National Indian Law Library Native American Rights Fund
The Native American Rights Fund is a non-profit organization specializing in the protection of Indian rights. The priorities of NARF are: ( 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 Americans; and ( 5) the development of Indian law. Board of Directors Amado Pefia (Yaqui/Chicano) Charles F. Wilkinson Chris McNeil, Jr. (ningit) David Risling, Jr. (Hoopa) National Indian Law Library Chairman Pernell Roberts deana harragarra waters Alaska Dr. Jonas Salk ( Kiowa/Otoe-Missouria) George Kalama ( Nisqually) Will Sampson, Jr. (Creek) Law Librarian Vice-Chairman Leslie Marmon Silko (Laguna Pueblo) Washington Ed Bristow (Cherokee/Choctaw) Connie Stevens Legal Research Associate A. Kenneth Custalow (Mattaponi) Maria Tallchief (Osage) Virginia Mary Mousseau (Santee Sioux) Studs Terkel Librarian Assistant Ada Deer (Menominee) Ruth Thompson Wisconsin Bonnie Davis Tenaya Torres (ChiricahuaApache) (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) Gene Gentry (Klamath) Thomas N. Tureen Secretary Oregon Dennis Weaver Bernard Kayate (Laguna Pueblo) Professional Staff New Mexico Corporate Officers Susan Arkeketa (Otoe-Missouria/Creek) (Term ended November, 1986) Grantwriter/Editor John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Dan Little Axe (Absentee Shawnee) Executive Director Rose Brave (Oglala Sioux) Oklahoma Office Manager Jeanette Wolfley Wayne Newell (Passamaquoddy) Deputy Director Susan Rosseter Hart Maine (Navajo/Shoshone-Bannock) Controller Leonard Norris, Jr. (Klamath) Mary L. Hanewall Mary L. Hanewall Oregon Development Officer Development Officer Harvey Paymella (Hopi-Tewa) Susan Rosseter Hart Marilyn Pourier (Oglala Sioux) Arizona Secretary/Treasurer Development Assistant Caleb Pungowiyi (Siberian Yupik) Alaska Staff Attorneys Support Staff Norman M. Ration (Navajo-Laguna) Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner Mary Bumbera Arizona Robert T. Anderson Legal Secretary Lois). Risling ( Hoopa) (Nett Lake Chippewa) Mary Chaddlesone (Kiowa) Legal Secretary California Richard Dauphinais Kim Crandall Wade Teeple (Chippewa) (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) Secretary/Bookkeeper Michigan Jerilyn Decoteau (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) Judith Goodman National Support Committee Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) Legal Secretary Owanah Anderson (Choctaw) Kim Jerome Gottschalk Rita Pitka (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) Legal Secretary Edward Asner Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) Katrina McCormick Barnes Sonya Paul (Navajo) Arlinda F. Locklear (Lumbee) Receptionist David Brubeck Melody L. McCoy (Cherokee) Mary Lu Prosser (Cheyenne River Sioux) Rep. Ben Nighthorse Campbell Scott B. McElroy Administrative Assistant (Northern Cheyenne) Don B. Miller Debbie Raymond (Navajo) Iron Eyes Cody (Cherokee-Cree) Steven C. Moore Administrative Assistant Val Cordova (Taos Pueblo) Robert M. Peregoy (Flathead) Patrita Ime Salazar Norn1an Cousins Henry). Sockbeson (Penobscot) (Taos/Santa Ana Pueblo) James Garner Jeanne S. Whiteing Legal Secretary Sy Gomberg ( Blackfeet-Cahuilla) Patricia Stinnette Will H. Hays, Jr. (Resigned May, 1986) Secretary/Bookkeeper Alvin M. Josephy, Jr. Marilyn White (Mohawk) Of Counsel Legal Secretary Billy Mills ( Oglala Sioux) Richard B. Collins Krista Wilber Alfonso Ortiz (Sanjuan Tewa) Bruce R. Greene Bookkeeper
Cover: "The Chief Speaks." A painting by artist Woody Crumbo (Potawatomie). Matlonal Indlan Law Library ~ 522 Broadway Bou:~.sr, CO 8030!
Chairman's Letter ...... 2 Executive Director's Report ...... 3 The Steering Committee ...... 4 The National Support Committee ...... 5 Introduction ...... 6 The Preservation of Tribal Existence ...... 7 The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources ...... 10 The Promotion of Human Rights ...... 13
Main Office The Accountability of Governments ...... 15 Native American Rights Fund The Development of Indian Law ...... 16 1506 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 Treasurer's Report ...... 17 303-447-8760 Washington, D.C. Office Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Credits 202-785-4166 Photos: John Youngblut, Monty Roessel, Jim Baker, Smithsonian Institute Anchorage Office Photo No. 1775A Native American Rights'Fund 310 K Street, Suite 708 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-276-0680 Tax Status The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a nonprofit, charitable organization incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District of Columbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provi sions of Section 501(c) (3) of the Inter nal Revenue Code. Contributions to NARF are tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that NARF is not a "private foundation" as defined in Section 509( a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Founded in 1970 and incorporated in 1971 in Washington, D.C.
Native American Rights Fund 1 Cba,irman's Letter
Since 1970, the Native American Rights Fund has been strengthening and protecting the rights of Native Americans. Over the last 16 years, NARF has been victorious in the courts and in Congress on behalf of Native Americans. These victories include: establishing a homeland for the Kickapoo Tribe of Texas, asserting treaty fishing rights of the Bay Mills Indian Community in Michigan, settling historic land claims for the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Tribes of Maine, and winning major Supreme Court decisions for the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana and the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin. However, these victories cannot allow us to be complacent. There is much more work to be done for Native Americans. This year, NARF was involved in several water rights cases for many western tribes, land claims for several eastern tribes, and rights of tribal self-government for Alaska Native villages. NARF was also involved in issues relating to Indian education, voting rights and Native American re ligious beliefs and practices. As Chairman of the Board of Directors, I have the C:hris McNeil (Tiingit), Chairman firm belief that NARF is a vital advocate for the rights of all Native Americans. NARF's victories on behalf of Indian people, thus far, have provided invaluable resources, tribal rights and independence for Native Americans. We thank all of you who have supported us in the past and we hope you will continue to do so now and in the future.
Chris McNeil, Jr. Chairman
2 1986 Annual Report Executive Director's Report
In 1986 the Native American Rights Fund con tinued to provide legal advice and representation to Indian tribes, organizations and individuals on issues of major significance to Indian people throughout the nation. The access to justice made possible by NARF's assistance resulted in several important legal victories in fiscal year 1986 for Native Americans. A long legislative fight over tribal self-government was successfully concluded when the State of Neb raska returned to the Winnebago Tribe criminal jurisdiction over their reservation that the State had been given under a 195 3 federal law. The Tribe will once again exercise misdemeanor jurisdiction over its own members while the federal government assumes jurisdiction for other offenses committed on the reservation. The Southern Ute Tribe, represented by NARF, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe reached an agree ment with the State of Colorado, non-Indian water users and the Department of the Interior that would settle their tribal reserved water rights claims after John E. Echohawk (Pawnee), Executive Director lengthy negotiations. If approved by Congress, the settlement will provide the Tribes $60.5 million in In a case where NARF served as co-counsel for development funds, 87,000 acre-feet of water from several Indian voters, a large school district on the federal project facilities, and 42,000 acre-feet of Cheyenne River Sioux reservation in South Dakota water from rivers crossing their reservations. agreed to expand the number of polling places for The Pamunkey Tribe, recognized by the State of school board elections from one to five to conform Virginia but not the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Eligibility for was approved as a tribal government by the Internal funding under the Tribally Controlled Community Revenue Service eligible for tax treatment as a Colleges Act was also established for the Chippewa government under the Tribal Government Tax Cree Tribe's Stone Child College in Montana. Status Act. Alaska Native reindeer herders repre Finally, a settlement was reached in a case in sented by NARF were successful in gaining federal volving overcharges by petroleum companies in legislation that protected the tax-exempt status of violation of recent oil pricing regulations which their income from reindeer herds held in trust for provides that Indian tribes are entitled to an equit them by the federal government. able share of the refunds owed by the companies. The United States Supreme Court struck down a States are required to fund tribal energy-related North Dakota law which denied tribal access to state restitutionary programs out of their $660 million courts unless tribal immunity from suit was waived share according to the settlement negotiated on and state law was applied. NARF filed an amicus behalf of the National Congress ofAmerican Indians. curiae brief in the case for the Turtle Mountain These 1986 achievements would not have been Chippewa Tribe of North Dakota. possible without the financial assistance of our many Several California tribes were successful in ending generous supporters. We thank everyone who sup a Bureau oflndian Affairs practice of blocking tribal ported us in 1986 - you deserve much of the credit elections on tribal constitutional amendments that for the legal progress made by Native Americans the BIA disliked. Another court ruling for the Walker during the year. We hope that your assistance will River Paiute Tribe of Nevada declared federal ap continue into 1987 and beyond. proval of mining leases on tribal land invalid without tribal consent. John E. Echohawk Executive Director
Native American Rights Fund 3 The Boa,rd of Direetors
NARF is governed by a thirteen member Board of Directors com posed entirely of Native American people from throughout the coun try. The Board of Directors de cides the direction of NARF's ac tivities under the priorities and policies they have established. Members are chosen on the basis of their involvement in and know ledge of Indian affairs and issues. Chris McNeil George Kalama Kenneth Custalow Ada Deer Current members of the Board of Directors are:
Chris McNeil, Jr. (Tlingit) Chairman Alaska George Kalama (Nisqually) Vice-Chairman Gene Gentry Wayne Newell Leonard Norris, Jr. Harvey Paymella Washington A. Kenneth Custalow (Mattaponi) Virginia Ada Deer (Menominee) Wisconsin Gene Gentry (Klamath) Oregon Dan Little Axe Caleb Pungowiyi Norman Ration Lois Risling (Absentee Shawnee) Oklahoma Wayne Newell (Passamaquoddy) Maine Leonard Norris,Jr. (Klamath) Oregon Harvey Paymella (Hopi-Tewa) Arizona Wade Teeple Caleb Pungowiyi (Siberian Yupik) Alaska LoisJ. Kisling (Hoopa) (Bernard Kayate's term on the board ex pired last fall. Kayate, a Laguna Pueblo, Norman M. Ration California seroedjrom 1981to1986.) (Navajo-Laguna) Wade Teeple (Chippewa) Arizona Michigan
4 1986 Annual Report The National Support Committee
The National Support Commit tee was established in 1978 to assist NARF in its fundraising ef forts nationwide. Some of the in dividuals on the Committee are prominent in the field of business, entertainment and the arts. Others are known advocates for the rights of the underserved. All of the volunteers on the Committee are committed to upholding Indian rights for America's Native Amer icans.
Owanah Anderson (Choctaw) Edward Asner Katrina McCormick Barnes David Brubeck Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Northern Cheyenne) Iron Eyes Cody (Cherokee-Cree) Val Cordova (Taos Pueblo) Norman Cousins James Garner Sy Gomberg Will H. Hays, Jr. Alvin M.Josephy,Jr. Billy Mills ( Oglala Sioux) AlfonsoOriiz (Sanjuan Tewa) Amado Peiia (Yaqui) David Risling,Jr. (Hoopa) Pernell Roberts Dr.Jonas Salk Will Sampson, Jr. (Creek) Leslie Marmon Silko (Laguna Pueblo) Connie Stevens Maria Tallchief (Osage) Studs Terkel Ruth Thompson Tenya Torres (ChiricahuaApache) Thomas N. Tureen Dennis Weaver
Native American Rights Fund 5 The Program
In 1986, the Native American to Indian country, in 1971. Since rights of Indian people within the Rights Fund conducted its 16th the beginning, the national scope limit of available resources. To year of operations as the national of legal work undertaken by NARF achieve this goal, NARF's Board of Indian legal defense fund. During as a nonprofit organization has Directors has defined five priority the year, NARF attorneys argued been supported by foundation areas for NARF's work These five cases before the Supreme Court, and government grants, corporate, priority areas are: ( 1) the preser federal courts and administrative individual, and tribal contribu vation of tribal existence; ( 2) the agencies to protect the rights of tions and limited client fees. protection of tribal natural re Native Americans. These cases The accomplishments and sources; ( 3) the promotion of ranged from ensuring fair voting growth of NARF over the years human rights; ( 4) the account practices for Native Americans to confirmed the great need for In ability of governments to Native major land claims and water rights dian legal representation on a Americans; and ( 5) the develop cases which affect thousands of national basis. This legal advocacy ment of Indian law. Following are Indian people. NARF also drafted on behalf of Native Americans is as brief highlights of NARF's work legislation and monitored devel crucial now as ever. NARF strives during the 1986 fiscal year in each opments in Indian law. to protect the most important of these five priority areas. Over the years, NARF has gained, through its hundreds of cases and many pieces of legisla tion, the mark of a proven advo cate in Indian law issues which will affect this and future genera tions of Native Americans. The Founding of NARF Many federally funded legal services programs were estab lished around the country in the 1960's. These programs were aimed at providing legal represen tation for poor and disadvantaged people. It was through these legal services programs that the special needs of Indian people became apparent. The hundreds of treat ies, thousands of federal statutes and numerous regulations and ad ministrative rulings have created a unique body of law called Indian law which governs the Jives of Indian people. Indian legal services programs could not assist Indians every where, so the need for a national program to provide these services also became apparent. The Native American Rights Fund emerged in California in 1970 to fill this need. NARF was relocated to Boulder, Kim G. Gottschalk, Staff Attorney Colorado, a more central location
6 1986 Annual Report The Preservation of Tribal Existence
The most critical issue facing Through NARF's efforts the Pa opment projects. NARF also draf Indian tribes today is the preser munkey Tribe of Virginia, a non ted tax ordinances for Copper vation of their existence as gov federally recognized tribe, was Center Village, located in Alaska, ernmental entities with all the recognized as a tribe for purposes to generate revenue in order to power and authority that gov of the Tribal Government Tax provide its village essential com ernmental status entails. Thus, the Status Act ofl 982. The Act allows munity services. In addition, NARF focus of NARF's work involves for tribal governments to be ac is assisting the Native Village of issues relating to the preservation corded the same status as state Venetie in implementing its busi and enforcement of the status of governments under the Internal ness activity tax. NARF also helped tribes as sovereign, self-governing Revenue Code. The Tribe was not the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma de bodies. For some tribes, the issues in the Internal Revenue Service's velop a corporate charter for are very basic - persuading the initial list of tribes exercising business development on its res federal government to recognize governmental functions. The Pa ervation. their status as tribes or, in some munkeys requested a ruling on In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court cases, convincing Congress to re their status as a tribal government, ruled that the State of Montana verse the termination of their and the IRS determined that they did not have the authority to tax tribal status and restore them as qualified as an "Indian tribal gov the Blackfeet Tribe's oil and gas tribes. In both cases, such "recog ernment" because, based on the royalties from leases made under nized" status allows the particular information submitted, the Tribe the Indian Mineral Leasing Act tribe to exercise vital governing exercises governmental functions. of 1938. Last year, NARF assisted powers and entitles them to basic NARF is currently investigating the Tribe in its effort to recover health, education, and other gov Indian tax issues in North Dakota those mineral taxes illegally paid ernmental services. and Michigan. In North Dakota, to the State. the State is taxing income earned Other cases in the area of sov Tribal Sovereignty by individuals on a portion of the ereignty that NARF has handled Tribes possess the power to Turtle Mountain Chippewa Res pertain to the issue of jurisdiction. regulate the internal affairs of their ervation. NARF is representing Most tribes, as governments, have members and the activities within two tribal members who are chal the power to regulate activities on their reservations since they are lenging the State's authority to tax their reservations. Control over sovereign· governments. Conflicts the income. In Michigan, NARF is bingo and gaming on reservations often arise with states, the federal challenging the federal govern has caused several major conflicts government, and others over these ment's authority to tax the fishing among federal, state and tribal powers. During the year, NARF income of Bay Mills Chippewa governments over the issue of handled several major cases that fishermen who are exercising jurisdiction on Indian lands. Sev affected the sovereign powers of their Indian treaty fishing rights. eral states have tried to regulate tribes. These cases involved issues The case, Teeple v. Commissioner bingo games on Indian reserva that concerned taxation, jurisdic of Internal Revenue Service, is tions. Tribes assert that states do tion, and tribal government. scheduled for trial in March, not have jurisdiction over tribal Federal Indian law exempts 1987. gaming on reservation land and tribal property and assets from NARF is also assisting tribes to that tribal gaming is a legitimate state and federal taxation. Several develop tax ordinances designed method of raising revenues for states have taxed or tried to im to help them bring in additional tribal government. plement taxes on Indian trust revenue. NARF is helping the In Indian Country U.SA., Inc. property and assets. In 1986, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Ok and Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. NARF worked on several tax cases lahoma develop a severance tax The State of Oklahoma, a federal that have reaffirmed and streng on oil and gas production on thened the tax immunity of tribal tribal land. The proceeds from the governments and tribal members. tax will be used by the Tribes for government and economic Native American Rights Fund 7 district court ruled that the State of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction to regulate or tax the bingo oper ation of the Creek Nation. The court ruled that the state cannot tax or interfere with the opera tions of tribal bingo, nor can it criminally or civilly prosecute those operating or participating in tribal bingo. NARF filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes. Despite the positive ruling in a tribally operated bingo operation, another court has ruled differently in a case that involves an individ ually owned bingo establishment. In United States v. Dakota, a suit involving individual members of Jerilyn Decoteau (Turtle Mountain Chippewa), the Keweenaw Bay Indian Tribe, a Staff Attorney federal appeals court found that Don Miller, Staff Attorney their tribally licensed bingo oper ation violated the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The Act makes it a federal crime to run Mission Indians, the Court will part of the Winnebago Tribe to a gambling operation which is in now decide whether tribes are exercise its inherent power of violation of state law. In Michigan, governed by state and local gam self-government. state law prohibits commercial bling ordinances and statutes. A tribe's right to sue in state gambling with the exception of NARF has filed an amicus curiae court was reaffirmed in the U.S. non-profit organizations who are brief on behalf of twenty Indian Supreme Court case, Three Affili allowed to carry on limited gam tribes. ated Tribes of the Fort Berthold bling activities for fundraising In another issue involving juris Reservation v. Wold Engineering purposes. NARF filed an amicus diction, NARF was successful in (Wold II). The case involved an curiae brief on behalf of the Bay assisting the Winnebago Tribe to Indian tribe suing a non-Indian Mills Chippewa Indian Communi obtain criminal jurisdiction over contractor in state court for ty which operates its own games. its reservation. The State of Neb breach of a contract in connec NARF has also been monitoring raska has been exercising juris tion with work done on the reser proposed legislation on Indian diction over the Winnebago vation. The court reversed a state gaming bills under consideration Reservation since 1954, pursuant ruling that held the Tribe was by Congress. Congressman Udall, to Public Law 83-280, when Con barred from maintaining its suit in at the request of tribes, intro gress ceded civil and criminal state court unless the Tribe duced legislation that would have jurisdiction over some reserva waived its sovereign immunity and permitted bingo and highstakes tions to certain states. However, agreed to the application of state gaming. The bill did not pass in in 1968, Congress enacted legis civil law. The Supreme Court held the 99th Congress, so the issue of lation that permits states, with that the disclaimer of jurisdiction gambling is still subject to review tribal consent, to retrocede this by North Dakota was inconsistent in the U.S. Supreme Court. In jurisdiction back to the United with federal law governing the California v. Cabazon Band of States and tribes. The retroces application of state law to Indians. sion by Nebraska in 1986 ended NARF filed an amicus curiae brief an eleven-year struggle on the on behalf of several tribes. 8 1986 Annual Report In Iowa Mutual Insurance was prohibited for 20 years, dur NARF successfully represented Company v. LaPlante, NARF filed ing which time all undeveloped the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe in an amicus curiae brief with the land was also immune from taxa its suit against the State of Texas U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of tion. On December 18, 1991, where it withdrew state recogni several tribes. The Court will ex however, the shares become free tion of the Tribe and monetary amine whether a federal district ly alienable and shortly thereafter assistance to the Tribe's govern court has diversity of citizenship all land becomes subject to tax ment. In Alabama - Coushatta jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought ation. Thus, after 1991, Native Tribe v. Mattox, a federal district by a citizen of one state against a Corporations and their land will court held that the State of Texas reservation Indian located in an be in jeopardy of being taken over still maintains its trust responsi other state. NARF contends that by non-Native interests. A major bility to the Tribe, that its lands jurisdiction over the suit properly effort to amend ANCSA is under still constitute an Indian reserva rests with the tribal court. way to extend the stock protec tion and that the State's role as A federal district court in Cali tions and provide a mechanism to trustee is not barred by the Texas fornia ruled in Coyote Valley Band transfer land back to tribal owner Equal Rights Amendment. The of Indians v. United States, that ship. NARF represents the Alaska case has been appealed by the the Secretary of the Interior has a Native Coalition, an organization State of Texas. NARF continues to mandatory nondiscretionary duty of Alaska Native Villages, in its represent the Alabama-Coushattas to call elections upon a request effort to obtain legislation to and the Tigua Tribe of Texas in from an eligible tribe. In the case, protect Native corporations, the their efforts to seek federal legis three tribes filed suit because of land and to ensure that no erosion lation that restores their tribal ficials of the Bureau of Indian Af of tribal rights of self-government status. fairs refused to call tribal elections occurs in the process. NARF continues to assist the for the approval of the tribes' NARF has also been working Mashpee-Wampanoag Tribe of proposed constitutions under the with the Council of Energy Re Massachusetts, the Houma Tribe Indian Reorganization Act. NARF source Tribes to amend the of Louisiana, the Gay Head Wam served as co-counsel in the case Surface Mining Control and Re panoag Tribe of Massachusetts, with California Indian Legal Ser clamation Act of 1977. Under the the Little Shell Band of Chippewas vices. Act, federal standards were ap in Montana, and the Village of Theland claims ofAlaska Native plied to Indian land without tribal Nuigsuit in Alaska in obtaining tribes were settled in 1971, but consent and reclamation fees federal recognition of their tribal much of what was gained in the provided under the Act were ac status from the Bureau of Indian settlement could soon be lost. cumulated by the federal govern Affairs. The danger to continued Native ment. The proposed changes land ownership has arisen be would ensure tribal control of cause of the unique terms of the surface mining on Indian lands Alaska Native Claims Settlement and protect the sovereign power Act (ANCSA). Although ANCSA of tribes to regulate their own settled the aboriginal land claims affairs. of Alaska Native tribes, the 44 Recognition million acres received in the settlement were not placed in and Restoration tribal ownership. Rather, they Gaining federal recognition of were transferred to newly created tribal status or Congressional corporations with the stock held restoration of tribal status pre by individual Natives who were viously terminated is a lengthy alive on December 18, 1971. To administrative or legislative pro protect N";tive ownership during cess. Years of legal assistance are an interim period, sale of stock often needed by tribes involved in Mary Hanewall, Development Officer these processes. Native American Rights Fund 9 tural and other beneficial pur reservation. The Tribe asserts that In the lower 48 states, NARF is poses. The agreement is awaiting it has reserved water rights suffi assisting the Bay Mills Chippewa implementation through Congres cient to maintain a fishery. NARF Indian Community in implemen sional legislation. is also assisting the Tribe with its ting its settlement agreement of Last fall, NARF assisted the intervention in the power com approximately $5 million that in Walker River Paiute Tribe in suc pany's licensing proceeding be cludes a tribal trust fund and the cessfully resisting passage of the fore the Federal Energy Regulatory development of tribal conserva California-Nevada Water Com Commission. the intervention is tion programs. The settlement was pact, which would have limited necessary to protect the Tribe's reached in the case, U.S. v. Mich the Tribe's claim to additional water and fishing interest. igan, where the courts affirmed water from the Walker River in the Tribe's treaty right to fish free Nevada. In Fort McDowell Indian Hunting and Fishing of state regulation and to have Community v. Salt River Project, For both subsistence and com exclusive access to fish in certain NARF has prepared the Fort Mc mercial purposes, the right to parts of the Great Lakes. Dowell Mohave-Apaches' claim to hunt and fish in traditional areas NARF filed an amicus curiae additional water from the Verde both on and off reservations brief in United States v. Dion, in River in Arizona and has assisted remains a vital issue in Indian which the Supreme Court held the Tribe in extensive negotia country. NARF has long been in that the Bald Eagle Protection Act tions with the State, the federal strumental in assisting tribes to abrogated or abolished an 1858 government and non-Indian water establish their hunting and fishing treaty right to hunt bald and gold users. NARF is also assisting the rights that are guaranteed by treaty en eagles on the Yankton Sioux Northern Cheyenne Tribe in its or other federal law. Reservation in South Dakota. The negotiations with the Montana In 1986, subsistence rights for Court noted that under the Act, Reserved Water Rights Compact Alaska Natives were a major hunt Indians are allowed to use eagles Commission to settle its water ing and fishing issue. NARF has for religious purposes if a permit claims. been instrumental in helping Alas is first obtained from the Secretary NARF is helping the Pyramid ka Native villages develop tribal of the Interior. The Court de Lake Paiute Tribe in three cases ordinances to regulate their fish clined to consider the issue of against the Cities of Reno and and game resources. NARF is also whether the Eagle Protection Act Sparks and EPA involving the dis working with the Village of Gam invades Indian religious freedom charge to the Truckee River from bell to codify a management sys rights. the Cities' sewage treatment plant. tem to regulate the taking of The Truckee River flows into Pyr marine mammals that they depend amid Lake on the reservation and on for subsistence needs and also provides critical spawning habitat to cooperate with federal authori for the Tribe's fishery. ties to ensure protection of these During 1986, NARF continued marine resources. trial preparations in a water rights In Katy john v. State ofAlaska, case for the Muckleshoot Tribe NARF filed suit to protect the that would restore its White River right of Alaska Natives to fish at fishery in the State ofWashington. traditional and customary fishing In Muckleshoot Tribe v. Puget sites. The Natives allege that Alas Sound Power and Light Com ka's attempt to restrict traditional pany, the Tribe maintains that the fishing activities is in violation of power company's upstream dam the Subsistence Title of the Alaska is illegally diverting most of the National Interest Lands Conserva water in the White River around tion Act. the reservation, which has de stroyed the Tribe's fishery on the Walter Echo-Hawk (Pawnee), Staff Attorney 12 1986 Annual Report The Promotion of Human Rights In addressing human rights, NARF seeks to enforce laws which are designed to address the unique needs and problems of Native Americans in this area. In 1968, NARF provided assistance in prob lems involving religious freedom, voting rights, education and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Religious Freedom The protection of traditional Native American religions is sy nonymous with the preservation of traditional cultures of those peoples. Indian religions are entitled to the same First Amend ment protection as other reli gions. This includes access to and protection of sacred objects and sites and the freedom to practice traditional religious ceremonies. Scott McElroy, Staff Attorney Yvonne Knight (Ponca/Creek), Staff Attorney Protecting Indian burial sites from excavation and desecration has been the objective of NARF's Louisiana state court ruled that an amicus curiae brief in the advocacy for a new federal Indian the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe is the law Supreme Court on behalf of sev burial policy. The policy would ful owner of numerous artifacts eral tribes and national Indian provide for the reinterment of discovered by an amateur archae organizations. over 300,000 Indian bodies stored ologist. The court found that the NARF is representing Native in federal and state institutions, Tunica-Biloxi Indians are descen Hawaiians in their effort to pre and would also establish a new dants of the inhabitants who vent development of geothermal federal policy properly recog buried the artifacts, and that the resources on the island of Hawaii. nizing the cultural and religious artifacts were not abandoned by In Dedman v. Hawaii Board of rites of Native Americans relating the Tunicas. Land and National Resources, the to burial sites on public lands. On In an individual religious free Natives allege that the island is a a state level, NARF represents the dom case, Bowen v. Roy, the U.S. sacred religious site and that the Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in its Supreme Court ruled against an proposed development would in effort to reinter 150 skeletons on Indian father who did not want to fringe on their religious beliefs display by a private landowner in provide his daughter with a social and practices. NARF serves as co Kansas, the Tribe's aboriginal area. security number to receive gov counsel with the Native Hawaiian NARF is currently drafting an In ernment benefits. The father ar Legal Corporation and private at dian burial bill to present to the gued that the social security torneys. requirement was in conflict with State of Kansas in order to stop the Voting Rights desecration of Indian burial sites. his particular religious beliefs. In Charrier v. Bell, NARF was The Court found the requirement In 1982, Congress amended successful on behalf of the Tunica did not violate the individual's Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Biloxi Tribe in returning artifacts constitutional rights. NARF filed Rights Act to prohibit discrim illegally dug from ancestral burial inatory electo,ral practices and grounds back to the Tribe. A procedures. However, various election methods are still in place Native American Rights Fund 13 that prevent Indian people from imum federal standards for the Americans have an active and par fully participating in various city, removal of Indian children from ticipative voice in deciding the county and state elections. Cur their families and the placement educational future for their child rently, NARF is working to end of Indian children in adoption or ren. discriminatory voting practices in foster homes. NARF won an administrative school board elections. The U.S. Supreme Court de appeal in the Bureau of Indian In South Dakota, NARF is chal clined to review the lower court Affairs (BIA) on behalf of the lenging the issue of at-large dis decision in Tudor v. Glaesrnan. Chippewa-Cree Tribe of Montana trict voting procedures which The case involved an adoption in and their Stone Child College de prevent minority representation which the Indian father did not claring the College eligible for on a school board in Buckanaga consent and the ICWA was not funding under the Tribally Con v. Sisseton School District. NARF applied. NARF argued that the trolled College Act. NARF assisted asserts that an election system of ICWA requires the consent of an in proving that the College was single-member districts would pro unmarried father where state law relatively isolated and that no vide the Indian voters an equal does not require such consent. alternative institutions within opportunity to elect candidates of The U.S. Supreme Court was commuter distance existed. The their choice and would comply also asked to review the decision funding lends financial security to with the Voting Rights Act. Al in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. the college and enhances its abili though the school district has a Lewis. The Tribe sought a review ty to achieve accreditation. large Indian population, very few of the state court's refusal to apply NARF also assisted the Belcourt Indians have ever been elected to the ICWA in an adoption case and School Board, located in Belcourt, the school board. Following dis its denial of intervention in the North Dakota, in retaining their missal of the case by a federal adoption by the Tribe. NARF filed Impact Aid Program for fiscal year district court, NARF appealed the an amicus curiae brief on behalf 1986. The Belcourt School Dis decision. of several tribes. trict contains only one school, the NARF was successful in another NARF also filed an amicus Turtle Mountain Community voting rights case in South Dakota. curiae brief in the Sitka Com school, run cooperatively by the Following a legal action by NARF munity Association Tribal Court State and the BIA. Under a new and Dakota Plains Legal Services in the case of Hepler v. Perkins. Impact Aid regulation, the School on behalf of several Indian voters, The issue is whether an Alaska District was no longer eligible for the Dupree School District of state court has jurisdiction to re funding from the program. The South Dakota agreed to extend solve a child custody dispute and new regulation prohibits schools the number of school board elec NARF's brief addressed the issue from receiving both Impact Aid tion polling places from one to of the effect of Public Law 280, and BIA monies. Indian education five sites. The additional sites end tribal jurisdiction and the inter advocates, including NARF, were drives of up to 60-100 miles for pretation of the ICWA. successful in preventing the new some Indians to vote in the elec requirement from becoming ef tions. The settlement agreement Education fective in fiscal year 1986, thus in the case, Black Bull v. Dupree Education is especially impor protecting BIA schools' impact School District, also required no tant for Native Americans since it aid funding. Despite the opposi tice of the upcoming election and is essential for developing the tion from NARF and other Indian increased polling sites to be car skills necessary for tribal self education groups the regulation ried in state and local media. sufficiency. NARF has worked suc became effective in fiscal year cessfully with tribes, parent 1987. Indian Child Welfare groups, and national Indian or The Indian Child Welfare Act ganizations to assure that Native (ICWA) is a federal law enacted in 1978 which is intended to pro mote the stability of Indian tribes and families by establishing min- 14 1986 Annual Report TbeAeeounta,bility of Governments NARF works to hold all levels of government accountable for the proper enforcement of the many laws and regulations which gov ern the lives of Indian people. NARF continues to be involved in several cases which focus primar ily on the accountability of the federal and state governments to Indians. In Alaska, NARF has pending a suit on behalf of the Native Village of Akiachak and others to secure state revenue sharing funds for their tribal government. In Native Village ofAkiachak v. Nott~ NARF is challenging Alaska's position that the state cannot constitu Steve Moore, Staff Attorney tionally allocate revenue sharing monies to tribal governments. Lare Aschenbrenner, Staff Attorney NARF is asserting that the villages are governments with the same failed to comply with a 120-day ministering federal and Indian oil status as lower 48 Indian tribes limitation period to recover a re and gas resources leased to private and therefore they may be singled payment of disallowed costs. The developers. The allottees allege out for discrete beneficial treat Court's denial, however, upheld that the federal government has ment without running afoul of the Secretary's authority to collect been negligent in administering equal protection which the law the debt. Despite the ruling, NARF the Act. guarantees. In a related case, has been instrumental in reducing NARF successfully negotiated a Kasayulie v. Local Boundary the Tribe's disallowed cost by settlement agreement on behalf Commission, NARF represents half. NARF is also helping the of the National Congress ofAmer the Akiachak Native Community Rosebud Sioux Tribe lower its ican Indians that requires states to in its effort to dissolve its state CETA debt. fund tribal energy-related restitu chartered municipality in order In Kauley v. Hode4 NARF and tionary programs. In Re: The De that its federally recognized tribal Oklahoma Indian Legal Services partment of Energy Stripper Well government will remain the par represent individual allottees in Exemption Litigation involved the amount governing body in the their effort to enforce the Federal refund of overcharge monies that community. Oil and Gas Royal Management were collected illegally by petro The U.S. Supreme Court de Act (FOGMA) of 1983. FOGMA leum companies during the years clined to review the case, St. Regis expressly vests in the Secretary of 1973 to 1981. These refunds are Mohawk Tribe, New York v. Interior the responsibility of ad- due because of violations of pet Brock, in which the St. Regis Mo roleum price regulations that hawk Tribe sought to overturn an were in effect during that period. earlier decision that directed it to pay a Comprehensive Employ ment Training Act (CETA) debt out of non-CETAfunds. The Tribe argued that the Secretary of Labor Native American Rights Fund 15 The Development of Indian Law The systematic development of responsibility for members of tribal offices, tribal advocates, Indian law is essential for the Oklahoma Tribes, individual land tribal court judges, law students continued protection of Indian allotment protection in Idaho, a and law libraries. rights. This process involves dis tribal constitutional amendment The National Indian Law Li tributing Indian law materials to, for the Pomo and Karuk Tribes, brary Catalogue, An Index to and communicating with, those the rights of Native prisoners, in Indian Legal Materials and Re groups and individuals working Idaho, California and Alaska, sources, reflects NILL's current on behalf of Indian people. NARF Kickapoo status clarification, and holdings which include cases, has two ongoing projects which the protection of First Amend briefs, pleadings, orders, legal are aimed at achieving this goal. ment religious rights of Native opinions, rulings, memoranda, Hawaiians. Additionally, the ILSC treatises, studies, book articles, Indian Law has written and widely distrib reports and legislative histories Support Center uted six manuals on major areas of pertinent to Indian law. The NILL The first of these projects is the Indian law. The manuals include: Catalogue is arranged by subject, Indian Law Support Center A Manual on Tribal Regulatory author, title, a table of cases and ( ILSC ), which is one of 16 nation Systems, A Self-Help Manual for by NILL number, and with its al support centers funded by the Indian Economic Development, supplements lends ready access Legal Services Corporation. NARF A Handbook of Federal Indian to NILL's extensive holdings. The has operated the ILSC since 1972, Education Laws, A Manual for NILL Catalogue, published every providing backup legal assistance Protecting Indian Natural Re five years and updated annually by to local legal services programs sources, A Manual on the Indian noncumulative supplements, is which serve Indians on reserva Child Welfare Act and Laws Af available for purchase from the tions and in urban areas nation fecting Indian juveniles, and a National Indian Law Library. wide. manual on Prison Law and the During the fiscal year 1986, the Rights of Native American Pris Other Activities ILSC provided assistance to local oners. A manual on the First In addition to its major projects, programs in all areas of Indian Amendment rights of Native NARF staff is actively involved in law. In responding to hundreds of Americans is planned for com national Indian conferences and requests, the Center's services pletion in 1987. legal education projects. During have included letter and tele the past fiscal year, NARF attor phone advice, furnishing legal ma National Indian neys and staff served in a formal or terials, co-counseling in cases, Law Library informal leadership capacity at conducting legal research, review Beginning its 14th year of ex numerous tribal, state, academic, ing drafts of court pleadings and istence is the National Indian Law and national Indian conferences briefs, analyzing legislation, and Library (NILL), another major ef such as the National Congress of providing other services as re fort by NARF in the development American Indians, Association of quested by legal services field of Indian law. NILL continues to American Indian Affairs, National programs. The Center also con serve as a clearinghouse and in Indian Education Association, Wo ducted a national Indian law train valuable resource for Indian legal men and Law Conference, the ing conference on the Indian materials. During the fiscal year, Inter-American Indian Congress, Child Welfare Act and Indian NILL staff processed over 4,000 the National Indian School Board child abuse issues in 1986. The requests for information from Association, and the ACLU. publication of a monthly news th!"oughout the country and sev NARF remains firmly commit letter distributed to Indian law eral foreign countries. As a na ted to continuing its effort to practitioners is another service tional resource center for Indian share the legal expertise which performed by the Center. legal materials, access to NILL's NARF possesses with those groups The ILSC continues to assist holdings is essential for anyone and individuals working in sup directly in litigation involving working in the field of Indian law. port of Indian rights, and to foster Muckleshoot tribal water rights, Thus, the main users of NILL have the recognition oflndian rights in enforcement of federal oil and been NARF attorneys, private at mainstream society. gas laws and the federal trust torneys, legal services attorneys, 16 1986 Annual Report Treasurer's Report The Native American Rights Fund maintained a stable financial position in the fiscal year ended September 30, 1986. Support and revenues were sufficient to con tinue a national program oflndian legal representation in NARF's Boulder, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; and Anchorage, Alaska of fices, and to continue the services of the Indian Law Support Center and the National Indian Law Lib rary. In fiscal 1986, NARF's support and revenue increased by 3.4% over fiscal 1985, to a total of $3,444,858; expenditures in creased by 7.1 % to $3,455,662. The deficiency of support and revenue effected a $10,806 re duction in NARF's total fund balances, which were $930,791 at 9/30/86. Susan Hart, Controller Revenue types as a percentage of total revenue for fiscal years National Indian Law Library. Ex Expenditures for program ser 1986 and 1985 are compared penses for the year, as a per vices and for support services below: centage of total expenses, were changed by only half of a percen allocated according to the func tage point this year. The increase tions shown below; they are in expenditures for support ser REVENUE' SOURCES FY86 FY85 compared to the previous year's vices is related to higher in Government 46% 42% expenses by function for your vestment in NARF's direct mail Foundations and Trusts 25 31 information: solicitation program this year Individuals and Corporations 16 16 than in the past. Legal Fees 2 1 Other 11 10 The audited financial state FUNCTIONAL 100% 100% ments of the Native American EXPENDITURES FY86 FY85 Rights Fund for fiscal 1986 are Litigation and Client Services 71.4% 70% presented on the following pages. National Indian Law Library 5.1% 7% All revenue sources increased in terms of dollars, except for the Program services 76.5% 77% revenues from Foundations and Management and General 11.8% 13% Fund Raising 11.7% 10% Trusts. This figure decreased be cause of a temporary hiatus in Support services 23.5% 23% funding from certain foundations 100% 100% to NARF, and because of some reductions in grant funding levels. NARF maintained a staff of six teen attorneys in fiscal year 1986 and supported the activities of the Native American Rights Fund 17 950 Seventeenth Street Telephone 303 893-8100 ]~·ice 11aterhouse Suite 2600 Denver. CO 80202 December 19, 1986 To the Board of Directors of Native American Rights Fund, Inc. In. our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet and the related statements of support, revenue, expenses and changes in fund balances, of changes in cash and offunctional expenses present fairty the financial position ofNative American: Rights Fund, Inc. at September 30, 1986 and the results of its operations and changes in funct balances a.nd the changes in its cash for the year, in conformity with generafty qccepted accountingprinciples appliecton a basis consistent with that ofthe preceding year. Our examination ofthese statements was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing.standards and aa;orc#n:gly zrictucted sU;ch tests bfthe accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we consideredn~~e~sary in.the. circumstances. · · ··· · ·· · · ·. ~.·:bg~ Price waterhou~e ··•· ···.···~~~~ti~~.INq, .;.; '.;g~~EJt;3t);:t9s6<• . ~~~{~1fbW,jf~'i~~fl%~,6s2c . Ma,rketafile s~tj~r~;c;s; .at .fllarket(J\!oW 2) Gfttntsi·eceAV:ible (N(jte 3) •. ... ·· •· Othet rect\ivables . · . . .;J>repai Le~sc:Acc.umula:ted depreciation 500,92$ $ 92$,976. $937,751 $2;367,655 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Accounts payable $ 210,737 $ 210,737 Accrued sabbatical .leave 66,082 66,082 ,',o";,' Other accrued expenses 102,365 ,'>;,', 102,365 Defer.red revenue (Note 3) $937,751 5)37,751 Mortgage and note payable (Note 4) $ 119,929•·.·· ... 119,929 379,184 937,751 1436864 ' , , '"'' Fund balances 549,792. 930,791 Commitment (Note 5) $ 928,976 $937,751 $ 500,~ns $2,367,655 The fJccomjJanying notes are an integral jJfJrt <~(the fi.iwncial stfJtements. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, INC. Statem~nt of Support, Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Fund Balances FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 Current. funds General fixed Total Unre.stri~ed Restricted asset fund all funds Support anci rey~~Je: Governnic;lnta.fgr:mts $1,579,554 $1,579,554 Foundation ili!ci tm~t.grants ... $ 134,730 707,244 841,974 564,630 .• . · · ·· · 564,630 ~~;~r~~!iotis.t 79,741 79,741 Other (Note i:):: •> 378,959 378,959 1,158,060 ·2,286;798 3,444,$58 Ex~:;~ servi;e~: . . ·.. ·.Litigation an~.~lie11t services 805,020 1,607,516 $ 53,69~ 2,466,289 N:ational Iii<:lihlJ. Law Library ·. 57,l87 114,248 3,815 ·175,250 .··•··\'totiipi(j~r~ s~~te.~··. 862,207 . 1,721,824. 57,508 2,641,539 support. sem~es: . · •· • · • . · .¥a11ageriienfaiid geiieral ·.. · 133,662 267,032 S,914 ·409,608 Fund tais~& / · ·· ·· · ·· · 132,083 263,622 8,810 404,515 Total sii:ppoit' seiY!ces 265,745 530,654 17,724 814,123 Total expen~es .. .· .·.. ·. 1,127,952 2,252,478 75,232 3,455,662 ·Excess ( deflc!erlcy) of support and revenue . over expenses ..•. 30,108 34,320 (75,232) (10,806) Fund.balances, begiiiningo~year 525,221 25,821 390,553 941,595 Other changes irifund balances: Acquisition of properfy and equipment (20,376) ( 42,025) 62,401 Proceeds from.i):iortgi&eartd 11otepayable issued 74,671 (74,671) Repayment of mortgage and I}Ote payable (59,832) (18,116) 77,948 (5,537) (60,141) 65,678 Fund balances, eiid of year $ 549,792 $ $ 380,999 $ 930,791 ,, ' , '~_,,,~/ ,, The accqmpafijing; notes are an integral part of thefinandal statements. NATIVE .AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, ·INC. sources is deemed to be earned when NARF has incurred costs which satisfy restrictions imposed by the respective grants or Notes to Financial Statements contracts. Funds received from restricted sources in excess of costs incurred are reported as deferred revenues. For costs SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 incurred in excess of funds received from restricted sources, revenue and related receivables are recognized to the extent of such costs unless, in management's opinion, future grant or NOTE 1 .;;._ ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF contract funds will be insufficient. In such cases, costs are SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: charged to unrestricted funds. Contributions and donations from unrestricted sources are Organization: generally recognized when received; however, enforceable Native American Rights Fund, Inc. (NARF) was incorporated pledges are recorded as revenues and receivables in the year in 1971 under the nonprofit corporation law of the District of made. Donations of marketable securities or other in-kind Columbia and has a primary objective of providing legal contributions are recorded as revenue at their estimated fair representation, assistance and education to Native American market value at the date of contribution. people. NARF derives financial support from private founda tions, the United St.ates Government, public contributions and a Interfund receivable (payable): limited fee policy. Generally, funds received by NARF are deposited in a general NARF is a tax-exempt organization as described in section bank account, and segregation of cash and certain other assets 501 ( c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, is subject and liabilities between restricted and unrestricted funds is not to federal income taxes only on unrelated business income. maintained in the accounting records. Segregation of revenue and expenditures applicable to restricted, unrestricted (in Revenue recognition: cluding segregation within the restricted fund by grant source) A substantial portion of NARF's revenue is derived from and the general fixed asset funds is maintained inthe accounting restricted grants and contracts. Revenue from such restricted (continued) NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, INC. Statement of Changes in Cash FOR TIIE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 Current funds General fixed Total Unrestricted Restricted asset fund all funds Cash vvas prnvidea by (usea for): Excess (aeficiency) of support andrevenue over expenses $ 30,108 $ 34,320 $(75,232) $ (10,804) Add (deduct) .items not affecting cash: Deferred revenue and grants receivable recognized as support and revenue (786,926) (786,926) Depreciation .62,340 62,340 Loss on (jisposal. of prnperty and· equipment 12,892. 12,892 Deferred revenue received ana grants · receivable collectea 1,215,057 1,215,057 Increase in other receivables• (149,111) (149,111) Increase.in prepaicis .. (12,517) (12,517) Increase ( defrease) in iqtetfund receivable/payable 402,310 (402,310) Increase in accounts paya()le · 11,948 .11,948 Increasein.otheiac.crued expenses· 17,968 17,968 Ca~li pt ca.~~r~~s~~[~~~ traJJ.~ers •.. · ':. 5,537 60,141 · · ·· ·.. •. 4,~q~isit.ion.ofprPperty and t:quip~e11t: ·:· · Repa.yn:ie11r of nioi;tgage an.ct note payable.·;.· ... · 0 0 0 0 ' 00 00 ",,~,0:~;~~<::,8: ~~"-,'1:", ,,,i,/Je ",'.<,''>,}'c <::,';~, > ''' ':::O:,''),'~' '> ;;:':w/ , '<' ,, '!,',',,' ::,,:;o ',',',' ,,:-,>';,,",' ' '' :'. ~ecJ)I-ps;::w~ in,!t:rl'U:ri~ i~~~iy:iq~~;:.(payab.t~)'re~~.(~ey fi:~tµ !fie.} .i .~ : .: \;:;· :« .....·· ... , ;·· · e:x:<;e~s &fot:.t~sets spt:c:ificfl!Iy 1pelitffiabl~ With tne res.tncte Program services Support services Litigation National Management and client Indian Law and Fund Total services Library Total general raising Total expenses Salaries and wages: Professional staff $ 788,658 $ 57,052 $ 845,710 $143,233 $ 87,493 $230,726 $1,076,436 Support staff 216,158 46,704 262,862 59,195 35,786 94,981 357,843 Frir;ige benefits 175,796 17,718 193,514 31,678 25,297 56,975 250,489 Total salaries and related costs 1,180,612 121,474 1,302,086 234,106 148,576 382,682 1,684,768 Contract fees ancl .consultants 479,596 11,856 491,452 60,590 28,629 89,219 580,671 Travel 177,261 3,796 181,057 39,909 14,035 53,944 235,001 Space costs 108,836 5,460 114,296 20,168 11,910 32,078 146,374 Office expenses . 345,570 18,081 363,651 37,994 187,548 225,542 589,193 Equipment maintenance· and rental 38,400 4,110 42,510 6,758 4,189 10,947 53,457 Litigation costs. 46,352 46,352 46,352 library costs 35,969 6,658 42,627 1,169 818 1,987 44,614 Expenses before depredation, ;!,412,596 171,435 2,584,031 400,694 395,705 796,399 3,380,430 Loss on disposalof .prop(':rty and eq1.1ipnient 9,200 654 9,854 1,528 1,510 3,038 12,892 Depreciation · · 44,493 3,161 47,654 7,386 7,300 14,686 62,340 Total expenses $2,466,289 $175,250 $2,641)539 $409,608 $404,515 $814,123 $3,455,662 ·The accompanying notes are .an ~ntegral part oft/:Je financial statements. Gran:ts Deferred through November 1988. Secured by .receivable revenue $65,651 certificate of deposit 45,316 Ford Foundatiori · $895,675 119,929 Department of Health Less - current portion (20,853) and Human Services, $ 99,076 Administrative for Native Americans $146,267 Annual maturity requirements on the mortgage and note Legal Services Corporation 12,199 payable are as follows (fiscal years): 1987-$20,853; 1988- 1 Bureau of Indian Affairs· 190,951 $22,586; 1989-$5,073; 199041,446; 1991-$1,629; and 1992 ]. Roderick MacArthur and beyond-$68,342. Foundation 8,569 The Fanny and Svante Knistrom NOTE 5 - COMMITMENTS: Foundation 27,153 NARF leases office space and equipment under operating leases. Carnegie Corporation 5,957 Future minimum rental payments under operating leases are Other 5,000 397 summarized as follows: $354,417 $937,751 Year ending September 30, Office space ~uipment Total NOTE 4 - MORTGAGE AND NOTE PAYABLE: 1987 $20,040 $ 8,953 $28,993 Mortgage and note payable consisted of the following at 1988 7,582 7,582 September 30, 1986: 1989 744 744 Mortgage payable in equal monthly installments $20,040 $17,279 $37,319 of $825, including interest at 12%, through May 1991. Secured by land and building $ 74,613 Rental expense for 1986 was $38,268. Promissory note payable i.n 60 monthly installments, including interest at 10.2%, In Appreci11tion The Native American Rights Fund would like to acknowledge the generous support given by the following contributors during the 1986 fiscal year. Foundations NARF "Benejactors" Beatrice Daly Ruth Dooley Acorn Foundation (Individuals donating or pledging $ / 000+ Allison Dunn Carnegie Corporation of New York cumulative~y during NARF's 1986 fiscal year) Peter E. Eno Edna McConnell Clark Foundation Anne G. Baldwin Hildegard B. Forbes Ford Foundation Mr. and Mrs. Roger S. Clapp Mrs. Robert Franklin Frost Foundation Naomi C. Dempsey Albert L. Hale Hearst Foundation Joyce Di Russo Edna C. Hardeman Fannv and Svante Knistrom Foundation Ruth M. Dolby Jack W. Hardy ). Roderick MacArthur Foundation Charles Fairman Mrs. Weston Howland New Land Foundation Mrs.). W. Gitt Jane P. Hunnewell New World Foundation P. M. Greenfield Sara Jacobus Onaway Trust (Great Britain) A. Stuart Hanisch Mrs. Maria Land Rockefeller Foundation Mabel G. Hasson Joseph Leader Antonia Vivalde Foundation Will H. Hays, Jr. Ethel Lott Jeanne Henle Ms. Locurto Corporations And Other Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Hulings Anne T. McBride Private Donors Miriam B. Johnson Charles). McCarthy Peggy Kaplan Atlantic Richfield Foundation Rosine B. Mcfaddin Helena Meltesen Ball Brothers M. Myer-Hstadelfhafen Olive Molumphy Career Track Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Frank Moses Edith Moser CBS Inc. Louise P. Moore Kady Lynn Offen-Rovtar Cummins Engine Foundation Linda Mulka Barbara and William Pierce D-Q University Board of Trustees Abba V. Newton Pernell Roberts and Kara Knack The Forest Fund W. E. Nolan Anna R. Rozier Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson Liselotte Paulson Sidney Stern Memorial Trust General Electric Foundation Mary Pennock Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stover Grace Foundation, Inc. Dale Petty Mrs. Daniel Stroock Greyhound Corporation Mrs. Robert S. Pickens Miss Ruth Thompson International Business Machines Elaine Reilly Catherine Tilghman International Paper Company Foundation Mrs. Carolyn Reyer Thomas Van Buren James Travelpoints International Leroy Roston Margaret Westra Law Students Civil Rights Research Vera Schultz Lili H. Wilson Council Jeffrey Shedd McGraw-Hill Foundation, Inc. Special thanks to Edith 0. Chapek, whose Dale Smeltzer National Lawyers Guild name was inadvertently omitted as a E. A. Stanley, Jr. Riverside Church of New York City benefactor during our 1985 fiscal year. Perry Stephens United Bank of Denver Mrs. Harley K Stevens U.S. West NARF "Friends" William Strange Xerox Corporation (Individuals donating or pledging $500-999 Glen Sugameli Federal Programs cumulatively during NARF's 1986fiscal year) Claire Thacker Scott Abott Dorothy Therman Administration for Native Americans Mr. and Mrs. K Tucker Anderson Harold A. Towner Bureau of Indian Affairs Elizabeth Arrigo Kedma Utt Legal Services Corporation Sally Barlow Dorothy Vondrasek "Top Five" Kay Berkson Walton Avenue Foundation Waters Foundation (Our special thanks to these people who Lois Blaese Louise and Daniel Weisz supported NARF very generous~y in 1986. Leonard Block Listed largest first.) Paul Boeder Hilda Woodford Linda Bollag Belle Yaffe Ruth S. Thompson Bette D. Borenstein Anna R. Rozier Mrs. Alger T. Bunten Mr. and Mrs. Roger S. Clapp Mr. and Mrs. Roderick Cassidy John Engleman Donald R. Clark, Jr. Anne G. Baldwin Versa Cole Ruth Cowdell 22 1986 Annual Report In Kind Contributions Matching Gifts Alaska Legal Services - Anchorage, AL Dimitri Birkin through Victor Abbo - Boulder, CO Atlantic Richfield Foundation Katrina McCormick Barnes - Santa Fe, NM Karen Carmean through Boulder Center for the Visual Arts - Digital Equipment Corporation Boulder, CO Royal C. Downton through Boulderado Hotel - Boulder, CO Illinois Tool Works Foundation Colophon Press - Howard Harms - Boulder, CO Priscilla Duffy through Dixon Paper - Boulder, CO Digital Equipment Corporation DWI Associates - Boulder, CO Lester Harwood through Hilander Hotel - Boulder, CO Equitable Life Assurance Society William Prater - IBM - Boulder, CO Will H. Hays, Jr. through Price Waterhouse - Denver, CO The Lilly Endowment, Inc. Sturtz and Copeland - Boulder, CO Alvin Mabry through University of Colorado Museum, David Atlantic Richfield Foundation Mayo - Boulder, CO Richard A. Magyar through University Inn - Boulder, CO Cray Research Foundation Dr. Deward E. Walker, Jr. - Boulder, CO Theodore H. Plante through Charles Wilkinson - Eugene, OR Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc. Memorials ($100+) Seymour Preston, Jr. through Equitable Life Assurance Society FOR: BY: K Ramakrishna through Anne W. & Harold Digital Equipment Corporation L. Ickes Raymond W. Ickes Tom W. Echohawk Lucille A. Echohawk Barbara S. Ruch through Edwin Adelman Anonymous Day-Timers, Inc. Jack E. Engleman John Engleman Dr. Jonas Salk through Erwin R. Boynton Margaret B. Boynton The John D. MacArthur Foundation Wanda}. Adams Julie Adams (In addition to the $100+ memorials, 81 Federated Work-Place Drives: gifts were made through the Otu'han Thank you to the thousands of federal memorial program during the 1986 fiscal employees and other individuals year.) throughout the country, who, through a Bequests workplace deduction, contributed more than $60,000 to NARF in 1986. Mira Nirska Ernest R. Parchefeld Elizabeth A. Weizenhoffer Tribal Contributions Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians of Oregon Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians Delaware Tribe of Indians Hoopa Valley Business Council Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Passamaquoddy Joint Tribal Council St. Regis Mohawk Council Walker River Paiute Tribe Wisconsin Winnebago Business Community Native American Rights Fund 23 PR-pago ctlf#.w"'ii Osage .. $et?'•nt)le Colville LM COfl,rt. (Jreilles .Northern Cheyenne. ·.·. SantRA~~blo Hopi . F.dllon PR-iute Uu: LR Croix Cbippew• swinomish ~1i i::~r:=sbone .OneUIR . ' uppef·~iinJiPo,ii . Jemez Pueblo ·;· ... ·. SdliSb > . .· M~klesboot .. ·:~'-/····.· . WR-Iker. River PR-iute ·1Co'1~; ~~Seb .·.. blieoke ·. : . ..·· Winne.,,tlgo . · ... .: Si&sefon7 Wilbpetf}n.s~· .. ·•. }West;alenfifp.~be. ·. · < 'c,~ Tutu Smithsonian Institute j