cultural match

Terry Janis: The White Earth Nation Constitutional Reform Process

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

In this lively and far-reaching discussion with NNI's Ian Record, Terry Janis (Oglala Lakota), former project manager of the White Earth Nation Constitution Reform Project, provides an overview of the citizen education and engagement campaign that preceded White Earth's historic vote to ratify a new constitution in November 2013, and specifically the role he played in that process.  

This video resource is featured on the Indigenous Governance Database with the permission of the Bush Foundation.

People
Resource Type
Citation

Janis, Terry. "The White Earth Nation Constitutional Reform Process." Leading Native Nations interview series. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, The University of Arizona. St. Paul, Minnesota, February 6, 2014. Interview.

Ian Record:

“Welcome to Leading Native Nations. I’m your host, Ian Record. On today’s program we are honored to have with us Terry Janis. Terry is a citizen of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota and for the past year he has served as project manager for the constitutional reform process of the White Earth Nation in Minnesota. Terry, welcome and good to have you with us today.”

Terry Janis:

“Thanks, man. It’s nice to be here.”

Ian Record:

“Yeah, it’s good to see you again.”

Terry Janis:

“Yeah, yeah.”

Ian Record:

“So I’ve shared a few highlights of your personal biography, but I’m sure I left some pertinent things out. So why don’t you just tell us a little bit more about yourself.”

Terry Janis:

“From Pine Ridge, came over here to Minnesota, went to McAllister. From there went to Harvard for a master’s in education, University of Arizona for my law degree and several jobs since then -- kind of a balance between international Indigenous rights, land rights issues and broader national policy issues as well. So that kind of education -- law, law reform, policy development -- was a good fit for this particular job.”

Ian Record:

“So we’re here today to discuss constitutional reform”

Terry Janis:

“Right.”

Ian Record:

“a big topic across Indian Country and specifically, the work you’ve done on behalf of the White Earth Nation over the past year or so. As the White Earth Nation has worked to develop and then ratify, recently ratified, a new constitution, but the process has been underway there at White Earth for quite awhile.”

Terry Janis:

“Yeah.”

Ian Record:

“And can you sort of talk aboutcan you begin by talking about where White Earth was in the process when you came on board because as I mentioned, this thing had been underway for quite awhile before you joined the nation and its effort.”

Terry Janis:

“Yeah, they really started this effort of drafting a constitution in 2007 and it took them a couple of years. By 2009, they had had four constitutional conventions and came up with this draft. The number of delegates that participated in that process, voted on itthe idea was to approve a draft of this constitution that would then be moved to a referendum. That drafting process was completed in 2009 and it kind of sat there for a bit; I think part of the dynamics are complex. It’s difficult to move a constitutional reform process forward. The drafting process is critical and very difficult, but every stage subsequent to that is equally difficult and part of the issue was funding. And so a grant from the Bush Foundation helped them to move it to the next phase of really engaging in active community education process, move it then to a referendum, and then start to think, after that referendum depending upon the outcome -- and this one was positive -- to then look at the implementation process.”

Ian Record:

“Based on your understanding, of someone who is charged with helping to lead and implement that community education effort, what prompted the nation to go down the reform road to begin with?”

Terry Janis:

“I’m not from there, and because of that I don’t have the kind of personal insights or the personal biases that a person that’s from there would have. What I observed and the stories that I’ve been told is, like a lot of tribes, they went through a governmental crisis, a profound foundational crisis in the ‘90s with the 'Chip' Wadena administration; his conviction of embezzlement and how broad that was throughout their whole governance system. In reacting to that, not only did the people stand up in order to reassert an effective governance, but they really looked at the genesis of that: how did it get to that stage? And they immediately turned to the constitution.

And the conversations that you heard from that period of time, that were told to me when I got there, was how the constitution is so centralized in its power structure -- that the people, in power, can be dominated by a single person. And that kind of absolute power, in their experience, did corrupt absolutely. And so without any kind of way of balancing that they, as a reaction to that, they immediately moved to this kind of conversation of, ‘What can the constitution do to create checks and balances, to really have an independent judiciary and do those kinds of things?’ But I think that was the genesis of it.

So they actually started a constitutional reform process in ‘94, ‘95, ‘96. They drafted a constitution at that time as well and attempted to take that out into the communities. The stories that I’ve heard, both from the people that were doing it and the community members themselves, is there was just way too much tension still. They had gone through this amazing crisis. The communities were divided -- not just in two factions, but multiple factions -- so every time they brought this idea of a new constitution out into the communities, those factions and emotions really dominated the story line and it was just too premature. So they waited the 10 years. In 2007, brought it again and that’s where we stand.”

Ian Record:

“So you mentioned there was this profound governance crisis, if you will, that culminated in this high profile scandal. So they go down this reform road and in developing and ratifying, now ratifying, this new constitution system of government. What are some of the main things the nation is hoping to address? You’ve made quick allusions to them but”

Terry Janis:

“And I think that comes out of those crisis points. And what you see in this new constitution is a very clear separation of powers: a legislative body, an executive body and a judiciary. They clearly put a lot of time into that. Also the value of me not being in that drafting process, I wasn’t there, but you can see from the text itself that those parts of the constitution are clear, clean, deliberate and well drafted; that’s what they put their heart and mind and time and energy into. So there’s a very clear separation of powers, there’s clear establishment of an independent judiciary, they also put a lot of time into thinking about what it means to have a traditional government, something that’sin looking at separation of powers, you really harken back to the U.S. Constitution, which hearkens back to the Haudenosaunee constitutional form of government, but what you really get caught up in is it’s an American style of constitutional government -- the separation of powers, how they frame it, how they reference it -- but the way they do it is quite unique in the way of establishing mechanisms with language that tie it back to Anishinaabe traditions -- using Ojibwe language as a part of the constitution preamble and frame of governance, making sure that their judicial system isn’t just about punishment, but really emphasizes restorative justice -- engages the kind of most foundational aspect of the constitution in a way that depends on the people themselves to organize governance. So a range of different things that are quite unique that is really, I think, less controversial and more easily understood.

They also took on this huge issue of defining membership, citizenship. We all know or we should know about the way the federal government used blood quantum as a part of a military and colonial strategy to subjugate us. The ultimate result of that was our disappearance and that’s still on the books. And so they tackled that though with a very broad and dynamic rejection of blood quantum and move to lineal descendency. And that was a thing that came out of those conversations in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It’s part and parcel, very simple, very straightforward in the way the constitution defines it and it ended up being one of the most controversial aspects of their conversation.”

Ian Record:

“I think you’ve touched on some of these already, but from your vantage point, what do you see as some of the fundamental differences between the old constitution system of government, basically an IRA [Indian Reorganization Act] model, and this new creation?”

Terry Janis:

“I’ve talked about this new one. You got -- in order to make a comparison -- you’ve got to read their oldall of the IRA constitutions, but the MCT [Minnesota Chippewa Tribe] Constitution is even worse. And I’m not knocking MCT; they’re some good people, they’re trying to do good work with a bad system. But you’ve got to understand the history of the Indian Reorganization Act, its shift away from allotment; it ended the allotment process, which on its face is a very positive thing, but what this country was at that period of time, after the Great Depression, just before World War II, was all about assimilation. It wasn’t about recognizing the strength and sovereignty of Indian nations, it was about making Indian people white.

And the constitutions that came out of the Indian Reorganization Act, this model constitution that they had, the primary purpose of that was to make things easier for the Bureau of Indian Affairs -- their colonial objectives, their oversight, their kind of attitudes of superiority in having a trust responsibility towards Indian people actually owning Indian land, and Indian people having to ask for permission for using everything. These constitutions have at least a dozen, the MCT constitution has almost 30 specific places where before the tribe can do anything, they have to ask for permission from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and it’s in their constitution. And so that’s their starting point.

And it establishes a mechanism where, for example, even though White Earth has the majority of the population, they’ve set up a governance structure in the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe where each of the separate bands is represented by two individuals on their governance structure. And so White Earth has over 50 percent of the population almost; they only have two votes out of 12. It is completely unrepresentative. There is no government in the world that would allow that kind of unrepresentative form of government and they accept it. It’s what they were forced to take up. The Bureau of Indian Affairs wrote their constitution for them. There’s no story or history or genesis of the language of this constitution coming out of Indian minds. It was the Bureau of Indian Affairs that wrote it, put all of these tribes together under one body so they didn’t have to build relationships with six separate tribes. They only had to deal with one entity.

So this is as colonial a system as you can imagine and me coming from the outside, I’m shocked honestly that they find a way to make it work, every day. But that’s where it’s coming from and having that conversation, and engaging that conversation as a part of this conversation, was a part of everything that we put together as well.”

Ian Record:

“Let me follow up on that. This is not part of our original questions, but this is something that I see come up in so many tribes I work with on the issue of constitutions and constitutional reform is...you’ve just shared with us a pretty deep knowledge of the genesis of, until recently, what was the law of the land for the White Earth people. And so often when these tribes struggle with this issue of, ‘Our constitution is inadequate. We pretty much understand we need to change it.’ It’s a whole other question of, ‘How do we do it?’ But a lot of folks contemplate reform without a full working knowledge of, ‘Where did our specific constitution come from? Did our own people have any meaningful say in its creation? Did they have any meaningful sense of ownership in this apparatus that they now use to make decisions and try to live as a nation?’ And how important is it for other tribes -- if people are going to look at White Earth as an example -- how important is it for other tribes to understand that historical context when they tackle the question of, ‘Do we need to change our current constitution and how?’”

Terry Janis:

“Honestly, I don’t think it’s all that important. At the end of the day, it’s relatively irrelevant because when you get to this scale of change, what you really have to have a deep understanding of is politics, power and change.

Politics is important. Who has what political source, where does it come from, how did they engage and develop it? In order to engage at this scale, you have to have a deep respect for politics, you have to understand the politics that’s happening in that community at the local level and a broader level that affects it. When you look at process of change, you’re going to recognize that some people are gaining, are benefiting from the current system and other people will gain or benefit from the change. And so you have to recognize where those tensions are going to come from, where’s the push-back going to come from, and you have to respect that and honor that and deal with it in a very real and dynamic sort of way.

And then that’s the process of change, the engagement of it. Whenever there is a compelling reason for change, like in White Earth -- the constitutional crisis in the ‘90s, history of where the constitution that they’re working under comes from, and how it contributed to the disaster that they just went through -- is an important part of what pushes and sustains. And that’s important, that has to be there, but in order to actually for change to actually occur, you’ve got to deal with the reality of politics and power and that is all a part of the conversation. Some of it is one-to-one information sharing education process, others are very practical sitting down and trading realities. ‘You’re going to lose this. Your people are going to gain that. How important is it that your people gain even though you may personally lose in certain ways?’ And you just deal with that in a very real sort of way.

The leadership at White Earth, at Bois Forte, at all of the MCT bands, are the same as the leadership in any other Indian nations; they’re practical, they’re very realistic and they’re in it as a life issue. And I didn’t say life and death. They’re in it as a life issue. Our leaders are politicians from that life perspective, but whenever you start to challenge them to give up, or this is going to be taken away -- this thing that has benefited you and your family -- that has to be an open conversation. It has to be a real conversation and you have to honor their integrity, their respect, and their ability to come to a decision that not only helps them to deal with the practical realities, but also fits with their integrity.”

Ian Record:

“In the point you just made, doesn’t that argue for tribes ensuring that they develop a reform process that is distinctly theirs and that distinctly attends to their own local dynamics, as you laid out?”

Terry Janis:

“Absolutely. You cannot do it any other way. And there’sin this situation -- having me as an outsider come in -- there’s value in me being able to say, ‘I don’t care what you do. I didn’t draft this thing. I have noof my own self into it at all. What matters to me is you, as the people, make your own choice. Do you realize the power that you have? That’s what matters to me.’ So me coming in with that kind of outsider perspective, and also coming in with the history of really fighting for and having some losses and successes in supporting tribal sovereignty, that was the base. And we can have those conversations, and they could insult Erma Vizenor or the elected leadership and everybody else, and I’ll sit there and I’ll nod my head and I’ll let them give voice to that, and then we’ll try to turn to a deeper understanding of what this constitution says and the changes that it incurs. And without that conversation, without having the ability to sit through the emotions, and the local history that’s there, and understand it and take it in, and then incorporate that into a conversation about, ‘Look at the text of this language.’ And so all of those things are local, they’re about that local community, they’re about the people that are there and their personal histories and stories.”

Ian Record:

“I want to follow up a bit on this issue of power and politics that you mentioned. My sense in working with a number of tribes on reform is that yes, that is a huge dynamic that you have to wrestle with and that the approach that you develop in response to that has to be local, it has to be unique to that tribe, and it has to attend to those unique circumstances, but isn’t part of it also dealing with the reality and developing a process that deals with the reality? That, in many times when you’re dealing with fundamental sort of foundational change like constitutional reform, often entailsif you’re going beyond pro forma type amendments and really dealing with substantive constitutional change, you’re often asking the people of the nation to put up a mirror in front, and [to] look in the mirror not just as an individual citizen, but as a collective group and say, ‘Who are we, how do we want to govern, and what do we want our future to look like?’ And often that involves confronting a lot of colonial trauma, a lot of historical trauma, and that tends to contribute to a very organic and sort of messy process that you have to be ready for, does it not?”

Terry Janis:

“Right, absolutely, absolutely. And the fact that I can tell you with some of the folks that I’ve had conversations, how far spittle travels between you and that other person because that’s how pissed off they are and emotional, and that kind of anger and anguish and frustration and fear is very real. Me coming into this as an outsider with absolute respect for the sovereignty of an Indian nation -- and when you’re dealing with the fact that this constitution is going to move to a referendum vote -- that sovereignty lies within each individual. And so my job is to absolutely respect where that person is and where that person can move to. I can have a conversation with somebody about the colonial dynamics of the MCT constitution. If they say, ‘I cannot accept the idea of defining me as a 'citizen' or defining the White Earth Tribe as a 'nation,' we are a 'band,' I am a 'member,'‘ they insist on that over and over and over, my job is not, as an academic, to know better than them and say, ‘You’re wrong.’ My job is to say, ‘Okay. This is your choice. You are the sovereign here. Your vote is all that matters. Your decision and your opinion is all that matters. I respect that a hundred percent.’”

Ian Record:

“So then didn’t your challenge then become, in respecting their ability to choose, and that’s ultimately what self determination’s all about, that your job then became, ‘how do I make sure that they, when they do choose, that they’re making as an informed choice as possible in that they understand fully what this constitution says and more importantly what this constitution will do in terms of structuring how the government actually works and how it makes decisions, how it carries out decisions, etc.’?”

Terry Janis:

“Yeah, yeah. If you think about how Indian people come together and we talk, we learn things as much from laughter as from serious conversation. We learn things as much from getting into a fight and getting a bloody nose as we do by reading a text together side by side. And so that is a multi-faceted dynamic of the process, Indian people coming together and learning this kind of document, this kind of resource materials, this kind of system, systemic construct, it’s really complex.

The White Earth constitution is amazingly complex, how they all fit together and flow together; you are not going to achieve full understanding, period. What I realized is that each person is going to need a certain level of understanding in order to come to their own decision point and that’s my job, is they know how much they need to understand and I’m going to keep pushing everything at them with every vehicle and mechanism that I can. Whenever we came in and designed the educational strategy, there wasn’t going to be just one event in every community and the national symposium. We were going to have dozens. We ended up having over 50 across every single community, a national symposium, multi-media resources, videos, radio turned out to be incredibly important with Niijii Radio and other radio interviews and individual conversations, follow up with thousands of individuals, taking the time to have all of those conversations in as many ways as possible, talking with folks over dinner, over breakfast, in their houses, on the street, wherever. And so that’s just how we are. We as Indian people, we learn in a certain way and if you’re comfortable with that, if you can engage that, if you can get with that, then there’s the potential that you’re going to make the offerings and people are going to come at them in the way that they can come at them.

I never expected to find perfect understanding. The more I got into it, the more I realized I don’t have perfect understanding. There are so many nuances to this stuff that a relationship between this person and that person as a drafter, as an editor, as a voter was a much more complex and real sort of dynamic as well, but having respect for the sovereignty of the individual to make this decision because that’s where it really lies in a referendum, as well as the learning process of us as Indian people. It’s personal and being able to do that and willing to do that and enjoying doing that.”

Ian Record:

“Was part of your challenge trying to sit down in a community session or via multi-media and the many different tools and strategies and approaches you took, but was part of the challenge getting people to care about the role of the constitution in their lives? To say, ‘Okay, basically this current constitution we have, this is how it impacts you as a citizen. This new constitution we’ve drafted, this is how it will change the nation, this is how it will change the, potentially change the community, this is how it will change the role that you can play in the governance of the nation.’ And you talked about making it personal -- is that not part of the challenge?”

Terry Janis:

It’s definitely part of it. It’s not so much how do you get them to care. Again, it’swe’re Indian people, and in my experience, we care deeply; we just do. The question is, ‘What do we care about?’ And so that was the issue, trying to figure out what this person cares about or if it’s a group of five or 20 or 100 or 200, what is the sense of what they care about and then how do you take that and share the information about the text of this constitution, how it changes things and what it will mean? How do you then tie that into what they care about because it is tribal politics, and so much of that is personal? It’s going to be, ‘This person is an elected leader and I hate him or her. She did this or he did that,’ and that is a very real sense of care and is very personal and it’s got nothing to do with me, but it has everything to do with this educational process on this constitution. And so people that are working within their own tribal communities and try to engage an educational process about constitutional reform, you have to respect that, that somebody cares about this thing and that does tie into their ability to learn about the constitution. And as an educator, that’s what makes a quality teacher is finding a way to tie that in so that you’re using that person’s energy, what they care about, to help learn about this thing. Every teacher, every quality teacher that is perceived of as being a good teacher, that’s what makes them good. It’s just normal education. This is not new stuff. This is not unique stuff. In order to do this well, you need good educators and you need people that are grounded in tribal sovereignty.”

Ian Record:

“And ideally grounded or at least understanding of the community, right? As you mentioned and sort of the dynamics and the”

Terry Janis:

“Absolutely, absolutely.”

Ian Record:

“So you made reference to this a little bit earlier in discussing the new constitution and how different it is from its predecessor and how different it is from anything that the United States government would ever conceive of. From your perspective as an outsider, can you share with us some of the things that are contained in this new constitution that are distinctly Anishinaabe, that advance Anishinaabe values, that reflect Anishinaabe culture, governance principles? For instance, you made reference to restorative justice and the use of language and things like that.”

Terry Janis:

“I’m not Anishinaabe and I can’tI cannot communicate that from that perspective. What I can do is say that the preamble uses Anishinaabe language and that is referenced throughout the constitution. The judicial system places a very real emphasis on restorative justice rather than the punishment model of a judiciary. That language ‘restorative justice’ is not in Indian language, but the heart of it, the substance of it, that is all Indian, whether it’s Anishinaabe or Lakota or whatever, that is about that community and the way they’re going to implement it is going to be all Anishinaabe, it’s going to be all Ojibwe.

Whenever you look at...the constitution allows or provides for, requires, three advisory bodies, formal advisory bodies that have direct advisory responsibility to the legislative council and the office of the president, an elder’s council, a youth council and a community council. The constitution establishes them specifically and it states specifically certain aspects of Anishinaabe culture and tradition that that elder council is responsible to give advice to the legislative body and the president on. You don’t see that in other constitutions, period. So it structurally establishes a mechanism for that to be in there, but it also, at the same time, is an advisory body. So it’s not a full shift over to a traditional model of governance where the chiefs are making decisions in that process. It’s a unique sort of mechanism in that regard.

The last one that I think is most unique is if you think about a governance, you’re really talking about the ability of a representative to truly represent their community. That’s where so much of the gap is. In this country, what is the percentage of American population, voting age population that actually votes? It’s a huge gap because the representatives that we can vote on to represent us don’t represent us. Here, in this constitution, the people themselves organize their own voting districts. They are responsible for organizing those voting districts and if they’re the ones that have to carry that burden, there’s a greater potential that they’re going to organize the voting districts that actually mean something to them and if it does, then they’re going to select a person to represent them and then there’s that connect. That is f*cking awesome. It really is. And it is so problematic. How do you actually implement that? Nobody’s ever done that before.”

Ian Record:

“But I would argue that that is righting one of the greatest wrongs of, in particular, the IRA system, which”

Terry Janis:

“Absolutely, absolutely.”

Ian Record:

“It either corrupted, or displaced entirely, these traditional governance systems that, as you mentioned earlier, centralized power. And really what are you talking about when you talk about power? You’re talking about decision-making responsibility and basically where in most, if not all, traditional Indigenous societies everyone had a valued role to play, everyone was expected to contribute to the governance of the nation in some respect, and it wasn’t called the governance of the nation back then, it was called something else, but basically that’s what it was: young people, old people, elders, everyone had a role. And now from what you’re saying is that White Earth has made a conscious decision to return some of that decision-making authority directly to the people so that they can once again have a valued role.”

Terry Janis:

“I think that if you really apply this accurately, this is the whole ball of wax. If this constitution is going to be effectively implemented, the people themselves are going to organize their own voting districts. That’s the only way it’s going to move forward. And in order for that to succeed, they have to be engaged much more broadly, much more actively, much more dynamically than they have now. The strategy for full ground up, bottom up community development to implement this, requires that kind of engagement for them to really understand that and to organize their own voting districts so that it means something to them. And the constitution provides that they can organize it based upon population centers, historic associations, clan systems and their understanding of that, ‘What does that mean?’ is what defines it. The constitution uses these broad, open words. They have to be defined and the only one that can define them under this constitutional form of government is the people of White Earth and that’s just exciting.”

Ian Record:

“That’s cool. So I want to turn now to the process and that’syou were involved with the process because, as you mentioned, you came on board after the constitution had been drafted, and your job in part was to work with citizens that had been designated by the tribe, employees, etc. to figure out what’s the best approach to actually teaching the people about what this constitution says, what it does. Can you give us a brief overview of the campaign, the comprehensive citizen engagement, citizen education campaign that you guys launched and continue to implement?”

Terry Janis:

“Yeah. We went over it just in the fundamental way. On a most basic level it has to be personal. In order for it to be personal, you have to engage in multiple venues, multiple formats, multiple times. And so small gatherings, unique gatherings, having as active and dynamic a calendar that if they miss this one, there’s going to be another opportunity and another and another. And so really playing that out so that it’s personal in that regard.

Secondly, if you’re going to do this, it really has to engage multiple medias. The majority of the population does not live on the reservation and so we had events not only on reservation, but in the Twin Cities, in Cass Lakes, on the Iron Range and other places where major populations are, but we didn’t go outside of the State of Minnesota, and there’s a huge White Earth population outside of Minnesota as well. And so having the website, having different resources and materials on the website, videos. We did the whole training, a whole two-hour session over each article of the constitution and posted that on the website as well, and then having a symposium that was live streamed on the website; accepting the offer of another entity, Truth to Tell, to host an event on the reservation. The chairperson, the primary drafters of the constitution, all came together and participated on that and had a raucuous good time. It was like really intense.”

Ian Record:

“I watched it -- very intense. I’ll ask you a follow-up question about that.”

Terry Janis:

“And it was real. And so just multiple mechanisms for doing that and making sure that number one, it was personal. Number two, that there were multiple mechanisms for doing that. And then number three, there was absolute certainty that we were neutral, that we presented the materials with, as best as I could, with no offer of an opinion one way or another, good or bad, up or down, a complete respect for the sovereignty of that nation, which in this process meant the sovereignty of the individual to come to their own decision, to make up their own mind with their own process. And my job was to provide as much resources for them to do that as possible.”

Ian Record:

“That Truth to Tell forum, which was live streamed, that was quite athat was on our ‘Must See TV’ list for quite a while. I remember watching it and then saying, ‘You guys got to watch this, you got to watch this.’ And they hadI know they posted the first part first and then there was a little lag and then the second part and we were all waiting with baited breath. And it was interesting the conversation that we had internally because some folks among us said, ‘Oh, man, look how crazy this was. Look howlook how ugly it got at times with people beingraising their voice and calling people out.’ And I made the point, I said, ‘Having watched enough tribes struggle through constitutional reform, seeing some succeed and some fail, that this to methe beauty of this forum that you guys had and the way you did it and the fact that it was so open and it was so transparent,’ I said, ‘to me, that is the most important thing is because --aside from what’s being shared in that forum -- the nation and the project in particular are sending a message to the White Earth people that ‘we want to be transparent in this process, we are doing our part to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard.’' And isn’t that the most important thing, is that you’re giving everyone in the community every possible opportunity to make sure that their voices are heard so at the end of the day nobody can say, ‘I didn’t have a chance.’”

Terry Janis:

“And the reality is, whenever you get to learn of a community, after you’re there for a while, you realize people gather at this one place on a regular basis. If I had known that, I would have incorporated it into our strategy and done that. So being very open to the possibility that somebody else is going to come. This was not organized by me, or the tribe, or anybody else. This was organized by Niijii Radio with Truth to Tell and TPT; they did all the structuring of it, they paid for it, they put it all together, they decided on the format. I contributed a lot in conversations with them about the participants and everything else, but to accomplish their goal, having a balance between people that were supportive of it and people that were opposed with strong voices on both sides, even though we didn’t necessarily have strong voices in every situation. Some people didn’t feel comfortable in that environment, but it was their agenda and their show and their program and that kind of transparency is what the tribal council and Chairperson [Erma] Vizenor and Secretary Treasurer Robert Durant committed themselves to. They never interfered with our process at all and were very supportive of that.”

Ian Record:

“I’m glad you bring that up because with another nation we worked with over the past decade or so, they went through constitutional reform about seven or eight years ago now, and they attribute the success of their reform effort to, first and foremost, the fact that they went to great lengths to ensure that the process maintained what was termed an ‘aura of independence.’ Meaning that yes, the politicians, the elected leadership have a role to play and whether it’s funding the process, setting up the body that will lead the process to see it through, but once that’s done, it’s imperative that the politicians take a back seat, that they don’t come to dominate the process, or at least appear to be dominating the process, because it’s imperative that the process itself espouses the kind of principles that you’ve been talking about, which is, ‘It’s not my job to take sides, it’s not my job to champion this, it’s my job to make sure you understand what’s in it.’”

Terry Janis:

“There were people thinking about that in the hiring process. And as many times as I was attacked for not being Ojibwe, this outside guy -- especially a Lakota guy, we’re enemies -- coming in and taking one of their jobs, as many times as I was attacked there was somebody in the audience always who said, ‘This is the best way to do this. There’s no other way we’re going to have an objective look at this and give at least that a chance.’ And so even for the people in the hiring process and the selection committee -- you have to ask them what they were thinking exactly -- but I heard it over and over and over in the community as well.”

Ian Record:

“You talked about some of the strategies that you guys implemented in making sure that you were generating broad community awareness of not just what was in the constitution, but the choice that was before the people about this process, you talked about some of the strategies that you guys implemented in making sure that you were generating broad community awareness of not just what was in the constitution, but the choice that was before the people, individually and collectively. I’m sure not everything went according to plan. You’ve talked about some of the things that you didn’t anticipate when you first set out. Can you share what, from your view, were and are some of the biggest challenges to both, I guess, the process leading up to the vote and then now? And then, what did you do or what are you doing to overcome those?”

Terry Janis:

“On the one hand, you deal with the situation that you have and you create the best strategy you can realizing that you’re going to change it as you get into it. So all that being said, they finished the drafting in 2009 and had quite a few years of not a lot happening. If they could have done a level of this kind of process starting in 2009 leading to a referendum vote on November 19, 2013, that would have been awesome, but they didn’t. And so havingnot having that gap in time -- because you have to make up a lot -- the kind of impetus of coming together and drafting a constitution and then nothing happens and people forget, you lose momentum, you lose context, you lose memory, you lose priority. And so that had to be dealt with and energy created and generated in order to get interest and get everybody back on the same page as far as, ‘This is a priority,’ and ideas and tactics for doing that. That’s what we had to deal with. If something could have been done differently, it would have been changed in the past and have some process engaging from 2009 to the referendum vote.

It also is a really complex document and we put a lot of energy into reading it, working with educators, curriculum developers, the education department at White Earth, Joan Timeche who is the director [of the Native Nations Institute] -- she was really helpful in all of this -- my experience with curriculum development, etc. and thinking through, as adults, what sort of resources and tools can we bring to the table to help somebody work through a hugely complex document. And so reorganizing it, simplifying the language, creating summaries, creating a workbook, getting the text out, really emphasizing the text itself that even though this summary is a summary it’s in a useful way of introducing yourself to it, really being willing to sit down there and go through it word by word as well.

If there was something that we could have taken from that and learned from that, I think it might have been a broader range of stuff. Where if there was more time, really do a pre-K through full adult, develop an educational resource mechanism and tools and strategies to cover that whole broad range because developing a coloring book for a pre-K kid is going to help an adult with that education process as well. And because you’re doing it for a pre-K kid, it’s not insulting to that adult that is actually going to benefit from that. You see what I’m saying? But because we didn’t have that much time, we didn’t develop that full scope and full range of educational resources and tools and have the time to implement it at that scale.

But dealing with a very complex document that is the genesis or basis of a very complex system really would have benefited from more time, a broader-scale approach that engaged non-voting age members and voting age members in an equal sort of basis because everybody votes frombenefits from all of those resources being available to them. That’s just the reality of it. We didn’t have that time. We didn’t scoperamp it up to that scale and that scope of it right away just because of the timing issues. But if we were going to do it over again with more time, especially not losing momentum from the initial 2009 completion of the draft drafting process, I think that’s how it would have gone.”

Ian Record:

“Isn’t that couldn’t you argue that that’s the challenge now before the White Earth Nation is, ‘How do we now actually live this new constitution?’ And isn’t part of that challenge, of figuring how to live it, is this tribal civics challenge?”

Terry Janis:

“Oh, absolutely.”

Ian Record:

“of engraining in our people young, old”

Terry Janis:

“Absolutely.”

Ian Record:

“of all ages not only what the constitution says, but this is who we are, this is how we govern, this is how we make decisions, this is the future we seek for ourselves?”

Terry Janis:

“Yeah, and whenever people think about this kind of constitutional change, one of the easiest things to think about is, if you understand what an IRA council is, an IRA constitution and the tribal council and business committee that comes out of it, their kind of authority to make decisions into the most minute things. ‘Oh, you can’t fire that secretary’ or ‘cut their pay,’ or whatever. The council is integrating themselves in every single decision because that is the scope of power that they have; there is no limits on authority or separation of powers. And so for the new legislative council, once it gets organized, to really learn what it means to legislate, to legislate; for the office of the president to really know what an executive authority and role is, the limits and scope of that; for the judiciary to really believe that they’re fully independent. In order for that to happen, the training and education process have to happen from today. As we get resources and tools out there or White Earth gets resources and tools out there to help the people organize their communities, their voting districts, that education process has to happen at that scale.”

Ian Record:

“And doesn’t it also have to be. you mentioned. White Earth has to be sure that the chief executive, whoever that may be, whether Erma or someone else, that they fully understand”

Terry Janis:

“Exactly.”

Ian Record:

“what their role is under this new constitution. The constitution and the limits of that role, where it begins to get into thatoverlaps into someone else’s role and where they need to think twice and vice versa the legislative side.”

Terry Janis:

“And whenever the kids in the community and the people that aren’t going to run for those elected offices, if they understand it.”

Ian Record:

“Well, I was just going to say, that’s critical because they’re the ones that apply pressure, healthy or unhealthy, on those people”

Terry Janis:

“And who are organizing those voting districts and the representative that comes out of those voting districts is going to be one of them. And so they’re going to be selecting somebody based upon an understanding that they have. It’s a true ground-up, building-a-nation process that depends upon education at that broad scale.”

Ian Record:

“I want to switch to one of the strategies that you guys employed and, I think, were more aggressive, I would say, than we’ve seen with other nations that have gone down the reform road and that’s the use of multimedia. And you mentioned that you guys -- and I’ve seen the videos you’ve done. The website is very robust. It has a series of videos featuring you and some other folks talking, sort of, as you mentioned, breaking down the constitution, making it accessible, talking about constitutional, often very legalese-style language and breaking it down and talking about it in very accessible, laymen’s terms for somebody with a 10th-grade education, for instance, trying to make it make sense to them. How did the community respond to that, to that particular strategy of, ‘Here, we’re going to tell you a story about this particular aspect of the constitution and we’re going to use this visual media to do it’?”

Terry Janis:

“The only way that I can really respond to that is the few positive responses that we got. ‘I watched it. It was great.’ All of that was good. I think more importantly though is we put a lot of energy and thought into not just having a strategy and design for doing it, but doing it, constantly, persistently and not only in creating these multimedia things and getting them out there, but doing the community events, but also being absolutely responsive to everybody that called, everybody that walked up, everybody that wanted to talk, that responsiveness -- so returning 20 phone calls a day and having 40 -- and so that kind of response. I think it was the whole thing. And so from day one, building that on an increasing basis, feeling the tension ramp up because there was a growing interest and a growing desire for more information, a growing process of people actually making up their mind and caring about it and getting aggressive about it, and trying to convince their friends and their relatives and other people about their position, that’s all we wanted, that’s all we pushed for. And the only way that I definitively noticed success is when I felt people get more impassioned, more opinionated, and more aggressive about it. The more fights we had, the more I was excited.”

Ian Record:

It’s interesting you bring that up because on one hand you would think, ‘Oh, going into this, I want to avoid anxiety, I want to avoid tension,’ but”

Terry Janis:

It’s just the opposite actually.”

Ian Record:

“You want the opposite.”

Terry Janis:

“It has to build.”

Ian Record:

“Because you want passion and interest and you don’t want apathy.”

Terry Janis:

“Exactly. Exactly. And that’s how we knew we were being successful is because it did grow. And by the time it came to the referendum vote itself, it was a crescendo. It was so intense. It was like, ‘Ah!’”

Ian Record:

“So where does constitutional reform at White Earth stand today, if you can just give a quick snapshot?”

Terry Janis:

“A quick snapshot is passed in the referendum vote; the current process of deciding what the relationship is between White Earth and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. So what the elected leadership at White Earth decided from day one of my participation there, my contract there, was that they want to remain a part of MCT, if at all possible, to organize under this new constitution, if it gets approved, and negotiate with MCT to remain part of MCT. So that’s what they’re doing right now, a good-faith effort on their part to have conversations with MCT. And because the changes in this new constitution compared to the MCT constitution are quite profound, and how that’s really going to happen, one of the initial thoughts is to request from MCT to sponsor a secretarial election that would change the MCT constitution that would allow each Band to establish their own constitutional form of government, and there’s other options for negotiating that as well. So those things are happening right now. They’re pretty tough; MCT doesn’t want to change. I described to you a completely unrepresentative form of government. The smaller bands that are benefiting from that, why would they want to change? They’ve got their own issues internally within their own governance. The system that they have benefits their current leadership. There’s going to be changes, etc. So it’s a broad dynamic. Whether that succeeds or not and how long White Earth commits to those negotiations is a decision of the elected leadership at White Earth right now, and they haven’t given up yet.

If it moves away from that, then you’re really talking about withdrawing from MCT and issues of secession. One of the issue points with the Bureau of Indian Affairs is this is their baby –- MCT -- and they set up this broad infrastructure to maintain and sustain this thing that they created. BIA initially doesn’t want to see this thing changed as well. They can see the arguments for it and against it, etc. There’s a very clear sort of distinction. One of the concerns that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is naturally going to have, as a broad bureaucracy, federal bureaucracy is, what is the ripple effect? So if White Earth withdraws from MCT, the federal government is supportive and recognizes their right to do so and establish their own form of government. Does that open the door for another entity to do the same thing?

San Xavier as a district on the Tohono O’odham Nation, Sandy Lake at Mille Lacs, situations where there isn’t the history of treaty recognition and treaty establishment, for example, White Earth and the federal government. San Xavier necessarily doesn’t have that kind of relationship, or maybe they do, I don’t know their story that well, but there are some things about this that distinguish it in a very real sort of way, not only the treaty relationship between White Earth and the federal government, but at every level, legislative, judicial, executive that recognizes White Earth as a distinct, federally recognized tribe independent of MCT and treats them that way and operates that way. So that kind of historical and practical federal recognition that exists in MCT and doesn’t exist in other places can argue or should argue that there’s not going to be the slippery slope sort of situation that is going to cause a problem to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the reality is, it will and those are very practical realities for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So that’s the other thing.

A bottom line for the elected leadership at White Earth right now is they are not going to do anything that jeopardizes the relationship, the federal recognition relationship between White Earth and the federal government. They are not going to do anything that would jeopardize their funding, their relationship, or their status. So that’s got to be resolved before they actually withdraw from MCT. That’s a pretty sticky situation.”

Ian Record:

“Yeah, it’s uncharted waters. It’s hard to find another parallel in the United States.”

Terry Janis:

“There’s none. MCT has no parallel in the country, period. And you can make an argument for that and I can call youI can describe 10 times as many reasons why it’s distinct because it is.”

Ian Record:

“So let’s turn to your own tribe for a second. As I mentioned at the outset, you’re a citizen of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, often cited as one of the poster children, if you will, of IRA, the Indian Reorganization Act in that”

Terry Janis:

“I thought you were going to say something else, but I actually”

Ian Record:

“Well, no, in that there’s been a lot ofthere’s been books written about IRA formation at Pine Ridge and the process and you’re quite passionate about IRA, a lot of people are, and I’m wondering, you’ve beenyou’re working with a nation that just basically jettisoned -- or you could argue based on what you just said is still in the process of trying to jettison -- their IRA system, and your own nation still operates with one.”

Terry Janis:

“Yeah.”

Ian Record:

“And being that you’re sort of in this unique position, in that you’re sort of a student of your own nation and its governance system and then you’ve come to learn so much about another nation and their governance system and how they’ve changed it, I guess, if you can sort of try to meld those together and, I guess, what does the White Earth experience say to you about Oglala Sioux and its own governance system and potentially what the future of that could hold?”

Terry Janis:

“The political history of Pine Ridge has had a fairly consistent policy of holding the Bureau of Indian Affairs accountable for its trust obligations. That’s a stronger way of framing this idea and that has been the position of Pine Ridge virtually my whole life. I have argued with them about this a lot, that Pine Ridge should be contracting every function that we can...taking over all obligations, responsibilities, and if it costs us more money, we’re going to do it 10 times better than the federal government will. But the policy position of Pine Ridge is to not let them get away with doing a bad job, to hold them responsible to their trust obligation. That’s how their positioning it. I’m hoping that if they continue with that position that will actually change the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal government because that’s what it’s going to require. In order for Pine Ridge to succeed with that, they’re going to have to change the Bureau of Indian Affairs and move it away from a colonial, paternalistic structure to a service entity. That change is not coming any time soon that I’m aware of.”

Ian Record:

“I would agree and looking more internally though, because basically what you’re getting at is that they’ve taken a very staunch position, and I agree with you based on my work with them that that’s my impression as well, but looking internally, this sort of deep self examination that White Earth has gone through in terms of looking at their own governance system, do you feel inspired or encouraged by the White Earth experience to think that Oglala Sioux will engage in that full examination of their own governance system and perhaps identify a better way?”

Terry Janis:

“No, only because Pine Ridge is Pine Ridge and White Earth is White Earth. We as Oglalas are going to chart our own course. For me it goes back to, ‘Do I respect tribal sovereignty or not?’ And I do. And Pine Ridge, Standing Rock, any other reservation has an obligation to assert their sovereignty and make that decision for themselves. I think that Pine Ridge is wrong in that position in regards to the trust obligation and their ability to really change the federal government. I think it’s a lack of recognition of what the federal government is vis-á-vis Indian nations and that relationship, but given that that has been their position and the strength of it -- that’s why I don’t speak in weak terms in that regard and I speak in strong terms -- that it is the policy of the Oglala Sioux Tribe to require the federal government to live up to its trust obligations, period. That is a strong statement, an assertion of tribal sovereignty and it puts the obligation for improvement and reform on the federal government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in particular. And that’s the best I can do with that.”

Ian Record:

“Final question. You’ve been immersed in the White Earth constitutional reform process for about a year. What, and I understand your point that every tribe is distinct in the way it chooses to express its sovereignty is unique, but aren’t there lessons from the path that White Earth has traveled and is traveling right now that other nations who are feeling like their constitutions and their system of government aren’t up to par, that aren’t reflective of who they are, aren’t there lessons that they can learn from the White Earth experience?”

Terry Janis:

“Absolutely. The bottom line is, White Earth is doing it. You saw the Truth to Tell; you saw the level of opposition to this thing. White Earth is doing it and the vote that the referendumI was sitting there when the count came in. I was completely shocked. We had a registration process that had a larger percentage of registering voters than has ever turned up to an election before, over double the normal turnout and of that, 80 percent of them voted for it. I was stunned. I didn’t expect it to be that large. Given thatand one of the things that you, if you have a conversation with the folks at Osage, for example, the kind of opposition that you saw in Truth to Tell that I saw every day out there, that they saw at Osage as well, whenever you’re thinking of a fundamental and profound change like this, there is going to be opposition. There has to be. You have to accept the reality of this colonial history and that people actually benefited from it and they’re not going to give that up without a fight, period. And that fight is going to be intense and you’ve got to stick with it and you’ve got to make it happen and see it through and let the people decide in as full and honest as a vote as you can get. And if they reject it, that’s great because that then leads you to another conversation and to draft a constitution that they really do want. That’s all that means.”

Ian Record:

“I’m glad you brought that up because I’ve heard a number of folks who’ve been directly engaged in constitutional reform say, ‘There’s no such thing,’ or something along these lines, ‘there’s no such thing as a failed reform effort.’”

Terry Janis:

“Exactly.”

Ian Record:

“For instance, Lac du Flambeau just went through a referendum vote on some pretty important amendments and they were voted down. And I think that if you talk to the people that led that effort, they might be discouraged a little bit, but they’re not giving up and I bet you they would say that, ‘We came out of this process with a greater understanding of what’s at stake and what the role of the constitution is in the life of the nation than we did before and that’s a good thing.’”

Terry Janis:

“And that’s the bottom line that I take from this experience. White Earth is doing it, an Indian nation, a tribe that wants to define their own governmental system. You don’t accomplish that without doing it. Whether it succeeds the first time or the 20th time, it doesn’t matter because each time you do it, you’re informing your population, you’re engaging the conversation and you’re building that base and that is nation building.”

Ian Record:

“Great way to end. Well, Terry, we really appreciate you taking some time to share your thoughts, experience and wisdom with us.”

Terry Janis:

“It was a pleasure. It was good seeing you again, too.”

Ian Record:

“Yeah, good seeing you. That’s all the time we have today for Leading Native Nations, a program of the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy at the University of Arizona. To learn more about Leading Native Nations, please visit the Native Nations Institute’s website at nni.arizona.edu. Thank you for joining us."

 

Eva Petoskey: Empowering Good Leadership Through Capable Governance: What My Leadership Experience Taught Me

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Eva Petoskey, citizen and former council member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (GTB), discusses her experiences as an elected leader during a pivotal time in GTB's history. She also stress the importance of Native nations developing capable institutions of self-governance in order to empower their leaders to think strategically, engage in informed decision-making, and focus their time and energy on achieving their nations' long-term priorities. Finally, she provides a detailed history of GTB's development of its revenue allocation ordinance.

People
Resource Type
Citation

Petoskey, Eva. "Empowering Good Leadership Through Capable Governance: What My Leadership Experience Taught Me." Leading Native Nations interview series. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, The University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. October 3, 2013. Interview.

Ian Record:

"Welcome to Leading Native Nations. I'm your host, Ian Record. On today's program, we are honored to have with us Eva Petoskey. Eva is a citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and served as an elected member of the Grand Traverse Band Council from 1990 to 1996. She also is the better half of John Petoskey, longtime general counsel of the Grand Traverse Band, who is serving as Indigenous Leadership Fellow with the University of Arizona's Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy. Eva, welcome and good to have you with us today."

Eva Petoskey:

"Thank you for inviting me."

Ian Record:

"As I mentioned in your introduction, you served a total of six years as an elected council member of your nation during a critical time in the nation's growth and development. Can you briefly paint a picture of what that time was like and the kinds of decisions you were confronted with as an elected leader?"

Eva Petoskey:

"Sure, but first I think I'll introduce myself in our language because it is our custom when we're asked to speak, especially for our tribe or our experience with our tribe to do that. So [Anishinaabe language]; that's my Anishinaabe name and my clan. So now I'm in a better position to speak."

Ian Record:

"Okay. So I appreciate that and I was remiss -- I usually ask folks to introduce themselves when we start, but I'm curious, you and I have sat down a couple of times this week to talk about your leadership experience and you came into elected office at a really critical time and you mentioned a story that when you started in office the council actually met in a pole barn?"

Eva Petoskey:

"Well, actually our casino was operated in a pole barn and our council chambers were a very small room that we met in and so yeah, we were a much smaller operation and 1990 was two years after we finally adopted our constitution. We did receive federal recognition in 1980, but it took about eight years to get approval of our constitution because it had a lot of complicated issues. But once we had a constitution, we had elections and I was in the second cohort of elected tribal council members after our federal acknowledgement. So at that time, in 1990, our tribe employed about maybe 50 people, maybe that's on the high end of the estimate and currently we employ about 2,500 people. So you can see over the course of 25 years -- well, it isn't quite 25 years, I guess it's 13...I don't know, I can't do the math, whatever 1990 is from our current time here. I guess it is almost 25, 23 years, yeah -- so we've had a lot of growth and those six years that I served was a time when there was tremendous development.

We...I think...during that time, we signed the first gaming compact with the State of Michigan. Of course the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act had just been passed I think in '88 so we were among the new gaming tribes. We had a small gaming operation that was operated out of a small pole barn and it was making money, but after we entered into the compact and even before that time we did some gaming development locally and expanded our casino development. From the time I served from '90 to '96, we went from a small pole barn to two upgrades in a facility within our Leelanau County reservation, Grand Traverse Band Anishinaabe town reservation. And then later in 1996 -- at the end of my time of service -- we opened the Turtle Creek Casino, which is a large operation. So a lot of expansion in gaming, a lot of infrastructure development. I'm not a gambler; I really knew nothing about gaming, so a huge learning curve for me and other council members. Some of our council members had worked within the gaming operation so they knew more about the operation of the casino. I was totally new to that. I had come to it with about 15 years of work experience in human services, social services, education so I was not...that was a big learning curve for me and I think for all of us and a lot of the policy infrastructure that we had to develop.

In terms of other developments...do you want me to continue on? We had huge growth again in terms of health care. At the time that I was elected, we were operating our health clinic out of a modular building, a very small clinic that served primarily the Anishinaabe town community and we had a six county service area. So it was difficult for our members from other areas to come into the Anishinaabe town community because sometimes it was as much as a 60-, 70-mile drive to come to the clinic and that was the only tribally supported, Indian Health Service-supported clinic that we operated at the time. And so now over the course and during the time period that I was in office, we built a very large health facility using primarily gaming revenue, a few other grants, and some support from the Indian Health Service. But the Indian Health Service dollars were never enough and probably will never be enough to provide the support for health care and both health and behavioral health services that we provide through our clinic now. During that time, those six years we built this fabulous facility and have been operating it ever since, so that's another area of really substantial development.

Treaty fishing, inland hunting, we had a lot of continuing issues related to exercising our treaty rights to fish in the Great Lakes and Lake Michigan within our treaty territory. We were in a transition from using gill nets to trap nets. It was an enormous transition for fishing people, men and women, because the gill net is more of a traditional way of catching fish and to try to change your whole equipment and upgrade, all these...it's very complicated. It's very complicated and a wide array of issues that we dealt with: land acquisition, putting land into trust, those are some of the...we developed a lot of housing during that time. We also had I think only one tribal house that we had built in 1990, maybe there were a few more, but now we have tribal housing in all surrounding service area, out of all six counties I think five of the six counties now have tribal housing."

Ian Record:

"You mentioned health care and the fact that some of the gaming revenue that you had generated -- which rapidly grew during your time in office and certainly after -- went to healthcare and went to housing and so forth. And that involved the establishment of the revenue allocation ordinance, basically the tribe creating an ordinance in conjunction with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to determine how the money that they were generating through gaming was going to be used by the tribe. And as you've shared with me, that was quite a long, drawn-out, contentious deliberations process. Can you sort of paint a picture of what that process was like in terms of coming to a decision about how the money was going to be spent and actually putting that into law and just what the revenue allocation is?"

Eva Petoskey:

"Sure. Before I do that, though, I'll say that we...even prior to the development of a revenue allocation ordinance, we did have a budget procedure and it was in policy. And so we had a transparent budget process where every...we developed an annual budget and we hold public hearings for the members to have input into the budget process and to review the priorities for the budget. So we already had that in place actually. And it was fairly new. We'd developed it during that time. I felt...for me that was one of my top priorities that we have a transparent budget process and that we have...that members have the ability or citizens have the ability to be involved in developing some of the priorities. So I'll say that first. We also were a tribe that...we kind of took development slow. We were trying to pay as we go, we didn't want to get into a big loan agreement with someone and so we were saving money. This was prior to the development of our per cap discussion...internal discussion on per capita distribution, so we had quite a bit of money saved, several million dollars. We were hoping that we would be able to use those funds to do gaming expansion without going deeply into debt. But somewhere around maybe 1993, a group of tribal members -- called themselves the Tribal Members Advocacy Group -- which actually normally I would be all for, because I think it's really important for citizens to have input into their governmental decisions, and in a way I was all for it except I was on the wrong end of the issue on the per capita distribution at that time, myself and...we had a seven-member council, four of us were not for the per capita, at least initially, and three members were. So we did have a majority to keep the per capita discussion distribution at bay. However, after a lot of internal debate and dialogue there was a petition drive to put the per capita distribution on the...as a referendum. And when I saw the petition, it was shocking to me as an elected -- I don't call myself a leader -- elected official of the tribe because everyone that I knew, all of my friends, all of my relatives, with the exception of my mother, had signed the petition for the per capita distribution. And I think my mother would have signed it possibly had she not been my mother. So there was a...it was a huge move, it was a huge movement, there really was no stopping it. So to me, it came down to the question of did I want to remain in office because I think had we dug our feet in? We probably wouldn't have been and that would have delayed the process, but I don't think it ultimately would have made a difference; the momentum was just too great. So I just say that for other tribes and other people in similar situations, not to say that you should necessarily make that choice, but it is an option and it was an option that I chose to eventually vote for the per capita distribution partially, probably in large part, so I could be part of the process of putting together the ordinance that would control how we would use the money and how it would be distributed. So if I'd have been removed from office I wouldn't have had that opportunity to participate in those policy decisions so it was a conscious decision on my part, a huge compromise. But those are the things that I think are the difficult challenges in leadership, especially if something... it didn't sit right with me. I made the statement in one of the public meetings that one of the challenges with the per capita distribution was that we would be in some...in a lot of cases, the people who could benefit most from the resources in terms of their income, people living in poverty or well below poverty, who were currently eligible say for food stamps or other benefits, health benefits, Medicaid, would lose those benefits. So in a way it was a wash. We were basically paying the money out to the federal or state government and while that was true and the facts supported it, it was really an unpopular statement because no one really was wanting to listen to reason at the time. So it was quite a learning experience. It was not a rational...particularly rational process, but that's politics and that's leadership, learning to set up the most rational system you can and then when the decision making isn't rational, learn to sort out with some degree of wisdom or insight as to which way to go, so we did put together a revenue allocation ordinance. I think we were probably one of the first tribes to do so, and right or wrong to avoid being held hostage by the momentum in the community we allowed, at that time it was up to 50 percent of your net revenue from gaming could be allocated to per capita distribution and that's what we did."

Ian Record:

"So the...and I know there's been some minor tinkering with it over the years and we'll get into one of the recent developments around it here in a second, but how does the per capita distribution policy currently work for adults and then how does it work for minors? And I know you've shared with me that the minors' trust accounts was a very contentious issue at the outset."

Eva Petoskey:

"Yeah, it was contentious, but let me say generally that the per capita distribution is half of the net revenue goes to individuals and the remaining half is split...well, I guess the remaining portions are split: 25 percent goes to tribal government operations, which would include all services and the operation of government itself. And then 15 percent to -- I always get these two wrong -- 15 percent to long-term investment and I think...or I think it's 10 percent to long-term investment, 15 percent to economic development, so that there were three other funds set up: tribal government operations, long term investment and economic development. So that was the whole pie of the...our revenue...I don't like to use acronyms -- so the revenue allocation ordinance. When it came to how the per capita distribution was to be, the 50 percent of per cap, that was very contentious and I sat as the chairperson of the committee that put the revenue allocation ordinance together. There were about maybe 10 or a dozen of us on the committee from all factions including people that were in the leadership of the TMAG, the Tribal Members Advocacy Group. So we all sat together and I think I told you this earlier when we were discussing this, I'm kind of a storyteller so forgive me if I start...I could be here for probably hours, but I'll tell the short story. I decided that we needed to use...try to come together. So we did this in a talking-circle format using some of our ceremonies, just simple...the smudging and then using an eagle feather that I had brought to kind of help us come together as a community to figure out how we would, now that we'd made a decision, how we would carry that decision out. So we had a lot of discussions and some of them were heated and well, I don't know if they were heated, they were... ctually they were quite civil I should say, they were quite civil, but a lot of difference of opinion expressed and...one of the things I brought up, I asked the group, "˜Many tribes, ours in particular, has a long history of kind of disruption, enormous disruption due to loss of land, a rapid kind of economic change, the whole culture over the last, we call it the '150[-year] Anishinaabe abyss period' and we certainly were emerging from that.' I think we're emerging from that now, but certainly was a very dark period in our history I would say from the 1850s forward until probably in the 1970s when we started to reclaim our place and through the law, which has been a good tool for us. But as a result of that abyss period, we have many of our people who were put in boarding schools, my mother went to Mt. Pleasant Indian School, my husband's parents went to Mt. Pleasant Indian School, all of that generation, people in our parent's generation and many in our generation either went to boarding school...my grandmother went to Carlisle, so it goes back several generations. So people were... had their lives disrupted in many ways. So we always bring this to the table in our deliberations because this is who we are. Many of us are people who have suffered enormous loss in terms of our family relationships, our cultural identity, our language, our ability to speak the language in our community. The generation that spoke the language is...many have passed on, but my mother's first language was Anishinaabe or Odawa. All of my family members could converse and I grew up hearing this, but now in this generation that's not the case. So I go into...I just say that because this is sort of who we are as we sit at the table together. We are all of these people that have...all of these humans that have brought all of this collective history to the table when we have a discussion and this particular discussion on how to distribute this money that we had, which most of us had never had, was a difficult one. So I did ask the group how many of us...because one of the issues that was very contentious was whether or not children should have an equal portion in the distribution and some of us had the position, including myself, that felt -- and a number of the group felt -- that everyone should have an equal share. There was another contingency that children should not have a share and that the money should go to their parents and then there would be more money just go for people 18 and older. That was probably one of the most contentious complaints and other smaller things about how frequently the distributions should be made, etc., but the one over who receives a share and what type of share was really a contentious discussion and in the end we made a...we agreed on a plan where everyone would have an equal share, but it was a painful discussion and at one point in the discussion I did as the group around the table just to tell you about not only our tribe, but the circumstances of many tribes and maybe...probably as many...maybe more so in our region of the country, I don't know how the impact of boarding schools and some of those effects were out here in the southwest. I'm not as educated about that, but in our part of the country many people were raised outside of their family, not by their parents, either through foster care, adoption, or through boarding schools and in our group of people around this table discussing our per capita distribution, only two of us had been raised by our parents, myself and one other member, one other citizen. So that was a sad commentary on where we were, where we are still. I think the impact of that..."

Ian Record:

"But you used that as a counter to the contention that parents should get their kid's share because they're the ones taking care of the children."

Eva Petoskey:

"Yes and I...it didn't make me popular, but I said a difficult statement of, "˜How well were we cared for by our parents? And no offense to anyone or to any of your parents. I am in the same category.' I just had a really strong mother who didn't allow things to happen and a really strong grandmother and some other people did too, obviously. But anyway, yeah, that was why I brought the discussion up. It was a hard discussion, but it did in part bring us around to a reasonable decision, which I think there have been problems with. So since we've had the per capita distribution...like I said to you the other day, I could probably talk for several days on this because it was a long, contentious process and other tribes have dealt with it in other ways, but now that...once we had a decision about how we would distribute, there have been challenges with it. Some young people don't use their money wisely. The money is held in trust for the young people until it is paid out when they're age 19 and...over 19, 20, 21 over three payments. So some young people use their money wisely. I guess they probably...whoever, however they're using it, I think they may think it's wisely, but maybe not. And others have not used it as wisely. We do have a new law I understand, I wasn't part of developing this because I'm not currently on the council, but we do have an amendment to the revenue allocation ordinance that requires that a child have at least a GED or a high school diploma in order to receive their payment. If they don't have it, I think it's deferred until they're 21. So I think that's a very good development. I would have liked to have seen that even sooner and I know other tribes have similar and maybe even more restrictive criteria to encourage people to continue to complete their education."

Ian Record:

"I'm glad you mentioned that. And you are right, there are a number of other tribes that have gone that route that may have not had it in place initially, but saw the effects of just sort of a basic issuance of the money once they turn a certain age without any sort of conditions set on the issuance of that money. I'd like to turn now to the topic of leadership and I know I'm asking you to look back a bit because you...it has been close to 20 years since you were in office, but if you think back to 1990, when you first came to office, what do you know now that you wish you had known before you first took office in the first place?"

Eva Petoskey:

"Well, I'm 25 years older so I've lived a bit. I guess in answering that question, I'd say probably two different avenues that I could answer that. One is I think I certainly have more knowledge about how government conducts itself. I didn't have that much coming into it and I think that's the case for a lot of newly elected tribal leaders that they come in inexperienced in tribal government. Even if they've worked for the tribe, it might not have been in a position where they were required to work with policy or maybe even to understand the larger historical and political and legal context in which tribes operate. That is very common for people to walk into it. So I think, in retrospect, I had some of that because I had 15 years of work experience in Indian Country and so I had some of that. I did work for tribal organizations and so I had some experience. I knew some core ideas of self determination, sovereignty. I even knew what sovereign immunity was because I'd worked with contracts with tribes. But I think a lot of people come in without that, so I think it's very important for people to have some education coming in either before...I know there are some tribes that have instituted some training programs for people interested in running for council. I think those are excellent ideas. Certainly if your tribe doesn't have that then having some kind of orientation and education program and process once a person is elected. I think to the extent that you can use people with prior tribal council experience that is a great benefit because not only will they get the information about the complex legal structure and all of the public policy issues, they also get some firsthand experience on people reflecting on their own leadership and some of the mistakes and successes that they had or mistakes they made and successes they had. So that's one track, I guess: education, education, education, education. I wish I had more of it when I came into this, but at another end I wish I had more wisdom. I wish I'd have been a wiser person. When you're young, a few...sometimes young people are wise, but more than often we're not when we're young. We tend to be impulsive. I know I would frequently get angry. Now as I've grown older, I've trained myself. I still get angry, but I usually don't speak when I'm angry. I've learned how to tell myself to hold that until I'm not angry. So I would even say it would be good if tribes -- whatever their culture is, whatever their Indigenous world view -- is that some of those teachings could be also shared or discussed as you go into your elected duties, that the person newly elected has an opportunity to sit down with someone, an elder or some other appropriate leaders within the community to, if they haven't had that proper or appropriate education and maybe some people do, they already have that. So we have -- in our Anishinaabe way -- we have the Seven Grandfather teachings, which tell us how to conduct ourselves in our relationships with other people. I see that sometimes we put them up on a poster someplace, but they're very difficult to follow in our relationships and looking back at my experience on the tribal council, aside from all of the challenging issues that we dealt with, the complex...context in which we found ourselves in, and in our case and the people that served with me, the enormous amount of development that we accomplished and worked tirelessly to accomplish was often painful in terms of our interpersonal relationships. And as you can imagine, when you're related to many of the people you serve with, that's just normal in a tribe that even on the council your relatives are sometimes on the council and certainly in terms of your constituents, your parents, your nieces and nephews, your cousins, just every...there's a very thick set of relationships. So how you treat one another in those heated political contexts, in the heated political context will last...will follow you for a long time."

Ian Record:

"One of the things you mentioned to me yesterday when we were chatting was this issue of consistency and in your relations with the people that you serve that the answers you give to the requests that they often make are consistent and the explanations for the answers you're giving them are consistent. Can you touch a little bit more on that in terms of being clear with the people who come to you with their hand out to say either 'yes, I can do this for you and here's why' or 'no, I can't and here's why,' and making sure that those answers are consistent no matter who's coming to you?"

Eva Petoskey:

"Yeah, this is a huge issue in tribal government. I think it...the responsibility there needs to be borne by the elected leader in term...and by the citizens. So I think...I'll talk about both of those, because I think it's a shared responsibility because if it is the norm that the council is kind of a patron system, which isn't outside of our cultural norm. See, that's one of the issues, that it's not really an unfamiliar cultural idea that you would give things away to your relatives. It's just that in the context of government, they're really not yours to give as a person, as an individual. They belong to the community. Whatever resources you have been elected and given the responsibility to be a good steward of are the resources of the community, so it really is different than giving out your own personal property, things that you've acquired in a giveaway at your home or in some kind of celebration where you're feeding everyone. That's your personal property and that is, within our cultural teachings, that's a different thing than taking the property of the collective and giving it out to your relatives. To me, that seems unethical. But I wasn't always...oftentimes your relatives would come in and expect you to solve a problem immediately, to give them some special consideration and I always gave them -- everyone really -- I tried to give special consideration in terms of listening and not shutting people off and then trying to help them problem solve where they could find a solution to their problem within our system. That implies that you have a system that helps people find a solution to their problem and that is part of developing your tribal infrastructure so that there is a known process for solving a problem, whether it's an employment problem or you felt like you've been treated unfairly, whether it's in employment or some other issue or involving your lot assignment or all kinds of controversies that come up. And we as a tribe, I'm sure others too, have...took us a long time to develop all that infrastructure so that there was a place for a person to go to get their problem solved or at least to try and they may not like the results, but at least there was a process in place. So it's both a shared responsibility on the part of the leadership to act in an ethical manner, again keeping in mind that the resources that you have been given the responsibility to be a good steward of are not yours, they're the community's, and so if you want to have a giveaway, go do it at your house with your own stuff unless it's the community giveaway and you're participating and it's open for everyone on an equal basis. And likewise, the members, the citizens need to understand that the more citizens that serve in government and in a good way, and the more citizens that come to understand how it's really a collective process and these are our collective resources and together we can build a nation and we can learn to put our...it's hard to learn to put your individual needs aside because many of our people live in poverty. It's still the case today. It's still the case. We have...if you go into the communities around our tribe, many of the homeless people are our tribal citizens. There's still a lot of people living...struggling to have their basic needs met and it's understandable why people feel frustrated sometimes. I totally understand that and yet it's an ongoing challenge for the elective."

Ian Record:

"And isn't it first and foremost a challenge of education? You mentioned that a lot of hard work has been done to build up the governmental infrastructure so that there are processes in place to help people that come with their hand out. And we've heard other leaders talk about really the education needs to begin with the elected official in that interpersonal exchange with the constituent to say, "˜Look, I cannot do this for you because we have a process in place that can address your problem. That's not my role.' We often hear leaders talk about role confusion, that they think they're a social service administrator and not a policy maker."

Eva Petoskey:

"Exactly. Exactly. Well, that speaks to understanding what your role is and in most tribes the...I know in our tribe, the role of the tribal council members and the chairperson are specified in some detail in the constitution and that serving as a social service liaison is not one of them, although it is to look out for the assets and best interests of the tribe and to provide for the wellbeing and education, health of the tribal citizens. But a lot of people don't ever read the information on what their roles and responsibilities are and I found many times across Indian Country -- I won't point just to our own tribal council, but some of the work I've done elsewhere -- that many people don't read their constitution or even if they think it was a good idea to have a constitution because sometimes you get into that discussion. "˜Why are we adopting these types of governments?' And I think it's all a developmental process. I think that in our case, I look back at those times as we began to work...I wasn't part of working on the constitution, but as I've heard the stories I'm glad that we went in that direction and I think we put some good ideas into our constitution. We do have a separation of the judicial in our constitution so we have a separate court. That's an unusual situation in Indian Country. And we have both executive and legislative functions within our tribal council and then we have specific roles and responsibilities and a lot of other things that are spelled out that took great... that were given great consideration. We did not just adopt a constitution. We had a lot of discussion about how that should be and what type of government we wanted to have."

Ian Record:

"How empowering was it for you as an elected official to have that constitution to fall back on when somebody was not clear about your role and was coming to you and asking you to do something that was outside of your role for you to say, "˜Hey, look, I'm not allowed to do this and this is where it says I'm not allowed to do this'? Because unfortunately in a lot of tribal communities, leaders don't have that luxury to say, "˜Look, I'm prohibited.' It's sort of...there's so much gray area involved that they can sort of finagle it however they like. Was it...did you feel it empowered you or there was a sense of comfort there to be able to fall back on that rock-hard foundation?"

Eva Petoskey:

"I didn't use it so much in the context of dealing directly with individual citizens, but I did occasionally use it in dealing with some of the things that other council members would want to do and sometimes behind closed doors, which is where some of the really challenging discussions occur, even though we have, of course have to have open meetings, but there were certain things involving legal matters and really complicated legal matters that we did in closed session and sometimes we would have rather contentious discussions there, and I do recall on several occasions getting out the constitution and saying, "˜Read this, folks.' And sometimes people would want to fire people just arbitrarily. I hope I'm not...it's not an unusual thing. I'm not putting down my own tribe. I see it everywhere and I'd just remind everyone, 'That isn't our job. That is not our job,' in spite of the fact that maybe that person had said very insulting things to me and to the entire tribal council, but it was our job to maybe try to create a better climate so people didn't have to come in there and be that angry or have some other rules about how we conduct our business or just take it. If we weren't going to create those kind of rules. I know some tribes have now created rules about how... I'm not talking about Robert's Rules, but how...and of course tribes use those...but how...what the tone of the conduct of the meetings should be and that there must be a tone or respect. I like that idea. We don't have a rule like that currently, but I sure...if I were back...in retrospect, I would love to have a rule like that. I'd love to have those Seven Grandfather teachings not only on the wall, but somehow incorporated into our conduct so that we can hold ourselves accountable."

Ian Record:

"This last answer of yours has given rise to a few questions in my mind and the first deals with transparency. You touched on this issue a couple of times now, and in talking with your husband John and having him share with us all of the hard work that the government has done to not only build its infrastructure, its governmental infrastructure, but also build the background history of why it was developed the way it was. So you guys have gone to great lengths to document everything from council meeting minutes and making them not only...not only archiving them, but making them instantly accessible and obviously that helps for the purposes of transparency, but doesn't it also help for ensuring that folks that are in the position that you were once in can make informed decisions, can say, "˜What was the reason why we first started this particular project and what does it mean for the decision that is before us on this project today?'"

Eva Petoskey:

"Well, certainly as technology gets quicker and quicker -- at one time that wasn't possible because we'd be digging through all these old papers down in the basement of the tribal government center -- but now that it's readily available apparently our current council who actually uses that does a search, what did we decide on this and what's the history of this? And so I think that could be a very useful tool going into the future with technology as it is today. I think that wouldn't obviously be present if we hadn't have archived all that and I wasn't part...well, I guess I was part of that decision. One of the things I was going to mention that we did write a couple of tribal histories, especially some of the recent history and the early history of our federal acknowledgement and what led up to that. And so those documents are available also, but so that in the sense that you're archiving your process as you go along is a wonderful benefit to future generations because there is a record there to the extent that people are able to study it and with technology it's easier to study it. So it's awesome to do that and I think a real benefit both to the current councils and the future generations to see what people were thinking."

Ian Record:

"So another follow-up question deals with this issue of instilling culture into governance, into the practice of governance. And you mentioned that it's one thing to have the Seven Grandfather teachings written on a wall and it's quite another to figure out how do you practice it in the actual activities of governance at the elected leadership level and throughout the governmental organization. You're a big proponent of that. In our discussions you've brought that up numerous times. Can you speak to the importance of a Native nation consciously working to incorporate in a systematic way its culture into how it governs, into the crafting of a strategic vision for the future of the nation?"

Eva Petoskey:

"Yeah."

Ian Record:

"Easier said than done, I know."

Eva Petoskey:

"Well, it's difficult because it goes to the issue of who can speak. And I think when I was younger I didn't feel as though I could speak, but I'm 61 years old and I'm not 80, but I always felt like it would be great if I could have had a group of advisors that were elders and my selection, my ideal selection of elders in our community would have been people over 80 because it seemed like the people I knew, including my own mother or other people I knew within my extended family and other people I knew in the community who were over 80 seemed to have developed a different view, even if they had some culture...if they had the culture intact, they had their language, but as you age something happens and you have a different view. You're facing that kind of eventually your own death and I think...one of our elders told me that, "˜If you have the good fortune to come close to death as a young person, you're very blessed.' And I thought, "˜Well, that's an interesting thing to say,' because usually we think of that differently. But he was saying that it gives you a different view, a longer view of life, what is really important. I think sometimes we have, I think, lost view of that. So I always wished I could have had a group of elders over 80 advising me. I did. I had my own mother so I was lucky. So I think having elders in the community, however that community defines that whether through age or through some other ceremonial leaders, I think that is wise. I think...I really believe that dialogue and consensus is culture because sometimes without that... you're growing a seed, you're growing a seed of translating your own traditional teachings and culture and language into your contemporary setting. So I always feel like people were going way too fast. I think one way to incorporate your culture into your governance is to slow it down, and maybe not in all contexts because some meetings have to be conducted maybe in a more rapid manner because you're dealing with so many issues, but there should be a time where people can talk together and maybe...then again, sometimes the constitution doesn't allow the tribal council to speak together on tribal issues outside of a meeting that's been called so that's kind of problematic, too. But maybe it's not the council speaking or talking in a formal way, maybe it's an informal meeting with the constituents, with your citizens where you can talk things through. That's what our Anishinaabe people always did, always. I observed it in my own life, people solving problems through talking it through until everyone had been heard and then what comes out of that is remarkable, it's powerful. Once everyone's been heard, all of those ideas can be used to take something forward. And if you're applying the Seven Grandfathers teachings, which are principles upon which you're to live and to treat other people that what comes out of that would be part of what we call [Anishinaabe language], which is to live a good life and that idea is central to everything that is in the Anishinaabe world view. I know that other people and other tribes have other words and concepts like that, but essentially, what it means is that it's the interdependence of all things so that you as a human being are connected to your own inner self. That's why I spoke my name and my clan. Your own spiritual and inner self, your own ancestral history, but it's not like you're standing there alone. You're in this web of relationships that are both inside you and outside of you and it includes not only all the human relationships, but it also, and this is very important I think going into the future, it includes all of the other living things on the planet and in the universe so it includes all the plants, all the animals, all of the water, the sky, the rocks, the moon, the sun, the stars, all of the ancestors, all of the spirits out in the cosmos, the whole thing is interconnected and that it is your responsibility as a human being to walk in a good way and in positive relationships with all those things. So I think in that way in the incorporation of the culture and I think as we are going forward...I know within our tribe some of us women have really been starting to talk very...amongst ourselves about the environment and how can our tribe take a position. This is very culturally relevant let's say for every tribe, and in our case it's the water, in our case in Anishinaabe worldview, women are the keepers of the water and so we...I think...so that's one way of how do you incorporate this into tribal governance in terms of setting the priorities for what the tribe does in the future and the vision of the tribe in the future, you have to have elders and people with that collective [Anishinaabe language] vision to speak up so that we're not just taking care of ourselves, which is important -- not at all to diminish that -- we're taking care of those inner circles of [Anishinaabe language], but we're also taking care of the larger circle of the planet that we live on, very important today. Every day we wake up with an acute awareness of how responsible we are and I think tribes have a lot of power in that way because I know we do. We still have...we still retain our inland hunting and fishing and gathering within the Great Lakes, within regions of the Great Lakes and within inland. So we have a lot to say about our environment and if I live long enough I'm going to continue...that's going to be one of my priorities is on the water and things like that."

Ian Record:

"Well, Eva, we really appreciate you taking some time to share your thoughts and experience and wisdom with us, really appreciate it."

Eva Petoskey:

"You're welcome."

Ian Record:

"That's all the time we have on today's program of Leading Native Nations. To learn more about Leading Native Nations, please visit the Native Nations Institute's website at nni.arizona.edu. Copyright 2013 Arizona Board of Regents."

Rebuilding the Tigua Nation

Producer
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development
Year

The Tigua Indians of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Ysleta, Texas produced this 16-minute film in 2013 to demonstrate how a Native American tribe can work hard with business skills and tribal customs to shape a prosperous future through education for all levels of the Tigua Nation.

Native Nations
Citation

Riggs, Patricia. "Rebuilding The Tigua Nation." Honoring Nations, Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Capstone Productions Inc. El Paso, Texas. February 27, 2013. Film.

Rebuilding the Tigua Nation

June 13, 2011

[Sirens/gunshots]

Narrator:

“We are the People of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. We came from the open lands of what became Central New Mexico and now we live in West Texas and our lands are surrounded by El Paso, Texas.”

Saint Anthony
Feast Day

[Gunshots]

Ysleta Mission

Narrator:

“In 1680 the Spaniards forced our ancestors to move here. They built this mission church in 1682.”

Javier Loera:

“In this display we have photographs and images of our mission, of our church, which we helped build. The oldest image, it’s actually a drawing, that we have of our mission is this one in the year 1881. It was a very simple structure without the added bell tower which was added a couple years later.”

Narrator:

“For more than 300 years our people have performed corn dances on June 13th at the Feast of St. Anthony.”

[Singing/bell ringing]

Carlos Hisa:

“It’s the way of life, it’s who we are, we’ve been doing this for hundreds of years and we just continue to do it. It’s who we are as a people.”

[Singing/bell ringing]

Narrator:

“The Tigua People honor our ancestors who kept the ceremonies and traditions, also the traditions of the elaborate feast preparations, which takes weeks to prepare for. Our people come together to share in the responsibilities to prepare for the feast, which is served after the rituals and blessings at the mission. These activities show that our tribe keeps the customs and practices that we have always valued. We now live in a modern world and must balance traditions with the present day needs. The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo has proven strong willed and has persevered over the changes of time.

Tiguas have been faithful to our traditions, sometimes hiding our ceremonies to avoid punishments from non-Indians. Our people have proven to be resilient time and again in our extraordinary struggle for cultural preservation.

Our struggle continued into the 1960s when a lawyer named Tom Diamond helped us get federal and state recognition as a Native American tribe.

As a declaration of tribal sovereignty and economic development efforts, the Pueblo decided to enter into casino gaming in 1993 and our financial future brightened. The State of Texas fought our right to have gaming in Texas and through a federal lawsuit managed to shut the Pueblo’s Speaking Rock Casino in 2002. The casino was profitable while in operation and provided for better healthcare, housing and education of tribal members. The Pueblo still runs Speaking Rock, but now it operates as an entertainment center.”

Trini Gonzalez:

“Speaking Rock has kept us afloat during this economic struggle, both money wise and also creating jobs for our tribal members. The success would have to be free concerts. We’ve used the concerts to draw people in to actually show people that Speaking Rock isn’t closed. A lot of people were saying, ‘Oh, it’s closed. It’s not a casino no more.’ Which it isn’t, it’s an entertainment center and we do provide quality entertainment for free to customers who come in here.”

Joseph P. Kalt:

“Well, when we look across Indian Country we see a consistent pattern of the tribes who get their act together and really worked successfully to improve the economic and social and political and even cultural conditions in their communities and Isleta del Sur Pueblo stands out as one of these examples. They show first what all these successful tribes have is a sovereignty attitude. Their idea is, ‘We’re going to do things ourselves. We are a sovereign nation and we can govern ourselves. We’re going to take those reins and we are going to put ourselves in control of absolutely everything we can.’

Secondly, and you see this at Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, they recognize that you can talk the talk of sovereignty and nation building, but you’ve got to walk the walk and what that means is you’ve got to be able to govern yourselves and govern yourselves well. And Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is an Honoring Nations award winner because it has invested very systematically in building its governmental capacity, its laws, its ordinances, its regulations, its accounting systems, its personnel policies, its judicial system in a systematic way to say, ‘We’re going to put ourselves in position so we’re not dependent on any other governments.’”

Narrator:

“Ysleta del Sur Pueblo has been building the capacity for economic growth. It has established structure and policy such as a highly capable economic development department, a small business development program and tribal ordinances dealing with corporation establishment and tax laws. The Pueblo was restored as a federally recognized tribe in 1987. Our goals are to preserve our culture, sustain our community and raise the standards of living for tribal members. We have built capacity over the years and recently established our long term economic development and nation building goals. Our entire Pueblo had input on the process.”

Patricia Riggs:

“We started this process to change and transform our community and through economic development, through education and through services and infrastructure so it was a whole comprehensive strategy that took place at Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.”

Joseph P. Kalt:

“Ysleta del Sur, what you see is another thing we see across Indian Country more and more and that’s an attention to culture, making what we call cultural match. The way they govern themselves here at Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is under a traditional structure with no written constitution. There is no contradiction for the Tiguas between having their traditional cacique system, no written constitution and running a very good day-to-day government because it’s founded in that traditional system. And having that cultural foundation underneath your government is absolutely critical. If it isn’t there, you’re not legitimate in the eyes of your own people and Ysleta del Sur stands out for recognizing that in everything they do they’re doing it based on and flowing from their traditions, their culture, their traditional governance systems. And then lastly, Ysleta del Sur also shows a fourth thing that stands out with tribes that are successful—leadership. Leaders not only as decision makers, but leaders as educators and the leadership at Ysleta del Sur has systematically invested in everything from the broad community to the youth with education on what it means to be a self governing Tigua nation. And so Ysleta del Sur Pueblo stands out for that sovereignty attitude, for strong capable tribal government founded on the tribe’s culture with a leadership that understands it needs to educate the people as to what this sovereignty game is all about.”

Narrator:

“In order to become effective in the modern world, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is striving to become a self determined and self sufficient Pueblo while preserving our cultural foundation. With our economic development plans now in motion, we have taken the first steps in forging a prosperous and strong Tigua nation and we have established Tigua, Inc. that operates tribal businesses.”

John Baily:

“We are the business arm for the Pueblo itself. We manage and operate all the business functions that contribute to the success of the Pueblo. We’re able to focus on a long term strategy and build that for five, 10 years out and really start implementing plans as we go down. So our goal is to develop the long term stream of profit and revenue that is repeatable regardless of the environment we’re in. We’re for real. We’re going to be a force to be reckoned with.”

Patient:

“Is it going to hurt?”

Dentist:

“No, you’ll be fine.”

Narrator:

“We have increased our administrative abilities and have created a grants management and program development branch of the Economic Development Department resulting in programs that provide health and other services.”

Al Joseph:

“And we’ve managed to build 63 new housing units last year after a big infrastructure project the year before so we’ve got a lot of projects going on to the total of about $20 million worth right now. The quality of life for the average Pueblo resident I think has been greatly enhanced by the combination of construction of new housing, very affordable housing and the rehabilitation of 160 houses on the reservation has definitely improved the quality of life for the residents that have been living in those houses, some of them for as long as 35 years. They now have modern, up-to-date housing that everything works and it’s a much nicer place to live.”

Narrator:

“One part of the economic development of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is the attention our tribe gives to educating tribal members on various subjects in order to improve individual quality of life and skills for all age groups.”

Christopher Gomez:

“Things are different now because we’ve gotten on the nation building path now where we’re doing a lot of long term visioning, we’re thinking beyond what’s coming ahead the next month, the next year and we’re thinking 20, 30, 40, even 100 years down the line. What do we want Tigua culture to be in a hundred years? Where do we want to see our community? That visioning has really put things into a different perspective.”

[Singing]

Narrator:

“With our Tigua youth, we stress tribal traditions and working together.”

Christopher Gomez: [to students]

“Here we have language, social dances, Pueblo arts, Tigua history, nation building, tutoring, traditional culture, Native American games, environmental issues…”

Christopher Gomez:

“We’re thinking about the next generations now. Just like we were left a legacy from the generations that came before us who established the Pueblo, we want to make sure that we’re continuing that legacy and that our people are able to in a changing world adapt and utilize new skills to be able to carry forward the Tigua legacy and really define what that Tigua legacy is.”

Narrator:

“Our younger children learn about computers and nature from tribal program experts. We have established new programs such as pre-K and modern care facilities where children are taught general education and tribal traditions through tribal arts and crafts. At the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo education for our people goes hand in hand with our economic development because as we increase our understanding of Native American heritage and strengthen the businesses of our tribe, we multiply the return to our people many times. It is a great time to be a Tigua as we graduate more members from college and create higher paying jobs. Outcomes include increased revenues and more programs and better tribal member services.”

Joseph P. Kalt:

“One of the things that Ysleta del Sur has done in its nation building efforts is it’s bootstrapped itself into this little engine that could, is it’s invested in communication and you can…any of us can go to their website and in their economic development section you’ll find a systematic laying out of the many steps that they’ve taken from community education, youth programs, the development of their strategic plans, the development of their laws and ordinances, the development of their new institutions, even their financial development. So Ysleta del Sur is doing a service to all tribes by providing this information in an easily accessible way and I encourage anyone who’s interested in how Ysleta del Sur has bootstrapped itself in this way, it’s on their website and it’s just a tremendous resource for anyone engaging in this challenge of building native nations.”

Trini Gonzalez:

“Recently we just got accepted by our brothers up north into the AIPC, the All Indian Pueblo Council and a lot of the Pueblos up there model themselves after us. They see that we’ve been a…I guess a big hitter here in our economy and the way we go after grants and the way our money is utilized, the housing that we do, the entertainment center the way it’s operated, our smoke shop. Everything that we do, it’s being looked at and dissected and I think that’s a huge feather in our cap to say that they’re looking at us to try to correct some things on their reservations.

The powwow enlightens a lot of people on the culture, the dance, the regalia, everything that has to do with a powwow let’s people know there is a tribe here in Texas and it’s Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.”

Narrator:

“In May 2012 our Economic Development Department opened the Tigua Business Center on tribal land in a renovated building.”

[Cheering]

Frank Paiz:

“The Tigua Business Center demonstrates the will and spirit of the Tigua people to grow and prosper. The tribal journey began at the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, which resulted in our migration to an establishment of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 1682. Since, we have been determined to preserve and continue Tigua way of life and flourish as a community."

Narrator:

“As our Tigua nation becomes stronger, we will continue our traditions and our success in this modern world.”

Carlos Hisa:

“We are Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. We are a community strong with tradition and culture. We have survived in the area for over 300 years and with economic development behind us, I can very easily say that we will continue to be here for hundreds of years.”

[Singing]

Rebuilding the Tigua Nation

2012 Tribal Council
Cacique Frank Holguin
Governor Frank Paiz
Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa
War Captain Javier Loera
Aguacil Bernando Gonzales

Councilmen
Chris Gomez
David Gomez
Francisco Gomez
Trini Gonzalez

Saint Anthony Dancers
Feast Preparation
Trini Gonzales Tribal Councilmen
Adult Tribal Social Dancers
Joe Kalt Harvard University
Youth Nation Building
Youth Financial Literacy Class

Pat Riggs, Economic Development Director
John Baily, CEO of Tigua Inc.

Tigua Inc. Board
Ana Perez, chair
Chris Gomez
Rudy Cruz
George Candelaria
Al Joseph

Housing Director Al Joseph
Empowerment Director Christopher Gomez
Cultural Center Dance Group
Tuy Pathu Daycare children
Pre-School Dance Group
Pow Wow Dancers

Producer
Patricia Riggs

Director
Jackson Polk

Camera
Aaron Barnes
Fernie Apodaca
Jackson Polk

TV Facilities
Capstone Productions Inc.

Funding provided by Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development Honoring Nations

Rebuilding the Tigua Nation © 2013 Yselta del Sur Pueblo

John Borrows: Who Are We and How Do We Know?

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

University of Minnesota Law Professor John Borrows (Anishinaabe) discusses how the Anishinaabe traditionally defined and practiced notions of social identity and belonging, and how those definitions and practices were rooted in relationships: relationships between those deemed to be part of the group, as well as their relationship with the natural world. He recommends that Native nations consider their own, Indigenous notions of identity and belonging as they tackle the challenge of determining what criteria for citizenship make the most cultural sense for them today.

People
Resource Type
Citation

Borrows, John. "Who Are We and How Do We Know?" Tribal Constitutions Seminar, Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. April 2, 2014. Presentation.

Ian Record:

"I have the great honor of moderating this next session. We're at session two in your agenda and in your booklets and the title of this session is "Key Things a Constitution Should Address: Who Are We and How Do We Know?" And we're going to be tackling a number of critical aspects of what we've identified from our ongoing research as key things that a constitution should address. It's not to say that these are all of the key critical issues, but the ones that we most often hear are issues that Native nations are struggling with, are tackling as they engage in answering this question of does this constitution meet those tests that Joan [Timeche] left you with at the end of the last session. And one of the most critical areas that we see tribes, First Nations in Canada struggling with is this issue of identity, of citizenship, of answering that question of who are we and then how do we either define or redefine a process by which we determine who can be a part of us. And we have the great fortune today to have with us a distinguished series of panelists and I will introduce them very briefly and then leave it to you -- if you wish to learn more about who they are -- to consult the rather lengthy biographies in your booklets there.

But the first panelist we're going to hear from is Professor John Borrows. John is a citizen of Ontario's Chippewas of Nawash First Nation, an Anishinaabe, and he joined the faculty at the University of Minnesota's School of Law back in 2009. Many of my colleagues know John well and regard him as one of the most innovative and influential thinkers and scholars when it comes to Indigenous law, not so much Federal Indian law, but Indigenous law. And we came across John -- and we thought he would be the perfect fit to serve on this panel -- when he partook in a seminar specifically on this question of tribal citizenship that the Bush Foundation up in Minnesota put on back last November I believe it was. And we were struck by his very thoughtful, deliberate approach and message to getting people thinking in a new and, I would argue, more cultural way about what citizenship means in the most fundamental sense of the word.

And then second, we are joined by actually two representatives from the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo in Texas. I've had the great honor and privilege of working with Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo over the last several years on a number of fronts. Most recently, last summer I worked with them on this very topic of citizenship. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo is currently engaged in a process to redefine its citizenship criteria and we thought that what better way to get you thinking about this critical topic than to hear directly from a nation who is currently engaging this critical issue. So just to give you a quick overview of how this session will proceed, John will speak first. He will share his thoughts and then we're going to turn it over to Carlos Hisa, who is the Lieutenant Governor from Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, and then Esequiel Garcia who is basically leading up the effort to understand this issue of citizenship within the community, to engage the community itself about this issue, and then ideally arrive as a nation to a consensus about how the nation wishes to define its citizenship criteria moving forward and then how that will actually work. So we'll hear from the two of them and then we're going to hold questions until the end. So with that I will turn it over to John."

John Borrows:

"[Anishinaabe language]. I'm grateful for the opportunity that I have to be able to come and speak with you this morning. It's wonderful to be here on Pascua Yaqui land. As I went out running along the buried cable road this morning, it was amazing to be able to watch the sunrise and to be able to hear the morning doves and see the little lizards scurry off through the sands and to be able to greet this day in this beautiful place.

I think this place can teach us a lot about what we might consider in our deliberations about citizenship, our deliberations about what a constitution might require. That is, we can look to our own lands, our own territories, our people and our own relationships to try to construct, to try to revive our understanding of who we are and how we should be appropriately relating to one another. And often those first messages about how to be a good citizen come to us as we take in the messages that occur when the sun shines on us, when we see the life around us and when we witness that surge of energy that takes place as we greet the new day.

When our ancestors signed treaties, they often talked about these agreements being for as long as the rivers flow and the grass grows and the sun shines. And I think there's a reason for that, which is that one of our most important sources of law is in the natural world around us. So to be able to understand what our criteria for judgments are, what our standards for decision making are, what are the guidelines that we might choose to follow as to how we would relate to one another, we would take a page out of what we've observed for as long as the river flows, the sun shines and the grass grows.

The Anishinaabe -- of which I'm one -- on the shores of Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Ontario have a word for thinking about law and constitutionalism that comes in this pattern, which is [Anishinaabe language]. That is literally our laws are [Anishinaabe language] the earth, [Anishinaabe language] they're taken by pointing to the earth and looking from lessons that are drawn from the earth. It's a derivation of our word [Anishinaabe language], which is the word to be able to teach. So how do we learn, how do we teach, how do we understand our laws? We look to [Anishinaabe language]. We look to the things that are literally written on the earth. So where are our laws? They are written on the earth. What are the texts of our cases? They are found in how the sun interacts with the birds in those first few moments of the day and then how those birds might interact with their surrounding ecosystem as the day develops.

The point I'm getting at here is as we think about the earth as our teacher and we think about our language in relationship to the earth, we can begin to understand how we might frame conceptions of citizenship. This notion of citizenship in Anishinaabemowin is actually linked to the word for freedom. Now I know you'll have different words and different languages, but the point is to go back to your communities and think about what the earth might teach you about how you should relate to one another and think about what your languages might teach you about how you relate to one another in thinking about these ideas as citizenship.

So, Anishinaabemowin talks about [Anishinaabe language], 'freedom.' If I was to say that I owned something, I would say [Anishinaabe language] if that was animate. And if it was inanimate, I would say [Anishinaabe language]. [Anishinaabe language] has the same root for 'ownership.' Freedom means some kind of ownership of our responsibilities, of our relationships. Did you ever think about citizenship in that fashion, the responsibility for owning your relationships? Our word for 'citizenship' then is [Anishinaabe language], the sense of almost a property-like type of responsibility, but not a western notion of property law where you alienate land or people from you, but a notion of Anishinaabe property law, which is about relationships and how we take responsibility for our relationships.

Many of our debates that we're having about citizenship throughout Indian Country don't fully involve our teachings as drawn from the earth and from our relationships or drawn from our language and we find ourselves talking about blood and we find ourselves talking about cutting off our relations. One of the greatest teachings that I learn about citizenship again comes from looking at, 'for as long as the river flows, the grass grows and the sun shines.' These are not concepts of cutting off and diminishing. They are concepts of energy, about enhancing, about growing, about seeing energy flow through the world and also seeing energy flow through our communities. So let me just talk a minute about rivers.

In Anishinaabemowin the word for river is...the mouth of the river is [Anishinaabe Language]. Now you know at mouths of rivers you find a place of great life. This is where all the energy comes off of the land by way of organic matter and it feeds this vibrancy of life with the fish and the plants and the birds of many different species that would gather there and then as the people of course come to use the plants and the fish and the animals and the birds in that place, this idea of [Anishinaabe language], the mouth of the river, is a place of nourishment, of growth, of abundance. And in Anishinaabemowin the word for 'love' is [Anishinaabe language], if I'm talking about something that I love that's animate, or [Anishinaabe language] if I'm talking about something I love that's inanimate. Interesting, legal principle, constitutional principle that in the behavior of the river, the abundance, the nourishment, the flow, the energy, the creation, the sustenance of life, is also how we should think about love. I would like to suggest that our citizenship codes, at least as Anishinaabe people, should look to those lessons and that language to think about what we might be able to do as Anishinaabe people to encourage that flow, to encourage that energy, to see that nurture and that nourishment flow to all our relations and not see them cut off by some artificial channeling that we might choose to put into that place. This word [Anishinaabe language] obviously is for as long as the river flows and our sources of law, how we are constituted, relate to how we are in the world around us. We are part of the world not separate from us.

Another word that I can think about that's drawn from our treaty languages, not just, 'for as long as the river flows,' but, 'for as long as the grass grows.' At this time of year, maybe just a little bit later throughout Anishinaabe territories, you get the small buds starting to come out on the branches, very, very nascent at this period but as the spring goes along you start to get the energy from the sun shining down onto the bark of the trees, on to the ground as it's eventually uncovered, and you get water flow up. When does water flow uphill? In the springtime around the Great Lakes as the saps start to go up and down those trees. [Anishinaabe language], this flowing again of energy, even against impossibility flowing up. What you have at the end of these branches or in the earth around is [Anishinaabe language] in the good earth season is you get these budding out of the leaves. [Anishinaabe language] related to [Anishinaabe language], which is our word for the flowing of the rivers related to [Anishinaabe language], our word for love from one another. Imagine crafting our citizenship codes by thinking about what the Creator has placed all around us by way of analogy and drawing from those analogies and seeing them as constituting who we are, all our relations [Anishinaabe language]. 'As long as the river flows and the grass grows and the sun shines.'

[Anishinaabe name] is the name of a little girl I know. [Anishinaabe name] is her father, Jason Stark. The name of this little girl is this name of the sun, [Anishinaabe language], the sun streaming its energy down upon someone so that that person can grow. But what it also means is the love gets streamed down on that little one so that she can grow and become a healthy person, a healthy citizen amongst the Anishinaabe.

What does it mean to be Anishinaabe? It doesn't mean the same thing as to be an Indian. What does it mean to be Salish or Blackfoot or Apache? What are the words in your language for citizenship, for who you are as peoples and what might be found in those words for setting your codes, your patterns of behavior for belonging? Anishinaabe, there's different ways that we could think about what this might mean for us as Ojibwe or Chippewa people, constitutionally speaking, in citizenship perspectives.

One of the words means as follows. When I was growing up, if I did something well, my grandfather would say to me, '[Anishinaabe language], that's good, [Anishinaabe language].' And the word for being in Ojibwe is 'naabe.' Anishinaabe, 'a good being.' What a great aspiration for citizenship that's been given to us by our grandmothers and grandfathers to try to be good in the world, to try to live such that that love can flow from us like those rivers, like that energy and the newly forming leaves, like that sun that shines down upon us. Anishinaabe or if you're a woman Anishinaabekwe. Better any day than an 'Indian.' Or sometimes if we're joking with one another you might say, '[Anishinaabe language],' I'm just saying nothing. [Anishinaabe language] means those who really are nothing meaning that we are the weakest in creation, that we follow a long pattern of reliance upon the world around us and if it wasn't for the sun and the plants and the insects and the birds and the fish and the animals, Anishinaabe, we would be nothing.

How many of our citizenship codes take a humble stance towards thinking how we might be constituted as a people? Notice the verbs that we're talking about here. Anishinaabemowin is 70 to 80 percent verbs. Everything's relational. It's about action. It's about the past, the present and the future. It's not about nouns. It's not about categorizations and if we think about citizenship in this relational, verb-oriented context, we might think about how are we relating to one another in the past, in the present and in the future. The beauty of taking Anishinaabe in its many different...can mean from whence the species was lowered. There are many different ways of working through this. It can help us understand that our traditions are living, legal traditions that draw upon how we are constituting ourselves today. So beware of a draft that tries to put within the four corners of a document a categorization, a noun. If you put your understanding of how you'll continue to constitute yourself within that document, make sure that there are many framings within that place that point you beyond the document, that point you to the living nature of your traditions.

Traditions can be the dead faith of living people or the living faith of dead people, and sometimes our traditions are a dead faith of us who are living today because we don't apply them. We want to preserve them, but in the preservation they are so housed and under glass looking cases that they don't have relevance in our lives. Our traditions can be the living faith of dead people, the living traditions of what our ancestors have passed along to us. A constitution is a living or should be a living tradition and therefore it should not just be about cultural match as important as that quality and criteria are. That is, our traditions change and in changing there are times that we go through our ways of being together that we have a conflict and that conflict -- as we look to the world around us -- can also be more effectively processed. That is, when we look to our traditions, we have to make sure that we leave room for the trickster.

We have stories that are taken from the land and our observations of those around us and in drawing on those stories we don't just seek for match. If we did not have the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in the United States, we might still have formalized informal discrimination against African-Americans, black people in the South in particular, but throughout the nation. That is the constitution existed to challenge tradition as well as facilitate tradition. Grateful -- I see my time is up -- to be able to speak to you just a few moments about what tradition might mean as you think about our languages, as you think about our stories, as you think about the world around us, as you think about the living nature of who we are as peoples. Again, I appreciate this invitation. [Anishinaabe language]. Thank you."

Patricia Riggs: The Role of Citizen Engagement in Nation Building: The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Story

Producer
National Congress of American Indians
Year

Patricia Riggs, Director of Economic Development for Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (YDSP), discusses how YDSP has spent the past decade developing and fine-tuning its comprehensive approach to engaging its citizens in order to identify and then achieve its nation-building priorities.

This video resource is featured on the Indigenous Governance Database with the permission of the National Congress of American IndiansThe "Rebuilding the Tigua Nation" film shown in this video resource is featured on the Indigenous Governance Database with the permission of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.

Native Nations
Resource Type
Citation

Riggs, Patricia. "The Role of Citizen Engagement in Nation Building: The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Story." 70th Annual Convention & Marketplace, National Congress of American Indians. Tulsa, Oklahoma. October 15, 2013. Presentation.

Ian Record:

"So I'll turn the floor over to Patricia Riggs. Again, she's the economic development director with the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and as she told me today, she's sort of their de facto chief of citizen engagement for their pueblo. Anytime they face a challenge in this arena, they tend to turn to her because she's done so much wonderful work in this area. Did you want to start with the video or with your presentation?"

Patricia Riggs:

"It's a little long. If you want to start it and then kind of go through middle and then restart it again."

Ian Record:

"So again, this is a video that Pat was involved with putting together. It's called 'Rebuilding the Tigua Nation.' Tigua is another name that refers to her nation and this again I think...think of this not just in terms of what it shares with you, but think of this as a viable tool of citizen education and engagement. We're seeing more and more nations do things like this. These videos that instruct not just their own citizens, but outsiders about who the nation is and what they're doing and why."

[VIDEO]

Patricia Riggs:

"Good afternoon, everyone. Hello. As Ian stated, my name is Pat Riggs and I'm the Director of Economic Development at Ysleta del Sur [Pueblo]. We started community engagement back in 2006. Of course at the Pueblo, there's always been some form of community engagement, but we had a very significant event that took place. If you paid attention closely to the film, we talked about the casino being closed down. In 1987, we were federally restored and there was one little clause in our restoration act that said, "˜The tribe shall not have gaming that is illegal in Texas.' So when the State of Texas started bingo and lottery, we decided that there was gaming in Texas so we opened our casino and they sued us and the courts held that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act didn't apply to the tribe, that the language in our restoration act superseded that. So we operated gaming from around 1992 to 2002. It was open for about 10 years and it first started as a bingo hall and then later on to Class 2 gaming. So when the casino actually did end up closed, we had invested quite a bit in infrastructure and the tribe had done a lot of good things with our funding or our revenues that we got for the tribe, but we were basically at a...we were in shock. There was this economic turmoil that was taking place that we didn't realize was actually going to take place. We thought that there was no way that we would lose the case, but we ended up losing the case.

So citizen engagement started out of the need to really find out what the community needed. What we started doing is really looking at different groups and seeing what their needs are and really trying to identify with the tribe and what they needed. This is just a picture of what we call "˜listening to our ancestors,' because everything that we do really does come from our history and who we are as a people and where we've been so just the fact that in spite of everything that's happened to us, it seems like...sometimes they call us the 'Bad Luck Tribe' because if something can go wrong, it happens to us. We got left out of the Treaty of Guadalupe in 1861 so we weren't recognized with the other pueblos. We ended up on the Confederate side of the line. Just things throughout history ended up happening.

Really a lot what was happening, too, was our own mindset and the way we thought as a community, so when the casino was closed we kind of stood at a standstill, we didn't know what to do, we were in shock. And I had been working at another location. I'd been working in the City of El Paso and the tribe asked me to come back and I was like, "˜Economic Development, hmm.' So I really didn't know anything about economic development, but I said, "˜I'll give it a try.' But when I came back, one of the things that I started doing is really listening and trying to figure out what was happening in the community. And so I heard in the video that Ian played before from Native Nations Institute, someone said that some of the challenges or the biggest challenges for the tribe come from within. So I'm really about training and trying to figure out what the community wants and so they started asking me to train different departments. And so I started paying attention to what the community was actually saying and to what some of our employees were saying and these are actual...their quotes, their statements that were actually said and they're things like, "˜Tiguas don't want to learn.' Everything was always blamed on tribal council and we all know that there's problems with councils sometimes, but sometimes I think we exaggerate those things because we don't want to move forward or we don't...we try to rationalize what we are or what we're not doing in our departments. So it was always about, "˜We can't do that because tribal council won't allow it,' "˜It doesn't matter.' Some of our non-tribal employees were saying that we couldn't do particular, they wouldn't do particular things because the tribal members would go tell council what they were doing and it was just, it was ridiculous, really. When you really sat down and listened to it and you put all the statements together, it was ridiculous.

So basically...so what we determined that we needed to do is really engage our community in education and try to really figure out who the community was because we know who we are as a people, we know our culture, we knew traditions, but we don't really know the community in terms of what needs do they...are out there, what are the poverty levels, what are the education levels, who's employed, who's not employed, what kind of skills do they have? And as far as doing a needs assessment we needed that, but we also needed to take an inventory of what we have or had in order to move forward. So we started doing different things to try and get the community engaged. And so this is what it looks like if you do the 'flyer method' and it just doesn't work. You send all these beautiful flyers out there and just get ready for everybody to come and they don't show up. So it was like, "˜Well, what am I doing wrong here?' And we were actually, at one point we even brought Native Nations Institute and we had a very small crowd there. So we thought about what we could actually do to get the community more involved.

So what we found is actually working with groups and even within the reservation there are special interest groups. We all have little things that...or subjects that we're interested in and what we found is to look for those core champions in your communities. And there's people who are really just very traditional and that's what they want to discuss and that's what they want to do in terms of who they are so we asked them, "˜Okay, how do you think that we can infuse tradition into the things that we're doing?' We also started working with youth. The thing about youth is if you work with youth and you train them and you honor them and you show their parents what they're doing, then the parents come, too. So we started figuring out how to get parents engaged as well. And then we did different things with leadership, with elders. One of the things that we did learn is that we really need to figure out how to work with each group and how to...and so through the little groups we got the whole.

The big thing here is you can't expect people to just come to you. As I showed the meetings with the flyers, it just didn't work. We had to find different ways to actually go out into community and to seek input. So we went to the elders. And I mentioned earlier that our casino had closed, but it's actually operating now as a sweepstakes center. So it's kind of we have... they look like terminals, but they're actually all hooked up into one network. So there are signs all over the place that say you're donating to the tribe and you're donating to our health, to our education. So we just got creative on ways to do things. It's not quite as revenue generating as it was before, but there's still funding coming in. One of the times I went to the elders and I wanted to do a survey with them and so they said, "˜Oh, no, we don't have time for your survey.' And I'm like, "˜But I have 'Free Play'.' And they, "˜Oh, Free Play, okay. Sit down.' So we started talking to them and then they found out some of the things that we're doing and they were engaged in that, actually came to where they actually wanted to participate in some of the events that we were having. And so they started making the food and sometimes we could pay them and sometimes we couldn't, but they were okay with that and they started assisting us in our events.

So then we also, one of the things that we did is in order to engage the community...there is no greater engagement than actually serving the community, so we started an AmeriCorp program and the AmeriCorp program, they work with the elders, they work in the cultural center, they work in emergency management, in environmental. So they're kind of our ambassadors for community engagement in different areas. The other thing is we do a lot of data collection and we do a lot of surveys, but when we do it we work with focus groups or we work with all the other little core groups and we educate them about why we're trying to collect the information. So we educate them first and then they are kind of our core champions or leaders so they go out into their groups and they tell either the other elders or youth or whoever it is that we're working with why it is important. So we educate them on how to educate the community on getting that information and we've been very successful in gathering information for our tribe in order to determine what it is that we're going to focus on, whether it's health or whether it's economic development. I'll show you a little bit more in a minute about the successes with data collection and also the projects that we're working on.

I know that one of the first times that Joe Kalt went to Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, I had been working in writing grants not just for the tribe, but also for the City of El Paso and I wanted a model, I wanted a matrix and I was like, "˜Well, do you have a matrix?' and it's like, "˜No.' So I realized, I think I really like to visualize what it is that we're trying to accomplish, but I kind of think very methodical. So I have to figure out what exactly it is that we're going to tackle, but I also realize that those kind of models and theories, they're for other communities, they're not really for us. We can't take somebody's methodology and use it at our tribe. So I started to look back and thinking like what is it exactly that we're doing, and this is what I came up with.

Well, one of the things is we have a purpose. No matter what it is that we're trying to tackle, whether it's constitutional reform or building entrepreneurs, there's a purpose there. So you find that purpose and there's also...but with that purpose, there's always passion and I'm so passionate about what I do. That's all I do. I have to have people drag me away from it sometimes, but there's other people in your communities with that passion. So look for the passionate people and then harvest the information. You really do have to harvest information and gather that input from your community, because that's who you're working for and that's who really is driving you to do what it is that you do.

The other thing is...so you visualize and then you assess and you plan. And I know it's kind of theory-like, but when it comes to your community, what is it that you're visualizing? Like for us, one of the things that we're working on is a land use plan and land acquisition. So when we're visualizing, I'm not doing this theory of visualizing, we're actually looking at the community and thinking about the things that we lost and the things that we need for ceremony and where...the places that it's going to come from, from the land and how are we going to be able to redevelop our lands and preserve our lands as they once were and then also rebuild our community as a village because we're used to living as a village and that was taken away from us. So when we're visualizing, that's...we're visualizing how we want to live. It's about how the entire...what the entire community sees. So then of course we can work, work, work, work, but at the end of the day we really do have to have something to show for it. So you do have to measure those impacts and the outcomes of what it is that you're doing because...and then you take it back to the community and show your successes and so you report the results.

And then here's basically the same thing with a little bigger snapshot, but in the end it really is about community, whether you're trying to figure out what the community wants, you start at the community; whether you're trying to figure out the data, you're getting it from community, you're trying to draw a picture of what your community really is, and then in the end you report those results back to the community and then you also try to determine what is driving the community and those are things such as the ceremonies and traditions and culture and just living together as a Tigua society for us. So we look at the core values and we reaffirm them by asking different people in the community and also about what is the best way to apply the things in a manner that...that will work in a manner that is fair to the entire tribe and to every sector of the tribal population.

So this is a little bit of our timeline and as far as our economy is concerned...so really what was happening to us, we had basically lost all our lands. We were living in a small part of El Paso in a little, basically it was a neighborhood. It really wasn't a reservation and we had, there were small adobe houses, most of them were one room. It was during the termination policy, so we really didn't have any hope of having a better life. We were just happy to be able to still be there and still be living as a community and still, even though we weren't federally recognized, we still held tribal elections, we still had our ceremonies every year, we still had people in charge of dong the things that...the doings that needed to be done for us to continue to survive as a Pueblo the best that we could. So of course the civil rights movement took place later and that's when people started to gain more confidence and to start asserting their rights.

So what happened in the 1960s is we were basically losing our few homes that we had left to tax foreclosure because it was the City of El Paso now and throughout there's a couple pictures that you'll see the entire, what our Pueblo used to look like, and because we weren't on federal trust land. And one of the important reasons that we start that film where we're crossing the highway and the tribal police are directing traffic for us is because that one spot is where our Pueblo used to be and we had stacked adobe homes. And the City of El Paso -- because we weren't federally recognized or had trust status -- they decided to have condemnation proceedings against our Pueblo because they needed that one spot that's a highway and they needed it to extend the highway. So they had condemnation proceedings and they condemned the Pueblo basically. So that is the center of our tribe and that's why we decided to start the film there.

So land acquisition and development and regaining and putting land into trust is very important for us so basically there was a lawyer by the name of Tom Diamond that helped us to get federally restored or federally recognized in 1969, but we were basically terminated on the same day because the State of Texas had a Texas Indian Commission, so they turned over the trust responsibility to the Texas Indian Commission. Well, there were some good things that happened out of that. We did get some new housing out of it and there was a few more jobs and some economic development took place. So in the "˜60s, basically our unemployment rate was 75 percent. By the "˜70s it went to about 50 percent and we went from a fifth-grade education to about a 10th-grade education. So then in '87 we were federally restored and the casino was thriving and our unemployment rate basically went down to three percent. We went from 68 acres of land that were transferred over during the time of restoration to 75,000 acres of land that we invested in with our casino revenues and then we also built a lot more housing. I think you saw in the film where the housing was. And then we...but then the casino closed because we were sued. So basically, we were really at odds, we didn't know what we were going to do.

So we started off by doing projections on our funding and what we had in reserves and we determined was that if we continued to operate in the same manner we would run out of money in seven years. So we had to decide what it is that we were going to do, so that's when we started this nation-building process and we started investing money in a development corporation, which is now doing federal contracting and we're located in probably at least five places throughout the country: Washington D.C., Virginia, California, Colorado Springs. And that also took forming a board and separation of business and politics and having a committee that turned into...later to the board. And so this education process, we're educating different people in the community.

One of the things we did is we educated the board on how to operate as a board, which started as an economic development committee and then they ended up the board. So now this... we reassigned the economic development committee and now they're being trained as how to operate as a nonprofit board so then we're going to replace them and they're going to become probably another board. So we just keep getting small groups and keep educating so that they can build the capacity to do other things. But in order to do this we really, really needed to know what our state was as far as a community is concerned. So we were able to really determine what our... who we were, where our people were located at, what the rates of unemployment were and poverty levels, household levels, individual household levels.

The other thing that happened to us in our restoration act is that the language in there said that the tribe shall consist of membership that is on the base roll and people descending from that base roll up to one-eighth blood quantum. They said that in 1987. So we quickly realized that in a few years we'd no longer exist as a tribe because we would lose that blood quantum. So the tribe decided that they were going...we went to Congress and it took us 10 years of introducing different bills, but we ended up just recently having the blood quantum bill passed. So in order to do this, we really needed to figure out who we were as a people because we needed to take that information to Congress. So this is what our community looks like now and we also studied the people that live outside the service area, our tribal members that live outside the service area as well, and what we're finding is really they left before economic opportunity because they're a little bit better off in terms of education and household income.

I talked a little bit about cooperative education and so what we're also doing in order to engage our citizens and get this information -- because we collect that information every single year from tribal members and we've been successful as far as getting the information -- but we also make sure that we give it back to them and that when we compile any sort of information that we give them the reports back, like whether it's health and if there's a diabetes report or whatever it is. But the other thing is we all come to these conferences because we work as professionals, but your average tribal citizen doesn't have that opportunity to learn the things like we're learning today, what's happening in the federal courts and what's happening as far as policy is concerned and even what happened with the Indian Child Welfare Act, and so we take that education to them. We make sure that there's money in the budget to educate our tribal members and we do everything from Indian law to nation building to...we have other people even come and do community engagement to let them know how important it is. We have financial literacy training, but we also do like board training. And so if there's a subject that we think is important for us to learn and what's on the agenda here and at other conferences, we make sure that we find a way to take it back to the community and to be able to train them so that they know. And even when we work with our departments who of course...there has to be some professional training there, a lot of times some of our tribal members don't have the capacity to be in those higher positions of directors, so we tell our directors, "˜We're going to put this training out for you, but you need to pick a tribal member and it doesn't matter if it's a secretary or a maintenance person or whatever it is, you need to bring them to this training also and you need to figure out how you're going to get that information back to your department as well.'

As far as community engagement and what it's done for us as far as impacts are concerned, these are some of the projects that we've worked on that have really made an impact in our community. One of the things is we did this huge comprehensive strategy and that's where we determined that we were going to do things like the Tigua, Inc. Development Corporation, we were going to do workforce development, land use plan, land acquisition plan. All those things were outlined in this strategy and there was focus groups and surveys that were on our website. And if you actually look at our website all the reports are on there as far as the information that the community provided to us and what we compiled and gave back to the community. So this comprehensive strategy, a lot of strategies and plans just end up on the bookshelf, but as you can see it didn't. We like to say that you need to plan your work and you need to work your plan.

The other thing is Tigua, Inc., the tribe provided the seed money for that and now they have really just taken off over the last couple years and getting significant contracts and they're doing a lot of building maintenance all over the country. They just recently got awarded the Wyler Building in California, which is the second largest government facility in the country to do maintenance. This is the Tigua Business Center that we just recently moved into about a year and a half ago and it also incubates Tigua, Inc., but it also serves as headquarters for our department, Economic Development, and we're also just now building another extension to it, which is going to be to incubate tribal member businesses, and we also have, because we really truly believe in educating the tribe and we're not quite there yet as far as having a college. We're building the Tigua Technology Center there, which is also going to help to provide the software that some of our tribal members need to get their business done like the costing and pricing for construction companies and for auto mechanics and CAD and those things that are really expensive that they can't afford as far as software is concerned.

And then also our tax code, this was one of the things that also came out of the comprehensive economic development strategy. For some reason, the tribe had decided that it was going to adopt the State of Texas tax code, which made no sense whatsoever. It was 200 pages long and we couldn't enforce it. And so what we did is we took a look at what would best serve our needs and we went from 200 pages to 20 pages and in less than a year we went from $58,000 a year to $1.2 million in tax collections. The allocation also is divided up for different programming. But I'm able to support our department because we get 30 percent of tax allocation and that's how I am able to turn that into some of the programming that we're doing.

Here's the feedback and it's really a snapshot of the feedback that we got back from the community and the things that they were concerned with in land use. So they were, the community of course was concerned with things like cultural preservation and being able to maintain our traditional practices, having land for residential use, commercial needs and agriculture, as well as transportation. So we determined what the best use of lands would be and through community engagement we also took an inventory of our lands and created a database that had all the criteria of our lands, as well as GIS mapping, whatever, if there were environmental assessments. And so we have a really defined database of all our lands and then we created a master plan and an acquisition plan. The acquisition plan isn't quite finished yet, but this timeline that we looked at started with the need to preserve our lands and we have these milestones where we want to have our master plan and do energy development and make sure that everybody has housing and those things. But then at the end it ends with cultural preservation, too, because it demonstrates 100 years from now that we're still here and our land is preserved.

And then also on one side we have all the modern and things we need to survive today, but we also have all the things that are important to us historically and culturally. When we started writing a master plan through community engagement, we had these and we had these maps of the land...of our land in big sheets and we had the community write what certain places of what they wanted the land to look like.

And also they put places like by the river, like for example, that is still important to us today but that...we have ceremonies at the river that we can't just go to the river anymore. We border Mexico, so everybody knows about the big fence at the river. So we actually have to go ask the Border Patrol to let us go to the river to do our ceremonies. So part of our master planning is to take over the acequias or the irrigation system or the canal system that we actually created 300 years ago. So we created this cultural life cycle that we would incorporate into our land use and master plan and it talks about where we are at birth and how we're being nurtured and the lessons we're learning and how we learn about our culture and then how as elders our roles change and that then we become teachers and we pass on this tradition and culture. So in our land use plan we...that bar that intersects across there talks about the different places that we're going to create to make sure those things happen. So we have things like a nation-building hub and also an elder center and places for teens to meet as well.

So these are...see those are pictures of maps that we used where the community actually drew what they wanted the community to look like, and these are statements that the community provided back. And then we also had different criteria as far as what the community wanted to see and graphed and charted what the community best wanted for our lands. So these are also places that we don't own yet, but they're what we used to own. And so in our land acquisition process, we want to buy these locations back and this is what we could do with them as far as economic development is concerned. And it seems like way out there, but in reality it really isn't. When you think about we just had 68 acres in 1987 and we have 75,000 acres now, it's attainable. And then so this is what our acquisition process is going to look like and how we mapped it. Everything that is in yellow is what we own and what's in the darker colors is our long-term acquisition. We know that we can't buy everything, but we do...those are the gaps that we want to fill in. I talked a little bit about our enrollment ordinance. Well, we're working on an enrollment ordinance, a new citizen engagement [process] because of the blood quantum bill that just passed last year. So I had thought that that was going to go to somebody else, but I just was told last week that that citizen engagement process would actually come to our department so that's something that we're working on now. This was just a little conversation that the team had last week and these are questions that we're really thinking about what we need to ask the community. It'll be much more comprehensive, but just basic things like what does citizenship mean to you and how did you learn how to be a good citizen from your parents and your community, and so that's the way we usually start with just the basic questions and then we move into real comprehensive model.

These are just a couple, I guess, pointers to just make sure that you try to identify what your tribe needs and also...and then as far as when you're working within your community just know that everything that you're doing is either going to impact your tribe either positively or negatively. And what the work [is] that you're doing, how is that going to actually help your tribe or not help your tribe because sometimes we're afraid to move forward and to change, but in order to change you really need to know what it is that your community wants and to respect what their thoughts are and what they want for the future. Thank you."

Richard Luarkie: The Pueblo of Laguna: A Constitutional History

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

In this informative interview with NNI's Ian Record, Laguna Governor Richard Luarkie provides a detailed overview of what prompted the Pueblo of Laguna to first develop a written constitution in 1908, and what led it to amend the constitution on numerous occasions in the century since. He also discusses the reasons Laguna is currently engaging in another effort to reform its constitution.

Native Nations
Resource Type
Citation

Luarkie, Richard. "The Pueblo of Laguna: A Constitutional History." Leading Native Nations interview series. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. April 3, 2014. Interview.

Ian Record:

“Welcome to Leading Native Nations. I’m your host, Ian Record. On today’s program we are honored to have with us Richard Luarkie. Since January 2011, Richard has served as Governor of his nation, the Pueblo of Laguna. He previously served as First Lieutenant Governor of Laguna and as a village officer for several terms and he is also a former small business owner. Governor, welcome and good to have you with us.

Richard Luarkie:

“Thank you.

Ian Record:

“You and I’ve had the opportunity to sit down and talk in the past on a number of nation building topics. I wanted to sit down with you today and have a conversation about another topic that we haven’t really touched base on yet and that is Native nation constitutionalism and constitutional reform and specifically the Pueblo of Laguna’s current constitution, how it came to be, and how it is changing. And I figured it would be beneficial if we start at the very beginning. What did the Pueblo of Laguna’s 'traditional,' unwritten constitution, if you will, look like before colonization and what core governance principles and institutions did it rely upon?

Richard Luarkie:

“Well, thank you for allowing me to be here again. For the Pueblo of Laguna, like many other tribes, our governance was based on traditional models, traditional teachings. Our creation story tells us that at the time of creation when our Mother created all entities -- deities, the world, the earth, the sun, the moon, the spiritual beings as well as the humans -- there was always leadership and there was always governance. And that governance, though, was fueled and inspired by values of love, of respect, of compassion, of responsibility, of obligation -- not necessarily rights, but responsibility and obligation to do our part. And so leadership was responsible for the caretaking of that and so that’s how I saw our governance systems run prior to any formal government system that came into play like constitutions. So like many other tribes the inspiration of tradition, the inspiration of spirituality, the inspiration of a way of being, in our language we say '[Pueblo language],' our way of life, is really how we governed ourselves. So that’s how we were structured as a government.

Ian Record:

“So in 1908 Laguna became one of the first Native nations to actually develop a written constitution and I’m curious, what prompted Laguna to take that step when it did and how did that written constitution compare to what you just laid out, basically the unwritten way of life that you relied upon for so long in terms of, during that time prior to colonization when that was the sole guide for how the Laguna people lived. How did, what prompted the Laguna to develop that constitution and how did it compare and contrast to that traditional way of life?

Richard Luarkie:

“Well, when the 1908 constitution came along, it was probably a result of a culmination of events, of issues. Laguna like any other tribe had its issues. During the 1800s, there was a lot of divisiveness going on, there was a lot of infiltration from different factions, there was the attempt to hold onto our traditional way of life, our traditional governance systems, but you had Protestant and Presbyterian and Catholic and still some influence from maybe even the Mexican influence and of course the federal government. So you had all this dynamic going on. But you also have now, the inclusion of Bureau [of Indian Affairs] schools, the Carlisle Indian School, the Albuquerque Indian School and all the other schools across the country that took our young kids away when they were small in the 1800s and now come the late 1800s, early 1900s these kids are home and they’re now adults and they’ve been groomed in a manner of how is it that we should govern ourselves. So they’ve learned a whole new system so they began to utilize those teachings. What was also maybe, I don’t think it’s unique to Laguna because I know other tribes and in particular other pueblos this has happened to, but we had three Anglo governors during the end of the 1800s that were married into the tribe. They were Presbyterian and that became a strong influence during that time period and that’s what helped to architect that first constitution.

Understandably though, our local community saw that as looking at it maybe constructively...also recognized that the federal government through the recognition by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 when he recognized the 19 Pueblos by granting us a cane recognizing our sovereign authority. They recognized that acknowledgment. And so as a way to maybe better communicate with the federal government, they saw this as a tool. So it was then adopted by our council and when you read through the 1908 constitution, there’s still remnants of the time before where you had a leader and that leader was, it literally says in the 1908 constitution, ‘The governor is the supreme ruler,’ because prior to that the religious orders are what they call our caciques at the time, they were the ones that appointed the leadership and the leadership then had full authority. But when the constitution came in that changed and so, to a certain degree, and so you began to see remnants still sticking there within the constitution, but I really believe that it was for the purpose of trying to find compromise, trying to find a way to hold on to our traditional way of being, but also prepare for how is the future moving and how do we communicate with those other forms of government in the future.

Ian Record:

“So in part it was to enable outsiders such as the federal government to make sense of who Laguna was and what they wanted to preserve perhaps?

Richard Luarkie:

“I believe it was a way to make sense of who Laguna was, but also I think very, I think intelligently a way for Laguna to protect what it had and using the government’s tools to do that.

Ian Record:

“So that was in 1908 and we’re sitting here in 2014. So you have now 106 years as a Pueblo with a written constitution and I’m curious, how has that 1908 constitution evolved over the past now century plus?

Richard Luarkie:

“It’s real interesting because you begin to see, we’ve had four constitutional amendments since 1908. So you begin to see a shift from authority of one person to the authority being given to the council. You also begin to see a watering down, if you will, of maybe the practice of core values to more formality in how governance is done. And so what I mean by that is the 1908 constitution was in place for almost 50 years.

The first amendment took place in 1949 and so in 1949 that amendment took place for two pieces. The first one was to adopt the IRA because we now became an Indian Reorganization Act tribe. We adopted that. Even though it was not required, the government, the leadership at the time of the Pueblo felt that this was a way to enhance our ability to continue to work with the government. So we became an IRA tribe. They adopted that. They also adopted the membership process. So as a part of the 1940 census they wrote that in. So we began to see membership. But at that time membership was based on residency, it wasn’t based on blood quantum or anything like that. It was based on residency and it also demonstrated core values because if you were helping, you were taking care of your family, you were being part of the community, even if you were not from there, you applied for membership, you were considered for that membership and in many times given membership. So we have individuals that were from another tribe married in at Laguna applied for membership during that timeframe and on paper are four fourths Laguna. So those are things that happened during that time period.

Then we saw a short nine years later we saw the constitution amendment take place again in 1958 and we saw that core value practice begin to shrink and the driver in the 1959 constitution was revenue because now we went from having almost no revenue to having millions and the reason that happened was because of the discovery of uranium on our reservation. So in a short nine years the constitution had a major change. So we implemented blood quantum at that time period. So we went from a value of being a part of the community to defining who’s going be a member based on blood driven by dollars.

And so the other piece that also came in that was very critical during that time period was our tribal court system. So our tribal court system was adopted in the 1958 constitution. So we went from again that membership of being half Indian to half Laguna, tribal courts and per capita. So now we have those three things now being implemented into the constitution. And we began to see that the governor from the 1908 to the 1949 to the 1958 constitution, we’re beginning to see a shift of authority being given to, from the 1908 to the 1949 to the staff officers, away from the governor and in the 1959 constitution, ’58 constitution we begin to see more authority be given to the council, so from the governor to the staff now to the council.

And so now jumping to 1984 we saw another amendment. And so in 1984, the amendment that took place that was most significant there was again related to blood quantum and we reduced the blood quantum requirement from one half to one fourth and the driver for that is we were seeing more, we were seeing a declination in people being enrolled because nobody was meeting that blood quantum anymore. So that was a driver. The other piece of it was that it was an effort to make parents or grandparents, guardians, whoever more responsible for getting their children enrolled. So what also went into that constitutional amendment was that from the time a child is born, the parent, guardian, grandparent, whoever, they have two years to enroll their child. If they miss that two years, they’re out of luck. They can’t become a member, even if they’re four fourths. So that happened in 1984.

So in 2012, we did another constitutional amendment and the constitutional amendment was for two specific things: to remove secretarial approval and to remove the two-year restriction. So the secretarial approval one was pretty straightforward and so that we began to move down that path of being responsible for our own way of governing. The removal of the two-year restriction was an effort to try to get back to that core value because we constantly remind and we tell our people, ‘Love one another, respect one another, be good to one another, be inclusive,’ but if you’re not one fourth, you can’t be a part of us. That’s not consistent with that teaching so we, and if you miss that two-year timeframe, you’re out of luck. And so we removed that so that we can begin the process in that, and so the two-year restriction was removed. And the reason we shared with people is that it makes sense, there’s nothing wrong with people being made responsible to get their children enrolled, but what about those children that didn’t have a chance, that got adopted out. They never had a chance because they didn’t have a parent, they didn’t have a grandparent, they didn’t have anybody and it’s not fair to them.

So what about those people that traditionally, there in our part of the country when a male marries a female, he goes with her family land if she’s not from our Pueblo, obviously he leaves our Pueblo and back in the ‘40s, ‘50s, prior to that, they actually relinquished their rights and went with that other tribe. So if they did the right thing, life happens, maybe the spouse passes on, then this person, because of that two-year restriction is now out of luck, but this now gives them the opportunity to come back to the Pueblo. So those were the drivers behind those amendments and so we’re now beginning dialogue as a directive by the tribal council to now go to that next step of looking at blood quantum and so we’re preparing for that discussion this year with our community, which will probably, if they want to change that, lead to another constitutional amendment.

Ian Record:

“I was going to ask about these 2012 amendments. You and I have had this conversation in the past, but I think it would be helpful to go into a little more detail, because I remember you saying that one of the reasons why you guys tackled that first was to remove the consideration of the feds, of an external actor, if you will, from the deliberations about how do we want to constitute ourselves moving forward? What do we want our constitution to look like where we can basically base it solely on what’s in our best interest and not so much what will the feds approve or not approve of? Can you talk a little bit more about the mindset behind saying, ‘Okay, we’re going to deal with that first. We’re going to get that out of the way and then we can sort of focus on these huge constitutional challenges we face like blood quantum?

Richard Luarkie:

“Right. For our Pueblo we’ve done a lot of, taken a lot of time to look back at history and the implications of policy, federal, all the way back to the Spanish period and the church, the Catholic Church, the Protestants, all those implications, what’s happened. We’ve had also the great fortune to hear individuals like Mr. Jim Anaya and individuals talk about those areas of Indigenous rights and the areas of non-recognition to recognition to now the responsibility of that recognition.

So for Laguna, it was really embracing the ideology of the responsibility for that recognition and in order for us to be responsible, we have to make our decisions in the manner that best fits us, not only on paper and in constitutions, but here and here. It has to make sense to us. And when you have an external body saying, ‘Well, that doesn’t conform with this code or this whatever,’ that’s inconsistent. And so it was a significant driver for us to be able to remove that so that we can then move forward and make these much larger decisions because even things as simple as ‘Indian.’ When you look at the 25 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] they have ‘Indian’ defined this way. When you look at ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act], it’s defined this way. When you look at housing, it’s defined this way. So we’re defined for convenience. We needed to take that out of the way and we need to define who we are. And so those were our drivers.

Ian Record:

“It’s interesting, Laguna’s not the only one that’s taken that approach. There’s a growing number of other nations that have basically come to that same realization that, ‘if we are serious about taking full ownership in our governance again and understanding the often insidious forces that were at play, external forces that led us to have the system we have now that is not perhaps true to who we are, we’ve got to get that other actor out of the equation, that Secretary of Interior out of the equation.’ But you still had to go through a secretarial election, right, to get that out and I’m curious. We’re spending part of the conference this afternoon talking about that very topic of secretarial elections and removing the Secretary of Interior approval clause and you guys just recently went through the secretarial election and that’s often a very scary proposition for tribes is to think, ‘Oh, not only do we have to reform our constitution internally, but then we’ve got to go through this bureaucratic sort of often drawn-out process at the federal end and I was wondering if you can perhaps paint a brief picture of what it was like for Laguna, what some of the challenges were in that secretarial election process, perhaps any advice you could give other nations for navigating that process effectively so they can actually get through that election process and then perhaps return to the more important matter at hand.

Richard Luarkie:

“Well, for Laguna, one of the things that was beneficial for us is the relationship we had with the Bureau in our area and them understanding the whys -- why we want to do this -- and the whole purpose behind it and educating them on that. Once we had that piece, and it wasn’t a challenge for us. We’re fortunate we’ve had a good relationship so that wasn’t a big challenge. What was interesting to me and where the challenge fell was with our elders and the older population because their pushback was, ‘Well, if we remove secretarial approval, then we’re relieving the federal government of their trust responsibility,’ and we’re saying, ‘No. No, that’s not right.’ And so what it caused us to do was go through this whole process of educating and reeducating our community and reeducating and so it took us, we started this, gosh, [in] 2005. So it didn’t happen just overnight, but it took some iteration and most important, the most important ingredient was the education. So we still have, to this day we still have some elders saying, ‘That was not right because you relieved the federal government of their trust responsibility.’ You have the other end of the spectrum, our younger people jumping for joy saying, ‘It’s about time. Why are we letting the government do this to us?’ So it’s a growing pain and I think we need to even after the process has taken place, we need to continually educate of what does this policy mean and what are the implications and what does it mean to be a sovereign tribe, a sovereign nation.

Ian Record:

“So I’m glad you touched on citizen education because I wanted to ask you some more questions about that. You mentioned that just around this issue of these two amendments that you passed in 2012, that there was a several-year education process that went into place and I would imagine that that as you said continues on with some of the conversations you want to continue to have around the constitution, whether it’s blood quantum or something else. What approaches have you taken to that task of citizen education, of citizen engagement? What’s worked, what hasn’t? I would assume you’ve learned quite a bit from the citizen interaction you’ve had around this topic over the last several years and that you plan to apply to continuing the conversation with them now.

Richard Luarkie:

“One of the things that has been helpful is consistency and what I mean by that is we’ve, in particular to our constitutional review and amendments, we’ve established a Constitution Review Committee. Since our last amendment we’ve disbanded it, but over those years, once the council decided and the community decided that we need to do a constitutional change, that committee’s been consistent so from administration to administration, whether I’ve been the governor or not, we’ve not changed that committee. So the consistency has been there.

The other pieces that we started the conversation with the community, asking them, ‘What do you think needs to change? Here are the things we’re suggesting and here’s why.’ And so having their input was critical. The other piece is educating the council because if the council doesn’t understand and they’re being asked and it contradicts what you’re telling people, it creates a whole fireworks of assumptions and, ‘Well, he said, she said,’ kind of things and so making sure the council understands what’s happening.

And so I think those are really important things and making sure that there was clarity. And obviously with a larger community it’s more difficult to manage that communication, but I think those pockets are real important. And in our community, we have six villages so in our council meetings...every Thursday we have village meetings so that’s communicated to the villages so the villages have the opportunity to ask questions and pose comments or what not to get back to the council for consideration. And so those are the communication streams that we used. And so the point I’m trying to make is that communication was probably the key element in this constitutional amendment.

Ian Record:

“So you mentioned earlier that revisiting the blood quantum as a prime criteria for determining who can be a part of us and who can’t is something that you’re revisiting. Are there other areas of the constitution or other things that people are talking about integrating into the constitution? I guess I’m trying to get a better handle on what sort of constitutional issues will Laguna be tackling in the near future?

Richard Luarkie:

“That’s probably going to be the biggest one right now. The other piece of it, our offices,  we have a tribal secretary and we have a tribal interpreter and we have a tribal treasurer that are elected officials, but in the constitution it says that they have no governing authority. They’re basically elected administrators. So the question in the community has been, ‘Do we need to elect those positions or just hire full-time with people that have the background to fulfill those particular roles?’ What it’s going to cause is really the requirement to go do a whole job description and those kinds of things because right now in the constitution their job description is as an example tribal secretary, keep the meeting minutes, that kind of stuff and that’s it. So those kind of minor things I think we’ll see addressed in the future, but I think right now the focus really is going to be on this larger element of blood quantum and how do we maintain our tribe, how do we maintain identity as well as protecting our sovereignty going forward. And it’s a, I think it’s going to be a much larger conversation than just blood quantum because when I think about sovereignty, in my mind sovereignty isn’t a definition, of course they’re out there in a dictionary or whatever, but to me sovereignty starts here. Sovereignty is a community thing and I think that is going to be part of what’s going to be woven into this whole conversation of moving forward on blood quantum because it’s going to touch a lot of other areas.

Ian Record:

"Governor, we really appreciate you taking some time to sit down and share your thoughts and experience and wisdom with us."

Richard Luarkie:

"Yes. sir. You're welcome."

John Borrows: Anishinaabe Principles of Citizenship and Identity

Producer
William Mitchell College of Law
Year

University of Minnesota Law Professor John Borrows (Anishinaabe) provides an overview of how Anishinaabe people defined citizenship and identity traditionally, and how the cultural principles embedded in that traditional definition possess great power to inform laws defining tribal citizenship today. 

This video resource is featured on the Indigenous Governance Database with the permission of the Bush Foundation.

People
Native Nations
Resource Type
Citation

Borrows, John. "Anishinaabe Principles of Citizenship and Identity." Tribal Citizenship Conference, Indian Law Program, William Mitchell College of Law, in conjunction with the Bush Foundation. St. Paul, Minnesota. November 13, 2013. Presentation.

"[Anishinaabe language]. I'm grateful for the opportunity that I've been given to be able to come and speak with you today. This is an incredibly important topic, and I'm thankful that we had this amazing presentation about the historical context that we can now talk about these things. When my daughter was young, someone asked her who she was. So she came to me one day and asked me who she was and she said, 'Am I some kind of money Indian?' I couldn't figure out what she was meaning there. 'Am I some kind of money Indian?' she said again. We talked a little bit about what she was trying to get at -- she was maybe five, six, somewhere around there -- and through prompting and eventually she said...through prompting, it eventually occurred to me that someone had tried to identify her as a 'quarter Indian' and in her mind she saw her Indianness as related to money when this notion of quarter was talked about.

What a scary thing to be able to introduce into a child's life in thinking about who they are fundamentally in the world, to be able to calibrate worth based on money, to calibrate dignity based on quarters. I think we can do better than that. And I want to talk today about some of the wisdom that's found within Anishinaabe law that might have us work through this on a different basis. I want to talk about principles that we can identify, that we could measure Indian status against, that we could measure what we do when we think about citizenship against. And if our laws fall short of these principles, they might be valid in terms of the passage by a council, by recognition under federal Indian law, but I wonder if they are valid in relationship to those things that have been passed onto us through time. That is, are the laws that we're working with really the principles, the standards, the criteria that our ancestors wanted us to follow in creating sense of community?

The first thing I want to talk about is [Anishinaabe language], love. Do our laws foster and encourage love when we are thinking about citizenship? If our laws get in the way of love by cutting people out of our extended family or immediate family relationships, I want to suggest that they are not facilitating love. [Anishinaabe language], an Anishinaabe word, has a couple of different meanings attached to it.

I was talking to an elder that lives at home on my reserve, Basil Johnson, about this idea and he talked about [Anishinaabe language] or love as being reflected in the landscape around us. We have this concept as Anishinabe people called '[Anishinaabe language].' That is, we learn about what our behavior should be by observing the earth. Our laws are literally written in and on the earth. Our textbooks are found in the flowing of the rivers and the passage of the clouds and the sound of the wind in the trees, [Anishinaabe language]. And so as I asked him about love, he referred to me a feature that's close by, a river, called [Anishinaabe language].' It refers to the mouth of the river. What happens at the mouth of the river? You have this great outflowing of energy, you have this great outflowing of nutrients that nourishes a whole range of life that's at that zone where the river meets the bays and with that [Anishinaabe language] you get growth, you get life, you get strength. He was suggesting to me that our laws that might help us calibrate how we should relate to one another, these ideas of citizenship are related to [Anishinaabe language]. If I wanted to say, 'I love you,' I would say, '[Anishinaabe language].' I want that flow between us that encourages growth.

There's another meaning though to this word. It means to be stingy. It means to be close with those that you are around. So if I say to my wife, [Anishinaabe Language], it means I'm being stingy with her; I want her to be a part of my circle. I wonder when we think about blood quantum in particular in setting rules for citizenship if it follows this idea of flowing out of energy and of then holding close to you those people that we love and if blood quantum is diminishing that ability of us to be able to create those relationships I would question as to whether or not that is [Anishinaabe language]. It's one principle that we could look at to measure our citizenship.

We have other principles. As I introduced myself today, I said [Anishinaabe language], I am of the Otter dodem. Whenever I go across [Anishinaabe language] and I meet someone that's a member of the Otter dodem, I know their family, and historically we would have had mutual rights and obligations with one another. My reservation is on the shores of Georgian Bay in Ontario about four hours north of Detroit, about three hours north of Toronto. If I traveled from the Cape Croker Indian Reserve, [Anishinaabe language], to these places just north of here that are Anishinaabe and I encountered someone who is [Anishinaabe language], I would know that they were family and I could think about citizenship not being arranged hierarchically but being arranged vertically. Difference in orientation in thinking about citizenship, if we started to imagine our relationships as being spread out as opposed to being aligned in a hierarchy, blood quantum often aligns us in that hierarchy and doesn't spread us out across the land in the way that made us strong as Anishinaabe people for thousands of years.

Dodem -- there's an interesting etymology to that word. The Anishinabe word for heart is [Anishinaabe language], dodem, heart is a part of what we think about when we identify family members, when we talk about dodem. And to what extent do laws aimed to citizenship build that sense of family, build that sense of heart. That etymology is found in the word for town, [Anishinaabe language], where people live together in the sense of being joined at the heart or there's a sense of a gathering place where the heart of the community is found. I believe that there are important principles to measure our citizenship laws that flow from our family laws. Are our citizenship laws anti-family by cutting out our heart, by cutting out those that we should consider close to us; love, family, criteria for citizenship?

The third one: When I introduced myself I said, '[Anishinaabe language].' Hello all my relations. Who are my relations? You are my relations. As I came to this place today, I noticed the beauty that surrounds with the plants and the trees and the birds and again the livingness. When we talk about [Anishinaabe language] as Anishinabe people, there's an encouragement there to be generous in who we identify as a part of us, to be open in thinking about others as being a part of us. When we begin ceremony, we often try to encourage this understanding by putting down tobacco, [Anishinaabe language]. That is, there's a sense of reciprocity that's involved when we ask for help as to how we should proceed because we realize that we are nothing without our relations. We need all our relations to be fully Anishinaabe and if we don't practice that sense of reciprocity and if, through our citizenship laws, we find ways to narrow our world of relationships, we are not being consistent with our ceremonial paths, we are not being consistent again with what we learn as we look at the world around us.

[Anishinaabe language]. What the earth's teachings are to us, when you look at an ecosystem, you understand that the strength of that place does not come through a monoculture. You need a variety of plants to be able to sustain and support one another. If you get into a monoculture situation, what occurs is that ecosystem becomes endangered, because if a disease comes along or if something comes along that targets a particular strain and it happens to be the strain that's dominant, you will lose the vibrance, the vitality, the strength of those relationships. There's an economic term for this too, it's called diversifying your portfolio. When you make an investment, you don't just put your stock into one industry. You try to ensure that your money is placed across different opportunities for development because as one struggles, another might be drawing strength and you can even out through time the possibilities of you sustaining yourself in that way. It's so important to think about [Anishinaabe language], to think about all our relationships, to think about the ecosystem approach to understanding citizenship: love, family, relationships as criteria for judging citizenship.

We also could do well to think about what citizenship means in our languages and in [Anishinaabe language], the word is [Anishinaabe language]. It flows or is closely related to a word [Anishinaabe language]. What's this word for citizenship? What's this word? It actually means 'freedom,' freedom in a particular way, freedom with a sense of ownership attached to it. [Anishinaabe language] is like to own something. [Anishinaabe language] is to own the responsibility that we have in our relationships. Do blood quantum laws, do our citizenship laws encourage that sense of freedom, owning the responsibility for our actions in ways that enable us to flourish, to think about freedom in its broadest conceptions?

When my great-great grandfather was a young man growing up on the shores of Georgian Bay, he was a runner. He was charged [by] the chief and council of taking messages to the Anishinaabe communities around eastern Great Lakes areas. So he would run from Cape Croker, which I again told you is about three hours drive from Toronto, four hours to Detroit. He would run to Toronto in four days. He would run from Toronto to Detroit in eight days. How did he do that? Because he was free, because he was raised by women who knew about medicines and food and as he went from place to place to place, he didn't have to carry his groceries on his back because he knew where those plants were that would sustain him as he was making his way from community to community. He was free. Do we, in the way we think about citizenship, encourage this type of freedom?

Again, talking about Basil Johnson, I asked him what freedom means. He gave me these words and he said, 'It's that you're free to come and go as you please. That's what it means to be Anishinaabe. That's what it means to practice our citizenship, to practice it in the sense of owning responsibility. Freedom isn't just carefree, do what you want. There are obligations that we have. Do our citizenship laws encourage and develop freedom or do they cut us off and prevent us from being fully who we can be in the world? So there is this sense of love and family and relationship and freedom that we might use to look at our laws.

I want to also have us consider in our own languages what are our names for ourselves because there were no Indians in North America 500 years ago. That is an invented concept. My grandpa, when he was on the earth, used to make fun of this word and he said, 'We're Indians because Columbus got lost looking for India.' He said, 'It's a good thing he wasn't looking for Turkey. We would be in trouble at that point.' But these are invented concepts, 'Indian.'

So who are we? We are Anishinaabe. There are great criteria for citizenship that are embedded in the languages that we have and our names for ourselves. What does it mean to be Anishinaabe? My grandfather told me that that means to try to be good. Our word for 'good in the world' is [Anishinaabe language]. [Anishinaabe language] is 'man.' Anishinaabe, someone who tries to be good. Is there this element that's embedded in blood quantum?

Another word is [Anishinaabe language]. [Anishinaabe language] means 'nothing.' [Anishinaabe language], those who are pitiful, those who are the least of creation when we compare ourselves to the plants and the animals and the birds and the clouds and the winds and the rivers and the escarpments, [Anishinaabe language]. And what an amazing thing to then craft our laws in the sense of this humility, that we don't think that we have the power to be able to cut off those who are family and are close friends because of some foreign concept of Indianness, which was not a part of who we are. So, love, family, relationships, freedom, nationhood, Anishinaabe.

I also want to suggest that healing can be another part of what we think about as criteria for passage of laws. The Anishinabe have a way of engaging in healing which is to look to [Anishinaabe language]. [Anishinaabe language] means 'strength.' [Anishinaabe language] is the earth. How are we healed? Through [Anishinaabe language]. There's this strength that comes from the earth that we can take into ourselves that we can use again as criteria for understanding our responsibilities. There's this historic problem that encountered as Anishinaabe people. They're called [Anishinaabe language]. It means kind of dirty, [Anishinaabe language]. Someone becomes cannibalistic, consumptive. As they are going about their activities, they take everything to themselves in a way that's never satisfied. They're voracious. The sense is that it's never ending in the appetites that we have. When we had [Anishinaabe language], what happened? You would often read about the stories that they would take their teeth and they would tear open the veins at their wrists and they would drink their blood and what Anishinaabe people tried to do when [Anishinaabe language] were doing that is apply the strength of the earth and there's lots of [Anishinaabe language] stories that give a legal process for the healing of a [Anishinaabe language]. [Anishinaabe language] were rarely killed. Those are the stories that get the attention but that was the last step in the attempts to deal with a person that was harmful.

Now, blood quantum can be in my view likened to a [Anishinaabe language]. It's consumptive, it's voracious, it never ends in searching for that perfect moment of finding that blood quantum. I've heard it said that blood quantum is the vampire of Anishinaabe and Indigenous communities, sucking the life out of us by paying attention to blood. We need this healing from the earth, [Anishinaabe language], this ability to be able to stop...stop that flow of people being cut away from us.

Final point: Anishinaabe people like to think in sevens. This idea adding to love and family, relationships, freedom and healing is the sense of sustenance, looking to [Anishinaabe language], looking to things that create life. I talked about our laws being [Anishinaabe language]. [Anishinaabe language] is something that you make up and when I talked to Basil about laws he actually doesn't like that word. He prefers [Anishinaabe language], because rather than making it up in thinking about law, [Anishinaabe language] implies something that's been a long time. [Anishinaabe language] means 'a long time.' [Anishinaabe language] and thinking about building our laws, our customs around [Anishinaabe language] enables us to think about alternative paths than the ones that were presented to us by Bethany [Berger].

Now, these are very broad concepts that might seem too ambiguous to enact as legal principles. Let me suggest that the concepts of equality and liberty and security and assembly and freedom of speech, etc., are also vague, ambiguous concepts, but they're given meaning through practice and through interpretation and Anishinaabe people can give meaning to these concepts through practice and through interpretation. As we do so, I believe we will be stronger as a people. We will then be able to fight the challenges that this presents to the government by claiming that we are going to be a larger people than they want us to be. We are going to have greater numbers in the future with greater talent spread amongst those numbers as we grow our nations.

When I was visiting in New Zealand, I appreciated what the Maori did in their laws. When someone got married, they married in rather than marrying out if they married someone who is biologically non-Maori. And that has brought a strength to that nation in terms of their numbers that is just that's almost impossible to calculate. Anishinaabe or any Native nation might think about taking the paths of love, family, relationships, freedom, nationhood, healing and sustenance because I don't want my children to be money Indians. I want my children to be Anishinaabe in the best sense of the word. [Anishinaabe language]." 

Eldena Bear Don't Walk: So What's So Important about Tribal Courts?

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Eldena Bear Don't Walk, Chief Justice of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, discusses some of the things that tribal justice systems need to have in place in order to be effective, and how important it is for Native nation governments and citizens to respect and support the decisions those systems make. She also reminds that people need to remember that many if not most tribal justice systems are in the early stages of development, and that their continued development must be cultivated.

Resource Type
Citation

Bear Don't Walk, Eldena. "So What's So Important About Tribal Courts?" Emerging Leaders Seminar. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. November 7, 2013. Presentation.

"I'm Eldena Bear Don't Walk and I'm going to tell you a little bit about myself before I get started. I am that kid who always planned to be an attorney. I either wanted to be an attorney or Loretta Lynn; I'm not quite Loretta Lynn, yet. My father is Urban Bear Don't Walk and my mother is Marjorie Mitchell-Bear Don't Walk. My father is one of the first American Indian attorneys in the United States. He's mentioned in In the Courts of the Conquerer. He is the second Crow to ever get a law degree and I am the second generation of Indian attorneys and we're very proud of that in that as Indian people we are developing, we are creating legacies. We now have not just a single generation, but generations of college graduates, we have generations of doctors, we have generations of attorneys, and I think that that can't be emphasized enough in that as we are developing as tribal people, our systems are developing.

How many of you don't have tribal courts? I think that there are several tribes who don't have tribal court systems yet, who might use inter-tribal court systems, whose court systems are fairly new. And I'm 40 and I tell you that because, for example, the Crow court system, in 1975 when my father was still in law school, he and my uncle developed the Crow Court. So the Crow Court is only 38 years old. It's like my little brother and in that, that means that it's still developing.

I became the first woman ever to be the chief justice of the Crow Tribe, but I like to tell people about that process. I got a phone call one day that said, ‘Hey, we really want you to do this; it's an appointment that you have to get through the chairman. He's interested in having you do that.' And so I called my parents because that's the way I was raised. I was raised that in the big decisions in your life there is a lot of consultation and it needs to be meaningful consultation. I call my grandparents, I call my parents, I call my brothers, I talk to my child, I talk to my partner. And I called my dad and he said, ‘Well, this is the third time they've asked for you, so I guess I'll say yes.' Apparently they had been asking him if I would do this and he had been saying no, for whatever the reason was, apparently maybe he didn't think I was ready yet, and I think that that's an important step sometimes in developing programs, are people ready? I don't think it's the best idea to throw a brand-new graduate into running a court system. I think experience is meaningful and powerful and valued in tribal systems. So I started that.

I've been an appellate judge for eight years for a variety of tribes. I worked for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. I've served almost every tribe in Montana with the exception of Fort Peck and Blackfeet and I worked in Blackfeet Court as an attorney. I haven't served in Fort Peck because, man, it's far away from where I live. It's like 20 hours. It's practically in North Dakota. So I want to talk about that though.

When I was five, you know you have those career days, or maybe it wasn't five, it was like fifth grade and I wore my dad's judge's robes and everybody thought I wanted to be a nun. I am far from being a nun. The sad thing is I was looking for his judge's robes just recently and I can't find it. I swear I saw it because I wanted to wear it. That's what I wanted to wear in court. We all have things that are important to us and most importantly that judge's robe was important because my mom made it. My mom made it for my dad in a time when tribal courts were in the back of some building trailer in the middle of nowhere. Now you go to tribes and they have amazing courtrooms. We went to Pascua Yaqui while I was here. I've never had to go through security that tight. Pascua Yaqui has like TSA-quality security. You have to empty your pockets; they want to see what's in your bag. You'll plan ahead what you take with you before you go into their court system.

So now I work in two courts, three on occasion. I have written 70 appellate opinions in my career at this time, hopefully more to come, so I have a great value for tribal courts and I'm very passionate and enthusiastic, but I'm also very honest about tribal courts and their systems and what is helpful and what is not helpful. So I want you to keep in mind that while you hear a lot of complaints about tribal court systems, we're developing, we're young. Tribal courts are as young as some of your children, as young as some of you and in that, you know at this stage in your life you don't know everything, you don't have everything in perfection, and without that sense of humility about our court systems, it's difficult to drive them forward, it's difficult to make them into something better. You have to treat them sometimes not like a child, but as a developing progress. I like to tell people that our codes are living documents, just like anything else, just like the American constitution, just like the American code, our codes have to be refined, they have to be rewritten, they have to be addressed, because 30 years ago when the first code was written for your tribe or for my tribes nobody knew about meth, nobody knew about certain drug laws, nobody thought about writing a dog ordinance for all of the crazy dogs running around town. You didn't talk about seat belts; you didn't talk about housing issues in your codes.

I'm very excited about the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes right now; they just developed their own Child Support Enforcement Code, instead of using Montana's, instead of using somebody else's we developed our own and why shouldn't we because tribes are best situated to determine for themselves what their needs are. That does not mean though that tribes should reinvent the wheel. There's lots of great code out there, there's lots of tribal courts doing amazing things. What an honor to sit here with Justice [Robert] Yazzie, knowing that the Navajo Court is one of the pinnacles of tribal courts in what they do in instilling cultural value in dictating to their tribal people what their law will look like, what they want their tribe to continue. Law and lawlessness in Indian Country is historical. We've always had laws. Maybe they weren't written down in a little code or on your computer or on the Internet, but we've always had laws and we've always had people who maintained them. We've always had mediators. We've always had people who needed that mediation and who needed some reminding that they need to follow the law and that their actions impact people.

So in talking about what's important in tribal courts, I once taught -- I'm an adjunct professor at the University of Montana School of Law -- and my father always says the most dangerous person in the room is a first-year law student because they know just enough and not enough. So in trying to teach federal Indian law, tribal law, why we should have those values to lots of non-tribal people you really have to focus on what is community development, what does it look like to non-Indian people. And I would tell you in going through Rae Nell's slides that what's important and the key components to justice systems are investment, whether it's personal investment, monetary investment, community investment and it's building laws. Either you are developing a court system or you're destroying a court system and your development or your destruction has a significant impact on the community that you live in.

I am not a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes as an enrolled member, but I am a member of that community. I live there, my kid goes to school there, I speak Salish, I go to those ceremonies. I'm a member of that community. While it might seem that I'm a member of the tribe -- I don't get to vote -- the decisions that tribal administrators make impact me. They impact me as a judge; they impact me as a community member. It is important to think as leaders that you have a duty to your tribe absolutely, but you also have a duty to the people who live in your community and as we become bigger tribes with more mixed people, you're going to have a lot of descendants and you may have jurisdiction over them or you may not.

One of the things that's important to note about the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes is that we're a P.L. 280 [Public Law 280] reservation. So we have concurrent jurisdiction over Indian people with the State of Montana. So what does that mean? For me, that meant as a public defender that many of my clients were my cousins, many of my clients were people I had grown up with. That's investment in your community because you have to see their mom at a ceremony, you have to see their mom in the grocery store, but that also means, and it also means quite frankly that that particular county is one of the most prison-sentencing counties in the State of Montana. It means that there are many, many American Indian people in the Montana prison system. It is, I believe, six times higher, the percentage rate of our existence in the State of Montana. So there are lots of things to consider in tribal court systems. Our tribal courts are a reflection of our community. Again, either we're developing or we're destroying and we have to really make that commitment.

Again, your codes are developing. Some people have very basic codes that they adopted from somebody else. Codes are changeable; just because it's not in your code doesn't mean it can't be in your code. And I would tell you again as leaders -- we were talking about this earlier and I think I had talked to Ian about it on the phone -- the biggest threat to tribal courts are the tribal people themselves. And I will tell you that specifically in the framework of let's say you have an election and you're unhappy about the election and you take it to the tribal court and the tribal court does its job, the job you entrusted it to do, the job you wrote the constitution for them to follow, you wrote a code for us to uphold and we did our job and now you're unhappy. So what do you do? What do people do? They bash it. They go to the newspaper and talk about, 'What a kangaroo court this is, how the judges don't know what they're doing, the advocates don't know how to run the court, they interpreted the law wrong.' And I would tell you that that is not any different than anything that you can watch on CNN. Every court in America is terrible when somebody loses according to the person who lost. But what you're doing on a bigger scale is invalidating the work that generations of people have already done for you.

I take the work of working in a court system very seriously because I know the work that my father put into that court; I know the work that my parents put in just graduating from college. I think that we can't take in our own flippancy the seriousness of what comes out of our mouth; we cannot be harsh enough about some of those things because we have long-term effects. If people don't trust our court systems, they don't want to do business with you. If they don't think that they can get a fair shake in there because you're related to everybody, they don't want to come into your court system, they don't want to avail themselves, and so when they don't avail themselves to our court, what do they do, they want to go take it to a state court where they're more comfortable. Are you going to get a fair shake in state court? Probably. Maybe. Are you going to get a fair shake in tribal court? Maybe. It's all the same.

Now people talk about tribal courts saying, ‘Oh, you...that's your cousin.' You're right. I have 20 first cousins. My mother has 100 first cousins. My grandpa was the youngest of 11 kids and all those kids had seven kids and my grandma had...there were five of them and they all had a trillion kids and I'm related to almost everybody. It was hard to find somebody to marry on your reservation when you have that many first cousins and we actually have cousins in common. So when he's really mad he'll be like, ‘And your damn cousin...' But they're his cousins too, but we're not related. So back to my rant. Of course you're related to those people. My rule is, if I don't have to talk about it with you at Thanksgiving dinner, then I'm working on that case because if I had to recuse myself for everybody that I could show that I was related to, man, you'll never get anybody to be able to sit on those seats. But let's not fool ourselves. I walked into a justice of the peace court and the judge was talking to a man who was on a bond hearing and the judge said to the guy sitting at the bond hearing, ‘Well, I'm going to let you out on your own recognizance because I need you to finish my deck this weekend.' It happens everywhere. Don't fool yourselves to think that tribal courts are better or worse than anybody else, but I will tell you that there's a special investment made by people who are part of tribal courts that can be beneficial. Some people call it nepotism. I think nepotism is an idea that you got something because you didn't deserve it and somebody is allowing you to do that and maybe they're your mom, maybe they're not, whatever.

In reality, we're a community and our tribal communities are built of people who are related and sometimes that investment means that maybe because we understand where that kid is coming from, maybe we can better address their needs in juvenile court, maybe we can better deter them. Maybe what they need is to learn to go chop some wood for a lady for a couple days or to get something...CS&KT [Confederate Salish and Kootenai Tribes] has a grandparent program as a diversion tactic with its youth because we have generations of children who don't have grandparents who are actively involved in their lives. I hope to be the grandma that I was raised with. My grandmas are finger-shaking, chest-popping old ladies who will tell you to knock it off and behave and go wash your hands. Those are the kind of people that sometimes you need in a juvenile court. That's the investment that you want to make. That is about being familiar with your community. That is about being invested in your community. So yes, are we all related? Quite possibly. Does that mean that we're making the wrong decisions? Absolutely not.

So when I took an oath to be a judge, a justice. Let me clarify that. I am a justice. I'm not a judge, unless I'm sitting in the lower court. There is a chief judge for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe, Wynona Tanner, and then I'm the chief justice. And the only difference really is which court we oversee. But when I took an oath to be a justice, in the Crow code specifically... And again, if you don't like what's happening, write it in your code, fix it. Don't complain about it, do something about it and that means writing in your code. That doesn't mean going and firing all your judges because you're unhappy. If you don't like how your judges work, get them some training. If you don't like the timeline in your courts, fix it. It isn't an all or nothing deal. Every time we make things all or nothing, we again destroy our own credibility.

So again, when I took that oath, in the Crow code it says that I will act without fear or favor. I don't see that in many other codes and I am bound by the ABA Model Judicial Code. The ABA Model Judicial Code is like eight canons, but they're pretty important canons and if you translate them into tribal communities, they're even more important canons, for example, the appearance of impropriety. Some people think, ‘Well, this is my friend. He's a lower court judge, I'm going to go have lunch with him.' What do you think my clients think when they see prosecutors and defenders having lunch together and then my client doesn't get a great deal? They think I sold them out, they think that I'm not doing my job, they think that I'm lazy and that I am not doing the best that I possibly can for them. You have to think about that. Just like leaders in the community, if they see you glad-handing with somebody and then that person gets something over the other, we all can make the appearance of impropriety and you need to be conscious of that.

Quite honestly, being an attorney and a judge on the same reservation is kind of a lonely, solitary existence. One, because you're always getting hit up in the grocery store for free advice, and two, people do want to know what's going on, people do want to talk about their case with you and you can't do it. But even that moment, that moment where they're approaching you in the grocery store trying to talk to you about it, other people see it, it looks improper and it's important to try to not have that happen.

A strong, independent tribal court system will have trust and it's your job as leaders to build the trust in the court as much as it is my job as a judge to build trust in the court. Finances are important, but finances aren't the end-all be-all. I run my appellate court, we probably hear...we have five justices, two lay justices, three attorney justices and one clerk on $78,000 a year. We deal with probably 20 cases, which is a pretty big load for most appellate courts. It is not the load that say Navajo has or some of the Ojibwe nations have who have bigger court systems. Development -- again, we don't have bad court systems, we have developing court systems. We have places that need help. We have opportunities to help them. There are lots of us out there who work in tribal courts who consult on how to develop better code, how to develop better judges, who do a lot of training that we offer for free. Department of Justice right now is really hot on offering trainings. Not only will they offer it, but they will bring it to you.

So Owl's Nest Consulting, my friend Mato Standing High, who is also an attorney who was the AG [attorney general] for his tribe for many, many years. He'll bring you how to make better prosecutors, how to be a better trial court judge, how to write good opinions, and they'll bring it right to where you are. So courts can't say, ‘Well, we can't get anything. We can't do that.' As leaders, develop your court system. Make a commitment to developing your court system because as Rae Nell said, if your court system is strong people believe in you. If your court system is transparent, people believe in you, they want to do business with you, and if they don't believe in you and you have a great court system, that's not about your court system, that's not about their belief in your tribe, that's just them finding a reason not to do business with you.

Again, as I said, either you're building a court or you're destroying a court. A court should be extraordinary when you leave it. We are a transient population as judges. We come and go. Some places elect their judges, some places appoint their judges. Some places appoint their justices for life. My appointments are four years long, I can come and go at the whim of the administration if they like what I've done, if not, I don't have to. But when I leave a court system, I want it to be the best possible place that it can be. It should stand...your court system should stand alone. It should not need one particular judge. It helps if you have great clerks. I have a phenomenal clerk, Abby Dupuis, who has been the clerk of the appellate court since its inception, so for 14 years. She really runs the court. She knows every case. Be good to your staff. And any attorney will tell you, the best thing you can do is not to know the judges, it's to know the clerks, it's to know the people behind the scenes, it's to know the janitors in your building. Those are all good tidbits of information for people to know. It's the same in tribal courts.

I want to tell you quickly about what is so important about tribal courts, and one is about the idea that we are making some pretty new and exciting law. I can tell you that being a judge sometimes means that all I have to hear about is people's really unhappy divorces and that is no different than being an attorney and I promise you nobody's happy in a divorce. But recently the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Appellate Court made a decision about a First Amendment case, about a person's right to say what they want to say, free speech. Those are exciting cases and maybe only if you're kind of like a law nerd do you really think that that's exciting stuff, but it's exciting stuff. And I talk about it to everybody I possibly can because I want people to know not only are we making good law but we're making new...we're going into territories we've never gone into before. We're addressing issues in our code that again nobody thought about. We just did a case about particularized suspicion with a bad stop from a cop. Does that make me the most popular person? Probably not, but I wasn't the most popular person to begin with because I'm a defense attorney. I have to tell you when I became a public defender, my parents said, ‘I don't know if I really want you to do that. Don't people...isn't it unsafe to be a defense attorney?' I said, ‘No, mom. People kill their prosecutors, they don't kill their defense attorneys.' They buy their defense attorneys beers; their grandma makes them banana bread. There's a lot of perks to being in public defense. But we are making new and exciting law. We have great stuff on the best interest of the child. Tribes are incorporating their beliefs into best interest-of-the-child standards. We're incorporating our beliefs into First Amendment issues.

One of the other exciting things I know that's going on in Indian Country is the idea of holistic defense. I don't see American courts addressing holistic defense in a way that I think that tribal courts can. And what I mean by holistic defense is in Montana let's say -- we'll use something pretty vanilla -- if you don't have insurance on your car and you get pulled over for the third time, that is a mandatory seven days in jail for not having liability insurance in a place that there is no public transportation system. Our reservation is about 100 miles long; there's no public transit. So of course people...I'm not encouraging people to break the law, I'm encouraging people to prioritize, but I know that people drive to get to work, to feed their kids without liability insurance; it happens. I've been hit by one of those people. So here's my best legal advice to you right now, here's some free legal advice, write it down. Make sure that you get under-insured and uninsured motorists on your insurance. I see Renee writing it down. Good job. Uninsured, under-insured, because if you get hit by those people who don't have insurance, your insurance helps you cover it then, because I have been hit.

So this person is sitting in jail waiting to get out on bond or not getting bond because they can't make bond because obviously they couldn't even afford to get insurance. They have kids, maybe they're a single mom, there's a potential that their kids could get into the system because nobody's home watching their kids. There's a chance that if they sit in jail for seven days that they're going to lose their job, their car's already been impounded because they couldn't find any...they didn't pay their minutes and they couldn't find anybody to come get their car so they couldn't leave it on the side of the road. Snowball effects happen all the time. Holistic defense addresses those. We have defenders who now say, ‘Okay, what are the other issues? We don't want them to lose their housing, we don't want her to lose her kids, we don't want them to lose their job. How can we work with a prosecutor to make this all good and get it in front of the judge as quickly as we possibly can?'

We have incredible opportunities as tribal courts to mend our communities by being willing not just to say that crime is bad or that divorce is bad, but in addressing some of the other issues that will come with those things by being flexible, just and creative. I think that people who don't have much learn to be as creative as they possibly can. Like your grandma when she was poor and didn't have any money to feed you, she would still figure out how to feed you. We still need to figure out how to solve our problems whether we have money or not. And again it's the same thing. Your tribal council, maybe they have all the money and they're not giving it to you to fix it. That doesn't mean you stop trying to fix it. It means you try to figure out what you can do creatively and if that means feeding them popcorn. It's like a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving -- everybody gets popcorn and toast and whatever it is that you have. It is the same in tribal court systems.

It is important to be transparent in your code. It is important to make things accessible. I have worked in a court system where nobody knows where the code is. Nobody knows where the code is. It is not online. You can access almost every case from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Crow Tribe, almost every tribe in Montana, almost every tribe I know of who has a solid, longstanding appellate court, you can access their opinions and I do, because when I write an opinion I would rather use another tribe's decision than use a state's decision. Why? Well, in some cases because we're all similarly situated with the Indian Civil Rights Act or it's because our code looks like another code or our constitution is based on the same treaty. All of those things are important that maybe non-tribal court system people don't take into account. If I'm writing in a state system, yeah, I might steal something from another jurisdiction, but if I'm writing something in a tribal court I want it from another tribal court because I think they have invested in the same values that we do.

Again, we have opportunities that other people don't have. States are regulated in ways necessarily that we're not. I would ask you though as tribal people and tribal leaders, when you're building your court systems, really take into consideration what's the best thing? Do you think that lay advocates are the best way to go? Would you let a lay advocate operate on you? I don't know. And I'm saying that that's equally as dangerous. So would you let a lay advocate...? Let me make sure that I'm very clear on this. There are some incredible lay advocates. My uncle who helped start the Crow Court has been a lay advocate for 38 years and he knows the Crow code inside and out. He may not know form, but he knows substance. That is important. But there are other people who go in and pay their fee and then try to write your will or want to help you with your divorce. Maybe not necessarily without training. Be specific about those things. Do you want your judges to not have any training, to just come in and go off the cuff? Do you want everybody to be attorneys? Is that really the most financially sound way to go? Not always. I like to keep myself in business, but that doesn't mean that there's not room for everybody to work in there, but I think training is important. You can never learn enough and quite honestly, you can never share enough of your training with other people.

Again, I encourage people really to build strong court systems in the idea that make it fit what your tribe needs. Your tribe might not need a drug court, but you might need a dog catcher. You might need a youth court, but you don't know how to start it. We're sharing people. Everybody has them. People are developing, there's money out there and grants to get them. There's lots of resources. Your law schools in your states usually have incredible resources. For example, the Indian Law Clinic at the University of Montana, Maylynn Smith, never says 'no.' Aw, I'm done now. Thank you very much. I think we're going to open this up for questions."

Robert Yazzie: Traditional Principles of Leadership

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Former Chief Justice Robert Yazzie of the Navajo Nation Supreme Court provides an overview of the traditional Diné governance system and specifically the leadership principles that Diné leaders relied upon to make sound, informed, strategic decisions in consultation with and on behalf of their people. He offers a convincing argument for Native nations to consult their traditional governance systems in order to meet the challenges they face today.

People
Native Nations
Resource Type
Citation

Yazzie, Robert. "Traditional Principles of Leadership." Emerging Leaders seminar. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. November 6, 2013. Presentation.

Ian Record:

"I have the great pleasure of introducing Robert Yazzie, who is...who I've known for many years through his affiliation with the Native Nations Institute. He's been one of our longest serving members of our International Advisory Council. He's a real major figure in the area of tribal justice systems, and in fact I think Rae Nell [Vaughn] and Eldena [Bear Don't Walk] may reference the Navajo Nation Justice System tomorrow because they're really viewed...that system is really viewed as a leader in the process that many Native nations are engaging in in terms of reclaiming the function of justice in their own communities and returning it to a position where it's culturally appropriate and culturally relevant and reflective of culture. And Robert was one of the main architects of that movement, to make that justice system work for the Navajo people in a Navajo way. And we have the great honor...it was interesting, we see Robert a couple times a year and after the last time we saw him he mentioned a desire to come and speak to leaders such as yourself about what he calls the ‘traditional principles of leadership' and basically how you work to instill your own core values in the actions and decisions that you make as leaders, again, whether you're an elected official or just a decision maker within your own community, within your own family, within your own nation. So with that I'll turn the floor over to Robert. He's going to present for about 20 minutes or so and then we want to leave a little time at the end of his session for some questions."

Robert Yazzie:

"[Navajo language]. Anybody here? I have a humor to share with you just as an opener. When we say '[Navajo language],' we always say, ‘Goodness be unto you.' And so I had a solicitor when I was the sitting chief justice, he used to -- he's a white guy, used to see his Navajo wife every weekend. They would go to drive three hours to Albuquerque and when they meet they'll say [Navajo language], hugs and kisses and everything. So around 8:00, she would tell him, ‘Hit the hay.' And then over the weekend when she gets mad at him, she'll say, ‘What the hay?' I know that would get you going. Thank you for the cake. Good for my sugar level.

I would like to talk about the principles of Diné leadership and I want to talk about the definition of how Diné leadership can be understood in terms of its definition, in terms of its qualities, and also the challenges and experience of Diné leadership yesterday and today. So for purposes of achieving a better government, the question is, ‘Can the modern day leadership incorporate the traditional principles of governance from the past?' I think that's a very important question on our table.

So what is leadership? Studies of political systems show a scale of differing patterns, from absolute authoritarian leadership to leadership that's only persuasive. Some leaders exercise command with force and others only persuade. Most form of western leadership are based on the notion of power, to back up a command. In other words, leadership in that respect usually means power, control, authority and coercion. Diné, traditional Diné leadership is not about power, it's not about control or coercion, but a recognition that words are powerful through influence and persuasion. Persuasive leadership is based on compliance with the command or advice of a leader such as a wise uncle or other relative out of respect.

The Navajo word for leadership is '[Navajo language].' I think the concepts really teach us a lot, so I'm going to be talking about concept as a way to understand something about leadership, traditional leadership. So the Navajo word for leadership is '[Navajo language],' which in essence means 'a planner' and it comes from a word base means ‘speaking' [Navajo language]. The word for ‘planning' is '[Navajo language],' refers to talking things out to make a plan. The Navajo word for ‘leader,' '[Navajo language]' arises from power as a speaker and the word for ‘planning,' '[Navajo language]' is about problem solving and discussing plans. An elder would say '[Navajo language],' that it is about learning how to think, '[Navajo language],' learning how to use your thinking when the [Navajo language]. The [Navajo language], the leader uses those elements of thinking and planning as tools for leadership.

We generally understand that traditional leadership is based on possessing wisdom and the ability to speak, create plans for successful outcomes and results, create respect that compels people to follow. It's something like his or her word is law. So given that brief definition, we can ask the question, ‘Well, what are the qualities, what are the characteristics or traits of leadership and how does one get the qualities of leadership and earn respect?' So when we look at the thinking of the leader or for anybody for that matter, we look at two things that are opposites. The simplest way of saying it is you have something good, you have something bad. That's the centerpiece to your thought...to your thinking. So in that respect, our old system of government last seen in operation 1859. '[Navajo language]' means ‘the peaceful chief.' '[Navajo language]' is more of the opposite of a good peaceful chief. '[Navajo language]' means ‘firm.' It could mean something very rough as well. So looking at those concepts helps us to understand the Navajo leadership definitions and qualities according to the early style of leadership we call '[Navajo language].' So if you can imagine a circle, imagine that you have 12 leaders sitting toward each other, one representing the peace, one representing the war. So as I said, that was last observed in 1859.

So the two kinds of leaders traditionally, '[Navajo language]' or 'war leaders,' and the '[Navajo language]' or 'peace leaders,' the word '[Navajo language]' relates to decisions that are prompt, powerful and aggressive. That's the person's characteristics. The speaking done is for...the speaking to that...for that quality is for war. So the ability to immediately evaluate a situation and to speak to a plan to...and speak to a plan of immediate and aggressive action is necessary. Individuals get a reputation of being successful warriors. The word '[Navajo language]' comes from the word '[Navajo language]' basically means 'understanding of something good.' Understand [Navajo language] as a state of perfection. One definition is that [Navajo language] is that state of being where everyone and everything are in proper place relating and functioning well with everything to achieve a state of harmony or perfection. That requires a kind of speaking to achieve a perfect state that is wise and successful.

So Justice Austin who I used to sit with, Raymond D. Austin, who was Associate Justice when I was Chief Justice and after he retired he went to...went back to school. He was a law school graduate and he was a member of the Arizona Bar. He went back to the University of Arizona to earn a...to do his dissertation in Navajo common law. So he has come up with a book called The Navajo Nation Courts: The Common Law and in his book he talks a lot about the duty of a [Navajo language], the duty of a leader, which is to maintain [Navajo language] as a perfect state of condition and he said that could be the theory, but in terms of practice, the leader would identify a problem, a [Navajo language], and that leader has the obligation to engage himself or herself in what we call '[Navajo language].' In English is to say, ‘Think for the people to find the problem.' Identify the causes of the disruption of the state of [Navajo language] and once you have done that, then the challenge in one is to restore [Navajo language].

Individuals who want to be leaders do not appoint themselves. The status is earned. The western notion of advancing one's own name for political office by election makes no sense. Election in a traditional sense is spontaneous and based on necessities. For example, there may be plans for spring planting over a winter fire. So there would be talk of when to plant, who could read the stars to know when that is done and other matters that call for leadership guidance. So people who talk about what would be the best...who would be the best person to guide the planting season; that is a way leaders were chosen.

I served as the Navajo Nation court judge and the chief justice for the Navajo Nation Supreme Court for 19 years. As Navajo judges, we are considered as successors of the traditional [Navajo language], peace chief, because we are chosen for our individual qualities. Traits that make a difference in being a good leader include adherence to the duty of promoting harmony and order and treating people with fairness and humility. [Navajo language] of the past and today are looked upon as role models and the respect for our decision depends upon our personal integrity. Humility is a personal value, which prompts people to respect us judges for our decision not for our position.

One of the traditional terms for leader is that person is slightly higher than others and it reflects the view that leadership and the acceptance of its authority comes from those who conduct themselves well. It comes from individuals who speak well, plan well, show success in community planning or those who can talk the goods in for the people. Humility is not simply self-effacing behavior, but behavior that is consistent with competent leadership that is tempered with humility. Leadership is not for the self, but for the people. The people [are] the source of that power.

What is the traditional Navajo process for planning and decision making for leaders? The way of achieving [Navajo language], the good things, is by talking things out. As I said, the Navajo word '[Navajo language]' means 'to talk,' is related to leadership because of the common expression, as I said, words are powerful. Words of great leaders are powerful because they speak solution into reality. Navajos believe thoughts become action in words and that words create action or reality when they are spoken. Thinking becomes speech become action. That is the thought system where thinking and intuition drive words and speaking. Speaking in groups is planning and action is the result of thinking and planning. The Navajo word for leader '[Navajo language],' which arises from power as a speaker and the word for planning '[Navajo language]' is about problem solving and discussing plans. And there's a word, I'm sure that you have your own word for this concept, called '[Navajo language].' It's a very important concept in the past traditional practice of leadership. '[Navajo language],' which is 'talk things out.' It involves having free discussion among the leader with his people, with the community to clarify relationships, to identify problems and disputes and provides for a method of planning and making decisions. [Navajo language], talking things out process requires that reciprocity, doing things for each other in return, is about his or her obligation to what we call '[Navajo language]' and [Navajo language] is a concept that really can't be translated into English and I believe you have the same...the same experience is true with your language. That one word cannot be said, while '[Navajo  language]' means respect. '[Navajo language]' can mean many, many different things, even a book won't satisfy a good explanation of what that word means, but at best '[Navajo language]' is something like treating people with respect, compassion, reverence. So [Navajo language] or talking things out requires that reciprocity be practiced to ensure there's equal and equitable treatment for the people.

And there's another word that is very important as well, '[Navajo language].'Can you all say that? [Navajo language]. Not today? [Navajo language] is one of the practices for [Navajo language] and as I said, it's understood as knowing how to treat people with dignity and respect. The [Navajo language] as a [Navajo language] is always expected to act as though you have relatives. If you walk around, talk around, walk around and talk as if you have no relatives and the people would always say, ‘That person is forgetting about his or her obligation through [Navajo language].' A [Navajo language], a leader is always expected to honor his obligation through the concept of [Navajo language]. Talking things out with the people helps a leader to learn about ideas, expectation and recommendation of the community. An important aspect of making effective decisions by a leader is being well informed of the issues and concerns of the people. To be informed is to know what the people want. I think that is probably your experience as well when you observe Navajo Nation tribal council in session. Not everybody is there to know...to fully know what the people want, because the more you observe sometimes the more you find out the leader really needs to understand what the people are thinking and what is it that they're concerned about.

The other part, the other issue that was discussed is transparency and it's something that is really difficult to translate from English to Navajo, but at best you can say in Navajo, we say '[Navajo language],' means you can't hide your plans. '[Navajo language],' it means to make clear your plans. [Navajo language] requires transparency, a free flow of information, a duty to communicate, to make known the issues at hand. Planning for action can be transparent except for war way planning so that everyone who is affected can see what is going on and have an opportunity to have a say. Navajo tradition requires energy and good will when putting plans into action so that good intentions reflect positive energy [and] will produce a good result.

What are the challenges and experience of leadership in Navajo country? In 1989, we had a major crisis. The Navajo Nation government was, were nearly as a whole was nearly put on its knees. The Navajo Nation Chairman Peter MacDonald was accused [of] bribery and kickbacks and the Navajo Nation Council proceeded to put him on administrative leave for accusation and for other serious criminal allegations. He refused. He told the Navajo Nation Council, ‘You have no legal basis.' And he was right, but the matter was put before the Navajo Nation Council on a certified question and the Navajo Nation Supreme Court came back with a response and said that...he says, ‘under traditional method of selection of leaders, people choose their leaders [Navajo language] based on trust and confidence. If a leader breeches the trust by wrongful acts, the people would simply walk away.' This practice was what justified the council action to remove Chairman Peter MacDonald from office.

I think one of the questions that really bothers a lot of us is that when it comes to decision-making, how effective are the leaders in making a good decision? I think here's where we can involve the question, ‘Does traditional Diné leadership make a difference in the modern day?' And we talk about the problems we have on the...in Indian Country, that at times the atmosphere towards leadership can be very negative. And you look at the situation in Indian Country, people are living the hard life, frustrated, overwhelmed with trying to make things...trying to make ends meet and because there are no jobs, no money, no educational opportunities people are suffering from domestic violence. People cannot help but feel that leadership is inefficient, ineffective. So here's where we are asked the question, ‘If we were to do something a little different,' for example, look at the question, ‘Do the principles of Navajo traditional governance have a role in this scenario?' That is to say, does the traditional Diné leadership make a difference in the modern day? And sometimes when we need to respond to that kind of question we always talk about journey narratives, we always talk about Twin Heroes.

Twin Heroes were out to help save the people when the bad energy, the bad monsters began to take its toll on human lives. People really struggle, people were suffering, people were living with chaos and disharmony and so when we look at these narratives we can say that there was...that the Twin Heroes came and helped the people in many, many ways. They destroyed almost everything, all of what we called '[Navajo language],' the bad energy. But there were some who say, ‘Please save us. We can help the human race to live a quality of life.' But there are certain type of [Navajo language] that have no mercy on humans and so when the Twin Heroes, before killing the monster, the father, the Sun said, gave instruction and said to carefully study and observe the movement and behavior of the monster. Before you make the attack, thinking before you make the attack is a value that advises leaders today to carefully observe the problem before taking any sort of action. So it's telling us that where there's chaos is to really study the problem, understand the problem before you proceed to say, ‘What are the alternatives?'

So one of the things that we're trying to do within the Navajo Nation is to make some changes. I have a proposed legislation here before the Navajo Nation Council and it's about creating a uranium commission that would help to clean up the abandoned mines. We have so many... so much abandoned mines that it's causing a big risk. It's already causing a lot of health problems and people have died from it. And I was told, ‘Well, could you help us? Could you design a legislation that touches upon the fundamental law of the Diné?' And so it took me a long time to think that when we look at our tribal code, we see a lot of incorporation of state law, federal law and I think the emphasis should be, now that most of our kids are going to law school and are coming back to establish their practice, I think the emphasis is to take seriously and to say, ‘How do we develop our Indian thinking and use it as a tool to craft legislation?' So when I thought about this in terms of creating a commission and I thought about the leadership of that commission, that this leadership should be guided by the fundamental law of the Diné, and also the leadership also should be informed about the laws that we have, the laws from the time of creation. The laws from the time of creation is telling us about what is the natural law, '[Navajo Language]'? Natural law means laws that come from the earth and the universe and that itself, the natural law was like planting the seeds, planting the seeds to develop other forms of law.

For example, we have what we call traditional law, custom law and common law. So the medicine people sat down and said, ‘Well, the natural law should be something that is coming from the water, from the air, from the fire, from things that grow on earth. They have their own independent existence. We are...we come from those elements and then as such we should observe a relationship that is one of respect.' Everything that we learn from those elements we say that '[Navajo language],' means everything is related, we're all related in one way or another and as such we are the elements of nature and the elements of nature is us. So in that respect, we can't dominate those elements and the only thing we can do is to clearly understand that from the time those things were put in place and the time we were created is what the holy people did and said to us, ‘This is the law and I put it in your hand. [Navajo language] in the holy way I put it in your hands. Now you shall become the stewards to take care of these elements. These elements, you take care of them, they'll take care of you.'

So those were the thoughts in terms of creating a commission. I know that a lot of us are concerned that what is it that we should recover from our past? There are sources already that we can learn about, that we can apply, that we can work with and if we proceed to do that, it's amazing how much that can be done, it's amazing how much of an influence it has on the kind of thinking we have. It'll change the paradigm. Like you said, this is the way Navajos handle it, this is the way the Mohawks handle it, this is the way the Blackfeet handle it, is what we will be saying if we were to proceed down this path. And I think a lot of us learn, know our language. And this legislation is talking about a story as an approach to develop a law, but it's not a matter of talking about the story. The story should be to say, ‘How do I use this material to develop something for this modern day? How can I develop this as law so my kids in the future can say, this is the law of our grandfather and our grandmother.' A lot of us are up in age, we are the grandmothers, we are the grandfathers, and a lot of grandmothers and grandfathers say, ‘I have no idea, I have no clue about the creation story.' When the grandkids are asking questions, the response is, ‘I don't know.' But it's not simply that we can't just say, ‘I don't know,' because I know that a lot of us Indian people know a lot about our past and if we take the time to share that and say, ‘How can we revive those? How can we learn to articulate those teachings so that they sound like law in the statutes, in case laws?' Thank you."

 

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.: Effective Bureaucracies and Independent Justice Systems: Key to Nation Building

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

In this informative interview with NNI's Ian Record, Leroy LaPlante, Jr., former chief administrative officer with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and a former tribal judge, offers his thoughts on what Native nation bureaucracies and justice systems need to have and need to do in order to support the nation-building efforts of their nations. 

Resource Type
Citation

LaPlante, Jr., Leroy. "Effective Bureaucracies and Independent Justice Systems: Key to Nation Building." Leading Native Nations interview series. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, The University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. August 12, 2010. Interview.

Ian Record:

"Welcome to Leading Native Nations. I'm your host Ian Record. On today's program, I'm honored to welcome Leroy LaPlante, Jr. Leroy, who goes by "JR" to many, is a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. He worked as chief administrative officer for his tribe for three years from 1998 to 2001. Around that time, he was named ambassador of the tribe by the then-chairman, a great honor. And he currently works as an attorney working with tribes on a number of different, in a number of different areas including economic development and housing. Welcome JR."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Thank you, Ian."

Ian Record:

"We're here today to talk about a couple of topic areas relevant to Native nation building and governance, those being tribal bureaucracies and then tribal justice systems. And I want to start off with tribal bureaucracies. And I'm curious to learn from you, what role do you feel bureaucracies play in advancing the nation building goals of their nations?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well I think it's really important for Native nations to have a strong infrastructure in order for them to really accomplish their goals. They've got to have, I think, one, they have to have a strong legal infrastructure, but I think they have to have a strong infrastructure where they can deliver services and their programs are functioning in an effective manner."

Ian Record:

"So what, in your experience, do Native nation bureaucracies need to be effective?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well I think, for one, there needs to be, I think, a good system in place: policies, procedures, ways to measure outcomes. There also needs to be a very good financial accounting so that performance on a lot of tribes function under grants, federal grants and so forth. And so there's a big need for tribes to have a way to make sure they're performing well on these grants and so forth. But you know, in my experience as the administrative officer for Cheyenne River for three years, we had the privilege of having a good tribal controller who kept us on track financially, and we had a good planning office and we had a good grant oversight. But for me, what I think was really important -- and we grew exponentially in those years that I was, that I had the privilege of working as the administrative officer -- but the key was we had a separation of roles. The administrative or the executive branch of our tribal government, we knew people respected what we did and they trusted us to do what we did. The tribal council, the legislative branch of the government, they had an understanding of their role. And I think that that's really, really key. If you can have that, I don't want to call it separation of powers necessarily, because it's more so, I really see it as the government having different roles. And I think that's what resonates with Indian people, more so than powers. So I think that was key, to have this sort of hands-off approach and letting us really manage the programs and let the programs do their work."

Ian Record:

"We've heard others who either serve or have served in positions like you did for your tribe, draw the distinction between those who make the decisions and then those who carry out the decisions. Is that essentially what you're talking about?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Absolutely, that's exactly what I'm talking about. And I think that if you have a tribal council that tries to micromanage a lot, I think they can get in the way of what we're trying to do. And because, you know, the daily decisions that we make in government, you know, especially when we get caught up in personnel issues and those sorts of things, it can really bog down government. And when government gets bogged down, government gets slowed down, we all know that the real losers, in that instant, are the people. And we're there to serve the people, we're there to provide services to the people, we're there to provide critical services to tribal members. So it's important to just let those programs function freely."

Ian Record:

"So what happens when -- and granted it sounds like during your tenure there wasn't a lot of this going on, but based on your experience perhaps working with other tribes -- what happens when that political interference in the carrying out of programs, in the delivery of services, and just the day-to-day bureaucracy of the tribe, what impact does it have within the bureaucracy itself?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, I think the immediate...I think there's immediate impacts and there's long-term impacts. The immediate impacts are, you get this...the services aren't provided in an equitable fashion, you have this favoritism towards certain, maybe employees where you have some...so nepotism can come into play in terms of hiring. They get...if there's this micromanaging, there's this...it can interfere with personnel decisions. And also, just decisions in terms of where these programs need to go in terms of their planning and so forth. The long-term effect that it has on it is it does affect long-term planning, and I think that if they would just let the programs function and plan out their work like they're supposed to, then things will work out accordingly."

Ian Record:

"We've seen instances among nations where formally, there was that situation where there were elected officials interfering in program delivery and administration, bureaucracy of government. They make the necessary changes and that micromanagement stops or at least is reduced to the degree where the elected leaders suddenly find that they have more time to focus on, ideally, what they should be doing."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well that's what I meant, Ian. I kind of misspoke on the last response to your question, but that's what I meant by the long-term effects. I think there's a short-term effect and that the interference, it prevents those programs from functioning the way they're supposed to, it prevents them from hiring the way they're supposed to, making personnel decisions the way they're supposed to, making fiscal decisions the way they're supposed to. But I think the long-term is it detracts from what their job really is, and that is to plan long-term for the tribe. To think where, you know, the bigger decisions. So you kind of have this hierarchy of needs in a tribal government; you have these everyday, daily operations. And, you know, who decides, you know, what to purchase with a particular program budget is a very small matter. But when you have legislators and tribal council members making those kinds of decisions, obviously, that's going take away from the bigger things they should be doing, which is planning for the tribe's future, creating laws that are going to be implemented for the improvement of the tribe. And so it does detract from those bigger things and those are the things that they're likely to do. And so that's what I meant by a short-term effect and a long-term effect."

Ian Record:

"And it also has a direct effect on the people who've been charge with administrating the decisions that the elected officials make, does it not? The program managers, the department heads, the administrators?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"I think it really does, because you're hired to do a job and you want to...in terms of developing that leadership, in terms of utilizing those people for what they're hired to do, it does stunt their growth, in a sense. So that's...it does have an effect in that regard. But here's one of the saddest things that I see happening when you have talented people, tribal members that are doing these program management jobs or whatever, filling these tribal positions. I think when you get this interference from tribal council, it can get really discouraging. We hire people who are capable, we put our, everybody that applies for a tribal position through an application process, and we feel like we hire the best person. What happens I think with people, people get frustrated, they feel like they're not, [don't] have the freedom to do their job and so they end up, we end up losing I think some very talented people. So I think one direct effect is that it does maybe impact and where we have somewhat of a brain drain on the tribe. I mean, if you get hired to do a job, you expect to be able to come in and freely do that job."

Ian Record:

"So then...what role then should elected leaders play in ensuring an effective bureaucracy to carry out the wishes and priorities of the nation?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, I've never been an elected official. And, you know, I think, I don't know if I'm qualified really to speak to that. I guess I could, I guess I'm qualified enough to say what they should be doing, or what we'd like to be doing. So in a perfect world -- and of course we all know it's not a perfect world -- but in a perfect world what you would like to see elected officials do is really put the people before themselves. And put the interest of the tribe as a whole, collectively, before themselves. I think, too many times, people that are elected to tribal council or to an elected position sometimes have their own agenda. And I think it's important that -- it may be a good agenda -- but I think that it's important that they try to serve the people first and carry out those duties. Now again, elected officials have different roles. And I think it's really important. A long time ago, Indian people had different roles in our society, and you even see that today. If there's somebody in our community that makes drums, for example, that's that person's role. People respect that. And anytime somebody needs a drum, they go to that person to make a drum. And I think that those roles in tribal government are very similar, and I think that that's where we can import some of our traditional ways of perceiving what we do is that you have a role.

The problem I think, Ian, is that sometimes when people take a position in the tribe, they don't what that role is to begin with and so when they come in, I think, there should be some sort of orientation process. There should be some sort of time where they're brought in a transition period and they're saying: this is what we understand to be your role as an elected official, as an elected councilperson, as a tribal secretary, as a tribal treasurer. And you know, it's really, you know sometimes we're a little too hard on elected people because I think that we assume that they know what their role is when they're hired or when they're elected and I don't think we should make that assumption. I think we should, if we assume anything I think we should assume that they could use some mentorship; they could use some instruction.

So that person comes in, they take that elected office, and then they don't perform or they start micromanaging or they start doing something other than what we think they should be doing. But it really should come as no surprise, "˜cause they're walking into a position that they have no formal training for. And so I think that we need to really be understanding of, you know, and if you look at a majority of elected people in tribal government, they are people that don't have a lot of formal training. They are people that are from the community, that people trust, that are respected. You know, the qualifications of an elected person in tribal government is different from an elected person in state or in federal government. There's an emphasis...or in the non-Indian world, in dominant society, there's a great emphasis placed on education, there's a great emphasis placed on experience, and so forth. Maybe they were a former businessperson, maybe they were law trained. But in Indian Country, the emphasis on qualifications for elected officials is how well do they understand their culture, how connected are they in the community, how strong are their kinship units and, you know, how committed are they to helping the people, did they, how long have they lived on the reservation? And those sorts of things.

And so, I think if we're going to assume anything about people that are elected, I think we should assume that they probably could use some training. But with that, if that training's provided up front, I think what I would expect of an elected person is that they, if you're elected to council, obviously, I believe that first and foremost you need to represent your people as a whole and what's in the interest of the tribe as a whole. Set your personal agenda aside and really try to fulfill your obligations to uphold, number one, the constitution of the tribe, the laws of the tribe, and that includes our policies and procedures, and to do what's in the best interest of the people. And not just for what's going get you elected for the next term, but what's best for the people five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now.

The other thing I would expect from elected people, Ian, is that I think we have a commitment to...as Lakota, as Sioux people -- I speak specifically to our tribe -- we talk about our [Lakota language], our lifeways. We talk about our traditions. We talk about everything we do is for that seventh generation. We try to plan that far ahead. I think it's really incumbent upon officials that are in a position to make laws, that are in a position to make policy decisions, it's really incumbent upon those elected officials to plan ahead, and to really walk that talk. Not just talk a good talk to get you elected, but really live out those core values of who we are as Lakotas. And I think that in and of itself would drastically change the landscape of tribal politics."

Ian Record:

"You made reference to this, essentially this need to plan for the seventh generations forward. And seventh generation planning, strategic planning really; when that strategic planning process has been undertaken and there's really no end to it, but when the nation and its leadership has done that hard work to forge a strategic vision, put a plan in place to get there, doesn't it make the day-to-day bureaucracy work that much easier because those people that are in charge of carrying that out, understand clearly where we're trying to head and does this decision that's performing today, does it contribute to that or does it detract from that?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Right. I mean it's very...you put that very succinctly. I think that that's exactly what long-term planning does. I think, when you have a strategy in terms of where, and a vision of where you want the tribe to be, you know, generations from now, everything works toward that end. And so people, it does give program managers more focus and it does...but you know, that example being set by elected officials is so critical. Because if they're setting that example, then it trickles down to your administrative personnel, it trickles down to your program managers, it trickles down to your tribal employees -- that there's this conscientiousness that what we're doing is really for the betterment of the people not just here, today, but further down the road. But in order for that to happen...we really talk a good talk. I think Indian people, we're very eloquent and I think that there are words that we have in Lakota or in our Native language, our Native tongue that when they translate to English, they're very beautiful concepts. And when the outside world hears them, they're very impressive. But do we really live by them? And I think that that is really, that's really the test. And if we do, if we're really committed to them, what you will see in a tribal government is you will see a structure. And that structure will have, it'll be a system in terms of how we go about our business. And it'll start, you'll see it in a way that we conduct council meetings. You'll see it in a way we...you'll see it in our organic document. You'll see it in our policies and procedures. You'll see it in our day-to-day operations. There'll be this structure in terms of how we go about doing our day-to-day business, and so you...and that's the infrastructure that I'm talking about. That you've got to have that infrastructure in place, because it's one thing to take a vision and philosophies in terms of how we want to be, but you got to have the practical policies and infrastructure that get us from point A to point B."

Ian Record:

"You mentioned earlier the importance of serving the nation as a whole, essentially treating citizens fairly and consistently. How can Native nations achieve fairness in service delivery and within the bureaucracy of government?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"That's a big challenge for tribal government, because I think that tribal governments are already kind of up against the wall because they got to overcome the perception that they don't provide services in an equitable fashion. And there's always these horror stories about nepotism and all these other things that we have to overcome. You know, I think one of the ways you make sure that our services are being delivered in an equal fashion to everybody is I think you have to have transparency in your government, and I think you have to make sure that you have sound policy, and you have sound procedure. That when you draft these laws and you draft these policies and procedures, that you don't deviate from them, and I think that's the key. I tried to engage in a policy and procedure revision in my tribe, and I think the plan sat on the table for the full three years I was there. You find that you don't have the time, but the key is that you got to work with what you got, and as long as you're consistent with those policies, and they may not be perfect, but utilize them and force them, stick to them, and don't deviate from them. You've got to have a rule that you go by. And of course, and this is true with the community as well. You've got to have a rule of law where people understand that this is what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. The same thing in tribal governance, you've got to have policies, procedures, you've got to have ways of operating so that...and you've got to stick to them."

Ian Record:

"In one of the areas where we commonly see deviation, as you put it, or inequitable treatment from a policy or something like that within the tribal government is around personnel issues -- hiring, firing, other sorts of issues like that. Where should...where and how should those issues ideally be resolved? Or if there's disputes around personnel, where should those issues be resolved?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"It's going to differ from tribe to tribe, Ian. And I think the important thing is that whatever process you set up, that it be a fair process and that you follow it every single time, and again, you don't deviate from it. When I served as the administrative officer for my tribe, there was so many things I wanted to do. I wanted to engage in economic development planning, I wanted to...there was so many other grants I wanted us to look at and really decide whether or not we should even apply for certain grants because there are some...as an administrator you don't want to apply for everything, but sometimes you do it because you have an ambitious program director who writes a grant application, but you want to be able to look through and make a sound decision to make sure it's in the interest, in our best interest. And those are those big decisions, right? And you want to focus more on areas, departments that are weaker and get them stronger. Those are the bigger issues you want to deal with as an administrator. But I spent, I would say, roughly 75 percent of my time bogged down in personnel issues. And so one of the things, I would say, is your administrator has a role. That role is to administer the programs of the tribes. I wished I was never involved in personnel issues as an administrator, because I didn't see that as my role, but council did. The problem was was that a lot of times council would get involved in that. So we had system where if a personnel action was taken, the immediate supervisor would take action. The appeal process was that you were allowed to go to a program director. If there was a department chair, that was another level in the appeal process. I was included in the process, and then of course we had an elected personnel policy board that was the final say on all personnel issues. Now, sounds like a great system, but if you add up the time frames an employee had to appeal, you're looking, you could be bogged down in a personnel issue for 45 to 60 days. And if council got involved, it could stretch out for several months. So, I think, you really want to try, what I tried to do is streamline the process as much as I could. I recommended to council on several occasions that I be removed from the process because I wanted to focus on some of the more important requirements, job requirements of an administrator of a tribal government. We had over 75 tribal programs, we were managing over 50 federal grants, we had over 600 tribal employees -- there's just a tremendous amount of responsibility. But that's the system my tribe went with, and so the next best thing is to try to train your employees, your supervisors, your department chairs, your program directors. I couldn't say much of the policy personnel board, but our HR [human resources] person did a good job of training the board, making sure they knew how the system worked. And just trying to make sure that people follow that process as closely as they possibly could and just try to get a personnel issue through that process without it getting bogged down somewhere. And if we all kind of stuck to the process and followed it according to the books it would usually go through smoothly, but the x-factor was always council."

Ian Record:

"You mentioned that your nation -- when you were working in this administrative position -- had more than 75 programs operating at once. And among many nations, the number of programs is often hard to count. And a lot of that is a legacy of federal grant programs and things like that, which some have pointed to as a major source for what is commonly called the 'silo effect'..."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Sure."

Ian Record:

"...Where you have all these different programs kind of operating independent of one another, don't really communicate with one another, and then there's in turn, often a negative impact on the use of typically limited tribal resources. Do you see this silo effect at play in your own nation? Or perhaps have you seen it in other nations? And what do you think are some of the consequences or the drawbacks of that situation."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, I don't think there's anything positive about the silo effect, obviously. I think, you'd like to see a department chair or a program take ownership of that job and really grow that program, but I think the negative downside of that is you could get a program director that is, that does become too territorial. And so it does infringe upon our efforts to be more cooperative and to share resources where we can, but more importantly I think there are some real, I guess if, I'm not sure how to put this, but there are some areas, some issues in tribal life, in tribal government that we, there's environment. There's, where I'm from it's, there's management of land resources, social services, education. And I think that what I try to do, when I was working for the tribe, is that I tried to identify those areas and the more we could get programs to work cooperatively, collaboratively, to address those needs, the better. The silo effect, as you call it, really prevents those programs from doing that and it does have...and it does have an adverse effect. The other thing I will say about the grants is that sometimes as tribes we can get too dependent on those grants. I think early in the '90s, mid-90s, in the '90s period, it was an era where there was a lot of application for grants and tribes that were good at it, you know, they were getting grants. It was, you know, if you had a good track record, it was pretty easy to get certain grants and so forth. But sometimes we can get too dependent on that. I think what you want to see eventually, and again this is where if you free up time for an administrator, in my role, you can do more of this planning where you're not so dependent upon these grants."

Ian Record:

"I want to switch gears now to another topic that you're very well versed in and that's tribal justice systems. And I think it's no coincidence that in this era of Indian self-determination, this federal policy era of Indian self-determination, we're seeing a groundswell of attention by tribes to strengthen their justice systems. And I'm curious to get your perspective on this question of what sorts of roles can tribal justice systems play in rebuilding Native nations?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well I think they're critical, I think they're foundational to nation building. You know, I think the creation of your own laws, the promulgation of those laws, the adjudication of cases, the creation of case law -- all of that is so important to strengthening tribal nations. I mean, our tribal courts is probably one the most fundamental exercises of tribal sovereignty that we have -- the creation of laws and enforcing them. But the thing is the courts...if courts are effective and judges are performing their jobs in a good way, and the courts are functioning in a way we would like them, it gives the perception to the outside world that we're very good at resolving our matters in dealing with internal matters. But not only that, but we can also deal with any matter that comes through our courts on our reservation."

Ian Record:

"What, in your view, does strong, independent justice system look like? What does it need to have?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"I think a strong independent justice system, first of all, is tribal. I think it should be tribal in a sense that it knows how to deal with tribal issues and yet it's diverse enough to handle and adjudicate all matters that come before it. I think you should have conmpetent judges. I think you should have strong advocacy for clients and it must have a way of measuring its performance. But yeah, a strong tribal system should be tribal in nature. In other words, what I mean by that is it shouldn't just be a boilerplate replication of what a state court looks like and promulgate those laws, but those laws should be traditional in nature, it should reflect our customs, it should reflect our customary law, our traditional laws, and we should know how to deal with those and inject those viewpoints in our decisions."

Ian Record:

"It's interesting you bring that up, because I've actually heard that from several other tribal judges that I've had an occasion to interview. That in many ways, the tribal justice system and the tribal court in particular is the most direct, concrete way that a tribe can convey its core values, its cultural principles, not only to the outside world, but its own citizens. Is that something that you feel is accurate?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Oh, absolutely. You know when you think about the types of cases that come before our tribal courts, you know you're dealing with a lot of domestic cases, domestic violence cases, family cases, so the courts have the opportunity to resolve disputes between tribal members. And so there's a tremendous opportunity for our tribal court system to really bring into that process some of our traditional ways of resolving conflict. You hear a lot of tribes speak of a peacemaking court and so we don't have to necessarily engage in an adversarial process with tribal members, but you can actually promote some sort of peacemaking where people are, where we promote restitution and restorative kind of justice, which is more in line with our traditional values."

Ian Record:

"So we touched on this issue of political interference and bureaucracies. And I'm curious to get your thoughts about political interference in tribal jurisprudence. What are some of the impacts of political interference in court cases, for instance?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, obviously, you want your courts to be able to make decisions without any fear of consequence from an elected official, tribal council. You want them to be able to adjudicate matters in a way that is just and do so freely, and without any free of retribution from anybody. But unfortunately, in instances where council do get involved, it does create some hesitation on the part of tribal judges to really deal with matters as like they're trained to do. And unfortunately, the result of that is we've seen a lot of good judges come and go out of our court system. I think that, you know, your courts are, you have to have judges with good experience, if not law trained, with great, good experience, with sound awareness of tribal law, and some experience with handling a diverse number of matters. But you know, when you have this turnover of tribal judges because they end up not being able to stick around very long because they're doing their jobs properly. It's detrimental."

Ian Record:

"So you mentioned this issue of transparency with bureaucracies, and the delivery of services. Isn't that equally important when it comes to the administration of justice in Native nations?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Yes it is, and I think that there needs to be a sense of predictability when people come to, when they're coming to tribal court, there needs to be this sense that they know what to expect; there's not going to be this 'kangaroo court' process. And so, you know, we want to make sure that people know what to expect when they come into tribal court, that they know they're not going to have any surprises. And I think that's...that not only has an impact upon plaintiffs and defendants in tribal court, but here's another aspect of this, it affects who practices in tribal court, you know, because one of the things we lack in tribal court is sound advocacy. You know, we don't just want lay advocates practicing in our tribal courts. One thing that lends credibility to our tribal courts is the fact that a licensed attorney who practices regularly in state court and federal court has no hesitation to come and represent a client in tribal court. We want more participation from the state bar, wherever you're at, whatever state you're in, but we want more participation from lawyers and the state bar in tribal court, because what that does is it improves the perception of our court systems, it improves the advocacy in our court systems. And so you want that transparency, you want to know exactly what to expect when they show up in tribal court, that we have consistent, strong, civil procedures that we're going to follow, criminal procedures that we're going to follow, that there are going to be no surprises."

Ian Record:

"You know, it's interesting, we've been talking about tribal bureaucracies and tribal justice systems and a lot of the criteria or components you need for each to be effective are similar, are they not? And isn't it very difficult, for instance, to have one without the other? Specifically, in our experience, we're working with a number of Native nations and it's very hard to have an effective bureaucracy, for instance, if you have a kangaroo court system, as you talked about. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, I think that it is very important that you have some predictability, that you have that infrastructure, legal infrastructure, if you will, a strong tribal code where people can have a remedy for whatever, an issue that they're, a legal issue that they're involved in, that there's good procedure that we follow. Bbut in addition to that, I think it's important that we have, that we document our case law, that we...and so people know what to expect. I've received calls from people that will say...practicing attorneys that are members of the state bar that will say, "˜Is there a case on point in your tribal court on the following issue?' I'd like to be able to respond, "˜Yes, and I can get you a copy of that opinion.' And I think that that's the transparency, that's the kind of infrastructure that you want, where people can say, "˜Okay, when I go to Cheyenne River and practice law, I know what to expect when I go there.' And so yes, it's absolutely...in fact, if it's...I'm not going to say it's more important, but it is absolutely, at least, equally important as it is...to have that, those types of infrastructure."

Ian Record:

"So, to generate that infrastructure, to create that infrastructure, that takes funding, does it not? And essentially, an approach on the part of elected officials, or those who set the budget of the nation, to treat it as not just another -- the justice system, the courts -- not just as another tribal department, but as kind of a stand-alone, larger, more encompassing branch -- that may not be the best word -- but branch or function, fundamental function of government, does it not?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"I think at least our tribal officials need to recognize our court system as a stand-alone entity that has a specific function, a very important function."

Ian Record:

"So you mentioned this need for tribes to ensure that the infrastructure's in place for the court system, the justice system overall to function effectively and essentially, act as the nation's protector, as its guardian. That infrastructure, achieving that infrastructure takes money, does it not? And perhaps a realization on the part of elected officials, or those who control the purse strings of the nation, to treat that system as more than just another department, but to actually treat it as a fundamentally critical function of government."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Right. And it takes time to educate and to help our elected officials understand that. And I don't think it's a matter of our elected officials not knowing that it serves an essential function of government, but I think that they have to understand and it takes time to educate them that what the courts do is so vital to tribal sovereignty, it is so vital to self-determination, it is so vital to us. You know, if we want to engage in any type of regulatory authority on the reservation, you know, our courts have got to be equipped to be able to carry out, you know, adjudicating any matter. And so yeah, it takes a while to get them to prioritize, I guess is what I'm trying to say, Ian. I think they understand that it serves an important function, but for them to understand that it should be up here on the fiscal or the financial fundraising list is another matter. So, sometimes it's just about...I would like to see elected officials just take a run through tribal court and just to see what they do on a day-to-day basis. I think you have committees and tribal council that obviously understand that and who hire judges and hire tribal attorneys and they're well versed in the importance of that. But unfortunately, when you look at the tribal budget, Ian, there's just so many other needs. And how do you say...it's like trying to pick your favorite child, so to speak. It's really hard. And so that is a problem with courts. And I think one way is to maybe look at some of the available federal funding that's out there, but again that takes planning. And it's being able to have that foresight to see when those opportunities are going to come down the pipe."

Ian Record:

"Isn't it important for the connection to be drawn not just for elected leaders, but also citizens that when you have a strong, effective, independent judicial system, that empowers you as a nation to tackle those other needs through restorative justice, through healing people, through healing families and things like that."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Yeah, and it does. I think people...the thing about the law is it doesn't get a lot of publicity. When a case is decided, even if it's an important, an appellate case in tribal court, when it's decided it doesn't get a lot of fanfare. The people that pay attention to it are people like myself, but as far as a general public, there may not be any publicity about an important case that our tribal court decided that's going to have some sort of ripple effect across Indian Country. But there is this general understanding by tribal members that the courts serve a special role, but I don't know if they really see the long-term effects of that. For example, Cheyenne River just had a case recently that went all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't know if people see that and how that impacts. And if that case would've been decided favorably by the United States Supreme Court that would've changed our civil jurisdiction authority over non-Indian people on the reservation. Unfortunately, it wasn't decided favorably, but it could've had that kind of impact. And so yeah, I think people are starting to see it more and more. And you mentioned some of the benefits. The other thing is when we have a solid court system and we have remedies, especially in civil matters, it does encourage things like economic development and corporations coming on to the reservation and things like that. So, and again it goes back to council. Is council willing to do a limited waiver of sovereign immunity so that these matters can be resolved in our tribal court? Because I think the courts are ready to do it. I think the court, I have a tremendous of confidence in our courts that they're willing to take on any issue. We have a very strong appellate court that's willing to hear these matters, but is our council...so I think that that appreciation for our court system, I think, really starts at the top. And I think our appreciation for any of this stuff and appreciation for improving tribal governments really starts at the top [with] your leadership.

Ian Record:

"You mentioned this issue of investment and the role of courts in that. How does a strong, independent justice system create an environment of certainty and competence for investors -- not just financial investors, but people willing to invest their own human capital in the nation and its future?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, I think, you just...I think the main thing is that you want to be able to, the tribal court, you want to be able to have a statement that says, or a law that says, or a code that says that matters of dispute will be resolved in tribal court. And I know, people that come into contract with tribes, they want to be able to say that if we...if things don't work out with this specific contract, we want to be able to enforce this contract somewhere. And hopefully, we can say it can be resolved in tribal court. Like I said, I don't think it's a matter of the court not being able to handle those matters, but again, it's whether or not the tribes and the tribal council feeling confident enough to be able to open themselves up to that sort of court action."

Ian Record:

"I want to follow up quickly on this issue of sovereign immunity, and this is an increasingly critical topic. What we're seeing is more and more tribes approaching that issue strategically, whereas before it was kind of this blanket response of, "˜We don't want to waive sovereign immunity because we're sovereign,' as if those two things are the same. And more and more tribes are coming up with innovative approaches and doing exactly what you say. 'We'll waive our sovereign immunity through this contract into our own tribal court system.' Isn't it incumbent upon tribes to really approach that issue in a very calculated, deliberate manner of, "˜Okay, this is a tool that we can use, but it has to be used wisely'?"

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, and I think, to answer...I guess I'll answer it this way. Yeah, I do think tribes need to be very deliberate with that approach and I think maybe the reluctance would be again...you got to have a competent court though. And so what I think we're seeing with some tribes, they may -- I think we talked about it today -- some tribes have considered setting up a separate business court where you might have special judges come in and hear these matters. Because I think there's this perception in the outside world that either, you know, you're typical tribal court judge can't handle a very complicated, contractual issue. So set up a separate contract court where those issues are heard by a special judge that would come and hear those matters and is well-versed in that area of the law. So there are some very unique ways that tribes can try to address this and to improve the outsiders' perception of how we conduct business on the reservation."

Ian Record:

"I want to wrap up with I guess you would call it a personal question. Last year, you were selected to be a part of the first cohort of the Native Nation Rebuilders program, which is a program that was developed by the Archibald Bush Foundation out of Minneapolis in conjunction with the Native Nations Institute at the University of Arizona. And I'm curious to get your thoughts on the program. You're almost a full year through the program now. I'm curious to get your thoughts on what the program is about, the potential for the program moving forward, and how it's empowered you to contribute to Indian Country."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, I...first of all, it's just an honor to be a part of the program. It was an honor to be selected. And, you know, since I came on as a Rebuilder, you know, I've been through a couple trainings, which I thought were absolutely fantastic. I think our first training was tribal governance and, I think that, being able to participate in those courses, in those training courses, it just kind of gave me some hope that there are resources out there for tribal governments. I've been law-trained and I've taken courses in Indian law, tribal law and different other things pertaining to Indian Country. But a lot of -- like I said earlier -- a lot of our elected officials aren't well equipped to do their work. And I think a lot of our tribal officials could use a crash course in federal Indian law, a crash course in tribal bureaucracy, a crash course in tribal governance. And being a part of the Bush Foundation has exposed me to those resources and hopefully those resources -- more people will take advantage of them. My overall impression of being a Rebuilder is really is it's opened up doors, because I meet so many people from across, from other tribes. It's given me some good tools to do my work."

Ian Record:

"One quick follow-up: As part of this Rebuilders program, you were asked to go through a distance-learning course on Native nation building. I'm just curious to get your thoughts on that course and what it could bring to Indian Country."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Well, I think it's...I hope our elected officials take advantage of it. You did a really good job of putting it together, Ian, I know that you worked very hard on that. And, you know, it's easy to maneuver your way through the online course and the material is very well researched. But what I gained from it mostly was just hearing other tribal leaders and other members of tribes and citizens of tribal nations that are doing a lot of the same work that I'm doing. Hearing their stories. I think Joe Kalt said today that he's just kind of a pipeline, where he's gathering the stories and kicking them back out to Indian Country. And I think that's a good characterization of what Native Nations [Institute] is about and what the Bush Foundation is doing through the Rebuilder program. We're taking this information, we're funneling it through, we're getting it disseminated out to the people that need to hear it. And those stories are inspirational and if anything else, what it does is it says, you know, that nation building is taking place and it's being done very effectively."

Ian Record:

"Well, JR we really appreciate your time and thanks for joining us."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"Thanks, Ian. I appreciate it."

Ian Record:

"That's all the time we have for today's program of Leading Native Nations. To learn more about Leading Native Nations, please visit the Native Nations Institute's website at nni.arizona.edu. Thank you for joining us. Copyright 2011. Arizona Board of Regents."