Top Story Archives - Page 108 of 156

With Federal Shutdown Looming, Interior Releases Contingency Plan for BIA

WASHINGTON – For the first time in 17 years, a federal shutdown is realistic at 12:01 am est Tuesday, October 1.

Late Saturday night, the Republican-controlled US House passed a measure that would fund the federal government at its current level for one year with the stipulation, the Affordable Care Act – most commonly known as Obamacare – would not be part of the federal budget.

This measure is unacceptable to President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party-led United States Senate.

With the US Senate not reconvening until this afternoon, it is looking more and more likely a federal government shutdown will occur at midnight tonight.

What does this mean to Indian country?

The federal shutdown will impact some services in Indian country. The breakdown is broken down into two categories as essential and non-essential services. Essential services include law enforcement and social services to protect children and adults.

“The impact of a Federal government shutdown is elusive to most folks as we, as citizens, generally take government services for granted. The impact in both the short term and long term to Tribes, however, will be devastating. In 1995, the impact was to delay federal checks, impose furlough work days for federal employees, shut down federal tourist and National Park services, and ultimately the cost of both closing down and reopening Federal services at a whopping $1.4 billion ($1.7 billion today with a one percent annual inflationary adjustment),”

commented Aaron Payment, chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, based in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, to the Native News Network Sunday morning.

“In some cases, the Sault Tribe subsidizes a large portion of the Federal government’s treaty obligations for “health, education, and social welfare”. One hundred percent of the Sault Tribe’s net gaming revenues are already pledged to pick up the Federal government’s annual shortfall. For some programs – not all – we will be able to rely on Tribal support or casino dollars for a brief period. However, for those programs not subsidized by Tribal Support funds, we will have to consider furloughs. In some cases, federal funds have already been received such that we can operate for a few days during a shut down. However, if the shutdown lasts more than a week, we may need to shut programs down. In this event, we will first try to minimize the impact on services and second on jobs,”

Chairman Payment continued.

“Obviously we are watching the possible shutdown by the federal government. We are trying to balance what we can do at home and we are reviewing what possible services would be impacted by the shutdown,”

commented Erny Zah, director of communications from Navajo Nation President Shelly’s office on Sunday evening.

“Our Council just passed our budget, so we are attempting to see how a shutdown will coincide with our new budget. Our goal is to keep all government services unhindered and uninterrupted as possible.”

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, is part of the federal government under the US Department of the Interior. Late Friday, the Interior Department released the following contingency plan fact sheet:

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Contingency Plan Fact Sheet

With a potential shutdown on October 1, 2013, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will be required to administratively furlough all employees unless they are covered in an Excepted or Exempted positions. The BIA will also discontinue most of its services to tribes which will impact most programs and activities.

Services and programs that will remain operational.

Law enforcement and operation of detention centers.
Social Services to protect children and adults.
Irrigation and Power – delivery of water and power.
Firefighting and response to emergency situations.

Services and programs that would be ceased.

Management and protection of trust assets such as lease compliance and real estate transactions.
Federal oversight on environmental assessments, archeological clearances, and endangered species compliance.
Management of oil and gas leasing and compliance.
Timber Harvest and other Natural Resource Management operations.
Tribal government related activities.
Payment of financial assistance to needy individuals, and to vendors providing foster care and residential care for children and adults.
Disbursement of tribal funds for tribal operations including responding to tribal government requests.

House Bill Puts American Indian Sacred Sites at Risk

Proposed Resolution Copper Mine Impact area

Source: Native News Network

WASHINGTON – The California Tribal Business Alliance (CTBA) is voicing its opposition to the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013, HR 687.

This House bill would authorize a land swap in Arizona between the federal government and the Resolution Copper mining company in order to facilitate the extraction of mineral resources from government lands.

California Tribal Business Alliance recognizes that there are a number of significant fiscal and public policy implications surrounding the legislation. The legislation and ultimate land swap will result in economic stimulus and the extraction and use of valuable ore. However, it does so at a cost. The legislation will also result in the loss of irreplaceable sites sacred to Native Americans.

It will remove protections for the environment.

Moreover, it does so without engaging the respective tribes in any meaningful government to government consultation in regard to their sacred cultural resources or surrounding environment.

This is in direct conflict with existing policies and laws, such as, the Memorandum of Understanding executed in December 2012 among various departments to coordinate and collaborate with tribal governments for the protection of Indian sacred sites. It also conflicts with the President’s Executive Order of June 2013 which establishes a national policy to ensure that the Federal Government engages in meaningful consultation with tribes on any policies affecting tribal nations. Moreover, the legislation establishes timeframes to complete the analysis of any historic or sacred sites in the exchange area that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Native American Graves Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

We are at a time in history when the Federal Government is moving in a direction to establish and strengthen policies for meaningful government to government consultation with tribal governments and to protect tribal sacred sites and resources. HR 687 would retard the current policy direction and place native peoples’ heritage and sacred resources at risk, and it does so without affording the tribes the benefit of any meaningful consultation. For these reasons, the California Tribal Business Alliance is opposed to HR 687.

The House finished their business for the day without having the final vote on the bill. They also only voted on two out of the three amendments offered, both of which failed. An amendment offered by Representative Ben Lujan, D-New Mexico, that will be considered on the floor that gives

“the Secretary unilateral authority to remove Native American sacred and cultural sites from the conveyance in consultation with affected Indian Tribes.”

A recorded vote was requested on the Lujan sacred sites amendment, but further action was postponed. We expect votes on both the amendment and the final bill to take place early next week.

The California Tribal Business Alliance urge you to join them by contacting your local member of Congress to articulate concerns about HR 687.

South Fork Nooksack Chinook Captive Broodstock Reach Spawning Age

Staff at NOAA’s Manchester Research Station ultrasound a chinook salmon to determine its sex and whether it is ready to be spawned.

Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

More than 500 mature chinook salmon raised in captivity could produce about 1 million eggs at the Lummi Nation’s Skookum Creek Hatchery this year.

Of those, more than 600,000 juveniles are expected to be released into the river next spring.

The fish are part of a captive broodstock program to preserve threatened South Fork Nooksack River chinook. The multi-agency effort involves Lummi, the Nooksack Tribe, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its goal is to help the recovery of the South Fork Nooksack chinook, a significant population that must be on a path to recovery before Endangered Species Act restrictions can be lifted.

In 2007, the partners began collecting juvenile chinook in the South Fork Nooksack River to raise to spawning age. The juveniles were genetically tested to sort out stray fish from hatchery programs and the South Fork Nooksack chinook were transferred to the WDFW Kendall Creek Hatchery for initial rearing. Later, half of the fish were retained to rear in fresh water at Kendall, while the other half were transferred to the NOAA Manchester Research Station for rearing in salt water.

The first offspring spawned from the captive broodstock were released in 2011. Project managers expect the program to peak in 2016 with the release of 1 million juveniles. Based on a conservative survival rate, more than 4,000 adult chinook could return to the South Fork Nooksack in 2019.

Historically, about 13,000 natural origin South Fork spring chinook spawned in the Nooksack River, but since 1999, surveys estimated that fewer than 100 native spring chinook returned as adults. Degraded and lost habitat are the main reasons for the population’s decline, as there are no directed harvest on the stock. Incidental catches, mostly in Canadian fisheries, are relatively insignificant.

“We needed to protect this population while we conduct extensive habitat work,” said Merle Jefferson, natural resources director for the Lummi Nation. “Our hope is that these fish, when they return, will jumpstart the population in restored habitat.”

Both the Nooksack Tribe and the Lummi Nation have done restoration work in the South Fork to re-establish suitable habitat for salmon to rear, feed and spawn.

How Does Tribal Leadership Compare to Parliamentary Leadership?

Wikimedia CommonsJohn Ross served as Cherokee Principal Chief from 1828 to 1866. — Wikimedia Commons
John Ross served as Cherokee Principal Chief from 1828 to 1866.

By Duane Champagne, Indian Country Today Media Network

Many traditional American Indian governments have significant organizational similarities with contemporary parliamentary governments around the world. A key similarity is that leadership serves only as long as there is supporting political consensus or confidence that the leader or leadership represents the position of the community or nation. Generally, indigenous political leadership serves at the consent and support of the local group, community, or nation.

Leaders, or speakers, express a consensus position among community members. In negotiations or actions, the leader has power to act only if the leader carries out the wishes of the constituent community. Indian nations usually have local, regional, and national leaders, where political processes and sustained leadership depends on consent among tribal members. While an Indian leader has the general consensual support of the community or region they represent, the leader remains in office. When the leader upholds the desired goals and interests of the represented community in political action, community members are supportive of leadership.

If, however, a leader acts against the community consensus, the community withdraws political support. If a leader is in a hereditary leadership position, the hereditary leaders influence is lessened, as community members will follow other leaders who are willing and able to represent tribal needs, interests and desires.

There are multiple historical examples of such leadership patterns in many Indian nations. John Ross, Cherokee Principal Chief from 1828 to 1866, represented the majority of Cherokee citizens, most of whom had traditional economic orientations, while often taking up Christian religion and were committed to the Cherokee constitution and nation. Ross was a slaveholder, Methodist, but at the same time was an avid politician whose support could not completely rely on the minority mixed blood slave owner class. Ross as leader represented the interests of the majority of Cherokee, and if he had not done so they would have removed him from office and elected a more accommodating Principal Chief.

This stone is at John Ross’ grave in Ross Cemetery in Park Hill, Oklahoma. (escapetothesilentcities.blogspot.com)

Another example is the removal of Haudenasaunee Chiefs by clan mothers, if the chief was warned three times he was not properly representing the views of the clan or nation.

In contemporary parliamentary governments when parliament is dissatisfied with the ruling leader and its party, action is taken to remove leadership. If the leader does not have the majority confidence of the parliament, the leader has to call for elections to reconsider new leadership. Most contemporary American Indian constitutional governments have elections that are similar to the U.S. constitution.

Elected officials serve in office for specified terms, whether or not they have the support of the community or nation. As American Indians are within the U.S. sphere of influence, American political models are predominant. Indian leaders, often in Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) governments, can control the government with a majority vote within the tribal council. If the leaders do not represent the interests of the community, tribal members must wait until the next election to remove them from office.

Unlike non-Indian parliamentary governments, which are organized by political parties, American Indian communities still are often organized by confederations of kinship groups, villages, or band localities. The families, clans, and villages are active social and political entities, and continue to observe traditional political processes and recognize and uphold leaders who serve community interests.

Many tribes that rejected adopting U.S. style constitutional governments retain a form of consensus-based political relations built upon traditional kinship and locality arrangements that is usually unique to their nation. Many traditional tribes saw constitutional governments as too inflexible, perhaps because leadership patterns, especially in IRA governments, were not directly responsive to tribal community pressures and interests. Community political consensus was a primary check and balance that communities put on tribal leaders so they served community needs. It is never too late for tribal communities to rethink their constitutional forms and make them more compatible with consensually-based traditional or parliamentary government patterns.

A Talking Chair: Outgoing NIGC Chair Tracie Stevens’s Advice to Her Successor

Courtesy Senate Committee on Indian AffairsStevens was the first Native American woman to chair the National Indian Gaming Commission. — Courtesy Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
Stevens was the first Native American woman to chair the National Indian Gaming Commission.

By Gale Courey Toensing, Indian Country Today Media Network

Tracie Stevens (Tulalip Tribes), who is leaving the chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission after completing a three-year term, talked to Indian Country Today Media Network about the commission’s work and what she anticipates doing after living and working in Washington, D.C.

You were appointed in June 2010, so you’ve been chair a little over three years. That doesn’t seem like a very long time for a federal government appointment. What made you decide to leave?

My term was expiring back in June, and I had to think about whether or not I wanted to continue to serve as chair for one more [three-year] term. But ultimately my decision to leave was a very difficult and really a deeply personal one. I’m a family person—I’m a wife and a mom—and in the end I had to really consider what was best for my family—and specifically, my daughter. She’s going into high school this year, and we decided together as a family that her last four years [in school] should be at home in the Northwest. My [family] has been incredibly supportive over my whole career, with the move to D.C. in particular, and they gave up a lot of things so that I could accept this wonderful opportunity. Now I want to shift my attention back to them.

Six years would be a long time away.

Yeah, especially as an Indian person when you know where your home is; it’s in your blood, and you know where you belong.

When you were appointed you had four goals: to review and improve consultation and relationship building, training and technical assistance, regulations and agency operations. How far along are you in accomplishing each of those goals?

Tracie Stevens, a member of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Courtesy National Indian Gaming Commission)

We’ve done exceptionally well, and I say ‘we’ because it’s not something that I did alone. It was certainly a combination of team work, not just with commissioners but with our staff. And a lot of groundwork was already laid by previous commissions.

We revamped our consultation process by adding informal consultations prior to initiating a formal rule-making process, which really speaks to Executive Order 13175. The EO talks about the need to discuss the need for change before you actually make the change. We also needed to look at how we were relating and communicating and cooperating and collaborating with all these other federal, state and tribal entities that are involved with Indian gaming and regulation and its oversight.

Indian law has a very long and complex history, especially under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), where there are so many divided authorities shared among federal, state and tribal entities, so really working on those relationships across government agencies was important. Technical assistance and training are mandated by IGRA. We’ve revised our curriculum to better fit the needs of the industry, and we actively communicated with tribes so that we can provide technical assistance on a daily basis—for which I can thank our field staff who don’t get the attention and credit they deserve. They really do all the hands-on work to keep tribes in compliance through technical assistance and training.

Our regulatory review was a massive undertaking, and we admitted that up front. A lot of people looked at our initiatives and said, “Holy moly, there’s no way you’re going to get this done!” But we took it more as a challenge than as a limitation. Overall, we reviewed more than 20 regulations, finalized 17 and held more than 50 consultations to achieve that. That went through our consultation process, where we had collaborative discussions with many tribes at the table as well as receiving comments from the public. In the end, this process helped us as a commission with fully informed decisions and rules that will further protect the industry, so that was a great success.

The last initiative was an agency operations review, and that was our effort to look at ourselves as a commission in the mirror and really examine our internal operations so that we could better fulfill our responsibilities and duties under IGRA. It has been the most active and longest initiative that we’ve faced. We examined our internal work-flow processes, our communications internally and externally, assignments procedures and priorities, our own compliance, because as a federal agency we do have to comply with federal statutes and regulations, making sure we provided tools to our staff so they could better perform their job, budgeting, standard operating procedures—all of these sort of management and organizational functions that all organizations, whether a federal agency or a corporation, face. So it was and still continues to be a major priority for us.

I’m really pleased with our achievements. It’s a success that’s shared with tribes and our own staff, and these initiatives won’t end with my departure because we’ve integrated them into our strategic plan that goes through the year 2018.

All of the responses that I’ve read about the one-touch bingo rule are positive—that’s a 180-degree turn from the chaos over Class II bingo when you became chair. Please talk about the process involved in reaching this point. Is it a model for resolving other contentious issues?

Really what prompted us to look at that type of machine and the way it’s played were inquiries from tribal regulators, manufacturers, testing labs asking us to provide some clarity. We examined the previous decision, we looked at previous judicial rulings and IGRA itself, and we concluded that we needed to reinterpret that one particular decision because it better upholds IGRA’s definition of bingo, as well as those previous judicial rulings. And really, it’s our consultation policy that’s a great model for resolving contentious issues. Within our policy there’s opportunity for tribes to bring to our attention matters that they’d like to have addressed.

What were the most and least gratifying aspects of being NIGC chair?

I think the most gratifying has been the relationships—the people I’ve come to know within the agency as well as within the federal family that I can now call my friends. But really the most enjoyable of those connections were with the tribes and their representatives through the consultation process. It’s always great—whether it’s a good exchange or a contentious exchange—to have that discussion. And that may just be a result of my own upbringing as a Tulalip: coming together and resolving issues. My advice to the next chair is: Communicate, communicate, communicate.

I’d say the least gratifying aspect was I’m not really somebody who likes to be out front. I’m more of a behind-the-scenes person, and I knew this job was going to be completely out front, and it’s not the most comfortable place for me. But it was an opportunity that really was an honor. And a friend and colleague pointed out that if you’re not out front, your daughter, your nieces and Native girls aren’t going to see women out front. And they need to know that women in leadership is normal, it’s expected, and it’s achievable.

What are your plans for the future and do they involve Indian gaming?

I made a conscious commitment to Indian country and to serving my own people in one way or another directly or indirectly, so I imagine that’s where I’m headed. How that will materialize I don’t yet know. I guess time will tell. It’ll probably be in the private sector and will probably include Indian gaming along with so many other issues that tribes face.

Increases in Gaming Revenues Bode Well for Indian Country

By Gale Courey Toensing, Indian Country Today Media Network

An increase in Indian gaming revenues in 2012 of almost three percent offers “economic encouragements” for Indian country, according to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). The commission released data in late July showing revenues generated by the Indian gaming industry in 2012 totaled $27.9 billion—the third consecutive year of increases in gross gaming revenues (GGR) since the recession began in 2007.

The Indian gaming industry saw its largest gross gaming revenues ever in 2012, Tracie Stevens, NIGC chairwoman said. “The 2012 Indian gaming industry’s gross gaming revenues of $27.9 billion indicate a strong and mature Indian gaming industry. Additionally, gross gaming revenues in 2012 reached its highest level in history, ahead of 2011’s gross gaming revenues by $746 million. For those who judge casino spending as an indicator of increased discretionary spending and economic recovery, 2012 revenues certainly display economic encouragement,” Stevens said in a media conference in late July.

The National Indian Gaming Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency that was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. It provides training and technical assistance and regulatory oversight to ensure the integrity of more than 420 gaming establishments owned and operated by nearly 240 tribes across 28 states.

The NIGC calculates Indian gaming revenues based on a fiscal year. The 2012 GGR is calculated based on independently audited financial statements received by the NIGC through June 20, 2013. Financial statements are submitted by Indian gaming operations in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Gaming revenues represent the net win from gaming activities, which is the difference between gaming receipts and payouts.

Yvonne Lee, director of finance for NIGC, explained, “First, it is important to note, gross gaming revenue, or GGR, is the amount wagered minus the winnings returned to players. GGR is the figure used to determine what a casino or other gaming operation earns before salaries, compact fees and other expenses are paid—the equivalent of sales, not profit. Gross gaming revenues should in no way be interpreted as profit-margin. These are revenues earned before paying other expenses.”

Last year’s GGR of $27.9 billion was 2.7 percent higher than the 2011 GGR of $27.2 billion. The NIGC data attribute the overall growth of revenues to 66 percent of the Indian gaming operations, which reported an increase in gaming revenues. Of the operations that reported an increase in revenues, approximately 44 percent showed moderate growth of less than 10 percent.

Associate Commissioner Dan Little said a key role in the growth of the Indian gaming industry was the commission’s review and updating of regulations. “Over the past three years our regulatory review has provided much needed reform to meet the needs of the changing industry and provide flexibility and consistency for tribes and tribal regulators,” Little said.

The 2003–2012 Gross Gaming Revenue Trends table shows the revenues trends over the past 10 years. Since 2010, the Indian gaming industry experienced approximately three percent annual growth—reaching its largest GGR this year.

Small and moderate gaming operations make up 56 percent of Indian gaming, the commission said. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act determines how gaming revenues may be expended. Many Indian tribes use gaming revenues to fund economic development activities on reservations and to provide their citizens with social services, including health services, housing, early education programs and language and cultural preservation activities.

In 2012, 98 Indian gaming operations reported gaming revenues between copy0 million and $25 million, 70 Indian gaming operations reported gaming revenues between $3 million and copy0 million and 69 Indian gaming operations reported gaming revenues less than $3 million. Stevens said these numbers show that most tribal gaming operations are medium-sized or smaller. “The industry is driven by the demographics of each area. Most tribal gaming operations are in rural parts of the country where jobs are greatly needed for both Natives and non-Natives alike,” she said.

The map shown illustrates the seven NIGC regions across the country. All regions showed growth in revenues in 2012, continuing a trend that began in 2011. The largest increase in GGR of 5.1 percent or $233 million occurred within the St. Paul Region, which has 120 gaming operations across nine Great Plains states. The Tulsa Region, which has 64 gaming operations in Kansas and eastern Oklahoma, had the largest percentage increase from 2011—6.6 percent or copy25 million. There is also a chart that shows regional gross gaming revenue trends.

The NIGC calculates the Indian gaming industry’s gross gaming revenues data based on financial statements that are submitted by Indian gaming operations in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Native Education Situation Dire, Says Report; Sequestration Not Helping

By Rob Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Media Network

The Education Trust, a nonprofit organization that focuses on student achievement gaps, has released a new report, “The State of Education for Native Students,” and the state is not good—to say the least.

The report, issued in August, notes that despite recent progress in improving achievement among most students of color, achievement results for Native students have remained nearly flat, and as achievement has stagnated, the gaps separating Native students from their peers have mostly widened.

The hard numbers are eye-opening. “In 2011, only 18 percent of Native fourth-graders were proficient or advanced in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), compared with 42 percent of white fourth-graders,” the report states. “In math, only 17 percent of Native eighth-graders were proficient or advanced, and nearly half (46 percent) performed below even the basic level. For white students, the pattern was almost exactly the reverse, with 17 percent below basic and 43 percent proficient or advanced.” NAEP results for Native students improved more slowly between 2005 and 2011 than for any other major ethnic group. “As a result, while Native students were performing better in fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade math than African American and Latino students in 2005, by 2011 that lead had all but disappeared,” the report finds.

On the higher education front, the report finds that of the Native students who enrolled in a four-year college in the fall of 2004, only 39 percent completed a bachelor’s degree within six years. It was the lowest graduation rate for any group of students.

“Our country’s focus on raising achievement for all groups of students has left behind one important group—Native students,” said Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, in a statement. “To ensure that all Native students succeed, we must do more and better for them starting now.”

“There’s an urgent need to pick up the pace of improvement for Native students in this country,” added Natasha Ushomirsky, Education Trust’s senior data and policy analyst and author of the brief.

The good news is that the poor trends are far from inevitable, as the report points out that some states, schools and institutions of higher education are already working hard to ensure progress for Native students.

Still, there’s a long, long way to go, said Native education experts who have reviewed the report.

Quinton Roman Nose, executive director of the Tribal Education Departments National Assembly, said the report paints a dire picture that Indian education experts have long been asking the federal government to heed and change for the better. He believes the information presented in the report offers a starting point for more research as to why there has been little progress under the Obama administration for Native students. “I wish there were more information regarding local partnerships between tribes, local education agencies and state education agencies,” Roman Nose added. “The recent State Tribal Education Partnership grant has awarded four grants to have tribal education agencies partner with local education agencies and state education agencies in developing selected title programs from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”

Heather Shotton, president of the National Indian Education Association, said her organization is “troubled” by the achievement statistics highlighted in the report, but it helps to focus on some success stories that illustrate these trends are not irreversible.

“As noted in the report, some states are currently raising Native academic achievement outcomes,” Shotton said. “Among other successes, increased tribal and Native community involvement in Oregon and Oklahoma ensure Native-serving schools include culture-based education and provide resources for language immersion, which as research shows, increases academic outcomes.”

But the biggest problem for both programs that are struggling and for those that are succeeding in aiding Native students, Shotton said, is ongoing federal sequestration that inordinately harms Indians dependent on federal funds.

“[S]equestration has limited the success of such programs—disproportionately affecting America’s most vulnerable populations,” Shotton said. “For tribes and educators working tirelessly to reverse the disparaging statistics, sequestration has reduced budgets, increased class sizes, and reduced staff when Native students need them most.”

NIEA is currently asking federal lawmakers to leave Native education programs held unharmed as sequestration continues to be implemented, or for Congress to work with the Obama administration to implement a planned reduction measure, rather than across-the-board cuts that disproportionately diminish the education of those who need it most—Native students.

Cherokee Nation Mourns as Veronica Is Returned to Adoptive Family

Suzette Brewer, Indian Country Today Media Network

In the end, it came down to one simple strategy: Waiting. As Dusten Brown faced the Damocles Sword of jail time and a felony warrant, Matt and Melanie Capobianco only had to wait.

Last week, as the clock was running down on the stay that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had granted him, Dusten Brown had tried to negotiate even a bare minimum of visitation with his daughter. At the beginning of the week, there was a hopeful offer that included three weeks in the summer, one weekend every other month in South Carolina, and with alternating Christmases, which seemed like a solid deal. But as the parties returned to court on Wednesday morning, the Capobiancos again reneged and the negotiations started all over again.

By Friday afternoon, they made one last half-hearted offer in which Brown would get to see his daughter roughly 10 hours a month in South Carolina, with supervision. But even that, according to insiders, was not written to include any kind of enforcement.

Even before they were virtually forced into mediation in a courthouse in Tulsa last week, Dusten Brown had tried to negotiate a settlement with the Capobiancos for months, which they outright rejected.

In spite of their public proclamations that they had “always” insisted that they would allow Veronica to stay in contact with her paternal biological family, behind the scenes insiders say it was apparent to the Brown family and their lawyers that the Capobiancos weren’t interested in negotiating any kind of deal at all. This fact alone is one of the reasons Dusten Brown had fought so vociferously and publicly to force them to the negotiating table.

But even then, the negotiations were merely photo opportunities in which they were photographed arriving and leaving the courthouse in downtown Tulsa. Once inside, they had no pretense about their intentions. All they had to do was wait; no matter what Dusten Brown did or did not agree to, he was going to jail, say insiders.

After the “negotiations” failed again on Monday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court lifted their stay, which allowed Veronica to remain with Brown while he continued to seek legal redress in Oklahoma.

Exhausted and left with few options other than jail time and the loss of his military career and pension, he discussed her peaceful transfer with his family, legal team and tribal officials. He and his wife, Robin, packed a few bags for Veronica, who had just turned four-years-old last week. Before the family gathered to say their last goodbyes, Tommy Brown, Veronica’s grandfather, began suffering chest pains and was taken by ambulance to the hospital.

At 7:30, a caravan of federal marshals made their way to the Jack Brown House in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, a guest residence near the Cherokee Nation tribal complex where the Browns had been staying for several months to maintain their privacy.

Chrissi Nimmo, the assistant attorney general for the tribe, took Veronica’s hand and led her to the waiting SUV that was to take her to the Capobiancos.

After a four-year struggle to keep his daughter, one that led the shy, unassuming soldier all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond, it was over.

As the Brown family went to the hospital to visit their patriarch, the Capobiancos went on another media blitz, starting with a live interview on CNN.

As word of the transfer began to go viral, condolences for Dusten Brown and his daughter began pouring in from all over the country.

“We are deeply, deeply saddened by the events of today, but we will not lose hope,” said Todd Hembree, attorney general for the Cherokee Nation. “Veronica Brown will always be a Cherokee citizen, and although she may have left the Cherokee Nation, she will never leave our hearts.”

“Our hearts are heavy at this course of events,” said Terry Cross, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. “Any other child would have had her or his best interest considered in a court of law. The legal system has failed this child and American Indians as well. Our prayers are with everyone concerned, but most of all with Veronica.”

Experts say that because of Veronica’s current age, she will experience trauma and homesickness. But adult adoptees who have been watching from the sidelines are all-too-familiar with the challenges that lay ahead for a little girl who is cognizant enough to know what has transpired.

In Oklahoma, she was surrounded by her large extended family, which included her grandparents, her father and stepmother, her sister, Kelsey, from Brown’s first marriage and a chatty phalanx of half a dozen cousins, with whom she had grown close. She had made friends at pre-school and loved her pets. She was a spark of lightning with a sharp mind and quick to giggle, a girl who loved pink and shoes.

In South Carolina, Veronica will be the only child on both sides of her adoptive parents’ families. The Capobiancos, both of whom are in their mid-40s, have no other extended family nearby, save for a stepmother who was divorced from Melanie’s father before he passed away.

Time will tell what the ultimate outcome will be for Veronica, who will undoubtedly be given the best of what the Capobiancos can afford in terms of education and the trappings of an older, upper middle income childless couple. Nonetheless, so far in her young life, she brought attention to the corrupt and broken system of illegal adoptions that are taking place every day throughout Indian Country. In spite of her removal from Oklahoma, Veronica Brown paved the way for other children to remain with their communities and families, bringing attention to the loopholes and cracks in the Indian Child Welfare Act that allow attorneys, social workers, guardian ad litems and judges to continue profiting from a very profitable industry adoption and foster care industry that traffics Native babies and children.

“We hope the Capobiancos honor their word that Dusten will be allowed to remain an important part of Veronica’s life,” said Hembree. “We also look forward to her visiting the Cherokee Nation for many years to come, for she is always welcome. Veronica is a very special child who touched the hearts of many, and she will be sorely missed.”

Yakama Nation demands clean up of Columbia River following release of fish consumption advisories

Source: Pyramid Communications

TOPPENISH, Wash.—Yakama Nation Chairman Harry Smiskin today said state and federal governments must act to clean up polluted sections of the Columbia River that are contaminating fish. The call for action followed the release of fish consumption advisories by the Oregon Health Authority and Washington Department of Health.

“The fish advisories confirm what the Yakama Nation has known for decades,” he said. “State and federal governments can no longer ignore the inadequacy of their regulatory efforts and the failure to clean up the Columbia River.”

In the Treaty of 1855, the Yakama Nation retained fishing rights throughout the river. The Yakama Nation repeatedly identified contaminated sites along the Columbia, expressing concerns for the health and culture of the Yakama people and calling upon the state and federal agencies for cleanup actions that would protect the tribe’s resources.

“The new advisories once again pass the burden of responsibility from industry and government to Tribes and people in the region,” Chairman Smiskin said. “Rather then addressing the contamination, we are being told to reduce our reliance on the Columbia River’s fish,” “This is unacceptable. The focus should not be ‘Do not eat’—it should be ‘Clean up’ the Columbia River.”

For more information visit www.yakamafish-nsn.gov.

Failed Treaty of Point Elliott Promises Spotlighted in Play

Richard Walker, Indian Country Today Media Network

This was James “Smitty” Hillaire’s debut as a stage actor, and yet he emoted anger, frustration and pain like a pro.

“We don’t like to call it acting,” Hillaire said. “We’re trying to tell a story, a story that hasn’t been told … A lot of people didn’t realize why we’re still fighting for our rights today. It’s still going on.”

Hillaire portrays Chowitshoot, a leader of the Lummi people and a reluctant signer of the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott in “What About Those Promises?”, a stage production about treaty promises that have not been fulfilled by the United States.

To develop the script, Shelly Muzzy pored through transcripts of proceedings stored at the University of Washington. The audience is confronted with a true version of history not like those found in many textbooks.

“What About Those Promises?” brings to life the realities of—and the emotional trauma stemming from—the unfulfilled promises of the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855. (Lummi Nation)

Here, Chowitshoot and other Lummi representatives raise concerns about how the treaty will affect their rights to fish, hunt, harvest, and continue their way of life. Chief Si’ahl, or Seattle, leader of the Duwamish and Suquamish peoples, urges his peers to not sign the treaty.

The treaty was signed under duress, Hillaire said. “Sign or walk knee deep in blood—those were the words. We had no choice. We were forced to sign.”

The play brings to life the ongoing struggles of the Lummi people to see the promises of the treaty fulfilled, and gives voice to the people involved in those struggles.

The scenes take place when the United States was in the “fever of the termination era” and terminating its treaty responsibilities owed to tribes, Jewell James wrote in Whatcom Watch; he is director of the Lummi Nation’s Sovereignty and Treaty Protection Office. The region’s First People were jailed for trying to fish and harvest in their traditional grounds, as promised in Article 5 of the treaty; their rights to fish and harvest were upheld in 1974 in the U.S. District Court case, U.S. v. Washington, also known as the Boldt decision.

“What About Those Promises?” also reveals to the audience the emotional toll the post-treaty years have had—the residential schools, the termination era, and the continuing fight to protect rights, the environment and sacred places.

“We’ve been treated like animals, actually,” Hillaire said. “I believe we are one of the most regulated people in the whole country. We’re treated like prisoners of war; we’ve never gone to war [against the U.S.], we never surrendered either, but they treat us like a conquered people.”

“What About Those Promises?” brings to life the realities of—and the emotional trauma stemming from—the unfulfilled promises of the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855. (Lummi Nation)

Hillaire and his wife, Lutie, who also has a role in the play, have been participating in workshops to help them deal with the emotional impacts of historical trauma.

“I have a difficult time right off trying to deal with the anger,” he said. “I have kind of mixed emotions—some of it anger, some of it sadness.”

What producer Darrell Hillaire hopes people take away from his play: “That their word is good. Anybody. All people. All cultures. To keep our word to one another. We have such diverse peoples living in this country, in our communities. How do we best learn to live together? Well, you keep your promises first. From there, you learn to live together.”

State Rep. John McCoy, D-Tulalip, one of two Native Americans in the state House of Representatives, authored laws that require the history and culture of Washington’s First Peoples is taught in the state’s public schools, and allow tribes to open their own schools and create their own curriculum.

“This would be a great production to be out there [in schools],” he said. “You bring in your youngsters and your current leadership and your elders, and then do this production. If every tribe would do that, we’d really educate the state of Washington.”

He added, “Youngsters, you have to listen—listen to the stories of the elders, so we know where we’ve been, so you know where to go.”

The next staging of the production will be October 18 at Seattle University’s Pigott Hall at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are available at BrownPaperTickets.com.