1977 Native American Rights Fund '
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nationai India 1522 Broad~ nlaw Library Boufrfer ay ,0 ' co 803()2 Native American Rights Fund ' Annual Report • 1977 NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND ' STEERING COMMITTEE Executive Committee David Aisling, Jr. (Hoopa), Chairman Coordinator, Native American Studies, University of California-Davis California • Val Cordova (Taos Pueblo)* Educator, San Felipe Day School New Mexico Leo Laclair (Muckleshoot) Attorney, Commercial Fisherman Washington LaNada Boyer (Shoshone-Bannock) • Tribal Council Member Idaho Committee Members Robert Bojorcas (Klamath) Director of CETA Manpower Program Oregon Chief Curtis L. Custalow, Sr. (Mattaponi) Mattaponi Chief Virginia Lucille Dawson (Narragansett) Program Specialist, Administration for Native Americans Washington D.C. Renee Howell (Oglala Sioux) • Paralegal South Dakota Louis LaRose (Winnebago) Chairman, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Nebraska Leroy Logan (Osage) Rancher Oklahoma Janet McCloud (Tulalip) Washington Jerry Running Foxe (Coquille) Chairman of Coquille Tribe Oregon • John Stevens (Passamaquoddy) Governor of the Passamaquoddy Tribe Maine · *Until October, 1977 CORPORATE OFFICERS Executive Director John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Secretary Lorraine P. Edmo (Shoshone-Bannock) Treasurer James A. Laurie STAFF ATTORNEYS* Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner Kurt V. Blue Dog (Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux) Richard B. Collins Raymond Cross (Mandan-Gros Ventre) Sharon K. Eads (Cherokee) Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) Daniel H. Israel Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) Timothy A. LaFrance (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) Arlinda F. Locklear (Lumbee) Don B. Miller Dennis M. Montgomery Robert S. Pelcyger Thomas N. Tureen A. John Wabaunsee (Prairie Band Potawatomi) Jeanne S. Whiteing (Blackf~et-Cahuilla) *as of December 31, 1977 Main Office: 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Branch Offices: Washington, p.C. and Calais, Maine DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1 THE PROGRAM 3 Purpose and Development . 3 Administration and Directorship . 4 Legislative Liaison . 4 1977-A Crucial Year for Indians . 5 NARF's Governing Board . 13 Status of Attorney Staff . 14 NARF's Funding Sources . 15 THE PRIORITIES 18 Tribal Existence .............................................................. , . 19 Tribal Resources ............................................................... 40 Human Rights .............................................. 1 ••••••••••••••••••• 70 Accountability .................................................................. 83 Indian Law Development ........................................................ 86 TREASURER'S AEPORT 90 Treasurer's Report ................................................... , . 90 Financial /Statements . 95 Contributors ................................................................... 105 NARF Staff .................................................................... 109 Publications .................. , ................................................ 120 DIRECTOR'S REPORT . When we stail'ted the Native American Rights Fund in 1970, we had high hopes that law would prove. to be the vehicle through which the liv~s and conditions of Native Americans could be improved. Over the past few years, we have had those .hopes fulfilled by the many court decisions in favor of Indian rights. These developments have reaffirmed the trust relationship be tween the United States and Indian tribes. They have confirmed the existence of treaty rights and the status of Indian tribes as sovereigns limited only by Congress. They have recognized and protected Indian rights to natural resources necessary to sustain continued tribal existence. If there is any remaining doubt about the strong legal position of Indian tribes, it disappears when the tactics of those opposed to tribal interests are analyzed. Although court challenges of Indian rights continue, 1977 marked a shift in the battleground from the courts to the Congress. Being unable to impede Indian progress in the courts, anti-Indian interests were able to introduce legislation in Coqgress in an effort to eliminate treaty rights and laws vital to Indian existence. ·. Such efforts were anticipated, however, and fortunately these bills have had little success thus fa+. 1977 also saw a new administration pledged to protect Indian legal rights take office in Washington. It is essential to Indian progress that the federal government take its trust responsibility to Indian peqple seriously. Federal support and involvement in Indian legal issues in the past few years has been a key element in Indian legal victories. It was an honor for NARF to have NARF Director Tom Fredericks appointed in 1977 as Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. In that position he is a key advisor on Indian legal affiars to the Secretary of the Interiorr the primary trustee to Indian people. Although we regretted his departure, we are certain that Indian people will benefit from having a person of Tom's knowledge and abilities in an important govern ment position. The responsibility for the operation of NARF has passed to me again. I served as Director previously from 1973- 1975 before resigning in order to give Tom the opportunity and experience. I have rem,ined dedicated to Indian legal rights and reassume these responsibilities with new e~ergies. It is clear to everyone that NARF has been very instrumental in the Indian gains of the 1970's and must continue to be a force in Indian affairs indefinitely. Planning for and securing the -1- • necessary funding for the future existence of NARF is my most important responsibility and is essential, I believe, to Indian survival in this country. NARF has always been exceptional in the leadership and • direction provided by the Steering Committee, the expertise and dedication of its staff, and the sensitivity and support of its funding sources. I look forward with much confidence, enthusi asm, and hope to working with these fine people and many others in 1978 and beyond to insure Indian survival and progress. • t Johp E. Echohawk March, 1978 • t - 2 - ' NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND Its Purpose and Development The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a national Indian interest law firm whose primary work centers on the preservation and protection of Indian rights and resources. NARF began its work nearly eight years ago as a pilot project of the Ford Foundation and through the years has grown into a reputable and well-respected advocate of Indian interests. In 1970, the Ford Foundation became interested in establishing a national legal program for Indians. The Foundation chose to sponsor a pilot program with California Indian Legal Services (CILS) since this particular legal service had represented Indian clients successfully on a variety of issues. Foundation representatives met with CILS attorneys and discussed the need to establish a nation al legal program to serve Indian people since many tribal groups were not being serviced by any sort of legal project. CILS agreed to expand its service tp Indian people nation wide and this project became known as the Native American Rights Fund. In 1971, NARF moved its offices to Boulder, Colo rado, because of its central location and accessibility to the University of Colorado's law library. Three of NARF's original incorporators made the move to Col9rado - John E. Echohawk, Robert S. Pelcyger and David H. Getches. In a few short years, NARF grew from a three-attorney staff to an eighteen-attorney staff. A Washington, D.C. office was opened which continues to serve as an important link between NARF's clients and federal agencies in the nation's capitol. The Washington, D.C. office works on a variety of matters, including Eastern Indian cases, legislative analyses and archival research. In the fall of 1976, NARF found it necessary to open a temporary office in Calais, Maine, due to the potential impact of land claims actions filed by the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Indians of Maine. During the fall of 1977, another temporary office was opened in Boston, Massachusetts, in preparation for trial in the case known as Mashpee Wampapoag Tribe v. New Seabury Corporation. Plans are to close the Boston office upon completion of the trial in this case. NARF's caseload is determined by guideline~ which -3- • have been established by an all-Indian Steering Committee. This committee has identified five priority areas of in volvement. NARF's policy has always been to pursue cases which will be of major significance to Indians throughout the country. These are cases which affect a large number of persons or which may lead to a change in laws affecting Indians generally. Over the past seven years, NARF has represented hundreds of tribes, organizations and individuals through out the nation in legal matters, before congressional com mittees and in administrative proceedings. NARF has worked extensively with other Indian organizations, legal services and tribal attorneys as well as state and federal officials in seeking solutions to legal problems facing NARF's clients. • NARF Administration and Directorship A major change occurred last year in the NARF Directorship, a post which had been filled for two years by Thomas W. Fredericks. In June, Mr. Fredericks announced his departure from NARF in order to take a position in the Department of the Interior as Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs. This post has never before been filled by an Indian attorney and was quite an honor for Mr. Fredericks. NARF's Steering Committee and staff· were reluctant to see Tom go, but were glad to see that he would