A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. July 1, 2007 •Fi June 30, 2008
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Maine State Library Maine State Documents Indian Tribal-State Commission Documents State Documents 10-2008 A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008 Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalmaine.com/mitsc_docs Recommended Citation Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission, "A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008" (2008). Indian Tribal-State Commission Documents. Paper 2. http://digitalmaine.com/mitsc_docs/2 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the State Documents at Maine State Documents. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indian Tribal-State Commission Documents by an authorized administrator of Maine State Documents. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008) Prepared by John Dieffenbacher-Krall, Executive Director Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) P.O. Box 186 Hudson, ME 04449 (207) 394-2045 Email: [email protected] www.mitsc.org October 2008 Table of Contents Page I. Executive Summary i II. Introduction 1 A. Purpose and Organization of This Report III. Overview of MITSC 1 A. Purpose and Responsibilities B. MITSC Members C. Meetings and Other Events D. Governmental Outreach E. Media Outreach F. Religious and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Outreach G. Funding IV. Unilateralism Jeopardizes 1980 Agreement 6 A. State of Maine Interpretation and Implementation of the Settlement Agreement B. Tribal Reaction to State Actions C. Consequences of Unilateralism D. Steps to Replace Unilateralism with Collective Action V. Assessment of MITSC Implementation of Fiscal Year 2008 18 (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008) Work Plan A. Provide Administrative and Staff Support to Tribal-State Work Group to Study Issues Associated with the Maine Implementing Act and Related Issues B. Assist Wabanaki, State of Maine and Other Leaders to Make a Decision on Whether to Pursue Hosting a Campus in Maine as Part of a Multi-Tribal College to Serve Tribes Residing East of the Mississippi River C. Spur Effective Implementation of LD 291, An Act to Require Teaching of Maine Native American History and Culture in Maine’s Schools D. Support Wabanaki/Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby Colleges Collaboration E. Strengthen University of Maine System and Individual Campus Programs Intended to Serve Wabanaki Students F. Promote Economic Development Cooperation Between the Wabanaki and State of Maine G. Support Work Between the Passamaquoddy Criminal Justice Commission and the Department of Corrections to Address Barriers Experienced by Wabanaki Inmates Attempting to Practice Their Religion H. Monitor State Observance of Sustenance Fishing Rights Guaranteed to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation under 30 MRSA §6207(4) 1 I. Consider Holding a Summer 2008 Fisheries Workshop J. Establish Strong Presence on Any Bills Supported or Opposed by MITSC and Monitor Other Legislation Potentially Affecting Tribal-State Interests during 2nd Session of the 123rd Maine Legislature K. Continue Wabanaki Leaders Meetings and Outreach and Communication to Tribal Leadership L. Continue Outreach and Communications to Executive and Legislative Branches of State Government Including Briefing to State Senate, Possible Legislative Tour of Indian Island M. Provide Logistical Support and Staffing for 2008 Assembly of Governors and Chiefs N. Support the Penobscot River Restoration Project VI. Other MITSC Activities 35 A. Ensure Full Implementation of Maine’s Offensive Place Names Law B. Publicity for Wabanaki: A New Dawn Appendices I. Final Report of the Tribal-State Work Group Created by Resolve 2007, Chapter 142, 123rd Maine Legislature Resolve, To Continue the Tribal-State Work Group II. Remarks of Paul Bisulca, Paul Thibeault, and John Dieffenbacher-Krall Briefing of the Maine Legislature on the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, Maine Implementing Act, Maine Indian-Tribal State Commission, and Current Tribal-State Relations, January 17, 2008 III. Testimony to the Joint Standing Committee on Marine Resources On LD 1957, An Act To Restore Diadromous Fish in the St. Croix River March 3, 2008 IV. Testimony of John Dieffenbacher-Krall, Executive Director, Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC), Concerning LD 2221, An Act To Implement the Recommendations of the Tribal-State Work Group (TSWG) March 11, 2008 V. Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission Comments on the Scoping Process for the Penobscot River Restoration Project and the Publication, Penobscot River Restoration Trust Scoping Document for the Veazie, Great Works and Howland Projects (FERC Project Nos. 2403, 2312 & 2721) 12/18/07 VI. Wabanaki-Bates-Bowdoin-Colby Collaborative 2007-2008 Report Summary VII. Report Sweat Lodge Ceremony at Maine State Prison September 27, 2008 2 I. Executive Summary Tribal-state relations, after experiencing a positive two-year trend of improvement, precipitously plummeted in April 2008. Though specific individuals and their actions caused a rupture in tribal-state relations in the early spring of 2008, these developments occurred in the context of a negative longer term trend of unilateralism. Both the State of Maine and the Tribes too often act unilaterally though the State does so from a position of political, legal, and economic advantage while the Tribes revert to unilateral action from exasperation that they cannot resolve their disputes with the State in what they believe to be a just manner. One of the most important achievements of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement was the establishment of a government-to-government relationship between equals. Former Maine Attorney General Richard Cohen testified to the US Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs in the summer of 1980, “I cannot promise you that the adoption of this settlement will usher in a period of uninterrupted harmony between Indians and non-Indians in Maine. But I can tell you, however, that because we sat down at a conference table as equals and jointly determined our future relationship, in my view there exists between the State and the tribes a far greater mutual respect and understanding than has ever existed in the past in the State of Maine.” Tom Tureen, the lawyer who represented the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation in the negotiations with the State, said at the same hearing, “I would agree with what Dick Cohen said earlier – that the negotiations in this case all around were characterized by a mutual respect and were carried on in a commendable atmosphere.” Perhaps the greatest casualty in the decades-long deterioration in tribal-state relations is the withering of the deep-seated mutual respect between the parties that Richard Cohen and Tom Tureen describe at the conclusion of the Settlement Act negotiations. Tribal leaders view the current Wabanaki-State relationship as broken. Maine political leaders claim for the most part that they don’t truly understand why the events of the late winter/early spring of 2008 caused such an abrupt rupture in tribal-state relations. In order to fix the broken relationship, the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) believes that the signatories must return to jointly determining their future. At the same Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs referenced earlier, Attorney General Cohen warned, “I can also tell you that if this matter is litigated over a period of years, the atmosphere in Maine certainly will be quite different.” Though he was referring to the land claim itself, Richard Cohen’s words accurately describe the current situation. The litigation that has ensued since the adoption of the agreement involving its interpretation and application has degraded the relationship into one of suspicion and distrust. MITSC recommends four specific actions to restoring a sense of trust and mutual recognition for each signatory’s sovereignty. Our recommendations include: 1. Adopt a new budget process for determining the signatories’ financial support for MITSC. Maine originally agreed to fund 100% of MITSC operations. Maine escaped its legal obligation to fund MITSC operations when the parties agreed the amount specified in MIA, i $3,000, was insufficient and the specific amount was dropped from the Act. An initial Tribal offer in 1984 to contribute toward MITSC operations has become a State expectation of Tribal cost sharing. Yet the Tribes, equals with the State under the Settlement Act, have had no real input into MITSC’s funding as the Maine Legislature has determined what MITSC will receive for State funding. The Tribes have picked up the shortfall of what the State has determined it is willing to give. The parties should adopt a process that determines the amount of funding MITSC will receive based on what the parties mutually agree MITSC should do in the coming years. Ideally, this would occur at the Annual Assembly of Governors and Chiefs. In order for this new process to work, the discussion of the MITSC work plan, its overall funding, and how much each signatory would pay needs to occur at a predictable date which respects the different budget processes for the respective governments. 2. Enact in the 1st session of the 124th Legislature (2009) the Tribal-State Work Group (TSWG) recommendations that reinforce consultation and joint problem solving. Three of the eight unanimously endorsed TSWG recommendations especially address decision making. The second recommendation suggests adding the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians to MITSC. Twice, attempts to add the Maliseets to MITSC have failed though all the signatories have recognized the Maliseets as members of MITSC since September 2007. Governor Baldacci and legislative leaders must resolve concerns expressed by the Attorney General’s staff about the TSWG third recommendation to institute mandatory mediation before the State or the Tribes could initiate litigation against one another concerning disputes involving the Settlement Act. All the parties assembled at the 2006 Assembly of Governors and Chiefs bemoaned the many costs of litigation.