Top Story Archives - Page 126 of 156

Paul Frank Native American-designed collection an apology for powwow party?

Paul Frank parent company Saban Brands President Elie Dekel surrounded by products featuring Paul Frank icon Julius the Monkey. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times / June 19, 2013)

By Booth Moore, Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2003

On Tuesday, I wrote a post about the new “Paul Frank Presents” collection of accessories designed in collaboration with Native American artists.

After so many egregious misappropriations of Native American culture by fashion brands (“Navajo” T-shirts at Urban Outfitters and feather headdresses on the runway at Victoria’s Secret), I wrote that it was heartening to learn that Los Angeles-based Paul Frank, the brand that turned a sock monkey into a fashion statement, announced it is collaborating with four tribes in regions across the country in what seemed to be an authentic way, giving artists the opportunity to design accessories for a special collection launching in August on PaulFrank.com.

(The artists include Louie Gong from the Nooksack tribe; Candace Halcro from the Cree/Metis tribe; Dustin Martin from the Navajo tribe; and Autumn Dawn Gomez from the Comanche/Taos tribe.)

But I failed to include the backstory. Dr. Jessica R. Metcalfe, a Turtle Mountain Chippewa from North Dakota, who writes about Native American art, fashion and design, as well as owning and operating the site BeyondBuckskin.com, where many of the artists tapped by Paul Frank sell their designs, elaborates on the collaboration in an illuminating post here.

“While I am undeniably thrilled about the announcement and all that it represents, the press release failed to mention the various factors that led to this collaboration,” Metcalfe writes. “Last September, the lifestyle brand Paul Frank hosted a “powwow”-inspired fashion event that featured some questionable party favors and activities.”

“After a sizable backlash from people from Native American communities and our allies, the brand removed over a thousand images of the event from their Facebook page, and the president of the company, Elie Dekel, reached out to myself and Adrienne Keene of Native Appropriations. He reached out to the two of us, I think, because we had been the loudest in pointing out the obvious racism behind this event … and so it began — the gesturing to apologize for this major slip-up,” Metcalfe writes.

Although Paul Frank’s collaboration with Native American artists will undoubtedly help bring the work of these talented young people to a wider audience, the company should have been forthcoming in press materials about the journey it took to get here. Because what is corporate responsibility without full disclosure?

Big News from the White House

Source: Quinault Nation

TAHOLAH, WA (6/26/13)–“This is an exciting development in advancing a new era of U.S.-Tribal relations,” exclaimed Fawn Sharp, President of the Quinault Indian Nation and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians regarding today’s establishment of the White House Council on Native American Affairs by President Barack Obama.

President Obama established the council in an executive order with the stated objective of promoting and sustaining “prosperous and resilient Native American tribal governments” and in recognition of a government-to-government relationship with tribes throughout the country. “This relationship is set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, administrative rules and regulations, and judicial decisions. Honoring these relationships and respecting the sovereignty of tribal nations is critical to advancing tribal self-determination and prosperity,” says the executive order.

“This executive order comes from a President who has taken the time to listen to the American Indian people. It is a document that recognizes our history and struggles and acknowledges our interests and objectives. On behalf of the Native people and the tribes I represent in my elected capacities, I thank him for his foresight and the intent of this very important decision,” said Sharp. The White House Council on Native American Affairs is primarily coordination. But it could benefit Tribes by addressing the chronic problem of tribal government and tribal program underfunding which had ranged from 50 to 80 percent, said Sharp.

Sharp pointed out that the council is to coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council which tends to create yet another layer of a federal policy process and was more direct through inter-agency collaboration. There does not appear to be a mechanism for direct tribal government engagement with the Council on “tribal specific” policy and the establishment of effective inter-governmental negotiation mechanisms. The new Council appears to be solely concerned with federal funds, but may not address the conveyance of funds through states to Indian governments. Finally, President Sharp pointed out that the new council does not appear to be concerned with urban and rural Indians and Alaskan Natives and Hawaiian natives now constituting more than half of the total native population in the United States.

The Executive Order goes on to say, “As we work together to forge a brighter future for all Americans, we cannot ignore a history of mistreatment and destructive policies that have hurt tribal communities. The United States seeks to continue restoring and healing relations with Native Americans and to strengthen its partnership with tribal governments. Our more recent history demonstrates that tribal self-determination — the ability of tribal governments to determine how to build and sustain their own communities — is necessary for successful and prospering communities. We further recognize that restoring tribal lands through appropriate means helps foster tribal self-determination.”

The Executive Order establishes a national policy to ensure that the Federal Government engages in a true and lasting government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes in a more coordinated and effective manner, including by better carrying out its trust responsibilities. This policy is established as a means of promoting and sustaining prosperous and resilient tribal communities. “Greater engagement and meaningful consultation with tribes is of paramount importance in developing any policies affecting tribal nations,” it reads.

Among other policy direction, the order asserts that it is the policy of the United States to promote the development of prosperous and resilient tribal communities by promoting sustainable economic development, greater access to health care, improvement of tribal justice systems, greater educational opportunities and improved protection of tribal lands, natural resources and culture.

The chair of the new council will be the Secretary of Interior and members will include the heads of numerous federal executive departments, agencies and offices. The order lays out funding sources, meeting frequency, processes for making recommendations to the President and various other objectives. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has stated she will announce further details related to council as soon as tomorrow.

The formation of a White House Council on Native American Affairs recalls the Johnson and Nixon Administrations’ Council on Indian Opportunity (1968-1974) which was chaired by the Vice President of the United States, said Sharp. Like the Johnson and Nixon Council the new White House Council is intended to coordinate federal programs and the use of resources to be delivered to tribal communities. Unlike the earlier Council, the new 31 member Council does not have representatives of tribal governments. Unlike the earlier National Council, the White House Council does not have actual broader policy powers since the earlier body actually conducted meetings around the country, had the Vice President as the Chair and included officials from both the US government and tribal governments.

“It is true that the tribes have struggled tremendously through the decades in this country. But from generation to generation we have also proved our resiliency. We have endured much, and even today there are many who fail to understand us. We do appreciate President Obama’s intents and actions. But as we proceed in the improvement of the federal/tribal government-to-government relationship, it is important that tribal leadership be included in the planning and implementation process at every opportunity,” said Sharp.

“The bottom line is that it is no small thing that the president is doing here, just as it is no small thing that he has embraced Indian Country*. Again, I thank him for his wisdom, his heart and his foresight,” said Sharp.

*In May 2008, Barack Obama became the first American presidential candidate to visit the reservation of the Crow Nation. During his trip he was adopted by Hartford (now deceased) and Mary Black Eagle as a member of the nation. Hartford chose the name “Awe Kooda Bilaxpak Kuxshish,” or ”One Who Helps People Throughout This Land” to formally give to Obama, and the President has had the wisdom and sensitivity to embrace his adopted name and family with dignity and respect.

White House Council on Native American Affairs Executive Order in full:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/26/executive-order-establishing-white-house-council-native-american-affairs

Greed, Corruption and Indian Country’s New Welfare States

Leland McGee, Indian Country Today Media Network

Indian country’s pecuniary advancements created by Indian gaming are well documented. Many tribes have taken full advantage of expanding and diversifying business ventures that now represent a sustainable economic base far greater than their initial casino enterprise. Such planning and financial discipline is commendable. Strong tribal leadership and the willingness to do what is in the best interest of the citizenry of those governments is usually the common thread of success for those tribes. Many times, however, decisions made by tribal councils to obtain such successful economic diversity come at a political price: risking their leadership positions by standing up to their constituents and saying no to either initiating per capita payments, or increasing them beyond sensible levels.

Unfortunately, many tribes today have lost that astute fiscal resolve. In its stead, per capita has become something so adverse amongst so many of our people that it now serves to hinder, disrupt and in some instances, even dismantle tribal governments. Disenrollment, political turmoil, government breakdowns, corruption, financial dependency and absolute greed has become the new “norm” for too many gaming tribes. I’ve witnessed more times than I care to admit, general councils literally holding tribal councils political hostage over per capita distributions. Chants of: “either pay us more per capita, or we’ll vote you out and replace you with someone who will” has become commonplace within many tribal communities. Sound familiar?

The truth of the matter is that per capita payments do little to improve our tribal communities, much less peoples’ lives. Yes, we have a sovereign right to establish per capita for our citizens, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s “the right thing to do.” Some of our most formidable leaders during the early years of Indian gaming argued against per capita. They understood that the net gaming profits from our casino operations were the financial gifts born from the struggles to evolve and develop this industry. Gaming was viewed as an important tool to address generational socio-economic disparity throughout Indian country. Gaming revenues were our way of lessening our dependency on federal funding sources, as well as our opportunity to strengthen and improve tribal government operations, which is a true exercise in sovereignty.

Many tribal governments realized that creating a system of per capita payouts to tribal citizens established nothing short of a tribally funded “welfare state.” Tribes that opposed and rejected per capita payments to their citizens early on were, by and large, the ones setting the standard for quality of life improvements within their communities. As a tribal citizen, enjoying this new influx of casino revenue meant that your basic needs in life were provided for, so long as you earned and/or qualified for such assistance. This included housing, education, health care, child care, elder assistance, business start-up assistance and a slew of other programs and services that casino revenues provided.

Today’s trend though seems to be growing more and more negative in regards to per capita outlays. We have families pitted against families fighting over who is and who is not a rightful citizen of their tribal government. Issues that were never in dispute before per capita payments were declared, now grow in volume and intensity. Disenrollment was extremely rare and when exercised, was for actual cause (no Indian blood quantum, dual enrollment, et cetera), not because of greed and corruption over per capita outlays. Such actions only serve to kill our native culture. We lose respect, credibility and support throughout the United States, especially within the federal government, and look absolutely ridiculous in the eyes of the world. A proud people we are not when we allow an infiltration of bad acts and bad actors to operate and control tribal governments, spurred on by overwhelming dictate from tribal citizens demanding more and more “free” money from their tribes.

So, what can be done to reverse this trend? Maybe we begin by nurturing and empowering stronger leadership within our tribal governments. Tribal councils willing to stand in unison against per capita payments, or increases thereto, is a good starting point. Regaining control of tribal finances and putting those dollars to work in other areas are also key goals. Tribes that utilize gaming proceeds to diversify economic portfolios, generate new business ventures, create jobs and grow tribal wealth beyond casino operations, better control per capita greed. Also, lest not forget that in most states, our monopoly over casino-style gaming enterprises is a very fragile one. At any time we can see changes to state gaming laws that allow expansion of casino-style gaming to non-Indian entities in and around population centers, as a way of increasing state tax revenues and thereby devastating a large percentage of Indian gaming as we know it.

Many of us have and will continue to dedicate our lives to prevent such circumstances from occurring. However, we need to do a much better job of perpetuating positive views and opinions in the public domain on how we utilize our gaming revenues. It’s a lot easier arguing protectionism of Indian gaming’s status quo in states around the country struggling to raise more revenues, if we are not constantly lambasted in the press over tribal infighting based on nothing more than greed. Better educating our people as to the pitfalls of per capita dependency is also critical. It’s a tough challenge for any tribal council to face, but in the end such efforts may save a tribal government and the communities it serves. Our fights to secure Indian gaming was to improve government operations, tribal business ventures and overall quality of life for our citizens; not to politically cannibalize ourselves through acts of voracity, corruption and the spread of destructive per capita dependency among our own people.

Leland McGee, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, is a principal of the Sequoyah Group, LLC, a native-owned national Indian economic, energy and gaming development consulting firm. He has served in Indian Affairs under both Clinton and Bush Administrations, served under the National Congress of American Indians, directed government affairs for a national Indian law firm, and has served as executive director and tribal administrator for federally recognized tribal governments.

Victory! Oneida Nation and Green Bay ban the burning of waste

How grassroots organizing is stopping waste incinerators in Wisconsin

Kristen A. Johnson and Ananda Lee Tan, GAIA

Last month, members of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin hammered the final nail in the coffin for waste incinerator proposals on the Oneida lands, including parts of Brown and Outagamie Counties.

On May 5, more than 1800 Oneida General Tribal Council members overwhelmingly voted to reject the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s bid to build a pyrolysis gasification incinerator . Despite millions of dollars of subsidies offered by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, the Green Bay City Council and now the Oneida Nation have sent a clear message to all extreme energy and waste corporations that burners are not welcome in their backyards, or those of their neighbors.

This facility fight has been at the center of public debate for more than two years, and numerous environmental groups, health experts and advocates from around the state and across the U.S. provided support for this protracted community battle. However, the most inspiring, and instructive stories are those of grassroots, community organizing that led these victories. The following are reflections from parallel organizing efforts in the communities of Oneida and Green Bay.

Incinerator Free Brown County: Persistent and Adaptive Organizing

Incinerator Free Brown County came together in the fall of 2010, when an article appeared in the Green Bay newspaper announcing that a waste-to-energy plant would be built by the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC). The proposed site was near a residential area in the Village of Hobart. Alarmed by the potential health, economic, and environmental hazards posed by this plant, residents banded together, posting flyers door-to-door, in an effort to galvanize awareness and concern. They formed the Biomass Opposition Committee (BOC), and after the site was relocated to the city of Green Bay, they changed their name to Incinerator Free Brown County (IFBC) to promote a countywide campaign.

Everyone within a 2-mile radius of the incinerator site was made aware of the proposal and community members joined meetings to discuss organizing plans. At each meeting core members volunteered to raise funds to cover organizing expenses. These funds were used to share information about waste incineration through local signature petitions, fact sheets and media.

IFBC reached out to groups such as GAIA, Indigenous Environmental Network, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Waukesha Environmental Action League, Clean Water Action, and the Wisconsin Sierra Club for support. A number of health professionals also responded, experts who testify in support of communities opposing polluting industries. In March 2013, Dr. Paul Connett and Bradley Angel of Greenaction gave public presentations on the danger of incinerators and the benefits of zero waste. DVD recordings of their presentations were used to deepen community awareness.

Opposition to the incinerator grew in the spring of 2011 when Clean Water Action financed and—with community input—designed 4 billboards and numerous yard signs that broadcast their message to the general public, attracting the attention of the Mayor, local media, and the OSGC.

However, the fight was not without its challenges. For months, the Mayor, City Council and elected officials of the Oneida Nation avoided meeting with organizers.

IFBC kept detailed records of all documents produced by the OSGC and used these to strategically expose contradictions in the company’s technology claims. Organizers met with local officials, educating Green Bay’s elected leaders on the environmental, health, and economic impacts of the incinerator. Local residents were encouraged to contact officials to ensure that public opposition remained on the agenda.

Finally, in October 2012, after a legal challenge highlighting misleading claims by the incinerator company, IFBC and allies convinced the Green Bay Council to revoke the incinerator’s conditional use permit. After the Mayor decided not to veto the council’s vote, the City Attorney officiated revoking of the permit.

Organizers with IFBC have shared their insights in their Incinerator Resistance Guide—so that other grassroots groups can learn from their lessons, mistakes, and successes as well as ways to maintain good humor during such protracted battles, where persistence and perseverance win.

Organizing the Oneida Nation with Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Leah Sue Dodge is a member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, one of six Indigenous Nations that make up the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Leah first learned of the waste burner from an opinion piece in the Oneida Tribal newspaper. Her community was already wary of the toxic threats posed by this facility, as well as the prospect of thousands of diesel trucks transporting garbage through the community on route to the incinerator.

With the emerging debate in neighboring Green Bay, and news that the incinerator company had made claims there would be no harmful emissions, not even smokestacks, associated with this untested waste gasification technology, members of Leah’s community grew increasingly concerned.

After the Green Bay City Council revoked the incinerator permit, OSGC followed with legal action. On January 9^th, 2013 a Brown County circuit court judge decided to uphold the Green Bay decision, finding that the company had indeed misrepresented the facts: “(OSGC) indicated that there are no smoke stacks, no oxygen, and no ash. I am satisfied that is a misstatement.”

The decision prompted OSGC to look at siting a smaller “plastics-to-fuel” incinerator on tribal lands—as a stepping-stone towards a “full size” facility. Learning this news Leah decided to get more involved. As an Oneida member, Leah felt a responsibility to warn her community about Oneida money being invested in this project, and that her Tribe’s reputation was at stake, despite personal concerns about how her actions could affect her Tribal employment due to the powerful and moneyed interests involved. However, in her words, “The risk of my home being poisoned was greater than these fears.”

To start her inquiry, Leah decided to meet with key Oneida decision-makers: Oneida Business Committee Chair Ed Delgado and Yvonne Metivier, Oneida Elder Advisor to the Chairperson. Metivier suggested Leah draft a petition to demonstrate broad community opposition, and bring the matter before the General Tribal Council for a vote. She advised Dodge to keep the petition focused, and achievable in scope: a) aimed at stopping the incinerator from being approved for all Oneida lands, and, b) worded in a manner that did not require extensive legislative or financial analysis.

Leah promptly went to work, drafting and seeking signatures for the petition, which read: The General Tribal Council directs the Oneida Business Committee to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) from building any “gasification” or “waste-to-energy” or “plastics recycling” plant at N7239 Water Circle Place, Oneida, WI or any other location on the Oneida Reservation.

Over the next 10 days, Leah gathered names on the petition, ensuring they were all Oneida members of voting age. Signatures of Oneida members of all ages, as well as members of other tribes were also presented to the Oneida Land Commission in opposition to a land-use permit for the facility. Despite the proposed site being in ecologically sensitive wetlands, and less than a mile from the Turtle Elementary School, the high school and Oneida legislative offices, the Commission decided in favor of the facility.

At this stage, Leah decided to seek broader community engagement. Leading into the May 2013 general assembly of the Oneida Tribal Council, Leah purchased ads in the Tribal newspaper, distributed information for concerned Oneidas to share via social networks. Leah worked with others to develop a community action for two days at an intersection near the incinerator site. Deliberately choosing not to label the action a “protest”, they called it a Fun Action of Conscience & Teaching (FACT). “This was about supporting what we are for, rather than focusing solely on what we are against.”

Oneida artist Scott Hill recommended using visuals emphasizing traditional Oneida beliefs about the teaching spirits of animals, including the guiding stories of the clan animals, Turtle, Bear and Wolf:

The Turtle symbolizes Mother Earth, turtle island – the caretakers of the land
The Bear is a symbol of the Earth’s natural medicines and plants, healers
The Wolf clans are the peacekeepers, pathfinders – guarding and guiding communities against harm. I am of the wolf clan….

In sharing the principles embedded in these stories with community members, families and friends driving and walking by; stopping, listening, and engaging in discussion—dozens of new community members resolved to oppose the toxic threat to their lands, their families and their community.

Visually communicating these stories was a key element of the FACT action, with artistry by Hill helping illustrate the philosophy of caring for earth’s precious resources—because the Great Law of Peace teaches that in all actions we must consider how we affect the next seven generations. Leah noted this philosophy was clearly at odds with the business model of any company planning to waste and burn earth’s resources, despite their attempts at green branding.

Hill also painted posters combining tribal icons with gas masks because, “everybody understands poison”. Scott’s grandson, Talyn Metoxen, enjoyed taking part as well, wearing a gas mask and holding his grandfather’s artwork.

The FACT action coupled with strong presentations to the Oneida General Tribal Council served to unite the Oneida community against the burners, going to show how community-led organizing can be irresistible when coupled with place-based culture and ecosystems knowledge.

Leah Sue Dodge acknowledges the support received from the Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, IFBC and their neighbors of the Mather Heights Neighborhood Association, who all valiantly and victoriously fought the incinerator proposal outside the Oneida Reservation. She hopes that, moving forward, Tribal leadership will work with these organizations to challenge environmental and health threats for the benefit of everyone.

Senate leaders say Wash. budget deal reached

Mike Baker and Rachel La Corte, Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Leaders in the Washington state Senate said Wednesday that lawmakers have agreed to the framework of a new budget to avert a government shutdown, but counterparts in the House cautioned that no final accord had been reached.

Republican Sen. Linda Evans Parlette told her colleagues in an email that the Senate and House had “reached an agreement” on the budget. Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom backed away from that language a bit, saying that negotiators have settled on the major components of the budget, allowing staff to go through the process of officially writing it.

Tom expects lawmakers will be able to vote on the spending plan Thursday or early Friday.

Democratic Rep. Reuven Carlyle agreed that a budget framework had been reached but that there was work to do.

“We have some remaining issues to address,” the Seattle Democrat said. “And they’re legitimate. But they’re solvable.”

Tom acknowledged that all the details of the budget had not been finalized, but he said the lingering issues would not hold up the process.

David Postman, spokesman for Gov. Jay Inslee, said the governor has not been told of any agreement.

“We believe we are close, but as of now there is more work to be done. I’ll take it as a good sign that the Senate is anxious to make an announcement, but it is premature for anyone to say at this point that a deal has been struck,” Postman said in a statement.

Negotiators have been squabbling for weeks over the budget in hopes of reaching a final compromise.

One of the lingering places of disagreement surrounded questions about how much fish Washington residents consume – and the subsequent impact on water quality standards. The state has been exploring new water quality rules that are influenced by how much fish Washington residents eat, but the Senate has proposed a larger study that could put the rulemaking process on hold.

Tom said he wants the study to pass, since Boeing is concerned about the impact of the fish consumption numbers. But he said the Senate would still pass the budget even if the study wasn’t funded.

Much of Washington state government will be shut down Monday if the state doesn’t have a new spending plan by then. More than 25,000 workers would be temporarily laid off and some 34 agencies would completely cease operations.

Inslee met with cabinet members Wednesday afternoon to discuss contingency plans in the case of a government shutdown. Inslee’s chief of staff, Mary Alice Heuschel, said the process has been challenging for agency leaders and that the process is intensifying as the possible shutdown gets closer.

“There’s a tremendous concern that this will occur,” Heuschel said.

The state is beginning to send out notifications to tens of thousands of people who use state services, including 26,000 people who are state-funded recipients of Medicaid, about 7,000 people who made reservations at state parks during the first week of July and about 1,400 contractors working with the Department of Enterprise Services who would have their contracts suspended.

Lawmakers have been squabbling over the proposed two-year, $33 billion operating budget for weeks. They were unable to complete the budget during their allotted session that ended in April, and they were also unable to do the job during a 30-day special legislative session that ended earlier this month.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/06/26/2654146/fish-study-sidetracks-wash-budget.html?storylink=mrc#storylink=cpy

Supreme Court Reverses, Remands Baby Veronica Case Back to South Carolina

Dusten Brown with daughter Baby Veronica in their Nowata, Oklahoma home (Cherokee Nation)

Suzette Brewer, Indian Country Today Media Network

In a move that ensured the protracted continuance of the four-year custody battle over Veronica Brown, the Supreme Court today reversed and remanded Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl back to the South Carolina courts for further review. In a narrow 5-4 ruling that revealed the philosophical fracture among the justices, the nation’s highest Court held that sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act “did not bar the termination of parental rights” under state law.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, rested the majority argument on the hair-splitting phrase “continued custody,” holding that “showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s ‘continued custody’ of the child—does not apply when, as here, the relevant parent never had custody of the child.” Further, the majority ruled that existing Indian family placement preference do not apply when “no alternative party has formally sought to adopt the child.”

Though the Court did not terminate the parental rights of Dusten Brown or transfer custody of Veronica back to the Capobiancos, the justices left intact the remainder of the Indian Child Welfare Act and remanded the case back to South Carolina. Now, Brown and the Capobiancos will square off yet again in what has become one of the longest, most bitter, contentious and expensive custody fights in U.S. History. In his ominous concurrence with the majority ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the stakes by included a voluminous appraisal of the Indian Commerce Clause and its rhetorical application in the difference between “tribes” and “Indian persons.”

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made clear that simply because the majority disagreed with the Congressional policies outlined in ICWA, it was not a valid reason to “distort the provisions of the Act.”

“The majority does not and cannot reasonably dispute that ICWA grants biological fathers, as “parent[s],” the right to be present at a termination of parental rights proceeding and to have their views and claims heard there.” wrote Justice Sotomayor. “But the majority gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Having assumed a uniform federal definition of “parent” that confers certain procedural rights, the majority then illogically concludes that ICWA’ substantive protections are available only to a subset of “parent[s]”: those who have previously had physical or state-recognized legal custody of his or her child. The statute does not support this departure.”

Court watchers in this case have now shifted the focus from the stricken provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the broader, more widely interpreted standard of “best interest analysis” in determining custodial placement of Veronica between Matt and Melanie Capobianco and Dusten and Robin Brown.

“What this Court said is that going forward, unwed birth fathers who do not take the steps required to acquire parental rights will not benefit from the provisions in ICWA,” said Martin Guggenheim, Professor of Law at New York University. “By remanding back to the lower courts, ‘best interest’ is now a new question before the courts, and that she may suffer a second disruption in her life. But Sotomayor did remind the reader in her dissent that the Cherokee Nation could put forward other options in jurisdiction and adoptive preference. Either way, the Supreme Court won’t care what South Carolina does with respect to interest, though the length of time [Veronica] spent with the father is now a factor in his favor.”

While the Court did strike certain sections of the law, it left intact the rest of the act, which is still applicable under federal mandate.

“We’re relieved that the Court upheld Congressional authority to protect Indian children,” said Terry Cross, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. “This decision only applies to unwed fathers, but it remains our job to make sure people know that ICWA is still law, it’s still in force and they have to follow it.”

At the Cherokee Nation tribal headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, Principal Chief Bill John Baker pledged the tribe’s support in assisting Dusten Brown in the duration of this litigation.

“Certainly we’re disappointed with the ruling, namely because Dusten Brown now has a whole litany of legal issues still before him,” said Baker. “But we are hopeful that he will prevail because the facts in this case are on his side. As a father and grandfather, it’s hard to see any parent be told that they can’t raise their own biological child. Regardless of the circumstances, it has been extremely painful to watch.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Global Initiative Ups Support of Tribes

Rob Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Media Network

On June 15, Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) announced plans to promote and help six South Dakota tribes develop a joint wind energy project. The tribes are the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate and the Yankton Sioux Tribe; the project will ultimately see them place several wind turbines on their reservations in an effort to create electricity to sell on the open market.

“It has always bothered me that the green energy revolution has escaped the tribal lands by and large,” President Bill Clinton said at a June 15 event hosted by the foundation in Chicago. “Those who live on tribal lands without casinos still have the lowest per capita income in the country. The potential of this is staggering.”

The tribes are raising funds and increasing financial capacity to make their vision happen, so the promotion by CGI at this early stage is important, organizers say. The project is estimated to cost up to $3 billion, and this money is supposed to be raised by a power authority that will be formed and owned by the tribes.

Clinton said this was a “favorite commitment” of his because it stands to benefit both poor tribes and America at large.

While the Clintons have gone out of their way to say that their foundation work is not political, their new and increased outreach to tribes on renewable energy is seen as a positive sign for tribal advocates who hope to curry favor in 2016 and beyond. And for the Clintons and their allies, tribal contributions and Indian votes are always attractive.

Bob Gough, a leader with the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, is one who looks favorably on “a new and growing relationship with CGI and Indian country,” saying that Hillary Clinton “has been an ally for years.” He noted that his organization has previously worked with her on tribal wind power issues to seek a change in tax policy to help tribes in this area.

Gough noted, too, that his organization has worked with CGI since 2005 and helped offset half of the carbon footprint of the foundation’s first meeting. He has met twice with President Clinton, who has said during these meetings that he wishes he could have done more as President for tribal communities.

Hillary Clinton, who left her position as Secretary of State with the Obama administration on February 1, joined the Clinton family foundation just a few days before the CGI tribal announcement. In her opening speech at the CGI conference where the tribal announcement was made, she identified three major areas that she would focus on—early childhood development, economic development and opportunities for women and girls.

“The Oceti Sakowin Wind Project fits perfectly with this focus, so regardless of whether she again seeks public office, we hope that she will continue to champion policies that will spur economic development in Indian country,” said Jon Canis, a lawyer with Arent Fox who has worked pro bono for the Oglala Sioux Tribe.

Finding ways for the federal government to work with tribal governments on renewable energy projects has been a major focus of some tribes throughout the Obama administration to date, and many would like to see increased work done in this area in future administrations.

Canis noted that President Clinton was the first sitting president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to visit a reservation when he visited Pine Ridge in 1999, and Hillary Clinton campaigned strongly for the Native vote in 2008. He said that he is hopeful the new CGI support signifies an understanding of the importance of building a strong economic base for tribes.

“We hope that whoever may run in the 2016 election will work hard to gain the trust and support of Indian country and pursue policies that promote economic development on rural tribal lands,” Canis added.

Canis said the Clintons have a standing invitation to visit any of the reservations of the participating tribes. “Now that the Oceti Sakowin Wind Project is a featured commitment with CGI America, we will submit progress reports every six months, and will be invited to attend the next conference to report in person. As progress on this project continues, we hope it will cause many dignitaries, including the Clintons, to visit the tribes to see for themselves.”

Supreme Court decides on Baby Veronica case

Court gives 1% Cherokee girl to adoptive parents.

Little ‘Baby Veronica’ was adopted for more than two years, but an obscure law preventing the breakup of Native American families had forced her return to her father.

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 1:01 p.m. EDT June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — A sharply divided Supreme Court delivered a 3-year-old girl back to her adoptive parents from her biological father Tuesday despite her 1% Cherokee blood.

In doing so, the justices expressed skepticism about a 1978 federal law that’s intended to prevent the breakup of Native American families — but in this case may have created one between father and daughter that barely existed originally.

While four justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum found no way to deny dad his rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, five others — including Chief Justice John Roberts, an adoptive father — noted that the adoptive parents were the consistently reliable adults in “Baby Veronica’s” life.

That the nation’s highest court was playing King Solomon in a child custody dispute was unusual to begin with. It had jurisdiction because Veronica is 3/256th Cherokee, and the law passed by Congress 35 years ago was intended to prevent the involuntary breakup of Native American families and tribes.

In this case, however, the family that got broken up was the adoptive one in South Carolina, led by Melanie and Matt Capobianco. They had raised Veronica for 27 months after her mother put her up for adoption. The father, Dusten Brown of Oklahoma, only objected to the adoption after the fact.

Brown won custody 18 months ago after county and state courts in South Carolina said the unique federal law protecting Native American families was paramount. The Capobiancos’ attorney, Lisa Blatt, had argued in court that the law was racially discriminatory — in effect banning adoptions of American Indian children by anyone who’s not American Indian.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito ruled for the majority that the law’s ban on breaking up Native American families cannot apply if the family didn’t exist in the first place. He noted the father had not supported the mother during pregnancy, texted his willingness to give up parental rights, and only changed his mind much later.

“In that situation, no Indian family is broken up,” Alito said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented along with liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and conservative Antonin Scalia, said Veronica now will have her life interrupted for a second time.

“The anguish this case has caused will only be compounded by today’s decision,” she said.

Only once before has the law been tested at the nation’s highest court. Nearly a quarter-century ago, the court took Native American twins from their adoptive family and handed them back to a tribal council in a case that Scalia recently said was the toughest in his 26 years on the bench.

Only Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy were on the court for that 1989 case, in which the court ruled 6-3 for an Indian tribe’s custody rights. Scalia sided with the majority, while Kennedy joined the dissent. They were in similar positions this time as the court ruled against the law’s intent — Scalia again on the father’s side, Kennedy with the adoptive couple.

Tribes celebrate opening of $50M fish hatchery

From staff reports

June 19, 2013

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation will celebrate the opening of a $50 million salmon hatchery Thursday on the Columbia River.

The Chief Joseph Hatchery will raise chinook salmon for subsistence tribal fishing and non-native sport fishing in the nearby towns of Bridgeport and Brewster. The hatchery is adjacent to Chief Joseph Dam, which is as far north as salmon can swim up the main stem Columbia.

Each year, the hatchery will release up to 2.9 million salmon smolts, which will swim 500 miles downstream to the ocean. A certain percentage will return as adult fish that can be harvested.

John Sirois, chairman of the Colville Tribes, hailed the hatchery as a testimony to the “meaningful work” that can occur when federal, tribal and state governments cooperate on river restoration. In 2008, federal agencies responsible for salmon in the Columbia Basin signed agreements with the tribes and the states, pledging greater cooperation as well as additional funding for salmon projects over 10 years. The completed hatchery is due in part to that accord.

The hatchery will help mitigate for the construction of Grand Coulee Dam, which was built without fish ladders. When the dam opened in 1941, it cut off salmon runs to the upper third of the Columbia Basin. Grand Coulee also flooded Kettle Falls, where one of the Northwest’s most prolific salmon fisheries had flourished for 10,000 years.

The day’s events are open to the public. The celebration begins with an 8 a.m. first salmon ceremony at the hatchery administration building and concludes at 3 p.m. after tours of the hatchery. The hatchery is located on State Park Golf Course Road east of State Route 17.

Click here so view a PDF of Fish Accord Projects of The Confederated Tribes of The Colville Reservation

Hundreds of Siksika First Nation homes lost to flood

Anger and despair as disaster strikes small community

John Rieti, CBC News

As the truck rattles to a stop, Siksika Chief Fred Rabbit Carrier looks out over the flooded community of Chicago Bridge where houses sit amid floodwater like islands.

Severe flooding has forced around 1,000 Siksika people from their homes on the Alberta reserve, a large portion of which hugs a stretch of the Bow River about 100 kilometres east of Calgary. The disaster has been unfolding there since Friday, when the river poured over its banks and covered some areas with over a metre of floodwater.

“How are we going to recover from all of this is what went through my thoughts,” Chief Rabbit Carrier told CBC News on Sunday.

“There’s a sense of hopelessness… as a leader you have to overcome that and put emotions aside and start working toward the recovery.”

Chief Rabbit Carrier said the community is still in a state of emergency. The reserve’s recreation centre has been turned into a shelter where a list of items — baby formula, diapers, towels, blankets and non-perishable food — are in high demand. The phone in the centre’s main office rings constantly.

“We’ve been very fortunate that we have not lost anybody,” Chief Rabbit Carrier said.

In the lobby, a group of volunteers hoping to rescue animals trapped in the flood gets organized. They’ve already saved several animals, but plenty of barn animals and pets alike have perished. “If it has a pulse, we’ll save it,” one volunteer said.

First Nation feels forgotten

Sally Fox, who has lived on the Siksika reserve for her entire life, refused to go to the emergency shelter, opting instead to sit at a makeshift campsite on the hill overlooking her flooded blue house.

Chicago Bridge resident Sally Fox set up a makeshift camp overlooking her flooded home where she’s been since Friday. (John Rieti/CBC)

“I hope the house is OK,” Fox said, “but I fear the worst.”

As she looks out, her husband and grandson trudge up the flooded front driveway. It’s the first time since Friday the water’s been low enough in her community of Chicago Bridge to survey the extent of the damage.

While Fox is stoic about the fate of her house, she’s furious with the lack of media coverage.

“It was all about the Saddledome, they forgot about us,” Fox said.

Chief Rabbit Carrier, while pleased by the presence of several news crews on Saturday, agrees. “We had to beg for coverage,” he said.

People on the reserve are “angry” he said, that the media focused so heavily on Calgary’s clean-up while people in Siksika were fighting to save their homes.

The message today, expressed clearly by everyone here is this: Siksika needs help.

Homes lost

In Little Washington, there’s almost a kilometre-wide swath of flowing water still covering the community. Residents say it could be weeks before the community is dry. Even then, most of the 45 houses here likely won’t be saved.

Some 45 homes in the community of Little Washington have been severely damaged. (John Rieti/CBC)

Ratford Black Rider lost his house, three cars and a school bus in the flood.

“The water came in so fast, we only had less than half an hour to get what we can out,” he said.

The four Siksika communities — a popular golf resort on the reserve was also destroyed — hit hardest all sit on low-lying land, nestled beneath foothills. Little Washington residents checking on their homes said there has been some flooding in the past, but it’s never been more than a little water in the basement — not even during the major floods of 2005.

Today the water is still moving quickly, gushing over a cracked Little Washington road on its way toward Medicine Hat.

Chief Rabbit Carrier says he hopes his community can get into “recovery mode” in the next 24 hours. But he said he hopes when the water subsides, people don’t forget about Siksika.