Native American Rights Fund

CONTENTS Introduction ...... page 3 Executive Director’s Report ...... page 5 Chairman’s Message ...... page 7 The Board of Directors ...... page 8 The National Support Committee ...... page 9 The Preservation of Tribal Existence ...... page 11 The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources ...... page 17 MAJOR ACTIVITIES 2005 - NARF CASE MAP ...... page 22 The Promotion of Human Rights ...... page 27 The Accountability of Governments ...... page 33 The Development of Indian Law ...... page 35 Treasurer’s Report ...... page 36 Contributors ...... page 37 NARF Staff ...... page 44

Main Office On the cover of the NARF 2006 Annual Report, and throughout, we Native American Rights Fund capture the “grandness” of our Indigenous “way of life” outlooks... 1506 Broadway through the skies and Indigenous star knowledge and symbolisms in Boulder, CO 80302 the form of the morning star, where each day begins... our first 303-447-8760 prayer, to the feminine energies asking for balance in our lives, to the http://www.narf.org true warriors of the people... the women, our mothers... protected by the messengers, the eagle, the hawk, all the winged ones... looking Alaska Office towards a better future for all nations, all my relations, walking in Native American Rights Fund beauty... together, down to the simplest of life forms. 420 L Street, Suite 505 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 This is the grand idea that NARF represents... through preservation, 907-276-0680 protection, accountability, promotion, and through development, NARF fights for justice for all of our Indigenous “way of life” Washington, D.C. Office outlooks... honoring our mothers, while working to create a better Native American Rights Fund future for our children... and we thank you, for all you do in 1712 N Street, NW supporting this venture. Washington, D.C. 20036 202-785-4166 Tax Status: The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a nonprofit, charitable organization incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District of Columbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Contributions to NARF are tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that NARF is not a “private foundation” as defined in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. NARF was founded in 1970 and incorporated in 1971 in Washington, D.C.

Page 1

Native American Rights Fund

INTRODUCTION The Native American Rights Fund perhaps NARF’s greatest distinguishing importance, NARF’s financial contribu- (NARF) is the oldest and largest attribute has been its ability to bring tors have graciously provided the nonprofit national Indian rights organ- excellent, highly ethical legal repre- resources to make these efforts ization in the country devoting all its sentation to dispossessed tribes. NARF possible. Contributors such as the efforts to defending and promoting the has been successful in representing Ford Foundation have been with NARF legal rights of Indian people on issues Indian tribes and individuals in cases since its inception. The Rockefeller essential to their tribal sovereignty, that have encompassed every area and Foundation and the John D. & their natural resources and their human issue in the field of Indian law. The Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation rights. NARF believes in empowering accomplishments and growth of NARF have also made consistent contributions individuals and communities whose over the years confirmed the great over the years. Federal funding from rights, economic self-sufficiency, and need for Indian legal representation the Administration for Native political participation have been on a national basis. This legal advocacy Americans enables NARF to carry on systematically or systemically eroded on behalf of Native Americans continues its social development efforts in Indian or undermined. to play a vital role in the survival of country. Finally, the positive effects tribes and their way of life. NARF of NARF’s work are reflected in the Native Americans have been subju- strives to protect the most important financial contributions by a growing gated and dominated. Having been rights of Indian people within the limit number of tribal governments. stripped of their land, resources and of available resources. United, these financial, moral, and dignity, tribes today are controlled by intellectual gifts provide the frame- a myriad of federal treaties, statutes, NARF’s efforts could not exist with- work for NARF to fulfill its goal of and case law. Yet it is within these out the contribution of the thousands securing the right to self-determination laws that Native Americans place their of individuals who have offered their to which all Native American peoples hope and faith for justice and the knowledge, courage, and vision to are entitled. protection of their way of life. With help guide NARF on its quest. Of equal NARF’s help, Native people can go on to provide leadership in their commu- nities and serve as catalysts for just policies and practices towards Native peoples nationwide. From a historical standpoint Native Americans have, for numerous reasons, been targets of discriminatory practices. For the past 36 years, NARF has represented over 200 Tribes in 31 states in such areas as tribal jurisdiction and recognition, land claims, hunting and fishing rights, the protection of Indian religious freedom, and many others. In addition to the great strides NARF has made in achieving justice on behalf of Native American people,

Page 3 Annual Report 2006

NARF’s Priorities One of the initial responsibilities of Out of the Indian approach to life there came NARF’s first Board of Directors was to a great freedom, an intense and absorbing develop priorities that would guide the Native American Rights Fund in its respect for life, enriching faith in a Supreme mission to preserve and enforce the Power, and principles of truth, honesty, legal rights of Native Americans. The Committee developed five priorities generosity, equity, and brotherhood as that continue to lead NARF today: a guide to mundane relations. ✜ Preservation of tribal existence ✜ Protection of tribal natural Alaska. An adequate land base and resources control over natural resources are ✜ Promotion of Native American central components of economic self- human rights sufficiency and self-determination, and as such, are vital to the very existence ✜ Accountability of governments to of tribes. Thus, much of NARF’s work Native Americans involves the protection of tribal ✜ Development of Indian law and natural resources. educating the public about Indian Although basic human rights are rights, laws, and issues considered a universal and inalienable Under the priority of the preserva- entitlement, Native Americans face an tion of tribal existence, NARF works ongoing threat of having their rights to construct the foundations that are undermined by the United States gov- necessary to empower tribes so that ernment, states, and others who seek virtually every aspect of tribal life, NARF they can continue to live according to to limit these rights. Under the priority maintains its involvement in the legal their Native traditions, to enforce their of the promotion of human rights, matters pertaining to accountability treaty rights, to insure their independ- NARF strives to enforce and strengthen of governments to Native Americans. ence on reservations and to protect laws which are designed to protect the The coordinated development of their sovereignty. rights of Native Americans to practice their traditional religion, to use their Indian law and educating the public Throughout the process of own language, and to enjoy their about Indian rights, laws, and issues European conquest and colonization culture. is essential for the continued protection of North America, Indian tribes expe- of Indian rights. This primarily rienced a steady diminishment of their Contained within the unique trust involves establishing favorable court land base to a mere 2.3 percent of its relationship between the United States precedents, distributing information original size. Currently, there are and Indian nations is the inherent duty and law materials, encouraging and approximately 55 million acres of for all levels of government to recognize fostering Indian legal education, and Indian-controlled land in the conti- and responsibly enforce the many laws forming alliances with Indian law nental United States and about 44 and regulations applicable to Indian practitioners and other Indian million acres of Native-owned land in peoples. Because such laws impact organizations.

Page 4 Native American Rights Fund

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 2006 marked the 36th year that the guidance. Oil development in ANWR Native American Rights Fund has pro- would harm the caribou and threaten vided legal advocacy on major issues the future of the Gwich’in people. on behalf of Native Americans across the country. Once again, a number of On behalf of the Lower Brule Sioux significant victories and achievements Tribe, we successfully helped the for Native Americans were made United States resist the efforts of the possible through the hard work of the State of South Dakota to establish that Board and staff of the Native American the Secretary of the Interior lacks Rights Fund. authority under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) to In an unprecedented effort, we place Indian land into federal trust joined in with other Native organiza- status. South Dakota argued that the John E. Echohawk tions and tribes to help block the land-into-trust provision of the IRA Senate confirmation of William G. was an unconstitutional delegation of Myers to the Ninth Circuit Court of legislative authority by the Congress to including American Indian and Alaska Appeals. Acting on behalf of our the Secretary. The Eighth Circuit Court Native languages. In the process, we clients in the Cobell v. Kempthorne of Appeals had upheld the constitu- prepared the first report ever written Indian trust funds class action lawsuit, tionality of the IRA provision in 2005 on the impact of the Voting Rights Act we opposed the nomination of Mr. and the United States Supreme Court on Alaska Natives and, in conjunction Myers by President Bush because of declined to review the case in October, with NCAI, provided testimony to the Mr. Myers adverse record in the 2006. We represented the Tribe as National Commission on the Voting Cobell case when he served as amicus curiae in the proceedings to Rights Act on behalf of Indian country. Solicitor of the Department of the help protect federal trust status We won important arguments in the Interior. His anti-Native record in that approval for 91 acres of Lower Brule United States Court of Federal Claims case and other Native American cases Sioux lands and protect the rights of on behalf of the Turtle Mountain demonstrated a bias against the all tribes to have land taken into trust Chippewa, Chippewa Cree of the interests of Native peoples. for them by the federal government. Rocky Boy’s Reservation, White Earth Once again in 2006, on behalf of In conjunction with the National Band of Minnesota Chippewa and the the Gwich’in People of Alaska, we Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Little Shell Chippewa Tribe in their worked with a coalition of environ- we worked with the Leadership monetary damages case against the mental organizations and others to Council on Civil Rights to secure federal government for mismanage- stop the Congress from approving oil Congressional reauthorization in 2006 ment of their tribal trust fund, the $53 development in the Arctic National of certain remedial provisions in the million Pembina Judgement Fund, Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). There are Voting Rights Act which were sched- awarded to them by the Indian Claims about 7,000 Gwich’in people who live uled to expire in 2007. The critical Commission in 1964 and 1980. The near the migratory route of the provisions that were reauthorized Court of Federal Claims rejected four Porcupine caribou herd. For thousands dealt with language assistance and major arguments by the United States of years, the Gwich’in have relied on require certain states and local juris- to have the case dismissed or substan- the caribou for food, clothing, tools dictions to provide voting materials tially limited and ruled that the case and a source of respect and spiritual in languages other than English, continued on the following page

Page 5 Annual Report 2006

can go forward to determine whether and tribal law. NILL’s holdings include as a non-profit organization from indi- the United States breached its trust the largest collection of tribal constitu- vidual contributors, foundations, responsibilities to the Pembina tions, codes and ordinances in the tribes and federal agencies. We thank Chippewa Tribes with respect to the United States. you for your support and hope that Pembina Judgement Fund. your assistance to Native Americans These accomplishments on behalf nationwide through the Native Our National Indian Law Library of Native American people would not American Rights Fund will continue. (NILL) received a national award have been possible without the gener- from the American Association of Law ous financial support that we receive John E. Echohawk Executive Director Librarians for “Public Access to Government Information.” Our NILL project is a national public law library We ask for nothing more, and will accept devoted to American Indian law which serves both the Native American Rights nothing less than the U.S. Government keeping Fund and the public. Since 1972 NILL has collected nearly 9,000 resource the promises it has made to Native Americans. materials that relate to federal Indian

Page 6 Native American Rights Fund

CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE I once again bring greetings from smallest, poorest and weakest minority San Ildefonso Pueblo, New Mexico – group from discrimination and Pueblo Country. As my second year as injustice, they may also lack the Chairman of the Board of Directors strength and will to accord equal has begun, I would like to share with protection for the rest of society. you some thoughts about the Native American Rights Fund. How far have we come in the 54 years since this statement was made? NARF’s new public service After each solid step taken by the announcement campaign “The Indian tribes and NARF, the courts and/or Wars Never Ended – They Only federal and state governments have Changed Venue” calls out to America consistently found ways to bring us that after 515 years, tribes continue back two steps. Tribes are still strug- John Gonzales their fight to maintain their culture gling to protect their sacred sites and and their sovereignty. For the past their religions are constantly under 36 years, NARF has been leading this assault. Sports teams and fans continue have an advantage. They are fighting charge. NARF’s Board and staff, to racially disparage Indigenous courtroom battles, not for abstract Indian and non-Indian alike, have peoples – something that would never reasons, but for family... and this dedicated their lives to bring excellent be tolerated for any other minority makes Indian attorneys more and highly ethical legal representation group. Desecration of Indian and formidable in court.” to tribes and achieving justice on Native Hawaiian burial remains and behalf of America’s indigenous peoples. funerary objects continues. Voting If NARF is to continue to be a Many of the gains in Indian country Rights Act violations on reservations formidable force – we need your help. during this time can be attributed and Alaska Native villages continue. We challenge tribes, foundations and to NARF. Basic needs on reservations, such as the thousands of individual supporters health care, education, transportation, to be part of the solution. Help us to When I think of all the battles that and law enforcement continue to be resolve these problems and issues the Native American Rights Fund has underfunded. Settlement of the trust once and for all. Together, we can been involved in, I think of a 1953 fund issue continues to be torpedoed by then guide our energy and efforts into quote by Felix S. Cohen, the “father” the federal government. Unfortunately, helping secure a future of our Mother of Federal Indian law, when he stated, these and other issues continue to Earth and in turn, secure a future for “[l]ike the miner’s canary, the Indian find life and NARF readies the warriors our children and grandchildren. marks the shifts from fresh air to poison for battle. gas in our political atmosphere; and John Gonzales, Chairman our treatment of Indians, even more Throughout all of these battles than our treatment of other minorities, NARF continues to find ways to win, reflects the rise and fall in our demo- continues to reload and fight again. cratic faith...” From these words we Why has NARF been so resilient after Together... we can. understand that unless our country’s all of these years? As NARF senior social policy and government attorney Yvonne Knight so aptly stated institutions can protect America’s some years back “Indian attorneys

Page 7 Annual Report 2006

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Native American Rights Fund NARF’s Board of Directors: (First row left to right) – John Gonzales, has a governing board composed of Chairman (San Ildefonso Pueblo - New Mexico); Andrew Bowers (Seminole Native American leaders from across Tribe of Florida); Lydia Olympic (Yupik/Aleut - Alaska); Karlene Hunter the country -- wise and distinguished (Oglala Lakota - South Dakota); Delia Carlyle (Ak Chin Indian Community - people who are respected by Native Arizona). (Second row left to right) – Kunani Nihipali (Native Hawaiian - Americans nationwide. Individual Hawaii); (Jaime Barrientoz’ son); Jaime Barrientoz, Vice-Chairman (Grande Board members are chosen based on Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians - Michigan); Billy Frank (Nisqually their involvement and knowledge of Tribe - Washington). (Not Pictured) – Elbridge Coochise (Hopi - Arizona) Indian issues and affairs, as well as Jim Gray (Osage Nation - Oklahoma); Anthony Pico (Viejas Band of Kumeyaay their tribal affiliation, to ensure a Indians - California); Paul Ninham (Oneida Nation of Wisconsin); Woody comprehensive geographical Widmark (Sitka Tribe - Alaska). representation. The NARF Board of Directors, whose members serve a maximum of six years, provide NARF Even the seasons form a great circle in with leadership and credibility, and the vision of its members is essential their changing, and always come back to NARF’s effectiveness in representing its Native American clients. again to where they were.

Page 8 Native American Rights Fund

NATIONAL SUPPORT COMMITTEE The National Support Committee Committee are prominent in the field the 51 volunteers on the Committee (NSC) assists NARF with its fund raising of business, entertainment and the are committed to upholding the rights and public relations efforts nationwide. arts. Others are known advocates for of Native Americans. Some of the individuals on the the rights of the underserved. All of

Owanah Anderson, Choctaw Clinton Pattea, Ft. McDowell Yavapai Edward Asner Amado Pena,~ Jr., Yaqui/Chicano Katrina McCormick Barnes Pernell Roberts John Bevan Marc Rudick David Brubeck Pam Rudick Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Northern Cheyenne Wayne Ross/Nancy Starling-Ross Wallace Coffey, Comanche Leslie Marmon Silko, Laguna Pueblo Ada Deer, Menominee Connie Stevens Harvey A. Dennenberg Ernie Stevens, Jr., Wisconsin Onieida Michael J. Driver Anthony L. Strong, Tlingit-Klukwan Richard Dysart Maria Tallchief, Osage Lucille A. Echohawk, Pawnee Andrew Teller, Isleta Pueblo Louise Erdrich, Turtle Mountain Chippewa Verna Teller, Isleta Pueblo Jane Fonda Studs Terkel James Garner Tenaya Torres, Chiricahua Apache Sy Gomberg Richard Trudell, Santee Sioux Carol Hayward, Fond du Lac Rebecca Tsosie, Pasqua Yaqui Richard A. Hayward, Mashantucket Pequot Thomas Tureen John Heller Tzo-Nah, Shoshone Bannock Emilie Heller-Rhys Aine Ungar Charles R. Klewin Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland, Seminole Nancy Klewin W. Richard West, Southern Cheyenne Wilma Mankiller, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Randell Willis, Oglala Lakota Chris E. McNeil, Jr., Tlingit-Nisga’a Teresa Willis, Umatilla Billy Mills, Oglala Lakota Mary Wynne, Rosebud Sioux N. Scott Momaday, Kiowa

Everything on the earth has a purpose, and every person has a mission to accomplish...

Page 9

Native American Rights Fund

THE PRESERVATION OF TRIBAL EXISTENCE NARF works to construct the foun- sovereignty over their territory. with the most likely success before the dations that are necessary to empower However, in the past two decades, the Court. When cases are accepted, the tribes so that they can continue to live Supreme Court has steadily chipped Project helps ensure that the attorneys according to their Native traditions, to away at this fundamental principle, representing the Indian interests have enforce their treaty rights, to insure both by restricting tribal jurisdiction all the support they need, and to coor- their independence on reservations and by extending state jurisdiction. dinate the filing of a limited number and to protect their sovereignty. These decisions by the Supreme of strategic amicus briefs. A second Specifically, NARF’s legal represen- Court have made this priority more component of the initiative is to par- tation centers on sovereignty and relevant than ever, and have led to a ticipate in the judicial nominations jurisdiction issues, federal recognition Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and confirmations at the lower court and restoration of tribal status, and in partnership with the National and the Supreme Court levels. Finally, economic development. Thus, the Congress of American Indians (NCAI) there is a Congressional initiative to focus of NARF’s work involves issues and tribes nationwide to restore the fight legislative measures that are relating to the preservation and traditional principles of inherent tribal against tribal interests and to affirma- enforcement of the status of tribes as sovereignty where those have been tively push legislation to correct sovereign governments. Tribal govern- undermined and to safeguard the core anti-tribal Supreme Court precedent. ments possess the power to regulate of sovereignty that remains. NARF launched the Tribal Supreme the internal affairs of their members Court Project in conjunction with NCAI as well as other activities within their This initiative consists of three in 2001. Since 2001, the Project has reservations. Jurisdictional conflicts components. The first component is been involved with nine cases – four often arise with states, the federal the Tribal Supreme Court Project, the wins, four losses, and one draw. This government, and others over tribal focus of which is to monitor cases is an impressive track record, given sovereignty. potentially headed to the United States Supreme Court and those which that before the inception of the Project Tribal Sovereignty actually are accepted for review. An tribes lost 80% or more of these effort is made to promote the cases continued on the following page The focus of NARF’s work under this priority is the protection of the status of tribes as sovereign, self- governing entities. The United States Constitution recognizes that Indian tribes are independent governmental entities with inherent authority over their territory. In treaties with the United States, Indian tribes ceded millions of acres of land in exchange for the guarantee that the federal government would protect the tribes’ right to self-government. From the early 1800s on, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the fundamental principle that tribes retain inherent

Page 11 Annual Report 2006

cases. In addition, the Project worked to ensure that tribal victories in Courts of Appeals were denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court.The Tribal Supreme Court Project is housed at NARF’s office in Washington, D.C., and is staffed by one NARF attorney and by support staff. In an effort to foster greater coordination in advocacy before the Supreme Court, an Advisory Board of tribal leaders, comprised of NCAI Executive Committee members and other tribal leaders willing to volunteer their time, also assists the Project. The Board’s role is to provide On the positive side, NARF, through filed a brief in opposition to certiorari necessary political and tribal perspec- the Supreme Court Project, participated in Morris v. Tanner. tive to the legal and academic expertise. in a case upholding the Secretary of Unfortunately, there were three The Project has also established a the Interior’s authority to take land significant setbacks for the Supreme Working Group – a group of more into trust on behalf of Indian tribes in Court Project. In City of Sherrill v. than 200 noted attorneys and Carcieri v. Norton. The Tribal Oneida Indian Nation, the Supreme academics from around the nation Supreme Court Project coordinated Court for the first time applied the who participate in the Project as their the writing of amicus briefs in the case doctrine of laches to bar a jurisdic- interest, time and resources allow. with the attorneys for the Narragansett Indian Tribe and the United States tional claim brought by an Indian To achieve the goals of the Project, throughout the appeals process. The tribe. The doctrine of laches prevents NARF monitors cases which appear to Project also filed an amicus brief in consideration of claims based on the be headed for the Supreme Court, and support of the petition for rehearing passage of time. Next, the U.S. Court of organizes, coordinates and contributes en banc in Smith v. Salish Kootenai Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Cayuga Sherrill to a nation-wide Indian amicus brief College, a favorable decision upholding case relied on to bar writing network. Amicus briefs allow tribal court civil jurisdiction over a an Indian land claim, the precise type those not directly involved in litigation, tort action that arose as a result of a of action that the Supreme Court had County but potentially impacted by the out- traffic accident on a public highway previously allowed in 1985 in of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation come, to provide information and within the Reservation and involving a , arguments directly to the Court. By non-member Indian who was a student a decision that the Court took pains to Sherrill bringing together experienced Indian at the tribal college and who was driving preserve in . Despite the law practitioners and scholars to the vehicle as part of a vocational Project's best efforts, the Supreme certiorari Cayuga discuss and agree upon a coordinated program at the college. Finally, the Court denied in , amicus brief writing strategy in each Project filed an amicus brief resulting thus leaving intact a decision that case, and by assisting the parties, in an en banc decision in Morris v. adversely affects many eastern Indian NARF ensures that the most effective Tanner, upholding tribal criminal land claims. The Project has now and focused arguments are made misdemeanor jurisdiction over a non mobilized its resources nationwide to before the Court on behalf of member Indian. The Project has also provide assistance to attorneys in Indian Country. fighting the laches defense.

Page 12 Native American Rights Fund

Another setback for the Project was When Mr. Myers was first nominated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the loss in Wagnon v. Kansas Prairie by President Bush in 2003, the Native which contains over 400 Indian tribes Band Potawatomi Nation. The American Rights Fund, along with the and millions of acres of Indian lands. Supreme Court ruled that the state National Congress of American Indians could impose a tax on motor fuel sold and numerous Indian tribes and Federal Recognition to a reservation gas station by non- inter-tribal organizations, took the of Tribal Status Indian wholesalers. The Tribe imposes unprecedented step in formally opposing Achieving legal status as an Indian on gasoline purchases a tax equal to a judicial nominee to a lifetime tribe is very important to preserving that of the state to build and maintain appointment on the federal bench. tribal existence and self-government. roads on the reservation. The Court Some tribal groups do not have this focused on the incidence of the tax In the private sector, Mr. Myers has status because they have never been being on the non-Indian wholesalers largely represented the mining and formally recognized as tribes by the and did not apply the balancing test cattle industries as their lawyer and federal government. NARF provides that considers the impact of the tax on lobbyist. During his tenure as Solicitor representation to those tribal groups the Tribe. This is a dangerous prece- – as the top lawyer at the Department who have a right to become federally dent and could negatively impact many of the Interior from 2001 to 2003 – recognized tribes. other tribes. The Project had devoted Mr. Myers displayed a complete lack of understanding of the government- considerable effort to coordinating NARF currently represents Indian to-government trust relationship amicus briefs and persuading the U.S. communities who have survived intact Solicitor General’s Office to support between the Federal government and the Tribe. Several nominations to federal The life of a human being is a circle from judgeships, including to the Supreme Court, have been considered by the childhood to childhood, and so it is in Senate. NARF has researched the everything where power moves. background of these nominees on Indian issues and made this information as identifiable Indian tribes but who available to tribal leaders to consider Indian tribes, while demonstrating a are not federally recognized. These in deciding whether to support or calculated bias in favor of mining, Indian tribes, for differing reasons, do oppose a nominee. For example, we grazing and other special interests. not have a government-to-government helped gather information on the relationship between themselves and nomination of Chief Justice John Mr. Myer’s record regarding issues the federal government. Traditionally, Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel impacting Indian country was unmis- federal recognition was accorded to a Alito to the Supreme Court. takably clear: He is hostile to the rule of law whenever the law does not serve tribe through treaty, land set aside On behalf of our clients in the the special interests he represents in administratively for a tribe, or by Cobell v. Kempthorne case, NARF the private sector. His record demon- legislative means. The majority of opposed the nomination of William strated a bias – a wholesale bias these NARF clients are seeking an G. Myers to the Ninth Circuit Court of against the fundamental and sound administrative determination by the Appeals because of his adverse record interests of Native peoples. Indian Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that as Interior Department Solicitor in country had grave concerns with they, in fact, have continued to exist as that case. His nomination was not Mr. Myers ability to apply the law fairly confirmed by the Senate in 2006. and impartially as a federal judge on continued on the following page

Page 13 Annual Report 2006

Indian tribes from the time of signifi- receipt of many federal services. In to maintain the progress that has been cant white contact to the present day 1998, NARF filed a petition for federal made with the Environmental and have continued to govern them- recognition on behalf of the Protection Agency (EPA) and other selves and their members. NARF, Shinnecock Indian Nation in federal agencies. With a representative therefore, prepares the necessary Southampton, New York. The Bureau on the Green Group, a coalition of historical, legal, and anthropological of Indian Affairs (BIA) has now national environmental leaders, NARF documentation to support a petition placed Shinnecock on the “Ready, continues to coordinate with and for acknowledgment. For more than Waiting for Active Consideration” list. educate the environmental community 100 years, these Indian communities This is a milestone for the Nation after on the role of tribal governments in have been denied the benefits of many years of waiting. Shinnecock environmental law and policy. a formal relationship with the federal appears to be well on its way to government. Through the process of achieving federal recognition. NARF In Alaska, NARF assists the Gwich’in administrative acknowledgment, NARF has also assisted the Little Shell Tribe Steering Committee in their efforts to is now trying to bridge that gap. of Chippewa Indians of Montana. In protect the Arctic National Wildlife 2000, the Assistant Secretary published Refuge (ANWR) from oil development. Federal recognition is an arduous a preliminary finding in favor of There are about 7,000 Gwich’in people process that takes many years to com- recognition. Final submissions in sup- who live on or near the migratory plete. Petitioning tribes must prove that port of Little Shell’s petition have been route of the Porcupine caribou herd. they have been identified by reliable submitted and we are awaiting decision. For thousands of years, the Gwich’in external sources on a substantially Finally, NARF is helping the Pamunkey have relied on the caribou for food, continuous basis as an Indian entity; Tribe in Virginia finalize its petition for clothing, tools and a source of respect they must prove that they have main- federal acknowledgment to the BIA’s and spiritual guidance. Oil develop- tained a continuous community from Office of Federal Acknowledgment for ment in ANWR would not only harm historical times to the present day; federal recognition. the caribou and threaten the future of they must show that they have main- the Gwich’in people, but would also tained political authority or influence At the U.S. Congressional level, threaten more than 180 species of on a substantially continuous basis on behalf of it is federal recognition birds, and numerous mammals from historical times until the present clients, NARF monitors and responds including polar bears, musk ox, day; they must prove that current tribal when appropriate to federal legislation wolves, wolverine, moose, Arctic and members, as a whole, descend from a affecting the federal acknowledgment red foxes, black bears, brown bears, historic tribe or tribes which amalga- regulatory process. and the white Dall sheep. NARF has mated; they must prove that their successfully worked with a coalition of members are not mostly members of Environmental Law environmental groups and organiza- an already recognized tribe; and, their and Policy Initiative tions for several years to stop the members cannot be from groups Congress from approving oil drilling NARF has played a key role in the which were terminated by legislation. in ANWR. Drilling for oil in ANWR implementation of federal environ- This process requires the testimony of was once again hotly debated in the mental law and policy that recognizes many experts and thorough documen- last Congress as the Senate budget tribal governments as the primary tation of each requirement. reconciliation bill language allowed regulators and enforcers of the federal for drilling in ANWR and the House environmental laws on Indian lands. Tribal existence does not depend version did not, but it was defeated. NARF continued to work with tribes, on federal recognition, but recogni- This was a close call, but ended up the National Tribal Environmental tion is necessary for a government-to- being a great success. NARF will government relationship and the Council and other Indian organizations

Page 14 Native American Rights Fund

continue to assist the Gwich’in jeopardized, as are cultural structures Steering Committee in their efforts to and the nutritional needs of Alaska’s stop the approval of oil development indigenous peoples. in ANWR. The Alaska legislature created the Global warming is wreaking havoc Alaska Climate Impact Assessment in Alaska. In recent years scientists Commission, which is charged with have documented melting ocean ice, assessing the effects and costs of global rising oceans, rising river temperatures, warming on Alaskans, the state’s natural thawing permafrost, increased insect resources, and its economy. The Com- infestations, animals at risk and dying mission will hold eight field hearings forests. Alaska Natives are the peoples throughout Alaska to receive testimony who rely most on Alaska’s ice, seas, from individuals and tribal representa- marine mammals, fish and game for tives, who will be assisted by NARF. nutrition and customary and traditional subsistence uses; they are thus experi- NARF, working with the Tribe’s encing the adverse impacts of global Environmental Health Technical Team warming most acutely. (EHTT), has assisted the Oglala Sioux Tribe (OST) in developing water-related In February 2006, during the Alaska environmental codes. NARF is working of authority to provide connections to Forum on the Environment, Alaska with the OST Department of Water the pipeline. NARF will conduct Native participants described Maintenance and Conservation and the training for the staff of the Water increased forest fires, more dangerous EHTT on the revision of the Tribe’s Maintenance and Conservation hunting, fishing and traveling condi- Ordinance for the Protection of the Department concerning the imple- tions, visible changes in animals and Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply mentation of these important codes. plants, infrastructure damage from System and Other Public Water melting permafrost and coastal Systems Within the Pine Ridge Indian The Three Affiliated Tribes of the erosion, fiercer winter storms, and Reservation [“Tap-in” ordinance], as Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in pervasive unpredictability. Virtually well as a Solid Waste Management North Dakota have had an application every aspect of traditional Alaska Code, and development of a tribal Safe pending before USEPA Region 8 in Native life is impacted. As noted in the Drinking Water Act . The “Tap-in” Denver, CO since 1997 for delegation recently released Arctic Climate ordinance, which was adopted by the to set water quality standards for the Impact Assessment 2004, indigenous Tribal Council, will provide for the surface water of the Reservation. peoples are reporting that sea ice is protection of the integrity of the USEPA recently responded to Tribal declining, and its quality and timing pipeline which delivers drinking water requests to act on that application. are changing, with important negative to the public water systems on the The Tribes’ Manager of Environmental repercussions for marine hunters. reservation. The Code was adopted by Programs retained NARF to assist the Others are reporting that salmon are the Tribal Council in January 2006. Tribe in assuring that the application diseased and cannot be dried for winter NARF is presently assisting the Tribe to is current, complete, and adequate to food. There is widespread concern formulate and adopt regulations for obtain delegation. NARF is working about caribou habitat diminishing as implementation of the Code, and has with the Tribes’ Environmental larger vegetation moves northward. developed draft forms for application Program, Tribal Reservation Attorneys, Because of these and other dramatic and permit for connections “in-lieu” and the Tribal Council to complete a changes, traditional knowledge is of the usual process, and for delegation revised application.

Page 15

Native American Rights Fund

THE PROTECTION OF TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCES Over time, Indian tribes have expe- rienced a steady diminishment of their land base to a mere two percent of its original size. An adequate land base and control over natural resources are central components of economic self- sufficiency and self-determination, and as such, are vital to the very existence of tribes. Therefore, protection of tribal natural resources is a high priority at NARF. Protection of Indian Lands Without a sufficient land base, tribal existence is difficult to maintain. Thus NARF helps tribes establish ownership and control over lands which are rightfully theirs. NARF has worked with the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe against the State of South Dakota’s challenge to the United States’ decision to place approximately NARF has been retained by the reclamation project. The memorandum 91 acres of land into trust for the Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind has been completed and was presented Lower Brule Sioux Tribe under Section River Indian Reservation to prepare a to the Tribal Business Council. 465 of the Indian Reorganization Act. legal memorandum on the boundaries The State is alleging, among other of their reservation. Congress adopted At the Tribal Business Council and things, that the Secretary lacks authority a Surplus Land Act for the reservation General Council meetings additional to place land into trust because in 1905. The question is whether the assignments were made to look at and Section 465 is an unconstitutional result of that Act was to diminish the report on other Eastern Shoshone delegation of legislative authority. boundaries of the reservation, or to interests at Bull Lake, Wind River The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth simply open the reservation for settle- Canyon and the City of Riverton, Circuit issued a favorable decision in ment by non-Indians while retaining Wyoming. A report to the Tribe's 2005 upholding the constitutionality of the existing boundaries. Since the General Council was made in February Section 465. The Attorney General passage of the 1905 Act, Congress has 2006, and an additional assignment moved for rehearing and the Tribe adopted a number of other laws that was given to NARF to look into the filed an amicus brief opposing rehearing. affect the area in question, including Tribe’s application for lands to be After the rehearing was denied, the an Act in 1939 that returned to tribal taken into trust that the Tribe had State filed a petition for review in the ownership all of the lands in the acquired within the reservation Supreme Court but that was denied in “ceded” area that had not been settled boundaries. In the meantime the Tribe October 2006. by non-Indians or set aside as a continued on the following page

Page 17 Annual Report 2006

– along with the Northern Arapaho Tribe – has been invited by the Mayor of the City of Riverton to sit down and Treat the earth well, discuss the important issues related to jurisdiction and boundaries to see if an agreement can be reached. It is it was not given to you by likely that the Tribes will accept the Mayor’s invitation. your parents, it was loaned NARF continues to assist the to you by your children. Hualapai Indian Tribe of Arizona with economic development. The Tribe is located on the south rim of the Grand payment of annuities in the Indian aboriginal title has never been extin- Canyon in Arizona, and claims a Claims Commission (ICC), the guished. Negotiators for the U.S. and boundary that runs to the center of the Canadian Pottawatomi members could Tribe reached an agreement on the Colorado River. The Tribe asked that not bring a claim in the ICC. In 1993, amount of damages for the loss of NARF provide an interpretation of NARF brought suit on behalf of the land - $270 million- and the Court key provisions of their Constitution Canadian Pottawatomi in the Court of recommended the agreement to concerning the management and Federal Claims, and the parties Congress in 2002. NARF, private development of the Tribe’s natural reached a $1.8 million agreement counsel, and the Tribe are now working resources. In addition, the Tribe owns which was approved by the Court in to garner Congressional approval for the Cholla Canyon Ranch near Wikiup, 2000 and recommended to Congress the payment of this amount under the Arizona. The Ranch was gifted to the in 2001. NARF continues to work with Congressional reference procedure. Tribe by its owners and is presently the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, being operated as a palm tree planta- the Senate Judiciary Committee and NARF represents the Native Village tion. NARF reviewed the proposed the House Resources Committee to see of Tuluksak in Alaska in their quest to agricultural lease on the Ranch lands this matter through to final resolution. have the land owned by the Village and may assist in further negotiations corporation transferred in fee simple on this matter. Finally, NARF has Since 1981, NARF has represented to the Village tribal council. The reviewed and provided legal analysis the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Department of the Interior would then of other issues related to agreements in their quest to secure compensation be petitioned to place the land into with Coconino County, mineral devel- for the loss of use of millions of acres trust on behalf of the Village. opment of tribal land acquired from of fertile forest land they once occupied Currently tribes in Alaska are not fee owners, and whether the tribal in southeast Texas. In 2002, the permitted to place lands into trust as constitution requires voter approval of United States Court of Federal Claims do tribes in the “Lower 48.” The a project involving tribal housing. ruled in favor of the Alabama- Native Village of Tuluksak has decided Coushatta Tribe of Eastern Texas in to pursue litigation to establish the NARF represents the Pottawatomi their breach-of-trust claim against the right of Alaska Tribes to petition the Nation of Canada, a band of descen- United States, holding the Government Secretary to place lands in trust. The dants from the Historic Pottawatomi liable for the Tribe’s loss of use of litigation was filed in 2006 in the fed- Nation, which from 1795 to 1833 over 2.85 million acres of land eral court in the District of Columbia. signed a series of treaties with the between 1845 and 1954. The Court United States. While the American also ruled that 5.5 million acres of For many years, NARF has co-coun- Pottawatomi bands recovered the seled with the Native Hawaiian Legal

Page 18 Native American Rights Fund

Corporation (“NHLC”) and private counsel in representing the Pele Defense Fund in efforts to prevent large-scale geothermal development in the Wao Kele'O Puna rainforest on the Big Island, and to regain Native Hawaiian access rights to Wao Kele lands. These efforts culminated with the entry in 2002 of a stipulated judg- ment and order by the state court in Hilo, Hawaii recognizing the rights of Native Hawaiians to hunt, gather, and worship on the Wao Kele lands – as part of the bundle of “traditional and customary rights” protected, preserved and enforced under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution. Efforts are now underway for the acquisition of the Wao Kele O Puna rainforest lands. Discussions continue regarding the sale of over 25,000 acres of rainforest to a non-profit land trust, thereby assuring perpetual access rights for Native Hawaiians. NARF’s Indian water rights work is to not utilized their reserved water rights With NARF’s assistance, the Trust for secure allocations of water for present and most of these rights are unadjudi- Public Lands (Hawaii Office) secured and future needs for four Indian tribes cated or unquantified. The major an appraisal of the property. NARF represented by NARF and other west- need in each case is to define or worked with the Trust for Public ern tribes generally. Under the prece- quantify the amount of water to which Lands in applying for purchase funds dent established by the United States each tribe is entitled through litigation from the U.S. Department of Supreme Court in 1908 in Winters v. or out-of-court settlement negotiations. Agriculture’s (Forest Service) Forest United States and confirmed in 1963 Tribes are generally able to claim Legacy Program. TPL was successful in Arizona v. California, Indian tribes water for any purpose which enables in securing Forest Legacy Funding are entitled under federal law to suffi- the tribes’ reservations to serve as a and, in 2006, the State of Hawaii's cient water for present and future permanent homeland. Office of Hawaiian Affairs agreed to needs, with a priority date at least as put up funding to cover the balance early as the establishment of their NARF represents the Nez Perce and make the transfer of the Wao Kele reservations. These tribal reserved Tribe of Idaho in its water rights claim O Puna lands a reality. water rights are superior to all state- in the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA). The Nez Perce Tribe is located Water Rights recognized water rights created after the tribal priority date. Such a date in northern Idaho near the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. Establishing tribal rights to the use will in most cases give tribes valuable The Nez Perce claims have been the of water in the arid west continues to senior water rights in the water-short be a major NARF priority. The goal of west. Unfortunately, many tribes have continued on the following page

Page 19 Annual Report 2006

biggest outstanding dispute in the SRBA, which includes a legal inventory of about 180,000 water rights claims May we be strong in spirit and equal to in 38 of Idaho’s 44 counties. In 2005, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive our Fathers of another day in reading the Committee (NPTEC) accepted the final signs of nature accurately and interpreting terms of the water rights claims in the State of Idaho’s SRBA. The Nez Perce them wisely... through the good earth, Tribe has agreed to: 50,000 acre feet of water decreed to the Tribe for the blue sky, the flying birds and the on-reservation uses; instream flows changing winds. decreed on almost 200 Tribal priority streams to be held by the State of Idaho; 600 springs claims decreed on appropriations are secure. water right claims and actively prose- cuted them for the past four years. about 6 million acres of Federal land NARF represents the Klamath Tribes in the Tribe’s 1863 ceded area; over During 2004 and 2005, in one of the of Oregon who hold reserved water largest contests, a four-week trial was 11,000 acres of on-reservation Bureau rights in the Klamath River Basin to of Land Management land transferred held concerning water rights for the support their treaty hunting, fishing Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath to the Tribe in trust; and, $96 million in and gathering rights, as well as to three separate funds, for Tribal drinking Project. In Case 003 (one of the satisfy the agricultural purposes of the largest contests where NARF is still water and sewer projects, water devel- Klamath Reservation. NARF filed opment projects, in addition to various participating following a four week about 150 contests on behalf of the trial) a ruling on the merits upheld Tribal projects including cultural Tribes against unsubstantiated private preservation and fishery habitat NARF’s position that the United States, improvements. NARF has represented the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho in the SRBA – both litigation and settlement phases – since 1987. Congress enacted the Snake River Settlement Act of 2004 and President Bush signed it into law the same year. The Governor signed the approval legislation in 2005. The approval by NPTEC represented the final sign-off by the three sover- eigns. This is a major accomplish- ment for the Nez Perce Tribe and its members. NARF continues to work with the Tribe to secure final approval of the settlement by the SRBA water court, and on the federal appropria- tions process. The Idaho Congressional delegation has informed the Tribe that the Tribe’s FY 2007 settlement

Page 20 Native American Rights Fund

not private water users or irrigation districts, owns the water rights for the enormous Klamath Irrigation Project. Accordingly, the claims of the water users and the districts were denied, and the holding ensures that the Klamath Project will continue to be operated pursuant to the United States’ Endangered Species Act and tribal trust obligations. Proceedings to finalize the Order in Case 003 are continuing. Adjudication of the Tribes’ water rights claims became active and the parties briefed legal issues on the merits on those cases in the summary judgment stage. In November 2006, the Administrative Law Judge (AJL) entered Orders in all eight cases that upheld the Tribes’ legal position in a sweeping set of victories. The ALJ held claims. The Tribe’s goal is to negotiate State of Kansas made these promises that the Tribes are entitled to a suffi- a settlement that will provide the Tribe to the Tribe over a decade ago. In the cient amount of water for a healthy with sufficient water to create a intervening years these parties have habitat and productive fishery. The permanent sustainable homeland for been actively developing the water parties recently agreed to a vigorous its people with no or minimal adverse resources of the watershed, resulting discovery and trial schedule to impact on other water users. Settling in the near depletion of the Tribe’s adjudicate remaining issues regarding Parties have made great progress senior federal water rights in the Tribes’ water right claims in the toward reaching a water rights settle- the drainage. eight tribal cases which will extend ment agreement and continue to well into 2008. negotiate remaining issues. The water quality on the reservation is so poor it is harmful to human NARF represents the Tule River In June 2006, the Kickapoo Tribe in health and unsuitable for human Indian Tribe of California in on-going Kansas filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. consumption according to the EPA. negotiations to settle the Tribe’s claims District Court in an effort to enforce The water supply is in violation of the to reserved water rights on its express promises made to the Tribe to Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. As a Reservation. After legal and technical build the Plum Creek Reservoir result the Kickapoo people are unable analyses of its water rights claims, the Project in the Upper Delaware and to safely drink, bathe or cook with tap Tribe decided to pursue a negotiated tributaries watershed. The Nemaha- water. The Plum Creek Reservoir settlement of its water rights claims Brown Watershed Joint Board # 7, Project is the most cost-effective and before engaging in litigation. The the Natural Resources Conservation reliable means by which the Tribe can Department of the Interior appointed Service of the United States free its members from the dire living a Federal Negotiation Team to assist Department of Agriculture, and the continued on page 24 the Tribe in settling its water rights

Page 21 Major Activities 2006 NARF Case Studies

Page 22 Native American Rights Fund

ALASKA NEW MEXICO NARF ANCHORAGE OFFICE • Jicarilla Apache Tribe - Education • Chistochina Tribe – Subsistence • Mescalero Apache Tribe – Tribal Trust Fund • Curing v. Alaska - ICWA • Kaltag Tribe – ICWA NEW YORK • Katie John v. Norton - Subsistence • Shinnecock Indian Nation - Recognition • English Only Initiative • Global Warming Project NORTH DAKOTA • Native Villages of Eyak, Tatitlek, Chenega, • Fort Berthold Reservation - Education & Water Nanwalek, and Port Graham - Subsistence • Turtle Mountain Reservation - Tribal Trust Fund & Aboriginal Title • Gwich’in Steering Committee - Environmental/Subsistence OKLAHOMA • Native Village of Kiana - Education • Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes – Tribal Trust Fund • Native Village of Nulato - Education and • Pawnee Nation – Education, NAGPRA & Tribal ICWA Trust Fund • Ninilchick Tribe - Subsistence • Sac & Fox Nations – Tribal Trust Fund • Native Village of Tuluksak - Trust Lands OREGON • Native Village of Venetie - Subsistence • Klamath Tribes - Water Rights & Tribal Trust Fund • Voting Rights Act • Bonnichsen v. United States (“Kennewick Man case”) - Repatriation ARIZONA • Hualapai Tribe – Boundary Issue SOUTH DAKOTA • Lower Brule Sioux Tribe - Trust Lands CALIFORNIA • Rosebud Sioux Tribe - Education & Tribal Administration • Tule River Tribe – Water • Oglala Sioux Tribe - Environmental • Yurok Tribe – Tribal Trust Funds

COLORADO TEXAS • Alabama-Coushatta Tribe - Land Claim NARF HEADQUARTERS BOULDER, COLORADO • ICWA Site VIRGINIA • TEDNA Headquarters Pamunkey Tribe – Recognition • Valmont Butte – Sacred Site Issue WASHINGTON HAWAII • Yakama Nation – Tribal Trust Funds • Pele Defense Fund - Aboriginal Rights WASHINGTON, D.C. IDAHO NARF WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE • Nez Perce Tribe - Water Rights • Cobell v. Norton & Tribal Supreme Court Project • Harjo et al v. Washington Redskin Football KANSAS - Cultural Rights • Kickapoo Tribe – Water Rights WYOMING MINNESOTA • Eastern Shoshone Tribe - Land Issue • White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians - Tribal Trust Fund CANADA MONTANA • Northern Lakes Pottawatomi Nation - Land Claim • Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boys Reservation - Tribal Trust Fund INTERNATIONAL • Little Shell Tribe - Recognition & Tribal Trust Fund • Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – United Nations & Organization of American States NEBRASKA • Santee Sioux Tribe – Tribal Trust Fund Page 23 Annual Report 2006

challenge regulations promulgated by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture implementing the subsis- tence preference established by the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). ANILCA establishes a preference for customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife by according a priority for the taking of fish and wildlife on federal public lands in Alaska for non-wasteful subsistence uses by rural Alaska residents, most of whom are Alaska Natives. The Safari Club challenged the validity of all 180 customary and traditional use determinations under conditions forced upon them by traditional, and cultural existence, ANILCA, and challenged the composi- their unreliable and dangerous the State of Alaska has been and tion of Regional Area Council (RAC) water supply. continues to be reluctant to recognize as not adequately representing sport, the importance of the subsistence way recreational and commercial interests. A thirty-year era of unreliable water of life. supplies on the Kickapoo Reservation NARF intervened in the case on behalf located in Brown County, Kansas has In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals of its clients in order to defend the disabled the Kickapoo Tribe from for the Ninth Circuit en banc remanded Federal Subsistence Board’s (FSB) providing basic municipal services for a determination of whether the subsistence use-determinations for necessary to protect its residents from tribes can establish aboriginal rights their respective Alaska Native commu- illness, fire, and unsanitary living in their traditional-use areas. The nities and to protect their entitlement conditions. There is not enough water District Court ordered the parties (the to take fish and wildlife on federal on the reservation to provide basic plaintiff Chugach Tribes are represented public lands in Alaska. The court municipal services to the community, by NARF) to refile Motions for issued a decision in July 2006, holding the Tribe is unable to provide local Summary Judgment. The Chugach that the FSB had not followed the schools with a reliable, safe running chose not to file a motion for summary Administrative Procedures Act in water, and the fire department cannot judgment given the remaining fact promulgating the regulation allowing provide adequate fire protection due disputes, but the government did 30% of the RAC seats to be held by to the water shortage. submit one. Summary judgement was non-subsistence users. Thus the FSB denied in December 2006 and a now has to re-do its regulations about Protection of Hunting and schedule for trial will now be set. who can hold seats on it, and it is Fishing Rights in Alaska expected to reissue the regulations for NARF is representing the Native public comment in early 2007. The subsistence way of life is essen- Village of Venetie Tribal Government, tial for the physical and cultural survival the Ninilchik Tribal Government, and In 2005, the State of Alaska filed a of Alaska Natives. As important as individuals as proposed interveners in lawsuit in the District of Columbia Native hunting and fishing rights are to a case that was initially brought by the challenging the final rule implementing Alaska Natives' physical, economic, Safari Club, a sporting club, to the mandate in the prior subsistence

Page 24 Native American Rights Fund

case, John v. United States. This prior Order transferring the case to the In June 2006 the State of Alaska NARF case established that the United District of Alaska. brought suit challenging the Federal States must protect subsistence uses of Subsistence Board’s customary and John v. Norton fisheries in navigable waters where the Katie John had filed traditional use finding for subsistence United States possesses a reserved in the District of Alaska challenging uses of moose by members of the water right. The State challenges the the Secretaries’ final rule implementing Chistochina Tribe. A positive customary Secretaries’ implementation of the the prior Katie John mandate as being and traditional use finding entitles mandate by arguing that the reserved too restrictive in its scope. Katie John’s residents for a specific community to waters doctrine requires a quantifica- complaint alleges that the Secretaries the subsistence priority under Title tion of waters necessary to fulfill should have included Alaska Native VIII of the Alaska National Interest specific purposes. Alaska Native sub- allotments as public lands and further Lands Conservation (“ANILCA”). sistence user Katie John filed a motion that the federal government’s interest Represented by NARF, Chistochina was for limited intervention for purposes in water extends upstream and down- granted intervention in this action to of filing a motion to dismiss for failure stream from the Conservation Units protect its customary and traditional to join an indispensable party. The established under ANILCA. The two use status for moose. United States filed a motion to transfer cases have now been consolidated venue to Alaska. The court entered an and briefing is underway.

Page 25

Native American Rights Fund

THE PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Although basic human rights are NARF represents the Pawnee Nation considered a universal and inalienable in the reburial of about 800 human entitlement, Native Americans face an remains in the State of Nebraska. This ongoing threat of having their rights reburial entails facilitation of a transfer undermined by the United States gov- of private land located within the heart ernment, states, and others who seek of the aboriginal Pawnee homeland to to limit these rights. NARF strives to the Nation for use as a reburial and enforce and strengthen laws which are cultural site. Meetings were held during designed to protect the rights of Native 2006 concerning these matters. Americans to practice their traditional The Nebraska Attorney General issued religion, to use their own language, an opinion in 2006 clarifying that and to enjoy their culture. NARF also reburials may be done on private works with Tribes to improve education land in Nebraska. for and ensure the welfare of their children. In the international arena, In January 2006, NARF as part of a amici curiae NARF is active in efforts to negotiate legal team, filed an brief declarations on the rights of indige- in the Spirit Cave repatriation litigation Fallon Paiute-Shoshone nous peoples. captioned Tribe v. United States Bureau of findings that opposed the BLM’s initial Religious Freedom Land Management in the United determination. This failure by the BLM States District Court of Nevada. NARF violates the NAGPRA and the Because religion is the foundation is representing the National Congress Administrative Procedures Act and, that holds Native communities and of American Indians, Morning Star therefore, necessitated a finding that cultures together, religious freedom is Institute, Association of American the BLM acted arbitrary and capricious. a NARF priority issue. Legal work Indian Affairs and the Medicine Wheel The order, however, does not require continues on the implementation of Coalition of Sacred Sites in North the BLM to reverse its determination the Native American Graves Protection America in this important NAGPRA of non-affiliation. Instead, the Court and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) which repatriation litigation. The brief ordered the BLM to compare its initial NARF helped secure in 1990. NARF supports the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone determination with the Tribe’s evidence offered testimony in 2004 and 2005 Tribe’s efforts to repatriate the and the Review Committee’s findings, before the Senate Committee on remains of their ancestor from the and to “explain why its determination Indian Affairs at oversight hearings United States Bureau of Land is, or is not, still the most correct regarding NAGPRA issues. NARF sup- Management (BLM). finding available.” ports legislation to amend NAGPRA to correct problems created by the Ninth In September 2006, the Court In November 2006, the United Circuit decision in the Bonnichsen granted the Tribe’s Motion for States appealed the Judge’s decision case which effectively reversed the Summary Judgment and remanded the to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. presumption that all ancient remains matter to the BLM for reconsideration. The Tribe, in turn, filed a cross-appeal are Native. In addition, NARF provided The Court determined that the BLM in December 2006. As a result, NARF comments on various proposed failed to fully and fairly review the is again, considering filing an amici regulations and policies implementing Tribe’s scientific evidence or address brief in support of the Tribe. NAGPRA. the NAGPRA Review Committee’s continued on the following page

Page 27 Annual Report 2006

In addition to NAGPRA, NARF also played a key role in the 1994 enact- ment of Public Law 103-344, which exempts the religious use of peyote by Indians in bona fide traditional ceremonies from controlled substance laws of the federal and state govern- ments. This law also prohibits discrimination against Indians for such religious use of peyote. NARF is representing the Native American Church of North America (NAC) in the case O Centro Esprírita Beneficiente Uniao~ Do Vegetal (UDV- USA) v. Ashcroft. NARF and the NAC assisted the United States Department of Justice in defending current federal whether to site two facilities – several Indian religious leaders. law which protects the religious use of a biosolids composting facility and a In 2005, the City Council heard and peyote by NAC members. In 2002, the fire training center – at Valmont Butte, respected the wishes of the Indian Federal District Court in New Mexico located just east of the City. In the Community, and rejected the planning rejected the UDV’s equal protection midst of these legal processes, curious staff recommendations to locate the argument that it was entitled to the phenomena began to unfold. Given a composting and fire training facilities same protection as the NAC’s use of voice and means of expression by NARF on the Butte property. NARF is working peyote. The U.S. Court of Appeals for and CCIA’s involvement, the Native with the CCIA, the local Indian com- the Tenth Circuit also rejected the American community came forward munity in the Denver metropolitan UDV’s equal protection claims that with powerful evidence that (1) the area, the interested tribes, and the threatened the NAC’s Indian churches Butte is a place of significant prehis- residents of the Valmont Butte area, special status under federal law. The toric connections to Native peoples to identify a means of acquiring the United States Supreme Court issued a who inhabited Boulder Valley long property from the City. decision in February 2006, holding before Euro American settlers came that the government has a burden to into the area in the 19th Century; and Cultural Rights demonstrate a specific, compelling (2) the Butte is a place of contempo- NARF, in conjunction with NCAI, interest in regulating the use of a rary religious importance to many worked with a coalition of civil rights hallucinogenic tea under the Religious Indian people in the metropolitan organizations under the direction of Freedom Restoration Act, but that it Denver area, as well as to Indian the Leadership Conference on Civil had failed to do so. The Supreme people of Ute, Arapaho and Cheyenne Rights (LCCR) to ensure that Congress Court did not rule on the equal descent who reside on reservations in reauthorized certain remedial provi- protection claim. Oklahoma, Wyoming and Southwest sions within the Voting Rights Act Colorado. Important spirit voices are NARF and the Colorado Commission (VRA) which were scheduled to believed to reside in and around the of Indian Affairs (“CCIA”) were first expire in 2007. The critical remedial Butte itself, and it is the locus of an asked in 2003 to become involved in provisions are found in the language active sweat lodge being utilized by the City of Boulder’s process to decide assistance provision, §203 of the VRA,

Page 28 Native American Rights Fund

which requires certain states and local jurisdictions to provide voting materials We must protect the forests for our in languages other than English, including American Indian and Alaska children, grandchildren and children Native languages. yet to be born. We must protect the In March 2006, NARF prepared the first ever report on the impact of the forests for those who cannot speak VRA in Alaska. This report was sub- mitted to Congress and included in the for themselves such as the birds, Congressional record. NARF was then animals, fish and trees. requested to provide written and oral testimony in support of this report to the Senate Judiciary Committee in May because the use of the “Redskin” mark the ICWA that will address these issues 2006. In addition, NARF, in conjunction is racially disparaging in violation of and benefit tribal courts and tribal with NCAI, provided written and oral federal trademark law. A decision was social services programs, as well as testimony at a hearing before the rendered in 2005 holding that the their non-Indian counterparts. This National Commission on the Voting case may have been prematurely Guide, once completed in 2007, will Rights Act – Examining the Degree of dismissed as to the youngest Indian be the largest and most comprehen- Racial Discrimination in Voting and petitioner. The case was remanded to sive of its kind, containing resources the Impact of the Voting Rights Act the district court to consider whether for all 50 states, and organized as a Since 1982: A Perspective From the youngest Indian plaintiff, who was fully searchable online database. This Indian Country – held in September a year old when the Redskins trade- will enable any ICWA worker, including 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota. marks were first registered, should be at the tribe level, involved in a state NARF is extremely pleased to say that barred from bringing his claim Indian child custody proceeding to the VRA was re-authorized by because of delay in bringing the claim. have full access to all the necessary Congress with all of its critical provi- NARF will continue to monitor this laws and rules governing ICWA. sions intact in the summer of 2006. important case on remand. This ensures that Native voters are In January 2005 the Villages of protected for the next 25 years. NARF is also helping tribes and Tanana, Nulato, Akiak, Kalskag, Lower Indian families to enforce their federal Kalskag and Kenaitze along with the Also in the area of cultural rights, rights under the Indian Child Welfare named parents filed a complaint NARF filed an amicus brief in the case Act (ICWA). Tribal courts, already against the State of Alaska, Attorney of Harjo et al v. Washington Redskin understaffed, underfunded, and lacking General, and various state agencies Football in the U.S. Court of Appeals legal resources, are fighting an uphill challenging the policy adopted by the for the District of Columbia on behalf battle to fully implement the ICWA. Attorney General of Alaska that state of the National Congress of American To assist with this critical issue, the courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Indians, National Indian Educational U.S. Department of Health and Human child custody proceedings involving Association, National Indian Youth Services’ Administration for Native Alaska Native children and that tribes Council, and the Tulsa Indian Coalition Americans (HHS-ACF) has provided in Alaska do not have concurrent Against Racism in Sports in support of funding to NARF to assist tribes in jurisdiction to hear children’s cases the Indian appellants. The brief resolving these issues through the unless (1) the child’s tribe has argued that the federal trademark for development of a Practical Guide to continued on the following page the football team should be cancelled

Page 29 Annual Report 2006

successfully petitioned the Department of Interior to reassume exclusive or We put our minds together to give thanks to concurrent jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), or our oldest Grandmother, the Moon, who (2) a state superior court has trans- ferred jurisdiction of the child’s case lights the night-time sky. She is the leader of to a tribal court in accordance with women all over the world, and she governs 26 U.S.C. §§1911(b). Oral argument took place in October 2006. A decision the movement of the ocean tides... it is she is now pending from the Superior who watches over the arrival of our children. Court. In another ICWA matter, the Kaltag Tribe and the parents had completed Fort Peck Reservation in Montana, the Tribal Education Departments National an adoption and applied for a new Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Assembly (TEDNA) under contracts birth certificate listing the new parents Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, from the U.S. Department of but the State refused to issue one on the Jicarilla Apache Nation in New Education's Office of Indian Education. the grounds that the Tribe had not Mexico, the Native Villages of Kiana Thirty-five federally-recognized tribal petitioned for reassumption of juris- and Nulato in Alaska, and the Rosebud education departments now have diction under ICWA. The Tribe and the Sioux Tribe in South Dakota – to create joined TEDNA. TEDNA carries on a parents (two individual Kaltag tribal a foundation for working collabora- variety of advocacy activities. Most members) brought suit against the tively with public school districts, recently, on behalf of TEDNA and with State of Alaska Department of Health states, and other parties. Partnerships funding from the Administration for and Social Services and the Alaska were established; basic aggregate Native Americans, NARF partnered Bureau of Vital Statistics for denying student data was gathered and ana- with the Council of Chief State School full faith and credit to a tribal lyzed; initial collaborative strategies Officers (CCSSO) in a recent initiative, adoption decree in violation of section were determined; tribal curriculum Strengthening Partnerships for Native 1911(d) of the Indian Child Welfare was developed; and tribal education American Students in Education. NARF Act. The parents also have raised a codes and policy were developed and drafted and then finalized a Manual civil rights claim. adopted. NARF’s client tribes are now for Chief State School Officers and on firm ground for equal partnerships State Education Agencies on Education with school districts and states in American Indian and Alaska Native From the founding of this country, improving the education of tribal Tribal Sovereignty, Federal Education federal policy effectively stripped students. This remarkable progress Programs for Tribal Students, and Indian tribes of control over the solidifies our belief that partnerships Tribal Education Departments. While education of their children. The and collaboration among tribes and the Manual is not specific to any one disempowerment of tribes over other key stakeholders in Indian state, it is intended to help any state education has been devastating. In education are critical to effectuating generally and provide useful models most tribal communities, formal needed change and to achieving and examples from various states in schooling is resented and rejected. In the ultimate goal of improving the an effort to guide all states. The response, NARF has worked closely education of tribal students. information in the Manual is current, with six tribal communities – the accurate, and pertinent and has been NARF also helped establish the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe of the widely distributed.

Page 30 Native American Rights Fund

Finally, NARF is helping the Pawnee provisions upon which consensus had Nation College get off the ground. not been reached. This compromise During its first year of operation, text was developed by the Chair of twenty-one courses were offered to 99 the Working Group on the Draft students. The college is now focusing Declaration. Thus, while the on completing work necessary to Declaration as approved was not totally obtain accreditation. a consensus document, it was endorsed by most indigenous peoples International Recognition worldwide as a major step forward in of Indigenous Rights a process that has been going on since the 1970s. The Declaration recog- The development of international nizes that indigenous peoples have laws and standards to protect the important collective rights in a rights of indigenous peoples can be multitude of areas, including self- beneficial to Native American people determination, spirituality, lands, as well as other indigenous peoples territories and natural resources. around the world. Native American tribes therefore need to be involved in The positive vote by the Human these efforts and enlist the support of Rights Council resulted in the the United States since it is so influen- Declaration being forwarded to the tial in international circles. General Assembly of the United Nations for a hoped for approval in place in December 2006 in NARF and the National Congress of 2006. Unfortunately, the Declaration Washington, D.C. Section One, American Indians entered into an was referred to the Third Committee Indigenous Peoples, Scope of attorney-client relationship several of the General Assembly rather than Application and Section Two, years ago for the purpose of working going directly to the General Assembly. Collective Rights were discussed, but in the international arena to protect In the Third Committee, certain little progress was made. The ninth indigenous rights. There have been African Nations led a successful effort session will be held in Washington, recent, significant developments in to defer consideration to allow more D.C. and Section Three on Cultural both the United Nations and time for consultation. This was a Identity and Section Four on Organization of American States. In significant setback and is cause for Organizational and Political Rights June 2006, in an historic vote, the new concern because no one knows what is will be covered. The net result of these United Nations’ Human Rights Council contemplated by the term “consultation.” negotiation sessions to date is that a overwhelmingly approved the United The consultation and action on the few provisions have been tentatively Nations' Draft Declaration on the Declaration are supposedly to be agreed upon and the areas of difference Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The completed by September of 2007, in the remainder of the document vote was thirty in favor, two opposed, but a timetable and framework for have been significantly narrowed. This and twelve abstaining. The only two “consultation” have not been estab- time through the document was to countries voting against the lished as yet. have resulted in substantial adoption Declaration were Russia and Canada. of provisions, but if the discussion The Declaration approved was a com- In the Organization of American concerning Sections One and Two is bination of provisions agreed upon by States, the most recent drafting session any indication, agreement on a indigenous peoples worldwide and on the Declaration on the Rights of Declaration is still a ways off. states, and a compromise text of those Indigenous Peoples, the eighth, took

Page 31

Native American Rights Fund

THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF GOVERNMENTS Contained within the unique trust private attorneys involved in this case. Court should decide whether it will relationship between the United States Settlement was the major focus in the hear either case by early spring. and Indian nations is the inherent duty Cobell case during the last Congress. for all levels of government to recognize Settlement bills including an $8 billion In the meantime, Judge James and responsibly enforce the many laws settlement figure were not passed by Robertson, the new U.S. District Court Cobell and regulations applicable to Indian Congress due to opposition from the judge assigned to the case, peoples and the trust duties to which Administration. The Administration held a status conference in December those give rise. Because such laws wanted to include provisions limiting 2006, to hear from the parties on the impact virtually every aspect of tribal the ownership of Indian allotments to next steps in the case. NARF urged life, NARF maintains its involvement ten Indians, creating a beneficiary- Judge Robertson to hold a trial on the in the legal matters pertaining to managed trust for individual and accounting which would show that the government accountability to Native tribally owned land, eliminating any government is unable to do an Americans. further liability for the federal govern- accounting and which would require ment as trustee, and requiring the the Judge to order alternative relief for Cobell v. Kempthorne Cobell The case was inclusion of all tribal trust fund the plaintiffs. The government filed in 1996. It is brought on behalf mismanagement claims in the settle- opposed a trial and asked for an of approximately 500,000 past and ment as well. Tribal leaders rejected unlimited amount of time to work on present individual Indian trust benefi- the Administration’s position, so the an accounting as it sees fit. We await ciaries. The individual Indian money Cobell settlement legislation died. a decision from Judge Robertson on account holders (plaintiffs) seek a full which direction he will go with the case. accounting of their trust assets for the Prospects for Cobell settlement entire period that such assets have legislation in the new Congress are NARF represents the Turtle Mountain been held in trust – since 1887. uncertain. Trust reform has become Chippewa, Chippewa Cree of the Trustees, without exception, have a a priority in the Senate Indian Affairs Rocky Boy’s Reservation, White Earth duty to provide accurate and complete Committee. NARF continues to urge Band of Minnesota Chippewa, and statement of accounts to each benefi- Congress to hold oversight hearings on Little Shell Chippewa Tribe in this case ciary at regular intervals and a complete trust reform and to develop Cobell against the Federal government for and accurate accounting upon settlement legislation based on those monetary damages for mismanagement demand. Yet, the United States has hearings. of their tribal trust fund, the $53 million never provided an accounting to indi- Pembina Judgment Fund, awarded to vidual Indian trust beneficiaries. It has In the litigation, two petitions were them by the Indian Claims Commission never provided beneficiaries accurate filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in in 1964 and 1980 decisions. In January and complete statement of accounts. December 2006, seeking review of 2006, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims In addition, plaintiffs ask that the two D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals deci- rejected four major arguments by the account balances be restated in accor- sions last year removing Judge Royce United States to get the case dismissed dance with the accounting. Finally, Lamberth from the case and reversing or substantially limited and ruled that plaintiffs seek reform of the trust Judge Lamberth’s order to disconnect the case can go forward to determine management and accounting system. many of the Interior Department com- whether the United States breached its puters from the internet and internal trust responsibilities to the Pembina NARF continues in its new role as computer networks to protect the Chippewa Tribes with respect to their Of Counsel in this case working integrity of individual Indian trust data Judgment Fund. primarily on settlement issues with the on Interior’s computers. The Supreme continued on the following page

Page 33 Annual Report 2006

The Court ruled that statutes of lim- Tribes opposed reconsideration and in funds, which never have been provided itations do not bar the case because September 2006, the Court denied the by the federal government which is the the United States has never provided a United States’ reconsideration motion. trustee for the funds. The action also full accounting of the Pembina In December 2006 the Court ordered seeks a court order declaring that the Judgment Fund to its beneficiaries. the case to be at least partially settled Arthur Andersen reconciliation reports The Court ruled that the United States or brought to trial in calendar year prepared under contract and provided held the Pembina Judgment in trust 2007. The parties have resumed to tribes in the 1990’s are not full and from the time that Congress appropri- negotiated settlement discussions. complete trust fund accountings. The ated the monies for the Fund, and that action was filed as a class action to the United States had a judicially NARF represents eleven named protect the rights of all tribes that do enforceable statutory duty to make the plaintiffs – the Nez Perce Tribe, the not file their own such actions and Fund productive while it held the Fund Mescalero Apache Tribe, the Tule that want to choose to remain in the in trust. The Court also ruled that the River Indian Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, class. It is estimated that about 70 to case can go forward as a “group the Yakama Nation, the Klamath 80 tribes filed their own actions, but claim” by the Pembina Judgment Fund Tribes, the Yurok Tribe, the Cheyenne- as many as 240 may be in the class if beneficiaries without the procedural Arapaho Tribe, the Pawnee Nation of certification is granted. The action difficulties of joining all of the benefi- Oklahoma, the Sac and Fox Nation, had to be filed by December 31, 2006 ciaries individually, or certifying the and the Santee Sioux Tribe – in a new under an act of Congress that gave beneficiaries as a class. On this last action filed in December 2006 in the tribes that date as a deadline by issue - the posture of the case as a federal district court for the District of which to challenge the adequacy of group claim - The United States moved Columbia. The action seeks full and the Arthur Andersen reconciliation for reconsideration in April 2006. The complete accountings of tribal trust reports.

Page 34 Native American Rights Fund

THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIAN LAW The systematic development of was published in the May, 2005 issue of the grant funds have been Indian law is essential for the contin- and “Basic Indian Law Research Tips - contracted out to the Indian legal ued protection of Indian rights. This Tribal Law” was published in the services programs with a small portion process involves distributing Indian August issue. As part of NILL’s long- used to cover NARF administrative law materials to, and communicating standing goal to make the unique NILL costs. NARF continues to be actively with, those groups and individuals collection more accessible to the involved with local Indian legal services working on behalf of Indian people. public, the Library has joined the programs in the administration of the NARF has two ongoing projects which world-wide bibliographic utility called grant and in developing training events are aimed at achieving this goal, the Worldcat, which allows librarians and to meet local program needs. NARF National Indian Law Library and the library users to find out what is in the received an award of additional Indian Law Support Center. collections of libraries nationwide. funding in the amount of $1,726,626 for calendar year 2006 for the project. The National Indian For its outstanding work in providing Law Library information to the public, NILL Other Activities received a national award from the The National Indian Law Library American Association of Law In addition to its major projects, (NILL) is a national public law library Librarians for “Public Access to NARF continued its participation in devoted to American Indian law which Government Information.” Also, one numerous conferences and meetings serves both the Native American Rights of NILL’s librarians published of Indian and non-Indian organizations Fund and the public. Since 1972 NILL “Creating a Supplemental Thesaurus to in order to share its knowledge and has collected nearly 9,000 resource the LCSH for a specialized collection: expertise in Indian law. During the materials that relate to federal Indian The Experience of the National Indian past fiscal year, NARF attorneys and and tribal law. The Library’s holdings Law Library.” Law Library Journal staff served in formal or informal include the largest collection of tribal volume 98 n2 (Spring 2006). speaking and leadership capacities at codes, ordinances and constitutions in numerous Indian and Indian-related the United States; legal pleadings from Indian Law Support Center conferences and meetings such as the National Congress of American Indians major American Indian cases; and law Since 1972, NARF’s Indian Law review articles on Indian law topics. Executive Council, Midyear and Annual Support Center (ILSC) has served as a Conventions and the Federal Bar In addition to making its catalog and national support center on Indian law extensive collection available to the Association’s Indian Law Conference. and policy for the national Indian NARF remains firmly committed to public, the National Indian Law legal services community and the 32 Library provides reference and continuing its effort to share the legal basic field programs serving Native expertise which it possesses with these research assistance relating to Indian American clients. ILSC continues to law and tribal law. groups and individuals working in send out regular correspondence to support of Indian rights and to foster In an effort to provide Colorado Indian legal services programs, the recognition of Indian rights in lawyers and the general legal commu- handling requests for assistance, and mainstream society. nity with a useful guide to Indian law working with Indian legal services research, NILL published two short programs to secure a more stable articles on Indian law research in the funding base from the Congress. The Honoring the Earth Colorado Lawyer. “Basic Indian Law Department of Justice awarded a grant Research Tips - Federal Indian Law” of $1,987,000 to NARF in 2004. Most

Page 35 Annual Report 2006

2006 FINANCIAL REPORT Based on our audited financial terms of recognizing the timing of court award for attorney’s fees for the statements for the fiscal year ending certain revenues, they do not reflect Cobell case. The decrease in founda- September 30, 2006, the Native the fact that, based on NARF’s internal tion grants was attributed to the fact American Rights Fund reports total reporting, revenue exceeded operating that one of our major grants was not unrestricted revenues of $8,766,471 expenses and other cash outlays by renewed in fiscal year 2006. against total expenditures of $980,416, resulting in an increase to $7,824,088. Total net assets at the NARF’s reserve fund. In fiscal year Revenue and Expense comparisons end of the year came to $6,871,196. 2006, there was increased activity between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal Due to presentation requirements of related to federal awards and legal fee year 2005 are shown below. the audited financial statements in cases. Also, we received a substantial

UNRESTRICTED SUPPORT AND REVENUE COMPARISON 2006 2005 dollars percents dollars percents Public Contributions $ 1,795,069 20.5% $ 2,263,209 31.7% Tribal Contributions 796,167 9.1% 336,460 4.7% Federal Awards 2,001,980 22.8% 1,490,509 20.9% Foundation Grants 736,900 8.4% 1,370,529 19.1% Legal Fees 2,811,484 32.1% 957,609 13.4% Return on Investments 556,866 6.3% 709,026 9.9% Other 68,005 0.8% 17,351 0.3% TOTALS $ 8,766,471 100% $ 7,144,693 100%

EXPENSE COMPARISON 2006 2005 dollars percents dollars percents Litigation and Client Services $ 4,935,436 63.1% $ 4,850,670 66.6% National Indian Law Library 313,365 4.0% 262,086 3.6% Total Program Services 5,248,801 67.1% 5,112,756 70.2% Management and General 935,263 11.9% 925,508 12.7% Fund Raising 1,640,024 21.0% 1,243,550 17.1% Total Support Services 2,575,287 32.9% 2,169,058 29.8% TOTALS $ 7,824,088 100% $ 7,281,814 100%

Note: This summary of financial information has been extracted from NARF’s audited financial statements which received an unqualified opinion by the accounting firm of JDS Professional Group. Complete audited financials are available, upon request, through our Boulder office or at www.narf.org.

Page 36 Native American Rights Fund

NARF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS: We thank each and every one of our supporters for their commitment to the goals of NARF. NARF’s success could not have been achieved without the generosity of our many donors throughout the nation. We gratefully acknowledge these gifts received for fiscal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006).

Living Waters Endowment Lasser Family Trust Home Depot Elwood H. Brotzman Memorial Fund Mr. & Mrs. Paul LeFort HP Employee Charitable Giving Program Jerome Davis Living Waters Endowment Fund LP Brown Foundation J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation Kathleen and Ruth Dooley Family Fund Lutheran Community Foundation John Hancock Matching Gifts Program Edward & Verna Gerbic Family Foundation MacArthur Foundation Microsoft Matching Gifts Program Susan K. Griffiths Memorial Fund NAFA Capital Markets Morgan Stanley The Robert and Joy Hanson Leland Endowment Native American Rainbow Network NGM Charitable Foundation Frank J. McCormick Family Fund New Mexico Community Foundation Nokia Inc. Marvin W. Pourier, Sr./Donna M. Deans Memorial North Star Foundation Pfizer Foundation Fund Open Society Institute The May Department Stores Company Foundation Mary Lou Mosca-Ragona Memorial Fund Panaphil Foundation Verizon Foundation Ernest L. Schusky Endowment Paula and William Bernstein Foundation Vivendi Universal US Holding Co. Helen and Sidney Ungar Memorial Endowment Fund Phogg Phoundation For The Pursuit Of Happiness Wachovia Foundation Rita S. Gold Foundation Xcel Energy Foundation

Foundations, Corporations and Organizations Rockefeller Foundation Ziff Brothers Investments, L.L.C. Adirondack Community Trust - Evergreen Fund Ruth M. Knight Foundation Agape Foundation RMF Foundation Tribes and Native Organizations Alan B. Cutting Foundation Stanley Family Fund Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Analysis & Information Services, Inc. Stettenheim Foundation Barona Band of Mission Indians The Arches Foundation St. Paul Foundation Coquille Tribe Aria Foundation Thomas Fund at PACF Cow Creek Band Of Umpqua Tribe Of Indians Bassett Foundation Ungar Foundation Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians The Bay and Paul Foundations Wells Fargo Foundation Grand Traverse Casinos & Resorts The Boston Foundation Winky Foundation Hopi Tribe Cohen Family Fund Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Combined Jewish Philanthropies Corporate Matching Gifts Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians Community Foundation For Southwest Washington AIG Matching Grants Program Mashantucket Pequot Tribe Dell Alliant Energy Foundation Mohegan Sun Casino Edward & Verna Gerbic Family Foundation American Express Matching Gift Program Morongo Band of Mission Indians Everett Public Service Internship Program Ameriprise Financial Employee Gift Matching Program Native Village of Nunapitchuk (IRA) Falcon Charitable Foundation Aon Foundation Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Focus Foundation Inc. Bank of America Foundation, Inc. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Ford Foundation BFG Marine, Inc. San Manuel Band Of Mission Indians The Fox Fund David & Lucille Packard Foundation Seminole Tribe of Florida The Glad Earth Foundation Inc. Dell Direct Giving Campaign Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Gorlitz Foundation, Ltd. Edison International Twenty Nine Palms Band Of Mission Indians Harrison Foundation ExxonMobil Foundation Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Johnson Family Foundation G.E. Foundation White Mountain Apache Tribe continued on following page

Page 37 Annual Report 2006

FISCAL YEAR 2006

Bequests and Trusts Theresa D. Bell Alfred H. Schwendtner Eric & Jeff Ginsburg Philip Anderegg Robert & Patricia Berry Peter L. Sheldon James M. Grace Michael Berkey William & Elsa Boyce Edith J. Smith Susan Gray Mary Helen Bickley Lawrence D. Bragg III Mary G. Sprague Mr. & Mrs. G. Robert Greenberg Carolyn W. Ferriday Peter Broner Wayne & Nancy Starling Ross Stephen A. Hagerman William R. Gibson Lawrence B. Carroll LeRoy A. Stippich Carole J. Hall John S. Hubner Raymond & Constance Carroll Walter A. Stock Michael Patrick Hannigan Pauline Kehlenbach Polly R. Cherner Bridget Stroud Virgina H. Hays Mary J. Kohr Paul Anthony D'Errico Gilbert Tauck Lou Henslee Elizabeth B. Losey Sarah C. Doering Elaine Umholtz George C. Hetrick Christine Mullikin Lucille A. Echohawk Elisa J. Wilkinson Sara S. Hinckley Susan Niven Daren & Amy Eilert David Winston Mark Hodge Rosalie Palius Rico F. Genhart Raymond C. Honeywell Marjorie A Parker Gloria Greenhill Peta Uha Obsidian Judith S. Horton Margaret Randol Mary C. Griffin James Arnaldo Janice Johnson Jeanne W. Reeder Duncan A. Haas Mary E. Bane Adaline Jyurovat Josef Van der Kar Alfred Hoose Janice A. Bate Gregory & Jennifer Kaufmann Justin M. Wool Bob & Barbara Humes Norval K. Bhendra Richard Jongmok Kim Ernest Ziegfeld Robert Hutchinson Marjorie I. Blachly George Koehler Albert & Skaye Kirk David C. Black Hal Litoff Peta Uha Pipestone Robert E. Kleiger Jeffrey T. Bosch Peter K. Manning John S. Bevan Charles Koob Mary Anibal Brook Janet U. McAlpin Martha M. Phillippi Scott & Ricki Kresan Catherine A. Brotzman – Four Winds Harry McAndrew Trading Company Frances A. Velay Paul & Eileen LeFort William & Eileen B. McCarron Jane A. Brown Joan A. Lester Ralph E. & Lorraine Memmer Jack Campisi Peta Uha Turquoise Joanne Lyman Shirley Miolla Elizabeth L. Celio Robert Friede Mr. & Mrs. William Lyman Trica Murphy Barbara Conlon Muth Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hart James Marienthal Barbara J. Musicus Jean Craney Karin Holser Doris Renee Marx Robert D. Phillips Patricia deKoven Paulette Lewis Helena Meltesen Mary Podmostko Anne E. DeMuth Arthur & Hope Miller Michael J. Reynolds Subhuti Dharmananda Peta Uha Granite Thomas H. Moore Jonathon M. Richman Thomas & Jane Dunphy John Dercksen Jeanne D. Morrel-Franklin Martin Ritter Kathryn L. Elston Collier Hands Frannie Oates George & Jo Rainie Rodgers Anne H. Evans Marion McCollom Hampton George C. Parent Sybille Smith Mary Fabri Friedrike Merck Mrs. Howard Parker David Stewart-Smith Judy H. Fair-Spaulding Carol A. Roberts Lewis Perkiss Gordon & Margaret Torgersen Richard S. Ferguson Jay Scheide Tina C. Peterson Margaret Q. Travis Lyman M. Flinn Jill Vogt Claude & Noelle Poncelet Margaret S. Verble Herbert & Clare Floyd Helene Presskreischer Janice Warner Pamela Ford Peta Uha Flint Edith S. Quevedo Stephen Wasby Andrew & Audrey Franklin Jerald H. Anderson Esther H. Rivinus Margaret N. Weitzmann Ruby V. Garrett James & Louise Arnold Ruth E. Schuster Lisa M. Wersal

Page 38 Native American Rights Fund

FISCAL YEAR 2006

Lois Whitman Lawrence Geller Randall Petersen Mary Lee Zerby Deborah Ghoreyeb Denise Pfalzer Estela Goldsmith Rose Pilcarsky Circle of Life Louise Gomer Bangel Thelma Populus Gordon Catches Bear & Judy Adams Arline Goodrich B. Powell Rodney Addison Bernard Gordon Horace Raines Richard & Gloria Adkinson Gene Grabau Robert & Mary Resnik Nina Barghoorn Jean Gundlach Maureen Ripley Maxwell Barnard Merrill Hakim Barbara Roberts Barbara Beasley Michael Hall Andrea Robinsong Joyce Beaulieu Margaret Hartnett June Rosenthal Diane Ben Ari Theodora Haughton Keith Ross Roy Benson Patricia Heidelberger William Rozier Sandra Berger Alfred Hoose Mary Sacher Bobby Bitner Judith Horton B. Sampson Betty Blumenkamp Veronica Ifill Peter Schmidt Dr. & Mrs. Charles Bowers Elizabeth Johnson LaRoy Seaver Dale Brand Vusama Kariba Michael Seeley William Brown Rose Keeney Charlotte Selver Gloria Burgess Emily Kirk Katey Simetra Patricia Burnet Betty Kleczy Mr. & Mrs. Charles Smith Thomas Campbell Margo Kochruthe Kirk Sperry Lawrence Candel Ellyne Krakower - Rice Carolyn Staby Arthur Carter Edward Kriege Herbert Stewart Robert Carter James Langharst James & Patricia Straus Mary Casmus Ingrid Leblanc Rennard Strickland Ed Chasteen James Lehnerer Michael & Carol Sullivan Paul Clifton Frank Loveland Louis Tabois Charles Cole Richard Luers Valeria Tenyak Janet Congero Rima Lurie Charlotte Thompson Judith Day Suzanne MacDonald M. Turek Harvey Dennenberg Patricia Marks-Greenfield John Tyler Gary Dickerhoof Marion McCollom Hampton Rene' Vivo' Starr Dormann Joseph McNamara William Wade Patricia Duval Stanley Metzger Ted Weitz Noelle Edwards Peter & Betty Meyer Robert & Mary Wellman Allison Emerson Leila Moore Roger Welsch Judy Fair-Spaulding Jeanne Morrel-Franklin Gary White James Fee Jeanne Moskal Karen Williams-Fast Horse Debra Frazier Shirley Norton Marcel Wingate Jan Freeman Sara Osborne David Yeoman Lyle Funderburk Marc Pearce Wayne Zengel Suzanne Gartz Moses Peter continued on following page

Page 39 Annual Report 2006

FISCAL YEAR 2006

NARF Employee Endowment Joanne Beckett George Colias Marianne Freidberg Giving Richard Bedard Allyn Collins Russell Freshour Rose Cuny Leona Begay Mae Collins David Frye John Echohawk Bryan Belknap Helen Cooper Shirley Fultz Gayla Fills Pipe Diane Bell G. Copeland Ann Gabor Kim Gottschalk Gordon Bell Charles Crittenden James Galle Heather Kendall Miller John Bellefountaine W. Croft James Gambino Yvonne Knight Loretta Bemesderfer Michael Cummings Diann Gamble Melody McCoy Joyce Benedict Ruth Cuprak Suzanne Gartz Steven Moore Pamela Bennett Elizabeth Cuprak Lawrence Geller Christine Pereira James Bergstrom Linda Cwiak Tracy Gibson Donald Ragona Judy Berti Gwen Daum Carole Giles Ray Ramirez Joan Beuttler Lois Daunt James Gilkeson David Selden Jefferson Bishop Norman Davies Clara Gillis Mark Tilden Janine Blackburn Pam Davison Judy Goebel Don Wharton Steven Block Barbara DeJaynes James Gootee Nanette Bohren Patricia deKoven Jean Gore Tsanáhwit Circle Members Robbin Bond Cathy DeNu Larry & Melissa Graykin Jay Adler Fern Booth Patricia DiLeo Barry Greenberg Cheyanne Alberti Richard Boylan Paul & Elizabeth Dombrosky Paul Greenhall Ken & Carol Ampel Beverly Branaman Ian Douglas Weda Gregorieff Dennis Anderson Joseph Braun Phillip Douville Jeri Groves Hodgkinson Susan Anderson Margaret Brenner David Dresser Martha Grudzien MaryLou Aniballi Herbert Brentlinger Sioux DuBois Bernie Haase Dale Armitage Elaine Brewington William Dyer Thomas Halliday Jurgen Arnold John Brigham Cheri Edwards Marcia Halligan Holly Arrow Nina Brilli Alfred Egendorf Barbara Hann John Bach Mary Brook Daren & Amy Eilert Susan Hanna Carla Bagley Mary Brooks Cathy Ellis Richard Hansen Kathy Bagwell Michael & Geri Brown J. Embury Barbara Hargrove D. Bailey Shelley Buck-Yeager Rebecca Engleby Ronald Hartling Moira Bailis Maureen Burke Jennifer Erdmann Margaret Hartnett Colleen Baker Chris Burr Judy Fair-Spaulding Bartlett Harvey Jerry Baker Perri Burritt Dorothy Fardan Carol Hatfield N. Balfour Jay Byerley Patricia Faulkner Wayne Hawkins John Ballard Sarah Callahan - Chin Judith Fazio Patricia Hayden Jesus Barbarin Carol Campau James Feichtl Leonard Heinz Mildred Barkovich Thomas Campbell Michael & Ellen Finazzi Dawson Her Many Horses Cecil Barley Carolyn Carter Marlene Fischer Egbert & Ghislaine Heslinga Ruth Barr John & Shirley Chase Sharon Flaherty George Hetrick C. Barron Nason & Lisa Chehreh Winn Flannery Diana Heyneker Inez Baskin Jane Christian Holly Flutot Elna Hickson Susan Battle Samuel Clopper Martha Ford Taps Hines

Page 40 Native American Rights Fund

FISCAL YEAR 2006

Michael Hines Nona LaRue Mary McGuigan Trevor & Laura Powdrell John Hodgson Yuk Lau LeRoy McLaughlin Larry Powell Judith Hodson Dorothy Lear Phyllis McNeill Michael Price Charles Holtzer Kurt Lehmann Dorothy Meisky Linda Proctor Nancy Homyak Lyon Leifer Michael Melendez Timothy Raab Shirley Hooker Catherine Leonard Eva Mendelson Emily Rader Joyce Hoover Nina Lerman William Milligan Louis Ragno Judith Horton Eugene LeTourneau Doris Mitchell John Reed Nicholas Horvath Stanley Lewandowski Jean Moore Robert Renner Carol Houghton John Lewis Lora Moreau Robert & Mary Resnik Ethel Huebner James Lichtenstein Jeff Morehead Thursa Revenaugh Clayton Hugo John Lipner Imogene Morgan Priscilla Rich Gary Hults Debra Lippitt Claire Morisset Gail Richardson Charley Ice Leo Lirette Janis Morrison Patrice Riley John Ivie Hal Litoff Jean Moyer George Rine Rochelle Jacobs Valerie Lloyd Josie Moyer Maryana Robertson Maria Januzys Dorothy Lockman Kayla Mullins Linda Robinson Louise Johnson Elisabeth Lucree Kathleen Munsell Susan Robinson Janice Johnson Rima Lurie Rick Myers Elizabeth Rockmore Earl Johnson Mary-Lee Lutz Louise Myers Ispay Gerald Rogers Brenda Jones Lydia Lyman Wendy Nash Ydameh Roig Kelly Jones Mary Lyon Miriam Nathenson Sonia Romano Judith Karpilow Kimberly MacLoud Sabina Nelson Jan Roome Marian Kasabach Jil MacMenamin James Nirenstein Christine Rosen George Keefer Wayne Maggs Donna Normand Stephanie Rossi Barbara Keith Richard Magyar Rob Norris Ralph Rossilli Stephen Kellogg Ron Mahoney Joan Olguin Marlene Rounsaville Jeralyn Keltonic Frank Makai Patricia Opaskar Jay Rubenstein Sherri Kendrick Brigitta Mann James & Rachel Osborne Ronald Ruble Grace Kepler Verdena Mardis Doris Palmer Ruth Ruby Susan Kepler Miroslav & Anna Marek Joyce Pappas Maura Russell Latifah Khidhr Marcelle Martin David Parachini David & Adrienne Ruud Hilde Klimek James Martin Dorothy Patrick Theodore Sahl Larry Klingensmith Greg Mathias Toddy Perryman Marge Salo Kate Knapp Jacqueline Matte Anna Pfeifer Howard Sargent William Koenig Murray Matzner Margaret Phillips Ronald Savage Laura Koester Christopher McAuliffe David Pierson Edmond & Brietta Savoie Niilo Koponen Boni McCabe Albert Pilcher Mary Schappell Fred Kraeuter Donald McCaffrey Jacqueline Pine William Schatz Frances Kranz Ann McCarthy Jacquelyn Platt Gerald & Karen Schuler Vaunceil Kruse Debbi McCoy Gerald & Antoinette Pollack David Schwien Rollins Lambert James McDaniel Deborah Pomplun Brenda Scott Risa Lange-Navarro Linda McGrew Michael Porlides Shirley Seagren continued on following page

Page 41 Annual Report 2006

FISCAL YEAR 2006

Susan Sherer Martha Weller Special Events Boulder-Denver Advisory Committee Paul Shickle Cathy Westlund NARF gratefully honors our many friends and partners who sponsored Lucille A. Echohawk Myra Shinkle Geri White and supported our special events Thomas W. Fredericks Freda Silver Lisbeth Whitledge in 2006. Thank you for your support and for caring so deeply David Getches Marie Simirenko Deborah Wilker about Indian rights, laws and issues. Ava Hamilton Pat Simons Catherine Williams Jeanne Whiteing Laura Sironi Holly Williams In-Kind Contributions Charles Wilkinson Herman & Lois Sisk Arnold Wilson Amy Hayes Joan Slebos Margaret Wilson Anne Estin Federated Workplace Campaigns Michael Smith Jerry Wilson Bernies Route 66 Motorcycles Thank you to the thousands of federal, Walter Smith Roger Wise Crossroads Cycles state, municipal and private sector employees throughout the country Betty Smith Wm. Wissmueller Donovan (Tex) & Lisa Brown who through their payroll deduction Shirley Sneed Geoffrey & Mary Wold Drew Allen plans contributed $65,180 in fiscal year 2006. Marilyn Snider Lisabeth Wolf Jackie Finch Jerry & Rita Spalding Andrew Wolfe Paul Gibb Federal Programs Esther Span Ronald & Frances Woodall Santa Fe Harley Davidson Administration for Native Americans Wilann Spiccia Jean Woodman Stuart T. Langley Department of Education Paul Spicer Jim Yellow Horse Sundance Photography Department of Justice Mary Stafford Pamela Zawila Ted Barudin Gretchen Steerenberg Tim Reese Craig Stephens Tribal Motorworks Stephen & Karen Strom Elizabeth Szawlowski Patricia Taylor Laura Teague Paul Theodore Claudine Thomas Douglas Thompson Edward Thompson Charlotte Thompson Donald Tobler Janice Tonietto Rebecca Townsend Karen Trowbridge Joyce Tucker Richard Vanden Heuvel Montez Vaught Kristy Visser R. Wall Carolyn Warner Ron Warren Lynn Waugh Cecelia Welenowski

Page 42 Native American Rights Fund

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT IN NARF’S PROGRAMS

NARF receives contributions from foundations, corpora- is used for NARF’s programs. This endowment is designed tions, religious organizations, tribes and Native organiza- to provide a permanent, steady income that can support tions, bequests and trusts, benefactors, private donations, the ever-increasing costs of providing legal representation and in-kind contributions. Below are descriptions of to our tribal clients. NARF’s donor programs and additional ways you can get involved. The Living Waters Endowment directly funds the 21st Century Endowment. It allows donors to honor friends and loved ones by making an endowment gift of $10,000 or Peta Uha Membership – Peta Uha in the Lakota (Sioux) more. By designating a gift to either endowment, you can language means firekeeper. One that honors tribal be sure that your contribution will continue to generate members who made a solemn commitment to ensure that annual funds in perpetuity. Endowment supporters are the sacred flame, source of light, heat and energy for his recognized on a special wall plaque displayed at NARF. people, always be kept burning. Like the firekeepers of old, Supporters will also receive a memorial piece for their members of the Peta Uha Council can demonstrate home and be acknowledged in NARF’s annual report. constancy and vigilance by helping to ensure that the critical work of the Native American Rights Fund continues Workplace Campaigns – NARF is a member of America’s to move ever forward. For benefits associated with each Charities, a national workplace giving federation. Giving level of Peta Uha membership, please contact Donald through your workplace is as easy as checking off NARF’s Ragona, 303.447.8760 or e-mail him at [email protected]. box on the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) pledge form authorizing automatic payroll deduction. NARF is also Tsanáhwit Circle – Tsanáhwit is a Nez Perce word a member of Community Shares of Colorado (CSC), meaning equal justice. Tsanáhwit Circle members provide member #5037. a regular source of income to NARF by pledging and making monthly contributions at any level of your choice. Matching Gifts – Currently, more than 25 foundations You may sign up to receive monthly pledge reminders in and corporations nationwide make matching gifts to NARF the mail or your credit card may be billed automatically. on a regular basis. Employers match their employees’ contributions sometimes doubling or even tripling their Otu’han Gift Membership – Otu’han is the Lakota Sioux donation. Please check with your human resources office word translated as giveaway. Otu’han is a memorial and and request a matching gift form. honoring gift program modeled after the tradition of the Indian giveaway in which items of value are gathered over E-Action – Sign up for our e-action network by providing a long period of time to be given away in honor of birth- NARF with your email address . This is a great way to get days, marriages, anniversaries, and in memory of a departed periodic case updates, calls-to-action, special events loved one. information, invitations and other activities. Your e-mail address is confidential and we will not share it with any Circle of Life – NARF’s Circle of Life are donors who outside sources. For further information about any of the provide a lasting legacy to the Native American Rights Fund programs or services, please contact NARF’s Development by including NARF in estate planning or deferred gifts. Department at 303-447-8760. Thank you. The circle is an important symbol to Native Americans rep- resenting unity, strength and the eternal continuity of life. These lasting gifts help ensure the future of NARF and our Indian clients nationwide. “Ho’opono’pono” Endowments – NARF has two established endowments, the 21st Century Endowment and the Living Waters making things right. Endowment. The 21st Century Endowment is a permanent fund in which the principal is invested and interest income

Page 43 Annual Report 2006

NARF STAFF CORPORATE OFFICERS John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Executive Director/Attorney K. Jerome Gottschalk Litigation Management Committee Member/Attorney Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) Litigation Management Committee Member/Attorney Natalie Landreth (Chickasaw) Litigation Management Committee/Attorney Donald M. Ragona (Mattinecock/Oglala Lakota) Rose Cuny (Oglala Lakota) Joanne Soklin - Legal Assistant Director of Development Office Manager Debbie Raymond-Thomas (Navajo) Ray Ramirez Crystal Echo Hawk (Pawnee) Assistant Controller Secretary/Editor/Technical Writer Assistant Development Director Jennie Tsikewa (Zuni) - Accountant Clela Rorex Gayla Fills Pipe (Oglala Lakota) Chief Financial Officer/Law Office Receptionist Administrator NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LIBRARY Michael Kennedy - Assistant Controller David Selden - Librarian BOULDER MAIN OFFICE STAFF Mireille Martinez Development Projects Coordinator Monica Martens John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Assistant Law Librarian Executive Director/Attorney Christine Pereira Micro Computer Specialist Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) ANCHORAGE OFFICE STAFF Attorney Donald M. Ragona (Mattinecock/Oglala Lakota) Heather Kendall-Miller (Athabascan) K. Jerome Gottschalk - Attorney Director of Development Attorney David Gover (Pawnee/Choctaw) Ray Ramirez Natalie Landreth (Chickasaw) Attorney Editor/Technical Writer/Public Attorney Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) Relations Anne Thomas - Legal Assistant Attorne Jennifer Redbone Melody McCoy (Cherokee) - Attorney (Apache/Comanche, Kiowa) WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE STAFF Development Staff Assistant Steven C. Moore - Attorney Richard Guest - Attorney Clela Rorex Mark Tilden (Navajo) - Attorney Law Office Administrator Dawn Baum (Mole Lake Chippewa/Menominee) - Attorney Donald R. Wharton - Attorney Susan Irwin-Savage (Dineh) Office Services Clerk Darian Balcom - Legal Assistant Eric Anderson - Legal Assistant

Page 44

1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 303-447-8760 • http://www.narf.org