>Are you making reference to the fairly new federal progam
>called "Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project"?
>...
>The BIA did allow tribes to contract the management of
>programs in the 70's and theoretically the IHS did also,
Are you referring to "638" here?
>but it is my belief that IHS did not wake up to self-
>determination until about 3 years ago. (Hope I'm not
>offending anyone here.)
>
>But now tribes want more than management of tribal programs,
>they want CONTROL. And who can blame them?
>
>Ellen Kemper
>Santa Fe, NM
Hi Ellen,
The Self-Governance Demonstration Project is pretty controversial.
Was this what you referred to when you said this conversation
could get hot? I find the issue really interesting. Actually,
true Self-Governance is the controversial issue, not the demonstration
project, i.e. demonstration tribes are experimenting with partial
self-governance.
On one hand, staunch believers in sovereignity must recognize that
Self-Governance is the logical conclusion. Rather than the US Govt
wasting so much money in the bureaucracies to provide health, education,
welfare, ... let the tribes assume control of these programs and funds.
The tribes can tailor programs to meet their unique needs, instead of
getting bogged down in the waste/generality of federal programs.
Certainly, tribal councils would appreciate having more power under
self-governance. *Power* is the key.
On the other hand, some Indian people would not want their tribal
councils having so much power. Maybe the extra money/power would
cause the tribal councils to become (more?) corrupt, and in the end
tribal members could end up with worse services than they have now.
I see and feel both sides. Ideally, I would fully support self-
governance because I believe in protecting and exercising tribal
sovereignity. If you really want self-determination, then self-
governance makes sense. It seems simple. But, I'm not convinced
that many tribes have the skills necessary to implement these
programs. I'm bothered that I feel that the tribes lack of skills and
potential corruption lead me to wonder if BIA/IHS could do a better
job than the Indians themselves... how sadly ironic.
I think large tribes could flourish under self-governance. Small
tribes would have problems, and would probably need to join forces
to provide services. For example, if a tribal court is not feasible
for a small tribe, then maybe four or five small tribes could join
together to implement the court. At least it would be the choice of
a given tribe on whether or not they wanted to join this group. Although
it doesn't sound much like self-governance, the tribe would still
(self-)determine to share their governance. Other tribes that would be
adversely effected by a national policy of self-governance are all of
the unrecognized tribes, especially those who now are receiving some
services (health, education, ...) If the US Govt decided to ask each
tribe if they wanted to go under self-governance or stay under the current
system, I'm sure they wouldn't bother to ask the unrecognized tribes.
The more tribes that opted for self-governance would cause BIA/IHS/etc.
to get cut more and more, and would likely worsen conditions for the
unrecognized tribes.
Lastly, protection of treaty rights are a consideration with self-governance.
If the US Govt no longer has trust responsibilities for the tribe, why
should it bother sticking up for the tribe if some third party challenges
the sovereignity of the tribe?
I'd appreciate hearing others comments on the demonstration project
and ideal/real self-governance.
danny ammon
ammon@cs.stanford.edu
ammond@axe.humboldt.edu