nepotism

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."

John "Rocky" Barrett: Constitutional Reform and the Citizen Potawatomi Nation's Path to Self-Determination

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

In this wide-ranging interview with NNI's Ian Record, longtime chairman John "Rocky" Barrett of the Citizen Potwatomi Nation provides a rich history of CPN's long, difficult governance odyssey, and the tremendous strides that the nation has made socially, economically, politically, and culturally since it began reclaiming and reforming its governance system back in the 1980s. He also shares his and his nation's working philosophy when it comes to economic diversification and the building of a self-determined, sustainable economy.

Native Nations
Resource Type
Citation

Barrett, John "Rocky." "Constitutional Reform and the Citizen Potawatomi Nation's Path to Self-Determination." Leading Native Nations interview series. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, The University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. March 28, 2009. Interview.

Ian Record:

"Welcome to Leading Native Nations. I'm your host, Ian Record. On today's program I am honored to welcome John "Rocky" Barrett, Chairman of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation. Chairman Barrett has served as an elected official of his nation since 1971, serving first as vice chairman and then becoming chairman in 1985. During Chairman Barrett's tenure, the Citizen Potawatomi Nation has experienced tremendous growth. With about 2,000 employees, the Potawatomi Nation is the largest employer in the Shawnee area and is a major contributor to the economic well-being of Potawatomi County. He was instrumental in the creation and adoption of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation's current constitution and statutes, which have provided the foundations for the nation's extended period of stability and progress. Chairman Barrett, thank you for joining us today."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Thank you for having me, Ian."

Ian Record:

"Well, I've introduced you, but if you'd please take a minute or so and just introduce yourself."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Well, as you said, I'm John Barrett, Rocky Barrett. That's a nickname my parents gave me at birth. My Potawatomi name is '[Potawatomi language].' It means ‘he leads them home.' I am a lifelong-almost resident of the area where our tribal headquarters is located, and have been on the Native Nations Institute Board [International Advisory Council] for I guess six years now. But it's an honor to be here. Thank you."

Ian Record:

"Well, thank you. My first question is the same first question that I ask of all of our guests, which is what is Native nation building, what does it entail?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"There was an interesting perspective that we heard on...from a number of tribal leaders today. It appears that the... for Native nations in general, that answer is as broad as the spectrum of individual tribal needs and wants, the way the tribes meet the needs of their people and their cultures. There are some commonalities. The common struggle of how we overcame the internal structural deficits that were imposed on us by the constitutional forms that the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, the Indian Reorganization Act gave all of the tribes around the country and the imposition of this quasi-corporate structure and the creation of these council authorities that didn't give a separation of powers -- how we overcame that, how we overcame the opposition of the states in asserting governmental authority and how we've...really how we've overcome the resistance of the free enterprise system in developing our assets have been...I think those are commonalities. The common attributes I think of successful nation building are stable governments, expanded representation, lawful behavior, and something that lends itself to consistent performance. All of those go back to constitutional forms, but they also...those are really accomplished by diminishing nepotism, which is...since everyone is related in an Indian tribe, that is an issue. Financial accountability is a huge one. Separation of powers seems to be a common attribute, and most importantly to make all that fall within a cultural relevance that means something to the culture of the tribe and the people."

Ian Record:

"A tribal leader...a fellow tribal leader of yours once said that the 'best defense of sovereignty is to exercise it effectively.' Can you comment on that statement based on your own experience?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"I will never forget the night that F. Browning Pipestem, a fairly famous figure from Oklahoma in promulgating the concept of Indian sovereignty and fighting for the sovereignty rights of Indian tribes, and William Rice, who's an attorney, who's a law professor at the University of Tulsa, gave a speech to our tribal government late one night back in 1983, and it was as if a light bulb went off, because [of] the idea that the exercise of sovereignty is what makes one sovereign. Browning ended up explaining it to several people that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. The business of the exercise of sovereignty...one hears too often this phrase, ‘We don't have to live up to our responsibilities or our contractual responsibilities because we're a sovereign and can't be sued.' Equally balanced with the responsibilities...or the authorities of sovereignty are the responsibilities of sovereignty. Our exercise of sovereignty really was a chain of events, I think, for our tribe and the concept of tribal sovereignty has certainly been interpreted differently in every single tribal environment. Our...the first opposition in my first election as chairman -- because I ran on this concept of tribal sovereignty in 1985 -- my opponent sent a letter to our congressional delegation in Washington saying that we don't want to be sovereign, we're citizens of the United States, which is completely outside of the point and displayed a clear misunderstanding of what sovereignty means or the historical context of pre-constitutional entities that were in place as functional governments before there was the United States and certainly before there was a State of Oklahoma."

Ian Record:

"How can leaders -- you've been through the ringer as a tribal chairman for more than 20 years now -- how can leaders manage the often overwhelming pressures that they face, things like citizen's expectations -- that's kind of the ever-present challenge -- social ills, onrushing events, never enough resources to do everything that you want to do. Then you have the other jurisdictions like the feds, the state, etc., and then you've got this big thing looming ahead of you, which is called the nation's future. How do you...how can leaders manage all those often overwhelming pressures in order to lead effectively?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Of course everyone has a style of leadership and certainly every culture demands a certain pattern of behavior. Our tribe has a very unique history, having been relocated three times and then being subjected to a tremendous number of disincentives to stay on the reservation; the 1950s urban relocation program, the effects of the Dust Bowl days in Oklahoma, the fact that the area in which our reservation is located was...in the 1920s and ‘30s was an oil boom area and when the California oil boom happened a number of our people moved west for that purpose. Quite a number of things that caused our current population distribution to happen and leadership...I think leadership can lead to challenges of office and they're both internal and external. The only real way to meet that is by building a competent and professional management structure and then direct it with a clearly articulated plan of action and goals. And then I think any tribal leader, once you get that done, you should use all of the authorities of your office to protect that organization from...what happens with most tribes is that someone comes in whose objective is personal gain, and I think protecting the organization from people who have that agenda rather than the agenda of the greater good of the tribe. The other is to praise those that have a diligent work ethic and most of all I think to persevere in the face of adversity because it's a fairly...it is a constant that you will hear more from those who either have problems or oppose you for a number of other reasons. What's interesting in Indian tribes, the political oppositions are generational. Some of the folks who don't vote for me or don't care for me were folks who did not vote for or care for my two uncles that were tribal chairmen, my grandfather who was on the business committee, my great-grandfather who was the tribal chairman. I think that, unfortunately, there are some of those generational enmities that are there and there are those that believe that during that period of time when we had a very, very small group of people who exerted an undue amount of influence on the tribe's government because of the form of government when we had to govern by meeting in Shawnee, Oklahoma, and all elections and other decisions were made in that meeting, before we extended the absentee ballot privilege and allowed representation in a national legislative forum, that small group of people who exerted an undue amount of influence on the process of the tribe who were deprived of that undue influence, they are the ones who currently oppose whatever progress is being made. Some of that's human nature, it's understandable. I think our tribe in the...we had to make some extraordinary efforts to bring our people back into involvement in the tribal government because we had some extraordinary historical events that dispersed our people and there was a detachment from the tribal culture. We have 27,000 members. Nine thousand, basically, of them, 9,500 are in Oklahoma. The remaining are in eight sort of enclaves around the United States in California, in Kansas and well, here in Arizona there are about 1,500 in this immediate area, where there are these groups of folks who have been two and three generations removed from Oklahoma, bringing them back into the culture and making the tribal government something of value to those people that would make them or make them want to reassert their culture, become a part of it. The tribe has to make itself of value to its people and to accomplish that you have to reach them first. And so this structure of government that we have now and that we have been evolving into since 1985 is unique in that it was...that was required because of this distribution of people of where our membership is located."

Ian Record:

"One of the things I'm drawing from your answer to the last question is this issue of leaders as educators, that a major part of a leader's job is to educate and engage their people to essentially mobilize them, to get their input, to get them engaged in where the nation is heading as a nation."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Yeah, very much so. I haven't thought of myself as an educator, but as a motivator or of getting someone involved with the tribe. There seem to be two distinct kinds of rewards that our membership seeks: those who don't have physical needs that need health aid or need assistance with housing or education or some other form of assistance. Those are the folks who are most rewarded by the cultural aspect of the tribe, that go to the trouble to learn the language, to learn ceremony, to get their tribal name, to involve themselves in that culture that was a part of their heritage. Our tribe doesn't have a religious elite. Everyone in our tribe is enabled to perform any ceremony that we use because those ceremonies are their individual birthright and so because of that...and we have a long, over 300-year Christian tradition and the tradition of using our traditional ways, particularly a prayer...in our Christian prayers of using [Potawatomi language] and the using of sweet grass and cedar and sage and tobacco in those ceremonies that...those folks that seem to be most rewarded are those that rediscover the culture. The two often go hand in hand, someone who is helped by the tribe financially or physically often at that point is attracted by the culture of the tribe and begins to realize the value of, if nothing else, learning it so they can pass it on to their children. The system of meetings -- that we've been holding now since 1985 -- around the country are half cultural and half the business of the tribe. And watching people's attention in the audience, the cultural things seem to always generate more interest."

Ian Record:

"As I mentioned in the introduction, you first came into elected office in 1971, which is, by coincidence, the year I was born."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Ouch!"

Ian Record:

"Yeah. But I was curious to learn from you what you wish you knew...what you know now that you wish you knew before you took office in the first place?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Well, hindsight's always 20/20. I think from the perspective of the '70s, the early understanding of...I'd like to say that I had these revelations in '71, '72, '73 of what was going to become of Indian...this was prior to the passage of the Indian Self-Determination Act. I was a 26-year-old vice chairman, my uncle was the chairman and he was -- along with my mother -- was an agency kid. My grandfather was the tribal...I mean, was the BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] marshal, the BIA police, and they lived at the agency across the street from where the tribal headquarters was and grew up as 'BIA kids' and my uncle believed, God bless him, but he believed that one could not have a formal meeting of the tribal government without the agency superintendent in attendance and that's what formalized the meeting. And I remember not finding the relevance in having the superintendent there because I had seen a number of instances where the superintendent's interests ran counter to those of the tribe and it was a period of time where...my realization that there was a...the Bureau was asking us to give them advice on the agency budget and then when we would, they would ignore us as far as the advice. And there were, almost at every stop, there was some deliberate statement of policy that the United States government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs job was to represent the interests of individual Indians and not tribes or tribal governments. And that had certainly been manifested almost entirely in the 1948 Indian Claims Commission settlements and it had forced us into a situation of closing our rolls in 1962 except for some arbitrary blood degree cut-off. The concept of blood degree was foreign to our culture and we did away with blood-degree determinations in constitutional amendments in the mid-1980s, but that period of time between '62 and '80 disenfranchised an awful lot of people and led to, on the whole, a great deal of the separation that the people felt from the tribe and its culture. It became all about splitting up this 'poof money' that was coming from the government, these little payments, and less about the fact that here we are a people with its own language and art and history and culture and territory and government that had been there for thousands of years, and suddenly we place these arbitrary stops in our system over a $450 check. In retrospect, it seems insane, and it was, just real truthfully it was. And Indian tribes around the country got caught up in this per capita business that is foreign...I know it's foreign to our culture, and I think it's foreign to most Indian tribal cultures. The very basis of tribal culture is uniting with a common purpose for the general good, and that doesn't mean cutting up everything into equally-sized pieces. Our tradition has always been those in need get served first, the mothers, the children, the elders, those people who are most needy are who are served. That has always been our tradition. The concept of...we had a [Potawatomi language], the word means ‘first hunter.' We had a man, who if there was a prolonged winter in the ancient days, who was best hunter who was sent out to kill game to relieve the famine in a village and in adverse circumstances. And when he brought that game back, if there were 150 people in the village, it was not cut into 150 pieces, it was distributed according to those who were most in need. That tradition hasn't changed. Earlier you mentioned a saying that we have adopted in our tribe about ‘don't eat the seed corn' as being our oldest tradition, and in our gaming establishments the cast iron railings around the balcony and in several other forms of symbolism are corn plants to represent that concept, that if you eat the seed corn you'll get one meal, but the village will starve because we won't have the crops in the future. And I think of all the things...of the two things that probably have led to the economic success and the governmental successes of the tribe has been that I have been empowered by the people of the tribe to take, as a first priority, to return our investment and to perform as a profitable business and an efficient governmental entity and take those returns and provide services. If the objective of our business is to employ unemployed Potawatomis or unemployable Potawatomis, without paying attention to whether or not that is a profitable behavior, what we've effectively done -- since 9,000 of us live in Oklahoma where they could get the jobs and two thirds of the population, another 18,000 live outside the state -- we have deprived the two-thirds of our population of the benefits of our revenues. So we can't make it about the one third who lives in Oklahoma. In order to make an equal distribution, you have to make the businesses operate at a profit, then invest those businesses, invest those monies wisely and then make a distribution according to need of the services. Always in every election, someone runs for office saying, ‘Let's take a portion of the money and hand it out as a per cap.' I mean, we have...I have an opponent in this election who's saying, ‘Set aside a third of the money of the earnings of the tribe and put it in some form of investment.' Well, we're already doing that, but the benefits that the individual tribal members are receiving now are in the form of some 2,000 college scholarships a year...a semester, the distribution of free pharmaceuticals for everyone in the tribe over 62, a burial benefit, health aids benefits, mortgage assistance. All of those things more than exceed what would be our total net profit divided by 27,000. Take any number and divide by 27,000 and then make it taxable -- which distributions are taxable on federal income taxes -- it's not a significant number. So much more can be accomplished by reinvestment, of putting that seed corn back in the ground, than can be in this distribution game because...I made, earlier I made a statement that per capita payments from tribal income are like feeding the bears at Yellowstone. When you run out of cookies, then the bears start to eat the people who are handing out the cookies. They're in the car with you. That's the same thing with per capita payments, it's a slippery slope. When 10 percent's not enough, if the revenues go down, then 12, then 15, then 20 then on up to where the consensus becomes, ‘Let's sell it all and send us a check and be done with it.' It has been a curse around Indian Country what's happened with per capita payments because it has not generated prosperity anywhere that I know of. It's been mostly about creating unemployment and destabilizing families and in many cases keeping people with an incentive to stay poor and stay in dire circumstances. We have become what we have become, because we've come a long way -- starting out in 1973 we had $550 in the bank and we had two-and-a-half acres of land held in common. We basically didn't have anything. We didn't even own the building in which the tribe was meeting. It belonged to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and was an abandoned structure that had belonged to the [Army] Corp of Engineers as a construction shack. We've come from that to the current economic impact of some close to $400 million in the local community, a couple thousand employees, and we've come to that simply by reinvestment and by leveraging the assets that we have into growth. It's certainly not all me. There has been...there have been a great number of contributors in the tribal government and an incredible cadre of loyal employees who have performed well. But the key to this is the tribe's consent to reinvest and if that consent somehow gets overridden by some folks who can't divide by 27,000, it would be a shame."

Ian Record:

"So that credo of reinvestment, is that something that could have ever taken place, taken root with the Bureau of Indian Affairs still in the driver's seat? You made reference to the early years."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"The Bureau of Indian Affairs, after the trust fund payment was made, the '48 Indian Claims Commission payment was made, they managed our money for about 15 years and had just over a one-and-a-half percent return. I used to be able to pick up the Wall Street Journal and if I read about some financial scandal around the country, I could be absolutely certain that's where the Bureau had invested the Citizen Potawatomi's money. They had a legal obligation to earn at least treasury bill rate and they did not meet that legal obligation. And then Congress passed a law that said we could take those monies away from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, those of us that were part of the Cobell suit, suing the government for mismanaging the money and we did so. Intriguingly, about that piece of federal legislation involved several hundred tribes that are suing the government, only two have taken their money away from these inept investors, which I really don't understand. We put our money into a trust account at the First National Bank and Trust Company, which is the tribe's nationally chartered bank and invested a substantial portion of it in the stock of that bank, which we've had overall more than 20 percent return on that original investment each year for some 20 years or 18 years. Actually it's been more like 15 years because of the period of time that the Bureau had our money. It has been certainly a higher return than the Bureau got. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, as far as the attempts that we've made to get just some very small incremental gains in creating...you always hear the catch phrase, ‘the level playing field,' the criticism that comes from the ultra conservative side of the free enterprise system is that because Indian tribes don't pay taxes, it's not a level playing field. If you were truly going to level the playing field, then Indian tribes should be allowed to leverage their capital expenditures. We are the only corporate entities in the United States who make investments in capital assets: hospitals, office buildings, casinos, grocery stores and those assets can't be used for collateral to borrow money to expand. We're essentially cash operators because the trustees...solely because the trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, will not tell a lender that, ‘We will on your behalf -- in the event of a default -- allow you to operate that business or take control of that piece of property.' And that doesn't require a change in law, it requires a change in policy at the BIA and is not, doesn't seem to be, after some five years of lobbying for it, a policy that is something the Bureau of Indian Affairs intends to change. If the Obama administration did anything else to increase the availability of capital to Indian Country, to increase the availability of collateral to lenders in Indian Country and to help Indian tribes leverage their existing assets, it would be to simply call up the Secretary of the Interior and say, ‘Tell whoever you have this week in charge of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to say to any lender in Indian Country, if the tribe defaults,' and there are appropriate documentation, ‘the tribe defaults, you can come in and run that business until you're paid back.' Simple. You would think it would be easy, but we can't seem to get that done. The other issue is of all the non-profit entities in the United States who...we are a tax-exempt entity. Of all the tax-exempt entities, 501c3 corporations can own Sub S entities [Subchapter S corporations] where the tax liability generated is passed through to the stockholders, except Indian tribes. We need the ability with our tribal corporations to create Sub S entities so that if we do a deal with the city, for instance, in building a sewer line or a water line and we don't want to expose ourselves to the vagaries of the state courts and the state doesn't want to expose themselves to tribal courts -- it's kind of like that Jimmy Buffet song about the ‘down in the Banana Republics,' they know they can't trust us and we know we can't trust them thing. At any rate, if we had this Sub S corporation, then we could consent to state court jurisdiction because we could limit our exposure to that contract with this Sub S entity and you don't have some avaricious lawyer getting through to the tribal treasury because it's...he's a tort claims wizard. The other, the third one is the only government contractors in the United States who do not have the power to use their government contract for collateral for operating funds are Indian tribes. The Assignment of Claims Act is being denied to Indian tribes on the flimsiest of reasons. And those three things would generate more capital than all of this impact money that the administration is putting in Indian Country now, just those three changes and I hope that happens."

Ian Record:

"It essentially sounds to me like it's about taking the shackles off of economic development for tribes."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"A level playing field, to borrow a phrase."

Ian Record:

"You've been quoted as saying in the past that, ‘if you're not talking constitutional reform, you're not in the economic development ballgame.' Can you explain what you mean by that statement and particularly with respect to the path that your nation took?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 gave every tribe in Oklahoma a constitution that described this business committee, which was a governmental entity that was supposed to be a representative body that had a presiding officer called the chairman, vice chairman, secretary, treasurer and two other members. And then over that, it put this thing called the general council, which I assume someone in Washington dreamed up this ideal picture of all of the Potawatomis gathered around the campfire and we'd democratically go from person to person and everyone voices their opinion and then there is this consensus, which is not how organizations work. Pure democracy hasn't functioned since ancient Greece, and the imposition of this thing called the general council on us caused us to reinvent the wheel every 12 months. The quorum for a general council meeting -- at which everything can be decided virtually, elect all officers, all rules, disposition of property, everything that was basically a tribal decision could be decided at this annual meeting -- and it had a quorum of 50 people. Now there were 11,000 of us on the tribal roll at the time that I took office and a quorum of 50, we had difficulty getting a quorum of 50 because the meeting over the years had become...we didn't have much business, we didn't have any money, we didn't have anything else going, but we did manage because of our unique natures to turn that into a six- or seven-hour adversarial conflict. And over the years, it had become so confrontational that the elders quit coming and there were so few people attending that basically 26 could decide for all 11,000. And to borrow a [H.L.] Mencken phrase, ‘It was the circus being run from inside the monkey cage.' It wasn't about government; it wasn't even like government. We didn't have laws, we didn't have a court, we didn't have anything other than this meeting and it was contrary to our culture. Our tribe had governed itself for thousands of years by having the clan heads elected a village chief, the village chiefs all met to elect an overall leader, who was there circumstantially. If we had a war, then the best tactician or the best leader was chosen. If there was a negotiation with a foreign government, the person who spoke that language obviously was one of the higher choices for that circumstantial leader and then those individual leaders went back to their respective villages or jurisdictions. We've always had a tradition of representative government. The imposition of this general council on all of the 39 tribes in Oklahoma led to a constant turnover of government, a constant system of chaos, it held us back for many, many years, and it was tremendously abused and it gave an undue amount of weight to those folks who lived there locally after the Bureau of Indian Affairs and circumstances had provided all these disincentives to leave. The policy of the government to erode our trust land base, in particular, incredibly erode our trust land base, caused most of our people to leave the area or to not participate. And that form of government stayed with us until 1985, and until we made that change in our constitution, we didn't get much accomplished. It was self-defeating and it gave...it also gave people who had another agenda an undue amount of influence within the council. Also the...not having in our constitution independently elected courts and a set of statutes and the ability to enforce the law on this end, and an independently elected executive where the money of the tribe is concentrated in the legislative appropriations process, but the legislative body can't run the day-to-day affairs of the tribe, they control the budget, and then the executive who has the authority to run the day-to-day affairs of the tribe, but have to do it within the confines of that budget. And then over here, the third party is an independently elected judiciary with a set of statutes and the ability to enforce the law. A government without law and the willingness to enforce that law isn't really a government. That's the ultimate act of sovereignty is not only enforcing the law, but be willing as a people to put themselves under the rule of law is the ultimate act of sovereignty. We didn't have any of that in our prior constitutions and I think any tribe that doesn't do that, even though...and I think if they look hard enough, it is within their traditional forum. There has always been some form of law in Indian tribes, in any social structure, but particularly in Indian tribes. Incorporating that traditional law into your statutory law is important, but the absence of law is not more traditional than a set of written statutes by anyone's interpretation."

Ian Record:

"So for your nation it wasn't just about economic development, constitutional reform was about, 'we need to put in place a process and a structure by which we can make effective, efficient decisions that are binding'?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Absolutely, that we assume the responsibilities of sovereignty, that we have uniform commercial code, that we have a full faith and credit agreement with the states in which we do business, that we acknowledge that contractual obligations are enforceable under our law. That's responsible behavior in the community of governments of all kinds, not just Indian tribes. We didn't have any of that in our prior forms of government and the federal government fought us for three years before our first constitutional reform in 1985, particularly the issue of allowing our tribal membership to vote by absentee ballot, which is the worst kind of self-defeating behavior the Bureau could have imposed. And then when we came along and wanted the separation of powers within the tribal government, we wanted this newly formed legislative body. They resisted at almost every point. What a shame that it didn't happen sooner. Of all the things I regret in being in office for many years, in 1985 when we passed the new constitution, we created a separation of powers and it gave the chairman specific authority to run the day to day affairs of the tribe, it gave the legislature the authority to exclusively manage the money and the budget process and created the courts. At the time, I had been in office for quite some time and used to having this five-member body where if you were any good you governed by consensus, you tried to find something on which everyone in that group of five appointed, which they could agree. And so you became accustomed to rather than asserting executive authority to putting the things that were clearly executive decisions in front of this body and depending on your powers of persuasion. In 1985, I should have made a clear-cut definition of, ‘These are executive authorities and they're not subject to review of the legislative body and these are clear cut legislative authorities and they are not subject to the powers of the chairman.' In 1985, the day that passed, I should have made that absolutely clear, but in the interest of not changing the way we had done things for a very long time, I rocked along and didn't do that. And so when the constitutional revision came for the most recent constitutional revision, we weren't prepared for what was the inevitable constitutional confrontation where the majority of the business committee would usurp authorities that were obviously executive powers or attempt to. In this case, they attempted to simply fire me and say, ‘You're still the chairman, but you can't run the tribe. We're going to run the tribe based on the majority of three of us of the five, our majority decisions, we're going to make all the calls, hire someone to function in your place and pay them a salary.' And that was an obvious...there it was, there's the confrontation. So luckily we did have a court system, we did take it to court and what has become the essential decision on how our tribal government functions, our courts ruled on that issue that there is a division of powers, there is a separation of powers, there are separate constitutional authorities and that was the basis for the 2007 constitution, which memorialized or I guess defined the decisions of the 2001 Supreme Court decision of the tribe. But what a wonderful thing that we did that within the processes of the tribe, within our court system rather than the confrontation or the way we used to, the confrontation on the floor of the general council where after the low blood sugar kicks in about 5:00 it comes to blows and you have ensuing chaos. We did it in a lawful manner and that being accomplished, we did it to the successful outcome of the whole distribution of powers within the government and set the stage for what we have now in the 2007 constitution."

Ian Record:

"The Citizen Potawatomi Nation recently developed what has been termed a virtual legislature. Can you explain what that is, how it works, and why your nation developed it, and I guess, we were talking a little bit earlier this morning and you made allusion to some of the challenges that you're facing with that virtual legislature."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Which are a part of growth. The challenges that you face in anything new, as long as they don't destroy the essential function, are often healthy. They certainly were with the '85 constitution. The 2007 constitution created a legislative body of 16, eight from inside of Oklahoma where we have approximately 9,500 members, a third of our population, but all of the tribe's territory, all of the tribe's assets, all the tribe's revenues and all of the areas of the territory over which it exerts governmental jurisdiction. And then two-thirds of our population are outside of Oklahoma where we have for a 25-year period had a form of tribal consultation that we have promised would eventually be represented in the tribal legislative body and have some input on funding and how the tribe performs its services. The concern on writing the constitution was how do you balance this territory and assets and jurisdiction with this population issue? The compromise was to put eight in the legislature from Oklahoma, eight in the legislature from outside of Oklahoma and force a deadlock if the two can't come to a meeting of the minds, and that's basically what we have. It is a mandatory compromise between the interest of the larger portion of the population and where the larger portion of the assets and revenues [is]. And that has so far for a year has worked quite well. It's a virtual legislature because we built a closed or internal teleconferencing system, a relatively expensive one, between the eight regional or district offices around the United States where these district offices are located; one in Southern California, one in Northern California, one here in Phoenix or close in Phoenix, one in St. Louis, one in Topeka, one in Arlington, Virginia and one in Houston, I'm sorry, I mean Dallas, Texas, Dallas area. Those cover the whole United States. I'm sorry, one in Oregon, Washington and Oregon. Those eight districts cover all of the 50 states of the Union in their representation and we have a nine-segment screen and I'm the presiding officer as the tribal chairman and I have a touch screen in front of me and there are nine segments of the screen, one large one is whoever has been called on by the speaker or the presiding officer that has the floor and that turns on that person's microphone. The cameras stay on all the time so you can see all eight legislators and the room in Oklahoma at the tribal capitol where all of the Oklahoma legislators sit on the bottom. So this let's each member of the district legislators see and be seen, hear and be heard on a real-time basis in the legislative body. And all of that is simulcast or streamed over the Internet so that all of our membership can watch that, potawatomi.org, for the public to watch as well. What we didn't anticipate would happen is that the live broadcast over the internet of those proceedings in a new legislative body that has not adopted a set of rules under which it governs its behavior, that a member of the legislature would take over the campaign management of his brother to run for chairman and use the auspices of his office and that broadcast to promulgate that candidacy. That's an interesting development. It will certainly lead to the legislature adopting some form of ability on how it regulates its own behavior, what is or isn't allowable behavior as a legislator and within that format. It also goes to the heart of the overlap between executive and legislative powers or authorities, whether you can use the resources of your legislative office in a campaign for tribal chairman. Certainly, the Congress is no example to follow here because every congressman involves himself in the election of the president of the United States in some way and the president goes around and poses with, in a partisan manner, with members of Congress. So the United States Congress certainly has worked that out and every state legislature seems to have that same overlap between the legislative body and the executive office of states. Ours will probably reach that same compromise, there just has to be...the decision has to be made within that body as it develops its body of rules, what resources are allowed to be used within that context. It's healthy in some ways. It's not a disruption of the political process. The only problem is with a nationwide simulcast, what's said is said over the air. So one can, is protected by legislative, under tribal statute what's said in the legislative body is protected. Theoretically, it hasn't happened, but theoretically someone could say, ‘This candidate for office is a murderer' and that goes out over the Internet and there's no one to say, ‘King's X, take that back,' but that behavior, which is clearly libelous or slanderous, is protected. So we have some rule making to do, we have some things to take care of there. The internet...as a virtual legislative body, the internet and its impact on tribal government was something I don't think any tribal leader, even the ones of the folks elected of your generation who are certainly tuned into media and most certainly not of mine, of us baby boomers, we weren't prepared to how dominant that the internet and all of its manifestations would be in tribal politics. We earlier heard an explanation by an elected tribal official how a blog of the tribal council meetings has become the dominant tool in manipulating opinion on the reservation. Isn't that an amazing thing to hear? And speaks volumes as to what's happened within the life on reservations as we become all...we're all into that...virtually, I would assume less than probably five percent of the Potawatomi Tribe, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, probably don't have computers or email addresses. Communication in that medium, campaigning in that medium, and it's something we really ought to be embracing for the way we develop our cultural outreach, the way we spread our culture, the way we engage the elders and the way we engage our young people. If we're not fully aware of and in command of this tool, we are remiss as tribal leaders because it's as important as anything we've ever done because it is the dominant media."

Ian Record:

"So just a follow-up question, the move, the constitutional amendment your nation took in creating this virtual legislature was a concerted effort to reintegrate all of Potawatomi citizens as full citizens in the nation, was it not?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"A distribution of power. To my knowledge of any tribal government in the United States that's ever put power back into the hands of the people in a larger way by allowing elected representation for anywhere in the continental United States, it is a passage of distribution of power back to the people in an unprecedented manner. But we'd been 25 years planning it and talking about it. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing and each of those regional council meetings had been going on for 25 years, all had a different nature, they all had a different set of families, they all had a different perspective. South Texas is certainly a lot different than Los Angeles area, different approaches to things, and we knew what we were getting into when we did it and we did it very carefully. It will be interesting to see what it looks like in five years or what it looks like in 10 years. The formal legislative process that we adopted certainly is a big change from what we had under the five member business committee. The whole concept of tribal legislative committees with specialties, the committees meet by Skype and then once a bill has passed out of committee, if it doesn't involve an appropriation, goes straight to the floor of the legislature. If it does involve an appropriation, then it goes to the appropriations subcommittee. Once all that process, formal bill process is really fleshed out, we're like I say one year into it, I think that the legislative process is going to take on a whole new nature. We operated for many, many years, since the '70s, with basically an open agenda that someone was free to introduce a subject from the floor and the chairman could or could not sponsor an ordinance or resolution to that effect and the issue was discussed and then the process of drafting those pieces of legislation that became enactments or pronouncements to the government, pretty informal process. Because we've gotten as large as we have, that has been much more formalized. To see the history of how the State of Arizona from the time of its formation how it got through...how it formed its legislative processes, how a bill goes through the state legislature -- in Oklahoma in particular, because of its unique and often bizarre history of impeaching governors and the legislature meeting outside the state capitol and the governor chasing them around with the state militia, all of those things that are uniquely Oklahoma that formed the legislative processes there, we'd still have that history to go, but I think we're off to a start. We have -- with very few exceptions we have -- the vast majority of the tribal legislative body are educated, they have experience in tribal affairs in business. They are all, with a couple of exceptions, experienced and accomplished business people, all with at least an undergraduate degree. We have one attorney, we have a member of the Oklahoma legislature who also is a member of our legislature, we have government contractors, we have really accomplished people that I'm very proud of this group of folks who are very dedicated to making it work. And the fact that we have this hiccup going on right now is...it's politics."

Ian Record:

"It's a part of growing. We have just a couple minutes left and I have one final question to ask you, which actually picks up on a theme you mentioned in your last question, which is this issue of strategic visioning and planning, essentially that the success your nation is seeing now and has seen over the past several years didn't happen overnight, that it was the result of long-term thinking, a long term focus and planning for that long-term future that the nation as a collective wanted to see for itself. Can you talk about the role that strategic visioning and planning has played, in the couple minutes we have left, in terms of your nation's economic and community development?"

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"Well, the model that's imposed on us by the very structure of Indian tribes functioning within not having a full tax authority and not having any jurisdictional authorities where you have to parallel economic business development and government side by side. The long-range vision that -- I'm certain we didn't have a crystal ball, but economic independence has always been philosophically, for our tribe -- and my deep belief -- that you leverage the resources that you have. We...first time we ever made any money, we sold cigarettes across the counter in the tribal museum because that rule came along that we could buy cigarettes without the tax on them and collect the tax. And the only available counter that we owned was in the tribal museum. So we leveraged our counter into cigarettes as well as the part of the tribal museum furniture and once we got...we had enough money from the sale of those cigarettes, we started a little bingo game in the tribal council room because that was the only room we had large enough. We leveraged that asset into enough money to build a bingo hall, a building and once that bingo hall...high-stakes bingo hall happened and we had ensuing court battles to keep, to get control of it from outside influences, but once we were in command of those revenues, then we bought the bank. We bought a failing bank from the FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] at the worst year in the history of American banking to date in 1989, we bought that with bingo proceeds and we had built a convenience store and we went about the business of saving that bank, of rescuing it from failure and getting in the banking business. And all of that has been leverage on existing assets. We had a piece of swamp land that the highest and best use -- we couldn't build on it -- so the highest and best use for this piece of swamp land was to make a golf course with 15 holes, the water in play, and it has become one of the premier public courses in the state. We basically leveraged assets that we had, but with the idea that each leveraged asset would at some point dovetail into a combined asset on which we leverage, and it's leverage on leverage. We did that with the Community Development Corporation and the bank, we did it with...every business we are in has been as a result of markets where we defined the market and we build that market and then we come up with a product or service to meet that market and then once that market's established, we come up with another product or service that meets that market. It's laddering, it's leveraging, it's not a unique business strategy, but it is something that...that and the idea of the service mentality that everyone who is at the Potawatomi Tribe when you are in front of your customer or constituent, you are the tribe and you should be empowered to satisfy that person. That is something that we go through, even I go through it, everyone at the tribe, all 2,000 employees every six months, go through customer service training, where that's something that we do and believe in, that our job is to represent the nation in making our customers or constituents understand that we're there to make them happy as much as we can. The old saying is first come sales, my training in school and most of my professional training and professional experience has been in marketing or sales and any business's success has to be that and on the other side we have been as a government about keeping good books, about accounting for the money, of having externally auditable transparency in financial management and avoiding personal conflict. That's a simplistic answer and it's a difficult thing to come to, but the closer a tribe gets to that, the closer they'll get to success."

Ian Record:

"Well, Rocky, I could ask you questions for days on end. There's so much more I'd like to learn, but we're out of time unfortunately. I'd like to thank you for taking the time to share your nation's story and your personal experiences with us today."

John "Rocky" Barrett:

"It's an honor. Thank you for inviting me. I appreciate the opportunity."

Ian Record:

"That's it for today's program of Leading Native Nations. To learn more about Leading Native Nations, please visit the Native Nations Institute website at www.nni.arizona.edu. Thank you for joining us. Copyright © 2009. Arizona Board of Regents."

Peterson Zah: Addressing Tough Governance Issues

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Former Navajo Nation President Peterson Zah shares the personal ethics he practiced while leading his nation, and discusses how he learned those ethics from his family and other influential figures in his life.

People
Native Nations
Resource Type
Citation

Zah, Peterson. "Addressing Tough Governance Issues." Emerging Leaders seminar. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. March 26, 2009. Presentation.

"Good morning. (I don't want to swallow this. It's so small.) I wanted to thank Steve [Cornell] for the introduction. I also wanted to give you two views about ethics. One of them is the written laws that your tribe may have, certainly with ours we do have that. And those are rules and regulations that governs the conduct of people who are elected to be responsible for your tribal government. The way I look at that is that that's a white man's law. It's in black and white and it has to deal with drugs, alcohol, conflict of interest, nepotism and those kinds of things. I always look at that law as, it's law written for the people that don't really have ethics of their own that's in their heart and it's in their mind that was given to them by their traditional people. They never really had that upbringing that they had, for example, with my coming from a highly traditional Navajo family and that's built into the tradition. So that is something that the Navajo Nation has. And then the second portion of the small presentation here is going to deal with the tradition, your own personal ethics. We each have that and you're the only one that knows that. To talk about it and how important that is in governance, in governing your people and governing a lot of the activities that go on in your nation. And so that will be my second presentation. However, I'd like to tell you a little story before I start.

Yesterday, as I understand, you were introduced to some of the Native American students that came from Arizona State University. And just indicate that the Navajo people love their children so much. And they are one of the groups of minority that I know of that really emphasize education, how important that is in life. And I guess because of that, we have today over 10,000 Navajo children that are going to colleges and university, supported by the Navajo Nation government through a scholarship service, supported by their own families, supported by many of the other entities that provide scholarship out there for Native American students and then many of them supporting themselves because of the traditional family instilling into them how important education is, what they can acquire during their lifetime. So that tradition lives on at ASU and we never really do things without our children. So I just wanted to congratulate Michelle [Hale] for continuing those traditions by bringing down some of these students that you met the other day. And you have to do things with your kids, with your children. You have to bring them on, bring them along, you have to educate them by example and by hearing a lot of these discussions that we have here today. And so I also just wanted to congratulate and welcome the students that we have here from Navajo and Apache.

The story is this: I got elected in 1983, and something like three or four days after the election I went back to my family in the center of the Navajo Nation called Low Mountain. We were in effect really celebrating among our own family members, my sisters and my brothers and my dad and my mom, aunts, uncles and grandmas and the grandpas were all there. And in the morning we had a lot of discussion, discussion around issues, politics, who all voted, how many people voted in that community of Low Mountain and all of that. And my dad at that time was about 85 years old. He could hardly walk, but he loved to herd sheep on horseback. So every morning, he would get his horse and he would saddle up his horse and then he let the herd out and then he came along on horseback to herd sheep. He says, "˜I'm doing this because I can't walk. I'm not as strong as I used to be and I can't run when the sheep tries to run off in the distance and so I have to have a horse.' But when he got on his horse, he wanted to pick up something that he had forgotten. The night before we were involved in local politics at Low Mountain, the discussion of how many people voted. And there was only one guy, one vote from my community that vote against me, that voted for the other party. And everybody was talking about who might that be. We were all discussing. In the morning my dad got on his horse and he also was talking about three or four days before there was a coyote that came into the herd and by god it killed one sheep and he was really ticked off about it. So brothers went over to the trading post, they got him some bullets and he had one of these 30/30 rifles that he always kept and it was always in his room. Well, he got on his horseback and he came to the front door and he says, "˜Gilbert, I forgot my rifle. Can you go get it and make sure that you also give me some bullets?' And my sister came out and she said, "˜Oh, you're going to finally kill that coyote that killed one of our sheep.' And my dad said, "˜No, I think I know who voted against us.'

A sense of humor is also very, very important as we discuss ethics, because when people violate certain ethical behavior expected of you or they violate the standard of conduct, it's a sad, sad thing. And my dad always had this sense of humor that was extraordinary about him. He was a member of the Navajo Nation Code Talkers, a trained code talker. And one day when I was just a young man way back in the early '40s, he told a story about how he was being taught to use the language. And he says, "˜When I go back and I'm having this furlough on a vacation in effect for the next two or three weeks and to spend the time with all of you. And then when I go back to San Diego, we're going on a ship and we're sailing to Japan. And we're going to be on the front line in combat using our language as Navajo Nation Code Talker.' So he, we had a ceremony and a sing and the medicine man painted him and all of that, did some prayers and he went back into the service. We said our goodbyes not knowing what the war may bring to [this] individual. But we were so surprised that a month later he was back. So I asked him and I said, "˜Dad, what happened, you're supposed to be in the war?' He says, "˜Oh, don't you know that Japan surrendered?' He says, "˜They knew I was coming.' A sense of humor in talking with groups of people in Navajo culture is very, very important, and it also has to do with ethics. So I wanted to just tell you that story.

Now, something about white man's law. Those laws are being enforced as we set it up in 1983-84. Because the courts were so overloaded with cases, we decided maybe the best thing to do is create a committee of the council that would get all of those ethics complaints that the Navajo Nation gets; that it would be the eight members that would act as a court, as a judge, as a forum where people can take their complaint to hold those hearings. And so basically the Navajo Nation has that system and people are encouraged to file these complaints with the ethics office. And when I checked last week about how those are going and how they're being handled and what are some of the most prevalent cases that we may bring to your attention -- and I do this because I want you to avoid them as much as possible -- on the Navajo Nation, the number one complaint is financial malfeasance or misfeasance, misuse of money. And that is happening because the Navajo Nation has decentralized its government.

We have on the Navajo Nation a government with over 300,000 people, 17 million acres of land and 110 chapters, local units of government. The Navajo is highly centralized and it has [an] 88-member council. So what the Navajo government did is they passed a law called the Local Governance Empowerment Act and that gave the chapters some authority, given to them by the Navajo Nation government, and they exercise those authorities at the local level to do what needs to be done. Along with that act, they also gave them some resources, some money to administer and that's where a lot of the misuse occurs. We also have 138 schools with 72 or 75,000 Navajo children going to school. So you have school board members, superintendents and principals that have all those duties to run those schools out there. There's a lot of misuse, misappropriation of funds. So it's the ethics office that handles those for the Navajo Nation. So number one is the financial malfeasance.

Number two is the conflict of interest. You all are familiar with that conflict of interest, where you have to avoid the conflict, where you have to not only avoid the conflict itself but every appearance of conflict you have to avoid because people interpret that a little different. And there's also a hazy area: what is meant by conflict of interest? I served on Window Rock High School Board for about, oh, maybe 12 years in my younger days. And every time a relative's contract would come before the board I always left the school board meeting either completely -- not participate in the discussion, particularly the voting -- or I went outside and took a smoke with some other guys in the community as it was being discussed; then coming back. That is a responsibility of the elected official to tell your colleagues that, "˜There may be a conflict here for me. So I'm going to try to avoid it by being outside. And you can always call me back in when you guys are finished with it.' The best way to avoid those is you yourself have to do that. So conflict of interest is high on the list for cases that are being handled by the Navajo Nation, the Ethics and Rules Committee.

The next one for Navajo is also very high, nepotism. You all heard about that, right? Nepotism, because we all say we're related to each other by clan. So the law has to be very, very careful in terms of how it states it and then how they enforce it because on the Navajo everybody is related to you. Everybody is related to you, especially when you get elected. They all come to you and they say, "˜I am your cousin or I am this,' and all of that. And so nepotism is one of those, like a conflict of interest case that's sometimes very hard to handle. Sometimes the courts can't deal with all of it. If we were able to put all of these things in court, our courts would be just loaded up with these kinds of issues. And so we try to have the local Navajo Nation government committee handle all of that.

And the last one that we have to deal with very carefully -- and there's a lot of that -- is courtesy to the employees. The elected officials misusing their power by the fact that they're members of the council and members of this committee using that authority and power and forcing an employee to do something that they shouldn't be doing. That's also high on the list of those cases being heard by the committee. And so we should as tribal leaders avoid all of this as much as possible.

I took office on the Navajo Nation in 1983 and we were in a terrible, terrible situation where the people or the person that I was running against was tried in federal court twice over misappropriation of money. And when your leader, the top guy, does that, then all of your other officials, their fuses go haywire; they want a part of the action. So when that happens, you have a complete breakdown of tribal government organization and function, especially when it comes to ethics; terrible, terrible problem. And that's what we faced when we went into that office. I even had people came to me when I first went to the Navajo Nation as chairman, some of the first few days where people were lined up outside -- Peabody Coal Company and all these other businesses that do business with the Navajo Nation. They wanted and they were expecting the same kind of favoritism that was given to them by the other tribal leaders.

I even had a guy come to me and he says, "˜Can you take a minute or two? I'd like to measure you, your arm, your chest, how tall you are.' And I said, "˜Why? We're here to talk business. Why do you want to measure me?' And the guy says, "˜Well, I think you'd look really, really sharp if you had a good suit on. If you had a blue striped suit with a nice necktie you'd look real sharp.' And I said, "˜Oh, my god.' I said, "˜You know, I like this and I like the way I dress. There's nothing wrong with it. It has nothing to do with my mind.' And he said, "˜Well, maybe the next time you're in Denver you can stop by and see us because we want to make you look nice.' [It was] very tempting because I didn't really have any decent clothes to wear, but my traditional family always said, "˜Be who you are. You're a traditional person by nature.' And that always come to mind when there were people who wanted to bribe you because that was the normal way of doing business in Window Rock. And so I wanted to just tell you and that's the standard of conduct that was issued by the Navajo Nation.

The next one is your own personal ethics. We each have our own personal ethics that was given to you by your tradition, by your families, by your grandmas and your grandpas. And you have to live by those; you have to live by those. Not only that you should know about it, and a constant reminder that that's what your traditional people taught you, but you have to live it, you have to be committed to it and you have to really practice that, because the only thing you have after leaving that office is your reputation. Yes, it was nice when I was in office because I had all these resources to help people with. But, when you leave office you don't have all of those resources. You have just you. You have just you. I am probably enjoying the best part of my life right now because I didn't commit anything and people know about it. You'll be surprised how many people follow your careers. They know about every little goof that you made, but they have a lot of respect for you if they never read bad things about you or never heard anything that's terrible about you. I'm really enjoying that right now because everywhere I go people respect the way you live. On the Navajo Nation with all of that money, I always tell people, I said, "˜See these five fingers, ten fingers. Millions and millions of dollars went between those fingers and not once did I put a dollar in my pocket. That belongs to the Navajo people. That belongs to your constituents.' I tell my friends, even in my own house. Yesterday I was driving this way to come to this conference, in my garage I saw a quarter and my wife says, "˜Hey, there's a quarter here.' And I said, "˜I'm not going to pick it up. That's not mine. That's not my quarter. It may be my grandson's, but whatever it is, it's not mine.' So I left it laying there. It's somebody else's quarter in my family. So you have to really, really practice those traditions when you go into govern your people and I think that's a very, very valuable thing to keep in mind.

I probably had the best teacher when I went into become a tribal chairman. There was a lady named Dr. Annie Wauneka. You probably heard some about her, probably read books about her. And she did some wonderful things in her life for the Navajo people. She was probably the best teacher. She always taught me these values. When I first decided to run, she said, "˜I'll support you. I'll go wherever you go.' So I would go to my first campaign rally at the chapter house. Boy, I would talk about my degrees. "˜I'm an educator, I got my degree from the university, I had these experiences, I was a legal service director,' and all of that. On the way back home after that rally she says, "˜My god, don't talk about that.' She says, "˜Don't talk about that. We, the Navajo people, don't value all of those things as much as maybe you do.' I said, "˜What do you want me to talk about?' She said, "˜Talk about your clan. Talk about your grandma, your grandpa. Talk about the fact that you were raised in the hogan. Talk about your corral where you keep your sheep. Talk about your dry farm and your field where you plant your corn and your beans and the squash -- all of those things that your family plants.' She says, "˜That's self-sufficiency; you don't rely on anybody else except yourself to live a decent live, a good life. Talk about your values, Navajo values. Not your master's degree, no.' That was Annie Wauneka trying to teach somebody who [she] thought was electable, but he just needed to say things a little more differently. So I probably do a lot of those things that my mother, my grandma, grandpa and what Annie Wauneka stood for. And those all had to do with ethics. One of the other things that Annie Wauneka said was, "˜Don't take things that don't belong to you. Don't ever think that it's nighttime. Nobody will see me. There's no one around. It's nighttime.' She says, "˜The night is your cheii'. The darkness is your grandfather. The people who are no longer with us, they turn into these great spirits and so your grandfather may be the night. You'll be taking things in front of your cheii', your grandfather. So don't you ever think it's dark time. Nobody's seeing it and so you're doing these crazy things.' Good lesson from a traditional person.

So my contribution to you today as young leaders, emerging leaders, is to live by those principles that have always been taught to you at a young age. And you'll be surprised at the end of your life, towards the end of your life how important those values are. Live by it, practice it. [Navajo language] Thank you." 

As old ways faded on reservations, tribal power shifted

Author
Year

Long before the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act transformed tribal government, before nepotism and retaliation became plagues upon reservation life, there were nacas.

Headsmen, the Lakota and Dakota called them. Men designated from their tiospayes, or extended families, to represent their clans when they came together for larger tribal matters, such as where to hunt that year...

Resource Type
Citation

Young, Steve. "As old ways faded on reservations, tribal power shifted." Argus Leader. April 27, 2014. Article. (http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2014/04/27/old-ways-faded-reservat..., accessed March 3, 2023)