National Indian Law Library

NTLL No. D)3 ~()CJ/ l°! CJ°l

~~~n~ln~~L~Libra•-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 522 P roadway Main Office Bou'.~A, CO 80302 ANNUAL TABLE OF Native American REPORT CONTENTS Rights Fund 1999 1506 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Introduction 303-447-8760 page3 http://www.narforg

Chairman's Message page4 · Washington, D.C. Office Native American Executive Rights Fund Director's Report 1712 N Street, NW page4 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-785-4166 The Board of Directors page 6 Alaska Office The National Native American Support Committee Rights Fund page 6 420 L Street, Suite 505 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 The Preservation of 907-276-0680 Tribal Existence page8 Photographs: The Protection of Photographs show many Tribal Natural Resources of the past and present page 11 members of NARF's Board of Directors, attor­ The Promotion of neys and staff for the past Human Rights thirty years. page 17

NARF Case Map page 18 Tax Status: The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a nonprofit, The Accountability charitable organization incorpo­ of Governments rated in 1971 under the laws of page25 the District of Columbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions The Development of Section 501(c)(3) of the oflndian Law Internal Revenue code. page28 Contributions to NARF are tax deductible. The Internal Treasurer's Report Revenue Service has ruled that NARF is not a "private founda­ page JO tion'' as defined in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Contributors Code. NARF was founded in page31 1970 and incorporated in 1971 in Washington, D.C. NARFStaff page34

02A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND resources. NARF's suc­ cess is directly attributable The Native American to the many financial sup­ Rights Fund (NARF) was porters that NARF has founded in 1970 to had throughout the years. ad~ress the need for legal Contributors like the ~ssistance on the major Ford Foundation have issues facing Indian coun­ been with NARF since try. The critical Indian the beginning. The issues of survival of the Rockefeller Foundation tribes and Native the General Service ' American people are not Foundation, the John D. new, but are the same and Catherine T. issues of survival that have MacArthur Foundation merely evolved over the the Carnegie centuries. As NARF Corporati~n of New York, the Skadden enters a new century, it Fellowship Foundation, can be acknowledged that the Santa Fe Natural As established by many of the gains Tobacco Company, the NARF's first Board of achieved in Indian coun­ XYZ Corporation, and Directors, the priorities try over the past 30 years Virgin Records have con­ that guide NARF in its are directly attributable to sistently contributed mission to preserve and the efforts and commit­ towards NARF's efforts. enforce the status of tribes ment of the present and Federal funding from the as sovereign, self-govern­ past clients and members Administration for Native ing bodies still continue to of NARF's Board and Americans for NARF's lead NARF today: staff. However, no matter governance, economic and how many gains have • Preservation of tribal social development efforts been achieved, NARF is in Indian country has existence still addressing the same been almost continuous. basic issues that caused • Protection of tribal Many tribes such as the NARF to be founded natural resources Mashantucket Pequot, the originally. Since the Cow Creek Band of inception.of this Nation, • Promotion of Native Umpquas, the Winnebago American human rights ~here has been a systemat­ Tribe of Nebraska, the ic attack on tribal rights Shakopee Mdewakanton • Accountability of that continues to this day. Tribe, the Mashpee governments to Native For every victory, a new Wampanoag Tribe, the Americans challenge to tribal sover­ Confederated Tribes of eignty arises from state • Development of Grande Ronde and many and local governments, other tribes have been Indian law Congress, or the courts. consistent contributors to The continuing lack of NARF. NARF is also understanding, and in indebted to the thousands some cases lack of respect, of individuals who have for the sovereign attribut­ had faith in NARF and es of Indian nations has have given their financial made it necessary for and moral support to NARF to continue fighting. NARF's efforts on behalf As the struggle contin­ of tribes and Indian people. ues, NARF strives to safe­ guard the legal and sover­ eign rights of tribes and Indian people within the limit of available

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT CHAIRMAN'S contact with those who resulted in several are in a decision making important developments MESSAGE position. We also must affecting Native show love and a genuine Americans. As we enter the year concern for each other. two-thousand, the new In an important tribal millennium, we as Native We as tribal leaders court jurisdiction case, a Americans have reason to have a great responsibility federal appeals court ruled rejoice as we consider to our people and a moral in Nevada v. Hicks that some of the goals we have obligation, if you will, to the Fallon Paiute- achieved as a people. But seek those things that will Shoshone Tribal Court we also must realize that enrich the lives of our has jurisdiction over a case there are many areas in people and help them to filed by a tribal member the lives of our people reach their full potential, against state wildlife offi- that need changes. not only as individuals, cers for civil rights viola- but as tribes and nations. tions. The officers had We must be united as confiscated possessions of never before so that when May those of us who the tribal member in we speak, we speak as one. serve our people be criminal investigations on We as Native people must blessed with the guidance two occasions that result- stay involved in the politi- and inspiration that is ed in no charges and had cal process, locally and on needed to lead our Native returned the possessions people into the new mil- in damaged condition. lennium and may we do NARF represents the so with integrity, wisdom Tribe in the case. and spirituality that will bring only those things In Baker v. john, the that are good. Alaska Supreme Court for the first time recognized the existence of tribes in Chief Gilbert Blue, Alaska with inherent powers of self-government Chairman over tribal members and upheld tribal court juris- diction in a child custody case. NARF had filed an EXECUTIVE amicus curiae brief on DIRECTORS behalf of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council. REPORT A settlement of a land the state and federal lev- As the Native claim providing over American Rights Fund els, so as to be aware of all 6,000 acres of land for the enters its 30th year of that is going on and be in San Juan Southern Paiute providing litigation and a position to respond to Tribe was approved by the advocacy on behalf of any adverse political Tribe and the Navajo Native Americans on endeavors and support any Nation and is now being our most significant legislation that will considered by Congress. issues, we are proud of enhance the lives of our NARF has represented our past accomplish- people, health wise, politi- the Tribe in litigation over ments on behalf of cally and spiritually. a disputed area in north- Native Americans and ern Arizona also claimed We cannot be idle, we continue to work hard by the Navajo Nation and on the many serious I must be busy, we must the Hopi Tribe. write letters, make tele- issues confronting us I phone calls and whenever now. During 1999, our The first Indian water ~:l necessary, make personal legal assistance again rights settlement passed -~ ,:/! (;

04.A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND ',;i by the Republican-con­ On behalf of a group of trolled Congress during twenty-seven Alaska the Clinton administra­ Natives who speak Native tion was achieved by the languages, NARF was Chippewa Cree Tribe of successful in obtaining a the Rocky Boy's preliminary injunction Reservation in Montana against the State of represented by NARF. Alaska from implement­ The $50 million settle­ ing the Alaska Official ment quantifies the Tribe's English Initiative passed water rights, establishes a by Alaska voters in 1998. water administration sys­ Alakayak v. State asserts tem and provides federal that Alaska's English-only funding for the develop­ law is unconstitutional ment of water projects to because it violates consti­ serve the present and tutional rights to free future needs of the Tribe. speech, equal protection and due process. Subsistence fishing court for failure to pro­ rights for Alaska Natives An evaluation of the duce trust documents in rural Alaska were final­ Education Code and required by court order. ly secured when a Department of the NARF is co-counsel in Congressional moratori­ Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the case with private um expired and was not South Dakota cited major attorneys. extended which had been improvements in high In these cases and hun­ blocking implementation school graduation and dreds of others over the of the Katie john v. United school drop-out rates for last 30 years, the Native States decision won by Indian children and American Rights Fund NARF in 1995. The fed­ attributed those improve­ has provided access to jus­ eral government took over ments to the Code. tice for Native American management of the sub­ NARF drafted the Code people across the country sistence fisheries from the adopted by the Tribe in on some of the most state in all navigable 1991 which asserts tribal important Native waters in which the authority through the American issues of our United States has reserved Department over all reser­ time and has proven that water rights under a 1980 vation schools concurrent­ the legal system can work federal law recognizing ly with the state and fed­ for Indian people. We subsistence fishing rights. eral governments. could not have achieved In Bear Lodge Multiple In Cobell v. Babbitt, a this success without the Use Association v. Babbitt, a class action on behalf of financial support that we federal appeals court dis­ 500,000 individual Indian have received from con­ missed a challenge to a fed­ money account holders tributors throughout the eral management plan by whose funds are held in nation. We thank all of mountain climbers who trust by the federal gov­ you who have assisted us were asked to voluntarily ernment, a federal district and encourage you to con­ refrain from climbing court found that the tinue your support so that Devil's Tower in Wyoming, United States had we may continue to make a National Monument and breached its trust duties to progress on behalf of a sacred site for many the account holders and Native American people. tribes, during Native will oversee the federal American ceremonies every government's efforts to fix June. NARF had filed an the broken trust account­ john E. Echohawk, amicus curiae brief in the ing and management sys­ Executive Director case on behalf of the tems. Earlier in the year, National Congress of the court held three feder­ American Indians. al officials in contempt of

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT ... 05 BOARD OF leadership and credibility Nora Helton and the vision of its mem- Fort Mojave - California DIRECTORS bers is essential to Ho'oipo Pa NARF's effectiveness in Native Hawaiian - Hawaii The Native American representing its Native Rights Fund has a gov- American clients. Sue Shaffer erning board composed of Cow Creek Band of Native American leaders Pictured here left to right, Umpqua - Oregon from across the country - top to bottom wise and distinguished Ernie Stevens,Jr. Gilbert Blue Wisconsin Oneida - people who are respected by Native Americans Chairman Wisconsin Catawba - South Carolina nationwide. Individual Rebecca Tsosie Board members are cho- ClivDore Pasqua Yaqui -Arizona sen based on their Vice-Chairman Mike P. Williams involvement and knowl- Passamaquoddy - Maine Yup'ik -Alaska edge of Indian issues and David Archambault affairs, as well as their MaryT. Wynne Standing Rock Sioux - tribal affiliation, to ensure Rosebud Sioux - North Dakota a comprehensive geo- South Dakota graphical representation. Roy Bernal Not Pictured: The NARF Board of Taos Pueblo - New Mexico Kenneth P.Johns Directors, whose members Wallace E. Coffey Athabascan - Alaska serve a maximum of six Comanche - Oklahoma years, provide NARF with

NATIONAL David Brubeck David Risling,Jr. U.S. Senator Ben Hoopa SUPPORT Nighthorse Campbell Pernell Roberts COMMITTEE Northern Cheyenne Walter S. Rosenberry III Ada Deer Menominee Leslie Marmon Silko The National Support Harvey A. Dennenberg Laguna Pueblo Committee (NSC) assists Michael}. Driver Connie Stevens NARF with its fund rais- Richard Dysart Anthony L. Strong ing and public relations Tlingit-Klukwan efforts nationwide. Some Lucille A. Echohawk of the individuals on the Pawnee Maria Tallchief Osage Committee are prominent Louise Erdrich in the field of business, Turtle Mountain Chippewa Andrew Teller entertainment and the James Garner Isleta Pueblo arts. Others are known Sy Gomberg Verna Teller Isleta Pueblo advocates for the rights of Will H. Hays, Jr. the underserved. All of Studs Terkel Alvin M.Josephy,Jr. the 42 volunteers on the Ruth Thompson Charles R. Klewin Committee are committed Tenaya Torres to upholding the rights of Nancy A. Klewin Chiricahua Apache Native Americans. Wilma Mankiller Richard Trudell Cherokee Santee Sioux Richard A. Hayward Chris E. McNeil, Jr. Thomas N. Tureen NSC Chairman Tlingit-Nisga'a Mashantucket Pequot Aine Unger Billy Mills Oglala Sioux Owanah Anderson Rt. Rev. William C. Choctaw N. Scott Momaday Wantland Seminole Kiowa Edward Asner Dennis Weaver Amado Pena, Jr. Katrina McCormick Barnes Yaqui/Chicano W. Richard West, Jr. Debra Bassett Cheyenne o6A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND 1999 - ANNUAL REPORT THE their members as well as Court for the violation of other activities within his civil rights. The offi­ PRESERVATION their reservations. cers contested the juris­ OF TRIBAL Conflicts often arise with diction of the Tribal states, the federal govern­ Court in both the Tribal EXISTENCE ment, and others over Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Tribal Under the priority of tribal sovereignty. During 1999, NARF handled Court's jurisdiction, and the preservation of tribal several major cases that the U.S. District Court for existence, NARF's activity Nevada which also emphasizes enabling affected the sovereign affirmed Tribal Court's Tribes to continue to live powers of tribes. jurisdiction. In November according to their Native Tribal Sovereignty 1999 the U.S. Court of traditions; to enforce their Appeals for the Ninth treaty rights; to insure Several of these cases Circuit affirmed the their independence on represent part of an on­ District Court's holding reservations; and to pro­ going and extremely that the Tribal Court had tect their sovereignty. important effort to pro:rect jurisdiction and that the Specifically, NARF's legal the viability and integrity suit against the state offi­ representation centers on of tribal courts nationally. cials in their individual federal recognition and Tribal judicial systems are capacities was not barred restoration of tribal status, under ceaseless attack by the state's sovereign sovereignty and jurisdic­ from those who do not immunity. The State of tion issues, and economic wish to be held account­ Nevada has filed a peti­ development. Thus, the able for their conduct tion for a rehearing in the focus of NARF's work while on Indian reserva­ U.S. Court of Appeals for involves issues relating to tions. Tribes look to the the Ninth Circuit. the preservation and federal courts to uphold the right of tribes to pro­ NARF is representing vide a forum for the reso­ the National Congress lution of civil disputes of American Indians which arise within their (NCAI) and working with territories, even when the National American those disputes involve Indian Court Judges non-Indians. Association (NAICJA) in developing a model tribal In Nevada v. Hicks, two law that provides adequate officers of the Nevada and timely notice to tribes Division of Wildlife, on of cases in tribal court two separate occasions, that question tribal sover­ searched the residence and eignty and jurisdiction. confiscated possessions of After comment by tribes, a member of the Fallon tribal attorneys, and other Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. Indian organizations, The tribal member resides NARF submitted a final on his Indian allotted land draft to NCAI. In within the Fallon Paiute­ October 1999 NCAI Shoshone Indian approved a final Model . Reservation in Nevada. It Tribal Notice Law for dis­ was determined that the semination to tribes to tribal member committed consider adopting or no crime so his posses­ enforcement of the status enacting. NCAI also sions were returned, but in of tribes as sovereign, approved the development a damaged condition. As self-governing bodies. of a Model State Notice a result, the tribal member Tribal governments pos­ Law that would give sued the officers in Fallon sess the power to regulate tribes timely and adequate Paiute-Shoshone Tribal the internal affairs of notice of cases in state

08 ... NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND courts that question tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction. In September 1999 the Alaska Supreme Court entered a ruling in the Baker v. john case recog­ nizing the existence of federally acknowledged tribes in Alaska possessing inherent powers of self­ government over mem­ bers. The case is of par­ ticular significance in that it represents a major departure from past state court precedent that held that tribal powers do not exist in Alaska. It was also significant in that the land, it does assert juris­ Court held that Arizona Court specifically diction to tax where the could tax a private compa­ reviewed the nature and member either lives or ny's proceeds from con­ scope of tribal powers in works on trust land within tracts with the federal Alaska and whether the the jurisdiction of another government even where sovereign adjudicatory tribe. NARF has filed those contracts were authority of Native tribes position statements on exclusively for the build­ exists outside the confines behalf of seven claimants ing of roads on Indian of Indian country which before the Oklahoma Tax reservations. the United States Commission. Supreme Court in 1998 Federal Recognition of ruled did not exist in In State ofArizona v. Tribal Status Alaska. NARF had filed Blaze Construction, NARF an amicus curiae brief in filed an amicus curiae brief NARF currently repre­ the case on behalf of the in support of Blaze sents six Indian communi­ Alaska Inter-Tribal Construction Company in ties who have survived Council. the United States intact as identifiable Supreme Court. Blaze is Indian tribes but who are In Oklahoma Tax an Indian owned con­ not federally recognized. Commission v. Goodeagle, struction company which These Indian tribes, for NARF has undertaken contracted with the BIA differing reasons, do not representation of several to construct and repair have a government-to­ individual Indians in reservation roads in government relationship Oklahoma who are chal­ Arizona. The State of between themselves and lenging the taxation of Arizona has imposed the federal government. their income by the State taxes on this construction Traditionally, federal of Oklahoma. In these activity claiming that recognition was accorded cases, the tribal members Blaze should be taxed like to a tribe through treaty, work on their own tribe's any other federal contrac­ land set aside for a tribe, trust land, but live on tor. NARF argued that or by legislative means. trust allotments within Blaze should not be taxed The majority of these the jurisdiction of another because the activity takes NARF clients are seeking tribe. While Oklahoma place wholly within an administrative determi­ does recognize it lacks Indian country where spe­ nation by the Bureau of jurisdiction to tax the cial rules of preemption Indian Affairs (BIA) that income of tribal members apply and that Blaze is an they, in fact, have contin­ who live and work within Indian contractor. In ued to exist as Indian their own tribe's trust March 1999 the Supreme tribes from the time of

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT A.09 significant white contact ing for a final decision on NARF's request to com­ to the present day and its petition. In the mean­ plete the administrative have continued to govern time, NARF is assisting record. themselves and their the Tribe in revising its members. NARF, there­ constitution to strengthen NARF has submitted a fore, prepares the neces­ its tribal government and petition for federal recog­ sary historical, legal, and to improve its chances for nition on behalf of the anthropological documen­ federal recognition. Shinnecock Tribe of New tation to support a peti­ York and responded to a tion for acknowledgment. NARF completed and BIA technical assistance For more than 100 years, submitted a petition for letter explaining omis­ these Indian communities federal recognition on sions or deficiencies in have been foreclosed from behalf of the Little Shell the petition. On behalf the benefits of a formal Tribe of Chippewa of the Mashpee federal relationship with Indians of Montana and Wampanoag Tribe of the federal government. the BIA placed the Tribe's Massachusetts, NARF Through administrative petition on active review responded to a notice of acknowledgment, NARF status in 1997. The Tribe obvious deficiency in the is now trying to bridge was placed on a one year Tribe's petition for fed­ that gap. active review status, how­ eral recognition and the ever, the BIA continued BIA has now placed the On behalf of the United granting itself six-month Tribe on ready for active Houma Nation of extensions. Although the consideration status. Louisiana, NARF due date for the findings responded to proposed of tribal status was in After many years of findings against federal February 1998, the exten­ research and documenta­ sions continued through tion, the Pamunkey Tribe February 1999, exactly is now finalizing its peti­ two years after the peti­ tion for federal recogni­ tion was placed on active tion. The petition will review. In November likely be filed with the 1999 the Department of BIA later this year. The Interior notified the Pamunkey Indians have Tribe that it expects to remained in their tribal issue its proposed find­ homeland along the ings in early 2000. Pamunkey River in east­ ern Virginia throughout In Miami Nation of recorded history. Their Indians v. Babbitt, NARF territorial rights have is challenging the BI.A's been formally and contin­ decision not to recognize uously recognized by the the Miami Nation as an colonial and state govern - Indian tribe. The U.S. men ts of Virginia since District Court for the mid-1600's. Indiana rejected the Miami's claim that they were recognized in an 1854 treaty and were acknowledgment issued by never terminated by the BIA under their Congress, but the Court acknowledgment regula­ is currently considering tions. The Tribe has their other Miami claims. The petition for federal recog­ Court will determine nition pending before the those claims based on an BI.A's Branch of administrative record Acknowledgment and that was deficient until Research and is now wait- the Court granted

IOA NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND THE they once occupied in southeast Texas. The PROTECTION Tribe has been represent­ OF TRIBAL ed by NARF since 1981 in their quest to prove NATURAL that their ancestral land RESOURCES was illegally taken from them by settlers. In 1996, The land base and nat­ the U.S. Court of Federal ural resources of Indian Claims ruled in Alabama­ nations continue to be Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. critical factors in the United States that the preservation of tribal exis­ United States should tence. Through control compensate the Alabama­ over tribal lands and Coushatta Tribe for the resources, Indian tribes loss of 3.4 million acres of can regain a degree of ancestral land illegally economic self-sufficiency taken without federal necessary for Indian self­ approval between 1845 determination. There are and 1954. In 1998, the approximately 55 million Tribe and the United acres oflndian-controlled States submitted their land in the continental respective proposed modi­ pending United States United States which con­ fications of the 1996 Supreme Court rulings in stitutes only 2.3 percent of opinion to the court fol­ related cases that eventu­ their former territory. lowing unsuccessful settle­ ally held that the About 45 million acres are ment negotiations. The Eleventh Amendment to tribally owned and 10 primary modification the Constitution bars trib­ million acres are individu­ sought by the Tribe is al suits against states. ally owned. Additionally, changing the conclusion Therefore, NARF con­ there are about 44 million of the opinion to say that vinced the Department of acres in Alaska which are the 1954 Alabama­ the Interior to request the owned by Natives after Coushatta Termination the 1971,Alaska Native Department of Justice to Act extinguished federal intervene in the land Claims Settlement Act. trust duties rather than claim litigation on behalf the aboriginal title itself of the Tribe. The The federal govern­ After the Court of Federal Department of Justice ment, has in many Claims completes the instances, failed to fulfill continues to review the case, the matter will be matter. its trust duty to protect referred to Congress for Indian tribes and their the enactment of settle­ NARF represents the property rights. The ment legislation. Keewattinosagaing or Native American Rights Northern Lakes Fund concentrates much NARF represents the Pottawatomi Nation of of its legal representation Stockbridge-Munsee Canada, a band of on cases that will ensure a Tribe, now located in Potawatomies descended sufficient natural resource Wisconsin, in land claims from the historic base for tribes. against the State of New Potawatomie Nation, York and two of its coun­ which from 1795 to 1833 Protection of Indian ties based on the lack of Lands signed a series of treaties federal approval required with the United States. for Indian land transac­ The Alabama - These treaties provided, Coushatta Tribe of Texas tions. The Tribe claims a among other things, the seeks compensation for six-mile square area in payment of certain annu­ the loss of millions of upstate New York near ities. The ancestors of acres of fertile forest that Syracuse. Previously, the the present-day Canadian court stayed the case

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT .A.11 """!

Potawatomie fled to ing the Navajo and Hopi Management Plan to be Canada following the Tribes in a dispute over an incorporated into the pro- signing of the final treaty, area of land in northern posed final ESSP report the Treaty of Chicago in Arizona claimed by all to the Secretary of the 1833, because they did three tribes. An Arizona Interior. NARF continues not want to be moved federal district court to coordinate the ESSP west of the Mississippi. found that the San Juan work with the Tribes' They were never paid Southern Paiutes had water rights claims settle- their annuities. In 1993, established exclusive use ment negotiations in order NARF brought suit on to 75 acres and had an to maximize any opportu- behalf of the Tribe in the interest, along with the nities that these two issues Court of Federal Claims, Navajo Tribe, to another have for complimenting by way of Congressional 48,000 acres ofland. The one another. reference, to seek redress court refused to partition of these failed payments. San Juan Southern Paiute NARF represents the After five years of fact- land. The Tribe appealed Native Village ofTuluksak finding, discovery and those findings to the in Alaska in their quest to briefing of this case, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. have the land owned by Tribe and the United The appeal has been held the Village corporation States have agreed in up while settlement nego- transferred over in fee principle to the settle- tiations have proceeded. simple to the Village trib- ment of this case. After negotiations, the al council. The Settlement terms have San Juan Southern Paiute Department of Interior now been finalized and Tribal Council approved a would then be petitioned are being processed by settlement in January to place the land into trust the Department of Justice 1999 establishing a reser- on behalf of the Village. and the Tribe for vation of over 6,000 acres However, the Department approval. for the Tribe. The matter of Interior has issued pro- was considered by the full posed regulations that Navajo Tribal Council in would bar the acquisition July 1999 and approved. of title in trust in Alaska. The settlement now must NARF and the Village be approved by Congress. have responded to the proposed regulations and, NARF continued its in the meantime, NARF work with the Klamath has continued with the Tribes of Oregon on their actual land transfer con- Economic Self- veyance until the final rule Sufficiency Plan (ESSP) on the proposed regula- which was mandated by tions are issued. Congress in 1986 in the Klamath Tribal NARF has played a key Restoration Act which role in the implementa- reversed the Tribe's 1954 tion of federal environ- termination by Congress. mental law and policy that The Tribes secured fund- recognizes tribal govern- ing from the BIA to ments as the primary reg- retain national experts in ulators and enforcers of forestry management and the federal environmental NARF continued repre- planning to formulate a laws on Indian lands. senting the San Juan report on management of NARF will continue to Southern Paiute Tribe in the Tribes' forests. The work with tribes, the the consolidated cases of experts report was com- National Tribal Masayesva v. Zah v. James pleted in September 1999. Environmental Council and Navajo Tribe v. U.S. The Tribes also secured and other Indian organi- v. San Juan Southern BIA funding to prepare zations to maintain the Paiute Tribe, cases involv- an Integrated Resource progress that has been

12.A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND made with the the United States Environmental Protection Supreme Court in 1908 in Agency and other federal the case of Winters v. agencies. As a member of United States and con­ the Green Group, a coali­ firmed in 1963 in Arizona tion of national environ­ v. California, Indian tribes mental organizations, are entitled under federal NARF will continue to law to sufficient water for coordinate efforts and to present and future needs, educate the environmen­ with a priority date at tal community on the least as early as the estab­ role of tribal govern­ lishment of their reserva­ ments in environmental tions. These tribal law and policy. reserved water rights are superior to all state-recog­ The Oglala Sioux Tribe nized water rights created of South Dakota is faced after the tribal priority with major environmental date, which in most cases problems. It wants to will give tribes valuable non-tribal water users, remedy those problems senior water rights in the and mitigate the environ­ water-short West. and calls for federal fund­ ing for the development mental impact of new Unfortunately, most tribes development on the reser­ have not utilized their of water projects to serve vation. NARF developed reserved water rights and the present and future needs of the Tribe. In a Tribal Environmental most of these rights are Review Code (TERC) for unadjudicated or unquan­ December 1999 President the Tribe, which was tified. As a result, tribal Clinton signed into law P.L. No. 106-163. The enacted by the Tribe in water claims constitute 1998. The TERC pro­ the major remaining water Act ratifies the Chippewa vides a review process for allocation issue in the Cree/Montana Compact any developer, tribal or West. The focus in each and authorizes $50 mil­ non-tribal, whose project case is to define or quanti­ lion to be appropriated to may adversely affect the fy the exact amount of implement the settlement. environment. In 1999 water to which each tribe $25 million in funding is NARF assisted the Tribe is entitled. NARF pur­ earmarked for on-reserva­ tion water development in securing funding from sues these claims on the US Environmental behalf of tribes through projects, $3 million in funding for the adminis­ Protection Agency for the litigation or out-of-court development of a safe settlement negotiations. tration of the Compact, drinking water code. The and $3 million for eco­ Tribe is also working on In the first Indian water nomic development. In developing water quality rights settlement that had addition, the bill autho­ standards for the the support of the Clinton rizes the initial steps of a Reservation waters and Administration, a state more extensive process of will be working with EPA and a tribe, Congress obtaining a long-term to develop a prototype passed in November 1999 drinking water supply for partnership for these kind an historic water settle­ the Chippewa Cree Tribe of joint efforts. ment bill for the - a process that is vital to Chippewa Cree Tribe of the survival of the Tribe. Water Rights the Rocky Boy's NARF is now assisting Reservation in Montana. the Tribe in their efforts Establishing tribal It quantifies on-reserva­ to obtain federal legisla­ rights to the use of water tion water rights, estab­ tion that will authorize in the arid west continues lishes a water administra­ funds to construct a water to be a major NARF tion system designed to pipeline to the involvement. Under the have minimal adverse Reservation. The Tribe's precedent established by impacts on downstream water rights bill autho-

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT A 13 rized $15 million in seed the United States Fish Tribe in the Treaty of money for the importa- and Wildlife Service and 1855 and subsequent tion of water and $4 mil- commencing settlement treaties did not include lion for feasibility studies. negotiations with that in-stream flow rights to The Tribe has formed a agency. Work continued water outside the reserva- partnership with non- in developing a related tion's boundaries. This Indian communities for upper basin water settle- decision has been this project. ment proposal with a appealed. water quality component NARF continued its for private water users, NARF continued to extensive involvement in water settlement negotia- assist the T ule River Tribe water settlement negotia- tions on the Klamath of California in securing tions on behalf of the Marsh and national forest its water rights. Work Klamath Tribes to adjudi- lands, and an overall focused on the prepara- cate the Tribes' reserved funding package for a tion of a comprehensive water rights to support its comprehensive water set- water development plan 1864 treaty hunting and tlement. At the Tribe's for the reservation which fishing rights on former insistence, the water set- will ultimately form the reservation lands in tlement has been substan- basis of the Tribe's water Oregon. Concerning trib- tially linked to tribal settlement proposal to al water rights claims in efforts to recover former other users on and below Upper Klamath Lake, a reservation lands acquired the South Fork of the water settlement agree- by the federal government T ule River. Preliminary ment in principle between in the 1950s pursuant to meetings with each of the the Klamath Tribes and the Klamath Termination interested groups of water 23 irrigation districts was Act which is a matter also users along the South reached this past spring. being handled by NARF. Fork of the Tule River These parties subsequent- were held to gather addi- ly briefed the federal NARF represents the tional information for use Nez Perce Tribe ofldaho in developing the settle- in its water rights claim in ment proposal. the Snake River Basin. The Tribe's major claim is NARF participated in for sufficient in-stream the reactivation of the Ad flows to maintain its Hoc Group on Indian treaty rights to fish for Reserved Water Rights salmon and steelhead that which advocates for out- migrate down the Snake of-court settlements of River to the Columbia Indian reserved water River and out to the ocean rights claims. The Ad Hoc before returning to spawn. Group, which consists of NARF is involved in on- the Western Governors' going settlement negotia- Association, the Western tions that focus on the States Water Council, the removal of four lower Western Regional Council Snake River dams to and NARF, sponsored two obtain sufficient in- Congressional workshops stream flows. In on Indian water settle- water settlement team, November 1999 the state ments in 1999, their first affected federal and state district court rejected the since 1993. NARF also agencies and downstream Nez Perce Tribe's in- co-sponsored with the Indian tribes as part of the stream flow claims to Western States Water process of fleshing out water in the Lower Snake, Council the Sixth this component of the set- Clearwater, Salmon and Symposium on the tlement. This process Weiser rivers. The court Settlement of Indian included developing a ruled that the fishing Reserved Water Rights proposed settlement with rights reserved by the Claims in September 1999.

14 .A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND Hunting and Fishing federal government finally assumed management of The right to hunt and subsistence fisheries in fish in traditional areas, October 1999. The feder­ both on and off reserva­ al takeover was made pos­ tions, and for both subsis­ sible by strong Alaska tence and commercial Native support. For the purposes, remains a vital second straight year, issue in Indian country. NARF, the Villages and NARF has long been other supporting organi­ instrumental in assisting zations held a demonstra­ tribes to assert hunting tion in Anchorage in May and fishing rights, which 1999 where over 4,000 are guaranteed by treaty Alaska Natives and their or other federal law. supporters turned out, calling for implementation In 1995, the Ninth of the court decision in Circuit Court of Appeals john v. State and opposing ruled in John v. Alaska any amendments to that Alaska Natives were ANILCA. ing the Superior Court's denied their right to sub­ order on all counts. sistence fishing under the In Elim v. Alaska, 1980 Alaska National NARF represents several The Kenaitze Indian Interest Lands Norton Sound area Tribe is a federally recog­ Conservation Act (ANIL­ Alaska Native villages nized tribal government CA) by the State of that depend on Norton whose members are direct Alaska and the federal Sound chum salmon descendants ofTanaina government. The decision stocks for a subsistence (Dena'ina) Athabaskan requires the federal gov­ fishery that is now in Indians. The Tribe has ernment to enforce the decline because the State occupied the Kenai federal law giving a sub­ allows those fish to be Peninsula region for cen - sistence hunting and fish­ intercepted and harvested turies and subsisted by ing priority for rural in the commercial sock­ harvesting and gathering Alaska re_sidents, who are eye salmon fishery at the resources offered by mostly Natives, on all False Pass in the Aleutian the land and the sea with navigable waters in Alaska chain. The suit asserts salmon as the primary in which the federal gov­ the legal priority that subsistence resource. ernment has reserved subsistence fishing has Under the federal subsis­ water rights. Alaska state over commercial fishing tence priority law, resi­ law does not allow the under federal law. In dents of rural areas are State to administer the 1997, the Alaska Superior given a subsistence priori­ federal subsistence priori­ Court denied the ty over sport and com­ ty, so the Alaska Village's requested relief. mercial hunters and fish­ Congressional delegation The Native Village of ermen. In 1991, the has been blocking federal Elim had argued that the Federal Subsistence Board implementation of the State Board of Fish vio­ declared large portions of subsistence priority since lated the subsistence pri­ the Kenai Peninsula to be 1996 to give the State ority law and the 'Sus­ non-rural, including the time to change its law to tained yield clause of the entire Kenai area, which allow the State to admin­ Alaska Constitution. comprises the primary ister the subsistence prior­ The Superior Court hunting and fishing ity. However, during a rejected these claims and grounds for members of special legislative session NARF appealed to the the Kenaitze Indian Tribe. in September 1999, the Alaska Supreme Court. In May 1999 the Federal Alaska Legislature failed In October 1999 the Subsistence Board voted again to pass the necessary Alaska Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier legislation. Therefore, the entered a decision affirm- decision after NARF

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT ... 15 intervened on behalf of same time prohibiting NARF assisted the the Kenaitze Tribe and tribal members without Native Villages of asked the Board to declare IFQj; from "fishing with­ Stebbins and St. Michael the entire Kenai Peninsula in their own aboriginal in pursuing a commercial rural for purposes of the territory. In 1998, on pink salmon fishery in subsistence priority in appeal, the Ninth Circuit their traditional fishing ANILCA. The Board Court of Appeals ruled area on the northwest agreed to render its deci­ that claims for aboriginal coast of Alaska. The sion on this request in title, including exclusive Villages successfully May 2000. hunting and fishing obtained the necessary rights, on the Outer funding and approvals In Native Village of Continental Shelf were from the Alaska Board of Eyak v. Trawler Diane barred by the federal Fisheries to conduct a test Marie, Inc., NARF asserts paramountcy doctrine. fishery which was success­ aboriginal title on behalf The court, however, fully completed in 1998. of Alaska Native tribes to expressly reserved the During 1999, NARF tes­ the Outer Continental question whether Native tified on behalf of the Shelf (OCS) in Prince Tribes might hold non­ Villages before the State William Sound and the exclusive hunting and Board of Fisheries in Gulf of Alaska. The issue fishing rights. NARF negotiations for a perma- presented is whether the unsuccessfully petitioned nent fishery. Alaska Native Claims the United States ••••••••••••••••••••• ::: ;: ::: ::;: tlj\\\~!j!,l!1·

:::::: "<:

Settlement Act of 1971 Supreme Court which extinguished aboriginal decided review in June title outside the three 1999. The question mile limit. The lawsuit whether the Villages have challenges the Department nonexclusive aboriginal of Commerce's Individual fishing rights is now Fishing C2liota (IFQ2 reg­ back before the Federal ulations for halibut and District Court. The sable fish on the ground Villages's expert witnesses that they authorize non­ (anthropologists) are in tribal members possessing the process of preparing IFQj; to fish within their report, and NARF is exclusive tribal fishing in the process of briefing grounds without tribal the remaining legal issues. consent, while at the

16.A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND use of peyote by Native THE Americans in the military PROMOTION who are members of fed­ OF HUMAN erally recognized tribes. It is estimated that there RIGHTS are approximately 9,600 Native Americans in the In 1999, NARF provid­ U.S. military but only a ed assistance in several few hundred are members matters involving religious of the Native American freedom, cultural rights, Church. For Native education, child welfare American Church mem­ and international law. bers, peyote is viewed as a NARF, on behalf of its natural gift from the clients, seeks to enforce Creator and the Church and strengthen laws which believes in strong family are designed to protect the values, personal responsi­ human rights of Native bility and abstinence Americans in this area. from drugs and alcohol at in federal and state pris­ all times. In 1998, Religious Freedom ons. NARF secured NARF submitted com­ broad agreements from Because religion is the ments on behalf of the the Justice Department's foundation that holds Native American Church Federal Bureau of Native communities and of North America for the Prisons, the U.S. Parole cultures together, reli­ promulgation of a final Commission, and gious freedom is a NARF rule. The final rule Community Relations priority issue. As a would prohibit the inges­ Service to take measures result, NARF has utilized tion of the sacrament to increase federal protec­ its resources to protect within 24 hours of duty; tion for the free exercise First Amendment rights ban the possession of the of religion and has of Native American reli­ sacrament except the worked to implement gious leaders, prisoners, amulet known as the them. Negotiations to and members of the "P eyote hei "f" , on b ases, increase federal protec­ Native American Church, military vehicles, aircraft tion for the free exercise and to assert tribal rights and vessels; and, require of religion has resulted in to repatriate burial affected service members better federal prison poli­ remains. Since Native to notify their comman­ cies, increased under­ American religious free­ ders after returning to standing of the issues by dom affects basic cultural base if they have used the the United States Parole survival of Indian tribes, sacrament. The Pentagon Board, and help from the NARF believes that still has not issued a final Department of Justice American law and social rule in this matter. mediators to resolve dis­ policy must provide ade­ putes throughout the quate legal protection. NARF has worked on prisoner religious free­ country. NARF is now NARF represents the dom issues, on behalf of exploring the possibility Native American Church the Native American of developing national of North America in Church of North corrections standards, negotiations with the America, as part of a like the federal stan­ Department of Defense national coalition of dards, to be followed by to promulgate regulations Native prisoner advo­ all state departments of governing the religious cates. The work consist­ corrections. use of peyote in the mili­ ed of initiatives seeking Devil's Tower ("Mato tary. The Pentagon increased federal protec­ Tipila"), located in the issued interim rules in tions for the free exercise Devil's Tower National 1997 that recognize and of religion rights of Monument in Wyoming, control the sacramental Native prisoners confined

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

Kenaitze Indian Tribe - •:!J Subsistence (Alaska) }fm Native Village of Elim - Subsistence (Alaska)

Native Village ofVenetie - Taxation (Alaska)

Native Village of Akiak - Equal Protection (Alaska)

Native Village of Alakayak - Language Initiative (Alaska)

NARF ANCHORAGE OFFICE

Native Village ofTuluksak - Trust Lands (Alaska)

Mentasta & Dot Lake (Batzulnetas) - Subsistence (Alaska)

Native Village of Kluti Kaah - Subsistence (Alaska) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Native Village of Eyak - Subsistence & Aboriginal Title (Alaska)

Native Villages of Stebbins & St. Michael - Subsistence (Alaska)

Nez Perce Tribe - Water Rights (Idaho)

Klamath Tribes - Water & (/ Q Self-Sufficiency (Oregon)

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua - Cultural Property Rights (Oregon)

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes - Jurisdiction HAWAII (Nevada)

Tule River Tribe - Water (California)

Tuolumne Me-Wuk Band - Cultural Rights (California)

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe - Land Claim (Arizona) ALASKA Jicarilla Apache Tribe - Education (New Mexico) • NARF HEADQUARTERS BOULDER, COLORADO

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Goodeagle - • Taxation (Oklahoma) Pele Defense Fund - Aboriginal Rights (Hawaii)

Rice v. Cayetano - Voting Rights (Hawaii)

Devils Tower - Religious Freedom (Wyoming)

Northern Cheyenne Tribe - Education (Montana)

Fort Peck Tribes - Education (Montana)

Chippewa-Cree Tribe - Water &Judgement Claim (Montana)

Little Shell Tribe - Recognition &Judgement Claim (Montana)

Fort Berthold Reservation - Education (North Dakota)

Turtle Mountain Reservation - Judgement Claim (North Dakota)

Pottawatomi Nation - Land Claim (CANADA)

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe - Recognition (Massachusetts)

Shinnecock Tribe - Recognition (New York)

NARF WASHINGTON, D.C.OFFICE

Pamunkey Tribe - Recognition (Virginia)

Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe - Land Claim (Wisconsin)

Miami Nation - MAJOR ACTIVITIES Recognition (Indiana) Rosebud Sioux Tribe - 1999 NARF CASE MAP Education (South Dakota) Oglala Sioux Tribe - Environmental (South Dakota)

Houma Tribe - Recognition (Louisiana)

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe - Land Claim (Texas) is a sacred site for several curiae brief on behalf of sion to these objects then Indian tribes. The the National Congress of they must be returned National Park Service American Indians. The upon request of the tribe. (NPS) issued a manage­ Tenth Circuit Court of NARF continued to ment plan that asked Appeals ruled in 1999 monitor NAGPRA climbers to voluntarily that Bear Lodge Multiple claims and also provided refrain from climbing Use Association lacked guidance to several tribes Devil's Tower during the standing to raise a chal­ seeking claims. month ofJune so that lenge to the constitution­ Native American cere­ ality of NPS's climbing Cultural Rights monies would not be management plan since it NARF represents the intruded upon. In Bear was voluntary and there­ Tuolumne Me-Wuk Lodge Multiple Use fore let the ruling stand. Band in California on Association v. Babbitt, NPS the Tribe's rights to regu­ was sued in the Federal NARF was a leading late cultural and intellec­ District Court of proponent of the Native tual property. The Wyoming in response to American Graves Tuolumne Me-Wuk this plan. In 1998, the Protection and Band of Indians in United States District Repatriation Act (NAG­ California has been con­ Court in Wyoming ruled PRA) which was signed cerned with the increased that NPS's climbing man­ into law in 1990. The Act misuse and misappropri­ agement plan is constitu­ requires federal agencies ation by non-tribal mem­ tional. The Court held and private museums that bers of its traditional that NPS's policy has been :eceive federal funding to songs, symbols, cere­ carefully crafted to bal­ inventory their collections monies, and arts and ance the competing needs of Native American crafts. The Tribe of individuals using human remains and funerary objects, notify requested that NARF the tribe of origin, and provide the Tribe with a return the ancestral legal opinion regarding remains and funerary the Tribe's rights to regu­ objects upon request to late its own cultural and the tribe. It makes clear intellectual property. that Indian tribes have This issue has been of ownership of human concern for many tribes remains and cultural items throughout the country which are excavated or and it is believed that a discovered on federal or legal opinion regarding tribal land and that they this issue will be of great alone have the right to benefit and value to all determine disposition of tribes. Congress passed Indian human remains and the President signed and cultural remains dis­ a law directing the covered in these areas. United States Patent and The Act prohibits the Trademark Office (PTO) trafficking of Native to study whether federal American human remains trademark law should protect tribal insignia. Devil's Tower National and cultural items where NARF filed two sets of Monument while, at the the items are obtained in comments on behalf of same time, obeying the violation of the Act and the Tribe with the PTO edicts of the Constitution. requires federal agencies and testified at PTO The Bear Lodge Multiple and private museums that hearings about whether Use Association appealed receive federal funds to and how this should be this ruling to the Tenth create a summary of accomplished. NARF Circuit Court of Appeals. sacred objects in their has prepared and issued a NARF filed an amicus possession. If a tribe can prove a right of posses- legal opinion to the Tribe

20 .. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND and will now prepare for NARF urged the Court to discussions with the deny IMOCA's motion to Tribe. dismiss and to hear the case, as it is important In March 1999 the that the Indian Arts and Alaska State Superior Crafts Act and its regula­ Court granted a prelimi­ tions are addressed. The nary injunction that Act is designed to protect enjoined the State of Indian markets by specifi­ Alaska from the operation cally prohibiting non­ and enforcement of Indians from selling goods Alaska's Official English as genuine Indian-made Initiative, which was goods when indeed they passed by state voters in are not. November 1998. NARF filed Alakayak v. State in In Harjo v. Pro-Football, February 1999 on behalf Inc., individual Indians of twenty-seven Alaska petitioned the United Native plaintiffs who States Patent and speak Alaska Native lan­ Trademark Trial and guages. The Alakayak Appeal Board seeking to lawsuit claims that cancel the pro-football Alaska's English-only law Washington "Redskins" is unconstitutional trademark on the grounds control over the intent, because it violates consti­ that the term is, and goals, approaches, fund­ tutional rights to free always has been, a deeply ing, staffing and curricu - speech, equal protection, offensive, humiliating and lum for Indian education. and due process. The case degrading racial slur. For 29 years, the Native is currently stayed pend­ NARF, in representing American Rights Fund ing a decision by the the National Congress of has focused its educational Alaska Supreme Court on American Indians, the efforts on increasing whether Alaskans for a National Indian Indian self-determination Common Language can Education Association and transferring control intervene: and the National Indian back to the tribes. Youth Council, filed an NARF filed an amicus amicus curiae brief in sup­ NARF has implement­ curiae brief in the U.S. port of the cancellation of ed an Indian Education District Court for the trademark. The ami­ Legal Support Project Colorado in Cow Creek cus curiae brief was reject­ with its central theme of Band of Umpqua Tribe of ed by the Trial and "tribalizing education." Indians v. IMOCA Appeal Board. In April The goal is to give tribes Licensing America, Inc. and 1999 the United States more control over their Sterling Consulting Patent and Trademark most precious resource, Corporation. The Tribe Trial and Appeal Board their children, and help filed suit against decided in favor of the them to improve Indian IMOCA, a Canadian cor­ Native Americans. The education and tribal soci­ poration who purchased Washington team has eties. Rather than focus­ the long dormant "Indian filed an appeal. ing on traditional civil Motorcycle" trademarks. rights work such as racial The Tribe complained Education discrimination claims, that IMOCA has been In the past and even NARF's efforts are devot­ using the trademarks to ed to confirming the today, most federal and sell products, which cre­ unique sovereign rights of ates the suggestion that state education programs circumvent tribal govern­ Indian tribes based on the goods are produced by principles of Indian law. Indians - a suggestion ments and maintain fed­ eral and state government To date these rights and that is completely false. principles have not been

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT ... 21 addressed adequately in As part of NARF's con- ation rates increased from the context of education. tinued representation of 48% to 72% and drop-out the Rosebud Sioux Tribe rates decreased from 11 % Under the Project, of South Dakota in to 7.6%. NARF strives to implementing its Tribal strengthen tribal rights in Education Code, NARF Also, with support of education. This means worked with the Tribe the National Indian helping tribes gain con- and its consultants in an Education Association trol of the formal educa- evaluation of the Tribal and the National tion of their members, Education Department Congress of American regardless of the govern - and Code funded by the Indians, the Tribe submit- ment that provides the Carnegie Corporation of ted its request to the education - federal, New York. The final eval- Department of Education state, or tribal. As uation report was submit- to amend the Family NARF continues to ted in April 1999. It Educational Rights and develop and successfully showed that the Tribe had Privacy Act (FERPA) to promote cutting-edge made substantial progress treat tribes as sovereign legal theories about tribal in increasing Indian high nations in terms of control of education, school graduation rates obtaining public school work continues in

22.A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND Code's provisions through NARF is also assisting cooperative agreements the Three Affiliated with the five public school Tribes of the Fort districts within the Berthold Reservation in boundaries of the North Dakota to establish Reservation. In order to a tribal education code. generate a better under­ While the Fort Berthold standing of and support Tribes have an Education for the Code, the TED Committee and an and the five school dis­ Education Department, tricts have agreed to hold NARF is assisting them a series of meetings with in expanding the school board members Department's responsibili­ and the general public. ties and in developing a Although the TED is comprehensive education continuing its effort to code. The drop-out rate establish a student track­ of tribal secondary stu­ ing system, it has encoun­ dents is well above 50%. tered substantial difficulty Thus, the Tribes would in obtaining student like to focus on improving records from the public student attendance and schools. The public achievement by making schools base their refusal curriculum more relevant catagories reported on on their interpretation of to tribal students and annually by the State of FERPA to provide stu­ involving parents and New Mexico. As a first dent data on tribal mem­ communities in the step, NARF worked closely with the Jicarilla bers to the tribes without schools. Priorities and Apache Department of advance parental consent. time lines for code devel­ Education to develop a The Tribes have joined opment and implementa­ work plan for the devel­ other tribes in working to tion have been developed resolve this issue. and the process is under­ opment of the Jicarilla way. NARF is working Apache education code. The Northern with the Fort Berthold Since the President CheyenneTribe of Reservation's Department signed the Executive Montana has also begun of Education and commu­ Order on Indian the process of developing nity representatives in Education in 1998, a tribal education code reviewing the first draft of NARF continues its rep­ with NARF's assistance. the code. resentation of the The Tribe has recognized the need for the educ a - NARF represents the National Congress of American Indians and the tional systems serving Jicarilla Apache Tribe of National Indian tribal children to provide New Mexico in the devel­ Education Association in a relevant and quality opment of an education the Order's implementa­ education for them. The code for Reservation edu­ tion. The President has Tribe has an Education cation. The Tribe hopes Commission and the code will enable submitted to Congress a Education Department greater tribal input into budget request for $10 million in new federal that needs assistance with the programs of the public dollars to train 1,000 new the long range planning school on the Reservation Indian teachers as part of and regulation of educa­ that serves a vast majority tion. Issues identified of Jicarilla Apache chil­ implementing the Executive Order. As have included drop-out dren. Statistics show that and truancy rates, rele­ the Tribe's effort is badly called for by the Executive Order, Regional vant curriculum, databases needed. The Jicarilla and intergovernmental Apache children consis­ Partnership Forums have coordination. tently rank last or near been conducted and Pilot last in all education School Sites are being

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT reviewed. All of the activ- operation of child and International Law ities governed by the family programs." The Executive Order have Act established substan- NARF has entered the occurred in consultation tive and procedural pro- international law arena with tribal leaders and tections for tribes and with a focus on the Indian educators. families in cases of invol- United Nations (UN) untary adoption, pre- Draft Declaration on the Indian Child Welfare adoptive placement, foster Rights of Indigenous care placement, and Peoples and a similar dee- In 1978, the United dependency and neglect laration by the States Congress enacted proceedings involving Organization of American the Indian Child Welfare Indian children. Because States (OAS). NARF will Act (ICWA). The Act these protections are chal- represent the National states as its purpose: "The lenged or may conflict Congress of American Congress hereby declares with state law, policy or Indians on issues relating that it is the policy of this practice, there have been to the negotiation and Nation to protect the best several hundred state and adoption of the UN and interest oflndian children federal court decisions OAS draft declaration on and to promote the stabil- interpreting the Act. the rights of Indigenous ity and security of Indian Recently, Congress has people. An important tribes and families by the also attempted to amend drafting session on the establishment of mini- the Act to resolve con- OAS draft document on mum federal standards for cerns related to the indigenous rights was held the removal of Indian enforcement of the Act. in Washington, D.C. in children from their fami- February 1999. The lies and the placement of During 1999, NARF meeting provided for continued to monitor direct input by indigenous Congressional legislation representatives for the first that would strengthen time in OAS history. The ICWA and participated General Assembly in in national conferences Guatemala authorized and meetings related to continued indigenous par- Indian child welfare. ticipation during the next NARF also drafted a year, with the goal of hav- chapter in a proposed ing the document book - entitled Native approved in Canada in American Children in our June 2000. The second Legal System - commis- drafting session was held sioned by the American during the second week in Bar Association (ABA). November 1999. The book outlines the legal rights of Native American children in our legal system in a variety of areas. NARF also drafted a chapter in the second edition of the ABA's Steering Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children's publication - America's such children in foster or Children at Risk. The first adoptive homes which edition failed to include will reflect the unique val- issues related to the unmet ues of Indian culture, and legal needs of children in by providing for assistance rural America, including to Indian tribes in the Native Americans.

24.6.. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND THE would be held to the same standards of care as a pri­ ACCOUNTABILITY vate fiduciary under the OF GoVERNMENTS common law of trusts.

NARF works to hold all In February 1999 the levels of government defendants - the Secretary accountable for the proper oflnterior, the Secretary enforcement of the many of Treasury and the laws and regulations Assistant Secretary for which govern the lives of Indian Affairs - were held Indian people. NARF in civil contempt of court continues to be involved for failing to turn over rel­ in several cases which evant trust documents in focus primarily on the violation of a court order. accountability of the fed­ During summer 1999 a eral and state govern­ trial was held on the ade­ ments to Indians. quacy of the federal accounting and trust man­ Indian Claims NARF represents agement system for the IIM accounts. In Commission awards to approximately 500,000 these tribes for lands and December 1999, the present and past individ­ other rights taken by the ual Indian trust beneficia­ Court issued a 126 page Opinion that called the United States. After a ries in a class action suit partial distribution to the against the United States case a "stunning victory" for the plaintiffs and tribes in 1988, the undis­ for mismanagement of the tributed portion was held individual Indian money found that the United States had breached the in trust by the Bureau of (IIM) trust accounts. Indian Affairs. NARF Filed in 1996, Cobell v. trust duties owed to the IIM account holders. The and the Tribes have been Babbitt is intended to exploring the possibility of force the United States as Court ordered the federal government to fix the a negotiated settlement of trustee to: (1) perform a the Tribes' claims since broken accounting and complete, accurate and 1997. NARF has also reliable accounting of all trust management system and retained judicial over­ be~n n:onitoring proposed trust assets held to the leg1slat1on to settle tribal benefit of individual sight of the process for a period of at least five trust fund claims to be Indian trust beneficiaries· sure that such proposals (2) properly restate the ' years. The United States is appealing the decision. support the settlement trust fund accounts in efforts of Pembina. conformity with that In a Court of Federal accounting; and (3) create The Native American an accounting and trust Claims action, NARF represents the Turtle Rights Fund, on behalf of management system that ten Native villages and is reliable and will safely Mountain Band of Chippewa in North seven Native individuals and soundly manage the filed a civil lawsuit in ' Dakota, the Chippewa- trust funds of individual October 1999 in the Indians in the future. In Cree of the Rocky Boys Reservation in Montana Superior Court for the 1998, the Federal District State of Alaska, seeking Court in Washington, and the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa in Montana declaratory and injunctive D.C. denied the govern­ relief against the State of against the Bureau of ment's attempt to dismiss Alaska for failure to pro­ this case and issued a Indian Affairs for mis­ management of the vide minimally adequate landmark ruling holding police protection to 165 that the United States, as Pembina Judgment Fund. The Fund was established off-road Native villages trustee to these individual an~ for discriminating Indian beneficiaries in 1980 to distribute ' agamst them in the provi-

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT sion of State law enforce- Equal Protection of the essential governmental ment services. In Alaska law under the Fourteenth services. The indisputable Inter-Tribal Council v. Amendment to the United facts in Alaska Inter-Tribal Alaska the complaint States Constitution and Council v. Alaska demon- alleges that the actions of Article I of the Alaska strate the falsity of the the State in unlawfully Constitution. The com- State's extravagant mis- prohibiting Native villages plaint also alleges that the representations in the from keeping the peace in State's use of State and Venetie case. Nonetheless, their traditional ways, federal funds and services based in part on these which rendered them in State law enforcement misrepresentations, Alaska defenseless to lawbreakers, programs which discrimi- succeeded in convincing while failing to provide nate against Alaska the United States them even minimally-ade- Natives in the provision of Supreme Court in 1998 to quate police protection police protection violates deny Native Villages' the under the State law their rights under Alaska critical means of providing enforcement system, vio- statutes and Title VI of the local police protection lated the Villages; rights Federal Civil Rights Act through tribal jurisdiction. to Due Process of law and of 1964. basic law enforcement NARF is involved in protection guaranteed by In Alaska v. Native Native Hawaiian legal the Fourteenth Village of Venetie, the State issues primarily in sup- Amendment to the United argued that Native port of the Native States Constitution and Villages were not "Indian Hawaiian Legal Article I of the Alaska country" and therefore Corporation, which Constitution. The com- lacked taxing authority to NARF helped to orga- plaint also alleges that the raise revenue for tribal nize in the early 1970s to State's discriminatory governmental services, like address these issues. The treatment of Native vil- police protection. The Native Hawaiian cases are somewhat different than other NARF cases but there are historical similarities. The United States overthrew the sov- ereign Native Hawaiian government in 1893, pandering to business and military interests who sought control of the islands for strategic purposes. But prior to European contact in 1778, the Islands had a very complex and elabo- rate Native Hawaiian civilization. Over the years, Native Hawaiians have been making sub- stantial progress in re- asserting Native Hawaiian rights.

Rice v. Cayetano lages in the provision of State claimed that tribal involves a challenge by a police protection is based taxing authority was not non-Native to the voting on race and therefore vio- necessary because the restriction allowing only lates the Villages' rights to State was providing all Native Hawaiians to vote

26 ... NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). The OHA administers income received from certain trust lands for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Rice argues that the restriction violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the voting restric­ tion, but the United States Supreme Court is reviewing that decision. One of Rice's arguments is that since there are no tribes in Hawai'i, the voting restriction is pure­ ly race-based and subject to strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court case of Morton v. Mancari held that legislation as to Indian tribes is based on rainforest lands traditionally Native Hawaiian rights the political relationship exercised by Native in all permitting rather between tribes and the Hawaiians on those lands than forcing traditional United States and need before they were access practitioners to only be rationally related exchanged in 1983 by the resort to litigation in to Congress' unique State of Hawai'i for other order to continue such obligation toward Indian lands in order to accom - customary usage. NARF tribes. The question is modate a geothermal continues to wait for the whether the same stan - developer. The decision court ruling which has dard applies to legislation is expected to be now been pending for passed for the benefit of appealed to the Hawai'i four years. Native Hawaiians. Supreme Court. The NARF filed an amicus case was previously curiae brief in support of before the Hawai'i Native Hawaiians on Supreme Court in 1992 behalf of the National when it upheld the land Congress of American exchange but remanded Indians in the Supreme the case for trial on the Court. The case was traditional access rights argued in October 1999. issue. That ruling was precedent for a landmark In Pele Defense Fund v. 1995 ruling by the Court Campbell, NARF and co­ in Public Access Shoreline counsel Native Hawaiian Hawai'i v. Hawai'i Legal Corporation await a County Planning favorable ruling promised Commission which alerted by a Hawai'i state court in government agencies of 1996 that would allow for their responsibility under traditional Native the Hawai'i State Hawaiian access rights to Constitution to consider

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT THE tant Indian law cases, The National Indian dating back to the 1950's. Law Library recently DEVELOPMENT ~IL~ houses legal plead­ launched its library catalog OF INDIAN LAW mgs m cases ranging on its improved Internet from tribal courts to the website. This searchable The systematic develop­ United States Supreme catalog provides free ment oflndian law is Court. These pleadings access to current descrip­ essential for the continued are an invaluable resource tions of over 12,000 protection of Indian for attorneys associated holdings in the library rights. This process with tribes, and with collection. For the past involves distributing Indian legal service pro­ twenty seven years, Indian law materials to, grams, because these NILL has been collecting and communicating with, attorneys and programs a wealth of materials those groups and individ­ are generally in remote relating to federal Indian uals working on behalf of areas of the country, law and tribal law which Indian people. NARF has without access to ade­ include such tribal self­ two ongoing projects quate law libraries. governance materials as which are aimed at NILL fills the needs of constitutions, codes and achieving this goal. the often-forgotten areas ordinances; legal pleadings of the nation known as from major Native The National Indian Indian country. NILL American law cases; law Law Library handles close to one review articles; hand­ thousand information books; conference mate­ The National Indian requests per year and rials, and other informa­ Law Library (NILL) is serves a wide variety of tion. Now the general the only law library spe­ public patrons including public can access biblio­ cializing in legal practice attorneys, tribal govern­ graphic descriptions of materials which are ments, tribal organiza- these materials from the electronic catalog on the NILL website. Once rel­ evant documents are located, patrons can review materials at the Boulder, Colorado library, request copies for a nominal fee, or borrow materials through inter­ library loan. To reach the catalog and other Native American law resources on the NILL website, point your Internet browser to the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) website at www.narf.org and click on the National Indian Law Library link.

Indian Law Support Center essential for practitioners tions, researchers, stu­ of Indian law. An dents, prisoners, the Since 1972 the Indian important component of media, and the general Law Support Center NILL is its collection of public. (ILSC) of the Native pleadings filed in impor- American Rights Fund

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND had received funding from the Legal Services Corporation to serve as a national support center on Indian law and policy for the national Indian legal services community and the 32 basic field programs serving Native American clients. Literally hundreds of requests for assistance in all areas of Indian law were answered annually. Because of the unique and complex nature of Indian law and the geo­ graphic remoteness of Indian legal services pro­ grams, complicated by the difficulty of attract­ ing and maintaining experienced staff, ILSC performed a vital and During 1999 ILSC has numerous Indian and cost-effective support been involved in coordi­ Indian-related confer­ function to Indian pro­ nating efforts to enact ences and meetings such grams and other legal the Indian Tribal Courts as the National Congress services providers across Technical and Legal of American Indians the country. Assistance Act of 1999. Executive Council, ILSC has also been coor­ Midyear and Annual NARF was impacted dinating efforts of the Conventions and the by the federal budget­ National Association of Federal Bar Association's cutting in Washington in Indian Legal Services to Indian Law Conference. 199 5 as €ongress elimi­ develop a more formal NARF remains firmly nated NARF's ILSC and comprehensive set of committed to continuing annual funding from the policies of the Legal its effort to share the Legal Services Services Corporation legal expertise which Corporation. ILSC, regarding Indian legal NARF possesses with which has been assisting services programs. these groups and individ­ Indian legal services field uals working in support programs as a project of Other Activities oflndian rights and to NARF, now functions at foster the recognition of a greatly reduced level on In addition to its major Indian rights in main­ NARF general support projects, NARF contin­ stream society. funds. Due to the loss of ued its participation in Legal Services numerous conferences Corporation funding, and meetings of Indian ILSC has been unable to and non-Indian organi­ carry on at traditional zations in order to share levels its program of its knowledge and exper­ working with Indian tise in Indian law. legal services lawyers During the past fiscal nationwide through year, NARF attorneys advice, research, recent and staff served in formal Indian legal information, or informal speaking and litigation and training. leadership capacities at

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT A 29 enue actually exceeded Support and Revenue 1999 operating expenses and comparisons between TREASURERS other cash outlays by FY99 and FY98 are REPORT $680,674, allowing for a shown below. The signifi­ modest increase to cant difference in founda­ Based on our audited NARF's reserve fund. tion grant revenue is financial statements for This increase can be reflective of the timing of the fiscal year ending largely attributed to the receipt of NARF's largest September 30, 1999, the continued generosity of foundation grant which Native American Rights NARF's donors and was recognized in FY98 Fund reports total unre­ other supporters, com­ for financial statement stricted revenues of bined with a fortuitous purposes. The sharp $6,719,284 against total gain in investments. decline in legal fees is due to receipt in FY98 of the expenditures of $6,547,900. Expenditures decreased last of four large payments Due to presentation by $271,126 due, in the of a previous fee award. requirements of the audit­ most part, to a decline in ed financial statements in consultant costs for terms of recognizing the FY99's case-related activi­ timing of certain revenues, ty. Total management and they do not reflect the fact fund raising costs consti­ that, based on NARF's tuted 30.7% of total rev­ internal reporting, rev- enues in Fiscal Year 1999.

SUPPORT AND REVENUE COMPARISON

1999 1998

$ % $ %

Federal Grants $ 1,506,839 22.4% $1,487,468 21.4%

Foundation Grants 610,914 9.1% 2,120,804 30.5%

Contributions 3,126,321 46.5% 2,608,407 37.5%

Legal Fees 299,664 4.5% 805,838 11.6%

Investment Income 1,130,329 16.8% (162,110) -2.4%

Other 45,217 0.7% 94,925 1.4%

TOTALS $ 6,719,284 100% $6,955,332 100%

Note: This summary of financial information has been extracted from NARF's audited financial statements on which the accountingfirm of Dollinger, Smith & Co. expressed an unqualified opinion. Complete audited financials are available, upon request, through our Boulder office or at www. narf org.

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND Aetna Foundation Native Village ofKwinhagak NARF American Express Foundation New Colusa Indian Casino & Bingo ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Chase Manhattan Foundation Newtok Traditional Council Citibank, N.A. Okla Tasannuk Avogel Tribe OF CONTRIBUTIONS: Fannie Mae Foundation Oneida Tribe oflndians FISCAL YEAR 19'39 Ford Foundation of Wisconsin Fidelity Investments Port Graham Village Council Living Waters Endowment Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Helen & Sidney Ungar Memorial Illinois Tool Works Foundation Shakopee Mdewakanton Endowment Fund ]. Paul Getty Trust Sioux Community Peter Gerbic Family Fund JP Morgan Charitable Trust Sinte Gleska College Susan K. Griffiths Memorial Fund Kemper Insurance Companies Soboba Band of Mission Indians Mary Lou Mosca-Ragona Levi Strauss & Company Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association Memorial Fund Lilly Endowment, Inc. Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes Marvin W. Pourier, Sr. Microsoft of Alaska Memorial Fund National Prescription United Tribes Technical College Dooley Family Fund Administrators, Inc. United South and Eastern Tribes Frank]. McCormick Family Fund New Century Energies Foundation Ute Mountain Ute Tribe The New York Community Trust Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Foundations, Corporations and Oppenheimer Funds Walker River Paiute Tribe Religious Organizations Provident Companies, Inc. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Carnegie Corporation of New York Prudential Insurance Centro Partnership Seagram Companies Bequests and Trusts Educational Foundation of America St. Paul Companies Arnold Auerbach The Everett Public Service Sun Microsystems Internship Program Audrey Baldwin Times Mirror Foundation The Falcon Charitable Foundation Shirley Bank US West Foundation Ford Foundation Milly &Julian Bentley W.K. Kellogg Foundation General Service Foundation Charitable Trust Gorlitz Foundation Danielle C. Cooper Tribes and Native Organizations John D. & Catherine T. Evelyn M. Cooper Alaska Inter-Tribal Council MacArthur Foundation Doris E. Davis Arctic Slope Regional Corporation The John & Laree Caughey Genevieve Estes Chevak Traditional Council Foundation Carolyn W. Ferriday Fund Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes The Key Foundation Margaret Fetzer of Oklahoma KTVD-TV Channel 20 AnnA. Hardy Chumash Casino Lasser Family Trust Elsie Hill Coeur D'Alene Tribe L.W. Robbins Associates Lee Headley Trust Colorado River Indian Tribes Lumpkin Foundation Arthur R. Plettner Confederated Tribes of National Association for Public Grande Ronde Mary K. Simmons Interest Law Council Tree Pow-Wow Eleanor K. Skoog-Jernigan Trust New Land Foundation Cow Creek Band ofUmpqua Indians Dr. Andre Smessaert Trust Onaway Trust Douglas Indian Association Mildred Stanley Panaphil Foundation Drum Beat Indian Arts Martha Tolman Philadelphia Meeting of Religious Edisto Tribal Council I Four Holes Luella Topping Society of Friends Indian Organization Ramler Charitable Trust Fort McDowell Mohave- Benefactors The Rockefeller Foundation Apache Community John Augsbury Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Gila River Casino Rev. & Mrs. C. Frederick Buechner Natural American Spirit Foundation Kenaitze Indian Tribe, IRA Shannon Casey Seidman Family Foundation Ketchikan Indian Corporation T.H. Cobb Stanley Family Fund Kootenai Tribe ofldaho E.B.Deis Sidney Stern Memorial Trust Kwethluk IRA Council Peter & Stella Elliston The Stettenheim Foundation Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe Mrs. Verna Gerbic Thomas Foundation Maniilaq Association Peter Gerbic W.K. Kellogg Foundation Mashantucket Pequot Tribe James Kawahara W. Ford Schumann Foundation Manzanita Band of Mission Indians Preston Gates & Ellis Weckbaugh Foundation Menominee Tribal Enterprises Ruth Krautter Wild Oats Markets, Inc. Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin Mary Liebman XYZ Corporation Miccosukee Indian Tribe Barbara Meislin Youth Development Foundation Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Katherine Preston Education Department Ola Rexroat Muscogee Creek Nation Corporate Matching Gifts Marc & Pam Rudick NANA Regional Corporation ARCO Foundation, Inc. Gail &Jonathan Schorsch Native Village of Barrow Aon Corporation John Sherman Native Village of Kotzebue Aine Ungar, The Ungar Foundation

1999 -ANNUAL REPORT Alison]. Van Dyk Ronald]. Miller Bernard Donnelly Amelia Vernon David Mitchell & Connie Foote Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Emerson Wendy B. Walsh M.E.Morgan Chester &Mary Eschen W. Richard & Mary Beth West Shelby Nelson Catherine B. Flaherty Enoch Needham Ill Margarita Maestas-Flores Peta Uha - Platinum Feather Sara Nerken Stephen Forbes ($5,000 +) Lynne Nerenberg Donald Foster LeahT. Conn Sandra Nowicki Lemuel Fraser Ms. Francis A.Velay, Joan Osborne Shirley Freedland The Panaphil Foundation Bernard Pregerson Robert Frye Frank]. McCormick Mary E. Pennock Sally Gallo Al H. Ralston Harriet Garth Peta Uha - Gold Feather ($1000+) Margaret Ratheau Ruby Garrett Henry Anderson Irene Riberas Adam Geballe James & Louise Arnold Esther Hayward Rivinus Eleanor R. Gerson Argentum Foundation Carol A. Roberts Charles & Patricia Geiger Dr. Robert A. & Patricia M. Berry Sylvia M. Sandoval Bea Inadv Gian John S. Bevan Hendrikus Scraven & Tina Peterson Judge William T. Gillie Oliver Corcoran Binney John R. Scheide James E. Gilley Marjorie Blachy Gale Scudder Mrs. Reynolds Girdler William & Elsa K. Boyce Peter Sheldon Judy Goebel Lawrence D. Bragg, III Susan Slaughter Katya Goodenough Catherine Brotzman Alpha Pi Omega Sorority, Inc. Don Graber Paul Brotzman Leroy Stippich Susan Gray Jack Campisi, Ph.D Dennis Tedeschi Mr. &Mrs. G. Robert Greenberg Tedd Cocker John H. Thompson Gloria Greenhill Suzanne Conte Elaine Umholtz Patrick 0. Greenley William]. Cooper Margaret Verble Jan Griesinger Paul Anthony D'Errico Marta Webster Benjamin W. Griffin Harvey Dennenberg Margaret N. Weitzmann Mary A. Haddad Ludell Deutscher Stephen & Ann Marie Wheelock Bartlett Harvey Ruth M. Dolby Leslie A. Wheelock Duncan Hass David Dornbusch David Winston William Heath Richard Dowse Hilda Woodford George W. Henry Dolan Eargle Donald R. Wharton John Healy &Michelle M. Catalano Lucille Echohawk Robert Hickerson Peter Elliston Peta Uha - Silver Feather Ellen & Herbert Holmes Joni Flynn ($500-$999) Elaine Hutton Jeanne D. Morre! Franklin Robert Alpern Raymond W. Ickes Fran Freudenberger David Altschul Sylvia Isherwood, DVM Robert Friede Fanny H. Arnold Richard L. WawaJentgen Rico F. Genhart Rosemary Bailey Tom Keller Collier Hands MaryE. Bane Mrs. Collier C. Kimball R. Hart Molly Barbey Kara Knack WillHays,Jr. Hathaway Barry George Koehler John Heller Susan Bartlett C. Koob Sara S. Hinckley Elaine Bennett Helen Kowtaluk Angelina Jolie Deborah Bradford Susan Kyle Jill A. Jones Geraldine Brittain Thomas S. Labin Richard Katz Barbara Brown Robert Locke Robert E. Kleiger, MD Roland R. Brown Frederic Luther Sonja Keohane Anne Cameron Mr. & Mrs. William Lyman Richard Knutson Elizabeth L. Celio Warren Marr II Ricki & Scott Kresan Petra Chacon Betty May Martin Ingrid Leblanc Clara Chervenak Angela Maves Eileen & Paul LeFort Ilze Anna Choi Ann R. McAlpin Clara Link Chip Clark Harry McAndrew Joanne Lyman Richard W. Cobb Audrey McDonald Jan L. Mackey Margaret Turano Conradson Mrs. John McHugh Lois]. Mackey Nancy Conway MarieMeier AnnMarsak Theresa Davis Gary Meyer Doris Renee Marx Anne DeMuth & Mark W. Hodge Barbara Miller Marion McCollom Hampton Roberta Ann di Novi Larry E. Morse Helena Meltesen Thomas V. DiSilvio Sue Murphy Mote Anne Merck David & Anneliese Dodge Mr. &Mrs. Harold A. Nash

32.A. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND Sarah Neely Joyce P. Beaulieu Charlotte Seiver Lindsey Novak Roy Benson Katey Lynn Simetra Jack Oberst &Janelle Campbell Mary Helen Bickley David M. Soares Mike Owens Oliver Corcoran Binney Charles & Neta Smith Cheryl & Paul Perkins Charles Bowers Mrs. William Speiden Lewis Perkiss William Brown Carolyn Staby Antoinette Peskoff M. Gilbert Burford James Straus Janet J. Peters Patricia Burnet Rennard Strickland Richard Peters Thomas Campbell Louis Tabois Dr. Robert D. Phillips MaryCasmus Valeria Tenyak Norman Porter Don Chase C.D.Titus Richard & Rita Post Ed Chasteen John H. Tyler Caryll M. Pott Charles Cole William Wade Debra Pullen Janet M. Congero Roger Welsch Dale Revelle Harvey Dennenberg David Yeoman David Roberts Laurie Desjardins Wayne W. Zange! Kenneth Robertson Gary Dickerhoof Abraham Zuckerman Juliet Roby Starr Dorman Faith R. Roessel Patricia R. Duval In-Kind Contributions Ralph W. "Ba' Iltso" Sanders Noelle Edwards Terri Bissonette - Littleton, Colorado D.C. Sandifer Karen Williams Fasthorse Boulder Phone Installers - Karen Sargeaunt Jan Freeman Boulder, Colorado Robert Savage Suzanne Gartz Cante Akicita Drum Group - Jhon Carol F. Scallan Laurence H. Geller Goes In Center, Brett Shelton, Joe & Sharon Schauf Deborah Ghoreyeb Don Ragona, Gerome Gutierrez Alfred H. Schwendtner Arline M. Goodrich Katie Castillo - St. Michaels, Arizona Charlotte Smith Estela Goldsmith Steve Fischer - Broomfield, Colorado Edith Smith Gene Grabau, M.D. Holland & Hart - Boulder, Colorado John Smith WilmaGreban Scottj Krob - Englewood, Colorado Mary G. Sprague Patricia Marks Greenfield Thorney Lieberman - Boulder, Colorado Estelle Stamm &Alling Woodruff,Jr. Jean Gundlach Marsha May - Broomfield, Colorado Edmund Stanley, Jr. Sheldon Haffner Kay Nuissl - Boulder, Colorado Gilbert Tauck Merrill Hakeim Ben Sherman - Louisville, Colorado Maggie Terrill Michael S. Hall Bente Sternberg - Boulder, Colorado Dorothy Harrison Therman Margaret Hartnett Tanana Chiefs Conference - Jennifer Tipton Patricia Heidelberger Fairbanks, Alaska Brenda Tomaras Alfred Hoose Derrick Thompson - Mr. &Mrs. Gordon Torgersen Rose Ann Keeney Longmont, Colorado Margaret Torgerson Betty Kleczy Peggy Westcott - Eaton Center, Jeanne Torosian Emily S. Kirk New Hampshire EvaL. Tracy Margo KochRuthie Linda Ugelow William R. Lackey Boulder-Denver Advisory Gary &Joanne Van Deend Denise Larson Committee Marion Walley David Lawson Lucille Echohawk Janice C. Warner Ingrid LeBlanc Thomas W. Fredericks Don H. Wescott Rima Lurie David Getches Mr. &Mrs.John Wesner Suzanne MacDonald Ava Hamilton Maiy Ann & Michael Weston Joseph McNamara, MD Jeanne Whiteing Lois Whitman Annie Dix Meiers Charles Wilkinson Richard Whittaker Stanley D. Metzger Catherine S. Williams Jeanne Muska! Federated Workplace Campaigns Nancy Wolbach Shirley Norton Thank you to the thousands of feder­ Peter Wollenberg Sara Osborne al, state, municipal and private sector Richard Woodbury Moses Peters employees throughout the countty who through their payroll deduction The Yatsky Family Randall Peterson plans contributed $165,703 to NARF Mary Lee Zerby Rose Pilcarsky in 1999. Horace Raines Circle of Life Munea Alongua Red Feather Federal Programs Charles & Judith Adams June Rosenthal Administration for Native Americans Katrina McCormick Barnes Bobbi W. Sampson Bureau oflndian Affairs Diane Ben Ari B. Frederique Samuel Louise Gomer Bangel Arthur Schroeder Nina Barghoon Peter E. Schmidt Maxwell K. Barnard Laroy Seaver Barbara Beasley Michael & Gillian Seeley

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT .. 33 BOULDER MAIN Donald M. Ragona NARF STAFF OFFICE STAFF Oglala Lakota/Mattinecock Director of Planned Giving Walter R. Echo-Hawk Pawnee CORPORATE OFFICERS Attorney Rhoda M. Riggs Navajo Executive Assistant for LMC John E. Echohawk Pawnee Tracy Labin Mohawk/Seneca Executive Director/Attorney Attorney Joanne Soklin Legal Secretary/Legal Assistant K. Jerome Gottschalk Melody McCoy Cherokee Litigation Management Attorney Debbie Raymond-Thomas Committee Member/Attorney Navajo Don B. Miller Assistant Controller Yvonne T. Knight Ponca-Creek Attorney Litigation Management Johanna Zeh Committee Member/Attorney Steven C. Moore Accountant Attorney Mark Tilden Navajo Litigation Management Kate Weatherly Eastern NATIONAL INDIAN LAW Committee Member/Attorney Cherokee LIBRARY Research Attorney Mary Lu Prosser David Selden Cheyenne River Sioux Donald R. Wharton Librarian Director of Development Attorney Ray Ramirez Mary Frances Begaye Navajo ANCHORAGE OFFICE Secretary/Editor/Grant Writer Office Services Clerk STAFF

Clela Rorex Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner Rose Brave Oglala Lakota Treasurer/Law Office Office Manager Attorney Administrator Heather Kendall Athabascan Anthony Castillo Navajo Receptionist Attorney

Kristin Chesnutt Eric Johnson Legal Secretary/Legal Assistant Research Attorney

Cherokee Sonya Paul Gavin Navajo Bobbie Seelinger Development/Public Relations Legal Administrative Assistant Administrator WASHINGTON, Beverly Gittens D.C. OFFICE STAFF Legal Secretary/Legal Assistant Lorna Babby Oglala Sioux Sandra R. Janis Oglala Lakota Attorney Accountant Keith Harper Cherokee Marla Keckler Cheyenne River Attorney Sioux Development Projects Ruth Hargrow Coordinator Legal Administrative Assistant Michael Kennedy Assistant Controller

Mereille Martinez Development Administrative Assistant

Christine Pereira Micro Computer Specialist

34A NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND PHOTOGRAPHY INFO

Page 2 - NARF Steering Committee, Spring 1972

Page3 - Board of Directors, 1973

Page 8- NARF Attorneys, 1977

Page 9 - NARF clients meeting at NARF, 1970's

Page 10 - Board of Directors, 1978

Page 11 - John Echo hawk and Page23- David Gettches, 1973 Steering Committee, Page 12 - Spring 1985, credit: John NARF Attorneys, 1980 Youngblut

Page 13 - Page24- NARF Staff Attorneys, NARF board of Directors, 1980's 1988

Page 14- Page25- NARF-Attorneys, 1980's NARF Alaska Office Staff, 1989 Page 15 - NARF Accounting Staff, Page 26 - 1982 NARF Staff, 1988

Page 16 - Page27- NARF Board of NARF Staff, 1991 Directors, 1982 Page 28 - Page 17- NARF Board of NARFWashington, D.C. Directors, 1992 Staff, 1982 Page 29 - Page20- NARF Attorneys, 1994 NARF Development Page34- Department Staff, 1982 NARFWashington, D.C. Page 21- Office NARF Staff, 1983 Page35- Page22- NARF Staff, 1995 printed on recycled paper NARF Art Show, 1985

1999 - ANNUAL REPORT