"There have been allegations in the past few years of theft, fraud and other forms of terrible mismanagement by the Standing Rock Tribal Council. Since we live under this monarchy government, the ruling tribal council is immune from prosecution by the constituents it was designed to serve. . . . We have on our tribal council and BIA staff, people who thumb their noses at justice."
--- Joseph Walker, Daniel Defender, Reginald Bird Horse, and Phyllis Wilcox, Lakota/Dakota Advocates for Human and Civil Rights
No Checks, No Balances
With access to largely unchecked power, communal resources, and
millions of dollars in federal aid, corruption among tribal councils is both common and
inevitable. This power and these resources are not only used for personal gain, but also
to reward or intimidate others. Winners of political elections reward themselves and their
allies while simultaneously thwarting potential opponents. Federal resources intended for
the benefit of the general Indian populace often end up as the personal assets of tribal
leaders and administrators.
Charges of election fraud are rampant in Indian country, but most cases
are never adequately investigated, much less prosecuted. Indian judges courageous enough
to rule against a tribal chairman or council are usually summarily fired, as are editors
of tribally-owned newspapers who dare to speak out against a particular action or policy.
The frequency of corruption has increased significantly since the
introduction of casino gambling to reservations. In Minnesota alone, six leaders from the
two largest bands of Chippewa Indians have been convicted of multiple felonies - including
theft, fraud, kickbacks, swindle and vote rigging - and are now serving or have served
time in federal prisons.
Included in this group of convicted and incarcerated criminals is the
former head of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Commission, who served time in Leavenworth
Prison; a former state senator; and a man who was the long time Chair of the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe and Chair of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, who had also received a
Presidential appointment to advise the federal government on reorganizing the BIA.
Other recent cases of corruption involve embezzlement from federal
housing programs, the sale of surplus government equipment by individuals,
"ghost" employees on federal or tribal payrolls, bribery, and kickbacks.
All of the people in these situations created systems for cheating and
stealing from their own people. There is a systemic lack of accountability in tribal
governments, leaving Indian people without the means to reign in their own tribal leaders.
Instead they must rely on sporadic federal intervention.
Welfare Dependency: A Bitter Legacy
Welfare dependency on reservations dates back to the late 1800's.
Indians often were forced onto reservations away from their customary homelands after
having been overwhelmed or conquered militarily. Many lost their established means of
self-sufficiency, making them dependent on the federal government for basic necessities.
Many treaties transferred land and resources from tribes to the United
States in exchange for government aid. Neither the government nor the tribes understood
the dangers of a dependency that has become endemic on most Indian reservations, a
dependency that is especially encouraged by the trustee-ward relationship between the
federal government and tribes.
Several years ago Fen Montaigne of the Philadelphia Inquirer described
life on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Unfortunately, Montaigne's
description fits too many reservations in this country:
"That Standing Rock has become a breeding ground of sorrow is beyond dispute:
Traditional Sioux culture has been shattered, the economy is a shambles, welfare is king,
alcoholism is rampant. More than $200 million in federal funds has been spent here in the
last quarter-century, yet the reservation remains an economic wasteland. Not one sizable
Indian business or industry exists. Three quarters of the adult population is unemployed.
The two counties that make up Standing Rock are among the 25 poorest in the United States.
. . .
"To make sense of George Bald Eagle's life, it is necessary to
understand one basic truth: The federal government has conquered the Indians of Standing
Rock twice - first with its cavalry, then with its largesse. Increasingly, the dominant
culture here is welfare, not Sioux.
"From the provision of bacon, blankets, farm implements and cattle
promised in the 19th century treaties, the reservation system has blossomed on Standing
Rock and elsewhere into an elaborate welfare state. Special Indian programs provide food,
health care, education, scholarships, housing, welfare for able-bodied men, fuel
assistance, burial insurance and other benefits. Often the aid is inadequate, the care
substandard. But the coverage is cradle-to-grave, and it is possible for many tribal
members to get by without lifting a finger. . . .
"The tribe's leaders - now the dominant force on Standing Rock -
are failing the people as badly as the federal government has. And many Indians, withered
by the pervasive welfare system, are failing each other."
Americans generally recognize how damaging generations of welfare have been to residents of our inner cities. Few have a similar appreciation for a much more chronic welfare dependency that has decimated Indian reservations. Traditional culture, families, and a work ethic have been destroyed and young people are too often raised without successful role models or positive incentives. Reservation political, economic and welfare systems combine to create feelings of helplessness and hopelessness that lead to other problems such as drug and alcohol abuse. Could people of any culture prosper under such oppressive systems?
The Reservation: Home of a Failed Socialist Political and Economic System
Communal land ownership and federal trust restrictions on land
ownership and use inhibit economic development in a number of ways. They make it
difficult, if not impossible, to put together efficiently manageable land units for
agricultural purposes. The protection from encumbrances on trust land hinders its use as
collateral for operating loans, reducing the capital that is available to Indian
agricultural operators.
Through BIA controlled inheritances, most land allotted to individual
Indians is now owned outright by the tribe or collectively by groups of individuals. The
multiple ownership of land increases the difficulties of effectively managing the land
while simultaneously reducing the benefit to any individual who makes the effort.
Terry Anderson and Dean Lueck, in their book Property Rights and Indian
Economies argue that multiple ownership, the trust status, and management by the BIA of
allotted and tribal land would be expected to reduce its productivity. They tested their
theory and concluded "that the value of output per acre for individual[allotted
trust] and tribal trust land will be 46 percent and 81 percent less, respectively, than
for fee simple [deeded] land."
These results should not be surprising. Tribal governments and their
asset management practices are often similar in many ways to the systems that devastated
the economies of communist-controlled eastern Europe. As noted earlier in the discussion
of John Collier, this similarity to eastern Europe is neither accidental, nor is it based
on early tribal traditions.
Legal Conflict and Confusion Hinder Economic Development
Economic advancement on reservations is hindered by the flawed
federal policies that have created an unworkable and adversarial legal environment on
Indian reservations.
Two governmental systems (state and tribal) with different laws and
courts and confusing areas of jurisdiction are only part of the problem associated with
the unique legal framework on reservations. Since to some extent, each tribe is its own
separate governmental entity, potential investors and residents are confronted with
problems similar to those they might face in a small Third World country.
Contracts with tribes or Indians on reservations generally can only be
enforced by the tribe itself. The risks associated with taxes, licensing, and regulatory
issues are an added burden to businesses which combine to significantly reduce the amount
of investment and economic activity that occurs on reservations.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that when conflicts do arise,
the government of the United States generally sides with tribal governments, claiming that
its status as trustee for Indian tribes requires it to protect their interests. Legal
issues discourage non-Indian companies from building facilities on reservations. Very few
businesses are willing to risk legal entanglements with tribes, especially when all the
resources of the federal government can be brought to bear on the tribe's behalf.
Overwhelming Obstacles to Indian Economic Development
People concerned about the quality of life on Indian reservations
wonder why reservations are so poorly developed economically and socially. Some legitimate
questions are: "Why, considering the multitude of special benefits available to
Indian tribes, and the billions of federal tax dollars appropriated for their benefit on
an annual basis, is there so little to show for it? Why do reservation Indians suffer such
perpetual unemployment, poverty and hopelessness?"
The answers to these questions have apparently eluded federal policy
makers who generally refuse to take a hard look at the issues. In reality, most of the
problems are not only understandable, they are predictable once the underlying policies
that affect life on reservations are understood.
The lack of economic and social development on reservations can be
attributed to several critical factors. One major impediment is the governmental
structure, which is devoid of the "checks and balances" normally found in
democracies. A second is a well established and pervasive welfare system on reservations
that harbors the same kinds of problems seen in America's inner cities - low self esteem,
poor education, health problems, crime, and corruption. The third obstacle is the communal
ownership of property, managed and controlled by tribal governments and the BIA, a system
that has many similarities to those found in the former communist countries of eastern
Europe. Fourth, tribal claims of sovereign status create unique and confusing legal
jurisdictions on reservations that inhibit economic prosperity and social harmony. Fifth,
the federal government's ambiguous, changing and often, contradictory, positions regarding
tribal sovereignty only add to the confusion and dysfunctional state of affairs.
Is it any wonder that legitimate efforts to promote economic
development and higher standards of living have historically failed when faced with such
obstacles? Any one of these problems would be a serious handicap for a rural community to
overcome. Together, they are devastating.
The federal government spends over $4.7 billion annually, primarily on
behalf of the 437,358 Indians that live on reservations. This is more than $10,000 per
person or $40,000 for a family of four. Furthermore, these figures do not include
significant state, local, and private assistance.
And what does the American taxpayer get in return for this exorbitant
annual expenditure? Social and economic devastation on reservations, disharmony,
litigation, and political rhetoric. Indians are the most seriously affected, but everyone
living on or near a reservation is also adversely impacted.