National Indian Law Library

NTLL No. D} ~309 J J°104 Noatak v. Blatchford - Accountability & Recognition ALASKA Kotzebue - Tribal Jurisdiction Nome Eskimo Community - Subsistence & Hunting Rights, Taxation Elim v. Alaska - Fishing Rights Gambell v. Babbitt - Subsistence & Aboriginal Land Title State ofAlaska v. Venetie - Taxation

NARF ANCHORAGE OFFICE John v. U.S. - Hunting & Fishing Rights, Subsistence Kluti Kaah V. Rosier; Alyeska v. Kluti Kaah ------:iii Subsistence & Taxation

Fort Peck Tribes - Larsen Bay - Taxation Education (Montana) Chippewa-Cree Tribe - Water Rights (Montana)

A-1 (Ft. Civ

Skokomish Tribe - Fishing Rights (Washington)

Nez Perce Tribe - Water Rights (Idaho)

Klamath Tribe - Water Rights & ESSP (Oregon)

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes - Jurisdiction (Nevada)

Tule River Tribe - Water Rights (California) Masayesva v. Zah v. James v. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe - Recognition & Land Claim (Arizona)

Fort McDowell Tribe - Water Rights (Arizona)

NARFHEADQUARTERS BOULDER, COLORADO

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes v. U.S. - Jurisdiction & Claims (Oklahoma)

Mustang v. Cheyenn-Arapaho Tribe - Jurisdiction (Oklahoma)

Kauley v. U.S. - Federal Trust Responsibilities (Oklahoma)

Pele Defense Fund v. Campbell - Aboriginal Rights (Hawaii)

HAWAII Native American Rights Fund "r'5!and/nc; Jrrml Yor i/uslice"

'ontractors v. Strate ~llillla,,6, ;erthold Res.) - Jurisdiction (North Dakota)

~---- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe - Recognition (Massachusetts)

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe -Tribal Court & Constitution (Connecticut)

Shinnecock Tribe - Recognition (New York)

...,__ ___ White Earth Chippewa - Land Claim (Minnesota)

NARF WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE

Pamunkey Tribe - Recognition (Virginia) Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe - Claim (Wisconsin) ---- Miami v. Babbitt - Recognition (Indiana)

Catawba Tribe - Land Claim (South Carolina)

Rosebud Sioux Tribe - Education (South Dakota)

Winnebago Tribe - Gas Lease (Nebraska)

------NSHS v. Pawnee Tribe v. State - Repatriation (Nebraska)

Houma Tribe - Recognition (Louisiana)

Alabama Coushatta Tribe v. U.S. - Land Claim (Texas) National Indian Law Llbrarv i 522 Rroadway , Bou:~ ,::;r, CO 80302

PHOTO CREDITS: Thorney Lieberman Tom Thompson Introduction ...... page 2 Western History Collections, Executive Director's Report...... page 3 University of Oklahoma Library Chairperson's Message ...... page 4 Clela Rorex The Board of Directors ...... page 5 The National Support Committee ...... page 6 ART CREDITS: The Preservation of Tribal Existence ...... page 8 Gus Antone The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources ...... page 11 Walt Pourier The Promotion of Human Rights ...... page 16 The Accountability of Governments ...... page 19 Seldon Ridenour The Development of Indian Law ...... page 20 Treasurer's Report ...... page 25

Main Office Native American Rights Fund Tax Status 1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 The Native American Rights Fund 303-447-8760 (NARF) is a nonprofit, charitable organization incorporated in 1971 under Washington, D.C. Office the laws of the District of Columbia. Native American Rights Fund NARF is exempt from federal income tax 1712 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Contribu­ 202-785-4166 tions to NARF are tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that Alaska Office NARF is not a "private foundation" as Native American Rights Fund defined in Section 509(a) of the Internal 310 K Street, Suite 708, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Revenue Code. Founded in 1970 and 907-276-0680 incorporated in 1971 in Washington, D.C.

1 As the Native American Rights Fund enters its 25th year of "standing firm for justice," NARF has successfully represented Indian tribes and individuals in nearly ev­ ery state in the nation. The hundreds of cases it has been involved in have encompassed every area and issue in the field of Indian law. NARF's reputation as a national Indian law advocate is backed by its 24 years of successful legal representation on behalf of Native Americans. A brief review of NARF's origin will give a better understanding of NARF's role in the struggle to protect Native rights in today's society.

The Founding of Native American Rights Fund In the 1960's, the federal government and private philanthropists began to ad­ dress the inability of underserved populations to access legal services. The federal gov­ ernment funded a network of legal services programs to serve a variety of populations, and it soon became apparent through the work of those programs that there were several population groups among those needing legal services which had unique needs. Native Americans, whose lives have long been governed by the hundreds of treaties, thousands of federal statutes, and numerous regulations and administrative rul­ ings which make up the specialized body of law known as Federal Indian law, were one such group whose needs demanded a specialized legal practice with a national purview. The Native American Rights Fund was formed in California in 1970 to address the need for a central, national perspective in the practice of Federal Indian law. NARF, then a pilot project, was assisted in its work by the legal academic community and Cali­ fornia Indian Legal Services. Funding was provided by the Ford Foundation. The need for NARF's services was quickly established, and in 1971, NARF moved its growing staff to Boulder, Colorado, a location more central to Indian country. Since the beginning, the national scope of legal work undertaken by NARF as a non­ profit organization has been supported by foundation and government grants, corporate, individual, and tribal contributions; and limited client fees. The accomplishments and growth of NARF over the years confirmed the great need for Indian legal representation on a national basis. This legal advocacy on behalf of Native Americans is more crucial now than ever before. NARF strives to protect the most important rights of Indian people within the limit of available resources. To achieve this goal NARF's Board of Directors has defined five priority areas for NARF's work: (1) the preservation of tribal existence; (2) the protection of tribal natural resources; (3) the promotion of human rights; ( 4) the accountability of governments to Native Ameri­ cans; and (5) the development of Indian law. R

2 The Native American Rights In an important subsistence Fund continued to provide legal fishing rights case, the Alaska advice and representation to Indian federal district court ruled in Katie tribes, organizations and individuals John v. United States that Alaska on issues of major national signifi­ Natives have subsistence fishing cance in fiscal year 1994 and this rights in all navigable waters in assistance once again resulted in Alaska. The court held also that the several significant legal victories for federal government, not the State of Native Americans. Alaska, has jurisdiction to manage The Cheyenne-Arapaho the subsistence fishing in navigable Tribal Supreme Court upheld the waters. NARF represents two authority of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Athabascan elders, the Mentasta Tribe of Oklahoma to tax oil and Village Council and the Alaska gas activities on lands held in trust Federation of Natives in the case, by the federal government for which has been appealed. would have allowed the states to individual tribal members within the As a leading member of the review the 29 tribally-controlled Tribe's boundaries. NARF is American Indian Religious Free­ Indian community colleges for defending the Tribe's sovereign dom Coalition and counsel to the eligibility for a student financial aid right to tax against challenges by Native American Church of North program. As a result of negotiations several oil companies subject to the America, NARF played a key role on behalf of the American Indian tax. The oil companies are seeking in the passage of Congressional Higher Education Consortium, the review of the Tribal Supreme Court legislation that exempts the reli­ Department of Education agreed decision in federal court. gious use of peyote by Indians in that the Indian colleges could not be In A-1 Contractors v. The bona fide traditional ceremonies subjected to state jurisdiction for Honorable William Strate, NARF from controlled substance laws of this review and are arranging for obtained a favorable federal appeals the federal and state governments. federal or tribal governmental court dedsion upholding the civil This act of Congress in effect review. jurisdiction of tribal courts on tribal overturns the 1990 Supreme Court These and many other lands even in a personal injury case decision in Employment Division v. important case developments in involving two non-Indians. The Smith, which denied the protection fiscal year 1994 show that Native court held that the race or political of the free exercise of religion Americans can receive justice if status of the parties did not affect clause of the First Amendment of given the opportunity to be repre­ the civil jurisdiction of the tribal the Constitution to the sacramental sented by counsel through NARF. court of the Three Affiliated Tribes use of peyote by Indians. In hundreds of cases since 1970, of the Fort Berthold Reservation in NARF represents the NARF has provided this access to North Dakota on Indian lands. A Pawnee Tribe in its case against the justice and made the legal process rehearing of the decision is under­ Nebraska State Historical Society work for the benefit of Indian way. and through settlement repatriated people who may have otherwise NARF was successful in the remains and burial good of over gone unrepresented. We thank all obtaining a resolution from the 400 deceased Pawnees to the Tribe of you who have supported our United States Senate referring the for reburial in accordance with their work and hope you will continue Potawatomi Nation of Canada's religious traditions. The Historical your support as we approach the claim for compensation for out­ Society had sought to block the 25th anniversary of our founding. II standing treaty entitlements to the Tribe's access to Historical Court of Federal Claims. For over Society's records to prove their John E. Echohawk 100 years, the Canadian Potawatomi claim by avoiding compliance with Executive Director have unsuccessfully sought com­ the state public records law. pensation promised by the United NARF also successfully States in treaties ceding tribal lands challenged regulations proposed by from 1795 through 1846. the Secretary of Education that

3 In 1995, the Native Ameri­ this is but one example of NARF's can Rights Fund is entering its commitment to standing side by 25th year of service to Native side with tribes as their attorneys, people throughout this nation. their advisors and, more impor­ During these years, NARF has tantly, their students, in tackling achieved successes and precedent­ those issues which have been setting victories that few thought barriers to ongoing tribal existence were possible. NARF has fought and future progress. for the rights of Native people in Several Indian tribes, once every conceivable forum - thought lost to the annals of federal, state and tribal courts, the history books, have now regained halls of Congress, state legisla­ federal recognition and status tures, corporate meeting rooms, which could never have been city halls, and tribal council realized without the long-term chambers; and they have fought support and perseverance of against every conceivable adver­ NARF. These newly-emerging sary-the U.S. government, state tribal sovereigns can now prepare governments, city governments, to move forward into the 21st corporations and other adversaries century as viable governmental seeking to deny or limit the rights entities. Indian tribes nationwide of Native Americans or intending have come to depend on NARF to to challenge tribal sovereignty. provide the consistency and As a member of the Con­ continuity which is so necessary in federated Salish & Kootenai resolving key issues for all of Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Indian country. It doesn't matter and an attorney for the Tribes, I whether the job takes one year or have witnessed NARF's dedica­ 20 years, NARF has persisted in tion and determination first hand. seeing each of these controversies Some years back, for example, the through to its conclusion. Salish/Kootenai Tribe and NARF It has been my pleasure to diligently worked together for work with NARF since its incep­ nearly a decade to halt the con­ tion and to watch it grow and struction of a dam and hydroelec­ change throughout these many tric project at Kootenai Falls in years. Indian country can be northwest Montana. Kootenai assured that NARF will continue Falls has served as a sacred vision to "Stand Firm for Justice" on questing site and center of the behalf of Indian people. As Kootenai religion since the begin­ Chairperson for the NARF Board ning of time, and the Kootenai of Directors, I congratulate NARF people felt a sacred obligation to for its first 25 years of commit­ maintain the spirituality of ment, and with the generosity of Kootenai Falls for future genera­ tribes and individuals, NARF will tions in order to preserve the be there for another 25 years and integrity of tribal existence. more. m Together with NARF, they were victorious in the struggle to pro­ Evelyn Stevenson tect Kootenai Falls and the ways Chairperson of the Kootenai people. Again,

4 Willie Kasayulie Mildred Cleghorn Cliv Dore Kathryn Harrison Rick Hill

1\vila Martin John R. Lewis Will Mayo Rev. Kaleo Kekahbah Patterson

In the formation of the Evelyn Stevenson (Salish­ Kathryn Harrison (Confederated Native American Rights Fund, Kootenai) Montana- Chairperson Tribes of Grand Ronde) Oregon a governing board was as­ Willie Kasayulie (Yupik)Alaska - Rick Hill (Oneida) Wisconsin sembled composed of Indian Vice Chairperson leaders from across the country 1\vila Martin Kekahbah (Turtle Gilbert Blue (Catawba) Mountain Chippewa) North - wise and distinguished South Carolina - Not pictured Dakota people who were respected by Indians nationwide. Since that Lionel Bordeaux (Rosebud John R. Lewis (Mojave/Pima/ time, the NARF Board of Sioux) South Dakota - Tohono O'odham)Arizona Not pictured Directors has continued to Will Mayo provide NARF with leadership Mildred Cleghorn (Fort Sill (Native Village of Tanana) Alaska Apache) Oklahoma and credibility and the vision Rev. Kaleo Patterson of its members has been essen­ Cliv Dore (Passamaquoddy) (Native Hawaiian) Hawaii tial to NARF's effectiveness in Maine representing its Native American Theresa A. Gomez (Isleta Pueblo) clients. II New Mexico - Not pictured Photographs: Thorney Lieberman

5 N

The National Support Commit­ Nancy A. Klewin CORPORATE OFFICERS tee was established in 1978 to assist Wilma Mankiller (Cherokee) NARF with its fundraising efforts John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Chris E. McNeil, Jr. nationwide. Some of the individuals on Executive Director/Attorney (Tlingit-Nisga'a) the Committee are prominent in the field K. Jerome Gottschalk of business, entertainment and the arts. Billy Mills (Oglala Sioux) Others are known advocates for the rights N. Scott Momaday (Kiowa) Litigation Management Committee Member/Attorney of the underserved. All of the 40 Alfonso Ortiz (San Juan Tewa) volunteers on the Committee are commit­ Amado Pena Jr. (Yaqui/Chicano) Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) ted to upholding the rights of Native Litigation Management Americans. El David Risling, Jr. (Hoopa) Committee Member/Attorney Owanah Anderson (Choctaw) Pernell Roberts Edward Asner Walter S. Rosenberry III Melody L. McCoy (Cherokee) Katrina McCormick Barnes Dr. Jonas Salk Litigation Management Committee Member/Attorney David Brubeck Leslie Marmon Silko (Laguna Pueblo) U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell Marilyn E. Pourier (Oglala (Northern Cheyenne) Connie Stevens Lakota/Cheyenne River Sioux) Harvey A. Dennenberg Anthony L. Strong Director of Development (Tlingit-Klukwan) Michael Dorris (Modoc) Ray Ramirez Maria Tallchief (Osage) Michael Driver Secretary/Editor/Grant Writer Andrew Teller (Isleta Pueblo) Richard Dysart Verna Teller (Isleta Pueblo) Clela Rorex Louise Erdrich (Turtle Mountain Treasurer/Law Office Chippewa) Studs Terkel Administrator James Garner Ruth Thompson Sy Gomberg Tenaya Torres (Chiricahua Apache) Will H. Hays, Jr. Thomas N. Tureen BOULDER MAIN Richard A. Hayward (Mashantucket The Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland OFFICE STAFF Pequot) (Seminole) Jerilyn DeCoteau Dennis Weaver Alvin M. Josephy, Jr. (Turtle Mountain Chippewa)* Charles R. Klewin W. Richard West, Jr. (Cheyenne) Attorney Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) Attorney Patrice Kunesh (Standing Rock Sioux)* Attorney Tracy Labin (Seneca) Attorney Don B. Miller Attorney Mark C. Tilden (Navajo) Attorney Donald R. Wharton Attorney

6 Rose Brave (Oglala Lakota) Office Manager Pat DeCory (Rosebud Sioux) Accounting Clerk Roz Lynn Dorf Paralegal Christine Fennimore Micro Computer Specialist Jacqueline Gilbere Direct Mail Coordinator Susan H. Hardy Accounting Supervisor Sandra R. Janis (Oglala Lakota) Accountant Jennifer Jewell (Chippewa/ INDIAN LAW ANCHORAGE Ojibwa) SUPPORT CENTER OFFICE STAFF Receptionist/Office Assistant Steven C. Moore Robert T. Anderson (Nett Lake Marla Keckler Director/Attorney Chippewa) Attorney (Cheyenne River Sioux) Office Assistant Debbie Raymond-Thomas Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner Kenton D. Keckler (Navajo) Attorney Assistant Director (Cheyenne River Sioux) Heather Kendall (Athabascan) Accountant NATIONAL INDIAN LAW Research Attorney Michel McKenzie LIBRARY Karen Mann (Tlingit) Documents/Records Clerk Deana Harragarra Waters Office Manager/Legal Secretary Ghulam Nabiyar (Kiowa/Otoe-Missouria) Office Assistant Law Librarian/Attorney WASHINGTON, D.C. Mary Lu Prosser Mary Bowannie OFFICE STAFF (Cheyenne River Sioux) (Cochiti/Zuni Pueblo) Richard Dauphinais (Turtle Moun­ Development Assistant Special Project/Librarian Assistant tain Chippewa) Attorney Donald M. Ragona (Oglala Pat Moses James K. Kawahara (Winnebago) Lakota/Mattinecock) (Santo Domingo Pueblo) Attorney Director of Major Gifts Records Clerk Robert M. Peregoy (Flathead) Patrita Ime Salazar Mary Mousseau (Santee Sioux) Attorney (Taos/Santa Ana Pueblo) Research Assistant Administrative Assistant Norma B. Weston* Sarah E. Wadleigh* Legal Secretary Rhoda M. Thompson (Navajo) Librarian Assistant Legal Secretary * Resigned during the fiscal year Marilyn White (St. Regis Mohawk) Executive Assistant 7 The most critical issue eignty. During 1994, NARF responded favorably to the Tribes' facing Indian tribes today is the handled several major cases that requests to participate in the case preservation of their existence as affected the sovereign powers of in support of the Tribes' right to governmental entities with all the tribes. These cases involved tax. power and authority that such serious issues of taxation and NARF continued repre­ status entails. Thus, the focus of jurisdiction in several states. senting the Kluti Kaah Native NARF's work involves issues In Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Village of Copper Center, a tradi­ relating to the preservation and Cheyenne-Arapaho Tax Commis­ tional tribe, in its effort to collect enforcement of the status of tribes sion, NARF is defending the tribal taxes from several oil com­ as sovereign, self-governing Tribe's right to generate needed panies. InAlyeska Pipeline bodies. For some tribes, the issues tribal government revenues by Service Co. v. Kluti Kaah Native are very basic - persuading the taxing production and severance Village of Copper Center, the oil federal government to recognize of oil and gas on allotted lands companies sued to enjoin the their status as tribes - or in some held in trust for tribal members. Village from enforcing its tax cases, convincing Congress to Several affected oil companies ordinance, claiming that Kluti reverse the termination of their filed a lawsuit challenging the Kaah was not a federally-recog­ tribal status and restore them as Tribe's right to tax them. The oil nized tribe and, thus, lacked taxing tribes. NARF also continues its companies filed suit in an Okla­ authority. The federal district work in the area of Indian eco­ homa federal court, but then court in Alaska previously held nomic development in apprecia­ agreed that federal law required that the Village may well have tion of the fact that the future of them to bring the action first in tribal status with sovereign tribal tribal existence is closely tied to tribal court. The case was re­ authority to tax the Trans-Alaska the development of tribal econo­ manded to tribal court, making it Pipeline System which runs mies. the first major tribal tax case to be through Alaska Native lands and heard by a tribal court. The called for a trial on those issues. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribal Court A trial was held in January, 1994, Tribal Sovereignty ruled in favor of the Tribe, uphold­ to determine if Native corporation ing the Tribe's authority to tax oil­ lands traversed by the Trans­ Because they are sover­ and-gas activities on trust allot­ Alaska Pipeline is Indian country eign, self-governing bodies, tribes ments. The oil companies ap­ and thus subject to a tribal tax. A possess the power to regulate the pealed to the Tribal Supreme ruling by the court is pending. internal affairs of their members as Court. In December, 1993, the NARF represents the well as the activities within their Tribal Supreme Court upheld the Native Village of Venetie in State reservations. Conflicts often arise tax and the oil companies have ofAlaska v. Native Village of with states, the federal govern­ now appealed to federal court. Venetie. This case involves the ment, and others over tribal saver- The United States government has Tribe's authority to impose a tax

8 on a non-member who engages in reservation. The complaint was business activity within the Vil­ filed in tribal court by a tribal Indian Economic lage. The Ninth Circuit Court of member against the State of Development Law Appeals previously ruled that the Nevada and state officials. This Project validity of the tax depends on case provides a precedent setting whether the Village is an Indian legal issue that may very well tribe as defined under federal law impact all tribes. The emphasis of NARF's and whether the Village is a NARF filed an amicus Indian Economic Development "dependent Indian community" curiae brief in Department of Law Project has continued to be and thus Indian country. A trial Taxation and Finance of the State on achieving increased control by was held on both issues in the ofNew York v. MilhelmAttea & tribal governments over their federal district court in November, Bross, Inc. on behalf of thirteen communities and their destinies. 1993, and a ruling is pending. tribes and the National Congress One avenue to achieving control is InA-1 Contrac­ through the development of tors v. The Honorable tribal government agencies. William Strate, the Tribal This requires the develop­ Court for the Three ment of tribal governmental Affiliated Tribes of the infrastructures necessary to Fort Berthold Reserva­ implement and administer tion in North Dakota tribal entities such as courts found that it had jurisdic­ and regulatory agencies. tion over a personal NARF recognizes that injury action arising independent sources of between two non-Indians revenue from which to fund on the reservation. One locally derived priorities - of the non-Indians i.e. a tribal tax base, and challenged the Tribal greater capacity to manage Court decision in federal and foster the integrity of court. NARF undertook tribal homelands as they representation of the affect the health and the Tribal Court in the environment of Indian federal proceedings. The country residents - is federal district court necessary to the task. ·upheld NARF's position In working toward this that the Tribe had juris­ Photograph: Western History Collections, University of Oklahoma Library goal, the Project has con- diction, holding that tribes have of American Indians in support of tinued to serve on the National jurisdiction over civil cases arising tobacco wholesalers and against Indian Policy Center (NIPC) Task on Indian land regardless of the the State of New York in this case Forces for Natural Resources, the race or political status of the in the United States Supreme Environment, the Law, and Ad- parties. A-1 Contractors appealed Court. The issue in this case was ministration for Justice. The to the Eighth Circuit Court of the existence and scope of the Project has been assisting the Appeals and in November, 1994, State's authority to regulate NIPC with the review and the Eighth Circuit issued an cigarette sales to tribal members prioritization of proposals for a opinion affirming the civil juris­ and non-tribal members on the research paper on tribal courts and diction of the Tribal Court of the reservation. In June, 1994, the tribal taxation. Three Affiliated Tribes. Court ruled entirely in favor of the The Project continues to In Nevada v. Hicks, NARF State. The Court extended the operate from the perspective that represents the Fallon Paiute­ State's right to "precollect" taxes environmental and economic Shoshone Tribes in a federal court on sales to non-members to development issues are integrally case where their tribal court has wholesalers as well as retailers. related in Indian country. This been sued after the tribal court of The Court also upheld the State's perspective takes into account that appeals found tribal jurisdiction regulation of imposing quotas of reservations are permanent home- over a civil case arising on the sales to members. lands for tribes and that any

9 planned development which tive determination by the Depart­ tions, lack of an independent affects the land, resources or the ment of Interior that they, in fact, appellate process, and non-stan­ people, must take into account have continued to exist as Indian dardized criteria. Without Con­ their impact for several genera­ tribes from the time of significant gressional attention to these tions to come; and, that environ­ white contact to the present day issues, NARF predicts that its mental issues are themselves and have continued to govern clients will be waiting for federal serious economic development themselves and their members. acknowledgment well into the 21st opportunities that must be care­ NARF, therefore, prepares the century. H.R. 4462, a bill to fully studied and assessed. Based necessary historical, legal, and establish an independent Commis­ on these propositions the Project anthropological documentation to sion on Indian Recognition to be has been fully involved with the support a petition for acknowledg­ appointed by the President, Environmental Protection ment. thereby taking administrative Agency's (EPA) Tribal Operations For more than 100 years, acknowledgment decisions out of Committee in efforts to establish a these Indian communities have the hands of the Bureau of Indian national office within EPA and to been foreclosed from the benefits Affairs, was passed by the House insure adequate funding for tribal of a formal federal relationship but failed to get through the environmental programs. with the federal government. Senate during the 103rd Congress. The Project has continued Through administrative acknowl­ At the same time, the Department its work in the development of an edgment, NARF is now trying to of Interior published final rules for Economic Self-Sufficiency Plan bridge that gap. NARF is assisting federal recognition in March, for the Klamath Tribe of Oregon. the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa 1994. NARF believes that these This work includes assisting the Indians of Montana, the Mashpee new rules will be more favorable Klamath Tribe with the return of Wampanoag Tribe of Massachu­ to recognition clients than the ancestral forest lands taken from setts, the Houma Tribe of Louisi­ previous rules. a them during the termination era. ana, the Shinnecock Tribe of New The Project is also working with York, and the Pamunkey Tribe of the Turtle Mountain Chippewas of Virginia in the federal acknowl­ North Dakota to recodify the edgment process. Tribe's laws. Help is also being In Miami Nation ofIndians provided to the Winnebago Tribe v. Babbitt, NARF is challenging of Nebraska in finalizing an the Department of Interior's denial agreement between the Tribe and a of the Miami Nation's petition for gas company, and in formalizing a federal recognition. An Indiana lease payment to the Tribe. federal district court rejected the Tribe's claim that they were Federal Recognition recognized by an 1854 treaty and and Restoration have never been terminated. The court is currently considering NARF currently represents other Miami claims that the six Indian communities who have Interior Department erroneously survived intact as identifiable rejected their petition by misap­ Indian tribes but who are not plying criteria that must be met federally recognized. These for recognition. Indian tribes, for differing reasons, NARF continues to work do not have a government-to­ with Congress on behalf of its government relationship between federal recognition clients to themselves and the federal govern­ reform the present acknowledg­ ment. Traditionally, federal ment process of the Department of recognition was accorded to a the Interior through legislation. tribe through treaty, land set aside Targets of reform include over­ for a tribe, or by legislative means. coming the increasing problems of The majority of these NARF bureaucratic delays, unequal clients are seeking an administra- treatment in evaluation of peti- 10 and annual per capita distribution. tive prices for its resources. The The settlement also effectuates a case is currently pending in federal comprehensive jurisdictional district court and the Court of compact between the Tribe and Federal Claims on the issue of the the State and calls for additional amount of damages owed to the in-kind contributions from the Tribe. State and local governments. NARF represents the San NARF has repre­ Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of sented the Alabama-Coushatta Arizona in the consolidated cases Tribe of Texas since 1981 in its of M asayesva v. Zah v. James and lawsuit against the United States Navajo Tribe v. U.S. v. San Juan for breach of trust. In Alabama­ Southern Paiute Tribe. The federal Coushatta v. United States, the district court affirmed the federal Tribe is suing the United States government's recognition of the for its failure to protect the Paiute's status as an Indian tribe Tribe's possession of its 6.5 and held that NARF had estab­ million acres of aboriginal terri­ lished 75 acres for the Paiute's tory. The Tribe is pursuing a exclusive use, and that it had The protection of tribal money-damages claim against the shown joint use with the Navajo natural resources is closely linked United States under a 1983 Tribe of approximately 48,000 to the preservation of tribal exist­ Congressional Reference resolu­ acres of disputed land in northern ence. Without a sufficient natural tion that permits the Tribe to Arizona. NARF has filed a notice resource base to sustain it, the bring its claim before the United of appeal to the Ninth Circuit for practice of tribal sovereignty is States Court of Federal Claims the Tribe on their land claim. In difficult. NARF helps Indian under the Indian Claims Commis­ the meantime, several negotiating people to establish and maintain sion Act. In 1993, the Court ruled sessions with the Ninth Circuit ownership and control of land and that the Tribe had established Court of Appeals Mediator and the to assert their rights to water and aboriginal title to some undeter­ Navajo Tribe were held in fiscal hunting and fishing. mined portion of the claim area year 1994 and an agreement in by 1830, but refused to reconsider principle to settle the case was Protection of their previous 1987 ruling that the reached which would provide a Indian Lands United States was not liable reservation for the Paiutes. NARF because the Tribe's aboriginal and the Tribe will continue to work With the settlement of both title had been extinguished by out the details of the agreement. the Catawba Indian Tribe v. South prior sovereigns. NARF's appeal NARF assisted the Carolina and Catawba Indian of this ruling is pending. Potawatomi Nation in Canada in Tribe v. United States cases, In Cheyenne-Arapaho obtaining a forum in the United NARF is now assisting the Tribe v. United States, NARF was States for consideration of the Catawba Tribe in implementing successful before the Tenth merits of the Tribe's claim for the Catawba Indian Land Claim Circuit Court of Appeals in compensation for outstanding Settlement Act of 1993. The establishing that the Bureau of treaty entitlements. For the past settlement provides for payment to Indian Affairs illegally extended 100 years, the Tribe has been the Tribe of $50 million over a 5- the term of three tribal oil-and-gas trying unsuccessfully to obtain the year period from federal, state, leases in Oklahoma at below compensation it believes is due to and local governments and private market value rates without tribal it under 12 treaties concluded contributors and restores tribal consent. The Tribe wants the between the Potawatomi and the status which had been terminated right to negotiate its own leases at United States between 1795 and by the federal government in fair, competitive rates. The 1846. These treaties provided for 1959. The settlement funds will Court's decision affirmed the annuities and compensation for be placed in tribal trust funds federal government's fiduciary cessions of land. NARF was dedicated to land acquisition, duty to manage Indian trust lands successful in obtaining a congres­ economic development, education, prudently and recognized the sional reference resolution for the social services, elderly assistance, Tribe's role in securing competi- Pottawatomi as the resolution was

11 passed by the United States Senate priority date, which in most cases revised proposal calls for the in October, 1994. NARF will now will give tribes valuable senior construction of a domestic water prepare for the litigation of the water rights in the water-short pipeline from an off-reservation Pottawatomi treaty claim in the West. Unfortunately, most tribes federal reservoir to the reservation. United States Court of Federal have not utilized their reserved The Tribe is also proposing that Claims. water rights and most of these the State convey a ten-year option NARF is assisting the rights are unadjudicated or to purchase state lands which are White Earth Band of Chippewa unquantified. As a result, tribal contiguous to tribal land. Indians in Minnesota in their water claims constitute the major In United States and attempt to secure Congressional remaining water allocation issue in Klamath Tribe v. Oregon, the legislation that would transfer to the West, with approximately 50 Klamath Tribe, upon the threat the Band 24,200 acres of National lawsuits pending in the western that it will forever waive its water Federal Wetlands and 21,480 acres states involving these claims. The rights, is being forced by the State of land within the Tamarac Na­ major need in each case is to of Oregon to quantify its reserved tional Wildlife Refuge, all of define or quantify the exact water rights in order to protect its which are lands that are held by amount of water to which each treaty hunting and fishing rights. the United States and are located tribe is entitled. NARF pursues Protection of this irreplaceable within the boundaries of the natural resource is crucial to the Band's reservation. cultural survival of the Tribe. In other matters, the NARF continues to assist the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe of Klamath Tribe in obtaining and Wisconsin is represented by reviewing the hydrological, NARF in their claim to biological, and other studies former tribal lands in New necessary to quantify the York State. NARF has Tribe's reserved water assisted the Pamunkey rights. NARF also repre­ Tribe of Virginia to estab- sents the Tribe in an on­ lish the boundaries of its going court battle to deter­ reservation. The Penobscot mine whether state or Indian Nation of Maine was federal courts have jurisdic- advised by NARF relative to tion over this important the Tribe's involvement in a issue, which is pending in the number of Federal Energy Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Regulatory Commission This complex case, which affects relicensing proceedings in the the environmental integrity of Penobscot River basin. thousands of miles of habitat these claims on behalf of tribes living on the banks of the Upper Water Rights through litigation or out-of-court Klamath River Basin, has involved settlement negotiations. close coordination with officials Under the precedent NARF is asserting the from the United States Depart­ established by the United States Chippewa-Cree Tribe's rights to ments of Interior and Justice, who, Supreme Court in 1908 in the case water flowing on and through its as trustee, are asserting water of Winters v. United States and reservation in Montana. The rights claims on behalf of the confirmed in 1963 inArizona v. Tribe, the Montana Reserved Tribe. California, Indian tribes are Water Rights Compact Commis­ NARF is assisting the Tule entitled under federal law to sion, and the federal government River Tribe of California in vali­ sufficient water for present and continued formal negotiations to dating their claim to surface and future needs, with a priority date settle the Tribe's reserved water ground water. The Tribe's water at least as early as the establish­ rights. The Tribe has submitted a rights have never been adjudicated ment of their reservations. These third revised settlement proposal and its domestic water system, tribal reserved water rights are to address water allocation issues which serves 650 tribal members superior to all state-recognized on the Big Sandy, Box Elder and residing on the reservation, is water rights created after the tribal Beaver Creek drainages. The inadequate to meet the Tribe's 12 basic domestic needs. The Tribe's Hunting and Fishing subsistence priority applied to all water rights are uncertain due to a navigable waters in the State of 1922 agreement between the Alaska and that the State of Alaska Secretary of the Interior and a The right to hunt and fish lacks jurisdiction to manage non-Indian irrigation company, in traditional areas, both on and subsistence fishing in navigable which purportedly limited the off reservations, and for both waters. Navigable waters include Tribe's right to divert water from subsistence and commercial nearly all lakes and rivers, as well the South Fork Tule River. NARF purposes, remains a vital issue in as coastal waters three-miles off­ is currently assisting the Tribe in Indian country. NARF has long shore. The State of Alaska and the establishing a Tribal Water Rights been instrumental in assisting United States have appealed this Office, which is an essential tribes to assert hunting and fishing decision to the Ninth Circuit Court component for presenting and rights, which are guaranteed by of Appeals. settling the Tribe's water rights treaty or other federal law. In Elim v. State ofAlaska, claim. NARF finalized a concep­ In Katie John v. United Norton Sound villages claim that tual water development plan for States, two Athabascan elders and the False Pass June fishery is the Tule River Reservation that long-time NARF clients, who unlawfully intercepting chum would maintain a water delivery were denied their right to subsis­ salmon bound for Norton Sound storage system to provide enough tence fishing by the State of streams and subsistence users. water to the Tribe to develop a sustainable homeland. NARF is also assisting the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho to secure reserved water rights in the Snake River Basin. The United States and the Tribe filed water rights claims in state court in 1993 hoping to secure sufficient water for instream flows to protect tribal fisheries and for domestic and irrigation uses. The Tribe, the federal government and the State are now involved in negotiations. NARF continued imple­ menting the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settle­ ment Act of 1990 by finalizing the necessary agreements and drafting of leases of Central Arizona Project water received by the Tribe under the settlement. Alaska and United States govern­ NARF filed a motion in state court In September, 1994, NARF ments, achieved a major victory in seeking to enjoin the Commis­ successfully co-sponsored a the federal district court for sioner of Fish and Game and conference on Indian water law Alaska. The elders were joined in compel him to take steps to mini­ with Stanford University Law the case by the Mentasta Village mize the harvest of chum salmon. School. Also, in May, NARF Council and the Alaska Federation The court declined the motion and participated in an Indian water of Natives, also represented by referred the decision of the final rights conference for the Acoma NARF, in the argument that the chum cap to the Governor of Pueblo, the Laguna Pueblo and federal government has the obliga­ Alaska for resolution. The Gover­ Canoncito Navajo. These confer­ tion to provide subsistence fishing nor chose a cap of 350,000. ences have grown out of interest rights in all navigable waters in Cross-petitions for review were among Indians and non-Indians in Alaska. then filed with the Alaska Su­ resolving Indian water rights issues In March, 1994, the federal preme Court and the Court set through out-of-court settlements. district court ruled that the federal aside the order referring the matter 13 to the Governor which resulted in by failing to provide an adequate the cap being raised to 700,000 for hunting season to obtain moose the 1994 season. for subsistence uses, and seeks to In the case Nome Eskimo establish that the subsistence Community v. Babbitt, NARF is priority include consideration of assisting Nome Eskimo Commu­ customary and traditional uses of a nity in asserting its rights and resource. authority to manage its historic NARF assisted the and traditional subsistence fishery. Skokomish Tribe in the State of a Chiefs The Tribe has claimed aboriginal Washington to intervene in the Conference, Inc. title in the Outer Continental Shelf City of Tacoma's proceeding for beyond the State's three mile limit. the relicensing by the Federal This case is currently pending Energy Regulatory Commission of of Minto, AK, t·~ before the United States Ninth the Cushman Dams on the {1 Traditional Chief o •.. Skokomish River. The Skokomish Circuit Court of Appeals where tribes of the Tana NARF has filed its opening brief. Tribe holds treaty reserved fishing Conference The results of this case will have a rights in the Skokomish River. direct impact on other cases, such The Cushman Dams, built in 1926 as the eleven Native villages in the and 1930, have effectively elimi­ Norton Sound area of Alaska who nated all salmon habitat for about lower left are seeking the establishment of 17 .5 miles above and below the Peter John, right, , ~ their aboriginal right to hunt and dams. The Tribe seeks compensa­ AK - Traditional Chief for fish on the Outer Continental tion for damage done and mitiga­ 11 iefs Conference Shelf in Gambell v. Babbitt. tion measures to restore the es. David Salmon, In Kluti Kaah Native Tribe's fishery. The Tribe has left, of Chalkyitsi VUlage of Copper Center v. Rosier, initiated negotiations with the City Second Tradition NARF is assisting the Village in of Tacoma through use of prelimi­ changing state and federal regula­ nary data which shows that the all TCC-region tribes. ,J tions governing the subsistence dams can be operated to put water harvests of caribou and moose in back into the river and still pro­ the Copper River Basin. NARF duce hydropower for the City of argues that the Board of Game Tacoma at a profit. B violated the state subsistence law middle right Will Mayo, president of "" Ta hiefs Conference, 1992Alaska

ergman of

.1.a.n.'"-'-"".t, AK hangs fish to dry.

Photographs: Tom Thompson

14

this deplorable treatment. Since ( 0 'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz). the enactment of AIRFA, many Because religion is the people have expressed the senti­ foundation that holds Native ment (or fear) that it lacked any communities and cultures to­ "teeth" for enforcement. While it gether, religious freedom is a was the intention of Congress to NARF priority issue that cuts have traditional religious practices across many of its priorities, such protected, federal land manage­ as tribal existence, sovereignty, ment agencies have ignored and human rights. As a result, AIRFA altogether when making NARF has utilized its resources to decisions that impacted American protect First Amendment rights of Indian religious sites. Native American students, prison­ Since then, two United ers, members of the Native Ameri­ States Supreme Court decisions can Church, and tribal rights in attested to the ineffectiveness of repatriating burial remains, and AIRFA. In 1988, the United protection of sacred sites. Since States Supreme Court ruled that Native American religious free­ In 1994, NARF provided construction of a logging road dom affects basic cultural survival assistance in several matters through an area held sacred by the of Indian tribes, NARF believes involving religious freedom and Karok, Tolowa and Yurok peoples that American law and social education. NARF, on behalf of its of California, would not violate policy must provide adequate legal clients, seeks to enforce and the First Amendment rights of protection. strengthen laws which are de­ these American Indians whose To combat this injustice, signed for the unique needs and spiritual lives are inextricably NARF and other Native organiza­ problems of Native Americans in linked to that area (Lyng v. North­ tions formed the American Indian this area. west Indian Cemetery Protection Religious Freedom Coalition Religious Freedom Association). In effect, the Court (which is presently composed of found that the public interest, that over 100 Indian tribes, Native Most Americans take is, six miles of paved roads and organizations, religious groups, freedom of worship for granted, as the timber cutting it would facili­ environmental organizations and a pillar upon which our nation was tate, holds greater weight and human rights groups) to develop founded. Religious freedom has warrants greater protection than and support federal legislation to always been given a preferred the religious lives of peoples who overturn these Supreme Court place in American concepts of have for hundreds of years used cases and restore Native Ameri­ individual liberty. However, there this sacred mountain area for the cans to the protections of the First has been a long history of govern­ ceremonies which they believe Amendment. ment suppression of traditional renew the world. Two years later, In representing the Native religions practiced by American the United States Supreme Court American Church of North Indians that is unprecedented for found that the possession and America, NARF played a key role any other religion in our nation. sacramental use of peyote by in the passage of legislation in The suppression of traditional members of the Native American 1994 that exempts the religious Indian religions began in 1492 and Church, an Indian religion of pre­ use of peyote by Indians in bona has continued to the present, Columbian antiquity, was likewise fide traditional ceremonies from ranging from the government's not necessarily protected by the controlled substance laws of the outright prohibition of Indian First Amendment's free exercise federal and state governments. It religious practices in the late 19th clause (Employment Division, also prohibits discrimination and 20th centuries to current Department ofHuman Resources against Indians for such religious government developments which of Oregon v. Smith). Similarly, the use, including the denial of other­ threaten to destroy sacred sites. United States Supreme Court wise applicable benefits under In 1978, Congress enacted restricted the free exercise clause public assistance programs. The the American Indian Religious as it applies to prisoners, leaving religious freedom legislation was Freedom Act (AIRFA) in an effort prisoners' religious rights to the introduced by Congressman Bill to create a "policy" that reversed discretion of prison officials Richardson (D-N.M.), and was 16 passed by Nebraska unanimous vote and Open Records law, as a tactic to consent by both the House and Nebraska State Historical Society avoid its repatriation duties under Senate. On October 6, 1994, v. Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma v. the Unmarked Human Burial Sites President Clinton signed the bill State of Oklahoma, was filed and Skeletal Remains Protection into law, Public Law 103-344. against the Tribe by the Nebraska Act. The second case is a Pawnee This bill closes the door to govern­ State Historical Society in state repatriation claim against the mental prohibition of sacramental court claiming that the Historical Nebraska State Historical Society use of peyote and effectively Society was not subject to the under the Native American Graves reverses the Smith decision. Protection and Repatriation Act In 1993, Senator Daniel ("NAGPRA"). The third case is a Inouye, Indian Affairs Committee Pawnee repatriation claim against Chairman, and other co-sponsors the Smithsonian Institution's introduced the Native American Natural History Museum under the Free Exercise of Religion Act of National Museum of the American 1993 (S. 1021) aka "NAFERA". Indian Act. In 1994, NAFERA was replaced A comprehensive settle- with S. 2269, Native American ment was reached in the two Cultural Protection and Free ~ Nebraska cases. The Historical Exercise of Religion Act of 1994. ~ Society had sought to block the This replacement bill was intro­ ~ Tribe's access to Historical Soci- .i:: duced to reflect progress made ~ ety records under the public pursuant to year-long negotiations "5' records law. The Tribe sought the among the Administration, the ·i records to support additional tribal Senate Committee on Indian ~ repatriation claims to Pawnee Affairs, and the American Indian .! human remains and burial goods Religious Freedom Coalition. .., held illegally by the Historical S.2269 did not advance through ~ Society. The Historical Society the 103rd Congress and is now .§ had appealed a state court decision expected to be reintroduced in the ~ that ordered them to provide the 104th Congress. i museum records to the Tribe. The NARF represents the ~ case was pending before the .ii Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in ~ Nebraska Supreme Court while three separate repatriation cases as ~ settlement negotiations were discussed below. The first case, ~ conducted. As a result of these 17 negotiations, a comprehensive sive and an inappropriate subject settlement was reached in January, matter for the federal trademark 1994, whereby the litigation register. NARF represents the pending before the Nebraska National Congress of American Supreme Court was dismissed and Indians, a national organization of legislation was enacted that 160 Indian tribes, in this matter. recognized the Historical Society In March, 1994, the Trademark as a state agency, thus making the Trial and Appeal Board ruled in Society comply with the state favor of the Native American public records law. The settlement coalition and against the Washing­ also called for the repatriation of ton Redskins organization striking the remains and burial goods of the affirmative defenses asserted 400-500 deceased Pawnees to the by the Washington football organi­ Pawnee Tribe for reburial in zation, paving the way for a accordance with tribal religious decision on the merits. traditions. NARF is continuing to represent the Pawnee Tribe in its repatriation claim against the Education Smithsonian Institution. The Tribe has had a pending request NARF has implemented for the return of over 30 remains an Indian Education Legal from the Smithsonian since Au­ Support Project with its central gust 1988 without any response or theme of "tribalizing education." effort to negotiate from the The goal is to give tribes more Smithsonian. Since this time, control over their most precious another 17 remains have been resource, their children, and help identified as being ancestral to the them to improve Indian educa­ Pawnee Tribe. NARF has contin­ tion and tribal societies. Rather ued to submit evidence of claims than focusing on traditional civil to the Smithsonian on behalf of rights work such as racial dis­ the Tribe which document the crimination claims, NARF's Tribe's cultural affiliation to the efforts are devoted to confirming remains in question. the unique sovereign rights of NARF fought long and Indian tribes based on principles hard for the passage of the Native of Indian law. To date these American Graves Protection and rights and principles have not Repatriation Act of 1990. One of been addressed adequately in the the key provisions of the Act was context of education. an authorization for federal appro­ Under the Project, NARF priations to provide the necessary continue working towards increas­ strives to strengthen tribal rights financial resources to tribes and ing these appropriations. in education. This means help­ museums to facilitate repatriation. In Harjo v. Pro-Football, ing tribes gain control of the In order to implement this provi­ various concerned Indian individu­ formal education of their mem­ sion, NARF continued to represent als and Indian organizations have bers, regardless of the govern­ the Larsen Bay Community in filed a petition with the United ment that primarily provides the Alaska in working with Congress States Patent and Trademark education - federal, state, or to provide funding for tribes and Office's Trademark Trial and tribal. As NARF continues to museums. During 1994, Congress Appeal Board against the Wash­ develop and successfully pro­ appropriated $2.3 million for ington Redskins football team mote cutting-edge legal theories repatriation grants to tribes and seeking cancellation of the about tribal control of education, museums under the budget of the Redskin trademark on the ground work continues in developing National Park Service. NARF will that the use of the term is offen- tribal education laws, such as education codes, policies, and 18 plans, and developing tribal-state Legal Services represent indi­ agreements and compacts as vidual Indian allottees in their necessary to implement tribal effort to enforce the Federal Oil laws; reforming federal and state and Gas Royalty Management Act education laws and policies; and ("FOGRMA") of 1983. litigation to enforce tribal rights FOGRMA expressly vests the in education. Secretary of Interior with the NARF is continuing to responsibility of administering represent the Rosebud Sioux federal and Indian oil and gas Tribe of South Dakota in ob­ resources leased to private devel­ taining direct federal funding opers. The allottees alleged that for their education department, the federal government had been exploring other means of negligent in administering the Act, maximizing federal education thereby squandering the oil and funding for tribes, developing gas resources and royalties of language that would treat tribes Oklahoma allottees. The federal as states for purposes of fed­ district court approved a settle­ eral education laws, and work­ NARF works to hold all ment agreement in 1991 in favor ing on amending the Impact levels of government accountable of the individual Indian allottees. Aid Laws of 1950 to strengthen for the proper enforcement of the NARF continues to monitor the tribal rights regarding Impact many laws and regulations which implementation of the agreement Aid funding. NARF is repre­ govern the lives of Indian people. by the Department of the Interior senting the Fort Peck Tribes NARF continues to be involved in Minerals Management Service (Assiniboine and Sioux) of several cases which focus prima­ (MMS). NARF is also a member Montana on developing their rily on the accountability of the of a federal working group tribal education laws. federal and state governments to charged with rewriting the MMS' NARF is also represent­ Indians. federal oil and gas valuation ing the American Indian NARF represents the regulations for Indian leases and Higher Education Consortium Native Village of Noatak in land. (AIHEC) on changing regula­ N oatak v. Blatchford. This case NARF and the Native tions proposed by the Secretary involves a challenge to a state Hawaiian Legal Corporation are of Education under the Higher administrative decision that there challenging the State of Hawaii's Education Amendments of are no federally recognized tribes exchange of ceded lands to a 1992 that had allowed states to in Alaska and that it is unconstitu­ private landowner for the develop­ review the 29 tribally-con­ tional to revenue share with tribes ment of a geothermal facility on trolled Indian community to the exclusion on non-Native the Island of Hawaii. The State colleges for Title IV student groups. The United States Su­ lands exchanged were ceded lands financial aid program eligibil­ preme Court in 1991 held that the subject to a special trust under the ity. Through negotiation, the 11th Amendment barred the 1959 Hawaii Admission Act for Department of Education Tribe's claim insofar as it sought the benefit and use of Native agreed in July, 1994 that the past monetary damages, but Hawaiians. The case, Pele De­ Indian colleges cannot be remanded the case for a determi­ fense Fund v. Estate ofJames subjected to state jurisdiction nation of whether any claims for Campbell, went to trial in August, for this review and are arrang­ prospective relief were pending. 1994. It will establish precedent ing for federal or tribal review. The district court ruled that the in determining Native Hawaiian NARF also assisted AIHEC in case was moot and that, alterna­ hunting and gathering access gaining Administration support tively, any other claims were rights on those former trust lands for legislation that Congress barred by the State's 11th Amend­ held by the State of Hawaii. Post passed in October, 1994 which ment immunity. The case is on trial briefing has now been com­ gives "land grant" status to the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court pleted and a decision is now Indian colleges, thus opening of Appeals. pending. the door to new sources of In Kauley v. United States, NARF filed an amicus funding and programs. B NARF and Oklahoma Indian curiae brief in Malone v. Bureau of 19 Indian Affairs before the Ninth Court of Appeals on an Indian Circuit Court of Appeals. The Child Welfare Act case, Matter of brief was filed on behalf of the S.E.G .. In a strong decision National Indian Education Asso­ reversing the lower court of ciation, the California Rural appeals and trial court, the Minne­ Indian Health Board, the Califor­ sota Supreme Court ruled favor­ nia Urban Indian Health Council ably for the Indian tribes and and the Tule River Tribe. The case Indian foster mother in this case involves efforts by the Bureau of which involved an effort by a non­ Indian Affairs (BIA) to exclude Indian family to adopt three Indian California Indians who are on the children members of the Leech California Judgment Fund Distri­ Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of bution Roll from eligibility for Minnesota. The lower court's higher education grant benefits. ruling was held to be a violation of This group had been eligible since the Indian Child Welfare Act's the BIA first promulgated the placement preference section. eligibility criteria in 1957, but that The Turtle Mountain Band eligibility has now been changed of Chippewa Indians, the Chippewa­ The systematic develop­ without proceeding through Cree Tribes of the Rocky Boys ment of Indian law is essential for formal rulemaking under the Reservation, and the Little Shell the continued protection of Indian Administrative Procedures Act. In Band of Chippewas, and other rights. This process involves October, 1994, the Ninth Circuit Pembina Indians, received damages distributing Indian law materials ruled that the BIA violated federal awards in the Indian Claims Com­ to, and communicating with, those policy by not proceeding through mission in 1964 and 1980. The groups and individuals working on formal Federal Register Pembina Judgment Fund was behalf of Indian people. NARF rulemaking with new eligibility partially distributed in 1988 and the has two ongoing projects which criteria. The Court, however, did undistributed portion is still held in are aimed at achieving this goal. not rule whether the BIA had to trust by the federal government. write the new rules so as to in­ The Tribes have compiled evidence Indian Law clude California Indians, or to and have filed a case in the United Support Center reinstate benefits to plaintiffs States Court of Federal Claims before the new rules are declared, asserting that the federal govern­ Since 1972 the Indian Law but strongly suggested that rules ment has mismanaged these funds Support Center (ILSC) of the Native excluding these Indians would by using improper investment American Rights Fund has received violate the "broad language of the practices. The Pembina litigation funding from the Legal Services Snyder Act." has been stayed to allow, by Con­ Corporation to serve as a national NARF also filed an amicus gressional order, the Bureau of support center on Indian law and curiae brief in the Minnesota Indian Affairs to reconcile its trust policy for the national Indian legal Supreme Court and the Minnesota fund accounts. II services community and other basic field programs serving Native American clients on Indian law related matters. Since its inception literally hundreds of requests for assistance in all areas of Indian law have been answered annually. Because of the unique and complex nature of Indian law and the geo­ graphic remoteness of Indian legal services programs, complicated by the difficulty of attracting and maintaining experienced staff, ILSC performs a vital and cost-effective support function to Indian programs 20 and other legal services providers The National lawsuit, the judges, the attorneys, across the country. the citation, the docket number In 1994, ILSC provided Indian Law Library and the NILL subject headings. assistance to the Indian legal ser­ The National Indian Law The NILL collection has vices community through letters and Library (NILL) is the only law proven to be a unique resource for telephone advice on Indian law library specializing in legal prac­ those working in the arena of problems, legal research, archi_val tice materials which are essential federal Indian law. In addition it research, direct field consultation, for practitioners of Indian law. is invaluable for attorneys and review of draft pleadings, legal Thousands of legal pleadings and legal advocates working in geo­ analysis of legislation, training opinions from virtually every graphically isolated areas through­ events on Federal Indian law issues, major Indian law case since the out Indian country. These NILL locating expert witnesses and other 1950's exists within the NILL clients make ready use of the consultants, and, co-counsel in collection. These pleadings, the telephone, telefax and postal litigation. In addition, ILSC works crux of NILL, are deeply appreci­ service to acquire legal reference with the National Indian Law ated by those familiar with tradi­ assistance since many of them are Library in providing Indian and field tional law library resources. without access to even the most legal services programs legal and NILL houses the only basic law library materials. educational materials. comprehensive lending collection ILSC also publishes a of past and present Tribal govern­ Other Activities monthly newsletter, The Reporter, ment documents. In the seven and a variety of manuals that in­ In addition to its major years since its inception, the Tribal projects, NARF staff continues to clude: Manual For Protecting Government Collection consisting Indian Natural Resources; 1988 be actively involved in national of constitutions, codes, ordi­ Indian conferences and legal Update to The Manual for Protect­ nances, resolutions, by-laws and ing Indian Natural Resources; A education projects. During the charters has surpassed 750 docu­ past fiscal year, NARF attorneys Self-Help Manual For Indian ments. It provides an invaluable Economic Development; Handbook and staff served in formal or partnership network _for those . informal speaking and leadership Of Federal Indian Education Laws; involved in the draftmg, correctmg 1986 Update To Federal Indian capacities at numerous tribal, and revising of Tribal government state, academic, and national Education Laws Manual; A Manual documents. On The Indian Child Welfare Act Indian meetings such as the NILL actively collects American Indian Resources And Laws Affecting Indian Juve­ Indian law related documents. niles; 1992 Update to the Indian Institute's Tribal Leaders Forums, These documents cover a spec­ the National Congress of Ameri­ Child Welfare Act and Laws Affect­ trum which includes books, ing Indian Juveniles Manual; and, can Indians and the Federal Bar pamphlets, federal government Association. Prison Law and the Rights of Native and agencies documents, state Prisoners. NARF remains firmly government and agencies docu­ committed to continuing its effort The ILSC Project Advisory ments, law review articles, schol­ Committee, the Center's governing to share the legal expertise which arly reports, journal articles, NARF possesses with these . . body, consists of the following newspaper articles, student re­ members: Diane Avery, Esq. groups and individuals workmg m ports, and conference and seminar support of Indian rights and to (Mandan/Hidatsa); Jeff Davis, Esq. papers. (Turtle Mountain Chippewa);_ Eve foster the recognition of Indian Access to the contents of rights in mainstream society. El Kennedy (Oneida), V1ce-Cha1rper­ the NILL collection is provided son; Katherine Lowley (Coeur through a computerized database. D'Alene); Rose Mary Narcisse Numerous access points are (Umatilla); Leo Sheppard, Sr. assigned each record entered in (Navajo), Chairperson; Thomas the database. In addition to the Shipps, Esq.; Allan Toledo, Esq. basic author, title and subject (Jemez Pueblo); Carey Vicenti, Esq. headings, other access points (JicarillaApache); and, Jeanette include the Tribe involved, the Wolfley, Esq. (Navajo/Shoshone­ jurisdiction, the parties to the Bannock). 21 FOUNDATIONS/CORPORATIONS PETA UHA COUNCIL MEMBERS AND BENEFACTORS Ford Foundation (Individuals contributing $1,000 or more.) Skadden Fellowship New York Community Trust Anni Albers!The Josef Albers Foundation Will H. Hays, Jr. Rockefeller Foundation Mrs. Fanny H. Arnold Dr. Paul Heist General Service Foundation John Augsbury John Heller Carnegie Corporation Audrey Baldwin Sara S. Hinckley XYZ Corporation Jean Elizabeth Barker Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Jackson Cummins Engine Susan Bartlett Mrs. Miriam Johnson John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation David J. Bastyr Sandra Hoover Jordan Santa Fe Tobacco Company W. Robert Berger Richard Joynes Birnbaum Foundation Dr. and Mrs. Robert A. Berry Mrs. Spencer R. Keare W. Talbot Hillman Foundation Oliver Corcoran Binney Ms. Kay Marilyn Kenton Flora R and Isador M Stettenheim Foundation, Inc. Steven H. and Susan R. Bloom Mrs. Collier C. Kimball Mr. Howard Blossom Emily S. Kirk MATCHING GIFTS Elsa K. and William E. Boyce Ricki and Scott Kresan Lawrence D. Bragg, III Ester Labay Citibank Mary A. Brook William Lackey Cray Research Foundation Rev. and Mrs. C. Frederick Buechner Family Lamberson Digital Equipment Corporation Jack Campisi, Ph.D. Virginia Melchoir Lutton Glaxo, Inc. Phillip Carrel Mr. Lincoln Magill Harcourt General, Inc. Marsha Clark Timothy B. Maher Illinois Tool Works Foundation Dr. Harold T. Conrad Ann Marsak John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company Suzanne Conte Doris Renee Marx Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. Danielle Chavy Cooper, Ph.D. Janet McAlpin Lilly Endowment, Inc. Paul Anthony D 'Errico Anne McBride Microsoft Corporation Ethan Davidson Marion McCollom Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York Doris E. Davis Mrs. John McHugh MTV Networks Charles Y. Deknatel Helena Meltesen Polaroid Foundation Harvey Dennenberg Anne Merck-Abeles Pitney Bowes Ludell Deutscher Gary Meyer Public Interest Communications, Inc. Abigail E. Disney and Pierre N. Hauser Ethel L. Nash Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc. Ruth M. Dolby Mrs. Philleo Nash The Quaker Oats Foundation Mr. and Mrs. Richard M. Dowse Richand Wolf Nathan US West Foundation Mr. Thomas Dunphy Sandra Nowicki W.W. Grainger, Inc. Richard Dysart Kady Lynn Offen-Rovtar Dolan Eargle Chet Olson Lucille Echohawk Michael Pace Jana Moss Elkins Catherine Thom Parsons David Ergo Herman Patterson Dr. Garold J. and Joyce Faber!The Mary Pennock Hill Foundation Mrs. Rose Pilcarsky Four Winds Trading Company Leslie Ann W. Pratt Robert Friede Randall E. Raymond Patricia Redmond, M.D. and Leonard Berliner, M.D. Beatrice Gian William M. Ripley James E. Gilley Carol A. Roberts William C. Graustein Walter S. Rosenberry, III Dr. Patricia Marks Greenfield Mark and Pam Rudick Mr. Bartlett Harvey Karl J. Ruzsa and Robin J. Dodge CIRCLE OF LIFE MEMBERS (Contributors providing a lasting legacy to NARF through a bequest or planned gift.)

Audrey A. Baldwin Christina June Savit Mrs. Rose Pilcarsky Nina Barghoorn Roy R. Schweiker B. Frederique Samuel Maxwell Barnard Jeffrey Shedd Arthur E. Schroeder Katrina McCormick Barnes John A. Smith Michael and Gillian Seeley Barbara and Harry Beasley Thomas Running Bear Smith Katey Flynn Simetra Joyce Beaulieu Nita and Charles Smith Henry H. Solberg Diane Ben-Ari Sandra Speiden Edmond Stanley, Jr. Noel Benson Rennard Strickland Leroy Stippich Roy Benson Louis TaBois Dennis Tedeschi Mary Helen Bickley Valeria Tenyak Andrew M. Teller Oliver C. Binney C. Dickson Titus Mildred Thompson Mary and Charles Bowers Roger Welsch Ruth Thompson William 0. Brown Abraham Zuckerman Martha W. Tolman M. Gilbert Burford John and Aine Ungar(fhe Ungar Foundation Patricia and Don Burnet Grace L. Vance Mary Casmus William L. Wagner DonM. Chase Wendy B. Walsh Prof. Ed Chasteen TRIBAL CONTRIBUTIONS Donald R. Wharton Janet Congero Mashantucket Pequot Tribe Michael J. Wilburn Dr. Danielle C. Cooper Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin Joan T. Woodcock Starr Dorman Sandra Wright Laurie Desjardins Youth Development Fund Patricia Duval Mr. and Mrs. T.H. Cobb Geneveive Estes FEDERATED WORKPLACE Mr. Thomas R. Gallagher Laurence Geller CAMPAIGNS Mrs. Willy Krautter Louise Gomer-Bangel Thank you to the thousands of federal, state, municipal Harry Dean Stanton Dr. Patricia Greenfield and private sector employees throughout the country Stephen Trimble Jean R. Gundlach who, through their payroll deduction plans, contributed Alison Van Dyk I The Grace Jones Richardson Trust Sheldon Haffner more than $156,000 to NARF in 1994. John Van Dyk I The Grace Jones Richardson Trust Margaret Harnett Amelia Vernon Mrs. Charles Heidelberger Mary Beth and W. Richard West, Jr. Alfred Hoose Rose Ann Keeney FEDERAL PROGRAMS Emily S. Kirk Administration for Native Programs William Lackey Bureau of Indian Affairs Denise Larson Legal Services Corporation Ingrid LeBlanc RimaLurie • Suzanne MacDonald Sara Osborne • Randall Petersen MEMORIAL GIFTS (100+) HONORARY GIFTS (100+) INKIND CONTRIBUTIONS

Emilia Bernardo by John Caizzi Carol & Lawrence Kinser by Samuel Kinser Yuklin Aluli - Kailua, HI Harle Adair Dammann by William L. Garth, Jr. American Native Indian Children by Joanne Lyman Christopher T. Aquilino - Washington, D.C. Louis A. J. Robbins by Jack Robbins Mrs. Henny Feibelman by Mrs. Martin Rapp Robert F. Bartle - Lincoln, NE Francis Woods by Glennette Woods The Wistran Family by The Zarren Family Benjamin Binder - Denver, CO Anna & Harrold Ickes by Raymond W. Ickes The Santos Family by The Zarren Family James Botsford - Wausau, WI Ruth S. Suagee by Jay T. Suagee The Motta Family by The Zarren Family Emily Calhoun Esq. - Boulder, CO Tina Ruble by Steven J. Harrison The Roberts Family by The Zarren Family Don Coyhis - Colorado Springs, CO Haward Sargent by David Stewart-Smith The Block Family by The Zarren Family DWI Associates - Boulder, CO Benjamin LaFrance by Sandra & Tim Lafrance Geina Hubbard & Richard Cobb by Marsha Traxler Lucille Echohawk - Margaret R. Jenne by Malcolm L. Jenne Steven M. Kravetz by Darlene G. Kravetz Boulder-Denver-Advisory Committee William Forest Fitzpatrick by Nancy L. Kaser Kathleen Daily by Barbara Meislin Ken Edwards - Longmont, CO Philleo Nash by Edith Nash Teresa LaFromboise by Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Rowe Ann Estin - Boulder, CO Mary Ann Mikshunas by Julia Box Steve Yoder by Eileen Hostetler Alice Fent - Silver Spring, MD Victor & Karl Montgomery & Nona Whiteing Jon Charles Hare by Blanche & Charles Hess David Getches - by Barbara & Maurice Montgomery, Sr. Laurel M. Cooper by Dr. Danielle C. Cooper Boulder-Denver-Advisory Committee George Crakes by Mindy Smith & Gary Crakes Ralph Townsend by A. T. Young Ava Hamilton - George Rosen by Lawrence Rosen Karen & Fred Gustafson by Harvey Honig Boulder-Denver-Advisory Committee David Eugene Cox by Nancy Vynckier Healey Wieland Law Firm - Lincoln, NE Rabbi Marshall T. Meyer by Lisa Schachner BEQUESTS Holland & Hart - Denver, CO Alice Nunamaker Rance Hood - Denison, TX by Janet M. Powers, Shanna & Heather Gemmill Edith Capps John Huyler - Boulder, CO Mrs. Jeannie Saeger Harold Carlisle Mrs. Leroy Holubar, Boulder, CO by Mr. & Mrs. Richard R. Snyder Warren E. Compton Trust Jamie Kahn - Boulder, CO Joann & Stan Evaskus by David Evaskus Isobel Cerney Bob Lantaff - Boulder, CO Alex H. Warner by Mrs. Alex H. Warner Alice Gray Louis LaRose - Winnebago, NE Mary Lou Mosca-Ragona Dorothy Hunt Thorney & Anne Lieberman - Boulder, CO by Kary & Lare Aschenbrenner Marion Lawson Carolyna Smiley-Marquez - Boulder, CO Mary Lou Mosca-Ragona Catherine O'Connor Elizabeth McKee - Boulder, CO by Allstate Insurance Company Dorothy Rainsford Reilly Sally Miers - CO Frank T. Kleiger by Robert E. Kleiger George Schiff Robert S. Mist - Boulder, CO Robert J. Miller by Dr. Beatrice Miller Montgomery House Frame Shop & Gallery - Ruth Shaw ttylie by Jeanne Wylie Torosian Boulder, CO Marvin P. Chandler by Beatrice I. Gian Charles Norman - CRS, Inc., Lakewood, CO E. Graham, F. Banis, & D. Day by Barbara Bastle Amado Pena, Jr. -Austin, TX Helen & Sidney Ungar Eddie Running Wolf - Boulder, CO by SJ. Ungar/J. Shapiro Family Fund Ross 0. Swimmer - Tulsa, OK Fred Nason by Dolan Eargle Robert S. Thompson - Boulder, CO John Hansen Barton H. Thompson - Stanford, CA by Jeanne Whiteing & Rob Thompson John P. Tyrrell - New Jersey Thomas J. Malloy by Joseph J. Malloy Robert Urich - Potomac, MD George Lopez III Dr. Deward Walker - Boulder, CO by Linda D. & Ronald E. Zimmerman, Laura M. & Dale White - Boulder-Denver-Advisory Committee John A. Persell, Helen N. & Alvin W. Warner, Mary Jeanne Whiteing - E. & Gerardo E. Gonzalez Boulder-Denver-Advisory Committee George F. Hutchins by John Hutchins Charles Wilkinson - Boulder-Denver-Advisory Committee Wilson-Schaef Associates, Inc. - Boulder, CO NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, Inc. Coopers Report on audit of financial statements &Lybrand L.L.P. as of and for the year ended September 30, 1994 Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors of Native American Rights Fund, Inc. :

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Native American Rights Fund, Inc. ("NARF") as of September 30, 1994, and the related statements of support and revenue, expenses, capital additions and changes in fund balances and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of NARF's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. Other auditors, whose report dated December 15, 1993, expressed an unqualified opinion, previously audited and reported upon the financial statements for the year ended September 30, 1993, totals of which are included for comparative purposes only.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of NARF as of September 30, 1994, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

Denver, Colorado, December 30, 1994

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies: year period, Ford will reconsider its initial contribution if its challenge has not Organization: been met. All endowment contributions have been recognized as capital addi­ Native American Rights Fund, Inc. ("NARF") was incorporated in 1971 tions. under the nonprofit corporation law of the District of Columbia and has a pri­ Endowment funds are invested in mutual funds managed by an outside mary objective of providing legal representation, assistance and education to investment manager. Interest earned on the Endowment investments is unre­ Native American people. NARF derives financial support from private founda­ stricted and has been used currently to finance NARF programs. Interest and tions, the United States Government, public contributions and a limited fee policy. earnings of the endowment fund, reinvested in the endowment mutual funds, are NARF is a tax-exempt organization as described in section 501 (c) (3) of reported in the current fund investments and support and revenues. the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, is subject to federal income taxes only General Fixed Asset Fund - The general fixed asset fund accounts for on unrelated business income. NARF's recorded fixed assets and related debt obligations. Uses of current NARF prepares its financial statements in accordance with generally operating funds for acquisition of property and equipment and principal debt accepted accounting principles as prescribed by the American Institute of service are accounted for as transfers to the general fixed asset fund. Proceeds Certified Public Accountants Audit Guide for Audits of Certain Nonprofit from issuance of debt obligations or the sale of fixed assets are accounted for as Organizations. transfers to the current unrestricted and restricted funds. The significant accounting policies followed in the preparation of these Property and equipment acquired solely with LSC funds are considered to financial statements are described below. be owned by ILSC while used in the program or in future authorized programs. However, LSC has a reversionary interest in these assets. In addition, LSC has Fund Accounting: the right to determine the use of any proceeds from the sale of assets purchased Separate funds have been established according to the restrictions, nature with its funds. and purposes of the funds as follows: Current Funds - Unrestricted - Represents unrestricted resources avail­ Donated Arl: able to NARF for support of its programs. Contributions and donations from During fiscal 1990, NARF received and recorded at their estimated fair unrestricted sources are generally recognized when received. Unrestricted do­ value, donations of Native American art in collaboration with an association of nations of marketable securities or other in-kind contributions are recorded as Native American artists. A portion of the art was sold during fiscal 1993 and revenue at their estimated fair market value at the date of contribution. 1994. The remaining art was written off at September 30, 1994. Bequests are recorded as a receivable and deferred revenue in the unre­ stricted fund when the amount of the bequest can be reasonably determined. Interfund Receivable (Payable): Such bequests are recorded as revenue when the receipt of the funds is immi­ All funds received by NARF, which are not specifically identified as en­ nent. dowment funds, are deposited in a general bank account. Segregation of cash Current Funds - Non-ILSC Restricted - Represents support in the form and certain other assets and liabilities between non-ILSC restricted and unre­ of restricted government and foundation grants excluding that received from stricted funds is not maintained in the accounting records. The restricted cash of Legal Services Corporation ("LSC "). NARF's paying clients are concentrated the ILSC fund represents cash received from the LSC and deposited in the gen­ among Native American Tribes. eral account, which has not yet been expended. Segregation of revenue and Revenue from restricted grants and contracts is deemed to be earned when expenditures applicable to restricted funds (including segregation within the re­ NARF has incurred costs or other expenditures which satisfy restrictions im­ stricted fund by grant source), unrestricted funds and the general fixed asset posed by the respective grants or contracts. Funds received from restricted sources funds is maintained in the accounting records. The interfund receivable (pay­ in excess of costs incurred are reported as deferred revenues. For costs incurred able) results from the difference between restricted assets received and depos­ in excess of funds received from restricted sources, revenue and related receiv­ ited in the current fund, and the actual expenditures of those funds in the re­ ables are recognized to the extent of such costs unless, in management's opin­ stricted fund. ion, future grant or contract funds will be insufficient. In such cases, costs are charged to unrestricted funds. Allocation ofExpenses: Current Funds - ILSC - Represents restricted support from LSC for op­ Expenses are allocated to grants based on time devoted to projects by at­ erations of the Indian Law Support Center ("ILSC"). torneys, except where expenses are specifically identifiable with a particular Endowment Fund -The NARF 21st Century Endowment Fund (the "En­ grant or project. dowment") was established on December 31, 1991, with a $1,000,000challenge The costs of providing tbe various programs and other activities have been grant from the Ford Foundation. Under the terms of the grant, NARF has five summarized on a functional basis in the statement of support and revenue, years to match Ford's contribution on a $2 for $1 basis. At the end of the five- (continued on next page) NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, INC. BALANCE SHEETS at September 30, 1994 with comparative totals for 1993

1994 1993 The NARF21st Currents Funds Century General Non-ILSC Endowment Fixed Total Total ASSETS Unrestricted Restricted ILSC Fund Asset Fund All Funds All Funds Cash and cash equivalents $ 361,598 $ $20,578 $ $ $ 382,176 $ 49,569 Cash escrow accounts 14,112 14,112 Marketable securities 1,201,473 1,007,898 2,209,371 2,221,020 Grants receivable 783,541 6,588 790,129 671,899 Bequests receivable 432,500 432,500 269,000 Other receivables, net of allowance of $51,000 in 1994 371,259 371,259 749,611 Employee advances 15,539 15,539 31,796 Donated art 99,525 Prepaid expenses and other assets 33,451 33,451 32,044 Interfund receivable (payable) 140,835 (140,835) Property and equipment, at cost: Land and buildings 313,937 313,937 313,937 Improvements to land and buildings 181,757 181,757 181,757 Office equipment and furnishings 17,411 335,081 352,492 438,247 Professional library 193,198 193,198 154,730 Less accumulated depreciation (11.612) (572.028) (583.640) (636.667)

Total assets $2,570,767 $642,706 $32,965 $1,007,898 $451,945 $4,706,281 $4,576,468

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES

Accounts payable $ 274,231 $ 8,701 $ $ $ $ 282,932 $ 346,538 Other accrued expenses 109,958 109,958 241,981 Accrued vacation pay 156,776 156,776 155,701 Deferred revenue 1,262,912 634,005 27,166 1,924,083 855,708 Mortgages and notes payable 26,680 26,680 53,411 Fund balances 766,890 5,799 1,007,898 425,265 2,205,852 2,923,129 Commitments ------Total liabilities and fund balances $2,570,767 $642,706 $32,965 $1,007,898 $451,945 $4,706,281 $4,576,468

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

(continued from previous page) Statement of Cash Flows: expenses, capital additions and changes in fund balances. Accordingly, certain NARF considers all highly liquid short-term investments purchased with costs have been allocated among the programs and supporting services ben­ an original maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Interest paid efited. during fiscal years 1994 and 1993 was $3,481 and $4,981, respectively. Professional Staff: Personnel classified as professional staff include attorneys, librarians and Reclassifications: office management personnel. Certain reclassifications have been made to the September 30, 1993, fi­ nancial statements to conform to the 1994 presentation. These reclassifications Fund Raising: had no effect on the excess of support and revenue over expenses after capital Fund raising expenses are comprised of costs associated with contribution additions. revenue and costs associated with obtaining grants from private foundations and governmental agencies. 2. Marketable Securities: In 1994 and 1993, NARF incurred joint costs of $606,210 and $656,634, Marketable securities are presented in the financial statements in the ag­ respectively, for informational materials and activities that included fund raising gregate at the lower of cost or market. appeals. These costs were allocated between program and fund raising expenses Cost Market as follows: Current unrestricted fund $1,215,866 $1,201,473 _____.!m_ 1993 Endowment fund 1.113.551 1.007,898 Program expenses $374,270 $393,980 $2,329,417 $2,209,371 Fund raising expenses 231.940 262.654 $606,210 $656,634 The activity in the endowment fund for the year ended September 30, 1994 is as Property and Equipment: follows: Property and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciation is provided over the estimated useful lives utilizing the straight-line method for buildings Endowment fund account, lower of cost (25 years), the professional library (30 years), copiers (5 years), computer hard­ or market, September 30, 1993 $1,015,000 ware and software (5 years), and for other property and equipment (10 years). Plus: Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred. When properties are retired Contributions received 100,000 or disposed of, the related costs and accumulated depreciation are removed from Net earnings on investments 58,604 the respective accounts and the gain or loss on disposition is reflected in the 1,173,604 results of operations for the period. Less: Fixed assets with cost and accumulated depreciation of $148,398 and Loss on sale of investments (1,449) $107,040 respectively, included on the detail listing, could not be located during Unrealized decline in value (105,653) a physical inventory and were, therefore, written-off during 1994. 1,066,502

Donated and Contributed Services: Net earnings transferred to current fund (58.604) No amounts have been recorded in these financial statements for the value of donated or contributed services performed by volunteers. Lower of cost or market, September 30, 1994 $1,007,898 (continued on next page) NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, INC. STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT AND REVENUE, EXPENSES, CAPITAL ADDITIONS AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES for the year ended September 30, 1994 with comparative totals for 1993

1994 1993 The NARF21st Currents Funds Century General Non-ILSC Endowment Fixed Total Total Unrestricted Restricted ILSC Fund Asset Fund All Funds All Funds Support and revenue: Governmental grants $ $1,776,907 $324,557 $ $ $2,101,464 $2,309,920 Foundation and trust grants 1,067,202 1,067,202 852,174 Contributions 1,691,478 2,000 1,693,478 2,966,349 Legal fees 376,702 376,702 1,068,279 Other 118,801 6,836 125,637 132,714 Net gain on investment transactions 51.951 --- 58.604 110.555

Total support and revenue 2,238,932 2,846,109 331,393 58,604 5,475,038 7,329,436 Expenses: Program services: Litigation and client services 2,002,287 1,906,803 226,638 4,135,728 4,626,704 National Indian Law Library 156,663 149,192 17,733 -- 323,588 307,140

Total program services 2,158,950 2,055,995 244,371 --- 4,459,316 4,933,844 Support services: Management and general 383,346 330,896 77,559 791,801 858,701 Fund raising 377,679 321,650 -- -- 699,329 808,290 Total support services 761,025 652.546 77,559 -- 1,491,130 1,666,991 Interfund cost allocations (43,628) 43,628 Bad debt expenses 51,000 51,000 Loss on disposal of property and equipment 41,358 41,358 Loss on disposal of donated art 88,396 88,396 Depreciation 2,370 51.643 54,013

Total expenses 3,015,743 2,752,169 324 300 93,001 6,185,213 6,600,835

Excess (deficiency) of support and revenue over expenses before capital additions (776,811) 93,940 7,093 58.604 (93,001) (710,175) 728,601

Capital additions: Contributions 100,000 100,000 Investment income 58,731 Net loss on investment transactions -- -- (1,449) --- (1,499) --

Total capital additions -- -- 98,551 --- 98,551 58,731 Excess (deficiency) of support and revenue over expenses after capital additions (776,811) 93,940 7,093 157,155 (93,001) (611,624) 787,332 Fund balances, beginning of year 1,509,536 8,169 1,015,000 390,424 2,923,129 2,135,797 Other changes in fund balances: Acquisition of property and equipment (19,878) (73,530) (7,703) 101,111 Repayment of mortgage and notes payable (4,561) (20,410) (1,760) 26,731 Realized gains and investment income on endowment funds utilized 58,604 (58,604) Unrealized loss on endowment fund ------(105,653) (105,653) Fund balances, end of year $766,890 $ $5,799 $1,007,898 $425,265 $2,205,852 $2,923,129

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

(continued from previous page) Cost Market Excess of Cost Investments are composed of the following: Over Market Balance at end of year $2,329,417 $2,209,371 $(120,046) Cost Market Balance at beginning of year $2,221,020 $2,221,623 603 Temporary investments $1,031,298 $1,031,298 Increase in unrealized Fixed income securities 1,159,619 1,028,134 depreciation (120,649) Equity and convertible securities 138,500 149,939 Realized net loss for year (31,773) $2,329,417 $2,209,371 Total net loss for year $(152,422) The following tabulation summarizes the relationship between carrying values and market values of investment assets. (continued on next page) NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, INC. STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS for the year ended September 30, 1994 with comparative totals for 1993

1994 1993 The NARF21st Currents Funds Century General Non-ILSC Endowment Fixed Total Total Unrestricted Restricted Fund Asset Fund All Funds All Funds Cash flows from operating activities: Excess (deficiency) of support and revenue over expenses after capital additions $(776,811) $93,940 $7,093 $157,155 $(93,001) $(611,624) $787,332 Adjustments to reconcile excess (deficiency) of support and revenue over expenses after capital additions to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: Bad debt expense 51,000 51,000 Depreciation 2,370 51,643 54,013 79,588 Loss on sale of investments 30,324 1,449 31,773 Unrealized loss on investments 14,393 14,393 Loss on disposal of property and equipment 41,358 41,358 15,683 Loss on disposition of donated art 88,396 88,396 Change in operating assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in cash escrow accounts (14,112) (14,112) Decrease (increase) in grants and bequests receivable (163,500) (138,979) 20,749 (281,730) 544,948 Decrease (increase) in other receivables 327,352 327,352 (403,172) Decrease (increase) in other assets 14,850 14,850 27,785 Decrease in donated art 8,500 Decrease (increase) in interfund receivable/payable (60,718) 82,981 (22,263) Increase (decrease) in accounts payable (72,307) 8,701 (63,606) (14,000) Increase (decrease) in other liabilities (125,874) (5,074) (130,948) 92,835 Increase (decrease) in deferred revenue 993,912 27,166 1.068,375 (935.463)

Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities

Cash flows from investing activities: (Additions to) proceeds from investments (40,170) (100,00) (140,170) (411,372) Purchase of fixed assets (101,111) (101,111) (92,744) Proceeds from sale of donated art 11.129 11.129

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities (100 000) (101.111) (230,152) (504,116)

Cash flows from financing activities: Net fund balance transfers 34,165 (93,940) (9,463) (58,604) 127,842 Payment of debt (26,731)

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities 34,165 (9.463) (26 731) (24 840)

Increase (decrease) in cash 312,029 20,578 332,607 (324,920)

Cash and equivalents at beginning of year 49,569

Cash and equivalents at end of year $382,176

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

(continued from previous page) 3. Restricted Grants Receivable and Deferred Revenue: September 30, Restricted grants receivable and deferred revenue consist of the following 1994 1993 individual restricted grants or contracts: Grants Deferred Grants Deferred September 30, Receivable Revenue Receivable Revenue 1994 1993 Ford Foundation $ $1,000,000 $ - $333,333 Grants Deferred Grants Deferred Carnegie Corporation 112,028 120,435 Receivable Revenue Receivable Revenue Legal Services Corporation 6,588 27,166 27,337 Bureau of Indian Affairs $783,541 $ - $621,266 $ Bequests 432,500 269,000 The Rockefeller Foundation 40,625 42,106 Other 17,370 ~ 20,535 The John D. and Catherine T. $790,129 $1,924,083 $671,899 $855,708 MacArthur Foundation 15,752 70,299 Department of Health and $833,333 of the Ford Foundation grant and the bequests deferred revenue of Human Services - $432,500 are recorded in the current fund. This portion of the Ford Foundation Administration for grant is to be used for general and fundraising purposes, subject to a maximum Native Americans 278,642 annual amount of $600,000. (continued on next page) The audited financial statements of the Native American Rights Fund for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1994, show that we received an unqualified auditor's opinion from our indepen­ dent accountants, Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. Of significant note for FY94 is the decrease in NARF's unrestricted fund balance from a FY93 high of $1,509,536 to a FY94 year-end level of $766,890. NARF's total support and revenue decreased by $1,854,398 from the previous fiscal year. The most significant variances in revenue are found in the categories of "Contributions" and "Legal Fees". Contributions from individuals for FY94 decreased by $1,272,871, primarily due to a few unusually large gifts in FY93 that were not recurring in FY94. Legal Fee revenue was at a low for FY94, primarily due to the successful closure of a number of NARF's fee cases. A comparison of revenue sources for FY93 and FY94 is shown below. Total expenditures for FY94 decreased by $415,622. This difference is primarily related to the timing of expenses for fundraising activity and a decrease in travel and consultant expense, coupled with a sensitivity toward maintaining a watchful eye with our expenses. NARF has, again, successfully achieved our goal of keeping expenditures related to support services below or near the 25% level so that as much as possible of every dollar spent can support program services for our Native American constituency. NARF's expenditures, by function, are compared below for FY93 and FY94.

FUNCTIONAL EXPENDITURES FY94 FY93 I Litigation & Client Services 70.0% 70.0% National Indian Law Library 5.3% 4.7% Program Services: 75.3% 74.7% Management & General 13.0% 13.0% Fundraising 11.7% 12.3% Support Services: 24.7% 25.3%

(continued from previous page) Changes in deferred restricted amounts during the year are as follows: 5. Commitments: NARF leases certain space and equipment under operating leases. Annual Non-ILSC Restricted future minimum rental payments under operating leases are as follows (fiscal Balances at beginning of year $586,708 $ years): 1995 - $105,622; 1996 - $80,322; 1997 - $64,915; 1998 - $41,451. Additions, contributions and bequests 1,619,587 298,972 Rental expense was $93,373 and $74,566 for 1994 and 1993, respectively. Transfer to unrestricted (336,767) Deductions, funds expended during the year (1.235,523) (271.806) 6. Retirement Benefits: Balances at end of year $634,005 $27,166 On August 6, 1994, NARF's Board of Directors authorized the adoption of a noncontributory defined contribution plan, effective as of October 1, 1993, 4. Mortgage and Notes Payable: for its employees. All employees are eligible to participate in the plan subject to Mortgage and notes payable consist of the following: a minimum of six months employment and attainment of age 21. Benefits pay­ September 30, able under the plan are based upon a percentage of participants' eligible com­ pensation, funded by a contribution made by NARF. The election to make the Notes payable in equal monthly installments contribution and the percentage of employee compensation to be contributed is of $1,750, including interest at 7.25%, at the discretion of the Corporate Officers on the last day of each calendar quar­ with remaining principal balance due ter. During fiscal year ended 1994, NARF recognized approximately $87,000 October, 1995; collateralized by in costs relating to a contribution to the participants' accounts. land and building at 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado $21,000 $43,891 7. Concentrations of Credit Risk: NARF's general bank account and investments are maintained and man­ Promissory note payable in aged by a single, federally insured depository institution. 58 monthly installments NARF's other receivables arise from providing legal representation, assis­ of $320 principal, plus tance and education to Native American people and tribes. The grants receiv­ accrued interest at 11 %; able are principally due from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. due April, 1996 5.680 9.520 26,680 53,411 8. New Accounting Pronouncements: Less current portion (24.840) (23.938) Effective September 30, 1996, NARF will be required to implement SPAS No. 116, "Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made," Due beyond next fiscal year $1,840 $29,473 and SPAS No. 117, "Financial Statements of Not-For-Profit Organizations." The most significant provision of SPAS No. 116 is the recognition of pledges Annual maturity requirements on the mortgage and notes payable are as follows in the financial statements. SPAS No. 117 requires a change in the display of (fiscal years): 1995 - $24,840; 1996 - $1,840 financial statements from those based on fund accounting to a display based on the concept of "net assets." The impact of these pronouncements has not been NARF has an unused $300,00 line of credit with a bank at the bank's prime determined, but is not expected to have a material impact on the fund balance of rate which expires January 31, 1995, which may be renewed annually by the NARF. bank at the bank's approval. Outstanding loans under the line of credit are to be collateralized by NARF's real property in Boulder, Colorado. The line of credit agreement contains covenants which include minimum working capital, limita­ tions on capital expenditures without bank approval and limits on operating ex­ penses that may exceed total annual committed support. No amounts were out­ standing at September 30, 1994.