Facebook Twitter Email
MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2002

Tribal leaders now engaged in settlement talks with the Bush administration have spent months mired in a turf war that pits their interests against those of tribal members affected by the Indian trust fund lawsuit.

While often taking pride in the Cobell class action, the tribes have concerns about the effects of the landmark case. With negotiations over billions of dollars of their own funds in the background, the group has backed away from full, unqualified support for a judicially-appointed receiver to handle the assets of 300,000 American Indians.

The tribes earlier this year had filed a court brief in support of a receiver amid Secretary of Interior Gale Norton's heavily opposed reorganization proposal. But after some within the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association (ITMA) voiced doubts, the document was revoked and another attorney was hired to draft a new one.

Months later, the group continues to squabble over the details of the pending lodging. Several drafts have been circulating among the 54 tribes that belong to ITMA, which plan to meet in North Dakota this week to further strategy and continue discussion with government officials over their own trust fund claims.

At issue are tribal programs at the Department of Interior, which typically suffer from limited resources and funds. For that reason, some tribes want to ensure a receiver won't step on their turf should one be appointed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth.

But not all members of ITMA agree with the protective stance and some have called for an outside caretaker for the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. Included in this influential group are Greg Bourland, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and Sue Masten, chairwoman of the Yurok Tribe of California and a co-chair of a joint federal-tribal task force on trust reform.

Others also question whether tribes are being narrow-minded by trying to intervene only to protect their own sovereignty. At a recent meeting held to discuss the brief, John Berrey, chairman of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, urged ITMA against selfishness.

"It doesn't matter who's delivering the trust service, the individuals have a right to have their personal property and their natural resources exploited to the highest and best level under the law," said Berrey, whose tribe has filed a breach of trust claim in federal court.

Not all ITMA tribes are participating in the settlement talks either and many are wary of the Bush administration. But at the meeting, the group was told that it is driven by tribes and not individuals.

"ITMA is an organization which was organized by and for tribal governments in order to represent the tribes in the area of trust fund and asset management," said executive director Mary Zuni. "We recognize that that's our direction and primary goal and obligation."

Lamberth said in the past he won't rule on a receiver until he makes a finding on five contempt charges facing the Bush administration. He wrapped up the trial in February and has yet to issue a decision.

Meanwhile, the trust reform task force has endorsed a set of proposals to reorganize Indian affairs within the Interior. The 24-member panel, which didn't allow representatives of individual Indian account holders nor ITMA a vote, rejected separate management of the IIM trust in favor of strengthening "self-determination and self-governance," according to a report finalized last week.

With the task force set to present the options to Indian Country, the tribal-heavy focus was what caused Berrey to worry about the detriment to tribal members. "Every step of the way we want to remind you to think about the people," he said.

"Not just about tribal government, think about grandma, think about your grandpa, think about your kids, and don't hold to self-governance so tight that you're not thinking about those people."

Relevant Links:
Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association - http://www.itmatrustfunds.org/index.cfm

Related Stories:
Tribes debate trust settlements (6/7)
Trust accounting looms for tribes (3/20)
GAO: Full reconciliation impossible (2/8)