NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND 2003 - ANNUAL REPORT NARF - Annual Report 2003

Introduction ...... 2 Chairman’s Message ...... 4 Executive Director’s Report ...... 6 The Board of Directors ...... 7 The Preservation of Tribal Existence ...... 8 The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources ...... 12 The Promotion of Human Rights ...... 18 Major Activities ...... 20 The Accountability of Governments ...... 26 The Development of Indian Law ...... 32 Treasurer’s Report ...... 35 Contributors ...... 36 NARF Staff ...... 40

Main Office Alaska Office Washington, D.C. Office Native American Rights Fund Native American Rights Fund Native American Rights Fund 1506 Broadway 420 L Street, Suite 505 1712 N Street, NW Boulder, CO 80302 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Washington, D.C. 20036 303-447-8760 907-276-0680 202-785-4166 http://www.narf.org

Cover art: Bunky Echo-Hawk is an enrolled member Tax Status: The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a nonprofit, charitable organization “Prosecution Rests” of the Yakama Nation of Washington incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District State and a member of the Pawnee of Columbia. NARF is exempt from federal income About the artist: “I believe art should tax under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Nation of Oklahoma. He is a graduate Internal Revenue code. Contributions to NARF are reflect our society and the time in which of the Institute of American Indian Art tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service has it exists. I also believe that a society’s law in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He currently ruled that NARF is not a “private foundation” as system should have the same function. defined in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue lives and paints in Longmont, Colorado. Code. NARF was founded in 1970 and incorporated What was art 79 years ago, and what was Bunky is the son of NARF attorney in 1971 in Washington, D.C. law 79 years ago, do not reflect our society Walter “Bunky” Echo-Hawk. today. In the same way that the attorneys of NARF and NARF affiliates work to Contact the artist: change the representation of Native Bunky Echo-Hawk, 1212 S. Emery St. #B Americans within the legal system, I am Longmont, CO 80501 working to change the representation of home: 303.772.8601 cell: 303.886.3859 Native Americans in the art world. http://www.bunkyechohawk.com A contemporary People deserve no less than contemporary representation.” ~ Bunky Echo-Hawk

native american rights fund - annual report 1 Introduction

As the Native American to this day and provide a constant, Foundation, the General Service Rights Fund (NARF) begins its unending need for NARF to Foundation, the John D. & thirty-fourth year of legal advocacy, continue its fight. To guide it Catherine T. MacArthur it is fueled by the strength of its on this purpose, NARF’s first Foundation, the Carnegie varied legal accomplishments as Board of Directors created five Corporation of New York, the well as the active memory of fundamental priorities: W. K. Kellogg Foundation and reasons why it was founded in the the Skadden Foundation have also first place. In 1970, a small but • Preservation of tribal existence made consistent contributions determined group of attorneys • Protection of tribal natural over the years. Federal funding and tribal leaders created the resources from the Administration for Native American Rights Fund to • Promotion of Native American Native Americans enables NARF address the need for legal repre- human rights to carry on its governance, eco- sentation in many major issues • Accountability of governments nomic, and social development facing Indian people who could to Native Americans efforts in Indian country. Finally, perhaps not afford it otherwise. • Development of Indian law and the effects of NARF’s work are One of the first institutions of educating the public about reflective in the financial contri- its kind, NARF has been an Indian rights, laws, and issues butions by a growing number of

unyielding advocate of Native As this battle continues, tribal governments. United, these peoples’ needs resulting from NARF strives to protect the legal financial, moral, and intellectual their unique government-to- and sovereign rights of tribes and gifts provide the framework for government relationship with the Native people within the NARF to fulfill its mission: the federal government and the rights American legal system. This securing of sovereignty and right that this sovereign status should effort certainly could not exist to self-determination to which confer. NARF’s diligence and without the contribution of the all Native American peoples vision have resulted in a multitude thousands of individuals who are entitled. of Native American legal victories have offered their knowledge, in areas ranging from tribal courage, and vision to help guide sovereignty to natural resource NARF on its quest. Of equal ownership to human rights. importance, NARF’s financial Despite these crucial gains, how- contributors have graciously pro- ever, NARF must contend with vided the resources to make these some of the same challenges that efforts possible. Contributors originally propelled its formation. such as the Ford Foundation The historic injustices perpetrated have been with NARF since its against Native peoples continue inception. The Rockefeller

“ Tribal Law” native american rights fund - annual report 3 Chairwoman’s Message

Aloha, Aloha ke Akua, na¯ As Lili’uokalani, the last ruling strength as an organization com- investment and self-sustaining We must continue to take our independence is larger and dearer ‘aumakua a me na¯ Kupuna:¯ monarch and queen of the Nation mitted to advocating for peace strategies. With your kokua¯ and rightful place in the world and than the life of any man connected Huliau! (Time of Change!) of Hawai’i, expressed (until illegally and justice. kako’o,¯ your help and continuing not depend upon others to secure with it. Love of country is deep- dethroned by “evil” descendants of NARF’s cases accentuate the support, we will have the financial the revitalization of our cultures. seated in the breast of every The Native American Rights missionaries with the backing of the burden of “Indian Country” and strength to continue to focus on Our ancestor, Kapihe, shared this Hawaiian, whatever his station.” Fund (NARF) continues to be a United States military in 1893): reveal the amazing spirit and issues of concern to the peoples promising prophecy with us: We are at a turning point, major influence for change. In my “I could not turn back resilience of its peoples to endure of “Indian Country,” and resolve Huliau, a moment of truth. Let four years on the NARF Board of time for the political change, and survive severe acts of physical, injustices that support the legal E iho ana o luna; us holomua kakou (move forward Directors, I have enjoyed a much but there is still time to save economic and cultural genocide. rights of Native nations, peoples That which is above shall be together) in 2004¯ with the great cherished opportunity to learn from our heritage. You must remember I have experienced this same and communities. We encourage brought down; spirits of Turtle Island, the aloha and work with ‘ohana (family) never to cease to act because amazing spirit at NARF and have those Nations that are doing well E pi’i ana o lalo; spirit of Hawai’i, and with the from Turtle Island and now, you fear you may fail. The way witnessed John Echohawk economically to show their support That which is below shall be lifted; mana of natives throughout the as its Chairwoman, will do my to lose any earthly kingdom is dynamically lead a brilliant and for NARF with financial contri- E hui ana na¯ moku; world. May all people on this best to embrace the privilege, to be inflexible, intolerant, and dedicated team of advocates forge butions to help it to continue its The islands shall be united; earth enjoy peace, justice and prejudicial. Another way is to ahead to defend, protect and important and necessary work to E ku¯ ana ka paia.; aloha. be too flexible, tolerant of too work to make whole Native bring justice and peace to Native The walls shall stand upright. many wrongs and without judg- America. communities. Ku’e!¯ Ku’e!¯ Ku’e!¯ ment at all. It is a razor’s edge. Our communities‚ health I would like to share these (Resist! Resist! Resist!) It is the width of a blade of Nana¯ ¯ I Ke Kumu! and well-being are of utmost revealing words from Queen Holomua! (Move Forward!) pili grass.” [Look to the Source!] importance to preserve our Lili’uokalani of the Nation of Ea! (Life!) NARF has diligently worked traditional values because it gives Hawai’i: “Oh, honest Americans, at carrying out its mission to sup- A renewed respect for our us the necessary strength for our as Christians hear me for my down- E. A. Ho`oipo Kalaena’auao Pa, port the integrity and strength of traditional values helps us to nations’ survival and growth in trodden people! Their form of Chairwoman its peoples and cultures, providing resolve the political, economic, this rapidly changing world. We government is as dear to them as help to rebuild nations and tribes, and social problems that impact must be extra vigilant not to yours is precious to you. Quite as through difficult and often seem- our community. It is now more unconsciously participate in our warmly as you love your country, so ingly insurmountable challenges. than ever crucially important that own exploitation by turning away they love theirs. …to hear what is As an organization, NARF will we rediscover the power of tradi- from the voice of our ancestors in not said, to see what cannot be seen, continue to develop and imple- tional teachings and apply them order to pander to mainstream and to know the unknowable, that ment innovative strategies that to contemporary problems. By society. In working to achieve is Aloha.” will effectively deal with harm reinvigorating the principles economic independence and And finally, in the words of inflicted on native peoples. In its embedded in our ancient teachings, social justice, we exercise our our most respected 19th Century thirty-four years of service, NARF we honor the memory and wisdom independence of mind and spirit Freedom advocate, Joseph has provided invaluable legal and of our ancestors. With the mana to defend our lands and rights. Nawahi: “The cause of Hawaii and challenges and responsibilities moral support to “Indian Country” (spiritual energy and life force) that come with this position. as its peoples struggle against of our ancestors and our own With your confidence and trust, oppressive laws, practices and wisdom, vitality and courage, we I look forward to sharing my governmental systems and has will prevail and maintain this knowledge and experience as an remained responsive and account- interdependency and enforce the advocate for justice from ka pae able to its constituents. NARF integrity of our cultures. ‘aina¯ o Hawai’i, the land and ocean must continue to take bold steps A primary challenge this New that feed us in the archipelago of when necessary to ensure that Year, Makahiki 2004, will be to Hawai’i. Mahalo a nui loa for it remains a strong and viable strengthen NARF’s financial this opportunity to extend our resource for the continuing benefit resources. Our Board is streamlining influence and commitment to of those who draw upon its existing financial commitments address Native issues. expertise, compassion, and and implementing more efficient

4 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 5 Executive Director’s Report The Board of Director’s

The Native American Rights environmental groups to stop regional and national levels. The Native American Rights Fund’s program of providing legal the U.S. Senate in 2003 from In a widely publicized case, Fund has a governing board com- advice and assistance to Native approving oil drilling in ANWR. NARF and private co-counsel posed of Native American leaders Americans across the country on 7,000 Gwich’in people live on or won another important decision from across the country – wise legal issues of national significance near the migratory route of the in Cobell v. Norton, the class and distinguished people who are continued into its 33rd year in Porcupine caribou herd and rely action on behalf of 300,000 indi- respected by Native Americans fiscal year 2003. Substantial on the caribou for food, clothing, vidual Indian trust account holders nationwide. Individual Board developments and important tools and a source of respect and which was filed in 1996. Federal members are chosen based on victories were achieved in several spiritual guidance. The calving District Court Judge Royce their involvement and knowledge cases and activities during the grounds of the caribou lie inside Lamberth issued a structural of Indian issues and affairs, as well year that I want to highlight. ANWR and will be disturbed by injunction requiring the as their tribal affiliation, to ensure In United States v. White any oil drilling. Department of the Interior to a comprehensive geographical Mountain Apache Tribe, the Representing several Alaska conduct a historical accounting of representation. The NARF Board NARF’s Board of Directors: United States Supreme Court tribes and tribal members, the trust accounts going back to (Pictured from left clockwise) Vernita Herdman (Inupiaq - Alaska); Nora McDowell of Directors, whose members held that the United States’ NARF successfully intervened in their origin in 1887. In addition, (Fort Mojave - California); John Gonzales (San Ildefonso Pueblo - New Mexico); serve a maximum of six years, breach of fiduciary duty to a case brought by a sporting club the Cobell plaintiffs also agreed to Paul Ninham (Oneida Nation of Wisconsin); Jaime Barrientoz, Vice-Chairman provide NARF with leadership (Grande Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians - Michigan); James Roan Gray challenging federal regulations seek a mediated solution to the (Osage Nation - Oklahoma); E. Ho’oipo Pa, Chairwoman (Native Hawaiian - Hawaii). implementing the preference case as proposed by Congress. and credibility, and the vision of its members is essential to NARF’s (Not Pictured) Mark Brown (The Mohegan Tribe - Connecticut); Elbridge Coochise contained in federal law for NARF also assisted in obtaining (Hopi - Arizona); Billy Frank (Nisqually Tribe - Washington); Karlene Hunter (Oglala customary and traditional uses of a $2 million appropriation to effectiveness in representing its Lakota - South Dakota); Anthony Pico (Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians - California); fish and wildlife by rural Alaskans implement the Indian Tribal Native American clients. Woody Widmark (Sitka Tribe - Alaska). over sports and commercial uses Justice and Legal Assistance Act, on federal public lands in Alaska. which we helped to pass in NARF will help defend over 180 Congress in 2000. The Act customary and traditional use authorizes the Justice Department The National Support Committee Owanah Anderson, Choctaw N. Scott Momaday, Kiowa (NSC) assists NARF with its Edward Asner Clinton Pattea, Ft. McDowell Yavapai determinations made by the to provide supplemental funding Katrina McCormick Barnes Amado Peña Jr., Yaqui/Chicano federal government which protect to Indian legal services programs fund raising and public relations David Brubeck David Risling Jr., Hoopa the entitlement of rural areas or for their representation of Indian efforts nationwide. Some of the U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Pernell Roberts Northern Cheyenne Walter S. Rosenberry, III maintain and preserve Indian communities to take fish and people and tribes which fall below individuals on the Committee are prominent in the field of business, Wallace Coffey, Comanche Marc & Pam Rudick trust property gave rise a claim for wildlife and limit or prohibit the federal poverty guidelines. Ada Deer, Menominee Leslie Marmon Silko, Laguna Pueblo money damages under federal law. others from taking the resource. The Native American Rights entertainment and the arts. Others Harvey A. Dennenberg Connie Stevens Through the Tribal Supreme With the support and encour- Fund thanks all of our contributors are known advocates for the rights Michael J. Driver Ernie Stevens, Jr., Wisconsin Oneida of the underserved. All of the 48 Richard Dysart Anthony L. Strong, Tlingit-Klukwan Court Project operated by NARF agement of the U.S. Department and supporters who have helped Lucille A. Echohawk, Pawnee Maria Tallchief, Osage and the National Congress of of Education, NARF helped to to make these victories and devel- volunteers on the Committee are Louise Erdrich, Turtle Mountain Chippewa Andrew Teller, Isleta Pueblo American Indians, amicus briefs establish the Tribal Education opments for Native Americans committed to upholding the James Garner Verna Teller, Isleta Pueblo rights of Native Americans. Sy Gomberg Studs Terkel were coordinated and filed in Departments National Assembly possible. As we face projected Carol Hayward, Fond Du Lac Chippewa Tenaya Torres, Chiricahua Apache support of the White Mountain (TEDNA), a new national funding deficits in the future, Richard Hayward, Mashantucket Pequot Richard Trudell, Santee Sioux Apache Tribe in this important organization for tribal education your continuing support is more John Heller Rebecca Tsosie, Pascua Yaqui federal trust responsibility case. departments. The purpose of the important now than ever before Emilie Heller-Rhys Thomas Tureen Alvin M. Josephy, Jr. Aine Ungar Once again, NARF assisted TEDNA is to bring together tribal if we are going to maintain our Charles R. Klewin Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland, Seminole the Gwich’in Steering Committee education directors, staff and policy efforts to seek justice for Native Nancy A. Klewin Dennis Weaver in their efforts to protect the makers so that they can share Americans through the legal system. Wilma Mankiller, Cherokee Nation of W. Richard West Jr., Southern Cheyenne Arctic National Wildlife Refuge information, strategize and Oklahoma Mary Wynne, Rosebud Sioux Chris E. McNeil Jr., Tlingit-Nisga’a (ANWR) in Alaska from oil problem solve on common issues John E. Echohawk, Billy Mills, Oglala Sioux development and successfully of education governance, policy Executive Director worked with a coalition of and advocacy at the tribal,

6 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 7 The Preservation of Tribal Existence

NARF works to construct the joined forces with the National nation-wide Indian amicus brief foundations that are necessary to Congress of American Indians writing network. An amicus empower tribes so that they can (NCAI) to create the Tribal brief, also known as a ‘friend of continue to live according to Supreme Court Project. the Court’ brief, allows those not their Native traditions, to enforce The Tribal Supreme Court directly involved in litigation, but their treaty rights, to insure their Project is a project to coordinate potentially impacted by the out- independence on reservations and strengthen the advocacy of come, to raise points before the and to protect their sovereignty. tribal sovereignty and other Court. Through amicus brief Specifically, NARF’s legal repre- Indian issues before the Supreme writing and coordination, NARF sentation centers on sovereignty Court, and ultimately to improve assists Indian country as a whole and jurisdiction issues, federal the deplorable win-loss record in most effectively supporting the recognition and restoration of tribes have suffered before that tribes going before the Court. tribal status, and economic devel- tribunal. In fact, over the past The Project submits to the Court opment. Thus, the focus of twenty years, Indian people have the fewest number and highest NARF’s work involves issues lost approximately 80% of their quality briefs in support of the relating to the preservation and cases before the Supreme Court. Indian argument. This coordinated enforcement of the status of tribes As one Indian law scholar has approach ensures that the briefs as sovereign governments. Tribal noted, no other group of litigants and the Indian voice get the governments possess the power to has done worse. The opinions are Court’s maximum attention. regulate the internal affairs of departing from longstanding, The Project submitted amicus their members as well as other established principles of Indian briefs in the three cases decided in activities within their reservations. law and are constituting a whole- 2003, United States v. White

Jurisdictional conflicts often arise sale re-writing of the very concep- Mountain Apache Tribe, United with states, the federal government, tions of tribal sovereignty and States v. Navajo Nation, and Inyo and others over tribal sovereignty. jurisdiction by the Court. These County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians cases have diminished the rights of the Bishop Community, cases TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY of every Indian tribe in the country. raising fundamental issues of tribal Securing and developing tribal The Supreme Court Project is a sovereignty. Perhaps because of governmental authority derived way for tribes to take action to the Project’s involvement, only from tribal sovereign status is a prevent further erosion. one of these cases was lost. Victory priority issue for NARF because In recognition of the fact that was achieved in one case and the of its importance in maintaining the tribes generally rise and fall other was remanded to the lower tribal existence and self-government. together in front of the Court, court for further proceedings. As part of this commitment to NARF coordinates, and substan- In United States v. White tribal sovereignty, NARF has tively contributes to, the Project’s Mountain Apache Tribe, the Court

“Alpha Scout” native american rights fund - annual report 9 ruled in favor of the Tribe holding Stevens has commenced a new In the case of Runyon v. tribes, for differing reasons, do descend from a historic tribe or The list is a procedural step that the United States’ breach of campaign to defund Alaska Native AVCP, NARF prepared an amicus not have a government-to-govern- tribes which amalgamated; they prior to being placed on Active fiduciary duty to maintain and Tribes in various spending bills. brief on behalf of the Alaska ment relationship between them- must prove that their members Consideration when at such time preserve Indian trust property The effect of these and similar Inter-Tribal Council (AI-TC) that selves and the federal government. are not mostly members of an the petition will be actively gave rise to a claim for money measures, if enacted, would be to was filed with the Alaska Supreme Traditionally, federal recognition already recognized tribe; and, reviewed by the BIA research staff damages under federal law. In slowly cut off the ability of Alaska Court in April 2003 in a case that was accorded to a tribe through their members cannot be from that conducts such reviews. United States v. Navajo Nation, Native Tribes to function by raises the question of whether treaty, land set aside for a tribe, or groups which were terminated by On behalf of the United the Court ruled against the Tribe denying them the ability to provide the Alaska Village Council of by legislative means. The majority legislation. This process requires Houma Nation of Louisiana, holding that the Tribe’s claim for for the health, safety and welfare Presidents (AVCP), a tribal con- of these NARF clients are seeking the testimony of many experts NARF responded to proposed compensation did not derive from of their communities. Senator sortium organized as a non-profit an administrative determination and thorough documentation of findings against federal acknowl- any liability-imposing provision Stevens, in remarks to the press under the laws of Alaska, can raise by the Bureau of Indian Affairs each requirement. edgment issued by the BIA under of Indian Mineral Leasing Act or made in October 2003, made derivative sovereign immunity as (BIA) that they, in fact, have In 1997, the Branch of their acknowledgment regulations. its implementing regulations. In clear that his opposition to Alaskan a defense to suit. AI-TC’s amici continued to exist as Indian tribes Acknowledgment and Research The Tribe has their petition Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone tribes is not about funding multi- brief does not take a position with from the time of significant white (BAR) placed the Little Shell for federal recognition pending Indians of the Bishop Community, ple tribal governments, but about regard to whether AVCP possesses contact to the present day and Tribe of Chippewa Indians of before the BIA’s Branch of the Court vacated the United terminating altogether the sover- derivative sovereign immunity; have continued to govern them- Montana’s federal recognition Acknowledgment and Research States Court of Appeals for the eignty of Alaska tribes. If Senator rather, it rebuts the arguments selves and their members. NARF, petition on active review status. and is now waiting for a final Ninth Circuit favorable opinion Stevens’ proposals become policy, raised by amici for the plaintiffs, therefore, prepares the necessary In 2000, after many delays, the decision on its petition. NARF on tribal immunity from suit and such action would deteriorate the the Alaska Legislative Council, historical, legal, and anthropo- Assistant Secretary published a has also filed a petition for federal remanded the case back to the sovereign rights of all tribes, would who urged the Court to reconsider logical documentation to support preliminary finding in favor of recognition for the Mashpee Ninth Circuit on jurisdictional denigrate the fundamental impor- its historic holding in John v. a petition for acknowledgment. recognition. Work continues to Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts grounds. tance of federal recognition, and Baker in 1999 that tribes in For more than 100 years, these be done to strengthen the Tribe’s that is now under active consider- In the 1950s, Congressional set a dangerous precedent that Alaska have been federally recog- Indian communities have been petition and the period for ation by the BIA. Work on a experiments with terminating the would reflect a new Congressional nized. Oral argument was heard denied the benefits of a formal supplementing the record has petition for the Pamunkey Tribe federally recognized status of policy of acquiescing to the whims in September 2003 and a decision relationship with the federal been extended to January 2004, in Virginia continues. Native American tribes and forcing of congressional members who is pending. government. Through the process because of a large amount of new their assimilation under state law favor the termination of federally of administrative acknowledgment, data being collected and analyzed. proved to be a disaster, compelling recognized tribes. FEDERAL RECOGNITION NARF is now trying to bridge NARF and the Tribe are now Congress decades later to restore NARF is leading efforts to OF TRIBAL STATUS that gap. exploring legislative options the the tribal status of terminated give voice to tribal governments Achieving legal status as an Federal recognition is an Tribe may have for recognition. tribes. In turning the page back in Alaska by organizing a national Indian tribe is very important to arduous process that takes many With NARF’s assistance, the to the 1950s, the Alaska campaign to alert tribal leaders of preserving tribal existence and years to complete. Petitioning Shinnecock Indian Nation located Legislature has for several years the pending threat. Efforts are self-government. Some tribal tribes must prove that they have on Long Island, New York, filed a engaged in litigation against the under way to conduct hearings groups do not have this status been identified by reliable external petition for Federal recognition in Department of the Interior and throughout rural Alaska to receive because they have never been sources on a substantially contin- 1998. In response, the Bureau of Alaska Tribes to terminate the testimony from tribal governments formally recognized as tribes by uous basis as an Indian entity; Indian Affairs (BIA) sent a letter federally recognized tribal status on issues of self-governance and the federal government. NARF they must prove that they have of technical assistance to the of Alaska Tribes. The Alaska the delivery of government services provides representation to those maintained a continuous commu- Nation that pointed out alleged Legislature’s efforts have been to tribal members. The testimony tribal groups who have a right nity from historical times to the omissions or deficiencies in the actively supported by Alaska and data from these hearing will to become federally recognized present day; they must show that petition. Pursuant to the Federal Senator Ted Stevens, who has be compiled into a report that tribes. they have maintained political acknowledgment regulations, the directly urged Interior Secretary can be delivered to Congress and NARF currently represents authority or influence on a sub- Nation filed a response to the letter Gale Norton to reverse the used as a basis for rebutting five Indian communities who stantially continuous basis from in March 2003. The petition will Department’s recognition of Senator Stevens’ rhetoric that have survived intact as identifiable historical times until the present now be placed on the BIA’s ready- Alaska Tribes. Pending the out- government and services are best Indian tribes but who are not day; they must prove that current for-active-consideration list which come of this litigation, Senator administered by state entities. federally recognized. These Indian tribal members, as a whole, is a first-come, first-served list.

10 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 11 The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources

Through the process of was illegally taken from them by treaties with the United States. “De Soto’s Legacy” European conquest and coloniza- settlers. In 1996, the United These treaties provided, among tion, Indian tribes experienced a States Court of Federal Claims other things, the payment of steady diminishment of their land ruled in Alabama-Coushatta Tribe certain annuities. The ancestors base to a mere 2.3 percent of its of Texas v. United States that the of the present-day Canadian original size. Currently, there are United States should compensate Potawatomi fled to Canada approximately 55 million acres of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe for following the signing of the final Indian-controlled land in the the loss of use of ancestral land treaty, the Treaty of Chicago in continental United States and illegally taken without federal 1833, because they did not want about 44 million acres in Alaska approval between 1845 and 1954. to be moved west of the which are owned by Natives after In 2000, the United States Court Mississippi. They were never the 1971 Alaska Native Claims of Federal Claims ruled once paid their annuities. In 1993, Settlement Act. Central to main- again in favor of the Alabama- NARF brought suit on behalf of taining economic self-sufficiency Coushatta Tribe of Eastern Texas the Tribe in the Court of Federal as well as genuine self-determina- in their breach-of-trust claim Claims, by way of Congressional tion, the possession of an adequate against the United States, holding reference, to seek redress of these land base and resources are vital the Government liable for the failed payments. After years of to the existence of tribes. Without Tribe’s loss of use of over 2.85 fact-finding, discovery and briefing such fundamental necessities, million acres of land between of this case, the Tribe and the tribal life is virtually impossible 1845 and 1954. The court also United States agreed in principle to maintain. NARF’s work to ruled that 5.5 million acres of to the settlement of this case. ensure tribal control over their aboriginal title has never been Settlement terms were approved land, water, and subsistence rights extinguished, so the Tribe also by the Court in 2000 and settle- holds importance beyond material has a possessory land claim ment legislation was presented to wealth; indeed, it safeguards the against the current occupants of Congress in 2001, 2002, and very core of tribal existence. 5.5 million acres. Negotiators for 2003 for compensation of $1.83 The federal government has the U.S. and Tribe reached an million. Congress has yet to in many instances failed to fulfill agreement on the amount of approve the settlement legislation. its trust duty to protect Indian damages, $270 million, and the NARF is working with the tribes and their property rights. Court submitted a favorable Lower Brule Sioux Tribe against unconstitutional but the Supreme 2003. The Tribe will not be offer an unprecedented opportunity The Native American Rights recommendation to Congress in the State of South Dakota’s Court vacated that opinion and allowed to participate in the to restore the land, water, hunting, Fund concentrates much of its 2002 on the Tribe’s breach of challenge to the United States’ remanded to the Secretary for litigation as a party, but will have fishing and gathering resources of legal representation on cases that trust claim against the United decision to place approximately further reconsideration. The State its interests represented by the the Klamath Tribes. Discussions will ensure a sufficient natural States. NARF and the Tribe 91 acres of land into trust for the is now challenging the Secretary’s United States. are now taking place between resource base for tribes. are now working to garner Lower Brule Sioux Tribe under reconsidered, and again favorable, In 2002, the Secretary of the tribal representatives, assisted by Congressional approval for the Section 465 of the Indian decision to place the land in trust. Interior invited the Klamath Tribes NARF, and the Secretary’s desig- PROTECTION OF INDIAN payment of this amount under Reorganization Act. The State is The Tribe filed a motion to inter- to meet with the Presidentially nated team to seek long term LANDS the Congressional reference alleging, among other things, that vene in this case, but the federal appointed Klamath River Basin solutions to an entire range of The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe procedure. the Secretary lacks authority to district court denied the Tribe’s Federal Working Group (Working water, land, and wildlife issues of Texas seeks compensation for NARF represents the place land into trust because motion. The Tribe appealed to Group) chaired by Secretary facing the people of the Klamath the loss of use of millions of acres Keewattinosagaing or Northern Section 465 is an unconstitutional the Eighth Circuit on the issue Norton, and including the Basin in Oregon and California. of fertile forest that they once Lakes Potawatomi Nation of delegation of legislative authority. of the Tribe’s intervention. The Secretaries of Agriculture and This historic and broad invitation occupied in southeast Texas. The Canada, a band of Pottawatomies In an earlier proceeding regarding Eighth Circuit upheld the district Commerce, and the Chairman of expressly included the possible Tribe has been represented by descended from the historic this same 91 acres of land, the court’s denial of the Tribe’s the Council on Environmental return of lands taken from the NARF since 1981 in their quest Potawatomi Nation, which from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals motion for intervention in March Quality. These appointments Tribes in the 1960s under the to prove that their ancestral land 1795 to 1833 signed a series of did hold that Section 465 was

12 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 13 now repudiated “Termination” Environmental Council and other birds, and numerous mammals collection and disposal of solid NARF continues its extensive water rights adjudication is moving policy. Discussions also include Indian organizations to maintain including polar bears, musk ox, and hazardous waste. involvement in the water rights forward. The Tribes contested the restoration of degraded fish the progress that has been made wolves, wolverine, moose, Arctic litigation and settlement negotia- numerous unsubstantiated claims and wildlife habitat that currently with the Environmental and red foxes, black bears, brown WATER RIGHTS tions on behalf of the Klamath in the basin, scores of which are prevent tribal resources from Protection Agency (EPA) and bears, and the white Dall sheep. Establishing tribal rights to Tribes to adjudicate the Tribes’ underway and tribal claims are providing subsistence for tribal other federal agencies. With a NARF successfully worked with a the use of water in the arid west reserved water rights to support being scheduled for hearing. At members. representative on the Green coalition of environmental groups continues to be a major NARF its 1864 treaty hunting and fishing the same time, the Tribes continue NARF represents the Native Group, a coalition of national and organizations to stop the U.S. involvement. The goals of rights. As confirmed by the federal to explore water settlement Village of Tuluksak in Alaska in environmental leaders, NARF Senate from approving oil drilling NARF’s Indian water rights work courts nearly twenty years ago, efforts. their quest to have the land continues to coordinate with in ANWR in 2001 and 2002. are to secure allocations of western the Klamath Tribes of Oregon NARF continues its represen- owned by the Village corporation and educate the environmental Language was again introduced water for present and future needs hold reserved water rights in the tation of the Nez Perce Tribe of transferred over in fee simple to community on the role of tribal in the 2003 Congress to allow for for three Indian tribes represented Klamath River Basin to support Idaho in its water rights claim the Village tribal council. The governments in environmental oil drilling in ANWR and was by NARF and other western tribes their treaty hunting, fishing and in the Snake River Basin Department of Interior would law and policy. once again defeated. As the generally. Under the precedent gathering rights, as well as to Adjudication (SRBA). The Tribe’s then be petitioned to place the NARF assists the Gwich’in Administration has vowed to established by the United States satisfy the agricultural purposes major claim is for sufficient in- land into trust on behalf of the Steering Committee in their continue to press for the passage Supreme Court in 1908 in the of the Klamath Reservation. stream flows to maintain its treaty Village. The Department of the efforts to protect the Arctic of this bill, NARF will continue case of Winters v. United States These reserved rights are currently rights to fish for salmon and steel- Interior is in the process of revising National Wildlife Refuge to assist the Gwich’in Steering and confirmed in 1963 in Arizona being quantified in the context of head that migrate down the Snake regulations governing the process (ANWR) from oil development. Committee in their efforts to stop v. California, Indian tribes are a state-wide water adjudication in River to the Columbia River and of taking land into federal trust The Gwich’in, which means the approval of oil development entitled under federal law to suffi- Oregon. NARF is assisting the out to the ocean before returning for Native Americans. NARF ‘People of the Caribou’, are the in ANWR. cient water for present and future Klamath Tribes in asserting and to spawn. After issuance of a worked with the NCAI Tribal northernmost Indian nation living NARF is working with needs with a priority date at least defending their treaty-based water 1999 decision, the Tribe learned Leaders’ Task Force on Land across northeast Alaska and the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s as early as the establishment of rights in the adjudication, and is that the judge and his brother Recovery, on behalf of Tuluksak, northwest Canada. There are Environmental Health Technical their reservations. These tribal currently engaged on a number of and sister have claims to both to develop comments to the pro- about 7,000 Gwich’in people who Team (EHTT) in developing reserved water rights are superior fronts. First, in order to ensure surface irrigation and groundwater posed regulations and has been live on or near the migratory water-related environmental to all state-recognized water rights that the State of Oregon applies irrigation flows in the SRBA, waiting for the Secretary of the route of the Porcupine Caribou codes. NARF is working with the created after the tribal priority the correct federal standards in which present direct and actual Interior to issue final regulations. Herd. For thousands of years, Tribe’s Department of Water date, which in most cases will quantifying Tribal water rights, conflicts of interest with the The Department of the Interior the Gwich’in have relied on the Maintenance and Conservation give tribes valuable senior water the Tribes asked the U.S. District Tribe’s claims. The Tribe filed has decided to further postpone caribou for food, clothing, tools, and the EHTT on the revision of rights in the water-short west. Court for the District of Oregon motions, in 2000, to disqualify consideration of a new regulation, and a source of respect and the Tribe’s Ordinance for the Unfortunately, many tribes have to clarify the nature and scope of the judge and to set aside all after an assessment of ongoing spiritual guidance. The calving Protection of the Oglala Sioux not utilized their reserved water the Klamath Tribes’ reserved judgments, orders and decisions policy work, available personnel grounds of the Porcupine River Rural Water Supply System and rights and most of these rights are water rights. In 2002, the Court involving the Tribe’s claims. The and resources. The Native Village caribou herd inside ANWR is Other Public Water Systems unadjudicated or unquantified. issued an opinion and order reaf- Tribe and the United States of Tuluksak is weighing whether considered sacred. The Gwich’in Within the Pine Ridge Indian The major need, of course, in firming the Tribes’ water rights appealed the decision to the to move forward with litigation at call it “Vadzaih googii vi dehk’it Reservation [“Tap-in” Ordinance], each case is to define or quantify and deciding all disputed issues in Idaho Supreme Court. In 2002, the current time. gwanlii” (The Sacred Place Where as well as a Solid Waste the exact amount of water that favor of the Tribes. This important the Idaho Supreme Court NARF has played a key role Life Begins). The Gwich’in will Management Code. The “Tap-in” each tribe is entitled to through decision was appealed to the dismissed the appeal as moot. in the implementation of federal not journey into these sacred ordinance will provide for the litigation or out-of-court settle- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals The Tribe’s petition for rehearing environmental law and policy grounds for hunting, even in protection of the integrity of the ment negotiations. Tribes are by private water users and the was denied by the Idaho Supreme that recognizes tribal governments times of great need or food short- pipeline which delivers drinking generally able to claim water for State of Oregon. In July 2003, Court. In October 2003, all as the primary regulators and age. Oil development in ANWR water to the public water systems present and future use of their the Court of Appeals vacated the parties to the negotiations signed enforcers of the federal environ- would not only harm the caribou on the reservation. The Solid practicably irrigable acreage, 2002 decision. NARF has filed a on to a comprehensive term sheet mental laws on Indian lands. and threaten the future of the Waste Management Code will maintenance of treaty hunting petition for a rehearing en banc agreement, which also calls for NARF continued to work with Gwich’in people, but would also provide enforceable standards and and fishing rights, and municipal from the Ninth Circuit Court of the suspension of all litigation tribes, the National Tribal threaten more than 180 species of a fee structure for solid waste and industrial needs. Appeals. Meanwhile, the state regarding Nez Perce claims in the

14 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 15 SRBA. The Idaho Supreme to continue based on the Tribe’s unavailable except through the and fishing rights, on the Outer which comprises the primary are rural and which are not, and Court and the SRBA Court both revised settlement plan. subsistence harvest. Annually, Continental Shelf were barred by hunting and fishing grounds for further made over 180 customary agreed to suspend all litigation to NARF also concentrated on subsistence harvest amounts to the federal paramountcy doctrine. members of the Kenaitze Indian and traditional use determinations. permit settlement negotiations to addressing a major problem in less than 10% of the total take of NARF argued that the para- Tribe. The Kenaitze Tribe, with The customary and traditional proceed. water rights settlements - the lack fish and game. mountcy doctrine did not extin- NARF’s assistance, drafted and determinations are critically NARF continues to assist the of federal funding for settlements. As important as Native hunting guish aboriginal title to the submitted a proposal to the important because eligibility to Tule River Tribe of California in NARF has continued to facilitate and fishing rights are to Alaska seabed and waters off Alaska Regional Advisory Council and take a particular resource may securing its water rights. NARF’s Indian water rights settlement Natives’ physical, economic, because aboriginal title does not the Federal Subsistence Board then be limited to those residents main focus has been on drafting a policy in the Congress by working traditional, and cultural existence, interfere with the federal govern- seeking to have the Board reverse of rural areas or communities so settlement agreement to present with our state and private partners the State of Alaska has been and ment’s ability to protect the its 1991 “non-rural” determina- designated, and all other individuals to both the United States and in the Ad Hoc Group on Indian continues to be reluctant to rec- nation or to regulate international tion. In 2000, the Federal may be prohibited, in some manner, downstream users along the South Reserved Water Rights, the ognize the importance of the trade. The Court, however, Subsistence Board reversed itself, from taking that resource based Fork of the Tule River. The Western Governors’ Association subsistence way of life. The State expressly reserved the question holding that the Kenai Peninsula on the limitations. The Safari Tribe’s goal is to prepare a proposal and the Western Business views subsistence as nothing more whether Native tribes might hold was indeed rural. However, the Club challenged the validity of all that will provide the Tribe with Roundtable. NARF has also than a taking of a natural non-exclusive hunting and fishing State and others requested the 180 customary and traditional sufficient water to create a perma- continued to participate in the resource, and as something that rights. The question whether the Board to reconsider this determi- determinations under ANILCA. nent homeland for its people with Joint Federal-Tribal Water all citizens of the state should be Villages have nonexclusive aborig- nation and in 2001, the Board NARF’s clients seek to intervene minimal impact on the other Funding Task Force in order to entitled to engage in on an equal inal fishing rights was sent back reversed itself again, holding as co-defendants to defend the users. Initially, the Tribe presented encourage the Administration to opportunity basis with little before the federal district. The that virtually all of the Kenai subsistence use-determinations for the downstream users with a support funding for Indian water distinction between commercial, federal district court ruled against Peninsula was non-rural. The their respective communities and broad conceptual plan for settle- rights settlements. NARF has sport and trophy hunting, and the Villages in 2002. An appeal Tribe decided to challenge this to protect their entitlement to ment, which included a proposed also been involved in the creation subsistence needs. was filed by NARF to the Ninth decision in court and NARF filed take fish and wildlife on federal short-term and long-term water of the Western Water Alliance, NARF represents the Alaska Circuit Court of Appeals and oral a complaint in federal court on public lands in Alaska for subsis- storage facility, and proposed which hopes to bring together Native Villages of Eyak, Tatitlek, argument was held in August behalf of the Kenaitze Tribe. tence uses in Alaska. The court reservoir operation rules which organizations and funders Chenega, Nanwalek, and Port 2003. A decision is now pending. NARF is representing the granted the Tribe’s motion to would honor the terms of an involved in western water issues Graham seeking to establish The Kenaitze Indian Tribe of Native Village of Venetie Tribal intervene in January 2003, and important 1922 agreement. A to advance sustainable and equi- nonexclusive aboriginal hunting Alaska is a federally recognized Government, the Ninilchik Tribal entered an order establishing a ditch company and certain riparian table water policy in the west. and fishing rights to their tradi- tribal government whose members Government, and individuals as new briefing schedule. NARF users tentatively approved the tional-use areas on the Outer are direct descendants of Tanaina proposed interveners in a case submitted its brief in April 2003. conceptual plan so long as it does HUNTING AND FISHING Continental Shelf (OCS) in the (Dena'ina) Athabaskan Indians. that was initially brought by the not adversely impact their current The subsistence way of life Gulf of Alaska. The issue pre- The Tribe has occupied the Kenai Safari Club, a sporting club, to water uses under the 1922 agree- is essential for the physical sented is whether the Tribes may Peninsula region for centuries and challenge regulations promulgated ment. However, some downstream and cultural survival of Alaska possess non-exclusive aboriginal subsisted by harvesting and gath- by the Secretaries of Interior and users who rely on storage water in Natives. Most of the two hunting and fishing rights to ering the resources offered by the Agriculture implementing the a large downstream federal reservoir hundred small Native villages in waters on the OCS. The lawsuit land and the sea with salmon as subsistence preference established are wary of the potential impact Alaska are located on or near the challenges the Department of the primary subsistence resource. by ANILCA. ANILCA establishes of new Tribal storage rights shores of a river or a lake, or Commerce’s Individual Fishing Under the Alaska National a preference for customary and on water supply in the federal located on the coast of the North Quota (IFQ) regulations for Interest Lands Conservation Act traditional uses of fish and reservoir. After refining the con- Pacific or Arctic Ocean. The halibut and sable fish on the (ANILCA), residents of rural areas wildlife by according a priority ceptual settlement plan in light of proximity to water is no accident ground that they prohibit tribal are given a subsistence priority for the taking of fish and wildlife updated technical, legislative, and and reflects the dependence of members from fishing within over sport and commercial on federal public lands in Alaska legal information, the Tribe, in Natives on the harvest of fish their traditional fishing grounds hunters and fishermen. In 1991, for non-wasteful subsistence uses consultation with the Federal stocks for sustenance and the without IFQ’s. In 1998, the the Federal Subsistence Board by rural Alaska residents. The Negotiation Team, presented the basis of their traditional way of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared large portions of the Federal Subsistence Board has refined plan to the downstream life. In many Native villages fresh ruled that claims for aboriginal Kenai Peninsula to be non-rural, made determinations as to which users. Negotiations are scheduled meat, fish and produce are title, including exclusive hunting including the entire Kenai area, areas or communities of Alaska

16 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 17 The Promotion of Human Rights

Although basic human rights NARF was a leading proponent are considered a universal entitle- of the Native American Graves ment, Native Americans must Protection and Repatriation Act struggle against the constant (NAGPRA) which was signed into threat of having their rights law in 1990. The Act requires undermined by the United States federal agencies and private government and others who seek museums that receive federal to limit these rights. Although funding to inventory their collec- the First Amendment of the tions of Native American human United States Constitution remains and funerary objects, pledges to uphold guarantees of notify the tribe of origin, and religious freedom, Native peoples return the ancestral remains and have to continue their fight to funerary objects upon request to ensure that their right to religious the tribe. It makes clear that expression remains intact. Indian tribes have ownership of NARF’s specialized knowledge human remains and cultural items works to uphold this essential which are excavated or discovered human right, along other key on federal or tribal land and that issues such as education, prison they alone have the right to deter- reform, and the welfare of Indian mine disposition of Indian human children. NARF, on behalf of its remains and cultural remains clients, seeks to enforce and discovered in these areas. The Act strengthen laws which are prohibits the trafficking of Native designed to protect the human American human remains and rights of Native Americans in cultural items where the items are these areas. obtained in violation of the Act “State of the Union” and requires federal agencies and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM private museums that receive Because religion is the foun- federal funds to create a summary west tribes collectively filed a review and reversal of DOI’s the remains of “Kennewick Man.” and the Association on American dation that holds Native commu- of sacred objects in their possession. claim for possession of the decision in the federal district The tribes charge that this far Indian Affairs filed an amicus brief nities and cultures together, If a tribe can prove a right of pos- remains with the Department of court of Oregon. The court heard reaching decision removes any on behalf of the Association on religious freedom is a NARF session to these objects then they Interior (DOI) under the Native arguments and issued an opinion barriers that would prevent scien- American Indian Affairs and the priority issue. As a result, NARF must be returned upon request of American Graves Protection and requiring DOI to reconsider its tists from demanding access to all Morning Star Institute in March has utilized its resources to protect the tribe. NARF continues to Repatriation Act. The Tribes decision in light of analysis of a Native American human remains 2003. The brief supports the First Amendment rights of provide guidance to tribes that are wish to repatriate the remains in number of questions posed in the for their research and study, tribal position that the District Native American religious leaders, asserting NAGPRA claims. accordance with tribal religious Court’s opinion. DOI reconsid- regardless of whether the remains Court’s interpretation of NAG- prisoners, and members of the The Native American Rights traditions. ered and adhered to its original were 20 or 20,000 years old. The PRA is legally erroneous. Oral Native American Church, and to Fund represented the National Several scientists, i.e., anthro- decision. The scientists again filed District Court granted a request argument was held in September assert tribal rights to repatriate Congress of American Indians pologists, archeologists, and muse- suit in Oregon court seeking by four Pacific Northwest tribes to 2003 and a decision is now burial remains. Since Native (NCAI) as an amicus in the case umologists petitioned DOI for review and reversal of DOI’s intervene in the law suit. pending in the Ninth Circuit. American religious freedom of Bonnichsen v. United States, permission to conduct extensive decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of In late 1994, Public Law 103- affects basic cultural survival of sometimes referred to as the studies of the remains before In 2002, the U.S. District Appeals issued an order staying 344, which exempts the religious Indian tribes, NARF believes “Kennewick Man case.” The case reburial by the tribes. DOI Court for the District of Oregon the District Court’s order allowing use of peyote by Indians in bona that American law and social arose from the discovery of 9000 denied the scientists’ petition and issued a ruling that requires the non-Indian scientists access to the fide traditional ceremonies from policy must provide adequate year old human remains along the granted the tribes’ petition. At DOI to transfer the remains to remains for study pending the controlled substance laws of the legal protection. Columbia River. Several north- that point, the scientists sought the plaintiffs (scientists) to study resolution of the appeal. NARF continued on page 22

18 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 19 NARF Major Activities 2003 - Case Map

“Getting’ Out of Bed”

1 Kenaitze Indian Tribe - 19 NARF HEADQUARTERS United States Subsistence (Alaska) BOULDER, COLORADO 23 21 2 Gwich’in Steering Committee - 20 Medicine Wheel National Historic 25 Environmental/Subsistence Landmark - Sacred Site (Wyoming) 22 14 of America (Alaska) 21 Fort Peck Tribes - 16 24 3 Alaska Inter-Tribal Education (Montana) Council/Native Village of Akiak - 22 Chippewa-Cree Tribe - Equal Protection (Alaska) Water & Trust Claim 4 Native Village of Alakayak - (Montana) 29 15 Language Initiative (Alaska) 23 Little Shell Tribe - 20 5 NARF ANCHORAGE OFFICE Recognition & Trust Claim 28 6 Native Village of Tuluksak - (Montana) 34 33 32 Trust Lands (Alaska) 24 Fort Berthold Reservation - 7 Native Village of Kiana - Education (North Dakota) Education (Alaska) 30 25 Turtle Mountain Reservation - 8 Native Village of Nulato - Trust Claim (North Dakota) Education (Alaska) 26 NARF WASHINGTON, D.C. 9 Native Village of Eyak, Tatitlek, OFFICE Chenega, Nanwalek, and Port 27 IIM Case & Tribal Supreme Court 26 Graham - Subsistence & Project (Washington, D.C.) 31 Aboriginal Title (Alaska) 17 19 28 Northern Lakes Pottawatomi 27 10 Ninilchick Tribe - Nation - Land Claim (Canada) Subsistence (Alaska) 29 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe - 11 Native Village of Venetie - Recognition (Massachusetts) Subsistence (Alaska) 30 Shinnecock Tribe - 12 Pele Defense Fund - Recognition (New York) 18 Aboriginal Rights (Hawaii) 31 Pamunkey Tribe - 13 Rice v. Cayetano - Recognition (Virginia) Voting Rights (Hawaii) 32 Lower Brule Sioux Tribe - 14 Nez Perce Tribe - Trust Land (South Dakota) Water Rights (Idaho) 33 Rosebud Sioux Tribe - 15 Klamath Tribes - Education & Cultural Water Rights & Property Rights Alaska Self-Sufficiency (Oregon) (South Dakota) 16 Bonnichsen v. United States 34 Oglala Sioux Tribe - (“Kennewick Man case”) - 2 Environmental 7 36 Repatriation (Oregon) (South Dakota) 11 17 Tule River Tribe - Water 35 United Houma Nation - 8 (California) Recognition (Louisiana) 35 4 17 San Juan Southern 36 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe - 3 Hawaii Paiute Tribe - Land Claim Land Claim (Texas) 6 5 (Arizona) 9 13 18 Jicarilla Apache Tribe - Education (New Mexico) 1 12

10

20 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 21 continued on from 19 viridis (also known as “chacruna”). Plan (HPP) for managing the ment officers and employees.” In cultural and intellectual property to Indian child welfare to address Ayahuasca has been used for Sacred Medicine Wheel on consti- response to the initiative, NARF on its reservation. The Tribe is tribal concerns. federal and state governments, was centuries in healing rituals in tutional (establishment of religion) filed suit on behalf of twenty- particularly interested in regulating passed. NARF represented the Columbia, Ecuador, Brazil, and other grounds. NARF filed seven Native individuals and the harvest and use of sage, its EDUCATION Native American Church of and Peru. an amicus curiae brief on behalf organizations that have asked Sun Dances, and various arts In 2002, NARF received a North America (NACNA) and The government bases its of the National Congress of NARF to represent them. In and crafts. generous grant of $1.6 million played a key role in the passage of protection of the religious use of American Indians urging the 1999, the Alaska Superior Court In 1978, the United States from the Kellogg Foundation. The the legislation. It also prohibits peyote on the trust relationship United States District Court for granted a preliminary injunction Congress enacted the Indian grant became effective September discrimination against Indians for between the United States and the District of Wyoming to that enjoined the State of Alaska Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The 2002 and extends over a three- such religious use of peyote, Indians and the political relation- uphold the Plan on statutory and from the operation and enforce- Act states as its purpose: “The year period. The ultimate goal of including the denial of otherwise ship between the United States constitutional grounds, which it ment of Alaska’s Official English Congress hereby declares that it is the grant is for NARF to help applicable benefits under public and tribes. Numerous courts over did in a decision in 2002. The Initiative. Alaskans for a the policy of this Nation to protect tribes in improving the learning assistance programs. The bill the past 20 years have recognized District Court did not address the Common Language moved to the best interest of Indian children outcomes for Native American closed the door to governmental and upheld this special relation- constitutionality of the HPP intervene and were granted inter- and to promote the stability and children in schools by utilizing a prohibition of sacramental use of ship as a basis for the unique because it found that Wyoming vention in 2000. In 2002 the security of Indian tribes and families collaborative approach in which peyote by Indians and effectively treatment of the Native American Sawmills lacked standing to raise Alaska Superior Court struck by the establishment of minimum tribes work closely with school reversed a 1990 United States Church. NARF and the Church an Establishment Clause claim. down the English-only law as a federal standards for the removal officials to identify obstacles to Supreme Court decision in Smith assisted the United States Wyoming Sawmills has appealed violation of the free speech clause of Indian children from their improvement in education, to v. Oregon that denied First Department of Justice in defending this decision to the federal appeals of the Alaska Constitution. families and the placement of such identify and implement potential Amendment protection to the current federal law which protects court. Oral argument was held in The State of Alaska chose not children in foster or adoptive solutions, and to establish and Native American Church. the religious use of peyote by the spring of 2003, and a decision to appeal, but Alaskans for a homes which will reflect the implement a tribal system of NARF is representing the Indian Church members. In is forthcoming. Common language has appealed. unique values of Indian culture, gathering and updating basic data Native American Church in the 2002, the Federal District Court Oral argument was heard in June and by providing for assistance to measuring achievement of tribal case O Centro Esprírita Beneficiente in New Mexico rejected the CULTURAL RIGHTS 2003. NARF is now waiting for Indian tribes in the operation of students. União Do Vegetal (UDV-USA) v. UDV’s equal protection argument, In 1998, an “English Only” a decision. child and family programs.” Under the Kellogg grant, Ashcroft. The UDV is a Christian but accepted its argument that it initiative was passed in the State of NARF conducted an extensive The Act established substantive, NARF is currently working closely religious organization duly formed was protected under the Religious Alaska. The initiative was written analysis of federal and international procedural and jurisdictional with six tribes - the Assiniboine under the laws of Brazil, with its Freedom and Restoration Act in very broad terms and will have intellectual property laws and protections for tribes and Indian and Sioux Tribe of the Fort Peck headquarters in Brasilia, Brazil. (RFRA). The NAC took no posi- a major impact upon Alaska policies and their current impact families in cases of adoption, Reservation in Montana, the The UDV-USA is the United tion on the UDV’s RFRA claims Natives. Unlike other official on Native American intellectual pre-adoptive placement, foster Jicarilla Apache Nation in New States branch of the UDV whose against the United States. The English measures that are primarily property and cultural property care placement, and termination Mexico, the Native Villages of principal offices are in New government appealed to the Tenth symbolic, this measure prohibits issues. The analysis will form the of parental rights proceedings Kiana and Nulato in Alaska, the Mexico. The UDV claims that Circuit Court of Appeals and the the use of any language except basis of an action plan that will be involving Indian children. Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South the federal government is violating Tenth Circuit affirmed in 2003 in English in all governmental func- presented to the National Because these protections are chal- Dakota, and the Three Affiliated its constitutional right of equal favor of UDV’s RFRA claim, but tions and actions. The measure Congress of American Indians. lenged or may conflict with state Tribes of the Fort Berthold protection by permitting Native also rejected the UDV’s equal pro- applies to “the legislative and exec- This review constitutes phase I of law, policy or practice, there have Reservation in North Dakota. American Church members to tection claims that threatened the utive branches of the State of a proposed two phase project to been several hundred state and NARF is providing legal and possess and use peyote for religious NAC’s special status under federal Alaska and all political subdivi- initiate concrete efforts to improve federal court decisions interpreting technical assistance to help these purposes while denying them the law. The government has now sions, including all departments, the legal protection of indigenous the Act. Congress has also tribes establish or reorganize tribal religious possession and use of filed a petition for reconsideration. agencies, divisions and instrumen- intellectual and cultural property attempted to amend the Act to departments of education. These ayahuasca by UDV members. In Wyoming Sawmills v. United talities of the State, the University rights. resolve concerns related to the efforts to improve tribal involve- Ayahuasca is a hallucinogenic tea States and Medicine Wheel of Alaska, all public authorities and NARF is also helping the enforcement of the Act. NARF ment in the education of their decoction made from the stems or Coalition, a private timber company corporations, all local governments Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South continued to monitor children would enable the tribes bark of the vine banisteriopsis in Wyoming has challenged the and departments, agencies, divi- Dakota develop a Cultural Congressional legislation and con- to collaborate with the schools (also known as “mariri”) together legality of the United States Forest sions, and instrumentalities of Resources Management Code by tinued its participation in national providing education programs to with the leaves of psychotria Service’s Historic Preservation local governments, and all govern- which the Tribe can regulate its conferences and meetings related tribal children. An important part

22 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 23 of this effort involves the develop- the project more expeditiously in To date, this work has focused on any right of self-determination for ment and implementation of legal the second year. the Draft Declaration on the tribes or other indigenous peoples devices such as tribal education The U.S. Department of Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the international arena. codes and intergovernmental Education Office of Indian being considered by the For decades, tribes have urged the agreements that will operate to Education awarded a one-time Organization of American States United States to abandon its formalize tribal/school collaborative grant of $20,000 to NARF for (OAS). This document will be anachronistic and discredited activities that increase the role of the purpose of establishing a new invaluable in establishing baseline international policy against self- tribal governments in the schools national organization for Tribal rights for indigenous peoples in determination. that serve their people. Another Education Departments and to the Western Hemisphere. In The new policy, while far important part of the project is to develop the new organization’s addition, a strong document in from perfect, is a step in the right assist tribes in developing a system web site. With the help of this hemisphere will bolster the direction and will set the necessary and process by which basic data Education Directors of the process in the United Nations foundation to begin a more con- concerning the education status of Suquamish Tribe, the Cheyenne- (U.N.) where a Draft Declaration structive dialogue with the United tribal children will be collected, Arapaho Tribes, and the on the Rights of Indigenous States and other states on the tracked on a regular basis, and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Peoples is also being considered. Rights of Indigenous Peoples during negotiations surrounding the Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the U.N. and the OAS. The new policy does three things that indicates considerable movement by the United States: (1) it acknowledges a right to “self-determination” (albeit only an ‘internal’ right), (2) it accepts that certain rights of “We’re Sorry To Report” “indigenous peoples” are “group used to measure the progress of Tribes, the Tribal Education Conversely, if the OAS document rights”, and (3) it accepts the use the position that it would only February and November of 2003, the tribe/schools’ collaborative Departments National Assembly is adopted in weakened form, it of the term “Peoples.” The use of recognize rights belonging to indi- and has scheduled additional activities. In addition, under the (TEDNA) was formed and incor- may be used to dilute the United the term Peoples has important viduals. But, of course, Indian sessions for January and February project, NARF will assist tribes in porated in 2003. The purpose of Nations draft declaration, which legal significance, since two widely tribes by definition have always of 2004. The drafting sessions acting as catalysts to bring together the TEDNA is to bring together has widespread indigenous accepted international covenants had rights that are exercised by the addressed core paragraphs of tribal, state, and federal agencies tribal education directors, staff approval. both expressly provide that “All group. The new United States the Draft dealing with self- and resources to work in concert and policy makers so that they can Through a relentless campaign Peoples have the right to self- policy acknowledges this reality. determination, treaty rights to improve the learning experience share information, strategize and by a coalition of tribes and Indian determination...” as opposed to NARF continued its partici- and land rights. of Indian students. problem solve on common issues rights organizations including “people” which does not convey pation on drafting sessions with In September 2003, following of education governance, policy NCAI, NARF and the Indian Law the same legal rights. the U.N. Working Group On the first full year of the three-year and advocacy at the tribal, regional Resource Center, the United The new policy also impacts Indigenous Populations and at the project, NARF education attor- and national levels. States announced that it was the United States’ official position OAS on behalf of our client, neys worked with an evaluation adopting a more forward-looking on the collective nature of the NCAI. NARF has been granted consultant to prepare the first INTERNATIONAL LAW policy on rights for “Indigenous rights of indigenous peoples. special consultative status in the annual evaluation of the Project’s NARF and the National Peoples” in 2001. While the Prior to this change in policy, one U.N. and can now appear on progress. The Project evaluation Congress of American Indians United States has promoted a of the major stumbling blocks in its own credentials at all U.N. concluded that all six tribes (NCAI) entered into a attorney- measure of self-determination for the discussions at both the U.N. activities dealing with Indigenous had made progress over the first client relationship for the purpose Indian tribes domestically since and the OAS regarding the peoples. A U.N. drafting session year sufficient to put them in a of working in the international the 1970s, the government had respective Declarations has been was held in September 2003 and position of moving forward with arena to protect indigenous rights. steadfastly refused to recognize that the United States had taken the OAS held drafting sessions in

24 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 25 “Witness” The Accountability of Governments

Contained within the unique involving the United States gov- appointed a court monitor, Joseph trust relationship between the ernment. NARF represents all S. Kieffer III, to independently United States and Indian nations present and past individual Indian assess the United States’ failing is the inherent duty for all levels of trust beneficiaries. Commonly effort to reform the Indian trust government to recognize and referred to as the “IIM Case,” this management system. His first responsibly enforce the many laws litigation is intended to force the Report found that despite Judge and regulations applicable to United States as trustee to: (1) Lamberth's 1999 order to account, Indian peoples. Because such laws perform a complete, accurate and the federal government failed to impact virtually every aspect of reliable accounting of all trust perform a full and fair accounting tribal life, NARF maintains its assets held to the benefit of indi- of trust funds. He also found that involvement in the legal matters vidual Indian trust beneficiaries; the Interior Secretary and her pertaining to government account- (2) properly restate the trust fund predecessor were orchestrating an ability to Native Americans. In a accounts in conformity with that elaborate charade to trick the time when federal government accounting; and (3) create an Court into believing that they accountability is increasingly accounting and trust management were taking action, when they dubious, it is crucial that NARF system that is reliable and will safely were not. Mr. Kieffer’s second and continues its fight to assure that and soundly manage the trust third Reports found that the gov-

Native Americans do not succumb funds of individual Indians in ernment lied at trial regarding the to government negligence. the future. progress of trust reform and the NARF, along with other attor- In 2001, the Court of Appeals likelihood that their trust reform neys, filed a class action lawsuit in for the District of Columbia plan would result in success. In 1996 against the federal govern- upheld the 1999 Federal District addition, the Reports demonstrated ment. The lawsuit was filed on Court decision holding the United that although federal officials were behalf of 300,000 Individual States in breach of trust and under an obligation to report Indian Money (IIM) account requiring the government to truthfully on trust reform after the holders to seek redress for govern- provide an accounting to the IIM 1999 decision in Quarterly ment mismanagement of trust beneficiaries. These two decisions Reports to the Court, they failed accounts through which billions constitute two of the most impor- to do so. Instead, time and time of dollars of Indian money has tant opinions ever issued on the again they falsely told the Court flowed over the years. The suit trust responsibilities of the govern- that the reform effort was generally charges the federal government ment to Native Americans. going as planned. They never with illegal conduct in what is Following the Court of revealed that both the Bureau of viewed as the largest and most Appeals decision, District Court Indian Affairs (BIA) Trust Asset shameful financial scandal ever Judge Royce C. Lamberth and Accounting Management

native american rights fund - annual report 27 System (TAAMS) data cleanup suggestion in a letter in May 2003 effort and the installation of the calling on Senator Campbell, TAAMS system, the purported Senator Inouye and other key centerpiece of trust reform, was Congressional leaders to become running into serious problems. directly involved in settlement Finally, Mr. Kieffer issued a fourth discussions themselves. NARF report, this one finding essentially repeated its support for a mediated that the Secretary had knowingly settlement process at a Senate verified an “inaccurate and incom- Indian Affairs Committee hearing plete” Quarterly Report to the in July 2003. Court. In July 2003, a decision was Beginning late in 2001, rendered on the government’s contempt proceedings against the appeal of Judge Lamberth’s 2002 Secretary of the Interior and the ruling on contempt. A three- Assistant Secretary for Indian judge panel of the U.S. Court of Affairs were held. In 2002, Judge Appeals for the District of Lamberth held the Secretary of Columbia ruled that the District Interior and the Assistant Secretary Court ruling holding the for Indian Affairs in contempt of Secretary’s in civil contempt had to Court on the following four be reversed because the sanction counts: 1) committing fraud on was a criminal proceeding, not a the court by concealing the true civil sanction, and the burden of actions of the department regarding proof was not met. In September the historical accounting; 2) com- 2003, NARF attorneys asked the mitting a fraud on the Court for nine active judges who sit on the misrepresentations regarding IT U.S. Court of Appeals for the security failures at the Department District of Columbia to reinstate of Interior; 3) committing fraud the civil contempt citations arguing on the Court for failing to disclose that the three-judge panel miscon- the true status of the TAAMS strued the true nature and purpose project and; 4) committing fraud of the civil contempt proceeding on the Court by filing false and in declaring it to be something it misleading status reports regarding “Downwind From Hanford” was not – a criminal contempt BIA Data Clean-up. In addition, proceeding. NARF’s petition for defendants were held to have required by law and set forth a where all presumptions are against Department of the Interior filed applicable because defendants have rehearing was denied in October engaged in litigation misconduct means to bring Interior into com- the trustee, this amount is owed. three motions for summary judg- not “repudiated” the trust and 2003. for failing to comply with the pliance with its trust duties (i.e. a If Defendants show with compe- ment. After both parties briefed until repudiation, limitations In May 2003, as scheduled, Court’s 1999 Order to initiate a trust reform plan). In conformity tent evidence that they made the issues in April 2003, the Court cannot begin to run. Trial 1.5 on the accounting and Historical Accounting Project. with the Order, NARF filed an disbursements to the correct denied all three motions in toto. In April 2003, Senate Indian trust reform plans commenced. The government appealed Judge accounting plan which demon- beneficiary, the $13 billion will be One of the motions is particularly Affairs Committee Chairman Ben The trial lasted 44-trial-days with Lamberth’s decision. strated that more than $13 billion reduced accordingly. To the extent noteworthy since defendants Nighthorse Campbell and Vice closing arguments in July 2003. The Court ordered that in proceeds from individual land defendants cannot make such a sought to limit the accounting to Chairman Daniel Inouye wrote In September 2003, in ruling on Interior must, and plaintiffs may, has been produced by Indian showing, then the trust account 1984 forward by application of the letters to the parties urging a Trial 1.5, the Court issued a two- each submit two separate plans by allotted land (not counting interest balances must be corrected (plus statute of limitations. The Court mediated settlement of the case. part opinion and an order imposing January 2003 that would set forth accrued). NARF argued in their interest accrued since production). held, consistent with NARF’s On behalf of the plaintiffs, NARF a structural injunction which a means to conduct the accounting plan that, pursuant to trust law In January 2003, the position, that no limitations are responded favorably to the requires the Interior defendants to

28 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 29 conduct a historical accounting of be named a party plaintiff in this under the State law enforcement concluded numerous treaties of and others were ultimately based and subject to strict scrutiny. the IIM Trust and to provide action. If that motion is granted, system, violated the Villages’ trade, commerce and friendship successful in turning away large- The Supreme Court case of plaintiffs with an accurate NARF will represent White Earth rights to Due Process of law and with several countries including scale geothermal development on Morton v. Mancari held that legis- accounting. Judge Lamberth’s along with the other three Pembina basic law enforcement protection the United States. The Apology the Big Island, in part because lation as to Indian tribes is based opinion consists of two-parts: Chippewa Tribes. guaranteed by the Fourteenth was a watershed event in such a venture has never made on the political relationship Historical Accounting and Fixing In another related matter, Amendment to the United States American history, seen by many any sense environmentally or between tribes and the United the System. In Historical NARF filed suit in the Court Constitution and Article I of the Hawaiian people as the first step economically, not to mention States and need only be rationally Accounting, the government must of Federal Claims against the Alaska Constitution. in making reparations for the culturally and spiritually. The related to Congress’ unique obli- account for all funds since the government seeking damages for The complaint also alleges illegal overthrow. The overthrow Wao Kele rainforest is irreplace- gation toward Indian tribes. The passage of the General Allotment breach of trust on behalf of the that the State’s discriminatory has, for over a century, been able to those Hawaiians who question was whether the same Act of 1887 by 2007. In Fixing Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky treatment of Native villages in viewed by Hawaiians as the ulti- worship the Goddess Pele, and standard applies to legislation the System, the Court held that Boy’s Reservation in Montana. the provision of police protection mate atrocity committed against who hunt and gather there. The passed for the benefit of Native “Congress intended to impose The Tribe alleges misaccounting is based on race and therefore their sovereign nation, the culmi- efforts of PDF culminated in Hawaiians. NARF filed an amicus upon Interior the traditional and misinvestment of the Tribe’s violates the Villages’ rights to nation of the enormous political, the 2002 entry of a stipulated curiae brief in support of Native fiduciary duties of a trustee, and trust funds based on oil and gas, Equal Protection of the law under social, cultural, economic and judgment and order by the state Hawaiians on behalf of the that the scope and nature of those timber, and grazing resources. the Fourteenth Amendment to spiritual changes wrought on the court in Hilo, Hawaii recognizing National Congress of American duties are coextensive with the NARF is seeking an accounting of the United States Constitution Hawaiian people since the 1778 the PDF members’ rights to access, Indians in the Supreme Court. duties imposed upon trustees at certain Tribal accounts and has asked and Article I of the Alaska arrival of Captain Cook. hunting, gathering, and worship However, in 2000, the Supreme common law.” An appeal by the the Court to assign the case to the Constitution. The complaint sets The Apology has fueled the on the Wao Kele lands - part of Court ruled against the Native government is expected. judge in the IIM case. At this time, forth in sad detail the history of passions of the Hawaiian people the bundle of “traditional and Hawaiians declaring that the state In a Court of Federal Claims the litigation is on hold to allow discrimination against Native involved in the sovereignty move- customary rights” protected, pre- restriction on voting for OHA related action, NARF represents the parties to explore a negotiated Villages in the provision of law ment. The United States’ admis- served and enforced under Article trustees to Hawaiians was based the Turtle Mountain Band of settlement of the Tribe’s claims. enforcement by both the sion that the overthrow was illegal, XII, § 7 of the Hawaii Constitution. on race and, therefore, violated Chippewa in North Dakota, the The Native American Rights Territorial and State governments. immoral, and unjust is seen as Efforts are now underway for the the Fifteenth Amendment which Chippewa-Cree of the Rocky Fund, on behalf of the Alaska A decision was rendered by the but a first step in the long process acquisition of the Wao Kele prohibits denying anyone the Boys Reservation in Montana and Inter-Tribal Council, ten Native Superior Court in 2002 of establishing “ho’opono’pono” – Ofuna rainforest lands. right to vote based on race. the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa villages and seven Native individ- in favor of the State of Alaska. the Hawaiian traditional system Rice v. Cayetano involved a The aftermath of the Rice in Montana against the Bureau of uals, filed a civil lawsuit in 1999 NARF appealed this decision to for “making things right.” challenge by a non-Native to decision, while not technically Indian Affairs for mismanagement in the Superior Court for the the Alaska Supreme Court and For many years, the Native the voting restriction in the state deciding the equal protection of the Pembina Judgment Fund. State of Alaska seeking declaratory argument was heard in September American Rights Fund has been constitution allowing only Native issue, sent signals to opponents The tribes allege misaccounting, and injunctive relief against the 2003. NARF is now waiting for involved in the Hawaiian rights Hawaiians to vote for trustees of of state Hawaiian programs that misinvestment, and mismanage- State of Alaska for failure to provide a decision. movement, commencing with our the Office of Hawaiian Affairs it was open season on what some ment by the federal government minimally adequate police protec- In 1993, the United States assistance in the founding of the (OHA). The OHA administers see as “race-based special benefits.” of their $50 million tribal trust tion to off-road Native villages Congress enacted the Hawaiian Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation income received from certain trust Over the past three years a flurry fund since the inception of the and for discriminating against Apology Joint Resolution, Public (“NHLC”) nearly 30 years ago. lands for the benefit of Native of litigation has ensued. NARF fund in 1964. The parties in this them in the provision of State law Law 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510 Also, since the mid-1980s, NARF Hawaiians. Rice argued that the continues to monitor numerous case continue to explore a negoti- enforcement services. In Alaska (1993), admitting that the role has co-counseled with NHLC and restriction violates the Fourteenth challenges by non-Native ated settlement of the Tribes’ Inter-Tribal Council v. Alaska, of the United States military in private counsel in representing and Fifteenth Amendments to the Hawaiians to programs and claims. At the same time, the the complaint alleges that the removing the Hawaiian monarch, the Pele Defense Fund (“PDF”) U.S. Constitution. The Ninth legislation that have been enacted parties have asked the court to actions of the State in unlawfully Queen Lili’u’okalani, from power in efforts to prevent large-scale Circuit Court of Appeals upheld to benefit to Native Hawaiians. clarify the threshold issue of who prohibiting Native villages from and installing the provisional geothermal development in the the voting restriction, but the are the proper plaintiffs in this keeping the peace in their tradi- government was illegal under Wao Kele‘O Puna rainforest on United States Supreme Court action involving a trust fund with tional ways, which rendered them American and international law. the Big Island, 27,000 acres of reviewed that decision. One of multiple beneficiaries. In July defenseless to lawbreakers, while Prior to the overthrow, Hawaii was which are owned by the Campbell Rice’s arguments is that since 2003, the White Earth Band of failing to provide them even min- regarded internationally as one of Estate, one of the largest land- there are no tribes in Hawaii, the Minnesota Chippewa moved to imally-adequate police protection the family of nations, which had holding estates in Hawaii. PDF voting restriction is purely race-

30 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 31 The Development of Indian Law

The systematic development serves a wide variety of public copies of tribal codes and consti- of Indian law is essential for the patrons including attorneys, tribal tutions, and the Indian Law continued protection of Indian governments, tribal organizations, Bulletin current awareness rights. This process involves researchers, students, prisoners, service. Access these resources distributing Indian law materials the media, and the general public. by directing your Internet to, and communicating with, For the past thirty years, browser to the Native American those groups and individuals NILL has been collecting a wealth Rights Fund (NARF) website working on behalf of Indian of materials relating to federal at www.narf.org and click on people. NARF has two ongoing Indian law and tribal law that the National Indian Law projects which are aimed at include such tribal self-governance Library link. achieving this goal. materials as constitutions, codes

THE NATIONAL INDIAN and ordinances, legal pleadings INDIAN LAW SUPPORT LAW LIBRARY from major Native American CENTER The National Indian Law law cases, law review articles, Since 1972, the Indian Law Library (NILL) is a national public handbooks, conference materials, Support Center (ILSC) of the law library devoted to American and other information. Now the Native American Rights Fund Indian law which serves both the general public can access biblio- had received funding from the Native American Rights Fund graphic descriptions of these Legal Services Corporation to (NARF) and the public. The materials from the electronic serve as a national support center mission of NILL is to develop library catalog on the NILL website. on Indian law and policy for the and make accessible a unique and (See: http://nillcat.narf.org/) national Indian legal services valuable collection of Indian law This searchable catalog provides community and the 32 basic field resources and to assist people with free access to current descriptions programs serving Native American their research needs. Special of more than 10,000 holdings clients. Literally hundreds of emphasis is placed on helping in the library collection. Once requests for assistance in all areas individuals and organizations relevant documents are located, of Indian law were answered working on behalf of Native patrons can review materials at annually. Because of the unique Americans who have the greatest the Boulder, Colorado library, and complex nature of Indian law potential to positively influence request copies to be mailed and the geographic remoteness of their lives. NILL fills the needs of (faxed or E-mailed for a nominal Indian legal services programs, the often-forgotten areas of the fee), or borrow materials complicated by the difficulty of nation known as Indian country. through interlibrary loan. In attracting and maintaining experi- NILL handles close to 1,800 addition, the library web pages enced staff, ILSC performed a information requests per year and provide research links, full-text vital and cost-effective support

“A Mother’s Love” native american rights fund - annual report 33 Treasurer’s Report function to Indian programs and Based on our audited financial requirements of the audited NARF’s reserve fund. This other legal services providers statements for the fiscal year ending financial statements in terms of increase is largely attributed to across the country. September 30, 2003, the Native recognizing the timing of certain settlements in attorney fees and Due to the loss of Legal American Rights Fund reports revenues, they do not reflect the gains on investments. Services Corporation funding in total unrestricted revenues of fact that, based on NARF’s internal Revenue and Expense 1995, ILSC has been unable to $7,895,814 against total expendi- reporting, revenue actually comparisons between fiscal year carry on at traditional levels its tures of $7,942,204. Net assets at exceeded operating expenses and 2003 and fiscal year 2002 are program of working with Indian the end of the year came to other cash outlays by $163,239, shown below. legal services lawyers nationwide $7,522,282. Due to presentation allowing for an increase to through advice, research, recent Indian legal information, litiga- tion and training. However, SUPPORT AND REVENUE COMPARISON ILSC has been able to continue some assistance to Indian legal 2003 2002 services programs throughout the dollars percents dollars percents year. ILSC continued to send out 47.9% regular mail-outs to Indian legal Contributions $ 3,780,856 $ 4,350,174 73.3% services programs, handling Federal Grants 1,147,310 14.5% 1,478,699 24.9% requests for assistance, and working Foundation Grants 1,342,339 17.0% 759,118 12.7% with the National Association of Legal Fees 752,989 9.5% 64,031 1.1% Indian Legal Services (NAILS) to secure a more stable funding base Other 15,293 0.2% 27,136 0.5% from the Congress. ILSC was Return on Investments 857,027 10.9% <742,026> <12.5%> involved in the passage of the TOTALS $ 7,895,814 100% $ 5,937,132 100% Indian Tribal Justice and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 which President Clinton signed into law. The Act authorizes the EXPENSE COMPARISON Department of Justice to provide 2003 2002 supplemental funding to Indian legal services programs for their dollars percents dollars percents representation of Indian people Litigation and Client Services $ 4,734,537 59.6% $ 4,537,074 63.4% “We Got The Vibe” and tribes which fall below federal National Indian Law Library 477,087 6.0% 356,223 5.0% poverty guidelines. In 2003, Total Program Services 5,211,624 65.6% 4,893,297 68.4% ILSC worked with NAILS to to share its knowledge and expertise Conference. NARF remains secure the first appropriation for in Indian law. During the past firmly committed to continuing Management and General 993,953 12.5% 989,625 13.8% the Act, $2 million, and contin- fiscal year, NARF attorneys and its effort to share the legal expertise Fund Raising 1,736,627 21.9% 1,275,653 17.8% ues to sponsor an annual training staff served in formal or informal which it possesses with these Total Support Services 2,730,580 34.4% 2,265,278 31.6% conference on tribal courts. speaking and leadership capacities groups and individuals working in at numerous Indian and Indian- support of Indian rights and to TOTALS $ 7,942,204 100% $ 7,158,575 100% OTHER ACTIVITIES related conferences and meetings foster the recognition of Indian In addition to its major such as the National Congress of rights in mainstream society. Note: This summary of financial information has been extracted from NARF’s audited financial statements on projects, NARF continued its American Indians Executive which the accounting firm of JDS Professional Group expressed an unqualified opinion. Complete audited participation in numerous confer- Council, Midyear and Annual financials are available, upon request, through our Boulder office or at www.narf.org. ences and meetings of Indian and Conventions and the Federal Bar non-Indian organizations in order Association’s Indian Law

34 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 35 Acknowledgment of Contributions: Fiscal Year 2003

We thank each and every one of our Lutheran Community Foundation Tribes and Native Organizations Benefactors Harvey Dennenberg Peta Uha - Silver Feather ($500-$999) supporters for their commitment to the North Star Foundation Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians John Augsbury John Dercksen John S. Arnold goals of NARF. NARF’s success could not Onaway Trust Colusa Indian Community Council George Baetjer Paul Anthony D' Errico Jane Baird have been achieved without the generosity Panaphil Foundation Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Alex Bercier Robert Daniels Mary E. Bane of our many donors throughout the Paula & William Bernstein Foundation Indian Reservation Benjamin Binder Subhuti Dharmananda Elizabeth Benedict nation. We gratefully acknowledge these Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians William & Elsa Boyce David M. Dornbusch, Dornbusch Associates Norval K. Bhendra gifts received for fiscal year 2003. Society of Friends Elk Valley Rancheria Rev. & Mrs. C. Frederick Buechner Lucille Echohawk Marjorie I. Blachly Phogg Phoundation For the Pursuit Fort Mojave C. Change Alan Evans Tom Blank Living Waters Endowment of Happiness Gila River Indian Community Kate Christy Richard Ferguson Elizabeth L. Celio Helen and Sidney Ungar Memorial R.M.F. Foundation Ho-Chunk Nation Susan Clements Lemuel A. Fraser Polly R. Cherner Endowment Fund Rita S. Gold Foundation Jamestown S’Klallam Tribal Council Peter Gerbic Robert Friede Ilze Anna Choi Edward & Verna Gerbic Family Foundation Ruth M. Knight Foundation Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Mrs. Akabe Gulbankian Rico F. Genhart Ken Bear Hawk Cohen Susan K. Griffiths Memorial Fund Seidman Family Foundation Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin George Harrington Frances Hagemann Barbara Conlon Muth Mary Lou Mosca-Ragona Memorial Fund Stanley Family Fund Little Traverse Band of Odawa Indians Elisabethe Khult-Van-Denberg Collier Hands Michael Connolly Marvin W. Pourier, Sr./Donna M. Deans Stettenheim Foundation Mashantucket Pequot Tribe Richard Knutson John Heller & Emilie Heller-Rhys Robert Daniels Memorial Fund Thomas Foundation Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians Patrice Kunesh Bob & Barbara Humes Anne De Muth & Mark Hodge Kathleen and Ruth Dooley Family Fund Tides Foundation Native Village of Fort Yukon (I.R.A.) Ann Larimore Robert Hutchinson Thomas V. Di Silvio Frank J. McCormick Family Fund Ungar Foundation Native Village of Kipnuk Mary Liebman Richard Jongmok Kim Thomas & Jane Dunphy Jerome Davis Living Waters Endowment Fund Whizin Foundation Native Village of Kwinhagak James Marienthal Albert & Skaye Kirk Susan & Henry Eichhorn Elwood H. Brotzman Memorial Fund Winky Foundation Nez Perce Tribe Barbara Meislin Robert E. Kleiger, M.D. Daren & Amy Eilert Woodward Family Fund Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin Cassandra S. Naylor Charles Koob Kathryn Elston Foundations, Corporations and Working Assets Orutsaramuit Native Council Ola M. Rexroat Scott & Ricki Kresan Anne Evans Organizations Port Graham Village Council John M. Sherman Paul & Eileen Le Fort John & Barbara Everett The Ford Foundation Corporate Matching Gifts Pueblo of San Ildefonso Margaret Sinclaire Stella Lulham Judy Fair-Spaulding W. K. Kellogg Foundation Amgen, Inc. Quapaw Tribe Matthew D. Slater & Faith Roessel Joanne Lyman Lyman Flinn Rockefeller Foundation Aon Foundation Redding Rancheria Jennifer Tipton Warren Marr Pamela Ford John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Bank Of America Foundation, Inc. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Amelia Vernon Doris Renee Marx Robert Roland Fox Foundation B.D. Indispensable to Human Health Seven Cedars Casino Robert Wagner Marion McCollom Hampton Andrew & Audrey Franklin Carnegie Corporation of New York B.D. Matching Gift Program Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux W. Richard & Mary Beth West Helena Meltesen Adam P. Geballe General Service Foundation Boston Foundation/Polaroid Fund Ugashik Traditional Village Jeanne D. Morrel-Franklin James E. Gilley Everett Public Service Internship Program BP Amoco Foundation, Inc. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Peta Uha - Platinum Feather ($5,000 +) Frannie Oates Eric O. Ginsburg Charles W. Hewlett Foundation Charitable Gift Fund Yavapai Prescott Tribe Elizabeth Benedict Kady Offen-Rovtar Susan & G. Robert Greenberg Community Foundation of Northern Illinois C.S.G. systems, Inc. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska John S. Bevan Mr. & Mrs. Claude G. Poncelet Gloria Greenhill Drumbeat Indian Arts The Eastern Bank Charitable Foundation Robert Hart Esther Hayward Rivinus Mary C. Griffin Falcon Charitable Foundation Fannie Mae Foundation Bequests and Trusts Martha Phillippi Carol A. Roberts Duncan Haas Focus Foundation Inc. The Ford Foundation F. Blythe Baebler Frances A. Velay (Panaphil Foundation) Jay Scheide Steve Hagerman Gay & Lesbian Fund for Colorado Illinois Tool Works Foundation Olive F. Berry Alfred H. Schwendtner Robert Hallameck Gorlitz Foundation, Ltd. J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust Helen Bircher Trust Peta Uha - Gold Feather ($1000+) Margaret Sinclaire Lou Henslee Gravestar Foundation Microsoft Matching Gifts Program Ruth G. Boynton James & Louise Arnold Edith J. Smith Sara Hinckley Harrison Foundation Pepsico Foundation Kathleen Dooley Trust Robert & Patricia Berry Nancy & Wayne Starling Ross Judith S. Horton Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei Pfizer Inc The Ferriday Trust Lawrence D. Bragg, III Walter A. Stock W. Howells Johnson Family Foundation St. Paul Companies, Inc. Roseanne Hoefel Peter Broner Bridget Stroud Elaine Hutton Joy Family Foundation Strong Financial Corporation Anna H. Jensen Mary Anibal Brook Gilbert Tauck Mrs. Raymond W. Ickes Key Foundation Sun Microsystems Foundation Pauline Kehlenbach Catherine Brotzman, Four Winds Trading Co. Bessie Thomason David Kast Boulder County Bar Foundation Synopsys Foundation Matching Gifts Program Ruth M. Tearney Jack Campisi Elaine Umholtz Dr. Mereld D. Keys (Law Clerk Program) Unilever United States Foundation, Inc. Ruth Thompson Raymond & Constance Carroll Margaret Verble Mrs. Collier Kimball LW Robbins Associates Verizon Foundation Ruth M. Whitman Thelma G. Charen Stephen & Ann Marie Wheelock George Koehler Lasser Family Trust World Reach, Inc. Kate Christy Catherine Williams Mr. & Mrs. William Lyman LP Brown Foundation Tedd Cocker David Winston Betty M. Martin

36 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 37 Acknowledgment of Contributions: Fiscal Year 2003

Peta Uha - Silver Feather ($500-$999) Gloria Burgess Rima Lurie Karen Williams-Fast Horse Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians and Grand Andrew Rodriguez (continued) Patricia Burnet Suzanne MacDonald Marcel Wingate Casino Mille Lacs Rabbett Strickland Harry McAndrew Thomas Campbell Patricia Marks-Greenfield David Yeoman The Mohegan Tribe Tchin Ralph & Lorraine Memmer Arthur Carter Marion McCollom Hampton Wayne W. Zengel Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Frances Velay Shirley Miolla Robert Carter Katrina McCormick Barnes Abraham Zuckerman Paiute Palace Casino Whole Foods Market, Boulder, CO Bryan Morgan Mary Casmus Joseph McNamara The Pueblo of Laguna Melanie Yazzie Sue Murphy Mote Ed Chasteen Stanley D. Metzger Robinson Rancheria Bingo & Casino NARF Endowment Sandra Nowicki Paul D. Clifton Jeanne Moskal Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians (NARF gratefully honors our many friends Beverly Brown Mrs. Howard Parker Charles Cole Shirley Norton Rumsey Community Fund and partners who sponsored and supported Rose Cuny Lewis Perkiss Janet M. Congero Sara Osborne St. Regis Mohawk Tribe some of our special events in 2003. Thanks John E. Echohawk Antoinette Peskoff Judith A. Day Moses Peter Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. a million for going to all the trouble and Walter & Pauline Echohawk Robert D. Phillips Harvey A. Dennenberg Randall Petersen Angela Babby deeply caring about Indian rights advocacy.) Gayla Fills Pipe Mary Podmostko Laurie Desjardins Denise Pfalzer Bonderenko Direct, Inc. K. Gerome Gottschalk Edith Quevedo Gary Dickerhoof Rose Pilcarsky Mystie Brackett In-Kind Contributions Stephanie Hutton Christina Riehm Starr Dormann Thelma Populus Gordon Mary Annibal Brook Miriam Paisner Sandra Janis Dawn Rivendell Patricia R. Duval B.J. Powell Jackson Browne Margery Goldman Heather Kendall-Miller F. David & Helene Roberts Noelle Edwards & David Lawson Horace Raines Dakota Emporium Anne Estin Michael Kennedy Maurie & Marilyn Semel Judy Fair-Spaulding Mr. & Mrs. Robert Resnik Dawn Dark Mountain Eddie Griffith Fine Arts, Santa Fe, New Mexico Yvonne Knight Mr. & Mrs. Peter Sheldon James K. Fee Maureen Ripley The Denver Singers IDEAS International Inc. Mireille Martinez D.L. Shurtleff Debra Frazier Barbara Roberts Eagle Plume’s Gallery, Allenspark, CO Phillip Ecklund Melody McCoy Marcia Sigler Jan Freeman Andrea Robinsong Steve Earle and the Dukes Faegre & Benson, LLP Salvatore Mendoza Susan Slaughter Susanne Gartz June B. Rosenthal Bunky Echo-Hawk Beth Patterson Steven Moore Sybille Smith Lawrence H. Geller Keith Ross Glendine Fields Amelia Abromaitis Christine Pereira Mary W. Smith Deborah Ghoreyeb William Rozier Jeanne Morrel Franklin Lynlee Thorne Mary Lu Rousseaux Estelle Stamm & Alling Woodruff, Jr. Estela Goldsmith Mary Sacher Greene, Meyer & McElroy P.C. Elizabeth Mauldin Donald M. Ragona LeRoy Stippich Louise Gomer Bangel B.W. Sampson Four Winds Trading Company Allison Eberhard Ray Ramirez Hope P. Stokes Arline M. Goodrich B. Frederique Samuel Eric Ginsburg Jaime Jacoby Clela Rorex Dorothy Harrison Therman Bernard Gordon Peter E. Schmidt John Gonzales Heather Holbrooks-Kuratek David Selden Mr. & Mrs. Gordon M. Torgersen Gene Grabau La Roy Seaver Bernie Granados, Jr. Bill Hendrix, BMJ Enterprises Joanne Soklin Margaret Q. Travis Jean Gundlach Michael & Gillian Seeley The Guacamole Fund Boulder Phone Installers Debbie Thomas Janice Warner Merrill Hakim Charlotte Selver Sara Hinckley Stuart T. Langley Mark Tilden Margaret Weitzmann Michael S. Hall Katey Lynn Simetra Sandra Ingerman Boulder-Denver Advisory Committee Don Wharton Rosella Welma Margaret Hartnett Charles & Neta Smith Keb’Mo’ Lucille Echohawk Montoya Whiteman Lois Whitman Mrs. Theodora C. Haughton Sandra Speiden Kogovsek & Associates Inc. Thomas W. Fredericks Mary Wynne Patricia Heidelberger Carolyn Staby Bob McIntosh David Getches Johanna Zeh Circle of Life Alfred Hoose Herbert Stewart Betty Mary Martin Ava Hamilton Charles Adams & Judith A. Robertson Judith S. Horton James & Patricia Straus Shirley Miolla Jeanne Whiteing Nina Barghoorn Vusama Kariba Rennard Strickland Special Events Thomas and Esther Moore Charles Wilkinson Maxwell K. Barnard Rose Ann Keeney Michael & Carol Sullivan Cache Creek Indian Bingo & Casino Del Mulder, Pak Mail off the Plaza, NM Barbara Beasley Emily S. Kirk Louis Tabois Chickasaw Nation Native America Online Federated Workplace Campaigns Joyce P. Beaulieu Betty Kleczy Valeria Tenyak Chitimacha Indian Tribe The Native Voice Thank you to the thousands of federal, state, Diane Ben Ari Margo KochRuthe Charlotte Thompson Colusa Community Development Program Pahponee municipal and private sector employees Roy Benson Ellyne Krackower-Rice M.D. Turek Coeur d’Alene Tribe Michelle Paisano throughout the country who through their Sandra C. Berger Edward Kriege John H. Tyler Jicarilla Apache Nation Amado Peña, Jr. payroll deduction plans contributed Mary Helen Bickley James Langharst Rene’ Vivo The Klamath Tribes Ramona Peters $132,628 in fiscal year 2003. Betty E. Blumenkamp Ingrid Leblanc William Joseph Wade Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Pink Flamingo Catering Charles Bowers James Lehnerer Ted Weitz Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Sequoia and Sh’Tarra Queen-Anaconda Federal Programs Dale E. Brand Frank Loveland Roger Welsch Mazatzal Casino Dawn Rivendell Administration for Native Americans William Brown Richard B. Luers Gary White Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Mateo Romero Bureau of Indian Affairs

38 annual report - native american rights fund native american rights fund - annual report 39 Native American Rights Fund - Staff

CORPORATE OFFICERS BOULDER MAIN OFFICE STAFF Christine Pereira Micro Computer Specialist John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) Executive Director/Attorney Attorney Donald M. Ragona (Mattinecock/Oglala Lakota) Lorna Babby (Oglala Sioux) Melody McCoy (Cherokee), Attorney Director of Planned Giving/Development Litigation Management Committee Steven C. Moore, Attorney House Counsel Member/Attorney Mark Tilden (Navajo), Attorney Joanne Soklin, Legal Assistant K. Jerome Gottschalk Litigation Management Committee Donald R. Wharton, Attorney Debbie Raymond-Thomas (Navajo) Member/Attorney Assistant Controller Eric Anderson, Legal Assistant Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) Montoya Whiteman (Cheyenne-Arapaho) Litigation Management Committee Beverly Brown, Legal Assistant Development/Public Relations Administrator Member/Attorney Jeremy Charley (Navajo) Lisa Yellow Eagle (Navajo/Lakota) Mary Lu Prosser (Cheyenne River Sioux) Office Services Clerk Legal Assistant Director of Development Rose Cuny (Oglala Lakota) Johanna Zeh, Accountant Ray Ramirez Office Manager Secretary/Editor/Grant Writer Gayla Fills Pipe (Oglala Lakota) NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LIBRARY Clela Rorex Receptionist David Selden, Librarian Treasurer/Law Office Administrator Stephanie Hutton Development Staff Assistant Monica Martens, Assistant Law Librarian

Michael Kennedy Torry Mendoza, Library Assistant Assistant Controller

Mereille Martinez ANCHORAGE OFFICE STAFF Development Projects Coordinator Heather Kendall-Miller (Athabascan) Attorney

Natalie Landreth (Chickasaw) Attorney

Vince Pangan, Legal Assistant

WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE STAFF

Keith Harper (Cherokee) Attorney

Tracy Labin (Mohawk/Seneca) Attorney

Richard Guest Attorney

Ruth Hargrow Legal Administrative Assistant

Angela Paige “Peaceful Negotiations” “Peaceful Negotiations” Legal Assistant

40 annual report - native american rights fund NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302