Karen Diver

Invisible Borders of Reservations, Tribal Treaties, and Tribal Sovereignty

Producer
Arizona State Museum
Year

This 3-part discussion about the invisible borders of reservations, tribal treaties, and tribal sovereignty is led by Dr. Miriam Jorgensen, Research Director of both the University of Arizona Native Nations Institute and its sister organization, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development; the honorable Karen Diver, former chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and current director of business development for Native American Initiatives at the University of Arizona; and Dr. Kelsey Leonard of the Shinnecock Nation, assistant professor in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo.

Native Nations
Resource Type
Topics
Citation

Jorgensen, Miriam, Karen Diver, and Kelsey Leonard. "Invisible Borders of Reservations, Tribal Treaties, and Tribal Sovereignty" Webinar. Arizona State Museum. Oct. 23, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KyaGdRzR4

Bad with Money Podcast: COVID's Economic Devastation on Tribal Lands

Author
Producer
Stitcher
Year

Gaby Dunn speaks with Karen R. Diver (Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa), Director of Business Development for the Native American Advancement Initiatives at the Native Nations Institute and appointee of President Obama as the Special Assistant to the President for Native American Affairs. They discuss tribal economies, the impact of COVID-19 on businesses, how Native American nations have been handling the spread of the virus and the ways the federal government has failed the tribes during this pandemic and beyond.

Resource Type
Citation
Dunn, Gaby. "S6E14: COVID's Economic Devastation on Tribal Lands." Bad With Money With Gaby Dunn. Stitcher. July 21, 2020. Retrieved on July 22, 2020 from https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/bad-with-money/e/763...

FEMA's Interagency Recovery Coordination Speakers Series: "Equity, The Foundation of Resilience"

Producer
FEMA
Year

Produced and hosted by FEMA, this 6-part Speaker Series is organized around the theme ‘Equity, Resilience in Recovery’.  The goal of the Speaker Series is to bring people together to exchange information, inspire one another, and generate discussion on equitable strategies that build strong foundation for recovery which brings us closer to resilience and security for all.

Equity is the superior resilience model as it refers to proportional representation of opportunities in housing, healthcare, employment, and all indicators of living a healthy life for all populations

As Region 6 embarks on addressing the impacts of COVID-19 on our communities, we must set the intention of our work beyond just recovery. Recovery gets us back to where we were before crisis.  Resilience makes us stronger and better prepared to rebound and recover from times of crisis.  Equity is the heartbeat of resilience. When we focus efforts on equity, true resilience abounds. Equity is about building the capacity of people and their communities to withstand, recover from, and thrive after crisis. Efforts to create a more equitable Region 6 must be accompanied by a systemic approach that is employed across our region to promote access to equitable opportunities and resources that reduce disparities, including housing insecurity, education, workforce development, health, and other economic and social disparities.

Each 90-minute Session will provide the place to have honest conversations on the critical issues exacerbated by COVID-19; discuss disparities and barriers to resilience; identify opportunities for collaboration; leverage of resources; and identify innovative solutions to equitable and resilient recovery across all social and community sectors.

Outcomes and Benefits

  • Create a gathering space for problem solving and working together in this time in which we find ourselves
  • Identify ways in which partners can use and leverage resources to solve problems we can’t solve on our own

SESSION 1:

Topic: Equity, the Foundation of Resilience

Date: July 30, 2020

Time: 1:00 – 2:30pm CDT

Host: Tonia Pence, FEMA Recovery Liaison State of Louisiana

Welcome: Jose Gil Montanez, FEMA Deputy Federal Coordinating Officer

Facilitator: Flozell Daniels, Executive Director Foundations for Louisiana

Region 6 Social Vulnerability: Laura Blackstone, FEMA Geospatial Date Analytics

 

Presenters

Lamar Gardere, Executive Director, The Data Center

Allison Plyer, Chief Demographer, The Data Center, Equity Index Analysis

Jade Brown-Russell, Principal JD Russell Consulting and Appointee to Resilient Louisiana Commission

Topic: Equity, The Superior Growth Model

Description: Equity is not just a moral obligation – it is the superior growth strategy. Better planning, a fair allocation of resources, smarter growth, a clear-eyed gathering and reading of data, and a commitment to equity are all factors will improve our efforts to realize a more resilient Region 6. This commitment will help all people and communities survive crisis and equip them with the tools to thrive in their wake.  The Presenter will discuss how a superior growth model is one that brings together two agendas that have traditionally been separate: job growth and equity.  This equity-driven growth model builds on our assets, leaves generations to come with a strong foundation for the future and brings us closer to the ideal of prosperity for all, urban, rural, underserved, and tribal communities.

Dr. Alessandra Jerolleman, Jacksonville State University

Topic: Recovery Through the Lens of Justice

Description: Dr. Jerolleman will be presenting an overview of her proposed principles for just disaster recovery.  These principles are presented more fully in her book, Disaster Recovery Through the Lens of Justice.  The book constitutes a call to action, asking policy makers, emergency managers, disaster professionals and other interested parties to take a closer look at the role that current policies around disasters play in creating and perpetuating injustice.  Disaster recovery policies and programs have routinely and repeatedly failed to prioritize human rights and failed to acknowledge the dynamic pressures and complex history of disaster risk creation in the United States.  

 

Karen R. Diver (Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa): Director of Business Development for the Native American Advancement Initiatives, Native Nations Institute at the University of Arizona

Topic: Region 6 is home to 70 Tribal Nations

Description: Tribes navigate unique relationships with federal, state and local governments. Responding to natural disasters and pandemics has highlighted the need for greater understanding of the needs and obligations to and with Tribes.

 

Cassandra Thomas: FEMA Region 1 Interagency Recovery Coordination

Topic: Equity in Region I Covid-19 Long-Term Recovery

Description: Showcasing some of the way in which FEMA Region I Long-Term Recovery is working with the states and tribes of New England to build equity into the economic, housing and healthcare system recovery.

 

Audiences: State leaders from New Mexico, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, FEMA Representatives, Interagency Coordination Partners, from the 10 FEMA Regions, state organizations, universities, professional associations, planning and development districts.

People
Resource Type
Citation

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). "Interagency Recovery Coordination Speakers Series, Webinar 1: Equity, the Foundation of Resilience". Long Term Community Recovery (LCTR). July 30, 2020. Retrieved from: https://youtu.be/t5aCj776Tp4 on April 11, 2023.

Karen Diver: Native leadership and Indigenous governance

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Karen Diver is a former Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and former Vice President of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, while also served as an adviser to President Obama as his Special Assistant for Native American affairs. Her incredible career as  renowned Native leader for her tribe, in her community in the surrounding Minnesota area, and advocate for indigenous communities at the highest level of Federal government has offered her a truly unique perspective on what is required for strong indigenous governance. Karen’s strength as a Native leader led her to her recent position at the College of St. Scholastica Faculty Fellow for Inclusive Excellence where she brings her intimate knowledge on Native inclusivity to a broad community of high education. In this interview with Native Nations Institute, Karen Diver relays the many facets of putting leadership into action and making change for tribes at any level of indigenous governance.

People
Resource Type
Citation

Native Nations Institute. "Karen Diver: Native leadership and indigenous governance.” Leading Native Nations, Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, January 29, 2019

For a complete transcript, please email us: nni@email.arizona.edu

Dr. Karen Diver: Indigenous autonomy is the way forward

Producer
The Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)
Year

Dr. Karen Diver spoke at ANZSOG's Reimagining Public Administration conference on February 20, as part of a plenary on International perspectives on Indigenous affairs. The Native American tribal leader and former adviser to President Obama, said that Indigenous communities had been inexorably changed by conflict, and needed to design systems to protect rights and land. She said that autonomy had been shown to be the best way to generate economic growth and address social issues. “Co-design, co-management only works when the other side follows through. Co-ordination needs to give way to autonomy, give us big buckets and freedom to solve problems our own way,” she said. “If the problem is juvenile delinquency, then we know the kids and their families, we know the schools. The solution that we might come up with acknowledges the broader picture.” “The solutions we design are the ones that work.”

People
Resource Type
Topics
Citation

Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). Feb. 21, 2019. Dr. Karen Diver: Indigenous autonomy is the way forward [video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmYfuhK9JzA&t=2s

Transcripts are available upon request. Please contact the Native Nations Institute for a transcript of this video: nni@email.arizona.edu

Karen Diver: Nation Building Through the Cultivation of Capable People and Governing Institutions

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

In this informative interview with NNI's Ian Record, Chairwoman Karen Diver of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa discusses the critical importance of Native nations' systematic development of its governing institutions and human resource ability to their ability to exercise sovereignty effectively and achieve their nation-building goals.

People
Resource Type
Citation

Diver, Karen. "Nation Building Through the Cultivation of Capable People and Governing Institutions." "Leading Native Nations" interview series. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, The University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. September 17, 2009. Interview.

Ian Record:

“So I’m here with Chairwoman Karen Diver, who is the chairwoman of Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. And previous to that, she served as Director of Special Projects for Fond du Lac, so she has a wide range of experience, which is precisely why we’re having her sit down with us today.

The first question I’d like to ask you is a question that I ask everyone I sit down with and that is, how would you define Native nation building and what does it entail for your nation?”

Karen Diver:

“It’s almost straight out of the textbook: aggressive assertions of sovereignty backed up by capable institutions. You come into tribal government and it’s at different phases in its growth. And given that most tribes have really not been self-governing for that long, often times, we’re plugging the gap or reformulating. But if the basis of your decision is always putting self-governance first and self-determination, generally you can always plug in the gaps of your institutional capabilities along the way. But it’s the legitimacy of the actions and then backing it up with the way to actually implement them.”

Ian Record:

“You mentioned 'legitimacy in the actions,' and the Native Nations Institute and Harvard Project research holds that for Native nation governments to be viewed as legitimate by the people that they serve, they must be both culturally appropriate and effective, which is a double-edged challenge for a lot of nations, particularly those that have not governed, essentially been in control of their own governance for a very long time, and had that determined by outsiders. So how do you view that assertion that for governments to be legitimate, they have to be not only effective, but also culturally appropriate?”

Karen Diver:

“I think for tribes, we’re not as removed from government; government is very personal. Tribal members can walk in at any time, we employ our tribal members, we’re related to one another, so it’s not impersonal in a way that I think traditional government is. And when you’re decision making, the actual impact on real people in their real lives really has to be primary. And for that to work, you have to take into account the circumstances in which they live. It could be as simple, for us, making sure that our policies and procedures account for the ability to participate in cultural activities like wild rice leave, for example, is actually in our personnel policies. It’s a week-long endeavor; people need to do it when the crop is ready. Or it can be as broad based as, what do your family leave policies look like? Recognizing we have extended, large extended families, the grieving process is a community process. So just giving a bank of leave time might not be something appropriate. You might want to have some flexible use of leave to take into account that our families are large, complicated, and primarily their employment serves to take care of them and their families. So you have to have that balance. So cultural traditions matter, and to balance those with the needs of both governmental and the economic entities that we serve; that’s the only way we’re going to have a successful workforce.”

Ian Record:

“So I want to next run a quote by you that we reference often and it’s a quote by a Native leader who once said, ‘The best defense of sovereignty is to exercise it effectively.’ Can you speak to that statement?”

Karen Diver:

“To me, that really means once again building up those capable institutions. Everybody likes to know, ‘What are the rules that we’re playing by?’ Especially if you’re dealing with outside entities that you do work with, whether it’s governmental or through your economic development efforts, but also that you’re defining what those rules are and whether you’re dealing with a local unit of government, the feds, bankers, auditors, they don’t get to define the playing field. You’re defining the rules, you’re communicating them, and you’re saying that, ‘Your work with us is going to be defined by us.’ A lot of that is understanding the tenets of Indian law and explaining it to people and making distinctions between, ‘Who are we as a race?’ versus our political status and those are often confused by many people. So as long as you keep your political status separate than our cultural traditions and who we are historically and currently as a people. To me, that’s real basic and that’s really one of the main elements of sovereignty."

Ian Record:

“You, as I mentioned at the outset, you have served your nation both as a senior administrator and as currently, as chairwoman. I was curious to learn, what, based on your experience, do tribal bureaucracies need to be effective?”

Karen Diver:

“Well, that’s real key. We all know when it goes wrong. It’s the deviation from what is normal and it’s viewed as political graft or having a brother in power so to speak and that’s where…for the average citizen they feel that tribal government isn’t really serving them; it’s inequities in service delivery or access. And sometimes that happens at the service delivery level or the program level or institutional level with hiring and things like that. I think for tribal government, monitoring those activities, putting those systems in place, building accountability and transparency of the rules ends up being key to having equitable service delivery and equitable systems. And for our band members, the expectation that it doesn’t matter who you elect, the level of service you receive and your opportunities are the same.”

Ian Record:

“So it essentially supports stability and expectations among the people when they don’t…they see consistency. They see fairness and they can see consistency across administration so it’s not just, ‘Oh it was this way for this term,’ and then the new term comes in, new administration comes in and things change.”

Karen Diver:

“Well, you’re proving capability in government, too, because the reason you would elect people changes then it becomes about their effectiveness and their skills and ability to do the job rather than your personal connections and how you might gain from that. So it changes peoples’ I think reason for how and why they may vote for tribal leadership.”

Ian Record:

“And being a chair of a nation, you must experience this firsthand, this challenge of the dependency mentality. Where the expectations, at least on part of the citizenry, is rooted in, ‘What can the government do for me?’ or, ‘I’m going to go to the government and get the goodies,’ rather than really viewing that government as serving the nation, as advancing the nation’s long-term priorities. Is that something you struggle with and how do you do you work to overcome that?”

Karen Diver:

“Yes, I’ve struggled with it, but I’ve struggled with it in terms of, once again, how do we build those systems in place so that they serve the needs of our citizenry, but also changing the expectations of our citizenry? And the current tribal council has been a part of kind of changing the mentality of, ‘What our citizens should expect from their tribal government?’ And I usually say to folks, ‘Don’t ask me for a handout. Ask me for a job, or if you’re not ready for that yet, why don’t you tell me what you need to get there?’ And the framing of it is fairly simple. What I tell people is, ‘I care about you enough that I’m not going to put a band-aid on your issue because it’s going to come back. Unless I know what’s going on, we need to create or refer you to something that creates a long-term fix because I don’t want you to have to come back.’ And I really feel that promoting dependency within our own community is a part of the reason why we haven’t been able to move as forward as we could be yet because I’ve turned into a social worker now instead of an administrator, instead of someone who assures that there’s good systems. And I also think it’s not fair to our people to say to them, ‘The way that you get services is by telling me a lot of your personal problems that are going on.’ I need to know them to the extent that I need to identify any gaps in our system, but I also shouldn’t put my own people -- if I care about them -- in the position of having to beg, and there is a difference. I’m not doing it to satisfy my ego because I can feel really good about what I’ve done for you. I care about you enough to say, ‘Let’s look at a long-term fix instead of a short-term band-aid.’”

Ian Record:

“Right. So it’s essentially, ‘Let’s look at the root cause of your problem or your challenge,’ versus just simply addressing the symptom, which will be sure to reoccur at some point.”

Karen Diver:

“Right. And it helps me identify where we might have gaps in service, whether it’s combined case management, stabilizing your housing, where you really need some service delivery, whether it’s health issues, we should make sure that each of our systems are coordinated enough that there is a holistic response to the issues people face in their day-to-day lives.”

Ian Record:

“You mention this issue of building a holistic response, or the capacity to do that, to whatever issue is at hand or that you’re facing. And this really gets to this issue of developing a systems-based approach to service delivery, which we hear about more and more, and we see a lot of that sort of activity in Indian Country with nations saying, ‘The status quo is not working. We’ve got our programs and services going a million different directions, they often duplicate one another. We’ve got to take a systems-based approach that gets at these root causes that you discuss.’ Is that something that you’re working to do, take care of?”

Karen Diver:

“Oh, actively. And both as a staff member and then once I got elected. I’ll give you an example. One of our projects that we’ll be breaking ground here within a month is supportive housing. Supportive housing is what transitional housing used to be. It’s for folks who have had a hard time getting on their feet and for every step forward it might have been two back, chronic homeless, multiple episodes of homelessness. Well, homelessness isn’t the lack of a house, it’s a circumstance, a set of circumstances going on that are preventing people from being stable. In order to do supportive housing, you not only have to build the housing, but you also have to develop service delivery that looks at what are the needs of the family and they may be multiple. You’re also committing to staying by them whether or not they take that step forward or step back, and that’s why they call it permanent supportive housing, because unlike transitional housing the two years are up whether you’re ready to be independent or not. And what it really does is say, in terms of case management, what does the whole family need and it’s self-determined by the family. So much like for tribal government, it’s saying for families, too, to say, ‘What are my needs right now?’ and their needs might be simple in the beginning. It might be having adequate health care and getting their diabetes under control so they’re not facing chronic health issues. It might mean helping the family say at some point that they’re chemical dependent, coming to the realization that it is fueled by underlying mental illness, but there’s a safe place to be able to say that and get at the root causes of why people anesthetize themselves with drugs and alcohol. And what you’re trying to do is reduce the episodes of homelessness and instability in the family so that children can stay in longer, the same school longer, they can maintain their level of health care and what you see over time is school social workers are talking to mental health case managers. We know that health outcomes are affected by the lack of housing; we know that school performance is affected by that. Working together stabilizes the need for service delivery by multiple systems, but they all have to be at the table and integrated together. It’s a model that’s been shown to work outside Indian Country, not yet being implemented to a big extent within Indian Country. The model’s perfect for us because we know our families best. We need to be talking to each other and the family will be the one that hopefully will move forward because of it. So it’s an example, but we’ve built silos in Indian Country, much like we’ve bemoaned in larger systems that are out there, but we’re better contained within ourselves to actually break those down.”

Ian Record:

“So you mentioned you know your families best. And hearing you describe this approach of supportive housing, that requires an intimate understanding, intimate awareness of what’s going on in your community, what their needs are, what their challenges are, what their priorities are, what they need from the tribe in order to be made whole, or put them on the road to self-sufficiency, whatever it might be, that’s not an approach that an outsider can develop and implement. Is it something that has to be done at the local level by the people who it’s designed to serve?”

Karen Diver:

“Absolutely, because at any given point in that service delivery or that plan that the family develops, you’re going to have to have culturally competent service delivery. You’re going to have to understand that for a family to break their cycle of chemical dependency that it might be isolating to them for some of their other family members, and that’s a hard thing to do. So you’re recreating family systems and showing them a healthy way in a way that doesn’t deny their ability to still remain a part of a larger community. It’s understanding that children are served best when they’re with their families and an easy fix isn’t putting them in out-of-home placement, but intensive services for their extended families. It’s building even the actual facilities in a way that understands that we tend to congregate together and you never know when you might have a niece coming to live with you, and it shouldn’t upset your household composition because that’s what your housing rules say. So it requires us to be flexible. And I think that’s one of the beauties of self-governance is when you determine your own rules, you can be flexible enough to meet multiple demands, but in a way that’s also accountable so that everybody has the same access to that flexibility.”

Ian Record:

“As I mentioned, you were once a senior administrator of your tribe and now you’re the chairwoman. And I was curious to learn, having served in both of those capacities, can you speak to the importance of delineating clear, distinct roles, responsibilities, authorities for each of those key decision makers, implementers? And what happens when those roles aren’t clearly defined?”

Karen Diver:

“It’s an over-used phrase, but I think many people have heard it. If you don’t know where you’re going, it doesn’t matter which road you take. I think that for both tribal government and tribal administrators, it’s all about the plan. Where do we plan to get in two years, five years? I’m a big fan of strategic planning. I’m a big fan of understanding who is responsible for the items in the strategic plan. Who’s monitoring the outcomes and making sure that we’re holding staff accountable? Has there been community input to the plan so that we’re actually serving them and going in a direction that they care about? And we are just starting to undertake now a whole community-wide strategic planning process that will inform tribal government and it’s a difficult transition. Last year I thought, ‘I’m just going to get the staff kind of primed and say give me a few goals and objectives for the year,’ and I almost started a mass revolt. I had the flurry of emails saying, ‘What did you mean by that?’ ‘Well, I want to know what you plan to do next year. This is not a trick question, what do you plan to do,’ because at the end of next year I’m going to say, ‘Did you accomplish what you had planned?’ And you’re actually going to maybe make presentations to tribal council about that. Also understanding your role, there’s a plan and each department should understand who their stakeholders are. Human Resources, for example, they think of the applicants and employees as their stakeholders, but they don’t necessarily think of their other divisions that they do the work for as their stakeholders and at the timeliness of their work and the quality of their work can have a big affect on operations. So right now, our tribal council has three of our members were in administrative positions before so we were on the other side of the tribal council table. It’s made a huge difference in terms of our understanding of the importance of their work, not frittering it away, making meeting time productive time and they’re happy. They’re happy because being accountable to us is different. It’s in terms of decision making, not necessarily these huge processes that takes up a lot of their time but doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything. So very important on both ends to understand, ‘What is our role?’ We’re an approving role, they’re doing the work and they’re bringing us their recommendations.”

Ian Record:

“So it’s essentially -- and this gets to what my next question’s about -- what are the respective roles of elected officials and those administrators and bureaucratic employees because you’re seeing it less and less, which I think is a good thing, what you see in some Native communities is still the mentality among the leadership where they have to do it all, and a reticence perhaps to delegate authority. And I’m curious to learn from you how you envision the roles and the separation of those roles and where does one’s work stop and the other’s begin, perhaps?”

Karen Diver:

“I think we’re fairly typical of every tribal government and it comes up during campaign time and when we have our open meetings with our citizenry, they say, ‘The reservation business committee, they micromanage.’ And what I tell people is, ‘You expect us not to micromanage, you want us to take big picture, our appropriate role is in policy making, procedure development, setting vision and long-term direction of the reservation.’ I said, ‘But you want that until the issue involves you, then you expect us to micromanage and fix your problem, and if I go back and tell you you have the ability to provide a grievance or you can talk to the program manager and resolve conflict that way,’ you say, ‘you’re not taking care of my issue.’ So it goes back to that, how do you balance the personal aspect of tribal government, because we are all interrelated, we’re a community, a tight-knit community with the ability to put good governance systems in place and good business systems in place and there’s no perfect science to that, because first of all you’re never going to develop a policy where you’re going to expect to hit every possible outcome or gap. That’s why your policies are a work in progress and need regular review and updating. Also people come up with some really personal circumstances that you may want to accommodate. So I think that there’s a balance there.

The delegation of authority ends up being a lot about control and hiring capable staff and letting them do their job is really key in getting all of the work done because tribal government has a breadth unlike any other form of government. We are corporate, we are government, we are like non-profit service delivery agencies, environmental, education, health. We have to rely on content-area experts. However, I also think being a context expert, they don’t always recognize the big picture they operate in because they’re looking at it from their silo of expertise. So I think tribal government role -- if you look at it in terms of dialogue and challenging each other -- we can help them see the big picture, they can help us understand the peculiarities of their particular area of expertise. That’s where you come up with the win-win. It’s when it’s directive or when you impose upon them, but if you set up the right processes, we often say government-to-government consultation, well we need to have consultation within our organization as well so that we can come up with the best possible scenarios up front and tweak them along the way and see where we may have missed something.”

Ian Record:

“So you mentioned in part of your previous response about the expectations of citizens, particularly come campaign time. For instance, where internally between elected officials and administrators, bureaucratic employees, you may have a clear understanding of who should be doing what, but then there’s the citizen’s expectations that are always causing friction against that. How important is public education about the separations of authorities, about the checks and balances, about the delegations, about who does what? That it’s incumbent upon Native nation governments not just to have a clear internal understanding, but also to make sure the community understands so that it allows you to keep your momentum going?”

Karen Diver:

“It’s a difficult process, I’ll be very honest about that. And one of the ways I characterize it in some of the one-on-one conversations I have with tribal members is if all of my wishes could come true for our own people, one of them would be that it really didn’t matter who you elect, because it didn’t have relevance in your day-to-day life. That as an individual and as a leader in your family, you were able to get and/or acquire those things you need to meet the needs of your own family, whether that’s through employment educational opportunities, social services, that you knew what was out there and you could access it and you were using those resources to build your own self-sufficiency to the point where once it came to the ballot, it was much like traditional forms of government. Who has the skills to do the job? Do they have the background? Do they have a plan? And it changes your expectations. So I think that’s something that comes over time. But also, when people understand that in their best interest, they can self determine their own needs and you’re creating the systems for that to happen, I think it’s going to change the dynamic of what individuals expect out of tribal government.”

Ian Record:

“And isn’t that where strategic planning is very important because the community understands, ‘There’s a larger goal at work here. It’s not just about the now, it’s not just about what I need personally or what my family needs at this moment, but it’s about where we’re trying to head as a community.'“

Karen Diver:

“I think the economic crisis has really changed that a bit. I think in Indian Country -- especially for tribes who have been building a private sector economy within their borders and really using that as a surrogate tax base -- you’ve been able to plug in some of the gaps and funding in order to create programs or supplement them and access other sources of funding. And I think that the downturn really let people know that it’s not a given that tribal government’s going to continue to grow, it’s not a given that the things that are here now will remain. And we’re a per capita [distribution] tribe, so that’s one of the things we’ve been able to do purely as a poverty reduction; nobody’s getting rich off it. But people understood that maybe that isn’t a given and that we have to be smart about our resources, and maybe the best use of tribal government time is looking at economic and governmental stability and not necessarily the day-to-day issues that arise in tribal council’s life. They’re taking a little bit more ownership and more what we’re doing is more information and referral, ‘Did you know that this is available to you and this is available to you?’ rather than direct service, one-on-one."

Ian Record:

“So I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about economic development. And a lot of what the NNI-Harvard Project research looks at is the two polar opposites when it comes to economies that we see in Indian Country. One, you have essentially the dependent economy, which is largely born of constitutions and governments that were imposed or systems of governments that were imposed by the outside. And then you have productive economies, which we’re obviously seeing more and more of as tribes take control of their own affairs, as they begin to launch and build diversified economies. I was wondering, from your perspective, how do Native nations move from a dependent economy, heavily reliant on outsiders, the federal government, to a productive economy where they themselves are in the driver’s seat of economic development? And in that process of moving from one to the other, what are some of the most important building blocks?”

Karen Diver:

“First and foremost, social capital. You need to develop your own citizenry to be a part of that. Talk to a lot of young people and say, ‘What are you going to school for? Liberal arts? Great. We need people to do services to our own band members, but gee, do you also know we need accountants? We need internal auditors; we need dentists and healthcare delivery people, teachers.’ So I think building that social capital so that the cultural competency comes from our own people serving our own community is real key. We can’t always use neighbors and people who aren’t familiar with our own community because then you miss that cultural competency piece. A lot of good people in Indian Country who are Native, but we really need to grow our own and provide the role models. The other part of it is purely regulatory. Do you have the systems in place where economic development can thrive? One of the gaps in our own system right now is we don’t have uniform commercial codes. So that’s kind of on the block. Developing systems of conflict resolution that are transparent and you know who’s rules you’re operating under. Once again, the tenets of Indian law, if you’re working with outside parties, do they really know what dealing with a sovereign is and the context with which this business relationship will be taken out? Regulatory control is also things as simple as what’s your background check policy? Are you going to be able to meet outside commitments that you’re making, for example, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act? Do you understand their rules? If you’re in a banking relationship, what are their rules, their operating on and how do you mesh that with your own? So I think that a lot of homework goes into building a community where economic development can thrive. And part of it is do you understand your role in it and the role of your people and all of your different departments? For example, if you’re going to work with an outside agency that’s looking at some resources within the reservation, like mining, do you have your regulatory capacity there to look at environmental issues, for example? So, identifying those initiatives and seeing what you have within tribal government that needs to be involved, having them all on the table up front, and identifying your gaps, and either developing it or bringing in consultants who have it so you can have informed decision making.”

Ian Record:

“You mentioned this issue of, or the importance of investing in social capital, particularly among your young people. Not only finding out what their interests are, but saying, ‘Hey, we have needs in this area.’ That’s, but that, isn’t that the first step because then you have to make sure that the opportunities that are available are stable, that they’re consistent? That you’re not going to have the political turnover, ripple effect where the administration comes in and they clean house, which our research has shown causes this horrible problem of brain drain where people say, ‘I’m not going to invest my time and resources in the future of the nation because I can’t be certain I’m going to get a return on that investment.’ So I was wondering if you could speak to that issue of making sure that those opportunities are stable and that the environment in which you’re asking them to participate is reliable.”

Karen Diver:

“Once again, I think if you start to change and really have a conversation with your community about what do they feel is the appropriate role in tribal government in their day-to-day life, that then starts changing the stability of the workforce. And you’re right, we’ve invested heavily in education, both by creating our own institutions and through scholarship funds and telling people, ‘There’s a big world out there. Go learn things and bring it back home.’ Only for them to not be able to have the ability to worry about their sacrifices of their own stability in their family, and that’s sad. It’s sad and it’s unfortunate because you’re right, it creates brain drain. With the capable institutions, and with some emotional maturity and changing your expectations of what tribal leaders should be both personally and professionally, I think you get towards the bigger picture of, ‘If I’m here to serve my people, that means also dealing with my political detractors, as well as my political supporters,’ and they still end up being tribal members and deserve service whether they like you or not, whether they care about you or not, or whether they believe in you or not, you do your best by them. And I think it’s developing some political maturity to say, ‘Yes, I may not be meeting your expectations, but over time, can we find your place here within this community as well?’ So I think it’s a little shortsighted. We think we want to be surrounded by loyalty, but that’s a moving target. On any given day, you’re going to make a decision that may affect people in a way that they may not want, but it’s whether or not your transparency of government helps them understand why you’re doing it, that it’s not personal, that you were going to make this decision because it’s good for the whole and yeah, it might not work for everybody. So I think a part of it is just your skill at the politics of communicating why decisions are made and whether the transparency was there in the decision making so people understand why and then don’t take it personal.”

Ian Record:

“And doesn’t that really get to this issue of rules? The NNI/Harvard Project research clearly shows that rules are more important than resources in terms of building vibrant economies. Can you speak to that issue?”

Karen Diver:

“Yeah sure, it’s interesting because when I talk to folks and I’m in the unfortunate position of having to tell them I can’t do something for them, one of the things I usually preface it with or end with it is, ‘I know you want this, but one of the rules we follow here for this tribal government is if we can’t do it for everyone, we can’t do it for one. And so if…do you think if I ask the tribal membership if we should do this for you, what do you think their answer would be? Would they be supportive of this decision?’ And generally, when you put it in that context, people will understand that you are making rules for all, not the few. On the other hand, sometimes you come up with one where you say, ‘Geez, we should do something about that and would we be willing to do it for everyone? Maybe, maybe not because the circumstances matter, but it’s justifiable and you knew if you put the whole circumstances out there, our community would say, ‘Yeah we don’t maybe don’t want to make that a practice,’ but in this instance, for their set of circumstances, it’s the right thing to do because we do care about our community. But it’s justifiable in a way so you almost have the litmus test of community voting. And you’re saying, 'How would people think about this?' And if you constantly keep that in mind, and the fact that it doesn’t matter who’s in your office, assume you’re telling everybody because everybody will know. Your actions are public and if someone asks, ‘What’s going on with tribal government?’ you have to be willing to tell them. That transparency is what keeps government honest. So day by day, you take it as it comes and take each circumstances, but if you use that litmus test of, ‘If I put it to a referendum vote, or no matter who walked through the door, would you behave the same?’ generally, you’re going to get pretty close to what you need to a capable government whose rules are not only transparent, but consistency ends up being the biggest key.”

Ian Record:

“And when you have those consistent rules in place that are consistently enforced, isn’t that liberating for you as an elected official, because you then are in a position where you can say no to someone and have it not be personal? And say, ‘Here’s my reason. We have, for instance, a hiring and firing dispute, which I’m sure you encounter in an economic development entity of the tribe or within tribal government. You say, ‘Hey, we have a personnel grievance process for that. I’d be overstepping my bounds as an elected official to take on this issue, to even consider your complaint.’”

Karen Diver:

“Very much so. It is liberating in a way and it’s something that the current tribal council, in terms of building our own capacity to govern and also for our own stability in making sure we’re all behaving in the same way even when we’re not in a meeting, when we’re having different interactions, is to actually have those conversations with each other, have a set of board norms, take some planning time and say, ‘here’s something that you don’t necessarily need a policy for, but it’s something we’re confronted with. How do we behave? Let’s be consistent, all get on the same page.’ Your answer then can be, ‘Gee, I hear you and I understand but the council made a decision that this is the way that we’re going to handle it,’ and speaking with one voice. A lot of this goes to whether or not you’re building a capable board that’s cohesive and all operating off of the same page, so speaking with one voice. You have those arguments. It’s kind of like mommy and daddy, you argue, but you don’t let the kids hear you kind of thing. We have that time where we work things out amongst ourselves but once we come to talking about them in a public way, whatever answer prevailed, we all stick with and support and so a lot of it goes to good governance from an internal perspective as well. And you’re right, it is liberating. It gives individual members a way to say, ‘We all stick together.’ You can’t go from one to the other and try to get a different answer because we’re all going to talk about it and then give you our decision as a whole rather than an individual.”

Ian Record:

“One final question I wanted to ask you, and it was interesting, we were interviewing another tribal leader earlier this morning, and he likened being an elected leader of a Native nation to drinking from a fire hose, which I’m sure you can identify with. I was wondering if you could talk about, how can leaders manage the often overwhelming pressures they face, in order to lead effectively? How can they manage that load, forge ahead, implement that strategic vision, guide that strategic vision, so that the nation can achieve the future it wants?”

Karen Diver:

“I think it’s management principles, and I think as we develop our own folks and they decide to serve through elected leadership, they’re going to bring different management capabilities to the table. And I usually tell new managers or people who are also feeling that -- because it happens all through the organization, not just at the top -- is prioritize, delegate and advocate. You prioritize. I liken it to going to the casino’s buffet. You only get one plate at a time, but you have all those choices so you pick that first plate carefully. When things are going well, you might even start with dessert, but when they’re not going well you might start with your meat instead of your salad. So you prioritize and pick that first plate very carefully. You put out the fires, but you pay attention to what precedent are you setting. Don’t just make it go away for going away’s sake 'cause you’re setting precedent, but you put out the fires first and you kind of look at your organization methodically. Right now we’re lucky; we have no fires. So what we’re looking at is that middle layer of management that is actually broader than the emergencies, but has more long-term impact. Does our organizational structure fit the service delivery we need to do, are there gaps, are there efficiencies to be found so you prioritize and you clip your way through it. Delegating is you don’t have to do it all on your own. You have a hierarchy in place. Make sure the hierarchy is working for you. Use content-area experts; hire them if you need to. I think one of the biggest failings of tribal government is to not admitting what you don’t know and asking and listening to those who do. I couldn’t have done a lot of the work in the last year without listening to my environmental staff, my education staff, my health staff. In many ways I take my orders from them. What are your priorities? What do you need me to talk about? Who do you need me to call? And let them do their jobs. Advocate ends up being important, because a lot of I think doing with tribal government work is educating people around and within you of the role of tribal government. What are our boundaries? How do we get partners in to do our work? We’ve been so busy building our self-governance, we forget we have allies out there, different funding sources, the legislatures, building relationships with townships and counties, which I think is actually going backwards lately because of cuts in local government aid and the economy and they see tribes not as partners anymore, but how do we get into their pocketbooks. So maintaining those relationships and advocacy sometimes happens in a crisis, sometimes in a proactive way, but really saying, ‘Hello, we’re still here, we have an impact, we have a role to play. It might not be the one you define, but there are areas of win-win, let’s talk about those,’ and telling that story. And if you can slowly clip through it that way, it becomes a little bit more manageable. What I usually tell people is tribal government, we’ve only really been self-governing in any meaningful way, probably for thirty years. We’ll continue to get better at it and we’ll make mistakes along the way, but it’s what works and so we have to prove that. So prioritizing and making sure you’re hitting those things and trying to prevent them from becoming those fires ends up being really important.”

Ian Record:

“Well Karen, I appreciate your time today and thanks for sharing your wisdom and your experience with us.”

Karen Diver:

“Thank you, my pleasure.”

From the Rebuilding Native Nations Course Series: "Defending Sovereignty Through Its Effective Exercise"

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Native leaders speak to the notion that Native nations' best defense of their sovereignty is the demonstration of their ability to exercise that sovereignty effectively.

Native Nations
Topics
Citation

Diver, Karen. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. September 17, 2009. Interview.

Fullmer, Jamie. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. June 17, 2008. Interview.

Gilham, Greg. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. March 25, 2010. Interview.

Gipp, David. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona.

Gray, James R. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. September 17, 2009. Interview.

Hicks, Sarah. "NCAI and the Partnership for Tribal Governance." Honoring Nations symposium. Harvard Project on American Indian Economics, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. September 18, 2009. Presentation.

Sampsel, Roy. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. August 31, 2010. Interview.

Wilkins, David E. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. August 6, 2008. Interview.

Greg Gilham:

"Most nations proclaim their inherent sovereignty. But without action, all it is is a proclamation. So at some point in time, you've got to develop a way of exercising it in order for it to work."

David Wilkins:

"Vine [Deloria] was always saying just that in his many writings about tribal sovereignty, encouraging tribes all along, dating back to Custer Died for Your Sins and even when he was Executive Director of NCAI [National Congress of American Indians], to quit talking and to get out there and start acting, to start exercising, to start wielding the residual inherent sovereign powers that you still have. He said, 'They're all there, and if you don't wield them, if you don't use them, in their dormant state, they atrophy.' When something atrophies in this society, it eventually becomes brittle and it breaks away and someone from the outside swoops in and just takes it away, because they say, 'You're not exercising it, you're going to lose it.' It's the old water law doctrine: either you use it or you lose it. And I think that's what Vine, and certainly what Oren Lyons, is referencing there. That's where I think tribes today are really doing some wonderful things."

Sarah Hicks:

"There are many issues where, if we don't deal with them ourselves, we know that the federal government will intervene. Where there's a perceived vacuum around policy making, the federal government will intervene to develop policy, and so if we aren't developing our own policies, if we aren't making sure that county and state and federal governments know about the policies that we're developing, there's a real danger there."

Jamie Fullmer:

"Sovereignty is indeed is the act thereof. But it is also understanding that it's important for us to redefine it as time allows us. There are things that we as Indian tribes and nations couldn't do 20 years ago that we can do now because people are willing to exercise and express the sovereignty and push the boundaries. And really those leaders and those tribes that took on those challenges, those spearheads, allowed the rest of us to be able to stretch our own boundaries."

David Gipp:

"Well I think in this day in age when we deal with the U.S. government, or the tribal nations that deal with both the U.S. government, with state government, then all the creatures of the state as they say -- I think it is very important for us to utilize what that sovereignty is all about. Whether we do it through law enforcement, whether we exercise it in commerce, or whether we exercise it through our courts, or if we do it with our resources such as water. Those kinds of things have to be done if we're going to maintain and, for that matter, amplify our sovereignty. If you don't use it, you lose it, is, I think, part of the issue. And that is something that is very evident when we talk about things like court cases."

Karen Diver:

"To me, that really means, once again building those capable institutions. Everybody likes to know what are the rules that we're playing by, especially if you're dealing with outside entities that you do work with, whether it's governmental or through your economic development efforts. But also, that you're defining what those rules are. And whether you're dealing with a local unit of government, the feds, bankers, auditors, you know, they don't get to define the playing field. You're defining the rules, you're communicating them, and you're saying that 'Your work with us is going to be defined by us.'"

Jim Gray:

"I think that's an excellent point. I think a lot of tribes, certainly during the last century, really operate under the notion that if you stay quiet, if you stay under the radar screen, they'll leave you alone. And I think what is happening in the last generation of tribal leaders and tribal governments is that they've kind of broken out of that model and have taken the initiative to states, to the federal government, to the communities in their area and say, 'You know, we have the ability to help solve community-wide problems. We have the ability to address the social problems we have in our community.' We now -- in other words, instead of blaming somebody else and just operating under the radar screen, we're taking just the opposite approach, which is taking the fight to the streets and taking, and using the sovereignty of the nation to create programs and departments and initiatives that actually address the needs of our community."

Roy Sampsel:

"I think the tribes have been fortunate in that they have recognized that they have the ability to be self-determined and to exercise and to use their sovereignty. The question now is, 'Do they have to governance structures in place that allow them to make good decisions over time, and to implement their wishes into programs that actually deliver effectively?' That's the challenge, it seems to me, of the tribes since the seventies. But even more importantly, it'll be the challenge over the next few decades."

From the Rebuilding Native Nations Course Series: "Clarifying Roles and Delegating Responsibility"

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Native leaders discuss the need for Native nations to define the distinct roles of elected leaders and administrators, and the importance of leaders delegating responsibilities to those appropriately charged with day-to-day administraion. 

Native Nations
Citation

Diver, Karen. "Sovereignty Today." Honoring Nations seminar. Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. September 16-18, 2009. Presentation.

Ducheneaux, Wayne. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Spearfish, South Dakota. April 11, 2012. Interview.

LaPlante, Jr., Leroy. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. August 12, 2010. Interview.

Marquez, Deron. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. March 26, 2009. Interview.

McCoy, John. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Cambridge, Massachusetts. September 18, 2009. Interview.

Minthorn, Antone. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Cambridge, Massachusetts. September 17, 2009. Interview.

Mitchell, Michael K. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. 2008. Interview.

Michael Mitchell:

"And I had one policy. I didn't think we had any business running the administration side. We're politicians. So I had discussion with council, saying, 'Let's do our politics, and we hired these people -- let them do their administration.' So separating administration and politics was one of the first objectives, and it worked."

Urban Giff:

"...Have a better understanding among all the players, all the decision-makers as to who has the resources to do what, and that's where the bureaucracy comes in. The bureaucracy [is] there, the bureaucrats are there because they have qualifications in their respective areas. The politicians are there because they have rapport with the voters and they have the vision for the tribe. And if you put those two together, the politicians with their vision of what is to be done, what they're striving to get done, and the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats of how it's to be done, that can't help but win for the tribe. So no one segment can do it alone. They have to work together as best as they can."

Leroy LaPlante, Jr.:

"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 gonna 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 elected to do. And so that's what I meant by a short-term effect and a long-term effect."

Wayne Ducheneaux:

"I think that's most everybody's approach is to bail in and get busy and get helping. It's a very hard thing to do to step back, especially when you're an elected official. You only have 'X' amount of years to get what you want accomplished so of course you're going to want to bail in and make that quick change. It is hard to plan out for the future but that's what we have to do is when you become an elected official is you have to think about the bigger picture."

John McCoy:

"That's where the leadership, the elected leadership – their role is to set policy. Their role is not day-to-day administration. They set policy, then let their organizations function. Trust them – they'll do the right thing."

Deron Marquez:

"Having the right people in place from legal to the chief financial officer to the operations of our various businesses is critical when you're out there trying to address and deal with state issues, county issues, federal issues. To rely upon those individuals makes my job a lot easier. Yesterday we talked a lot about micromanagement. If you want to have a big headache and you don't want to sleep at night, micromanage. There's a quicker, easier way to get this done and that's not it. Hire talented people. Put them in the position, give them the authority to make decisions, support their decisions and you will have an easier life as a chair."

Antone Minthorn:

"Let managers manage. Don't micromanage, and hire the people that are smarter than you, meaning that that's their job. I can't go in and be a real estate agent, 'cause I'd have to do a lot of study for a long time to make that happen. So we have to bring in the right people."

Karen Diver:

"I have 28 different divisions. I'm not an educator. I am not a healthcare administrator. I certainly am not an environmentalist. Why on earth wouldn't I use the expectations and the skills of my staff to inform my decision making? The accountability comes is if they get it wrong. 'Okay, you mucked that one up. Now what you going to do to fix it?' That's their role. We set policy and vision. They know what the vision is. They have to come prepared to us to own it. I am not going to take responsibility for every single bit of work that comes out of my reservation. We have 2,000 employees. How could I even think I could do that? But they did. Then they wondered why they had eight-hour meetings and never had time for people and never were able to set the vision. It's a vicious little cycle. We use our own power to keep us out of touch with our own people. And we don't hold our staff accountable because of it. Basic management principles: distinguish between decision making and what is planning; use your tribal council to plan; use what you have to under your own rules for decision making; and then let your staff do their work." 

From the Rebuilding Native Nations Course Series: "The Challenges of Leadership"

Producer
Native Nations Institute
Year

Native leaders and scholars discuss some of the many formidable challenges facing leaders of Native nations, from the incredible demands on their time to the vast array of things they need to know and learn.

Native Nations
Topics
Citation

Diver, Karen. "What I Wish I Knew Before I Took Office." Emerging Leaders seminar. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. March 24, 2010. Presentation.

Gray, James R. "Educating and Engaging the Community: What Works?" Remaking Indigenous Governance Systems seminar. Archibald Bush Foundation, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Prior Lake, Minnesota. May 3, 2011. Presentation.

Kalt, Joseph P. "The Long-Term Economic Strategy Choices for Native Nations." Emerging Leaders seminar. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. October 11, 2012. Presentation.

McGhee, Robert. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. October 10, 2012. Interview.

Miles, Rebecca. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. March 23, 2011. Interview.

Norris, Jr., Ned. "Perspectives on Leadership and Nation Building." Emerging Leaders seminar. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. March 26, 2008. Presentation.

James R. Gray:

"I'm sure all of you are aware of -- the recent events in Pakistan and the President's actions, recently. And I wanted to use this as an example to kind of comment on some of the discussions that I've heard over the last two days. One of them had to do with the questions of how much involvement the elected officials need to have in an action in order for them to properly take credit for it or to feel like they're accountable for it. And I think this is a big discussion. It occurred in the topic of economic development yesterday. I think it's occurring today in the discussions of government reform and the actions of your Nation. As an elected official, how much involvement do you personally have to have? Well, I think everyone is pretty well aware of the fact that if you're an elected official, you get way more credit than you deserve. And although I appreciate the 'lone nut' references and everything else, it's true. You do get more credit than you deserve. But with that you also get more blame than you deserve because a lot of things happen under your watch that you don't have control over but yet, regardless of the politics of your tribe or my tribe or the Nation, you're still accountable for it. Now had that incident, had that event that occurred in Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden failed, would they have blamed the Navy Seals? Nope. They would have blamed [President] Obama. And that's just the way it is. Now you just take that as a given if you're an elected official. When you swear an oath to defend your constitution and protect, fulfill your duties in office, that just comes with it."

Ned Norris, Jr.:

"And people ask me today, 'How do you like what you're doing?' And I tell them, 'I love it. I love this job. It's everything that a job needs to be. It's challenging, it's exciting, it's frustrating, it's disappointing.' All of those things that our jobs need to be in order for us to grow, in order for us to challenge ourselves, in order for us to be challenged. We have to have all of those experiences, all of those ingredients in order for us to be successful as tribal leaders."

Gerald Clarke, Jr.:

"It's not just a job; it's an adventure. Before I took office I knew I'd have to go to meetings and I do think I've put on the 20 pounds, the 'tribal council 20 pounds,' [because] I'm sitting all day in these meetings. But what I didn't know is I would be woke up at three in the morning with a car flipped over in the middle of the road or a domestic violence incident or a shooting or what have you. You can be a council member, but I think there's a difference between a council member and a tribal leader and it's all encompassing. You have to walk the walk to try to get these things done. But it's a lot more than simply going to these meetings."

Joseph P. Kalt:

"Being a tribal leader is like one of the hardest jobs in the world. And the reason for that -- right, Minnie? -- the reason for that in part is because [of] the range of things you have to know. Here you are sitting and looking at, you know, number after number and balance sheets and accounting and everything else, and at the same time your citizens are expecting you to take care of, you know, that heating bill that didn't get paid, and you've got to keep your eye on the big picture, the big strategies of the nation as a whole."

Rebecca Miles:

"Anybody who's a tribal leader today has it much harder than they did 30, 40 years ago in this respect. I know they went through things that we never have had to go through, but in this regard tribal leaders now have to know so much more than tribal leaders then. We have...I found myself having to know, here's a table full of all these foods, I have to know how all of them are made, just a little bit and be able to report on them. That's what it feels like because on every policy arena, you've got to know what's going on in all these areas and where Congress is at with this and funding is going to be cut for that and we're in litigation here and what did the judge say, 'And, oh, now this tribe's going against us and filing an amicus, what are going to do about that?'"

Robert McGhee:

"Tribal council members now have to learn all facets of government. They have to know what decisions were made in the past, why the decisions were made regarding at the tribal council level, what impact did it have on the community, and what were the necessary meaning behind that. And just not to mention the county and the city and federal law. I think they become inundated with constant communication and information from those levels of government that I don't think they were involved in years ago. I would say that was one of the hardest things to deal with, to know that, wow, it's not about just helping my tribal council, general council members. I am now the individual who is meeting with all these other representatives of government to formulate policy, decisions, and make laws. So I think it's, I think it's challenging on that part."

Karen Diver:

"The people who didn't vote for you -- some of them really hate your guts. Politics is personal in Indian Country, and after you win, there is no magic that will make them all of a sudden like you. They are going to keep hating you, and they didn't like you before and they are not going to like you now, and that's just the way it is. So get used to it. The other part of it is they are still your tribal members whether they like you or not, so it's your job to get over it, because they still deserve your time, attention, and your work as much as all of the rest of them, so you need to own the fact that they have a right to their feelings, but you still have a job to do."

Honoring Nations: Karen Diver: Sovereignty Today

Producer
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development
Year

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Chairwoman Karen Diver argues that for Native nations to aggressively assert their sovereignty in order to achieve their goals, they must develop capable governing institutions to put that sovereignty into practice.

People
Resource Type
Citation

Diver, Karen. "Sovereignty Today." Honoring Nations seminar. Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. September 16-18, 2009. Presentation.

"I am so happy to be here reconnecting with former classmates -- I was a Kennedy School grad in 2003. I'm seeing some old professors and old friends and meeting some new ones. When I was here and taking the 'Building Native Nations' class, Professor Joe Kalt said over and over, and I took it to heart, 'Aggressive assertions of sovereignty are backed by capable institutions.' The part he didn't tell me that I had to learn for myself was, that really pisses people off. We learned this after the election. Capable institutions: what did they look like? What was Fond du Lac faced with? Building decision-making processes, first and foremost. We had an insulated tribal council. I've been interested in hearing from people from the service delivery fields, because it makes you feel like the big bad tribal council who gets in their way of doing things. And you know what, it's true. And I found it to be true. And I was a staff member before I was elected and I found it to be true. And I said, 'I'm not going to be a part of one of those tribal councils.'

And so we've worked hard to also include the citizenry and the staff as we kind of change our policies and procedures and implement those capable institutions. It's also been important for us to include tribal members in that. There is great safety in including more people than you in making decisions. One example [of] that hit my second day in office: 'How much money do you make?' I answered the question. Never had they been told before how much tribal council members make. And my motivation in it is, 'Maybe you will revise your expectations of what you get out of your leadership when you know how much money they make.' They should have to earn it. And if you're paying them well, you have a right to expect a certain set of accomplishments, skills and abilities come with it. But what we also pledged to do is said that was always a tribal council decision, let's get a citizen community together and do a salary review commission. They can look at data, we'll get them a consultant, we'll talk to other tribes, we'll compare what we do to others, and we'll do something so that our salaries reflect somewhat of the market but also the fact that this should be public service as well. And we did that. And it was no longer a secret. And you can't shut that door once you open it.

So that's been kind of cool having the citizens involved in strategic planning. I am one elected official who will be there for one term, maybe more, but strategic planning is also about my grandchildren and their children and my neighbors and my family. I am one of five people -- I cannot set the direction this reservation is going -- so really doing a holistic community involvement process around determining where we're going to go. And you've all heard the saying, 'It doesn't matter which road you take if you don't know where you're going.' I need to know which roads to take. Basically it's about transparency, too. Once you have a strategic plan and some established goals and objectives that everybody knows about, you can monitor performance and decide whether or not the people you pay or the ones you elect are doing their job. If I fail at that, I deserve not to be there. But those goals and objectives are determined by our entire community and not those five as demagogues sitting on tribal councils.

Another part of what we do is identifying gaps in policies that affect our social or business issues, but also enforcing the policies that were there. And we've heard about that a little bit -- barriers, RBC [Reservation Business Committee] barriers, we're a reservation business committee is what we call our tribal council, so if I lapse into RBC you know what it is -- enforcing the policies that were there. We look at gaps in service delivery, we want to try new bottles and find out we're the biggest problem with it. We need a CDFI, community development financial institution, and I would like to do tax credits. Until I get the RBC out of the decision-making -- what I tell people is, 'If we can't make our membership pay their propane bill or pay their housing rent payment or mutual health payment, how on earth am I going to meet the regulations for a CDFI or for tax credits?' We start at the beginning. So a little political will is needed in talking to our citizenry. We would like to meet your needs that you've identified for housing, etc., what are you willing to do? Are you willing to pay your bill? You're saying you'd like to borrow money, but you owe money to the propane company. Promotion of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. We can't just talk about it from a tribal government point of view and say we need to be self-determined without saying that the individuals who comprise our communities also have to practice self-respect, self-responsibility for community and their own self-determination. Our systems are to assist them in doing that for themselves.

Housing issues: enforcing ordinances around that would support like mortgage foreclosures. I'd like there to be more lending, I didn't have the regulatory capacity for having a Section 184 program. So developing our ordinance, it was a gap. Small claims court: how do we handle lending within the reservation and microenterprise between Natives and other Natives if there is no enforcement? They can't take it into the district court, so putting into place small claims court; looking at wellness court as another way of getting our people and their social needs met; and working on uniform commercial code. So identifying gaps is huge. And tribal government, that's one of their biggest roles I think is to look at what is your safety net? Not only for your people with service delivery, but for creating a good economic development environment? And your job is to plug those gaps. What's missing? What do we need? That only works if you clearly define roles and responsibilities. You have to make sure your systems and policies are aligned with those roles and responsibilities. Governing bodies: we set the vision along with the community and we set the policies. I've made some clear distinctions with our community. The prior councils really, it was a little bit of a crap shoot. You went in before them, you were scared about what conversation you were going to have and how it might go off of track and you certainly...I frightened one of our department heads my first week in office because he came to us with an issue that he laid out in a rather lengthy way and I had dared to ask him, 'Do you have a recommendation?' 'Ahhhhh! You want me to have an opinion?' I frightened this poor man.

You didn't express an opinion before the prior tribal council and you certainly didn't use your expertise and your skills in your field to say what should be done. Well, what the heck? I have 28 different divisions. I'm not an educator. I am not a healthcare administrator. I certainly am not an environmentalist. Why on earth wouldn't I use the expectations and the skills of my staff to inform my decision making? The accountability comes is if they get it wrong. 'Okay, you mucked that one up. Now what you going to do to fix it?' That's their role. We set policy and vision. They know what the vision is. They have to come prepared to us to own it. I am not going to take responsibility for every single bit of work that comes out of my reservation. We have 2,000 employees. How could I even think I could do that? But they did. Then they wondered why they had eight-hour meetings and never had time for people and never were able to set the vision. It's a vicious little cycle. We use our own power to keep us out of touch with our own people. And we don't hold our staff accountable because of it. Basic management principles: distinguish between decision making and what is planning; use your tribal council to plan; use what you have to under your own rules for decision making; and then let your staff do their work. Tribal members often say, 'You're micromanaging.' Staff say it all the time, 'You're micromanaging. You're micromanaging.' What I tell people is, 'You say that all the time, you don't want me micromanaging, but as soon as it's you involved or your family, you come running up here. You can't have it both ways. There's a policy for that. If what you want is me to be a manager, use the grievance policy, use the systems that are in place, use the executive director, but you don't get to have it both ways -- that when you're getting your way I'm staying out of it, but when you don't get your way then I'm micromanaging. You make a decision then. Good luck with that.' So part of it is changing the expectations of our people too about what the appropriate role of tribal government is. Do you want us to look at the big picture, the entire community holistically? But the details have to be delegated to someone else in authority -- pay them well, make sure they're educated, grow your own, build your social capital, and then let them do their job and support them doing it. The squeaky wheels can no longer get the oil in Indian Country.

So you're building your capable institutions, and how do we assert sovereignty? What is the process? And you don't really think you're doing it until you look at it hindsight and say, 'What is the context when we're making these decisions?' One of the things we did right off the bat is we had a fairly new tribal council and I know everybody in here, remember these sayings you hear come out of elected officials mouth, 'The old council, the old council did that. Oh, that wasn't me, that was the old council. Sure that sucks, but that was the old council.' Well, you know what, new council, you're owning it if you don't do anything about it. You're just perpetuating the mistake. You can't say they did it and let it continue, because now it's yours. So here's to all the new councils, own that crap, whether you had an ability...whether you did or not, it's on your plate now. 'Old council' is not an excuse to let anything you've got on your plate continue. (Alright, I'm getting some chuckles over here.)

We have a new council, really five newly elected people. So some of us were tribal administrators and a couple came from the community but were not in tribal staff. And so one of the things we started doing was legal counsel administrators start putting together the books: 'What are our main projects, our main issues going on? And I want a review, I want a little binder, I want every ordinance involved, every federal law, every contract. Take us from beginning to end. So because of this thing we don't like now, help us understand how we got here.' Some of them you say, 'That stinks but we're in it, we'll make the best of it.' But some of them, oddly enough we found out, perhaps we had a foot to stand on to revisit those. If it was a 20-year-old agreement, think of the differences in federal law that have happened between 20 years ago and today. We've got court cases that talk about tribes not being able to waive sovereign immunity in many cases, [because] we all know the dreaded limited waiver of sovereign immunity. We've all done it at some point despite the fact we don't like it, but sometimes you need it to get something done. Well, you don't always get to give it away. Even though you say you did, it may not be enforceable. It's worth looking into. It's worth looking into, because there's been a lot of case law since then and interpretations -- look at what's happened since when you did it and now and see if there's room for your tribe to move. You have nothing to lose by trying it. It is an aggressive assertion of sovereignty. Certainly the people on the other side will be pissed off, but they didn't elect you. You've got to look out for your own. So make sure what the standard and what is the regulations for the issue you're dealing with, the federal regulations, the ones that do apply. Where do they give you room to move?

The other issue around aggressive assertion of sovereignty is the partners that come out of the woodwork. I have translated that into 'Now that you might have a little money to work with, let's see how we can work together, so I can stick my hand in your pocketbook.' These aren't the ones who were here while we were building from nothing and when we had nothing. They weren't the ones who respected our capabilities as a government. They're opportunistic in many ways. But tribes set the baseline for those discussions and we forget. I had a rather obnoxious fellow that I remember learning from but he said some cool, smart things that stuck in my mind. One of the obnoxious things he used to say is, 'The golden rule actually means he who has the gold makes the rules.' Well, tribes really never had any gold. Funny, you do now or you have access to it. You get to make the rules and it starts with your own jurisdiction, your own authority, your own regulatory capabilities. Nobody brings you a deal without you setting the table first. Do you have the regulations in place to handle it and they meet at your table? Let me give you some examples.

We were dealing with a pipeline, doing an expansion. The last time they negotiated was so long ago, the BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] was handling our leases with them. The BIA actually gave them leases longer than they had authority to do so and -- yeah, it was a terrible thing. They had exceeded rights away, they had lapsed rights of way and they come to the table and, 'These pesky little tribes. We've got this billion-dollar project and you're just kind of in our way.' It's okay to get a little snotty once in awhile. Fuel yourself with some righteous indignation. They said, 'Well, you know, Karen, some of our pipeline is okay.' And I said, 'Well, it's a pipe. You only need this much not to work. Start talking, boys.' So they put an offer on the table and this is where the snotty comes in. I asked them, I said sweetly to them, 'Will you throw in wampum with that?' See, Indians laugh when I tell that story. I got nothing out of that crowd with it. We were cracking ourselves up, we got nothing. So basically what we told them is, 'Here's how it's going to be. You're going to follow our environmental standards. You're going to pay us enough that we build our regulatory and our environmental capacity to make sure you're not polluting us. Don't even think about going around us because we have treatment-as-a-state over air and water quality and there's some sensitive areas around our border, so you're not going to get those permits. So start playing nice boys or bring your shovels next time and dig your shit up.' [applause] 'But it's your job to counter now.' I said, 'White people wrote that book. Here's what I want. When you get there, we're done negotiating.' It took a year and a half, we got where we wanted. It was fun.

You set the table. You set the table, but you also have to know what you're talking about. I don't know anything about pipelines or I didn't. I know a whole lot more now. I had to hire an energy economist to tell me how you value what goes through a pipe. I had to bring in some more regulatory people [because] our environment people, despite our treatment as a state, they never had to deal with it. They had to build their own capacity. Invest in your community and if you don't have the help within your community, ask other tribal agencies, ask the feds, hire it if you need to, but you have to operate from a position of strength. Your partners will take advantage of you if you let them and if you don't educate yourselves, you are helping them. We already did that. That was the BIA. Okay? Same thing, banking. I actually have a background in economics. Banks don't understand that all of us have invested in ourselves and our community members. We know things now. You don't get to have interest rate and collateral. You assume risk, you make more interest. You have no risk, we don't pay as much interest. This is simple stuff.

We had a bank refusing to renegotiate one of them old council deals. Mmmm. $119 million project, balloon payment in two-and-a-half years. I'm negotiating it. It was just expensive. Economy dumped right before that. And I tell them, 'You can't have it both ways, boys. You've got our money in your bank as collateral, you're making some pretty good interest, I don't want to wait til the balloon is ready, let's start talking now.' They said, 'Well, no.' 'No?' 'No, no, that's the way the deal is, we'll talk when the five years is up.' We talked. We liquidated our portfolio the second week of September, paid off the entire $119 million, watched the market tank October 1st and no, I took every cent out of their bank and paid off their loan, they're not getting interest either. Put your money where your mouth is. I'm not going to say I knew what was going to happen in the market, but I also knew I wasn't going to let someone else take advantage of my own people and fail to act. And people knew the deal wasn't good and they kept bemoaning the fact and hollering and, just get off your ass and do it. The next bank that comes through the door isn't going to be so silly if they know you're going to do something about it. Aggressive assertions of sovereignty and some good business practice and a little knowledge thrown in.

The last thing that really has been most interesting for me around sovereignty issue is dealing with other jurisdictions lately. With the economy tanking and local government aid being cut, the other jurisdictions, especially the local ones -- townships, counties, things like that -- the relationships are just getting gnarly. They're feeling desperate. They don't like tribes taking land into trust, they don't see our employment and how we contribute. They see what they want to see. They say they see the use of social services and Indian Child Welfare and, 'Wah, we don't get to have casinos, you should pay for these things.' Excuse me, those are entitlement services. You don't allocate them based on race and perhaps, if your tone were different, we can talk about what tribes can do in partnership around roads issues, around fire districts, around lots of things. Some of it we might even wish to pay for but don't begin the conversation by telling me what you want. You tell me how can we help both of our communities do better [because] we're still residents of your county and your township and your state whether you like it or not. I have a housing issue; you don't get to abdicate your responsibility to Indian Country based on race and their status as citizens on a reservation [because] they're still citizens of your state. You will bring resources to this community and I will leverage them and I will reduce your burden because our people will be able to take care of themselves.

I had a local...president of our local county, his name was Richard Brenner, say to me, 'Well, you people don't pay property taxes.' And I said to him, 'Dick, I can call you Dick, can't I? Lots of people pay for lots of things because of this reservation. We pumped $125 million into your economy in payroll and distributions and income last year.' I said, 'We're the largest employer in your county and the second-largest employer in a nine-county region. Don't you dare ever come to my office with your hand out and call us 'you people.'' So a little righteous indignation goes a long way. You need...we're allowed to demand to be treated with respect for not only what we've accomplished to date, but the short time with which we've done it. Aggressive assertions of sovereignty is holding other people accountable not only for what we deserve as citizens but also making sure we are the best tribal government we can be so that burden is reduced. We're taking responsibility for our own people. And basically, success is the best revenge. That's just a fact. The other thing I like to tell people when dealing with other jurisdiction is don't allow people -- businesses too for that matter, I guess -- don't let them confuse tribes as political entities with race. In people's minds, they're fairly interchangeable -- like the 'you people' comment. He was coming to us as a political unit and saying he wanted something but then saying he didn't like delivering services to us because we were a certain kind of people. He was confusing the two. Yes, we are a race of people but we are a political entity. And this is going to be a government-to-government conversation and if you bring up race again, you're bad and I'm going to get you for it. It's an EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] thing. So, know the parameters of your own authority, hold people accountable, hold yourself accountable. But basically -- what it comes down to I think is -- how much are you willing to tolerate and what level of conflict are you willing to put up with? I think that for a long time tribal nations like to operate under the radar. And if we don't talk about our accomplishments and we don't back it up by being able to do it well, we're really not going to be able to advance the agenda of our communities. And we want that. And like everybody said with the cultural match, we know how to do it best, but you have to really be able to seize it and to sell it to those around you. Be your own best advocate and educator. And with that, I'll let you get on to the next speaker."