Reflections
from the Ahnishinahbæótjibway (We, the People)
|
Ross Swimmer interviewed
Transcript of Press Conference
with Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ross Swimmer
July 12, 1988 - Minneapolis,
MN
Swimmer: So, with
that, I presume, the press is around the table, and I’m willing to
answer, or
try to answer, any questions that you might have, and if you don’t have
any,
I’m sure I’ll find something else to say.
Goldenberg: Steven
Goldenberg, with First Person Radio, Migizi Communications. Mr.
Secretary, it
seems kind of a contradiction here, to teach people to be better
managers for
the B.I.A., in view of your main idea that the B.I.A. should eventually
go out
of business. Is that a good career
track for these people, then, if all that ...
Swimmer: That’s
what I was trying to get across to them earlier. Yes,
I think that it does work well, and works to their benefit,
especially what I am saying is, if we plan today ... or let’s say,
let’s go
back—if we planned n 1975 self-determination was a policy, and enacted
into
law, for what was going to happen fifteen years from then, for what was
going
to happen fifteen years from then, I think that everyone at that time
would had
said that the object is for tribes to take over the functions of the
Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and that’s what began to happen. We
contracted out for a lot of the programs. What
didn’t get said then, was “what will be
the role of the Bureau be, then at the end of fifteen years? And as a consequence of that, even though
the policy of self-determination was announced, and law was passed, we
had a
lot of resistance in the field. There
were a lot of people of the B.I.A., out at the agency, who said, “hey,
they may
think that way in Washington, but don’t you come over here. Mr. Tribe,
and try
to take my program, because that’s my job.
And so, you have that built-in resistance there, because really
what did
happen was, if the Superintendent was successful in contracting out his
program, he lost his job. That was
never accounted for, and it was almost like, well we put this into
effect, but
we really don’t mean it. What I’m
suggesting is that a policy of self-determination, if we carry it
forward now,
has to have some goal, some probability of success n the future, and
that would
be that, if we set apart, say in 1995 or in the year 2,000 ... maybe
that’s a
good year to pick, the turn of the Century, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs
budget, as it is today, would be approximately a hundred million
dollars
instead of a billion dollars, whatever they might be.
Well, let’s say ten percent, and what we’re going to do with
that
ten percent, is we’re going to be an administrative agency that will be
the
contact for Indian tribes in Washington, is we’re going to ferry
programs and
laws to the hill, and we’re going to provide some technical assistance
to
tribes, but the basic role of the Bureau has really been transferred
over to
the tribes; tribes have been managing their trusteeship; tribes will be
managing this and managing that. But,
if we don’t say that, what worries me then is that we’ll never get
there. If we don’t make that statement,
and what
I’m saying to these managers is that we need competent people to carry
this
into that next phase of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Cook: Yeah, I’m
Don Cook of the Ojibwe News, and I have a question on ... as
far as your
management of millions of dollars going into tribes—what is your policy
as far
as accountability to the people that the tribes are representing? We constantly hear self-determination, and
the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, self-determination means eleven
people. The rest of the people—we
haven’t seen our tribal government since 1979.
We go to a council meeting in Red Lake; we are arrested by the
Bureau of
Indian Affairs police. We go to our
election; every polling place on the reservation is supervised by the
Bureau of
Indian Affairs police. You know, where
is the people? Where is the
self-determination?
Swimmer: Well, I’m
not going to get into local tribal politics any more than I absolutely
have to,
but that’s ...
Cook: Well, I’d
like to ask you a question about it, though.
Swimmer: Well, let
me answer the question as best I can.
The federal government, and Congress in particular, decided that
this
course was what was right, they said that, in effect, tribal government
is it. They said, we’re going to accept
tribal
government, and in fact in may cases Congress is the one that mandated
that we
will have Tribal Government, because they needed someone on the
Reservation, to
distribute these dollars. They claimed
at that time, that the state and federal governments weren’t doing it;
that the
money wasn’t getting to the people. So,
the way to do it, would be for the people to organize a tribal
government. And then, we’ll use those
tribal governments
as conduits, so that the money, and the programs, can get to the people. Look, we’re going to have Tribal
Government. That implies then, that
there’s going to be some representation by that tribal government of
the
people. There is no doubt, in my mind,
that has not happened in all cases. I
have seen many, many cases... I’m not citing any in particular, but
I’ve seen
many cases, where the tribal government is not really very
representative of
the people. I have also seen cases the
local and state government is not very representative of the people. They don’t feel like the State government
listens to them, sometimes either. But,
I can tell you, that I don’t condone it.
I believe that tribes, if they are going to participate in this
process,
also must have a free and open election, and they must have a process
by which
the people participate in the tribal government, and participate in the
election of those, or the selection of those leaders, however they
might do it.
Cook: What is
the responsibility that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has for the
Constitution
of the Tribe? Fore example, our
Constitution says that our Tribal Chairman shall live on the
Reservation one
year prior to running for election. Our
tribal chairman hasn’t been living on the reservation for the last nine
years.
Swimmer: Well, I
don’t consider that our responsibility, or that of the B.I.A., to ...
Cook: You’re
part of the Constitution. Our
constitution would be ... think it’s a
contract, our constitution is a contract between the federal government
and the
Tribe. And, before it’s recognized, the
Secretary has to approve the Constitution.
Now, in Red Lake in particular, we’re ... the people are left
totally
out in left field, our representatives ... they don’t know what’s
coming up at
the meeting until they’re asked to vote, and its’ that way all across
the
country ... and in the votes ... the Government is hand-picking their
leaders.
Swimmer: What I had
hoped to do is, that is this morning at least, is to talk to the press
generally about issues that they might have.
You’re making statements, and I can’t respond to those, because
I don’t
have the other side here. And I know
that there are other people on that reservation, that believe that they
do have
certain rights. I do know that Red Lake
has elections. Now, I don’t look at as
the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ responsibility to get involved in the
elections,
any more than we absolutely have to. I
don’t look at it as proper that we should be in your constitution. I believe that people of that reservation
should call the shots, and that the people of that reservation should
decide
what kind of leadership they want, and that they should set up a
mechanism to
do that. And, it’s hard for me to
believe that everybody on the reservation is co-opted
by one or to or eleven people, and that no one else out
there has any rights, or abilities to make any changes.
Now if, I said that it’s hard for me to
believe, I’m not saying that it’s not.
And, I’m not saying that it’s not a way to remedy that, but I do
believe
that it is a local issue, and that it has got to be resolved. Now, I’m wiling to talk to you-all about a
specific issue, but I think that we’re getting off the course as far as
what we
would like to try to do today, and answer questions a little bit more
broader. But, if you want to go ahead and
make your
statements, I’ll be happy to listen ...
Blake: Mr.
Swimmer, I’m Francis Blake, with the Ojibwe News, and what
you’re
talking about is the press that you’ve dealt with is the corporate
press. We are not the corporate press. We are printing the truth.
And, these are the questions that we are
asking you.
Swimmer: Well, I
want you to print the truth. I’m not
...
Blake: We’re not
the corporate press.
Swimmer: I mean, if
you’re making statements, and you’re not asking questions ... If you want to ask a question, I’ll be more
than happy to answer it.
Gordy: I’ve got a
question. I’m with the Circle
newspaper. My name is Gordon ... You
referred earlier to the possibility of the B.I.A. phasing out over
time, in the
period 1995 to the year 2,000. The
possibility, is that then the program that’s being instituted, where
the funds
are going to the timber of ten tribes.
Is that part of that long-term phase-out—is this the trial run?
Swimmer: It won’t
be a ... the so-called ten tribes was a ... it could be considered
sort-of a
first start at that. What I was trying
to do, was look at the federal resources, and instead of the federal
government
planning how the dollars get spent in Indian country, I wanted to
reverse the
process, so that we could start the planning from the ground up, so
that the
tribes ... let’s say, that Tribe A last year received five million
dollars of
federal B.I.A. funds for a whole list of different programs that
Congress
authorized. They have to spend that money
for those particular programs. They might
not even want those programs, but if they don’t operate those programs,
they
won’t get the money. What I said to
Congress was, why don’t we tell Tribe A, there’s five million dollars
of
federal dollars available. Now, you
tell us how you’re going to spend it.
You’ve told us that you have high unemployment, you’ve told us
about the
alcoholism, you’ve told us about poor health, and all this .. how are
you going
to deal with those problems with this five million dollars? And you develop the program that you want...
We then will incorporate it into the B.I.A. budget, this being your
budget, in
effect, is in addendum to ours, send it to the hill, let them
appropriate the
money, and your tribe then will be held accountable for whether you
were
successful. The way it is now, is that
because we operate in this programmatic mode, tribes almost have to
fail, n
order to get re-funded the next year.
If they don’t show the same need that they had this year, then
those
programs that they’re operating that we send to them, they don’t need
to be
there, and so the money will go somewhere else. What
I was trying to do was sort of guarantee this level of
funding to a tribe, and say, “we’re going to give you credit for being
successful...
So, as you begin solving problems, it wouldn’t mean that you begin
losing
money.” Because, as we know, there will
be plenty of other things that you can continue doing.
Almost revenue-share concept. So,
those ten tribes ... what happened was,
those ten tribes were at the hearing last December, and congressman
Yates
suggested that because they were there and had heard, and said, “well,
now
maybe that might be an idea,” why don’t you ten tribes try to get with
Swimmer
and develop some tribal specific programming like that, and we’ll give
you a
million dollars a plan. That’s how
those ten tribes... but there are several other tribes, besides those
ten, that
are interested in it.
Lussier: Uh, Mr.
Swimmer, I’m going to stop you. You
know, when I go to a meeting, I like something to come.
You was asked a question. Who’s
responsible for the Constitution that
you’ve made, I think the question was.
Did you answer it? And, I’m
going to ask you this: I was on the Chief’s council, and the B.I.A.
said that,
“you don’t have no Council.” So, they
took it away from us, just like that.
The B.I.A. ... and I told the B.I.A. at that time, “you’re going
to be
sued for this some day.” My name is
Adolf Lussier, and I’m enrolled on the Red Lake Indian Reservation, and
I
served on the Council for eight years, so I know exactly what the
Council is
doing, and I want to thank you, if I said anything hurt your feelings,
I hope
to Christ it didn’t. Thank you.
Swimmer: As far as
who’s responsible for the Constitution, it’s the Tribe.
Lussier: Eh! YOU
are!
Swimmer: No.
Lussier: I helped
make the Constitution, and you sent the Secretary of the Interior,
signed it,
that’s why it’s got him in power.
Swimmer: But, it’s
not our constitution, it’s your constitution.
Lussier: OK, you
signed it.
Swimmer: ... and
you can change that Constitution any time you want...
General
comments...
Talk about a joke .. it don’t work that way.
Other: Question,
Red Lake is one of them ten Tribes, right, and would they be held
financially
accountable for them programs that are instituted?
Swimmer: There are
certain ... yes, they would be, if they, if they ... develop a program,
but
there are also certain requirements, that any of the tribes, before can
have
this in an actual funding program, that they have to have an
accounting, that
they have to be able to provide for the Bureau a financial accounting,
that has
a clean audit opinion, that says that they can track all of their
programs,
because we won’t do it with any of the tribes that don’t have
accountability
...
Cook: Right.
Can we get a copy of the policy that Mr.
Barlow has that we have to get permission from our Tribal Chairman to
talk to
him.
Swimmer: I don’t
think that he has ...
Cook: Oh, yes he
does! Mr. Barlow, tell the truth, now.
Other: Tell the
truth!
Cook: We went to
your office, and you had to call Roger for me to talk to you, right?
Other: Yeah!
Other: I was
witness at that Press Conference. Don’t
try to get out of it, because I ...
Swimmer: Virtually
every tribe, to some extent or other, is going to have an inside and an
outside, and those sides often change.
Maybe not as often up in Red Lake as some other tribes. Mr. Barlow and myself are pretty much
committed to dealing with elected Tribal leadership, and that’s a
policy for my
office as well as for him. Now, I have
not refused to meet with any Indian people, but I do refuse to meet
with people
if it involves tribal leadership, that they really are in charge of. I will listen, but I cannot make the changes
in your constitution...
Other: Don’t make
me blush, now...
Swimmer: I cannot
make changes in your constitution, I cannot un-elect your tribal
leadership,
folks, I’ve been there, I’ve been a tribal leader, and every single
election
was contested ...
Lussier: Yes! Where
was you a tribal leader—Red Lake? I am
bothering you now, while you are talking.
Were you a tribal leader at Red Lake?
Swimmer: No,
sir. I was tribal leader at ...
Lussier: I’m
sorry. Red Lake and where you were, is
probably like Heaven and Earth. I don’t
... but I know Red Lake is what these guys are trying to tell you, and
that is
what we ant you to answer. Not—what the
heck! You got the taxpayer’s money and
come out here and give us a bunch of baloney!
The first thing that you didn’t say was—638 Money?
You don’t have any control over that. That’s
the only program I ever heard of in
my life, that the Tribe is the one that gets the money from you. You don’t have a damn thing to say ... a
DAMN thing to say—that’s the law! 1975
or ’77, whenever it was made, but that’s the way it is, the Tribe asks
for
it. You don’t have any control over
whether they can get it or not. Is that
right?
Swimmer: We do have
some control, but generally we don’t ...
Lussier: You don’t
have any control over it
Swimmer: We have
control of the program, they have to operate it in a certain way ...
and we
have control of the accountability of it.
Lussier: Well what
do you do, then with it? That’s the
point!
Swimmer: It’s what
the Tribe does with it. Once the Tribe
contracts...
Lussier: The
Government gives you the money, contract money, you get it. Contract
money, the
B.I.A., don’t they?
Swimmer: And then
we turn it over to the Tribe.
Lussier: To the
Tribe! And, you’re supposed to see that
they spend it in the way they’re supposed to.
Is that right?
Swimmer: We have a
process that we go through, to see that ...
Lussier: Sure, you
have a process. What’s the
process? We don’t know they do, is what
we’re trying to tell you. Thank you, to
God, I’m talking too damn much now!
Swimmer: The answer
is that the Government ...
Lussier: I’m too
damn weak for that ...
Swimmer: The answer
is that throughout the Government office ... Yes, ma’am.
Star &
Tribune:
You talk about slowly phasing out the B.I.A.—has that
process been started? When are we
talking about that happening?
Swimmer: We’re not,
because it requires not only my talking about it, there requires action
by
Congress and of course by the Tribes.
Congress has not, the process that they have done is proposed,
is the
direct funding concept that we talked about earlier, would be one of
the
mechanisms for .. authority at the Tribal level to set Tribal budgets
and again
the process for self-determination.
Star &
Tribune:
When do you see this, that it might start? When
do you think that it will begin?
Swimmer: Well, I
had hoped that we would see some progress on it this year, and that we
could
see something in enabling legislation this year, as part of the 638
amendments
that Congress is proposing, there was a section included in there for
the
Tribal direct funding concept,, but it’s been very controversial on the
Hill. There are many people on the Hill
that simply don’t believe the Tribe is capable, and they’re not going
to give
them freedom .. uh, any more freedom than what they have now. So, some of the Indian committees think that
the Tribes just can’t do it, and that the B.I.A. is going to have to be
there,
to oversee and manage what goes non out here.
I contend that until we back away from that position some, that
we won’t
be able to see ... Tribes almost aren’t allowed to fail when they get
in
trouble, immediately is—hear, hear! the B.I.A. is called to account. We’re the ones that are held responsible,
even though the people on that reservation are the ones who are
responsible for
their Tribal Government, and they’re the ones that have to make those
decisions.
Star &
Tribune:
Are you pessimistic that you don’t expect this bill to pass
this year?
Swimmer: Well, I’m
a little pessimistic about it, on the other hand, they did—the
appropriations
committee put another million dollars in to continue the plan. So, I’m ... at one time, they’re planning,
but they’re not giving the Tribes any authority to do anything, except
on the
planning, and I find that a little difficult for Congress to speak out
of both
sides of its mouth. They’re willing to
give Tribes money, but they’re not willing to give them the authority,
and the
authorizing legislation is what we need to give tribes the authority to
submit
those budgets, and to do a Tribally-designed budget with Federal
dollars. But, what I’m saying is, I’m
optimistic that
they’ll reconcile those to, and there’s one or the other will happen,
that they
will give them money, or they’ll give us authorizing language to allow
that to
happen.
Star &
Tribune:
Your views are not ... based on what I’ve read, they are not
necessarily popular with the B.I.A. officials, nor the reservations. Why do this? Do
you have backing on the reservations in this matter?
Swimmer: I have
some, but I guess I will say that I don’t have widespread backing by
Tribes at
this time. I think that they can try to
join this initiative if they are interested in this.
They haven’t committed themselves either. I
think that has been delayed a little
because of the money. I did have a
Tribe that was very interested in taking over the management of some of
its
Trust assets, which I think is an enormous ...
Star &
Tribune:
Which one is that?
Swimmer: This is a
Tribe in the state of Oregon that had a forestry program, and the Tribe
wanted
to manage its own forestry. It would be
a process where the forest would be left in trust with the government,
but they
would manage it. This is a step, again,
n that direction that I have advocated, where we remain trustees, but
we turn
over more management authority to tribes, so that on timber and water
and fish
and what have you, that they take over more of the responsibilities for
managing. But, if they do that, they
have to hold us harmless. In other
words, if you give them the right to manage their forest, and they go
out and
clear-cut it, they can’t come back to us and say, “well, you let us do
it, so
now you’ve got to pay us for the value of our forest.
In this case, the Tribe had a really ... an interesting concept,
because we manage as a trustee for the median.
We can’t manage the peaks and valleys.
What they were proposing, was by taking over their timber
management,
and cutting the same amount of timber over five years that we would
have cut,
but doing it in different cycles, and investing the money, that by the
end of
thirty years, they would have something like thirty million dollars in
the
bank, and following our pattern of managing, they would have nothing in
the
bank, so it is interesting that because they could individualize the
management
of their forests, the could do so much better.
Again, they went to the Hill, and proposed it, and Congress
said,
“no.” They said, “well, we’re not ready
to entertain that idea. We want the
B.I.A. to continue being your Trustee, and managing this asset.”
Star &
Tribune:
Is this ... recently we’ve also had quite a few stories on
the Congressional investigation of B.I.A., where is that now?
Swimmer: It’s in
process. I expect it to be a very long
process. I’m not sure that they’ve even
focussed yet on what they’re going to investigate.
I think that they have pretty well discounted most of what you
read in the Arizona Republic and all, because those were highlights of
investigations that had already been done by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. There wasn’t a lot of new
information there,
and it covered a span of about fifteen or twenty years.
What they’re really looking for ... what
they first started out with, was of course the headline that five
million
dollars had not been paid by royalty, or something.
That’s not true, and they found that in a hurry, that was not a
valid assertion. But there are some
difficulties, we know, in oil and gas, there are some in some of the
other
areas of management, and I suspect that ... what I would hope for is
that they
do a thorough job, a review and investigation, and that at the end of
it, that
they come up with some recommendations that make sense, and talk about
the real
issues: the way that we do business, and the way the tribe does
business, and
how we relate to one another, and how the economy is, and some
recommendations
about that. Because we ... I don’t
think that they’re going to find a lot of fraud and use ...
Other: Mr.
Barlow, this gentleman has had his hand up for a long time ...
Bassett: Mr.
Swimmer, I’m Mike Bassett of the Circle. In light of your
statement that
Tribes bear responsibility for their Tribal government, and
constitution, and
your statement that the B.I.A. interference should be at a minimum,
particularly with the government, and of course in the constitution,
could you
please explain what authority and what policies are in place when the
B.I.A.
orders the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe not to enforce the Indian Child
Welfare Act
if it’s under the Constitution, then they have responsibility for it. They don’t have the power to have a judicial
hearing.
Swimmer: I don’t
know. That’s a good question, and it’s
too broad. You have to break it down
into parts. As far as the Indian Civil
Rights Act, it provides that, in this instance, that the Tribe be
notified in any
case that there is a child that’s a member of the tribe ... now, in
some cases,
that’s where it stops. And, the tribe
as a right to intervene, in the State court proceedings.
Out of state, the Tribe can send a
representative, if they’d like to intervene the can (inaudible). I’m not aware that it carries with it a
tribal court activity. Now, if you’re
saying, now that we had a tribal court; and we said that you can’t
[have] child
welfare cases in your tribal court, we’re getting into an area that I’m
not
familiar with, but I’d be happy to talk about your individual, or that
individual
situation, b ut I don’t know enough about it.
Bassett: But, if
the B.I.A. does not have the ... if the Tribe has full responsibility
for its
Constitution, how could the B.I.A. be telling the Government that they
don’t
have a judicial system that can handle Indian Child Welfare cases?
Swimmer: They
can’t.
Bassett: They can’t
tell them that ...
Swimmer: Unless the
Tribe doesn’t have the authority ...
Bassett: But if you
...
Swimmer: If you put
something in your constitution, that you have no authority to do, the
Tribe is
bound by Federal statutes, and not all tribes have the same level of
sovereignty. Some tribes have law
enforcement powers; some tribes don’t have law enforcement powers. Some have ability to have tribal courts;
some don’t. Some are located in states
where it’s been usurped, and some...
Bassett: Do the
same restrictions apply to elections, and protection of civil rights
for
Indians who believe their civil rights are being denied, that their
votes
aren’t being counted?
Swimmer: Generally
speaking, the issue of uh, tribal elections and in inter-tribal ...
in-tribal
matters, are left .. should be left to that Tribal government, and the
people
on that reservation.
Bassett: So, the
B.I.A. has no responsibility for enforcing the Indian Civil Rights Act?
Swimmer: No, we do
not.
Bassett: And the
B.I.A. has no measures to investigate what you said you could believe
was the
... unfair elections?
Swimmer: Generally
speaking, no. WE do not get into
elections. We, uh... sometimes we are
asked by a Tribe to monitor an election, and when we do that, we are
observers. We write, and we observe,
and we give it to the election board or whoever is in charge of the
election. We don’t have any ... we
shouldn’t have, and as far as I know we don’t exercise any authority to
go in
and manipulate or tell someone they can or can’t vote, or shut down the
precinct, or do anything like that.
When we what appears to be someone that is voting that shouldn’t
be
voting, we note it. That is what we
should do, and then we go to the election board. We’d
prefer, and I’d prefer, that we not get involved in
elections at all.
Bassett: Well this
makes a lot of bureaucratic sense, to the people. Can’t
you see a sense of unfairness in the Tribe ... the B.I.A.
has the power to come in and say, you don’t have a judicial system, but
they
also claim that they don’t have the power to come in ... say, “we don’t
have
the right to monitor you and make sure that you’re having fair
elections” ...
Swimmer: [pause] I
don’t see the conflict. The Tribe does
have a system; maybe it doesn’t work, maybe that’s what you’re saying. But, Tribes do have systems, for conducting
elections, and Tribes do have a procedure for appeals in those
elections. And, those are what have to be
followed. And, once they’re exhausted,
that’s it.
Bassett: But the
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has no provision for poll observers,
tabulation
processes continue to be closed, and the board which the grievances go
to is
composed of the Tribal Government, which has been in power for over a
decade. Is that a process that the is
no need to monitor the elections.
Swimmer: It is,
under the present circumstances. I’m
not saying that I condone it. I’m
saying that that’s the way we operate today.
We don’t have any other authority.
Elections, and the enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act,
are left
up to the judicial processes of the Tribes, whatever they might have.
Bassett: You seem
to be ...
Swimmer: And,
elections are internal to the Tribe, and the election disputes are
handled by
the election board. If they appoint the
... if the Chairman appoints the Board, and they’re his people, tat’s
where the
disputes get handled.
Bassett: You were
willing to go out on a limb, and call for a new policy that would
require 90%
reduction over twelve years in the B.I.A., what are policies that say
that you
have ... for these election processes that you don’t condone?
Swimmer: Well, what
I call for, and I’m supporting, is what the Justice Department is
proposing,
now. And, that is a bill to, what we
say, strengthen the Indian Civil Rights Act.
And, in Title II in the Civil Rights Act, that is, that there
are two
provisions that are being proposed; one is that the plea of Sovereign
Immunity
would not be available to Tribal Government; and the second would be
that if
there is not a Tribal Forum either capable or wiling to hear civil
rights
cases, due process, equal protection type cases, these would go to
Federal
Court.
Cook: Would you
be in favor of abolishing the Indian Reorganization Act?
Swimmer: Uh, well I
don’t really have an opinion about that.
I don’t see that it would really accomplish much.
Cook: Well, in
Red Lake we used to have an honest, open government, prior to 1958,
when the
Indian Reorganization Act was put in fraudulently ... [end of tape
1—couple of
sentences missing] ... and the next thing you know, they have got three
people:
Robinson, and two other guys, coming to the Reservation, and telling
the Chiefs,
“you don’t have no government.” And,
ever since then, we haven’t had a government.
All across the State of Minnesota, all we have had is a bunch of
dictators. We have no government of the
people.
Bassett: Mr.
Swimmer, in protection of sovereignty, isn’t there actions short of the
Justice
Department’s proposal to require that tribal governments give up their
sovereign immunity. To be able to
publicize, and perhaps just merely observe, and investigate
inadequacies in the
election process that you do not condone?
Swimmer: No, once
you get into elections, you’re getting into the very essence of
sovereignty. There is nothing that I
would condone as far as the B.I.A. meddling in Tribal elections?
Bassett: Well, is
there anything short of meddling? Can’t
you just observe and publicize ... can’t you ...
Swimmer:
Exactly! And that’s just what we’ve
been doing. We can provide the
information to the Tribal election board, or to the Council. But, to ... we’re not in a position of
calling elections bad, because of something that we observe. That has to be up to the governing
body of that organization.
Bassett: You call
elections all over the world bad.
Other: Mr.
Swimmer!
Swimmer: We do, we
go in and overturn a governor’s election in a state, we go overturn a
mayor’s
election, because ...
Bassett: I didn’t
say anything about overturn—we’re talking about observing, and
watching, and
publicizing...
Swimmer: I have
suggested that we can do that.
Other: Mr.
Swimmer!
Bassett: ... such
about tribal elections.
Swimmer: I’m not
aware of, uh, that issue, at this point.
I don’t know what you’re asking.
Did some Tribe just have an election that we observed?
Bassett: The
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe just had an election, the B.I.A. Refused to
observe
it. The was an election process which
involved no poll observers, no public access to tabulation; finding of
burned
ballots allegedly; an election board that had already had a previous
election
overturned, and ...
Swimmer: Was this
an election that was conducted under the rules of the Tribe?
Bassett: It ...
Swimmer: I’m not
sure I’d want to observe an election like that.
Bassett: If you do
not observe it, and do not publicize it like you said you were willing
to do,
then how are our people going to have a chance to redress this?
Swimmer: Well, I
guess that we have a basic disagreement.
But I still see people on the Reservation as being those people
who are
responsible for their government. If
they’re going to have elections that way, it doesn’t do me any good to
go out
there and, uh, talk to them about it.
They should ... they shouldn’t have elections that way, and if
they want
help in developing an election code, or rules of doing it, we’ll be
happy to
furnish that assistance.
Bassett: Until the
tribal government that ran these elections asks for your help,
you’re
not going to make any statement, or observation about what’s going on
in the
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe?
Swimmer: Generally
speaking, no. We look at it as an
internal tribal matter, that is up to the Tribes to work out themselves.
Other: Why does
the B.I.A. certify these elections, then?
Swimmer: We’re not
certifying an election. We accept the
result of the election when they turn over the ... when whoever in
charge gives
us the knowledge of who gets elected.
Bassett: The B.I.A.
officials never swear in officials, or never ask officials ... never
de-recognize the Tribal government as being unfairly elected or not?
Swimmer: Generally,
no.
Other: Mr.
Swimmer!
Other: Mr.
Swimmer!
Star &
Tribune:
The Tribal ...
Beaulieu: Mr.
Swimmer! May I get in here?
I’ve been ...You know, I’ve had my hand up
for about ten minutes here, so please let me ask this question. Accountability. Accountability—that
I think it he bottom-line issue in Indian
country today. Our Tribal officials are
not accountable to the people. You can
go to Tribal officials, try and get financial records, financial
information
which is mandated by the Constitution, yet they refuse to give out that
information. Only under the Freedom of
Information Act do we get our material.
We have audit after audit that shows that Red Lake Housing, for
instance, Red Lake Housing Finance Corporation, is composed, the Board
of
Directors is composed of our eight representatives and three Tribal
officials. Eleven men.
The Credit Committee: four out if five
Credit Committee members are also Tribal Council members.
Now, the State of Minnesota gave the Red
Lake Tribe—gave them money for housing.
Now, the Red Lake Tribal officials were paying themselves two
hundred
and fifty dollars per diem, per meeting, the Board of Directors. The Credit Committee was getting two
hundred. They would have multiple
meetings per day. You know, two or
three meetings, write another check. We
have documents to prove that. You know,
when we go to the Bureau, what kind of response do we get as you see it?
Swimmer: I would
expect us to send you back to the Tribe, and to work that out with your
own
Tribal Court, and uh...
Beaulieu: So,
basically nothing, is that what you’re saying?
Blake: What we
have is colonialism, and Congress is condoning this colonialism.
Other: I’m going
to go! I can’t stand it! [laughter]
Lussier: The
question I had—I’m going to talk about Red Lake, where do we go if
we’re not
satisfied. We can’t go to our court, we
can’t go to our Council, they can’t come to me because I don’t have any
power,
so where do we go? You [represent] the
Secretary of the Interior, and you still signed our
Constitution. If you signed it, my friend,
is my question.
Swimmer: [silence]
Other: Mr.
Swimmer?
Lussier: But, thank
you. And I hope that you answer, I hope
that you tell these people because I can’t wait there ...
Swimmer: [almost
inaudible] No.
Manypenny: These
people are trying to communicate something to you.
There is something amiss here in this government, you know,
managed by Mr. Barlow. When they take
the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’s Constitution—when they take these oaths
of
office, not only to our Constitution, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’s
Constitution,
but to the United States Constitution.
Now, you talk about a Trustee relationship that you have—you’re
the
Trustee of our affairs here. Mr.
Barlow, I guess I want to ask you, what did you do about the White
Earth Land
Settlement Act? When you let one man,
and he violated, in the Constitution of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe,
it has a
mandate that those leaders are supposed to protect the land, not let it
be
sold, or dealt with in any manner. Now,
one person, Darrell “Chip” Wadena, the President of the Minnesota
Chippewa
Tribe, in fact helped this bill through Congress. And,
he did it against the resolutions passed by the Minnesota
chippewa Tribe, and the White Earth Reservation Tribal Council. That’s a violation of the Constitution, and
you people are doing nothing about it.
Now, you want to talk about a trust relationship!
How do you protect these people here, who
are asking you, as the top person in the United States
Government, that
there’s wrong-doing done here, and you guys are ... .it makes no
difference to
you. You let it go. Answer
that question!
Swimmer: Well, you
probably wouldn’t like my answer, because I supported the White Earth
Land
Settlement [almost inaudible].
General: Oooh! Now!
Manypenny: Sure!
I understand that. But, what about the
people here? You have no right to do
that. Like, making decisions for me,
who has land involved here. You didn’t
come and ask me. You asked this man who
knows nothing about it. And, he gave
you a consent. What happened to this
thing about a Federal policy, a Federal policy, a mandate, that says
the courts
will not deal with these kinds of things, with recognized title. Isn’t White Earth a recognized title? You know, that you can’t go without the
consent of the people? Why is this
vacillating,
back and forth here? You change in the
middle of the stream to accommodate ...
Swimmer: You make
it a very simple issue, and it’s not a simple issue as you well know. It’s a very complex issue on a land
settlement.
Manypenny: Well, what
we’re asking about, is we have leadership where who overstepped their
authority
and this man is still in office. So,
the Constitution of the United States and the Minnesota ...
Swimmer: Well, you
people have a right to take him out of office.
Manypenny: Oh, yeah?
... tell us how. Tell us how.
Because we asked those officials up there,
and nobody tells us nothing, including Mr. Barlow.
Swimmer: Well, you
have a process through your tribe to do that, and I can’t relate that
policy.
Manypenny: No, there
is isn’t. There is no process.
Swimmer: There
isn’t available to you that you can’t yourself.
Woman: Why didn’t
you come and ask the White Earth people, ask us the White Earth
enrollees and
the White Earth people about the land ... about the White Earth land ...
Swimmer: We had
many, many comments on that bill, from White Earth people, and a lot of
other
people ...
Woman: Why didn’t
you hold a public meeting?
Swimmer: Well, the
Congress held hearings on it. There
were hearings held ...
Woman: Why didn’t
you hold a public meeting, is what I’m asking.
I’m not asking about Congress, I know that ...
Swimmer: I know
that when the bill ...
Cook: With 90%
unemployment on every reservation, how can the average person possibly
get to
Congressional hearings? The only ones
that can get there is your paid political puppets, that’s your average
government that ...
Woman: Why didn’t
you hold a public meeting? I’m from
White Earth and I’m still waiting for my answer?
Swimmer: I don’t
know how many meetings were held, but I know that there were
discussions held
up here, and since that time ...
Woman: In White
Earth, on the Reservation, why didn’t the Department of the Interior,
Bureau of
Indian Affairs, hold meetings on the reservation of White Earth?
Swimmer: I’m not
saying that we did or we didn’t, and I’m really not going to get into
the
issue. I’m going [to] say tat the ...
to settle an issue that we felt was fair ...
Other: You
felt!
Swimmer: That’s
right, and as trustees we have that responsibility.
And, I have very few types of cases, especially claims cases,
that get settled, or even get finicky, that are satisfactory to
everybody on
the reservation. So, I wouldn’t expect
everyone to be satisfied. But, I do
believe that there were an awful lot of people that were satisfied with
the
legislation that was passed.
[General
chorus of dissent.]
Swimmer: Well, ...
Manypenny: For the
bar owners, for the store owners, for all the White people? Oh no! Not the Indian people.
You satisfied the White people, and the
politicians, but you did not satisfy the Indian people.
Swimmer: Well ...
Manypenny: And that’s
your job, right? To protect us—and you
have not done it. As well as Mr.
Barlow.
Swimmer: And
suppose that we had gone the other way, and we had them defeat the
legislation,
and you had lost subsequently in court?
Then, you would be out the settlement, the land, the money, and
you
would be sitting on the other side of the table, saying you’re trustee
...
Several
people:
We’re out anyway!
Manypenny: We lost
anyway!
Swimmer: Well, I
don’t think you did, but that’s a matter of opinion.
Woman: Do you think
that money can buy everything, buy your soul?
You sold your soul.
Manypenny: In the
last tribal election, the enrolled members of the Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe
voted in a Constitutional convention, in which we were to bring
amendments to
the Constitution. If the B.I.A. then
oversees it, then that’s OK, as they did in 1934 when they put in the
Indian
Reorganization Act. Is there any way
that you can ensure that this Constitution, this convention will be
represented
by Indian people, and I mean all of the people with all concerns? Or, will then again be appointed, or chosen
by the elected Tribal officials or your own staff?
Swimmer: I don’t
know what the process is, the area we’ll use for that.
Other: But, if
you’ve got to OK the election, or the Constitution, or whatever, if it
gets
changed and all that, wouldn’t you have to ensure that process, too?
Swimmer: Well, we
are ... Fortunately, you’re right. In
some cases, we have to approve provisions of the Constitution. We’d rather not do that, and the only thing
that we look for is if there’s a provision put there that is strictly
illegal. In other words, something that
the Tribe is proposing to do, that Federal law prohibits.
Beyond that, we expect the Tribe to adopt
the Constitution it wants. We’re not
going to mandate that you put something
in there; we’re not going to mandate that you take it out.
We’ll advise you if it’s illegal, and it’s
not going to be enforceable. We’re
moving right now, to send a bill to Congress, that would take us out of
the
constitutional process entirely, because it is not our business to be
involved
in Tribal Constitutions. That is, it is
the business of the people on the reservation, to adopt the
constitution and
the form of government that they want, and I think that there has been
a very
paternalistic attitude in the past, both by Congress and by the
administration,
since 1934, that we would oversee those kinds of things.
And, if we move into greater
self-determination there is nothing in my mind that is more important
than an
Indian tribe determining its own government—how it operates and how
that
constitution is drafted and how it holds its elections.
We started—if we continue to try to play a
role in tat, you don’t have a Tribal government. You
have a B.I.A.-managed government, and that’s wrong.
Other: That’s
what we have.
Beaulieu: Do you
mean that you won’t have to approve any of the changes?
Swimmer: We have
limited, uh, review responsibility of the changes, as I said we’re
attempting
to get out of those, for any tribe, not just this one.
But, we have to go through the review under
certain laws that we’re obligated now, we have to review constitutions.
Other: But none
of them have to deal with seeing that all sides are represented at the
Convention?
Other: It’s after
the fact, but ...
Swimmer: Again, we
would recommend that to any tribe that is reviewing its constitution. I would hope that they have enough sense to
do that. You know, we expect that if
there is going to be a constitutional convention, that people be
notified of
the meetings and he hearings, and things like that.
We can’t go out to the reservations and force that.
We can not.
The thing that ...
Barlow: Ross
Swimmer, just a minute! What we object
to, now—the amendment that wa adopted, it was a very simple amendment
up
there. What it says is, “shall the
constitution be amended, yes or no.”
There is no mention of the process.
Now the Tribe has to go back and determine if there has to be a
constitutional convention or what. But
that’s their decision. Just to get back
to White Earth, Ross, I can emphasize with their frustration. When this legislation was proposed, it was
kind of an either-or—either the legislative route to resolve this, or
the
judicial, which would have been very expensive. The
initial bill that was proposed, the area office did not
support. And, we fed that in, and after
it went through the political process, the decision was made by the
Congress. That’s the way the political
process works, and I’m not saying that it’s good or bad, but it has to
come to
a resolution somehow.
Swimmer: We
oftentimes get into an either-or situation, and there was very little
choice in
this case, because Congress was determined that they were going to pass
this
bill. And, we tried to get some
amendments—we did get some. And, I
think that over all, that we did the best we could.
Beaulieu: A comment
on ... a question on your Ten Tribes project. Red Lake basically gets a
blank
check. Roger Jourdain gets a blank
check from the Federal Government, and from the State Government.
Swimmer: Oh no, ...
Beaulieu: Yes he
does. Yes he does.
Swimmer: He might
get it from the State, but he doesn’t get it from us.
Swimmer: He might
get it from the State, but he doesn’t get it from us.
Beaulieu: Yes, he
does.
Swimmer: No, he
doesn’t.
Beaulieu: Yes, he
does. We have audits, on file, where it shows. Like,
in one particular audit, there was $420,000 in question,
$366,000 were disallowed. $173,878,78
were spent on per diems, bonus
... You know, and there is no accountability.
You contacted Roger, the B.I.A. contacted Roger Jourdain, Red
Lake
Tribal Council, saying that this money was mis-spent, you have to pay
it back. So what they do, is that they
drag out the
old General Fund checkbook, and write a check. That’s our money. You
know, who
is accountable to us, the rank and file Indian.
Swimmer: And,
that’s right. If we go in and audit a
disallowed cost, the Tribe has to pay it back.
Beaulieu: But, it
comes out of the General Fund. You
know, and it’s mandated by law that it’s not supposed to come
out of the
General Fund. That overpayment, where
they paid themselves per diem, in that housing situation there, that
was done
with a tribal check. I have a copy of
the check. You know, I have copies of
these audits. And, it’s very clear
that there is very little trust responsibility occurring in Indian
country,
from the top, on down.
Cook: Sir, I
have a question. Where, in your mind,
in the next fifteen years, do the Indian people stand.
You gave us a lot of rhetoric before, on
planning on getting out of tribal government—when we’ve been out of
tribal
government since 1958. We’ve been under
dictatorship form of government in this so-called democracy, where they
want to
manage the world and they can’t even take care of their own backyard. You don’t have to live under that
situation. We have 90% unemployment on
our reservation. Our chairman is
sitting off the reservation, with our tribal checkbook, living it up
like a
king, and the people are going hungry.
Swimmer: How many
people voted in the last election?
Cook: In the Red
Lake district, I only know that, there’s three hundred and twenty-three
people
voted, out of approximately 2,300.
Swimmer: Well.
Cook: What good
does it do?
Swimmer: Meaning
that if you couldn’t get the other two thousand to vote, it wouldn’t
change?
Other: No. No.
Cook: They’ll
just put another thousand votes in the box.
You know, the people that run the tribal elections is generally
the
tribal staff. That’s who runs the
elections. For your elected official,
we ... we could swear on a stack of Bibles that our elected officials
are
hand-picked, paid by the Federal Government to mis-represent the people
of the
Red lake Band of Chippewa Indians. And,
I’d like to ask another question. Maybe
Barlow could answer it. Is Roger
Jourdain selling any of our ceded lands, at this point?
Barlow: Wait a
minute.
Cook: Where are
getting the thirteen hundred dollars for the payment that he’s telling
everybody that we’re getting, when we’re flat broke?
Swimmer: [silence]
Barlow: [long
silence, no comment]
Beaulieu: In the
1986 general election, we got from the printer who printed the
ballots—we have
approximately four thousand voters, right—eligible voters.
The tribal council had printed up,
10,550 ballots, ten different
kinds. We couldn’t see the ballots,
they wouldn’t let us see the proofs.
But, we did [see] a copy of the bid sheet. Now,
why is the need for so many ballots? Ten
thousand, five hundred and fifty ballots
for four thousand voters.
Swimmer: [silence]
Barlow: [silence]
Star &
Tribune:
Are you meeting with Tribal leaders, on this trip are you?
Swimmer: Yes.
Star &
Tribune:
You are?
Swimmer: Red Lake,
I think we met with non-tribal leaders.
I do have a meeting this afternoon with some of the other ...
Star &
Tribune:
Are there some of the other things on the agenda that
perhaps you would like to talk about, or is it an open event?
Swimmer: I’m just
here at their convenience, as far as ...
Cook: Are we
allowed into ... say if we’re from Red Lake are we allowed to listen in
on what
our problems are?
Swimmer: [silence]
Cook: We can’t
go to our government. Last council
meeting I went to, I was arrested by the B.I.A. police for going to a
council
meeting. That’s right, I was charged
with disorderly conduct for walking into a council meeting, by Barlow’s
police.
[General
laughter]
Bassett: You were
talking on the level of tribal government.
But, you need a strong tribal government in order to dismantle
the
B.I.A. Do you have any comprehensive
plans to strengthen the one, so that you can dismantle the other?
Swimmer: The only
way that I can respond is that the pole of the reservation have to
decide if
they are going to have a tribal government or not.
Red Lake or other tribes that have people that don’t like the
government, we have several of these.
But, we have 310 tribes altogether ... you’re virtually going to
have
differences in any tribe, to some extent.
Because, whoever doesn’t get elected gets upset because they
didn’t get
elected, and whoever gets elected, gives the appearance of [inaudible],
so I
don’t expect ... I mean, this ...
Bassett: But, if
you’re dependent on populism and grassroots support for building these
governments. Have you not ... with
that? How can you go on with your
overall plan to dismantle the B.I.A.?
Swimmer: I think
that the word dismantle is wrong. It’s
a phase-out, as tribes assume that authority and responsibility, that
the
functions be transferred, as was intended in self-determination. To being a change in the roles, so to speak,
as we get out of the way, Tribes take over more. I
don’t expect every tribal government to run smoothly, even
after fifteen years I wouldn’t expect that.
There will still be problems, and there will still be [people
who don’t
believe that they have a voice in their tribal government.
But, I still say that it’s left to those
very people to change that tribal government, not us, the federal
government or
the B.I.A. to step in there and try to make something right. Because, you just end up with the other side
claiming the same abuses. It has to
be—if we don’t have that, I contend that if we don’t have it, if we
don’t have
tribal government, then we ought to stop this business about talking
tribal
government. If we’re not capable people
in Indian country ... what i hear these people saying is that—no tribal
government is better than the one we have.
If that’s what they want, dissolve the tribal government, do
something
else, but I contend that tribal government can be capable of doing it,
and if
the people in Indian country want a government, they ought to have the
kind
that they want. It can’t be a B.I.A.
imposed government.
McArthur: That’s a
racket, that’s the word that you didn’t say.
In other words, what you are saying, is you are reinforcing the
fact that
our leaders are telling us. OK, you’re
saying, when we come in and we protest, such as several of us in this
room who
went through the election process on the reservation, OK you say,
you’re
telling this man right here, you’re telling all of us right
here—because we’re
all just a bunch of soreheads because we lost an election.
In essence, that’s what you’re saying. In
essence, that’s what the tribal
leadership tells us. OK, so what do we
do? OK, we come down here, and we ask
questions, we say, OK, we find burnt ballots from this past election. We’ve got people who will testify to
election boards who were carrying out bags and bags of ballots, not
counted, to
keep the incumbents in. We come down
here, we ask you, what should be done.
I can’t do nothing. Then, you
sit there and call us a bunch of soreheads.
OK, I ask you, we make a personal request today, we’ll ask you
right
now—what would you do if we asked you to come in and investigate the
election
held on White Earth? You’d say no,
right. I’ll answer it for you, “no.”
Swimmer: That’s
right, I’d say, go back to your tribal process.
McArthur: OK, hold
on a minute. My next question. OK, we have a tribal council member who was
elected, in this last election, who puts in a request to the Bureau of
Indian
Affairs for an investigation of the election board.
Now, OK, what would you say to that, then?
Swimmer: I would
say that if there is fraud and criminal activity that you suspect
involved in
that, you can turn it over to the U.S. Attorney’s office, and it could
be
investigated. If it’s an election
malfeasance or misfeasance, we don’t have any authority over it. You have an election process to take care of
that in your tribal constitution, in your tribal government.
McArthur: OK, you
heard what we all said today, about...
Swimmer: If someone
is violating civil rights, that’s where the issue really has been. In many cases you have not had an adequate
forum to address that, what we are trying to do is what I mentioned
earlier, to
get legislation passed that will give you an optional forum.
McArthur: OK, Mr.
Barlow what do you say to that? What if
a request comes to your desk, if say from a tribal council member
requesting a
...
Barlow: I’ve got
to decline. We called the press
conference with the assistant secretary.
Incidentally, he does have some appointments starting at one
p.m., and
we have to get him a lunch, so he’ll be reconvening at one p.m.
McArthur: A request
did come from a tribal council member to monitor the elections, and
that
request was denied by the Bureau. And,
that was from a tribal council member, an incumbent.
Other: Yeah, right
...
 |
 |
 |