National Indian Law Library NTLLNo.013~ /Jqc,-::;- {frTilff:l fl7f:ITf G!! rI Jf ffffTf '.fiUHT ______...... ,.N.;_,;;:;a~tio ...... na..... 1 ...... 1n""'d1acu.n ...... L.8\a·A/...j .. L,..... 1J, ! 522 Proadway ~' ary Bou;~ ::-r, CO 80302

Introduction ...... page 2 Main Office Executive Director's Report ...... page 3 Native American Rights Fund 1506 Broadway Chairman's Message ...... page 4 Boulder, CO 80302 The Board of Directors ...... page 5 303-447-8760 http://www.nar£org The National Support Committee ...... page 6 The Preservation ofTribal Existence ...... page 7 Alaska Office The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources ...... page 11 Native American Rights Fund 310 K Street, Suite 708 The Promotion of Human Rights ...... page 20 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 The Accountability of Governments ...... page 24 907-276-0680

The Development of Indian Law ...... page 26 Washington, D.C. Office Treasurer's Report ...... page 28 Native American Rights Fund Contributors ...... page 29 1712 N Street, N.W Washington, D.C. 20036 NARF Staff ...... page 32 202-785-4166

ART: Cover - "He Found Two Horses''; Back Cover - ''Early In Line Dancing''; Contents Page - "Prayers ofthe Old Man"

ARTIST: Ed Defender was born on the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation in Northeastern Montana and is an enrolled full-blood Standing Rock Sioux. He was raised by his great-grandparents and grandparents in traditional Native American ways. He exhibits his work at various art shows and galleries across the country, mostly in the Northern Plains area where people recognize and appreciate his subject style. He recreates memories through his artwork, telling tales and using modern, colorful watercolors on paper, cre­ ating scenes and contemporary situations. Ed is noted for his bril­ liant colors and his "Indian'' humor in titles of his works. Ed lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with his wife Sue and his two Golden Retrievers, Diane and Louise.

For more information on Ed and his artwork, please contact:

Ed Defender, 301 Tulane S.E., Albuquerque, NM 87106 (505) 265-0695

Design and Layout: Nakata Designs/Walt Pourier (303) 255-1730

Tax Status The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a nonprofit, charitable organi­ zation incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District of Columbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions of Section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Contributions to NARF are tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that NARF is not a "pri­ vate foundation" as defined in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. NARF was founded in 1970 and incorporated in 1971 in Washington, D.C.

PAGE 1 I ~rnrr:1 fl7i:ITf Gf rr JTffHfTf.'.fiffIfT ______--.J INTRODlJCTION

The 15 attorneys, support staff and Board Native Americans, whose lives have long of Directors at the Native American Rights Fund been governed by the hundreds of treaties, thou­ (NARF), the national Indian legal defense fund, sands of federal statutes, numerous regulations form a modern-day warrior society. For these and administrative rulings and hundreds of cases dedicated people, the Indian wars never ended; which make up the specialized body of law they merely changed venue. Law books have known as federal Indian law, were one such replaced the chiseled arrow and the historical group whose needs demanded a specialized legal battlegrounds of the last century have been trans­ practice with a national purview. ported to courtrooms near and far from their The Native American Rights Fund was Boulder, Colorado base including the highest formed in California in 1970 to address the need court in the land. But the will to fight, and the for a central, national perspective in the practice reasons, remain unchanged. The survival and of federal Indian law. NARF began as a pilot strengthened sovereignty of the nation's 557 fed­ project of the leading Indian legal services pro­ erally recognized tribes of 1.8 million Native gram, California Indian Legal Services. Funding Americans are due, in no small measure, to the was provided by the Ford Foundation. battles waged and won by NARF. The need for NARF's services was quick­ For the past 27 years, the Native ly established, and in 1971, NARF moved its American Rights Fund (NARF) has represented growing staff to Boulder, Colorado, a location approximately 200 Tribes in 31 states in such more central to Indian country. Since the begin­ areas as tribal jurisdiction and recognition, land ning, the national scope of legal work undertak­ claims, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, en by NARF as a nonprofit organization has been Indian religious freedom, and many others. In supported by foundation and government grants; addition to the great strides NARF has made in corporate, individual, and tribal contributions; achieving justice on behalf of Native American and client fees. people, perhaps NARF's greatest distinguishing The accomplishments and growth of attribute has been its ability to bring excellent, NARF over the years confirmed the great need highly ethical legal representation to dispossessed for Indian legal representation on a national Tribes. NARF has been successful in represent­ basis. This legal advocacy on behalf of Native ing Indian tribes and individuals in cases that Americans is more crucial now than ever before. have encompassed every area and issue in the NARF strives to protect the most important field oflndian law. A brief review ofNARF's ori­ rights of Indian people within the limit of avail­ gin will give a better understanding of NARF's able resources. One of the initial responsibilities role in the struggle to protect Native rights in of NARF's first Board of Directors was to devel­ today's society. op priorities that would guide the Native American Rights Fund in its mission to preserve The Founding of the Native American and enforce the status of tribes as sovereign, self­ Rights Fund governing bodies. The Board developed five pri­ In the 1960's, the federal government and orities that continue to lead NARF today: private philanthropists began to address the inability of underserved populations to access the • Preservation of tribal existence justice system. The federal government funded a • Protection of tribal natural resources network of legal services programs to serve a vari­ • Promotion of Native American human rights ety of populations and it soon became apparent •Accountability of governments to Native Americans through the work of those programs that there • Development of Indian law were several population groups among those needing legal services which had unique needs.

PAGE 2 EXEClJTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT'

1997 marked the 27th year that the Native Alaska Department of Fish and Game. It allows five American Rights Fund has provided legal advice and rep­ Ahtna villages to manage fisheries within their traditional resentation to Indian tribes, organizations and individuals hunting and fishing areas and issue permits to Village on issues of major significance to Indian people through­ members for caribou and moose. It settles Kluti Kaah out the United States. Once again, the legal assistance Native Vil/,age of Copper Center v. Rosier, where NARF provided by NARF resulted in several important legal vic­ asserted violations of state hunting and fishing subsistence tories for Native American people during the year. law by failure to provide an adequate moose season and In Mustang Production Company v. Harrison, the sought to establish that subsistence include consideration United States Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals of customary and traditional uses of a resource. ruling that affirms the sovereign right of the Cheyenne Implementing the American Indian Religious and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma to tax the oil and gas Freedom Act Amendments of 1994, NARF convinced production of companies doing business on individual the Department of Defense to issue interim regulations Indian land allotments within their former reservation recognizing and controlling the sacramental use of peyote boundaries. NARF has represented the by Native Americans in the military who Tribes' Tax Commission which will col­ are members of federally recognized lect some $5 million in back taxes and tribes. Of approximately 9,600 Native over $1 million annually in the future for Americans in the military, a few hundred the Tribes. are members of the Native American NARF participated with the Church who need this protection of their Tribal Working Group on the religious freedom. NARF represents the Endangered Species Act in successful Native American Church of North negotiations with the Departments of America. Interior and Commerce that resulted in a In one of the largest class action lawsuits Secretarial Order harmonizing the feder­ pending against the federal government, al Indian trust responsibility, the govern­ the federal court in Washington, D.C. ment-to-government relationship that certified that NARF and its co-counsel exists between the tribes and the federal represent a class of some 500,000 past government, and the Endangered and current Individual Indian Money Species Act. The Secretarial Order establishes a new pro­ account holders seeking redress for government misman­ tocol for dealings between the federal government and agement of trust accounts through which billions of dol­ tribal governments in the administration of the lars of Indian money has flowed over the years. The law­ Endangered Species Act. suit seeks an accounting of funds due account holders, The Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's repayment of funds lost due to mismanagement, and cre­ Reservation in Montana reached agreements to settle its ation of an adequate trust accounting and management water rights claims with the State of Montana and the system. United States after ten years of studies and negotiations by Through these and other important case devel­ NARF. The settlement, which must be approved by opments in 1997, NARF illustrates that Native Congress, provides for recognition of tribal water rights, a Americans can receive justice if they are provided with joint Tribal/State water administration system, $30 mil­ representation. Since 1970, NARF has provided this lion for construction or enlargement of several dams and access to justice in major cases and has made the legal an economic development fund, and an additional $15 process work for the benefit of Indian people. We thank million to be set aside for the federal contribution to any you for your interest and your support of our program of future project to deliver water to the Reservation. national Indian legal representation on the critical issues On behalf of the Native Village of Kluti Kaah, and encourage you to help us maintain it. NARF was successful in negotiating the first co-manage­ ment agreement of its kind between Alaska tribes and the John E. Echohawk, Executive Director

PAGE 3 rn 1nrr:1 fl~l:ITf Gf! rr ..ITrrrrrf.'.I:Ir IrfT ______, CHAIRMAM'S M[SSAG[

I am writing this message in a hotel room D.C. is an example. NARF is providing legal rep­ in the Washington, D.C. area in December, 1997. resentation to the Venetie Tribe of Northern It seems to be increasingly necessary to make the Alaska. The case asks the question: Is there Indian long trip from Alaska more often these days. country in Alaska? This case affects all the tribes There has been a lot of activity on major issues that in Alaska with the exception of Metlakatla. On affect Indian country. December 10, 1997, the oral arguments are being I remember the speech that Senator Daniel heard before the United States Supreme Court. I Inouye, Vice-Chairman of the Indian Affairs am here listening to that proceeding. Committee, gave at the National Congress of NARF Attorney Heather Kendall-Miller American Indians (NCAI) convention last month will present Venetie's arguments. The State of when he urged Native leaders to be proactive with Alaska is opposing the tribes. The Venetie Tribe is legislative proposals. He spoke relative to "means a remote community that is rich in cultural her­ testing" proposed by our Congressional adversaries itage, with a strong legacy of independence and before tribes could receive federal self-determination. Though the assistance. I believe that he has people make a good living from the given a lot of careful thought to land by harvesting caribou and what tribes can do about their other wildlife, they did not have issues. We have seen an increasing money to wage the 12 year legal bat­ trend in Congress to address tribal tle with the State of Alaska. When issues through the "rider" process. NARF took the case for Venetie, it This process gives little or no time was a welcome and deeply appreci­ for tribes to respond when a rider ated development in their protract­ containing harmful provisions is ed struggle for tribal sovereignty. attached to an appropriations bill at The support of tribes across the last minute. I suppose that is the nation has been heartening for one reason why they are used. The Venetie. At the recent NCAI con­ process forces tribes into a purely vention in Santa Fe, past N CAI reactive mode in which there is Treasurer Jerry Hope rose to chal­ minimal opportunity to positively have input in lenge delegates to give a contribution to the cash the development of public policy. It is disturbing strapped Venetie Tribe. In the next half and hour, to witness this devolution of public process, but tribes had contributed over $20,000 to the delight nevertheless, it is here. of convention delegates. It was a most joyful and Senator Inouye felt that tribes must turn emotionally moving display of Indian solidarity this around by taking the initiative in the putting and a real high point of the week. forward legislation on issues that have been raised I will always remember the look of in a negative attempt to bring changes. encouragement and humble thankfulness on the The question of competing strategies is faces of the small Venetie tribal delegation. before us. Should tribes assist and negotiate with I believe it is such giving hearts as was Congress knowing that we do not control the pol­ evidenced by the NCAI delegates in Santa Fe itics or do we bet that we can successfully oppose that reveals the key to our success in the future. another inside attempt to pass harmful law? Either By standing up for each other and working way, the national Indian community needs to together we give each other added strength to engage in the further discussion before Congress keep on going. reconvenes. Challenges are being brought forward on Will Mayo, Chairman other fronts as well. My purpose for this trip to

PAGE II ------'~ lff{f fJj 1-.ITJ:P:rlfil_j;!_ITJ J THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Native American Rights Fund has a Left to Right (sitting) - Mary T. Wynne (Rosebud Sioux governing board composed of Indian leaders from - Washington); Kathryn Harrison (Confederated across the country - wise and distinguished peo­ Tribes of Grand Ronde - Oregon); Rebecca Tsosie ple who are respected by Indians nationwide. (Pasqua Yaqui - Arizona); (standing) Wallace E. Coffey Individual Board members are chosen based on (Comanche - Oklahoma); Mike P. Williams (Yup'ik - Alaska); Gilbert Blue, Vice-Chairman (Catawba - their involvement and knowledge of Indian issues South Carolina); David Archambault (Standing Rock and affairs, as well as their tribal affiliation, to Sioux - North Dakota); Ernie Stevens, Jr. (Wisconsin ensure a comprehensive geographical representa­ Oneida - Wisconsin); Roy Bernal (Taos Pueblo - New tion. The NARF Board of Directors, whose mem­ Mexico); Rev. Kaleo Patterson (Native Hawaiian - bers serve a maximum of six years, provide NARF Hawaii); and, Will Mayo, Chairman (Native Village of with leadership and credibility and the vision of its Tanana - Alaska). Not pictured: Judy Knight-Frank members is essential to NARF's effectiveness in rep­ (Ute Mountain Ute, Colorado) and Cliv Dore resenting its Native American clients. (Passamaquoddy, Maine).

PAGE 5 {nTHff:J!fi7r:rrr Gf!f {JfffHfTf.'I:IfJtfi ______, THE NATIONAl SlJPPORT' COMMIT[[

The National Support Committee assists NARF with its fundraising and public relations efforts nationwide. Some of the individuals on the Committee are prominent in the field of business, entertainment and the arts. Others are known advocates for the rights of the underserved. All of the 41 volunteers on the Committee are committed to upholding the rights of Native Americans.

Richard A. Hayward, NSC Chairman Thomas N. Tureen (Mashantucket Pequot) Afne Unger Owanah Anderson (Choctaw) John Unger Edward Asner Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland (Seminole) Katrina McCormick Barnes Dennis Weaver Debra Bassett W Richard West, Jr. (Cheyenne) David Brubeck U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Northern Cheyenne) Harvey A. Dennenberg Michael Driver Richard Dysart Lucille A. Echohawk (Pawnee) Louise Erdrich (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) James Garner Sy Gomberg Will H. Hays, Jr. Alvin M. Josephy, Jr. Charles R. Klewin Nancy A. Klewin Wilma Mankiller (Cherokee) Chris E. McNeil, Jr. (Tlingit-Nisga'a) Billy Mills (Oglala Sioux) N. Scott Momaday (Kiowa) Amado Pena, Jr. (Yaqui/Chicano) David Risling, Jr. (Hoo pa) Pernell Roberts Walter S. Rosenberry III Leslie Marmon Silko (Laguna Pueblo) Connie Stevens Anthony L. Strong (Tlingit-Klukwan) Maria Tallchief (Osage) Andrew Teller (Isleta Pueblo) Verna Teller (Isleta Pueblo) Studs Terkel Ruth Thompson Tenaya Torres (Chiricahua Apache)

PAGE 6 ______.;__ __ ...____j~ f{f{[f_/j f_Jf f:f'.:(j'flT_jff7J THE PRESERVATION OF TRIBAl EXISTENCE

Under the priority of the preservation of their territories, even when those disputes involve tribal existence, NARF's activity emphasizes non-Indians. enabling Tribes to continue to live according to NARF believes that protection of tribal their Native traditions; to enforce their treaty jurisdiction is a long and well-documented strug­ rights; to insure their independence on reserva­ gle dating to the very beginnings of this nation's tions; and to protect their sovereignty. founding. The question is whether the original Specifically, NARF's legal representation centers people of this land will be allowed to define and on federal recognition and restoration of tribal protect their way of life in those situations where status, sovereignty and jurisdiction issues, and outsiders seek to avoid accountability in tribal economic development. courts for their actions Thus, the focus of while on Indian lands. NARF's work involves In Strate v. A-1 issues relating to the Contractors, the United preservation and States Supreme Court enforcement of the sta­ agreed to review a deci­ tus of tribes as sover­ sion by the U.S. Court of eign, self-governing Appeals for the Eighth bodies. Tribal govern­ Circuit. The case ments possess the power involves the jurisdiction to regulate the internal of the tribal court of the affairs of their members Three Affiliated Tribes of as well as other activities the Fort Berthold within their reserva­ Reservation in North tions. Conflicts often Dakota to decide a per­ arise with states, the sonal injury case between federal government, two non-Indians on the and others over tribal reservation. A non­ sovereignty. During Indian resident of the 1997, NARF handled reservation married to a several major cases that tribal member was affected the sovereign involved in an automo­ powers of tribes. bile collision on a state highway within the reser­ Tribal Sovereignty vation with a non-Indian owner/employee of a Several of these cases represent part of an landscape construction company located off the on-going and extremely important effort to pro­ reservation but conducting business on the reser­ tect the viability and integrity of tribal courts vation under a subcontract with the Tribe. The nationally. Tribal judicial systems are under cease­ Court of Appeals, in an 8 to 4 ruling, held that the less attack from those who do not wish to be held tribal court does not have jurisdiction over the accountable for their conduct while on Indian case, reversing a previous federal district court rul­ reservations. Tribes look to the federal courts to ing that favored the tribal court's jurisdiction. uphold the right of tribes to provide a forum for NARF argued that tribal courts should the resolution of civil disputes which arise within have jurisdiction along with state courts over PAGE 7 {n1nrr:l fi7J:fTf Gl! r{ Jf ffff fTf.'J:IfJHi ______,

motor vehicle torts that threaten the reservation tion from allotments to the Tribes. The tax community, even if they occur on state highways money that has been at issue in this case - about with rights-of-way across reservation lands. $5 million - will be released to the Tribes. However, in April, 1997, the United States The United States Supreme Court decided Supreme Court ruled that a state highway right­ in June, 1997 to hear State of Alaska v. Native of-way across Indian land is the equivalent of non­ Village of Venetie, a Ninth Circuit Court of Indian land. In its opinion, the Court relied on a Appeals decision which upheld Venetie's "Indian previous case, Montana v. United States, which country" status under federal law and thus its held that Indian tribes generally lack civil author­ right to govern its own affairs. The Ninth Circuit ity over non-Indians on non-Indian land within ruling affirmed that Venetie - a tribe situated in reservations, unless the non-Indians remote wilderness Alaska and accessible enter consensual relationships with year-round only by plane - possess­ the tribe or its members, or their es the same rights as Indian tribes activities threaten or directly of the contiguous United affect the tribe's political States. The Supreme Court integrity, economic securi­ will now definitively ty, health or welfare. address for the first time Remarkably, the Court the powers of Alaska held that neither the Native villages, which non-Indian's subcon­ have governed them - tract with the Tribe nor selves smce time the other non-Indian's immemorial. Oral marnage within the arguments were held Tribe met these tests. in December, 1997. In March, 1997, NARF represents the the United States Native Village of Venetie Supreme Court denied review in and Arctic Village in this case. Mustang Production Company v. In August, 1997, NARF filed an Harrison, which means that the August, amicus curiae brief in Kiowa Tribe of 1996 ruling by the United States Court of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. in Appeals for the Tenth Circuit will stand. That support of the Tribe and in representing the decision affirms the right of the Cheyenne and Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma to tax oil and gas Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the National production on individual Indian land allotments. Congress of American Indians. This case The allotments, 160 acre land parcels held in trust involves the question of whether the sovereign by the federal government for members of the immunity from suit accorded to Indian tribes as a Tribes, are scattered throughout nine counties in matter of federal law bars an action brought in western Oklahoma. The parcels are virtually all state court to recover money damages for a breach that remains of the Cheyenne and Arapaho 4.5 of contract arising out of commercial activity million acre reservation which the federal govern­ undertaken by a tribe outside of Indian country. ment opened up to non-Indian settlement in An Oklahoma Appeals Court ruled that the 1890. The oil and gas companies involved in the Kiowa Tribe did not have sovereign immunity production must now pay taxes on their produc- from suit in state court in an action based on a PAGE 8 contract entered into outside of Indian country. jurisdiction to tax the income of tribal members The United States Supreme Court has taken the who live and work within their own tribe's trust case to decide whether the Oklahoma court erred land, it does assert jurisdiction to tax where the in rejecting the Tribe's claim of sovereign immuni­ member either lives or works in trust land within ty and will here oral argument in January, 1998. the jurisdiction of another tribe. In Nevada v. Hicks, two officers of the Nevada Division of Wildlife, on two separate Federal Recognition of Tribal Status occasions, searched the residence and confiscated NARF currently represents six Indian possessions of a member of the Fallon Paiute­ communities who have survived intact as identifi­ Shoshone Tribe. The tribal member resides on his able Indian tribes but who are not federally recog- Indian allotted land nized. These Indian tribes, within the Fallon for differing reasons, do Paiute-Shoshone not have a government­ Indian Reservation in to-government rela­ Nevada. It was deter­ tionship between them­ mined that the tribal selves and the federal member committed no government. crime so his possessions Traditionally, federal recog­ were returned, but in a dam- nition was accorded to a aged condition. As a result, the tribal tribe through treaty, land set member sued the officers in Fallon aside for a tribe, or by legislative Paiute-Shoshone Tribal Court for the means. The majority of these NARF violation of his civil rights. The offi­ clients are seeking an administrative cers contested the jurisdiction of the determination by the Department of Tribal Court in both the Tribal Court Interior that they, in fact, have con­ of Appeals, which affirmed the Tribal tinued to exist as Indian tribes from Court's jurisdiction, and the Federal the time of significant white contact District Court for Nevada. NARF to the present day and have contin­ represented the Tribe in the Federal ued to govern themselves and their District Court which ruled in members. NARF, therefore, pre­ October, 1996 that the Tribal Court pares the necessary historical, legal, did have jurisdiction to hear the and anthropological documenta­ case. The State appealed this ruling tion to support a petition for acknowl- to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the edgment. For more than 100 years, these Ninth Circuit. Indian communities have been foreclosed from In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Goodeagle, the benefits of a formal federal relationship with NARF has undertaken representation of several the federal government. Through administrative individual Indians in Oklahoma who are chal­ acknowledgment, NARF is now trying to bridge lenging the taxation of their income by the State that gap. of Oklahoma. In these cases, the tribal members On behalf of the United Houma Nation work on their own tribe's trust land, but live on of Louisiana, NARF is responding to proposed trust allotments within the jurisdiction of another findings against federal acknowledgment issued tribe. While Oklahoma does recognize it lacks by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) under their PAGE 9 acknowledgment regulations. The Tribe had On behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag asked the Department of Interior to revise those Tribe of Massachusetts, NARF responded to a regulations based on the 1994 amendments to the notice of obvious deficiency in its petition so 1936 Indian Reorganization Act. The BIA has placed the Tribe on ready for active con­ Department declined and the Tribe filed suit in sideration status. NARF completed a petition the Federal District Court for the District of for federal recognition on behalf of the Little Columbia. In July, 1997 in United Houma Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana and Nation v. Babbitt, the Court ruled in favor of the BIA placed the Tribe's petition on active review BIA stating that they were not required to change status in February, 1997. Petitions for federal the regulations. However, the Court remanded recognition are being prepared and will be filed the other issues to the Department of the Interior by NARF on behalf of the Shinnecock Tribe of holding that the Department did not provide the New York and the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia. Tribe with a reasoned decision and full explana­ tion of why the Department was not required to make the changes. The Tribe's petition for acknowledgment is still under review.

In Miami Nation of Indians v. Babbitt, NARF is challenging the Bureau of Indian Affair's denial of the Miami Nation's petition for federal recognition. The United States District Court for Indiana rejected the Miami's claim that they were recognized by a 1854 treaty and were never termi­ nated by Congress, but the Court is currently con­ sidering other Miami claims. The Court will determine these claims based on an administrative record that was deficient until the Court granted NARF's request to complete the administrative record.

PAGE 10 THE PROTECTION OF TRIBAl NATlJRAl RESOlJRCES

The land base and natural resources of United States should compensate the Alabama­ Indian nations continue to be critical factors in Coushatta Tribe for the loss of 3.4 million acres the preservation of Indian sovereignty. Through of ancestral land illegally taken without federal control over tribal lands and resources, Indian approval between 1845 and 1954. This land tribes can regain a degree of economic self-suffi­ includes all or part of 12 southeast Texas coun­ ciency necessary for Indian self-determination. ties and has been the center for oil, gas and tim­ There are approximately 56 million acres of ber production. NARF continues to conduct Indian-controlled land in the continental United extensive research on the law of compensation States which constitutes only 2.3 percent of their for the loss of use and occupancy of the land, former territory. Three-fourths of this acreage is including fair rental value and profits from oil, tribally owned and one-fourth is individually gas and timber produced over the years. owned. Additionally, there are about 44 million Settlement discussions with the United States are acres in Alaska which are owned by Natives after proceeding. the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. NARF represented the Keewattinosagaing The federal government, has in many or Northern Lakes Pottawatomi Nation of Canada instances, failed to fulfill its trust duty to protect before the United States Court of Federal Claims Indian tribes and their property rights. The on their claim against the United States for com­ Native American Rights Fund concentrates pensation for outstanding treaty entitlements. much of its legal representation on cases that will Under a Congressional reference resolution passed ensure a sufficient natural resource base for by the United States Senate, the Court is asked to tribes. report to the Senate on the treaty claims of the Canadian Pottawatomi against the United States. The Court rejected the notion pro- posed by the government that the Tribe constituted a group of "happy migrants" when they left the United States after 1838. In June, 1997 the Tribe and the government agreed to pursue a settlement and are now in the process of developing documents necessary to settle this matter. In Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Protection of Indian Lands Oklahoma v. United States, a claim for The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas damages against the United States for seeks compensation for the loss of millions of illegally extending the terms of three trib­ acres of fertile forest that they once occupied in al oil and gas leases in Oklahoma at below mar­ southeast Texas. The Tribe has been represented ket rates without tribal consent and in breach by NARF since 1981 in their quest to prove that of the federal government's fiduciary duty to their ancestral land was illegally taken from them manage Indian trust lands prudently, is pend­ by settlers. In July, 1996, the United States ing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in Alabama­ United States has agreed to review a settlement Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. United States that the proposal and NARF is preparing such a pro-

PAGE 11 {f! fHff:J!fi~J:ITfG!! r~r Jf ffHfTf.'JifJ {fT ______,

posal while briefing schedules before the Court Appeals. Briefing has been completed and oral are being worked on. argument continues to be held up while settle­ The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe of ment negotiations are carried on. An extension Wisconsin, represented by NARF, has a land of time until February, 1998, was granted to claim to 26,000 acres in New York pending in allow continued settlement negotiations. federal district court in New York against the NARF continued its work with the State of New York and various local govern­ Klamath Tribe of Oregon on their Economic ments. The claim is based on the 1790 Non­ Self-Sufficiency Plan (ESSP) which was mandat­ intercourse Act as amended which invalidates ed by Congress in 1986 in the Klamath Tribal any Indian land transac­ Restoration Act which tions which were made reversed the Tribe's without federal approval. 19 5 4 termination by Negotiations on all Congress. The ESSP's Indian land claims in chief recommendation New York are planned is the return of federal­ and will include this ly-held tribal lands, claim. The United States along with the assess­ will now enter an ment of the costs ofter­ appearance, as trustee, mination of the govern­ on behalf of the Tribe. ment-to-government With the United States relationship and the as a party, the State of loss of the tribal reser­ New York will be pre­ vation lands to federal vented from asserting its management. The Eleventh Amendment ESSP is being coordi­ immunity from suit. nated with the Tribe's NARF continued efforts to negotiate a representing the San settlement of their Juan Southern Paiute water rights claims. Tribe in the consolidated NARF has played a cases of Masayesva v. Zah key role in the imple­ v. James and Navajo Tribe mentation of federal v. US. v. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, cases environmental law and policy that recognizes involving the Navajo and Hopi Tribes in a dis­ tribal governments as the primary regulators and pute over an area of land in northern Arizona enforcers of the federal environmental laws on claimed by all three tribes. An Arizona federal Indian lands. NARF will continue to work with district court held in 1992 that the San Juan tribes, the National Tribal Environmental Southern Paiutes had established exclusive use to Council and other Indian organizations to main­ 75 acres and joint use with the Navajo Tribe to tain the progress that has been made with the another 48,000 acres of land. Those findings Environmental Protection Agency and other fed­ have been appealed to the Ninth Circuit of eral agencies. As a member of the Green Group,

PAGE 12 the coalition of national environmental organiza­ involvement. Under the precedent established by tions, NARF will continue to coordinate efforts the United States Supreme Court in 1908 in the and to educate the environmental community on case of Winters v. United States and confirmed in the role of tribal governments in environmental 1963 in Arizona v. California, Indian tribes are law and policy. entitled under federal law to sufficient water for NARF participated with the Tribal present and future needs, with a priority date at Working Group on the Endangered Species Act in least as early as the establishment of their reserva­ negotiations with the Departments of Interior and tions. These tribal reserved water rights are superi­ Commerce over a Secretarial Order. The purpose or to all state-recognized water rights created after of the Order is to harmonize the federal Indian the tribal priority date, which in most cases will trust responsibility, the government-to-government give tribes valuable senior water rights in the relationship that exists between the tribes and the water-short West. federal gov­ Unfortunately, ernment, most tribes have and the not utilized Endangered their reserved Species Act. water rights Interior Secretary Bruce most of these Babbitt and Commerce rights are unadju- Secretary Bill dicated or Daley signed the unquanti- Order establish­ fied. As a ing a new proto­ result, tribal col for dealings between the federal government water claims constitute the major remaining water and tribal governments in the administration of the allocation issue in the West. The major need in Endangered Species Act. each case is to define or quantify the exact amount The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota is of water to which each tribe is entitled. NARF pur­ faced with major environmental problems. It sues these claims on behalf of tribes through litiga­ wants to remedy those problems and mitigate the tion or out-of-court settlement negotiations. environmental impact of new development on the In April, 1997, after 10 years of extensive reservation. NARF is in the process of developing technical studies, and five years of intensive negoti­ a Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) for the ations, the Chairman of the Chippewa-Cree Tribe Tribe. The TEPA will provide a review process for of the Rocky Boy's Reservation and the Governor any developer, tribal or non-tribal, whose project of Montana signed an historic water rights compact may impact the environment. The process will between the two governments. The Chippewa allow the Tribe to temper or avoid harm to the Cree/Montana Compact accomplished the first ele­ environment. ment of the Tribe's settlement plan - it quantifies the Tribe's water rights and establishes a joint Water Rights Tribe/State water administration system. However, Establishing tribal rights to the use of water with few exceptions, all provisions of the Compact in the arid west continues to be a major NARF are subject to approval by the United States

PAGE 13 Congress. The Compact provides for 9260 acre­ fish which have been listed as endangered pur­ feet of water per year from the Big Sandy Creek suant to the Endangered Species Act. This effort and its tributaries, and 7 40 acre-feet per year produced significant, favorable management from Beaver Creek. The Tribe reserves the right changes, such as the development of written to divert from surface water flows for irrigation interim water management plan for 1997, adopt­ and other uses from the Lower Big Sandy Creek, ing the lake levels proposed by the Tribe for fish­ Gravel Coulee, and from Box Elder Creek. On ery purposes, an agreement to develop a long­ Beaver Creek, the Tribe reserves the right to term water plan, and a decision by the BOR to divert from surface water flows for recreational re-initiate consultations under the Endangered uses, subject to a requirement that 280 acre-feet Species Act to determine better ways to protect be returned to the stream. An offer to settle was the endangered fishery of Upper Klamath Lake. received from the United States and accepted in These improvements prompted a lawsuit by principle by the Tribe. The offer provides $30 farmers against BOR. NARF filed an amicus million for the construction or enlargement of brief in this case which was decided against several dams on the Reservation and for an the growers. economic development fund. An addi­ NARF is also representing the Nez Perce tional $15 million is to be set aside Tribe of Idaho in efforts to secure their for the federal contribution to any reserved water rights in the Snake future project to deliver additional River Basin adjudication in an water to the Reservation. All par­ Idaho state court. NARF has con- ties are now engaged in draft­ tinued legal and technical ing federal legislation incorpo­ research to prepare the Tribe's rating the settlement. water rights claims which con­ NARF continues to sist mainly of instream flow assist the Klamath Tribe m claims necessary to maintain obtaining and reviewing the their salmon and steelhead hydrological, biological and treaty-protected fisheries. other studies required to adju­ Efforts to promote the Tribe's dicate the Tribe's reserved regional settlement concepts in water rights to support its 1864 treaty hunting meetings with federal officials from the and fishing rights. NARF began work with the Departments of Interior, Justice and Commerce, Oregon Department of Water Resources to and representatives of the State of Idaho, the develop a timeline for the adjudication, includ­ Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries ing the deadline for filing claims, and to fashion Commission, the Northwest Power Planning an appropriate settlement negotiations frame­ Council, and numerous consultants to other work for exploring a comprehensive, basin-wide interested parties have failed to produce progress Indian water rights settlement. NARF contin­ sufficient to permit the stay of litigation to con­ ued its efforts to change management of Upper tinue. Although negotiations may resume, full­ Klamath Lake by the Bureau of Reclamation scale pre-trial litigation is now underway. There (BOR) in order to better protect the Tribe's is a growing awareness, however, by the non­ treaty-protected fishery, including two species of Indian people and governments of the region

PAGE 14 that a systematic process for evaluating the Office of Native American Affairs within BOR future impact of the dams on the Lower Snake and is currently creating a water development River in Idaho must be set up. Proposals are plan for the reservation with the assistance of being studied that would recommend the NARF and its technical consultants. breaching of the four Lower Snake River dams to NARF is represented on the Western restore the balance and recover the salmon and Water Policy Review Advisory Commission steelhead that these dams kill. It is believed that which is composed of members appointed by the by doing so, the region's economy can still grow President and Congress. The Commission has and can also eliminate the burden undertaken a comprehensive review of federal of the Endangered Species activities in the 19 western states which affect the Act. This allocation and use of water proposal resources and will sub­ also recom­ mit a report of find­ mends stop­ ings and recommen- ping the harvest dations to of wild salmon and Congress. A steelhead in the Columbia draft report that River for five years - one includes favor­ salmon life cycle - to allow able recommen­ salmon populations to dations on Indian build to a healthy number reserved water quickly. Only a minimal rights and other tribal religious and cere­ Indian water monial catch would be issues has been allowed in the rivers. completed. NARF continued NARF has also to assist the T ule River been involved Tribe of California in extensively in the securing its water rights. Federal/Tribal Most of the legal and technical work has Water Funding Task been completed and NARF and the technical Force initiated by the consultants are now working with the Tribe to Interior Department and the Fifth Symposium determine the best strategy for securing their on the Settlement of Indian Reserved Water water rights. As funding of water settlements Rights Claims co-sponsored by the Western appears to be one of the obstacles to a successful States Water Council. settlement of Indian water rights cases today, NARF has been assisting the Tribe in identifying Hunting and Fishing alternate sources of funding to pursue as part of The right to hunt and fish in traditional its settlement strategy. One of the potential areas, both on and off reservations, and for both sources of funding may be the Bureau of subsistence and commercial purposes, remains a Reclamation (BOR). The Tribe has met with the vital issue in Indian country. NARF has long

PAGE 15 Nez Perce Tribe - Water Rights (Idaho)

,', ;·. "> Kiarri~th Tribe - Watl · g · r, & Self-Sufficiency (~tgon) Fallon Jurisdic ·~·4 --r. .- San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe - d Claim.(Arizoria)

HEADQUARTERS DER, COLORADO

~le, Defense Fund awaii) ····\ ~' P~i 'o~ana Ass.o.Gflfti (Hawa'~···· • · ·· Chippewa-ere Fort Berthold &Judgement Jurisdiction &

es - ntanah . ·. \ . .:::J- ~ottawatomi Na n - L~nd ~ GllJ.im (CANADA) · .· ·

Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe - Land Claim (Wisconsin)

Miami Nation - (Indiana)

du cation

ee Tribe - Repatriation raska & Oklahoma)

Houma Tribe - R~cognition (Louisiana) ·

Ala:b~[Ila-Coi,i'shatta Land\@laim (Texas).

,.m...,T.. Native"Vh1;g~·ofVenetie - ' rt.· ii · TaiclJ.tion (Alaska)

• '. -:'_.' > ~ \ Nafi~e Village of Eyak - • Subsistence &: Aboriginal ·· · · f!He~(Alaska) · .· been instrumental in ass1stmg tribes to assert depend on Norton Sound chum salmon stocks hunting and fishing rights, which are guaranteed for a subsistence fishery that is now in decline by treaty or other federal law. because the State allows those fish to be inter­ In 1995, the Ninth Circuit Court of cepted and harvested in the commercial sockeye Appeals ruled in favor of two Athabaskan salmon fishery at False Pass in the Aleutian Villages, Mentasta and Dot Lake, that were chain. The suit asserts the legal priority that sub­ denied their right to subsistence fishing under sistence fishing has over commercial fishing the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands under federal law. In April, 1997, the Alaska Conservation Act by the State of Alaska and the Superior Court denied the Village's requested federal government. The Ninth Circuit held that relief. The Native Village of Elim had the federal government has the obliga­ argued that the State Board of Fish violat­ tion to provide a subsistence fishing pri­ ed the subsistence priority law and the sus­ ority on all navigable waters in tained yield clause of the Alaska Alaska in which the United Constitution. The Superior States has a federally Court rejected these claims stat- reserved water right. The ing that the Court "has neither Court instructed the the expertise nor skill to decide Departments of Interior these issues." The case is now being and Agriculture to identify appealed to the Alaska Supreme those waters for the pur­ Court. pose of implementing fed­ The Kenaitze Indian Tribe is a eral, rather than state, reg­ federally recognized tribal government ulation of subsistence whose members are activities. In 1996, the direct descendants of Department of the Tanaina (Dena'ina) Interior announced their Athabaskan Indians. The intention to amend the Tribe has occupied the Kenai scope and applicability of Peninsula region for centuries the federal subsistence and subsisted by harvesting and gather­ program to include subsis­ ing the resources offered by the land and tence activities on inland the sea with salmon as the primary subsis- navigable waters in which the tence resource. Under the federal subsistence United States has a reserved water right. priority law, residents of rural areas are given a However, since 1996, Alaska's Congressional del­ subsistence priority over sport and commercial egation has blocked this effort by placing a hunters and fishermen. In 1991, the Federal moratorium on the federal government's ability Subsistence Board declared large portions of the to implement the court's decision and encourag­ Kenai Peninsula to be non-rural, including the ing the State to amend its laws so that it can entire Kenai area, which comprises the primary administer the federal subsistence priority. hunting and fishing grounds for members of the In Elim v. Alaska, NARF represents sever­ Kenaitze Indian Tribe. The Kenaitze Indian al Norton Sound area Alaska Native villages that Tribe, with NARF's assistance, will be submit-

PAGE 18 ting a proposal to the Regional Advisory Council Continental Shelf (OCS) in Prince William and the Federal Subsistence Board seeking to Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. The issue pre­ have the Board reverse its non-rural determina­ sented is whether the Alaska Native Claims tion with respect to the Kenai Peninsula and Settlement Act of 1971 extinguished aboriginal declare the entire Kenai Peninsula to be rural title outside the three mile limit. The lawsuit within the meaning of the federal subsistence challenges the Department of Commerce's priority law. Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) regulations for In Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper halibut and sable fish on the ground that they Center v. Rosier, NARF authorize non-tribal assisted the Village in members possessmg successfully negotiating IFQ's to fish within a co-management plan exclusive tribal fishing with the State Board of grounds without tribal Fisheries that allows five consent, while at the Ahtna villages to manage same time prohibiting fisheries within their tra­ tribal members without ditional hunting and IFQ's from fishing fishing areas. This is the within their own abo­ first co-management riginal territory. In agreement of its kind to June, 1997, the United be entered into in Alaska States District Court for between tribes and the Alaska issued a decision Department of Fish and holding that the Native Game. The Native Villages of Eyak, Village of Kluti Kaah is Tatitlek, Chenega, Port now duplicating its suc­ Graham and Nanwalek cess in working with the were barred from claim­ State Board of Game by ing exclusive aboriginal 1ssumg permits to hunting and fishing Village members for rights on the OCS but caribou and moose. might assert non-exclu­ NARF argued that the Board of Game violated sive rights to the OCS. The decision is being the state subsistence law by failing to provide an appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. adequate hunting season to obtain moose for subsistence uses in the Copper River Basin and sought to establish that the subsistence priority include consideration of customary and tradi­ tional uses of a resource. In Native Village ofEyak v. Trawler Diane Marie, Inc., NARF asserts aboriginal title on behalf of Alaska Native tribes to the Outer

PAGE 19 {f! rnrf:J! fl7f:ITf Gfl rt JfHHfTf.'.J:I fJHi:- ______,

TH~ PROMOTION OF HlJMAN BIGHT'S

In 1997, NARF provided assistance in sev­ NARF works on prisoner religious freedom eral matters involving religious freedom and educa­ issues, on behalf of the Native American Church of tion. NARF, on behalf of its clients, seeks to North America, as part of a national coalition of enforce and strengthen laws which are designed for Native prisoner advocates. This work consists of the unique needs and problems of Native initiatives seeking increased federal protections for Americans in this area. the free exercise of religion rights of Native prison­ ers confined in federal and state prisons. NARF is Religious Freedom also developing a national litigation strategy for Because religion is the foundation that implementing the 1993 Religious Freedom holds Native communities and cultures together, Restoration Act (RFRA) to increase protection for religious freedom is a NARF priority issue. As a the free exercise of religion by Native American result, NARF has utilized its resources to pro­ prisoners and exploring the feasibility of devel­ tect First Amendment rights of Native oping national standards for protecting Native American religious leaders, prisoners, and religious and cultural practices in correc- members of the Native American Church, and tional settings. NARF secured broad to assert tribal rights to repatriate burial agreements from the Justice Department's remains. Since Native American Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Parole religious freedom affects basic Commission, and Community Relations cultural survival of Indian tribes, Service in 1996 to take measures to NARF believes that American law ' increase federal protection for the free and social policy must provide adequate exercise of religion and has worked to legal protection. implement them. NARF represents the Native In addressing other RFRA issues, American Church of North America in nego­ NARF provided legal assistance in several tiations with the Department of Defense to RFRA Indian prisoner religious freedom promulgate regulations governing the reli­ lawsuits. Unfortunately, the development gious use of peyote in the military. The of a national RFRA litigation strategy Pentagon issued interim rules in April, was cut short when the United 1997 that recognize and control the States Supreme Court struck this sacramental use of peyote by Native 1993 law down as unconsti­ Americans in the military who are mem­ tutional in an unrelated case. bers of federally recognized tribes. It is estimated Given that ruling, the devel­ that there are approximately 9,600 Native opment of Congressional legislation may become Americans in the U.S. military but only a few hun­ the most effective means to address this issue. dred are members of the Native American Church. NARF has represented the Pawnee Tribe of For Native American Church members, peyote is Oklahoma on a number of repatriation claims viewed as a natural gift from the Creator and the against the Smithsonian Institution's National Church believes in strong family values, personal Museum of Natural History. These claims have responsibility and abstinence from drugs and alco­ resulted in three repatriations and reburials. The hol at all times. final claim was concluded in October, 1997, when 53 individuals and 173 funerary objects were repa-

PAGE 20 ------'rmrm r_JTf:rJTHU2'iI7J

triated and reburied by the Tribe. The repatriation A NARF representative serves as a member followed the Tribe's successful 1996 appeal to the of the Carter Center's International Human Rights Smithsonian Institution's Native American Review Council, which is composed of about 25 promi­ Committee, the first such appeal before this nent human rights advocates from nations across Committee. the world. The purpose of the Council is to render Devil's Tower ("Mato Tipi"), located in the advice to President Carter and engage in various Devil's Tower National Monument in Wyoming, is human rights initiatives. NARF continues to be a sacred site for several Indian tribes. The National actively involved. Park Service (NPS) issued a management plan that asked climbers to voluntarily refrain from climbing Education Devil's Tower during the month of June so that In ·the past and even today, most federal Native American ceremonies would not be intrud­ and state education programs circumvent tribal ed upon. The management plan also stated that governments and maintain federal and state gov­ licenses for commercial climbers would not be ernment control over the intent, goals, approach­ issued during the month of June. In Bear Lodge es, funding, staffing and curriculum for Indian Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, NPS was sued in education. · For 27 years, the Native American the Federal District Court of Wyoming in response Rights Fund has focused its educational efforts on to this plan. The Court ruled that NPS's plan was increasing Indian self-determination and transfer­ unconstitutional and could not restrict climbing ring control back to the tribes. during the month of June. In February, 1997, NARF has implemented an Indian working with the Department of Justice and the Education Legal Support Project with its central Medicine Wheel Coalition, NARF filed an amict1:s theme of "tribalizing education." The goal is to curiae·brief, on behalf of the National Congress of give tribes more control over their most precious American Indians, seeking to reverse the court's rul­ resource, their children, and help them to improve ing. NARF showed that NPS has already estab­ Indian education and tribal societies. Rather than lished precedents in accommodating other religious · focusing on traditional civil rights work such as groups within national parks. NARF believes that racial discrimination claims, NARF's efforts are the current ruling will have adverse implications on devoted to confirming the unique sovereign rights the ability to protect Native American sacred sites of Indian tribes based on principles of Indian law. on federal lands unless overturned. To date these rights and principles have not been In Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc., individual addressed adequately in the context of education. Indians have petitioned the United States Patent and Under the Project, NARF strives to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board seeking to cancel strengthen tribal rights in education. This means the pro-football Washington "Redskins" trademark on the grounds that the term is, and always has been, a deeply offensive, humiliating and degrading racial slur. NARF, in representing the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association and the National Indian Youth Council, has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the can­ cellation of the trademark.

PAGE 21 helping tribes gain control of the formal education the Regular Classroom. Teachers on the Rosebud of their members, regardless of the government that Sioux Reservation will be required by tribal law to provides the education - federal, state, or tribal. have completed these requirements. NARF is As NARF continues to develop and successfully working with the Tribe to secure funding to imple­ promote cutting-edge legal theories about tribal ment these courses. control of education, work continues in developing NARF also represents the Assiniboine­ tribal education laws, such as education codes, poli­ Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in cies, and plans; developing tribal-state agreements Montana in implementing its tribal education code and compacts as necessary to implement tribal adopted in 1995. With the adoption of theirTribal laws; reforming federal and state education laws Education Code, the Tribes have inherent authori­ and policies; and litigation to enforce tribal rights ty to the maximum extent over formal education in education. on the Reservation and the power to implement the In its continued work with the Rosebud policies and provisions of the Tribal Education Sioux Tribe, NARF represented the Tribe in nego­ Code through agreements with federal, state, and tiating working agreements with the State of South local governments. NARF is assisting the Tribes in Dakota on teacher certification and school accredi­ implementing the first stage of the education plan tation. Great progress has been made with the which includes the development of curriculum for State in the agreement on teacher certification. the implementation of Dakota and Lakota lan­ With oversight of the Tribal Education guage instruction, instruction in and respect for Department, the tribal college, Sime Gleska Assiniboine and Sioux culture, and tribal govern­ University, developed four courses which the State ment history and structure. NARF is also assisting Department of Education agreed will satisfy state the Tribes with the process of developing a student requirements for teacher recertification. The cours­ tracking system, which will coordinate the achieve­ es are Indian studies, Rosebud Lakota History and ment and attendance information of public school Culture, Teaching Methodology for Lakota students who are tribal members, and to develop a Students, and Teaching the Exceptional Child in Tribal teacher certification process.

PAGE 22 The Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Montana Thus, the Tribes would like to focus on improving has also begun the process of developing a tribal student attendance and achievement by making education code with NARF's assistance. The Tribe curriculum more relevant to tribal students and has recognized the need for its educational systems involving parents and communities in the schools. to provide a relevant and quality education for trib­ Priorities and timelines for code development and al members who attend tribal, private, and public implementation have been developed and the schools, and the tribal community college, Dull process is now underway. Knife Memorial College. Currently, over 50% of NARF represents the National Congress of the enrolled members of the Tribe are under the age American Indians (NCAI) in their leadership of 18 and the school drop out rate is at 52%. The efforts to prepare a comprehensive federal policy Tribe has also gained approval from the State of statement on Indian education to be presented to Montana to establish a new high school district the Clinton administration for adoption. The pol­ which would be centrally located on the Northern icy statement addresses broad issues such as the Cheyenne Reservation. The Tribe has an government-to-government relationship between Education Commission and an Education Indian tribes and the federal government and the Department, but they have a need for assistance primacy of tribal governments in Indian education. with the long-range planning and regulation of The policy statement was formally adopted in 1996 education. Meetings have been underway with by NCAI and the National Indian Education Tribal Council members, parents, school officials Association (NIEA). NARF is now assisting NCAI and Bureau of Indian Affairs representatives to and NIEA in presenting the policy statement to the develop a set of priorities and goals. Issues identi­ Clinton Administration for its implementation by fied have included drop-out and truancy rates, rel­ means of a Presidential Executive Order. evantcurriculum, databases and intergovernmental coordination. NARF is also assisting the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota to establish a tribal education code. In ele­ mentary and secondary education, the Fort Berthold Tribes are served by five school districts, two of which are state public school districts. The other three districts operate under BIA grants and, by Tribal Council resolution, function according to state law and standards. The Tribes also operate a community college, a Head Start program, and sev­ eral other education programs. While the Fort Berthold Tribes have an Education Committee and have had an Education Department since 1991, NARF is assisting them in expanding the Department's responsibilities and in developing a comprehensive education code. The drop out rate of tribal secondary students is well above 50%.

PAGE 23 THE ACCOlJNTABlllTY OF GOVERNMENT'S

NARF works to hold all levels of govern­ lished in 1980 to distribute Indian Claims ment accountable for the proper enforcement of Commission awards to these tribes for lands and the many laws and regulations which govern the other rights taken by the United States. After a par­ lives of Indian people. NARF continues to be tial distribution to the tribes in 1988, the undistrib­ involved in several cases which focus primarily on uted portion was held in trust by the Bureau of the accountability of the federal and state govern­ Indian Affairs. The litigation was stayed while the ments to Indians. Bureau of Indian Affairs tried to reconcile all of its NARF, along with other attorneys, filed a tribal trust fund accounts and is currently stayed as class action lawsuit in 1996 against the federal gov­ settlement negotiations proceed. ernment. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of In addressing welfare reform, NARF assisted 500,000 Individual Indian Money (IIM) account the Oglala Sioux Tribe in working with eight other holders to seek redress for government mismanage­ South Dakota tribes to develop a model tribal ment of trust accounts through which billions of Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF) dollars of Indian money has flowed over the years. Plan. In shifting the responsibility to the tribes, The suit charges the federal government with illegal TANF allowed for access to state funds that were conduct in what is viewed as the largest and most expended on Native Americans in South Dakota shameful financial scandal ever involving the United under the old Aid to Families With Dependent States government. The lawsuit has three basic Children program because the Tribe's federal grant objectives: (1) to require the federal government to would only fund the tribal TANF program at two­ complete an accurate and reliable calculation, or thirds the current funding level. However, the accounting, of the moneys due IIM account holders; Governor of South Dakota refused to give the tribes (2) to require the federal government to repay IIM access to these funds. Based on a cash flow analysis account holders the money the federal government that showed that the Tribe would operate its own has lost through mismanagement or neglect; and (3) TANF program in the red without full funding, the to compel the federal government to create an ade­ Tribe ultimately decided not to assume the responsi­ quate trust accounting and management system. In bility of operating its own TANF program. February, 1997, the federal district court in NARF is involved in Native Hawaiian legal Washington, D.C. certified the case as a class action. issues primarily in support of the Native Hawaiian NARF and co-counsel then filed a motion for inter­ Legal Corporation, which NARF helped to organize im relief which asks the court to require that the fed­ in the early 1970s to address these issues. The eral government put in place certain practices to Native Hawaiian cases are somewhat different than prevent further losses of individual Indian monies other NARF cases as there are no federally recog­ and loss of source documentation while the litiga­ nized tribes in Hawaii. The United States overthrew tion progresses. the sovereign Hawaiian government in 1893, pan­ In a Court of Federal Claims action, NARF dering to business and military interests who sought represents the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewas control of the islands for strategic purposes. But in North Dakota, the Chippewa-Cree of the Rocky prior to European contact in 1778, the Islands had Boys Reservation in Montana and the Little Shell a very complex and elaborate Native Hawaiian civi­ Tribe of Chippewas in Montana against the Bureau lization. Over the years, Native Hawaiians have of Indian Affairs for mismanagement of the been making substantial progress in re-asserting Pembina Judgment Fund. The Fund was estab- Native Hawaiian rights.

PAGE 24 ______, j f[f[ffjj f_JTf:tfTJffjg-_!.TJJ

In Pele Defense Fund v. Campbell NARF refused to do so, offering instead a series of short­ and co-counsel Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation term permits to remain in the Park. Negotiations await a favorable ruling promised by a Hawaii state broke down and the National Park Service evicted court in 1996 that would allow for traditional the Pai 'Ohana from their ancestral lands in Native Hawaiian access rights to rainforest lands February, 1997. traditionally exercised by Native Hawaiians on In Fletcher v. United States NARF filed an those lands before they were exchanged in 1983 by amicus brief on behalf of the Osage National the State of Hawaii for other lands in order to Council, the newly elected legislative body of the accommodate a geothermal developer. The deci­ reconstituted Osage Nation, in the United States sion is expected to be appealed to the Hawaii Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The suit Supreme Court. The case was previously before the was brought to redress the massive disenfranchise­ Hawaii Supreme Court in 1992 when it upheld the ment of Osage people that had resulted from land exchange but remanded the case for trial on Secretarial regulations interpreting the Osage the traditional access rights issue. That ruling was Allotment Act. NARF argued to uphold the Osage precedent for a landmark 1995 ruling by the Court Constitution and the continued operation of the in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Osage Nation, including the National Council Planning Commission which alerted government based, in part, on the theory that the Osage people agencies of their responsibility under the Hawaii had the inherent right to form a constitutional gov­ State Constitution to consider Native Hawaiian ernment. In August, 1997, the Tenth Circuit rights in all permitting rather than forcing tradi­ denied the petition and the United States withdrew tional access practitioners to resort to litigation in its recognition of the Osage National Council as order to continue such customary usage. established by the 1994 Constitution and re-recog­ NARF represented Mahealani Pai, a Native nized the Osage Tribal Council as the governing Hawaiian, and the Pai 'Ohana Association ('Ohana body of the Osage Tribe. means family) in an effort to resolve their claim to use and occupy their ancestral homelands within the boundaries of a national historic park on the Island of Hawaii. For generations, indeed going back before contact, the Pai 'Ohana have been the traditional caretakers of the land area now encom­ passed within the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park, established in 1988. Their tradi­ tional responsibilities include protecting and main­ taining the religious sites (which include burials), heiaus (shrines or temples), fishtraps, and the med­ icinal and subsistence plants of the area. The enabling legislation creating the park declared that it was established to preserve and perpetuate tradi­ tional native Hawaiian activities and culture. The National Park Service also has the authority to grant residential leases to the Pai 'Ohana, but

PAGE 25 !f!rnrr:..nE~r:rrrr;f rrifrrrrrr.'S:rrrrµ ______

The systematic development of Indian Another important component of the law is essential for the continued protection of NILL collection is its tribal government docu­ Indian rights. This process involves distributing ments repository. The repository houses over Indian law materials to, and communicating 400 tribal constitutions and codes. The goal of with, those groups and individuals working on the Tribal Codes Project is to serve as a medium behalf of Indian people. through which tribal NARF has two ongoing government officials projects which are aimed can exchange informa­ at achieving this goal. tion and improve the work of all tribal gov­ The National Indian ernments. Users of the Law Library tribal codes collection The National include authors of new Indian Law Library codes, tribal lawyers (NILL) is the only law and judges, and tribal library specializing in council members. The legal practice materials demand for tribal code which are essential for provisions reveals the practitioners of Indian work of tribes towards law. An important com­ enhancing and enforc­ ponent of NILL is its ing their self-gover­ collection of pleadings nance rights. filed in important NILL has been Indian law cases, dating working with the back to the 1950's. University of Oklahoma Law Center NILL. .houses legal plead-. mgs m cases rangmg Library and participat­ from tribal courts to the ing Indian tribes to United States Supreme provide an Internet site Court. These pleadings containing copies of are an invaluable tribal constitutions and resource for attorneys codes. This web page is associated with tribes, now up and running and with Indian legal service programs, because and has provided many tribal governments with these attorneys and programs are generally in an additional resource to check when drafting remote areas of the country, without access to tribal self-government documents. The Native adequate law libraries. NILL fills the needs of American Constitutions Digitization Project can the often-forgotten areas of the nation known as be found at http:/ /thorpe.ou.edu. Indian country, where access to a telephone is at NILL also actively collects Indian law a premmm. Hundreds of requests are received related documents. These documents cover a each year. spectrum which includes books, pamphlets, fed-

PAGE 26 eral government and agencies documents, state Corporation funding, ILSC has been unable to government and agencies documents, law review carry on at traditional levels its program of articles, scholarly reports, journal articles, news­ working with Indian legal services lawyers paper articles, student reports, and conference nationwide through advice, research, recent and seminar papers. Indian legal information, litigation and train­ Access to the contents of the NILL col­ ing. ILSC has been able to continue mailings lection is provided through a computerized with Indian legal information and provide tele­ database. Numerous access points are assigned phone advice and counsel. ILSC has also been each record entered in the database. In addition able to advocate for continued funding for local to the basic author, title and subject headings, Indian legal services from the Legal Services other access points include the Tribe involved, Corporation. ILSC has been unable to assist the jurisdiction, the parties to the lawsuit, the with litigation and training nor cover the cost judges, the attorneys, the citation, the docket of research materials from the National Indian number and the NILL subject headings. Law Library.

Indian Law Support Center Other Activities Since 1972 the Indian Law Support In addition to its major projects, NARF Center (ILSC) of the Native American Rights continued its participation in numerous confer­ Fund had received funding from the Legal ences and meetings of Indian and non-Indian Services Corporation to serve as a national sup­ organizations in order to share its knowledge port center on Indian law and policy for the and expertise in Indian law. During the past fis­ national Indian legal services community and cal year, NARF attorneys and staff served in for­ the 32' basic field programs serving Native mal or informal speaking and leadership capaci­ American clients. Literally hundreds of requests ties at numerous Indian and Indian-related con­ for assistance in all areas of Indian law have been ferences and meetings such as the American answered annually. Because of the unique and Indian Resources Institute's Tribal Leaders complex nature of Indian law and the geograph­ Forums, the National Congress of American ic remoteness of Indian legal services programs, Indians and the Federal Bar Association. complicated by the difficulty of attracting and NARF remains firmly committed to con­ maintaining experienced staff, ILSC performed tinuing its effort to share the legal expertise a vital and cost-effective support function to which NARF possesses with these groups and Indian programs and other legal services individuals working in support of Indian rights providers across the country. and to foster the recognition of Indian rights in NARF was impacted by the federal bud­ mainstream society. get-cutting in Washington in 1995 as Congress eliminated NARF's ILSC annual funding from the Legal Services Corporation. ILSC, which has been assisting Indian legal services field pro­ grams as a project of NARF, now functions at a greatly reduced level on NARF general support funds. Due to the loss of Legal Services

PAGE 27 1997 TREASlJRER'S REPORT'

The Native American Rights Fund improved its financial position in fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. Total revenues, at year end, were $8,043,020, against total expenditures of $7,396,266. A compari­ son of revenue sources for FY97 and FY96 is shown below. Revenue from government grants continued to decline and represents only 15.6% of our total revenue in fiscal year 1997. Legal fee revenue also continues to decline. Conversely, accelerated fundraising efforts generated increases in revenue from foundation grants and individual contributions. Investment income has also risen sharply due to the ability to invest available funds and changes made in investment strategy. A comparison of expenditures for FY 97 and FY 96 is also shown below. Expenditures increased by $866,514 due primarily to increased activity in the individual Indian monies trust funds case. Total manage­ ment and fundraising costs constituted 23.5% of total revenues in fiscal year 1997.

Goverlllllent Grants $ 1,252,109 15.6% $ 2,458,022 31.5%

Foundation Grants $ 1,851,006 23.0o/o $ 981,602 12.6%

Contributions $ 3,172,394 39.4% $ 2,757,063 35.3%

Legal Fees $ 747,286 9.3% $ 1,256,375 16.1 o/o

Other $ 84,371 1.0% $ 160,669 2.1 o/o

Investntent Return $ 935,854 11.7% $ 190,598 2.4%

Totals $ 8,043,020 100.0o/o $ 7,804,329 100.0o/o

LITIGATION AND CLIENT SERVICES $ 5,561,373 $ 4,631,905

NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LIBRARY $ 148,506 $ 212,798

TOTAL PROGRAM SERVICES $ 5,709,879 $ 4,844,703

MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES $ 814,673 $ 730,806

FUND RAISING $ 871,714 $ 954,243

TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES $ 1,686,387 $ 1,685,049

TOTALS $ 7,396,266 $ 6,529,752

NOTE: Call or write NARF's Boulder Office ifyou are interested in receiving the 1997 Audited Financial Statements.

PAGE 28 "ARF Af:~11owledge1ne11t of Co11tributio11s: Fisf:al Year 1997

21st Century Endowment Fund Lilly Endowment, Inc. Benefactors ($1000+ )> Mass Mutual - The Blue Chip Company Microsoft Walter S. Rosenberry, III Roger Boone The New York Community Trust Sidney Stem Memorial Trust Rev. &Mrs. C. Frederick Buechner Rockefeller Family Fund We would also like to thank all NARF staff Mr. &Mrs. T. H. Cobb The St. Paul Companies, Inc. members who contributed to the endowment. E. B. Deis U.S. West Foundation Zell Draz Gordon Gano Living Waters Endowment Kathryn Harrison Tribes and Native Organizations Jodi Kingdon Helen &Sidney Ungar Memorial Endowment Fund Ruth Krautter Peter Gerbic Family Fund Bois Forte Reservation Tribal Council June S. Meka Mosca-Ragona Memorial Fund Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde Marian V. Mraz Marvin W. Pourier, Sr. Memorial Fund Cow Creek Band of Umpquas Mr. &Mrs. Carroll O'Connor Fairbanks Native Association Katharine Preston Kaibab Band of Paiute Ola M. Rexroat Foundations/Corporations Las Vegas Paiute Tribe Gail &Jonathan Schorsch Maniilaq Association Marcella Meyer Stadelhofen Mashantucket Pequot Tribe John VanDyk Brainerd Foundation Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Alison ]. Van Dyk Carnegie Corporation of New York Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida AmeliaVemon Coca-Cola Company Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Ruth Wender Educational Foundation of America Ninlichik Council Richard &Mary Beth West Everett Public Service Internship Program Oglala Sioux Tribe The Falcon Foundation Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Ford Foundation Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Peta Uha - Gold Feather Gaea Foundation Soboba Band of Mission Indians General Service Foundation Southern California Tribal Chairmans' ($1000+) Gloucester Capital Corporation Association Harder Foundation Stockbridge-Munsee Community Fanny H. Arnold Jana Foundation Tanana Chiefs Conference John S. Bevan Joseph Eve & Company Tlingit-Haida Tribes Elsa K. &William E. Boyce Lazar Foundation Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Lawrence D. Bragg, III John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Walker River Paiute Tribe Dorothy Bratz National Lawyers Guild Mary Anibal Brook National Association for Public Interest Law Catherine Brotzman, Four Winds Trading Company Rockefeller Foundation Bequests Paul Brotzman, Four Winds Trading Company Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Mrs. William F. Campbell Skadden Fellowship Foundation Dr. Jack Campisi, Ph.D. Sidney Stem Memorial Trust Mary Coates Suzanne Conte Edward Thomas Foundation Leni Fromm Marietta De Navarre Ungar Foundation Beatrix La Garde AdaE. Deer Wild Oats Laura McLeod Harvey Dennenberg XYZ Corporation Joan Schneider Ruth M. Dolby Mildred Stanley Bonita & Richard K. Dowse Dwight Stephenson Thomas Dunphy Corporate Matching Gifts Dolan Eargle Lucille A. Echohawk Trusts Aon Corporation Paul Anthony D'Errico The Chase Manhattan Foundation Connie Foote &David Mitchell The Chubb Corporation Eleanor N. Skogg Jernigan Lloyd W. Frueh The Colorado Trust Andre Smessaert Rico F. Genhart Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. Verna Gerbic Illinois Tool Works Foundation Beatrice V. Gian Kemper Financial Services Marion Mccollom Hampton

PAGE 29 NARF A•:~11owledge1ne11t of Co11tributio11s: Fis•:al Year 1997

A. Stuart Hanisch F. Grunbaum Starr Dorman Will H. Hays, Jr. Duncan Haas Patricia R. Duval John Heller Kay Hanley Noelle Edwards Sara S. Hinckley Bartlett Harvey Genevieve Estes Mr. & Mrs. Robert W. Jackson John Henly Karen Williams Fasthorse Christina June Mr. & Mrs. George Koehler Jan Freeman Sonja K. Keohane Robert R. Larsen Suzanne Gartz Emily S. Kirk Robert Locke Laurence H. Geller Richard Knutson Janet Mc Alpin Deborah Ghoreyeb Ricki & Scott Kresan Audrey McDonald Estela Goldsmith Ursula & David Lamberson JohnMcHugh Louise Gomer-Bangel Ingrid LeBlanc & Thea Uhling Goldie Otters Dr. Gene Grabau Nancy Lutz Joseph Priebe Dr. Patricia Marks Greenfield Joanne Lyman Richard Peters Jean Grundlach Ann Marsak Caryl! M. Pott Sheldon Haffner Doris Renee Marx Leslie Ann Pratt Margaret Hartnett Harry McAndrew Dale Revelle Charles Heidelberger Helena Meltesen Carolyn M. Reyer Alfred Hoose Ronald J. Miller Jay Scheide Rose Ann Keeney Sue Murphy Mote Richard Schott Emily S. Kirk Mrs. Philleo Nash W. Ford Schumann William Lackey Richard Wolf Nathan Mr. & Mrs. Peter Sheldon Denise Larson Sara Nerken Thomas Running Bear Smith David Lawson Sandra Nowicki Edmund Stanley Ingrid LeBlanc Jennifer Randall, Youth Development Fund Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert Tauck Rima Lurie Marc & Pam Rudick Dorothy Harrison Therman Robin Lutz Tina Petersen & Hendrikus Schraven Jeanne Torosian Suzanne MacDonald Mr. & Mrs. B. Thomas Seidman Margaret Q. Travis Virginia S.W. Norton Le Roy Stippich Sara Osborne Dennis Tedeschi Moses Peters Andrew M. & Verna Teller Circle of Life Randall Petersen John & Aine A. Ungar Rose Pilcarsky Elaine Umholtz Diane Ben-Ari Bobbi W. Sampson Marta Webster Audrey Baldwin B. Frederique Samuel Donald R. Wharton Nina Barghoorn Mr. & Mrs. Arthur E. Schroeder Mr. & Mrs. Richard Woodbury Maxwell K. Barnard LaRoy E. & Mary F. Seaver Trust Katrina McCormick Barnes Michael & Gillian Seeley Barbara Beasley Kate Flynn Simetra Peta Uha - Silver Feather Joyce P. Beaulieu Mr. & Mrs. Charles Smith ($500-$999) Noel Benson Sandra Speiden Roy Benson Carolyn Staby Mary Helen Bickley Rennard Strickland Mary Adderley Louis Tabois Dee Aiani Oliver Corcoran Binney Dr. & Mrs. Charles Bowers Valeria Tenyak Theodore R. Alpen John H. Tyler Margaret D. Bomberger William 0. Brown M. Gilbert Burford C. Dickson Titus Phillip Carre! Roger Welsch Madelyn H. Chafin Patricia & Don Burnet Thomas Campbell Don Wilson Richard Cobb David R. Yeoman Tedd Cocker MaryCasmus Don M. Chase Wayne W. Zengel Noel Congdon Abraham Zuckerman Bernice M. Gagnon Ed Chasteen Adam Geballe Charles Cole James E. Gilley Janet M. Congero Patrick 0. Greenley Laurie Desjardins Susan Griffiths Harvey Dennenberg PAGE 30 In-Kind Contributions Lynn Weaver - Woodland Hills cA Floyd Red Crow Westerman _~alibi! Al's Garden Art - South El Monte, CA Windham Hill Records - Beverly Hills, Alissa Begel - Playa de! Rey, CA Gary & Rose Wright - Palos Verdes, CA Gay and Howard Ben Tre - Providence, RI Katherine Bergeren - Denver, CO Bielenberg Design - San Francisco, CA Boulder-Denver Advisory Gregg Bonann - Los Angeles, CA Committee Hea Catherine Brotzman - Four Winds Trading Co., Eleano Boulder, CO Lucille Echohawk Christian W0. Love,];. by Paul Brotzman - Four Winds Trading Co., David Getches Deborah Ruth Luiz Boulder, CO Ava Hamilton by Robin City Rage - Beverly Hills, CA Dale T. White Emily Jo McFerren by Karill Ted Danson - Beverly Hills, CA Jeanne Whiteing Gigi Kaesar by Susie Kaesar Ed Defender - Albuquerque, NM Charles Wilkinson D&K Printing - Boulder, CO Tim McGinnis by Maura Ellyn Eights Days a Week - Boulder, CO Ms. Yoshie Minami by Hiroko Minami Espace Design & Construction - Philleo Nash by Edith Nash Santa Monica, CA Federated Workplace Campaigns NARF by Frances Velay Kari Frace' - Santa Monica, CA Emma Roberts Nicolet by John Borbridge Max Gail - Malibu, CA Thank you to the thousands of federal, state, Victor E. Olson by Mr. & Mrs. Marvin Fink Beatrice Gian - San Marino, CA municipal and private sector employees through­ Victor E. Olson by Megan Olson Carol Goldberg Ambrose, - Los Angeles, CA out the country who through their payroll deduc­ Victor E. Olson by Jane M. Olson John Haug, - Anaheim, CA tion plans contributed more than $126,940 to Dr. Alfonso Ortiz by Ms. Frances Leon Quintana Wally High - Topanga, CA NARF in 1997. Lee & Sharon Peery by William Peery Charlie Hill - Los Angeles, CA Sandie Peters by Gordon Gano Bob Hope - Los Angeles, CA Irene Fenouhlet Pyott Barbara Hopton - Los Angeles, CA Federal Programs by Audrey MacGregor McDonald House of Blues - West Hollywood, CA Holly Quick by Robert Quick Jane Kellard - Hidden Hills, CA Administration for Native Americans Kerry Radcliffe & Ray Knox by Alta & Stan Barer Kifaru Productions - Malibu, CA Bureau of Indian Affairs Basil Rauch by Elizabeth Hird Robia Lamorte - West Hollywood, CA Sonne &Elaine Reyna by Dolan Eargle Lindguard Charities - Los Angeles, CA Rene LaVon Rbym by The Rbym Family Nadiya Little Warrior - Canyon Country, CA Otu'han Program R. Robin by The Domestic & Foreign Missionary Timothy & Hilda McGonigle - Santa Monica, CA Society ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church Malibu Colony Company - Malibu, CA In honor or memory of: Cecilia St. Pierre, Winifred Feezor, Carolyn Montgomery - Hidden Hills, CA and Louise B. Smith Kate Mulgrew - Los Angeles, CA Linda Bates Jordan by Mark Lynch by James H. Cohen, Esq. Sue Noe - Boulder, CO Joan, JD., and Marsha Bell by John Fulton Edward Shadiack, Sr. by Dean & Cheryl Clerico Edward James Olmos - Los Angeles, CA Aquilina Bourdukofsky by Karin Holser Willy and Hans Schnabel by Margriet Schnabel Harriet & Irwin Oppenheim - Northridge, CA Jennifer Brooke Faunt by Karin Holser Edward Schoenig & Chief Tom Thunder Patton Boggs, L.L.P. - Washington, DC James Brown and Tracy Mcilrath by Patricia Taylor Kirschner Mark Peterson & Cassandra Pierson - by Terry Hoehne Joan Strauss by Harvey & Gail Zarren Hollywood, CA Paul, Kym, and Cynthia Burke by Tina Burke Ruth S. Suagee by Jay T. Suagee Photomation - Anaheim, CA Mary Butler by Ingrid LeBlanc Carol Taylor by Susie Kaesar David Risling, Jr., - Davis, CA Robert H. Burnham by Bruce Maclean Richard Ullman Andrew Rodriguez - Albuquerque, NM William Austin Bums by Regis J. Guest, Jr. by Prescription Processors of America Tom Seidman - Northridge, CA Mildred Cleghorn by L.W. Robbins Associates Inc. Alex H. Warner by Mrs. Alex Warner Sally & Roger Sherman - Beverly Hills, CA Mildred Cleghorn by Mary A Goodman Gerald Thomas Wilkenson Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson - Sandy Cooper by Harvey & Gail Zarren by Cornell Tahdooahnippah Anchorage, AK Charles Crittenden by Mrs. T. Foster Witt, Jr. Velma Williams by Karen Williams-Fasthorse Thomas Hinds Tobacconists - Beverly Hills, CA Norman Ted Custa/ow by Henrietta]. Near Raimunds Zemjanis by Ilze Choi John Trudell - Studio City, CA Pearl Irene Davis by Harold Neave, Jr. Karma Vieira - Sherman Oaks, CA Rob Franklin by Richard J. Dodge Dennis Weaver - Ridgeway, CA Rob Franklin by Janet Oguma

PAGE 31 {nrnrf:J! G7J:ITfGJff {JTffHfT.f.''J:IfJffi ______NARF STAFF

CORPORATE OFFICERS Sandra R. Janis (Oglala Lakota) Accountant NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LIBRARY John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Executive Director/Attorney Marla Keckler (Cheyenne River Sioux) Laura Rosenthal (Native Hawaiian) Development Projects Coordinator Acting Librarian/Technical Services Assistant K. Jerome Gottschalk Litigation Management Committee Michael Kennedy Marie Kindred (Northern Arapaho) Member/Attorney Assistant Controller Librarian Assistant

Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) Ghulam Nabiyar ANCHORAGE OFFICE STAFF Litigation Management Committee Office Services Clerk Member/Attorney Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner Sonya Paul (Navajo) Attorney Mark Tilden (Navajo) Development Assistant Litigation Management Committee Heather Kendall (Athabascan) Member/Attorney Christine Pereira Attorney Micro Computer Specialist Mary Lu Prosser (Cheyenne River Sioux) Martha L. King (Kuuvunmuit Eskimo) Director of Development Donald M. Ragona (Oglala Lakota/Mattinecock) NAPIL Equal Justice Fellow/Attorney Director of Major Gifts Ray Ramirez Marie Jeter (Tlingit) Secretary/Editor/Grant Writer Rhoda M. Riggs (Navajo) Legal Administrative Assistant Legal Secretary/Legal Assistant Clela Rorex WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE STAFF Treasurer/Law Office Administrator Joanne Soklin Legal Secretary/Legal Assistant Lorna Babby (Oglala Sioux) BOULDER MAIN OFFICE STAFF Attorney Debbie Raymond-Thomas (Navajo) Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) Assistant Controller Keith Harper (Cherokee) Attorney Attorney Sky Black-Elk-Volkmann (Oglala Lakota) Tracy Labin (Mohawk/Seneca) Office Services Assistant Robert M. Peregoy (Flathead) Attorney Attorney Marilyn White (St. Regis Mohawk) Melody McCoy (Cherokee) Executive Assistant for LMC Ruth Hargrow Attorney Legal Administrative Assistant INDIAN LAW SUPPORT CENTER Don B. Miller Pastor C. Mario Attorney Steven C. Moore Legal Administrative Assistant Director/Attorney Cathern Tufts (Siletz) Research Attorney

Donald R. Wharton Attorney

Rose Brave (Oglala Lakota) Office Manager

Anthony Castillo (Navajo) Receptionist

Kristin Chesnutt Legal Secretary/Legal Assistant

Mona Dillabaugh (Meskwaki) Development Administrative Secretary

Scott Gettman Development Administrative Assistant

Beverly Gittens Legal Secretary/Legal Assistant

PAGE 32