affecting urban, rural and non-reservation Indians, has identified
the following subject areas and issues within their study:
1.
The funding levels and services provided by federal
and state agencies to urban and rural Indians in the
areas of health, education and employment.
2.
The criteria applied by the federal government for
recognition of tribal governments.
3.
Alcohol abuse.
4.
Law enforcement practices and effective court systems.
In order to address these problems, the Task Force is
currently developing (1) an impact study of the BIA relocation
and assistance program on urban and rural Indians; (2) an inven-
tory of federal government resources available to non-reservation
20
Indians; and (3) a legal and historical review of policies and
legislation affecting off-reservation Indians.
Specific areas of concern to the Task Force have included
definition and identity problems for both individuals and non-
reservation groups, recognition and channeling of funds for off-
reservation Indian agencies, and federal policy encouraging
cooperation between urban and reservation communities.
The creation of programs for urban Indians by the BIA and
the IHS are cited as major issues. The need for Indian urban
centers is also vital, as are the urban employment Manpower Pro-
grams, and special housing projects. Urban representation at the
National policy making level is essential as is increased Indian
cultural awareness among federal, state and local agencies.
The Task Force has also concluded that the erroneous
Census count must be reversed and that a standard method (such as
an accurate population count) should be used to determine the
funding levels of all federal grants-in-aid and should be channeled
to off-reservation agencies.
The problem areas have been determined in conjunction with the
hearings and meetings conducted by Task Force #8 throughout the
country. In addition, after a final evaluation of its findings and
recommendations, the Task Force intends to conduct a follow-up
survey to substantiate its report fully.
Ultimately, the goal of Task Force #8 is to strengthen the
relationship of tribal governments to their off-reservation members,
especially through fulfillment of the federal trust responsibility
in delivering services to all Indians.
21
I.
Task Force #9, Indian Law Revision, Consolidation and
Codification
The Task Force on Indian law revision, consolidation and
codification has throughly reviewed the "modification of existing
laws, procedures, regulations, policies and practices as will, in
the judgment of the Commission, best serve to carry out the policy
and declaration of purposes of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission.
The Task Force has developed a number of recommendations
on the organization and implementation of Indian law. Although
the bulk of the laws affecting Indians are located in Title 25 of
the U.S. Code, many of these laws are scattered throughout the 50
Titles of the U.S. Code. Consolidation of all of these statutes
affecting Indians into a single volume of single Title of the U.S.
Code would be desirable. However, in the absence of a single
agency responsible for the administration of all domestic assis-
tance programs, the consolidation of the laws into a single Title
would appear to present insurmountable obstacles. The Task Force
will nontheless recommend revision of the Title 25 laws in a way
which will sponsor tribal option for control over assets and
develop their tribal governments. Task Force #9 has reorganized
the present Code by dividing it into numerous subject matter
components.
The Task Force has found that there are at least nine
Cabinet level departments having separate major programs or res-
ponsibilities which directly affect Indian people, severaly
complicating the processing of services to Indians. The Task Force
has noted the need for at least some kind of coordination among
22
the federal agencies presently serving Indians. However, they
have not developed a conclusive recommendation on this subject.
In 1974, NCIO found that of the 600 potentially useful federal
assistance programs, only 78 were being utilized by federally
recognized tribes and only 39 of these programs were used by
more than one tribe. Measures must be taken to insure that Indian
people are enabled to participate in federal domestic assistance
programs by clarifying the classification eligibility requirements.
This might be accomplished through some sort of Indian eligibility
statute. General federal regulatory statutes fail to take cogni-
zance of the existence of tribal governments and moreover, fail to
distinguish between tribal property rights and federal property
rights. Indians should be exempt from general federal regulatory
legislation in the absence of some expression of intent egarding
application of the Act. Tribes should be included in state/federal
planning boards and should moreover, be the primary governmental
agency responsible for enforcement within reservation boundaries.
A recent interpretation by the BIA of "Indian" for the
purposes of preference regulation has brought to light several
complications in the application of the definition of the Five
Civilized and Osage Tribes of Oklahoma. Presently, any person of
Indian descent who is a member of a federally recognized tribe, is
eligible for preference. If preference and other IRA provisions
are accorded on the basis of tribal membership, those tribes which
have a minimum blood quantum criteria for membership will be at a
great disadvantage with regard to tribes which have no minimum
blood quantum criteria.
23
Indian Health Service is in violation of the law and its
discretionary policy has resulted in the denial of initial appoint-
ments, lateral transfers and promotions to qualified Indians. The
Task Force recommends further hearings or negotiations with IHS to
correct this situation.
The sovereign status of Indian tribes and governments in
Oklahoma requires recognition by the federal and state governments.
The unclear status of eastern Oklahoma tribes has been directly
responsible for the denial of federal services and abdication of
the trust responsibility. The U.S. as the trustee of Indian land
can not be relied upon to provide the protection of sovereignty and
resources needed due to either conflict of interest or political
reasons. Tribes often lack the finances needed to insure their
rights. The Task Force is developing an attorney fees statute
which would enable tribes to recover legal fees from the U.S. and
the states when a tribe has had to incur legal expenses because of
a breach of trust responsibility or a lack of legal protection by
the U.S. They are also reviewing general jurisdictional statutes
to determine how they may be amended to facilitate a tribe's
access to the courts.
The Task Force has identified areas of the Code which will
require clarification. The legislative history of 25 U.S. Code 297
imposing the quarter blood restriction for educational benefits,
indicates that the statute was intended only for eligibility for
Bureau of Indian Affairs operated schools. Congress should clarify
the precise intent and impact of the quarter blood restriction on
all educational legislation. The legislative history of the
Vocational Education Benefits Act does not support the "on or near"
24
sliding scale distinction found in 25 CFR 34.3, nor that Congress
intended to apply a standard of remoteness of location rather than
one of blood quantum in determining eligibility for benefits.
Congress should clarify the intent and application of these statutes.
Congress intended to allow state judicial jurisdiction in
the matter of school attendance, 25 U.S. Code 231 (2), only where
the governing body of the individual tribes adopted a resolution
in favor of such measures.
Congress should clarify the jurisdictional authority in
relation to that policy. The provision in 25 U.S. Code granting
Indian Health Service benefits to non-Indian women is outdated.
Denying health benefits to non-Indian husbands where such benefits
are available to non-Indian wives imposes an unnecessary hardship
on families where the Indian member happens to be a woman. The
provision should be revised to include non-Indian men married to
Indian women among those eligible for benefits.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs manual system (BIAM) is not
in compliance with existing law, judicial decision and internal
agency regulations and is presently so poorly organized that its
utility to agency personnel is doubtful. The entire manual system
as it now exists should be completely revamped to bring it into
compliance with the law. All the Titles should be reviewed for
APA violations and such violations should be corrected. All
present regulations in conflict with or in derogation of statutory
mandate or congressional intent must be rescinded.
25
J.
Task Force #10, Terminated and Non-Federally Recognized
Indians
The concept of recognition, the procedure for granting
federal recognition, and the implications of these policies for
terminated and non-federally recognized Indians represent the
focus for Task Force #10's investigations. The Task Force is com-
pleting studies on the following:
1.
The development of a legal foundation to define the
federal trust responsibility;
2.
Identification of all non-federally recognized and
terminated tribes;
3.
Analysis of the U.S. Census data in conjunction with
its parameters defining the Indian population;
4.
Development of a projected planning mechanism for
Indians within the next decade.
Other priority areas for study include: (1) the creation
of an Indian Housing Authority; (2) the Steilacoom Tribe has ful-
filled the criteria to be considered a federally-recognized tribe;
(3) recognition has, on occasion, been arbitrarily denied when a
tribe met the prima facie requirements; (4) nothing should prevent
Native people from equal access to services; (5) terminated tribes
should still have equitable access to programs and activities
designed and made available to Indians.
In addition, the Task Force is studying related areas in
the federal/Indian relationship, the state/Indian relationship, the
issue of sovereignty, tribalism and tribal government, and the
plenary power of the U.S. Congress to supplement its findings.
The Task Force will place special emphasis on the process policies
and practices related to termination.
26
K.
Task Force #11, Alcohol and Drug Abuse
The Indian people have identified alcohol and drug abuse
as their major health problem. While there is a general accept-
ance that alcoholism has a devastating effect on the lives of
American Indians, alcohol and drug abuse program efforts have not
yet been given sufficiently high priority in government programs.
The Task Force was established for the purpose of deter-
mining the nature and scope of the problem among the Indian people.
The Task Force is exploring the federal, state and local
governments' responsibility with regard to Indian people and fund-
ing priorities of alcohol and drug abuse programs.
Task Force #11 in its investigation, has identified
several major issues or problem areas:
1.
Alcohol and drug abuse have not yet been give a
sufficiently high priority by federal agencies;
2.
The urban VS. rural Indian issue makes the funding
and support of the Indian serviced alcohol and drug
programs by federal agencies very difficult. Other
federal agencies cannot discriminate among races in
their funding or authorities;
3.
Uncoordinated efforts in programs by federal, state
and local entities;
4.
Insufficient development of management capacilities
and alcoholism training has created difficulties and
accountability in the use of program funds;
5.
Lack of a reliable data base for Indian alcohol and
drug abuse programs;
6.
The priorities in the alcoholism field have been
given to the treatment rather than preventive measures
and education on alcohol and drug abuse.
Tentative recommendations include a congressional priority
to be placed on addressing the problem of Indian alcohol and drug
abuse.
DELAED
27
A national Indian Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program entity
should be established and should include:
1.
Coordinated program efforts (federal, state and
community);
2.
Establishment of a reliable data base;
3.
Strengthening of program management capabilities;
4.
Designing of programs more responsible to the unique
needs of the Indian people;
5.
Conducting of research;
6.
The pursuit of greater tribal involvement.
A higher priority should be given to preventive measures and educa-
tion.
IV. BIA MANAGEMENT STUDY
The Management Study of the Bureau of Indian Affairs is present-
ly being conducted by management specialists from the public and
private sector. This study is designed to determine how effectively
the obligations of the federal government toward the Indians are
being managed. The specific objectives of the study encompass the
following goals:
1.
To pinpoint and evaluate key decision points, discre-
tionary authority exercised, and Indian participation
in the budget process.
2.
To identify and assess manual and automated information
systems used in managing, evaluating and contolling
the BIA in order to determine needs and shortcomings of
the total system.
3.
To examine the BIA's personnel activities and employee
relations techniques to determine if the Bureau if re-
sponsive to the needs of Indian people.
4.
To identify and evaluate the management relationships
between Indian people, the BIA and other governmental
agencies in order to determine the most effective and
efficient methods for delivering services.
28
5.
To eliminate unnecessary duplication of previous BIA
management and organization studies by reviewing the
benefits of their conclusions and recommendations.
In order to accomplish this task, three teams were organized
with each containing a specialist in budgeting, personnel manage-
ment and management information. In a preliminary review which
reflected the size and scope of the BIA as related to Indian tribal
entities, it was determined that a fair sampling should cover the
Central Office in Washington, D.C., and in Albuquerque, plus two
area offices, four agency offices, and six to eight tribes within
the agencies visited. The third team reviewed previous studies
and contacted various local offices in Washington, D.C.
Data is being collected through interviews and discussions with
documentation provided as necessary. Some 250 people were contacted
and provided comments and input to the reviews. The analysis has
been developed to include "present operations", "evaluations", and
recommendations covering budgeting, personnel management, manage-
ment information, structure and implementation. The group also
plans to interview several former BIA Commissioners before comple-
tion of the study and will include their perspective in the report.
This study will be integrated to a great degree with the work
of Task Force #3 on Federal Administration and Structure of Indian
Affairs. The BIA Management Study will be one source for providing
alternatives to two significant questions. First, is the organiza-
tional alignment within the BIA appropriate to accomplish its
mission and if not, how could it be modified? Second, is the
scope and location of BIA in the total government structure
appropriate and, if not, how could it be modified?
29
V.
COMMISSION INVESTIATIVE WORK
Special reports were developed to cover distinct subject areas
for the use of all Task Forces and the Commission. These reports
deal with certain subjects which have not been handled before in a
separate and methodological form, or were not assigned to any
specific Task Force, although involving subject matter that holds
a conspicuous place in the field of Indian affairs. For instance,
special reports are provided by consultants, technicians and
organizations to assist, investigate and develop statistical data
for use in connection with Task Force needs. These special reports
are important for use of the Commission and shall be included as
a technical and statistical data base for the Commission's final
report.
A.
Historical Overview of Indian Policy
"The grave weakness of the Meriam Report was that it
ignored the wishes of the Indian people. The BIA has undergone
many reorganizations, always with the hope of finding what might
be considered the right combination for success, but it has yet to
define its goals in terms of the Indian desire to remain Indian
with the trained capacity to survive in the American way of life."
Such are the words of the noted historian D'Arcy McNickle
who is presently writing a comprehensive report on the history of
Indian policy under the auspices of the American Indian Policy
Review Commission.
This article is an historical reflection into the history
of the Indian and his relationship with the white man.
30
The McNickle report attempts to tie the separate pieces
of history together to give a proper perspective on Indian philo-
sophy and an understanding of the problems now being addressed by
Indian leaders. This objective should clarify a number of ques-
tions about approaches to Indian policy and will provide an
historical basis whose understanding can lead to a mutually-agree-
able Indian-federal relationship in the future.
B.
AIPRC Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Indians
This special project involves a thorough budget review of
all federal expenditures which provide services to Indians. These
expenditures shall be analyzed and compared to figures that OMB
claims are involved in the total Indian budget.
Total program estimates will be categorized and identified
for functional program perspective and disclosure for the first
time. In addition, an investigation will be conducted on the
specific recipients of an estimated 1.4 to 1.5 billion dollars that
appear in the combined federal budget and are identified as funds
earmarked for Indian people, programs, goods and services. The
report will also contain an analysis of the statistical methodology
used in developing the budgetary components and form the basis for
a rational approach to the Indian budget.
The study and analysis involve:
1.
Reviewing of each line item in the budget for departments
including:
a.
The initial request from department to OMB
b.
The OMB allowance
C.
The President's budget request
d.
The Congressional appropriation and obligations
31
2.
A complete review of the legal statutes, regulations
and procedures under which federal programs provide
service dollars to Indians
3.
Identification of administrative costs and staffing of
Indian programs within the various departments
4.
Verification of Indian participation and input in
budget processes
5.
Analysis of departmental initiatives to maximize the
potential of programs for Indians.
6.
Per capita ratio analysis of Indian and non-Indian
federal expenditures in selected states with signifi-
cant Indian populations
7.
The creation of a complete data base and a formulation
of recommendations to the Commission
The completion of this study is estimated to be mid-September, 1976.
C.
Investigation of Indian Contracting and Procurement
An analytical review of contracting procedures is being
conducted in response to questions and inquiries raised by Indian
tribal organizations, tribal and individual contractors, Indian
Action Teams and CETA grantees concerning commercial and economic
transactions which involve Indians in the following categories:
1.
The conflicting government rules and regulations con-
cerning Indian contracting and procurement policies of
government agencies at both the local and central
office levels.
2.
The perception and interpretation by government agencies
of the various Indian Preference Acts, such as the Buy
Indian Act and Sec. 7 (b) of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Act (PL 93-638).
3.
The actual number and dollar value of contracts awarded
to Indian owned economic enterprises and/or grantees
for the past several years.
4.
The types of technical assistance made available to
Indian tribal organizations, contractors and grantees
pursuant to the awarding of contracts.
32
The investigative report in this area contemplates in-
depth case studies of selected types of contracting and procurement
problems being experienced by Indian people in securing and imple-
menting federal contracts and grants across the nation. The
problems experienced range from vague and inconsistent interpre-
tations by federal officials of federal contracting, grant and
procurement regulations to allegations concerning improper unoffic-
ial and official actions taken by federal agency officials in
dealing with Indian contractors and grantees.
Another aspect to the report is an attempt to systematic-
ally analyze and relate how federal agencies in Washington, D.C.,
and to a lesser extent, in the field, perceive themselves in
relationship to Indian preference legislation such as the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Act (PL 93-638), and how such acts
are to be applied to Indian contractors and grantees by each
federal agency.
The results of this investigation will provide the first
comprehensive view of federal contracting and procurement policies
affecting American Indians. A Commission report, detailing any
suggested changes in legislation, regulations and policies is
expected to be completed by mid-August, 1976.
D.
Analysis of Proposed Independent Agency for Indian Affairs
A special report for the Commission involving proposals
for a federal department or agency which would administer trust
relations, supply services, and provide technical assistance to
tribes is presently being prepared. This report deals primarily
with the rationale for an Indian-administered agency, and is
entitled "American Indian Bicentennial: 200 Years of Genocide and
33
Spoilation". A draft summary of the report emphasized that the
right of self:government "is the Indian's last defense against
administrative oppression".
The report has further pointed out that the body of Indian
law, the "inherent sovereign power" of the Indians and the trust
responsibilities of the United States, as defined in the Constitu-
tion, should be used to establish the status of self-government
for American Indians.
The report calls for implementation of the existing trust
obligations of the U.S. government by a transitional process from
the Departments of Justice and Interior to an Indian administered
agency. It is asserted that past and present Indian policy is
"primarily directed to depriving Indians of their heritage and
their lands".
The report asserts that planned destruction has been
perpetrated by confining Indians to valueless, unproductive lands.
It marks the Northwest Indians as victims of a "Secretarial policy"
in the Department of Interior whereby reclamation projects voided
the intent of the Supreme Court's Winters Doctrine.
The Yakima Federal Reclamation Project in Washington State
is noted as an instance of intentional and continual spoilation.
Similarly, the Colville Reservation in Washington has suffered
from diversion of river waters and unequal distribution. Indians
in Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming have also
had water rights continually encroached upon by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The study will cover the history of the Interior Depart-
ment's involvement with Indian land and conflicts of interest
34
within various federal bureaus. The report will propose legisla-
tion for an Indian trust authority "by and for Indians" and will
include an in-depth survey of all laws pertaining to Indians and
all rules and regulations governing those laws for administrative
implementation. The final report is expected to be submitted to
the Commission by December, 1976.
E.
AIPRC Tribal Participation Project
"We do not want simply to consult with Indian people.
Consultation has come to mean that you review the final product
after it is completed. Instead, we want each tribe to participate
in the actual design of federal Indian policy before it becomes
final
by preparing its own Indian Policy Review Report." "
In October of 1975, Commission Chairman Senator James
Abourezk, invited all tribes, Indian organizations and concerned
individuals to participate directly in the work of the AIPRC by
compiling and submitting their own Special Policy Review Report.
The purpose of this report was to provide concerned Indian tribes
and organizations with the opportunity to share their unique per-
spective on Indian affairs.
In response to Senator Abourezk's invitation, over one
hundred tribes and organizations have expressed an interest in
working with the Commission on special projects. Among those groups
are the following:
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Alaskan Federation of Natives
Arizona Intertribal Council
Colville Business Council
Creek Tribe
Crow Tribe
Oneida Tribe
Osage Tribe
Pueblo Governors
(cont'd.)
35
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
Walker River Tribe
Yakima Nation
All CETA Contractors
All Indian Action Teams
United Indian Planners Association
The Commission in turn has produced special support mat-
erials designed to assist Indians in developing their report. A
guideline suggesting structure and content of these reports has
been sent to the interested groups. The Commission staff will con-
tinue to support and assist tribes by providing requested informa-
tion. A letter has been forwarded to the various federal agencies
advising them of the project and asking for their cooperation in
supplying the required information. The Commission staff will be
contacting the groups on a regular basis to offer assistance and
discuss their progress.
A preliminary draft of the independent Policy Review
Reports will be submitted to the Commission staff for review in
July, 1976. The final reports will be presented by October 15,
1976.
These reports, compiled and developed by Indian people
for use in the first Congressional report developed by and for
Indians, will provide the key to the ultimate success and credi-
bility of the Commission's findings.
VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION
The President Pro Tempore of the Senate appointed Senators
Lee Metcalf (D. Montana), James Abourezk (D. South Dakota), and
Mark Hatfield (R. Oregon) to the American Indian Policy Review
Commission and the Speaker of the House of Representatives appoint-
ed Congressman Lioyd Meeds (D. Washington), Sidney Yates (D. Ill-
36
inois) and Sam Steiger (R. Arizona). Senator Abourezk was selected
Chairman and Congressman Meeds was selected Vice Chairman. On
March 17, 1975, Ernest L. Stevens was appointed Director of the
Commission and K. Kirke Kickingbird was appointed General Counsel.
PL 93-580 provides for the selection of five Indian
Commission members. After reviewing and voting on the numerous
recommendations received from Indian organizations, tribes and
legislators, the Indian members were appointed by majority vote of
the Senators and Congressmen for the categories named below:
From Federally-Recognized Tribes
Ada Deer, Menominee, Wisconsin
Jake Whitecrow, Quapaw-Seneca, Oklahoma
John Borbridge, Tlingit, Alaska
From Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Adolph Dial, Lumbee, North Carolina
From Urban Indians
Louis Bruce, Mohawk-Sioux, New York
The eleven Commissioners, the Director and General Counsel
were sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Byron White at the commence-
ment of the first business meeting of the American Indian Policy
Review Commission on May 2, 1975. The third Professional Staff
Member, Max I. Richtman, was appointed June 13, 1975.
Thirty-three Task Force members were selected at two
Commission meetings held June 13 and July 11, 1975.
VII. RATIONALE AND PLAN FOR THE AIPRC
At the outset, the Commissioners and staff restated that the
purposes, goals and objectives outlined in the legislation (PL 93-
580) should provide the direction to the Commission.
37
A.
Legislative Philosophy
In its initial findings, the Congress, in its Joint Resolu-
tion said that:
1.
Administrative policy has traditionally shifted and
changed without rational design and consistent goals
to achieve Indian self-sufficiency.
2.
There has been no comprehensive review on the conduct
of Indian affairs since the 1928 Meriam Report.
3.
To carry out its responsibilities and plenary powers,
the Congress considered this review as imperative.
The Resolution calls for a comprehensive review of the
historical and legal developments of the Indians' unique relation-
ship with the federal government. This review is being conducted
by an eleven-member Commission with eleven Task Forces divided
into corresponding subject areas with authority to expand as
necessary. A Selection Committee was appointed by the Commission
consisting of Vice Chairman Meeds and Commissioners Bruce and Dial.
This Committee aided in the planning of the organization, rules of
operation, schedule of Task Force performance, review of nomina-
tions for Task Force members and schedule of Task Force staff
employment.
This Selection Committee recommended adding two Task
Forces to the nine provided in the Act by revising the responsibil-
ity of Task Force #8, Urban, Rural and Non-Reservation Indians,
and creating Task Force #10 on Non-Federally Recognized Indians
and Terminated Indians. In addition, Task Force #11 was created
to focus on alcohol and drug abuse. The Commission voted on and
approved the addition of the two Task Forces and the addition of
the required members for each Task Force.
38
After review of many previous reports, investigations,
various Task Force studies and oversight reports on Indian affairs,
the Commission staff recognized the importance of developing a
comprehensive philosophy and plan for implementing the AIPRC's
investigations.
In reviewing these previous reports and studies with
particular emphasis on the Meriam Report, the Commission determined
that two ma.jor elements were missing in these previous reports to
define the Indian "problem":
1.
Indian opinion and participation
2.
Documented proof of findings and conclusions
These two missing elements, therefore, represent a key aspect of
the AIPRC's review and investigations. One form of participation
is the extensive compilation of documented and verifiable records
as a major part of the Commission's role. Previously recorded
Indian opinion such as historical records including the treaties,
laws and regulations affecting Indian affairs, are officially
reviewed and will be included as a major part of the AIPRC informa-
tion-gathering process.
B. Final and Supplementary Reports of the Commission
The final Commission report, with supporting and supple-
mentary documents, is intended to be the most comprehensive review
ever compiled in the area of Indian affairs. It will include a
body of research, documentation, analysis and recommendations
unparalleled in the history of federal/Indian relations. This
report will present proposed legislation, policy and regulatory
changes, and suggestions which may be implemented by Congress,
federal agencies, Indian groups and tribes. It is intended to
39
have a lasting impact on the federal/Indian relationship.
As mandated by legislation, the Commission and its Task
Forces are compiling materials to be incorporated into a final
report. This report, together with the accompanying supplementary
reports and documents, will be submitted to the President of the
Senate and Speaker of the House. "The Commission shall cease to
exist six months after the report is completed, but no later than
June 30, 1977. " The legislative recommendations will be forwarded
to the standing committees of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives and "such committees shall make a report thereon to the
respective Houses within two years of referral".
The Commission report will follow a definite anu specific
format with a logical process of evidence and documentation. The
report will provide:
1.
A determination of issues and problems as perceived by
Indians and reinforced by previously recorded Indian
opinion which will lead to;
2.
A determination of the Indian view of their own goals
and objectives which in turn leads to;
3.
A determination of preliminary conclusions based on
Indian views and backed by documented evidence,
finally leading to;
4.
Recommendations to the President of the Senate and
Speaker of the House for necessary revisions in the
formulation of policies and programs for the benefit
of Indians and suitable for:
a.
Legislative action
b.
Departmental policy action
C.
Bureau procedural action
d.
Indian use
The Commission will present to Congress, in addition to
its final report:
LISEARY GERALD FORD
40
1.
Eleven independent Task Force Reports on the major areas
of Indian affairs including:
Trust Responsibility
Tribal Government
Federal Administration & Structure of Indian Affairs
Federal, State and Tribal Jurisdiction
Indian Education
Indian Health
Reservation Development
Urban & Rural Non-Reservation Indians
Law Revision, Codification & Consolidation
Terminated & Non-Federally Recognized Indians
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
2.
A management study of the Bureau of Indian Affairs with
accompanying recommendations.
3.
Special reports on specified subjects, including:
Analysis and recommendations on the various alte matives
for a nationwide Indian organization designed to improve
Indian participation in the federal budget and program-
ming processes.
Compilation of current data on the amou nature and
location of Indian trust lands by reservation, tribe and
state, including data on allotted lands, resources, etc.
Analysis of how much land the federal government has
acquired since 1934 and placed in trust for benefit of
Indians. This will include the nature of the land,
location, cost and data on any net loss or gain in land
by tribe and state.
Analysis of the Indian fractionated heirship land
problems, proposals for solutions and recommendations.
Analysis of the federal budget processes and funding as
they affect Indians, and as reflected in ten major execu-
tive agency budgets.
Analysis of the federal contracting and procurement pro-
cesses as they relate to Indian preference and as
reflected by ten major executive agencies.
Special economic development report prepared by Indian
professionals.
4.
Special reports prepared by individual tribes and organi-
zations reporting directly to the Commission.
41
5.
Table of all Indian statutory law with reference and
relationship with other Indian and non-Indian statutes.
This will enable ready identification of all statutes
which would be affected by any proposed Indian legisla-
tion.
6.
Record of individual complaints, deputations, testimony,
case studies and recommendations relating to specific
subject matter areas.
7.
Compilation and analysis of all proposals, recommenda-
tions, suggestions and demands made to the federal
government by a representative group of 15 Indian
organizations since 1900.
8.
Library and comprehensive, indexed bibliography of all
information sources compiled and/or used by the Commis-
sion and the Task Forces. This will include federal
program information, budgets, policies, historical
information, statistical data on economic development,
natural resources, land usage, statutory, constitutional
and court case law, treaties, status of tribes and
terminated groups, sociological, educational and
financial data and other research materials.
9.
List of issues and subject areas to which Congress should
give additional attention after the Commission terminates.
10.
Detailed critique of the Commission's accomplishments and
failures, dollar-cost analysis and internal evaluation of
the overall success of the Commission in terms of how
effectively it served Congress and the Indian people.
C.
Task Force Mission
The Task Forces are conducting a comprehensive review of
the federal/Indian relationship. This review will serve as the
basis in determining the nature and scope of necessary revisions
in the formulation of policies and programs for the benefit of
Indians. Each Task Force has been mandated by the legislation to
develop and submit progress reports on a quarterly basis. These
Quarterly Reports are designed to apprise the Commission of Task
Force progress in addition to providing an assurance of the
quality of Task Force work. Moreover, these reports will facilitate
the logical sequential development for the Final Task Force Report
and ultimately, the Final Commission Report.
42
Subsequently, each Task Force will complete a summary
report which will specifically outline and discuss the problems and
recommendations in their subject area supported by documentation
gathered through Indian participation.
D.
Evaluation and Explanation of Task Force Work
The eleven Task Force groups are legislatively mandated to
perform investigative duties. This research and field study pro-
cess is focused on the basis of providing the Commission with
Quarterly Report documents which specifically address the stage
of development of their particular activities.
These reporting activities are for purposes of performance
evaluation under the constraints of the Commission and for the
purposes of managing the effectiveness and autonomous nature of
the individual Task Force work.
The Task Force studies are prioritized into three indivi-
dual areas as identified by each Task Force and are developed on
the basis of the following criteria:
Primary Tasks: Primary tasks are studies, operations, research
and investigations which have been determined by the Task Force to
be their primary concern within the context of the Scope of Work.
These studies are specifically identified and defined to comply
with the intent of PL 93-580.
Secondary Tasks: A particular Task Force in the course of its
investigative operations, may identify additional study areas.
Pursuit of these secondary studies may require development by the
Commission staff of inter-Task Force coordination and sufficient
support.
43
Other Studies: These are identified studies that are related to
'the "Task Force subject but cannot be addressed by the Task Force
group. They may be:
1.
Studies which would substantiate or assist the study
being made by the Task Force.
2.
Subject studies which provide beneficial information
or data for Commission use..
The identification of these study areas is very important
in the Commission final analysis of investigative findings by the
Task Force.
The activities of the investigating Task Forces are keyed
to the Quarterly Reports as a basis for quality, performance and
expenditure schedules.
Each Task Force is required to submit Quarterly Reports
Each Quarterly Report incorporates the fundamental requirements of
an investigative undertaking as proposed in the overall plan as
follows:
First Quarter: The Scope of Work statement, the Plan of Operation
with a performance schedule, and a description of the techniques
to be used in gathering information was completed and made avail-
able in November, 1975. Any questionnaires or other data or
written source material providing Indian input for Task Force
investigation was prepared for the Commissioners. This would
provide the Commissioners their first opportunity to participate
and make their concerns known, and also to reflect upon the pro-
gress made. The Commission was specifically concerned that an
information-gathering process be prepared and that systematic and
timely notice to all tribes and Indian organizations be given.
44
Second Quarter: This report highlighted the problems identified
and the major areas selected for detailed investigation. If sample
site visits have been made, the general aspects of the visit and
trends of conclusions, if any, were described. Here again, the
Commissioners had an opportunity to contribute comments and
suggestions concerning the investigations, and to judge whether
each Task Force was making adequate progress.
Third Quarter: This report reflected the preliminary conclusions,
the factual basis and trends of Indian solutions to the problems
identified. This was the last opportunity for the Commissioners to
contribute to the deliberations of the Task Forces. Coordination
among Task Forces was arranged by the staff so that interest areas
were integrated and available for proper considerati
Final Report: The Final Task Force Report will include all Task
Force recommendations to the Commission. These findings will be
directly related to a specific Indian goal/objective directed
within a problem/issue context. These recommendations will be
proposed for:
1.
Legislative use;
2.
Executive Agency use;
3.
BIA policy and procedural use;
4.
Indian use.
A comparative analysis will be used to evalute each report
in terms of overlap and those areas where, due to the independent
nature of the work, there are supplementary study requirements.
This system insures that a comprehensive investigation is made.
45
VIII. NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION SUIT (NTCA)
On May 20, 1975, the National Tribal Chairmen's Association of
the District of Columbia, filed a Civil Complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, naming the
AIPRC Commissioners, et al, party defendants.
Basically, the suit sought to stop the work of the Commission
and to have the legislation creating the Commission declared to be
unconstitutional. It also sought to have the appointment of the
Indians serving as Commissioners and Professional Staff voided.
The case was heard by a three-judge District Court and on
February 19, 1976, granted summary judgment against the complaining
parties (NTCA). NTCA, through their attorneys, Winston and Strawn
of the District of Columbia, filed Notice of Appeal. However, on
May 19, 1976, the NTCA filed a Motion to Dismiss their appeal on
ground they had not docketed the appeal in the Supreme Court and
determined not to pursue the case further.
In dismissing the case denying NTCA's Motion for Summary
Judgment and granting Chairman Abourezk's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment, the three-judge District Court held:
"The powers and responsibilities vested in the American
Indian Policy Review Commission *** are exclusively
legislative in nature *** and *** neither the creation
of the Commission nor the appointment of its membership
by Congress *** is violative of the doctrine of separa-
tion of powers of the Appointments Clause of the Consti-
tution. *** The present Indian membership of the
Commission reflects the criteria for selection detailed
in *** the American Indian Policy Review Commission Act
and the Director and General Counsel of the Commission
were appointed *** as required by the Act".
46
'IX. AIPRC BUDGET AND FINANCIAL REPORT
The Congress authorized $2,500,000 to cover the cost of the
activities required under PL 93-580, approved January 2, 1975.
Actual beginning of operation was March 17, 1975 when the Director
and General Counsel reported for work. The first task initiated by
staff was to propose a plan of operations consistent with budgetary
limitations and also to immediately conform to the ongoing
Congressional budget process.
The usual requirement for appropriations to be requested by
fiscal period was applied except for the immediate authorization to
expend from the contingent fund of the Senate until the first
budget request be submitted and appropriated by Congress. This is
reflected as the first period in the Expenditure Report below.
There are further appropriation requests necessary because the
Commission is authorized for performance in three fiscal year
periods ending no later than June 30, 1977. The budget requests
by fiscal period are as follows:
Contingent Fund of the Senate, FY 1975 $
51,084.32
Budget Request FY 1976
1,885.205.68
Budget Request Transition Period 1976
300,710.00
Budget Request FY 1977
263,000.00
$ 2,500,000.00
The expenditure report reflects the amount expended from
March 17, 1975 through June 30, 1975 and from July 1, 1975 to date,
June 30, 1976, and reflects the following:
Commission expenses covers the fees and travel of the eleven
Commissioners. The Congressional members charge travel expense
only, as their salaries are not to be paid from the Commission
47
funds. The Indian Commissioners are paid a fee when actually
employed for attendance at meetings or performing other related
approved work for the Commission.
The Commission staff expenditure is the full-time salaries,
travel and expenses of the Director, General Counsel, the Profes-
sional Staff Member and the three clerical staff authorized in the
legislation. Consulting fees, travel and meeting expenses cover
the remainder of this operation.
The Task Force expenses are for coverage of the items listed
on the Expenditure Statement. All members are either full time or
on a part-time, as needed, basis. This allows for a wider choice
of consultants of special qualifications for short periods of time,
which conserves funds while allowing flexibility in time scheduling
within the one-year limit of the Task Forces.
Administrative costs cover those items as listed on the Expen-
diture Statement. The office furniture and equipment is being
provided by the Congress in House Office Building Annex No. 2 and
is available at no cost. The House of Representatives operates
the building for various committees and commissions out of funds
for that purpose.
The expenditure report shows the cost for the first period and
the amount spent so far in the second period (FY 1976).
1975
$
51,084.32
1976
1,890,475.96
1,941,560.28
The Task Forces complete their assignemnts by August 18, 1976;
the staff then will review the Task Force reports with the
Commissioners and provide a staff to analyze, research, organize
48
and develop the Final Commission Report for submission to the
President of the Senate and Speaker of the House by February 18,
1977. The law requires them to refer the report to the appropriate
committees who will then have two years to act upon the recommenda-
tions in Congress. The Commission staff will then close out all
activities, placing files in the Archives, providing a GAO audit
and settling accounts, closing the operation not later than June
30, 1977.
49
EXPENDITURE STATEMENT
Period 3/17/75 to date 6/30/76
FY 1975
FY 1976
Commission Expense
Fees, Salary Wages
$
4,795
$
37,945.15
Travel
4,434
22,354.17
Commission Staff Expense
Salary, Wages, Fees
27,371
126,737.29
Consultant Fees
5,293
66,586.36
Travel
3,001
75,333.40
Hearings
5,475.87
Task Force Expenses
Task Force Members
317,756.21
Task Force Support Staff
256,917.24
Task Force Consultants
146,449.82
Task Force Specialists
200,712.17
Task Force Researchers
14,052.00
Contractual Studies
107,761.95
Task Force Travel
356,104.85
Task Force Hearings
49,916.52
Administrative Expenses
Fringe Benefits
674
29,307.44
Office Supplies
1,753
25,874.96
Communications
2,737
31,087.61
News Subscriptions
342
1,765.35
Print and Reproduction
684
12,695.79
TOTALS
$ 51,084
$ 1,890,475.96
50
O
Hearings
Site Visits
8
8
2
5
le
3
7
5
3
$
1
2
3
I
6
7
H
3
4
5
7
.
10
7
I
5
9
3
I
1
I
8
4
=
5
7
2
8
3
5
5
R
3
8
7
7
5
8
10
b
7
9
II
4
8
3
to
10
I
1
/
8
8
10
8
NY
to
8
8
$10
I
03
8
8
10
7
8
1
8
5
3
10
S
1
8
8
C H A R T I
51
I
4
5
"
3
3
4
1020
5
3
I
2
8
5
10
TASK FORCE INVESTIGATIVE COVERAGE
1
6
+
11
I
4
2
4
7
a
,
19
3
9
5
10
7
X.
I
$
&
JAMES ABOUREZK, D-S. DAK., CHAIRMAN
LLOYD MEEDS, D-WASH., VICE CHAIRMAN
LEE METCALF, D-MONT.
MARK O. HATFIELD, R-OREG.
SIDNEY R. YATES, D-ILL.
SAM STEIGER, R-ARIZ.
INDIAN MEMBERS:
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
ADA DEER, MENOMINEE, WIS.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
JAKE WHITECROW, QUAPAW, SENECA-CAYUGA, OKLA.
JOHN BORBRIDGE, JR., TLINGIT, ALASKA
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
LOUIS R. BRUCE, MOHAWK-SIOUX, NEW YORK
20 AND D STREETS, SW.
ADOLPH DIAL, LUMBEE, N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
ERNEST L. STEVENS, ONEIDA, WIS., DIRECTOR
KIRKE KICKINGBIRD, KIOWA, OKLA., GENERAL COUNSEL
PHONE: 202-225-1284
MAX I. RICHTMAN, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
July 15, 1976
Mr. Bradley Patterson
Special Assistant to the President
for Indian Affairs
Room 103
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Dear Brad:
Congratulations on your new assignment. I would like to greet you in a
fashion which will welcome you back into the "pit" in the continuous
battle for Indian rights.
A current news release by Richard LaCourse of the American Indian Press
Association contains an article about a policy planning memorandum dated
April 19, 1976 written by the Office of Management & Budget, examining long
range strategy for future Indian policy. While a review of federal Indian
policy is obviously badly needed, I find it acutely distressing that a de-
bate of the nature described by Mr. Borgstrum should be occurring within
the federal government at this time. It is particularly bothersome that
considerations such as these should be circulated at a time when the
President is preparing a policy running counter to the philosophy of the
memorandum. It should be made clear that these are my own personal
opinions and not those of the Commission itself. As to the law of the
land, it needs no interpretation or philosophy and so I have merely
stated it.
This discussion confirms every fear which every Indian has had over the
past 20 years. It comes at a time when the legislative policy of Congress
of recognizing the needs of Indian people and taking cognizance of their
unique relationship to the federal government is just beginning to bear
fruit. It comes within 15 years of the opening of general federal domestic
assistance programs to reservation Indian participation. It comes less
than 15 years after adoption of educational programs which are just now
beginning to supply tribes with the intellectual resources necessary to
cope with the complex political and economic machinery of the American
social structure. It comes less than two years after passage of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Act (P.L. 93-638) which the
Nixon administration so vigorously supported.
It reflects the continual fluctuation of federal Indian policy through
the years which has made it impossible for the Indian to believe in the
good faith of the federal government and impossible for the tribes to
page 2
assume their rightful role in the administration of Indian affairs.
The policy alternatives discussed in this memorandum can only be de-
scribed as termination on the one hand or drift on the other. The first
has definite target objectives and as such, probably does feel more
"comfortable" to Executive Office officials; the second lacks a clear
cut philosophical or political commitment necessary to formulate a
definite policy objective. It is justified on the simple expedient
that if "promises are modest", presumably costs are the same.
The first alternative strategy discussed is labeled "Long-Range Social
Problem Solving". As described in the memorandum, this language is
nothing more than an euphemism for termination - termination of federal
services, termination of federal trust protection, termination of federal
recognition and eventually, termination of tribal existance. The memo-
randum recognizes this for what it is and appears to reject it. On page
4 and 5, ten "sub-strategies" to this "Long-Range Social Problem-Solving"
strategy are listed. It is correctly noted that nine out of ten sub-
strategies have been tried and failed. The tenth sub-strategy, i.e.,
establishments of museums, surely must have been added out of a macabre
sense of humor.
The second alternative strategy, i.e., the "Incrementalist" strategy, is
almost equally disappointing. It endorses tribal determination of needs
and priorities but at the same time, commends federal manipulation of
Indian perceptions and motivations; it supports tribal determination
of objectives but suggests that local control is acceptable only because
the Indian objectives do not presently diverge from federal objectives;
it accepts tribes as the proper unit of local government to make policy
determinations but it rejects permanent acceptance of sovereignty of
Indian tribes as a fundamental principle stating that sovereignty should
be viewed only as a "reference point" insofar as it is "perceived to be
a valid concept by some participants". If federal delivery of services
to state and local governments or to non-Indian people was discussed in
similar terms, it would be rejected out of hand by both liberal and con-
servative alike. I can assure you that it is equally reprehensible to
the Indian people.
The problem with this memorandum is that it totally fails to grasp the
historic relationship of the Indian people to the federal government. It
fails to give credence to the treaty commitments of the United States to
the Indian people. It lacks an understanding of the trust responsibility
assumed by the federal government first by treaty at the request of the
Indians, and then by usurpation of controls through unilateral statutory
enactments. It notes the failure of the termination policy in the past
and rejects adoption of such a policy now; but it discusses the current
policy of "self-determination" in a way which suggests eventual with-
drawal of federal delivery of services, eventual withdrawal of federal
trust responsibility, and eventual withdrawal of federal recognition of
tribes as local sovereign governments. In short, it adopts as its central
criterion, the concept that the "Indian problem" will eventually be
BERALD FORD JERARY
Page 3.
resolved by dissolution of the tribe as a government, it denigrates
the concept of Indian property under tribal control and free of state
law, and through indirection it points toward the dissolution of Indians
as a people through acculturation and assimilation. Without so stating,
it equates the "Indian problem" with Indian existance.
This debate on federal Indian policy is not new. It is now nearly 200
years old. In 1789, Secretary of War Knox expressed the alternatives
to President Washington as suppression and extermination of the Indian
tribes at high cost to the government, or an honorable course at much
less expense premised on recognition of the tribes as sovereign entities
with commitment of federal power to the protection of their lands and
property. The consequence of this message was the Indian Trade and
Intercourse Act of 1790 - one of the first statutes enacted by the First
Congress - committing the federal government to the honorable (and more
economic) course.
Virtually every treaty ever negotiated with the Indian people committed
the United States to the recognition and protection of their persons,
their property and their government. Though the statutory policy of the
United States is not consistent, Congress affirmed this commitment to
permanent recognition of Indian tribes in every Indian trade and inter-
course act through 1834, in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and
in the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975. And yet to this day,
through legislative oversight or administrative regulations, tribes as
primary units of local government, are ignored. It is precisely this
federal ambivalency on the nature and status of Indian tribes which
has led to the problems of tribal government and Indian people today.
The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 (1 Stat. 52), stated in part:
"The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the
Indians; their lands and their property shall never be taken
from them without their consent; and in their property, rights,
FORD
and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless
in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded
GERALD
in justice and humanity, from time to time shall be made pre-
venting wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace
and friendship with them. "
When Congress, by the Act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 566), prohibited
the further making of treaties with the Indian tribes, it expressly pro-
vided:
"That nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate
or impair the obligations of any treaty heretofore lawfully
made and ratified." (See U.S. V. Berry, 2 McCrary, 58.)
Page 4.
This Act indicates that Congress would never knowingly violate an Indian
treaty obligation.
The President has no power to abrogate Indian treaties except where a
tribe would be in actual hostility to the United States, and then only
if, in his opinion, the same can be done consistently with good faith
and legal and national obligations. See: 25 U.S. Code - Indians 72.
The numerous Acts providing benefits for Indians are but the result of
treaty implementing legislation first expressed in the Northwest Ordi-
nance and reaffirmed by the federal Constitution. Such rights as Indians
have, are preserved to this day (8 USC 1401). Until each obligation to
the tribes and to the members thereof is fulfilled as provided under
those statutes, termination in any form, would not only be insideous
to the principles set forth in the supreme law of the land, but would
be unconstitutional and illegal. 8 USC 1401 - USCA Const. Amend. 5.
Benefits provided for Indians today are but meager benefits if one con-
siders the federal revenues obtained from the national public domain
and national forests. The "lowest cost concept" of those who do not
understand the federal relationship to tribes and to their members should
view the massive foreign aid packages in comparison, inasmuch as the
Indian people's resources have contributed so much, not only to America,
but to the world.
It also fails to recognize that other segments of America's population
participates in the annual depletion of our tax revenues. For instance,
the subsidy of Indian tribal governments is not a radical budgetary
departure, but is a concept already utilized extensively by city and
state governments.
OMB staff should be required to write on the blackboard 100 times:
Article 1, Section 8
Commerce and Intercourse Clause
Article 2, Section 2
Power to Enter into Treaties
Article 6, Section 6
Supremacy Clause
The "Indian problem" is not that Indian tribes continue to exist, but
rather that the federal government both in legislation and through its
multi-agency delivery system fails to recognize the fact of their exist-
ence or treats Indian tribes as a transient abberation - a romantic
notion which will soon fade away. The focal point of the debate is
Page 5.
whether Indian tribes are sovereign governmental institutions con-
stituting a permanent part of the American political fabric or whether
they are merely transient bodies constituting no more than a federal
instrumentality to be phased out of existence when Indian people have
been fully acculturated into the American melting pot. The under-
lying basis for any federal policy must be the recognition of the
tribes as a modern-day living determinant of Indian socio-economic
welfare.
The reports of the various task forces within this Commission are not
yet completed, and the Commission report is not due until January of
1977. However, I can truly say that we have not uncovered anything
that would change the evaluation of Indian well being from the assess-
ment of President Nixon in his message of July 8, 1970 - that the
American Indians "are the most deprived and most isolated minority group
in our nation. On virtually every scale of measurement - employment,
income, education health - the condition of Indian people ranks at
the bottom. Clearly there has been a critical failure in the federal
Indian policy. But it is my judgment that the failure lies with the
federal government - not the Indian people.
For the past 100 years the Indian people have lived under an all per-
vasive federal paternalism. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
attempted to change this policy by recognizing the legitimacy of
tribal government and fostering its development, by requiring Indian
consent to the utilization of their money and resources, by providing
for reacquisition and expansion of the tribal land base to help make the
tribes economically self-sufficient, by providing a line of credit
through a revolving loan fund to aid in their economic development,
by providing for tribal input into the federal budgeting process, and by
providing for preference for Indians in employment in the Indian Service
under a system outside the Civil Service Commission guidelines. The
failure of this worthy legislation cannot be attributed to lack of
tribal response. It can be attributed to the failure of the federal
executive to seek adequate funding; the failure of Congress to appro-
priate authorized money necessary to carry out its purposes; the
failure of federal administrators to follow the spirit of the statute
in implementing and fostering tribal self-government, the failure of
the government to involve tribes in the budgetary process in any
meaningful way. Even the provision for separate Indian service employ-
ment regulations was ignored.
These failures of both Congress and the Executive began in the Roosevelt
administration - they reached their peak in the termination period
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Page 6
beginning in 1953 - and it was not until passage of the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975 that Congress and the Executive again joined
hands to reaffirm their commitment to Indian self-determination. It
is shameful that before the ink is dry on this Act, federal Indian
policy should be debated in OMB or in Congress in terms of termination
on the one hand or "modest promises" and economy on the other. Where
is the commitment of purpose? Where is the direction? What is the
objective of a policy framed in these terms? How will the Indian
people ever achieve the economic self-sufficiency necessary to begin
shouldering their own burdens if federal policy is premised on such
a foundation?
In discussing the complexities of the federal Indian budget process with
OMB staff it struck me that they could not comprehend the difference
between a BIA budget and an Indian budget. Further, when I suggested
that a comprehensive plan projecting "total tribal needs" be the
foundation for a continuing budget process they responded by questioning
whether there was any purpose in such a suggestion. When I discussed
the possibility of attempting to construct a fair and equitable dis-
tribution of federal funds to tribes, Mr. Borgstrum said that if an
equitable criteria for the expenditure of the federal budget were de-
vised, then the "band analysis" would not work - indeed!
It is my personal belief that the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
and the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 set forth basic principles
upon which federal policy should be based. These principles include:
(1)
A recognition and reaffirmation of the moral
and legal commitments made by the American
people through the federal government to the
Indian people by treaty and by statute to
protect their person and property and to recog-
nize in perpetuity their right to a government
of their own choice.
(2)
A meaningful commitment of federal resources to
the health, education and welfare of the American
Indians necessary to bring these people on par
with the standard of living enjoyed by other
Americans in comparable settings.
(3)
A commitment of technical and financial assistance
to tribal governments and tribal enterprises nec-
essary for them to function in full partnership
with the political and economic institutions in
the rest of this country.
Page 7.
I believe these principles are inviolate. I also believe there is a
substantial waste in the present federal delivery system. I believe
the present delivery system must be revised to:
(1)
Eliminate duplication of administrative functions.
(2)
Tailor eligibility criteria for federal domestic
assistance programs so that Indians too might
participate.
(3)
Simplify application and reporting procedures
on federal grant and contract programs in
recognition of the limited staff and expertise
available to tribal governments. (This suggestion
would be seconded by most state and local govern-
ments too.)
(4)
Build into the federal delivery system the
necessary flexibility to meet the varying needs
and capabilities of tribal government.
(5)
Recognize and utilize tribal governments as
the primary delivery vehicle at the local level, and
(6)
Make the delivery system respond to tribal
needs by involving the tribes in the federal
budgetary system in meaningful ways.
The federal structure must also be revised in such a way as to eliminate
the conflict of interest which now prevails, and to the maximum extent
possible, provide a mechanism for tribal or Indian involvement in all
administrative decisions affecting their rights or interests with
independent power to challenge any adverse federal actions in court.
Finally, I would like to object to the current methodology of federal
administrators, and probably many members of Congress, in evaluating
the expense of "Indian" programs. There is a tendency to view expendi-
tures of social program monies for Indians as somehthing different than
expenditures for social programs generally. The social needs of the
Indian people cannot be eliminated by terminating the allocation of
monies to Indian programs. If the monies are not allocated to "Indian"
programs, then the Indians will have to be allocated to other program
agencies. This is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul - or more aptly,
refusing to pay Peter so that you can afford to pay Paul.
&
FORD
LIBRARY
Page 8
The accounting practices of the federal budgeteers should be modified to
reflect that a significant portion of the monies "appropriated by" Congress
for Indian programs are not federal monies at all but are on deposit in
the federal treasury.
The monies which are allocated to the support and assistance of tribal
governments should be considered in light of the monies and assistance
given to state and local governments. The monies allocated to the
preservation and development of tribal resources should be evaluted
in conjunction with the monies allocated to the preservation and develop-
ment of similar federal resources. The monies made available to Indians
through grant and loan programs should be evaluated in light of the
monies available to non-Indians through other similar federal programs.
In short, the per capita expenditure of the federal government for
federal domestic assistance programs, both individual and governmental,
should be evaluated in light of the per capita expenditures for the
non-Indian citizenry at large. If such an evaluation were done, bearing
always in mind the current condition of the Indian people in health,
education and economic well being and balancing these expenses with
the expenses for non-Indians similarly situated, I believe it might
well be found that the expense of honoring the treaty commitments of
the federal government to the Indian people is not an expense at all.
It is appropriate that in this Bi-Centennial year, America should re-
examine her relations with the original Americans. The Indian inhabi-
tants of this Nation should be a source of pride. The keystone of federal
policy should be structured to reaffirm the course of honor agreed upon
by the first President and the first Congress. What is needed more than
the development of a shift and vacillation in federal Indian policy, is
an acceptance of the realities and rights inherent in Indian law by the
Legislative and Executive Departments. Thankfully, the Supreme Court
has, for the most part, faithfully recognized the reality and perpetuity
of Indian legal rights.
Your friend,
Ernie
Ernest L. Stevens
FORD is LIBRARY 07VH35
CHRINMAN
NATURE
CAMSTEIC AHIZ.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
now. MEMBERS
ADA F NON INFL. wis
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
2151 WINTECT LUARAW. 51101 CA.CAYUSA. ORILA.
House OFFICE DOLLARS ANNIX No. 2
JOHN JM., BLINGS. ALASKA
16": F. BROOF NONAWKSX NEW YORK
20 AND OSTATETS. DVL.
LUMBLE. N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
CRNEST L. SIEVENS. CNCIDA. WIS., DIRECTOR
PHONE: 202-225-1284
RD KIOWA CKLA CI RAL COUNSEL
MAY 1. RICHTMAN. PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER
August 3, 1976
The Honorable James Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Abourezk:
Because of my concern about the lack of progress by Task Force No. 5 and
the possibility of not completing our final report, I am compelled to
write this letter.
Members of Task Force No. 5 were scheduled to meet in Spokane, Washington
from July 28 through August 2 for the purpose of writing the final draft
of our report to the Commission. I arrived in Spokane on July 29 and
telephoned Mrs. Lorraine Misiaszek, Task Force member, for information
about the time and place of the meeting. Mrs. Misiaszek told me: that
Mrs. Helen Schierbeck, Chairperson, had cancelled the meeting because
our budget was overexpended. I was not aware of the cancellation of the
meeting and was not surprised in light of the record of confusion and
disorganization on the part of the chairperson.
Since the beginning of Task Force No. 5, I have been concerned about the
budget and especially the practice of Mrs. Schierbeck unilaterally
obligating funds under the pretense that I am not available for meetings
and/or consultations.
When she unilaterally set her compensation on a full time basis for ten
months in the amount of $27,500 which was computed on a rate of pay of
$33,000 per annum, I wrote you a letter dated October 29, 1976 in which
I strongly protested her action. Also, I appealed to the Commission to
rescind their approval. In addition to other reasons, I objected on the
grounds that other task force activities had a higher funding priority.
In your reply dated November E, 1975 you upheld the action of the Commission
and stated, "I find your remark relating to unequal representation by
salary to be frivolous. If you will review my letter, you will discover
I did not make such an asinine remark and I do not understand how you
could construe that I did.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
The Honorable James Abourczk, Chairmen
American Indian Policy Review Commission
August 3, 1976
Page 2 of 6
I did inform you that she unilaterally prepared the budget.
Further, the Director of the Commission failed to discuss the matter
with me as you requested him to do.
At that time, in the interest of harmony, I did not pursue the budget
matter. A decision on my part which I now regret.
Recently, I received a transcript of proceedings of a meeting of the
Commission which was held on February 20, 1976. The report given to the
Commission by Mrs. Schierbeck is misleading, untruthful, and disgusting.
Surely the Commissioners recognize a biased report and are aware there
is another side of the story which they should hear if they want a
complete and accurate picture.
On page 86 Mrs. Schierbeck states, "In view of the limited participation
of other task force members, as chairperson, I decided
"
I
have
kept a detailed log of Task Force No. 5 activities and filed a report
dated February 17, 1976 with Mrs. Schierbeck and Mr. Stevens for the
period from August 7, 1975 to February 12, 1976.
My report was in response to a memorandum dated December 18. 1975 to the
Commission from Congressman Meeds pertaining to Task Force No. 5's -
quarterly report.
The memorandum was sent to me by Mrs. Schierbeck and I received it on
February 10, 1976. She asked that I respond and I did.
My report lists many meetings which were scheduled by Task Force No. 5
and which were either cancelled by Mrs. Schierbeck or she failed to
attend. Between August 7, and February 12 we spent a total of 29 hours
in actual meetings as a Task Force. In my report, I concluded, "I think
that it is obvious that members of Task Force No. 5 have not devoted
sufficient time to planning and organization and I suggest we furnish
Congressman Meeds with that information." To my knowledge my suggestion
was not carried out.
On page 101 of the transcript Mrs. Schierbeck again complains about the
limited participation of other task force members. In rebuttal I refer
you to my report dated February 17, 1976 and I am prepared to furnish
information for the period from February 12, 1976 to the present and let
you decide who is guilty of limited participation.
On page 103 she stated, "I'm a great believer in the Democratic process
At the outset I insisted that we formulate rules of procedure for the
Task Force and suggested most of them since Mrs. Schierbeck did not have
any ideas or at least didn't articulate them. The rules were formulated,
revised by us, and never observed by Mrs. Schierbeck.
The Honorable James Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
August 3, 1976
Page 3 of 6
Her grandiloquent statement about the democratic process flies in the
face of her performance as chairperson. She unilaterally prepared the
budget, set her salary, employed the Task Force Specialist, and employed
the Task Force Research Assistant among other things.
If you will bear with me, I will describe another incident to support my
argument.
On February 9, 1976 I received two letters from Mrs. Schierbeck. In one
she requested my concurrence in a number of budgetary items, one of
which was to "pick up Art McDonald as a consultant
"
In my reply dated February 17, 1976 I refused to concur with all requests
and in the specific case of Art McDonald I refused to give my approval
until I was furnished with information pertaining to rate of pay, function,
and other general information.
In her second letter I received that day Mrs. Schierbeck made reference
to the "research design for the case study which is being designed by
Dr. Art McDonald." She stated she was concerned about my reactions. In
my reply I informed her that I had not received a copy of the instrument
for my review and comment.
Task Force No. 5 met in Washington, D. C. on February 25, 26, 1976.
On February 26 Mrs. Schierbeck presented a proposal whereby Dr. Art
McDonald would do a survey and define Indian education at a cost of
$21,050. The proposal was completely different from a research design
for a case study. She could not explain the proposal, could not satisfactorily
answer my questions, and seemed very vague in general. Mrs. Schierbeck
suggested Mrs. Misiaszek and I read the proposal and have a poll by
telephone the next day, February 27.
Later that day Ms. Maria Facchina, Research Assistant, gave me a ride to
the airport and volunteered that Mrs. Schierbeck was not knowledgeable
about the McDonald proposal because she, Ms. Facchina, had done all of
the negotiations with Dr. McDonald. She said it was an excellent proposal
and would be beneficial to our task force.
On February 27 I reviewed the proposal with Indian students attending
Harvard University and we concluded the cost was exorbitant and the
study would duplicate other previous efforts which we identified.
Instead the graduate students and professors requested permission to do
a study and develop a philosophy and definition of Indian education for
the task force at no charge.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
I telephoned Mrs. Schierbeck at the meeting place in Washington, D. C.
and Mrs. Misiaszek answered. She said Mrs. Schierbeck had adjourned the
meeting the day before and was not present. We discussed the McDonald
proposal and agreed not to contract with him.
The Honorable James Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
August 3, 1976
Page 4 of 6
At a later date I telephoned Mrs. Schierbeck and informed her of my
position and relayed the request of the Indian students attending
Harvard University. She said she had previously requested assistance
from Penn State University and Harvard University and received no
encouragement. I informed her that the students indicated they know
little about the American Indian Policy Review Commission and knew less
about Task Force No. 5 until I talked with them and that in my opinion
they were sincere and anxious to be of assistance. She recalled that
she had discussed the matter with administrators and not students at the
two institutions. She did not indicate her reaction to the request from
the students.
On March 3, 1976 Mrs. Schierbeck telephoned and advised me of a meeting
in Spokane, Washington on March 11 and said Dr. McDonald would attend.
I reminded her that Mrs. Misiaszek and I had voted against contracting
with him. She said she knew that but Dr. McDonald requested the oppor-
tunity to meet with the task force.
On March 10 Mrs. Schierbeck telephoned and informed me there was no need
for me to come to Spokane on March 11 because Mrs. Misiaszek was ill and
the meeting was cancelled.
On April 8 I received = telephone call from Senator Metcalf's office
inquiring about the Art McDonald contract. I answered that his proposal
had been rejected by a vote of 2-1 by Task Force No. 5.
On April 9 I telephoned Dr. McDonald and explained the action of the
task force. He said he met with Mrs. Schierbeck in Spokane on March 11
and asked why I did not meet with them.
On July 2 I received a letter and several copies of a questionnaire from
Dr. McDonald. The contents of his letter were unclear to me and I
telephoned him for clarification. He was not in but his wife said he
had received a contract from a "Senate Task Force" to do a survey on
Indian education. She advised that I do nothing with the questionnaires
and said time was so limited that her husband doubted if he could produce
a worthwhile project.
On July 10 Task Force No. 5 met in Washington, D. C. and I inquired
about the McDonald contract. Mrs. Schierbeck said she acted on her own
and gave Dr. McDonald a contract in the amount of $12,000.00!!! She
said I was to have had the questionnaires completed by Indian people on
the Blackfeet Indian Reservation.
I refer you to her report to the Commission on February 20. On Page 104
she states, "And we do have a contract and study through Dr. Art McDonald
who, frankly, is going to save our lives because I could not do all of
that myself."
The Honorable James Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
August 3, 1976
Page 5 of 6
On page 106 she states, "Dr. McDonald will be starting the study on the
definition of Indian education with a number of communities. And the
Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards has made their lay advocate
staff available. And they are 10 people we just have to pay the travel
which comes to about $2,800.00." I understand Mrs. Schierbeck is a
consultant for the Coalition.
Her concept of the democratic process is foreign to me. Why didn't she
tell me at the outset that she was going to contract with Dr. McDonald?
Dr. McDonald is a capable, competent person whose talents could have
bee utilized in an endeavor agreed upon by the members provided it met
an identified need.
Today, I am in Spokane, Washington writing this letter. Mrs. Schierbeck
did not have the decency to let me know she had cancelled our meeting.
On the basis of my past experiences I predict she will tell me that she
tried to call me or the mail was delayed, lost or stolen.
On page 108 of the transcript Commissioner Whitecrow tells about rumors
he has heard, "And the rumors I have heard have indicated that we have
on Task Force No. 5, a personality conflict among our task force members." "
In my judgement Mr. Whitecrow's conclusions based on rumors are invalid
and not befitting one who enjoys such an eminent standing as a member of
the Commission. I have never met him and have never had the opportunity
to counter the rumors he cites.
In my judgement there is not so much a personality conflict between Mrs.
Schierbeck and me as there is a deep philosophical and cultural conflict
which will never be resolved.
I have carefully observed her performance as Chairperson of Task Force
No. 5. I have reached the conclusions she is very inexperienced in the
field of Indian education and is insensitive and unknowledgeable about
the majority of Indian people of this country as I perceive them. A
cursory review of her experience in education and her cultural background
supports my conclusions.
I submit that she is powerful and influential with Congress and agencies
at the Federal level and has been instrumental in obtaining funds for
certain Indian education programs and I commend her for this.
However, her performance as chairperson of Task Force No. 5 reflects a
history of indecisiveness, lack of direction, inattention, and limited
communications with task force members.
Her record is one of deceit and deviousness which I cannot condone.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The Honorable James Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
August 3, 1976
Page 6 of 6
On the basis of my association with Mrs. Schierbeck as a member of Task
Force No. 5, I have come to the conclusion that she is unable to function
effectively in a group or team situation. Mrs. Misiaszek and I are
concerned that Mrs. Schierbeck will unilaterally present a final report
to the Commission which will not reflect our views.
In light of our deep concern Mrs. Misiaszek joins me in requesting an
immediate audience with the Commission to inform the members of events
since Mrs. Schierbeck's report of February 20 and to seek advice on how
to complete our report and pay obligations which Mrs. Schierbeck chooses
to ignore. Also we request an immediate accounting of Task Force No. -5.
expenditures.
Sincerely,
Eall.Barlow
Earl J. Barlow
Member
P. S.
In her report to the Commission on February 20, Mrs. schierbeck alleges
mismanagement of funds of Indian education by Federal, state, and local
governments. She has not shared evidence of this with other task force
members.
EJB/ba
CC: Commission Members
Ernie Stevens, Director
Helen Schierbeck, Chairperson
Lorraine Misiaszek, Member, Task Force No. 5
FORD LIBRARY &
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your letter of August 18, 1975, re-
questing the services of Mr. Sydney Freeman of my staff
to assist the American Indian Policy Review Commission.
The importance of the work of the Commission is very much
appreciated and I want to assure you of the cooperation
of the Office of Management and Budget. In this regard,
I am most happy to make the services of Mr. Freeman avail-
able as a resource under the arrangements indicated in your
letter. I am certain you will understand that with his
current responsibilities, the time available for assistance
to the Commission will be limited. However, I am sure
that if the need can be kept on an intermittent and flex-
ible basis, Mr. Freeman's supervisor can work out a satis-
factory arrangement with the Commission staff. To the
extent that any field visits or travel are required, I
assume that the expenses will be borne by the Commission
except, of course, when the field work can be accomplished
in conjunction with Mr. Freeman's normal travel on OMB
business.
I trust that this arrangement will be satisfactory.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Official File - DO Records
Director's Chron
151
Director
Deputy Director
James T. Lynn
Mr. Oaxaca
I
Director
Congressional Relations (2)
Mr. Feezle
Mr. Freeman
File - 9026
Chron -9026
Mr. Crabill/Mr. Borgstrom
IRRO/SFreeman/j1/9/4/75
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 8
1975
Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission
United States Senate
Washington, D. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your letter of August 18, 1975, re-
questing the services of Mr. Sydney Freeman of my staff
to assist the American Indian Policy Review Commission.
The importance of the work of the Commission is very much
appreciated and I want to assure you of the cooperation
of the Office of Management and Budget. In this regard,
I am most happy to make the services of Mr. Freeman avail-
able as a resource under the arrangements indicated in your
letter. I am certain you will understand that with his
current responsibilities, the time available for assistance
to the Commission will be limited. However, I am sure
that if the need can be kept on an intermittent and flex-
ible basis, Mr. Freeman's supervisor can work out a satis-
factory arrangement with the Commission staff. To the
extent that any field visits or travel are required, I
assume that the expenses will be borne by the Commission
except, of course, when the field work can be accomplished
in conjunction with Mr. Freeman's normal travel on OMB
business.
I trust that this arrangement will be satisfactory.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Official File - DO Records
Director's Chron
(Signed) James T. Lynn
Director
Deputy Director
i
James T. Lynn
Mr. Oaxaca
I
Director
Congressional Relations (2)
Mr. Feezle
FORD LIBRARY &
Mr. Freeman
File - 9026
Chron -9026
Mr. Crabill/Mr. Borgstrom
IRRO/SFreeman/j1/9/4/75
JAME a AROUNT Z.K. n.s. DAK., CHAIRMAN
LLOYD MI TDR. D-WASH, VICE CHAIRMAN
... METCALE. D-MONT.
9/4 of Mr. Lyn for signature
Talked to Betay Sent to Do mail Pargls
MARK O. HATFIELD, R-OREG.
SIDNEY R. YATES. D-ILL.
8AM IGI R. H-ARIZ.
RECEIVED
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
INDIAN MEMBERS:
ADA DUE, MENOMINE WIS.
39
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
JAKI. WHITE CROW, QUAPAW, SENI CA-CAYUGA, OKLA.
10
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX No. 2
JOHN BORBRIDGE. TLING T, ALASKA
LOUIS R. BRUCE, MOHAWK-SIOUX, NEW YORK
20
20 AND D STREETS, SW.
ADOLPH DIAL. LUMBEE, N.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
ERNEST L. STEVENS, ONEIDA, WIS., DIRECTOR
PHONE: 202-225-1284
KIRKE KICKINGBIRD, KIOWA, OKLA., GENERAL
TOP PRIORITY
CONGRESSIONAL MAIL
August 18, 1975
TO: m Initchell
Oofaca
Mr. James T. Lynn
Prepare Lynn seply for:
Director
Log No:
Due Date:
Office of Management and Budget
0153
Old Executive Office Building, Room 252
AUG 29 1975
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Copies to:
9/3
Washington, D.C.
Congressional Relations
Dear Mr. Lynn:
I am writing this letter to inform you of the latest develop-
ments relating to Public Law 93-580, a "Joint Resolution to provide
for the establishment of the American Indian Policy Review Commis-
sion", which was approved on January 2, 1975. As you are aware,
this joint Commission with Congressional and Indian participation
is much needed in Indian Affairs.
I have enclosed a copy of the legislation along with other ap-
propriate information for your review. The study, which will be
completed prior to June 30, 1977, will be the first comprehensive
review of Indian affairs in 47 years.
Under Commission supervision Section 4(a) of the Act provides
for Investigating Task Forces which will be composed of three per-
sons, a majority of whom will be of Indian descent and these task
forces will be conducting investigations including studies of legis-
lation, jurisdiction, federal administration and reservation devel-
opment.
Additionally, Section 2(4) "requires the collection of data re-
garding Indian needs of the present and near future". This section
certainly applies to the interests of your office. Determining the
real priorities of Indian people in the format of a consolidated
Planning Program Budget which would apply to all agencies has been
a problem. We intend to pursue this goal as outlined in the legis-
lation.
There are other appropriate parts of the legislation which af-
fect the Executive offices. Section 3(c) authorizes the Commission
GERALD FORD LIBRAR,
Mr. James T. Lynn letter
Page 2
to secure from any department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Executive Branch of the government any information it deems necessary
to carry out its functions under this resolution. Each department,
agency, or instrumentality of the Executive Branch of the government
is authorized and directed to furnish such information to the Commis-
sion and to conduct such studies and surveys as may be requested by
the Chairman.
Section 6(b) provides that in performing its functions under
this law the Commission is authorized to utilize the services, infor-
mation facilities and personnel of the Executive departments and
agencies of the government.
The study which the Commission is undertaking will be an extremely
valuable one which may point the direction of Indian policy for many
years to come. For this reason, I consider it vitally important that
we solicit input from all relevant sources and welcome the assistance
of all those willing to help. We are particularily anxious to secure
the aid of those people with unique expertise and breadth of experi-
ence in Indian and governmental affairs. In this regard, the Commis-
sion staff has talked with Mr. Sidney Freeman on your staff about
the possibility of helping us from time to time and he has agreed
to do so.
We feel that Mr. Freeman could be of considerable assistance
to us as a resource technician and management specialist. His famili-
arity with Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs
operations and his wide-ranging contacts with Indian people and leaders
could be especially useful. We realize, of course, that he has impor-
tant duties at OMB and we don't propose to interfere with those.
But if he could be available to work with us intermittently on a
flexible basis we would very much appreciate it.
The Director of the Commission is Ernie Stevens, an Oneida In-
dian from Wisconsin and the General Counsel is Kirke Kickingbird, a
Kiowa from Oklahoma. We are attempting to establish a close working
relationship with the Executive Branch from the outset. I have had
a personal visit with Dr. Theodore Marrs of the White House staff.
The substance and tone of our discussions seem to portend an excel-
lent working relationship and Dr. Marrs has already assisted us con-
siderably in these difficult and crucial early months.
We would appreciate your cooperation and look forward to working
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Mr. James T. Lynn letter
Page 3
together in accomplishing the purposes of this very important Com-
mission review.
Sincerely,
Janesi Aboorezk Janes
Enclosure
cc: Congressman Lloyd Meeds
Sidney Freeman
The FORD
news
Abourezk release
Senator James Abourezk (D. S. Dak.)
For further information contact:
Senate Office Bldg.
Allan Burke (202) 224-5842
Washington, D.C. 20510
Background Information--Participants
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Bureau of Indian Affairs Management Study
For Release 11 a.m. September 10, 1976
Washington, D.C., September 10 - The Bureau of Indian Affairs Management Study
Group, consisting of 10 executives and specialists, represents many different sectors
of the nation's business and professional community. Their services, loaned by their
employers on a full-time or special assignment basis, provided the manpower for a
nonpartisan study of the bureau for the American Indian Policy Peview Commission.
To assist in the completion of project objectives, eight firms contributed approximately
4,000 man-hours of loaned executive time on an all-expense-paid basis.
Study Chairman A. T. Anderson, an Indian executive on loan from Union Carbide
Corporation and special consultant to the commission for one year, was primarily
responsible for general supervision of the project and recruitment of loaned executives.
Mr. Anderson was born on the Grand River Indian Reservation in Ontario, Canada, and
is a graduate of Mclasters University. He presently serves as manager of Public
and Urban Affairs at Union Carbide Corporation. Mr. Anderson, a member of many
societies and associations, has published numerous scientific papers and is a noted
author, inventor and businessman. Mr. Ray Goetting, a member of Commission Task
Force 3--Federal Mministration and Structure of Indian Affairs--vas responsible
for the administration and project liaison with the commission. Mr. Goetting, an
Oklahoma Caddo, is Treasurer for the National Congress of American Indians, where
he is active in federal Indian programs and budget policies. lle has extensive
administrative experience in the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
where he was a regional procedures analyst, regional management analyst and regional
administrative officer. Ar. Coetting previously owned a business management and
accounting firm in New Mexico serving mining companies, manufacturers, ranchers and
other businesses.
Other members of Task Force 3 are Sam Deloria, a Standing Rock Sioux, who is
the Executive Director of the American Indian Law Center at the University of New
Texico and Tel Tonasket, past Chairman and present member of the Colville Confederated
Tribal Council and President of the National Congress of American Indians. Project
management for the study was provided by Warren King and Associates, Inc., a Chicago-
based management consulting firm.
The Management Study Group was divided into three functional teams, each headed
by a member of the project's Executive Committee. Team leaders and their areas of
responsibility include:
Budget Process--Dennis L. Bohlfing, Internal anagement
Consultant, Phillips Petroleum Company.
Personnel Nanagement--Donald W. Reed, Employee Relations
Manager, Dow Chemical Company.
Management Information-Renneth R. Geiser, Public \ffairs--
Southwest, Honeywell, Inc.
Other participants in the Bureau of Indian Affairs anagement Study and their
employers include: Edwin M. Kennedy, Jr., J. C. Penney Co.; Stephen 11. MacArthur,
Carnation Co. Lewis R. Newman, Colt Industries: Charles C. Peone, Jr., a member of
the Viyot tribe of California, from the Commission Staff; J. A. Palmer, Union Carbide
Corporation: Dr. Joseph J. Walka, University of Arizona: and H. B. Walker, Union
Carbide Corporation.
DRE
Regular business responsibilities of the study team members range from middle
management to corporate executive levels. Their professional qualifications represent
a wide range of business management skills, including civil and industrial engineering,
public administration, data systems and procedures, finance and budgeting, personnel,
law, plant management, public and corporate relations and other specialities.
--30--
Abourezk release news
Senator James Abourezk (D. - S. Dak.)
For further information contact:
Senate Office Bldg.
Allan Burke (202) 224-5842
Washington, D.C. 20510
Prior Management Assessments of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs
American Indian Policy Review Comission
GEERLO FORD LIBRAN
Bureau of Indian Affairs Management Study
For Release 11 a.m. September 10, 1976
Washington, D.C., Sentember 10 - The last major comprehensive review of
Indian affairs before the creation of the Arerican Indian Policy Review Commission
was the Meriam Renort of 1928, which helped foster videspread reforms during the
1930's. Since then, numerous studies have been initiated by other task force
groups, committees, consultants, Indian organizations, federal acencies and
individuals; all have identified problems and made specific recommendations.
In establishing objectives for the present study, it was obvious that a
comprehensive review of these materials should be made to pinpoint potential
problem areas, to establish a basis for comparison with present findings and to
ensure coverage of pertinent problem areas, to establish a basis for comparison
with present findings and to ensure coverage of pertinent problem areas.
Over 75 representative reports written during the st 25 years were
evaluated. Several corprehensive studies and a large number of topical
reviews were presented during the last 5 to 10 years. With occasional exceptions,
most studies were initiated by congressional comittees or the Executive Branch.
The analysis indicated that prior studies directed more attention to
programs, facilities, natural resources, government. policies and financing
than to management practices or related service functions. However, many
managerial problem areas vere identified. Of these, management practices,
personnel administration and intergovernmental relations received the most
attention. The budget process and management information--Loth extremely
important to effective nanagement--receivedt ubstantially less emphasis. The
study Group also noted prior evaluations strongly suggested adopting improved
management principles regarding planning, organization, leadership and control.
Consequently, the following list of key findings from prior reviews is quite
similar to those conclusions independently reached by this study.
- Recognition that ton level management ability is as essential to program
success as capital.
- Provision for developing adequate executive leadership at all organizational
levels.
- Development of corprehensive, timely information for use by personnel to
ensure effective planning, budgeting, and control.
- Installation of an improved communications system.
- Utilization of tribal long-range planning.
- Implementation of recommendations.
While prior assessments identified similar problems and resulted in
appropriate recommendations, the study group realized past efforts fell short of
their objectives primarily because the apparatus for implementation was not present.
As a result, present study recommendations are presented with implementation
guidelines to ensure activation.
FORE
The businessmen strongly suggested Congress act to develop a positive
vehicle to expedite implementation. A Management Improvement Implementation Peview
Office, endorsed by Concress and organizationally located in the appropriate
management division of the Office of Management and Budget, should be established.
Quarterly reports and interim assessments should be distributed to the Commissioner
of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, appropriate convressional
corrittees and the Precutive Office. In addition, the Commissioner and the
Secretary of the Interior should be required tr highlight essential features of
these reports in annual budget presentations to Congress.
-30---