And now:LISN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Man vs. Man: Is Federal Government Too Slow in Intervening in Tribal Disputes? 08/29/99 - © Post Register By Matt Kelley / Associated Press WASHINGTON - Former leaders of Michigan's Saginaw Chippewa tribe are accused by federal officials of being a rogue government that attempted to jail opponents for "sedition" and clung to power after losing four elections. The Bureau of Indian Affairs took the rare step this month of removing the entire Saginaw Chippewa leadership and giving control of the tribal government - and its lucrative casino - to the candidates who got the most votes in the most recent tribal election. High-stakes political crises like the one at Saginaw Chippewa are all too common in Indian Country - affecting about a dozen of the 558 tribes at any one time, according to the head of the BIA. The clashes often include allegations of improper use of federal funds or casino proceeds, and one or more factions usually urge the federal government to step in and sort things out. But the BIA has removed tribal officials only one other time in the past two years, intervening last year to uphold recalls of the chairman and four council members of California's Table Mountain Rancheria. Federal officials say those two examples are the extreme exceptions to a non-interference policy, one that critics say allows rogue tribal leaders to hurt tribal finances and political institutions. "When it comes to the violation of people's rights, I don't think it should be a hands-off situation. We should be protected," said Velasquez Sneezy Sr., vice-chairman of Arizona's San Carlos Apache Tribe. Sneezy's tribe weathered a similar crisis in 1997 and 1998 without BIA intervention. Kevin Gover, the head of the BIA, said the agency's philosophy is to let tribal elections or other internal political procedures take care of the problems. "We would much prefer not to get involved in these disputes at all," Gover said. "Only when there's no prospects to work things out in the community will we take action." The BIA's power to intervene in tribal politics and its reluctance to use that power both stem from the unique status of American Indian governments. Tribes have most of the same governmental powers as states: Enacting and enforcing laws, providing social services and managing land and resources. Treaties and other laws also give the federal government the broad responsibility of safeguarding the health and welfare of American Indians. And the constitutions of many tribal governments give the federal government power to override tribal decisions. Since the 1970s, the trend in federal policy has been to support Indians' rights to govern themselves and turn over control of more federal programs to the tribes. It's a policy that Gover, a member of Oklahoma's Pawnee tribe, says he wholeheartedly supports. So tribes' internal political turmoil puts the BIA in a bind. Intervention goes against the grain of tribal self-determination, while taking a hands-off approach could let unethical or criminal tribal leaders destroy tribal governments from within. "We can't take the position that we have nothing to do with it. We are, in the end, an arbiter," Gover said. The agency's discomfort with that role can lead to actions that do more harm than good, said Pat Ragsdale, a former BIA administrator and member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Ragsdale was the Cherokees' top cop in 1997 when he started investigating allegations that then-Chief Joe Byrd misused tribal money. Byrd fired Ragsdale and the entire Cherokee marshal service, setting off a crisis that split the tribe's legislative, judicial and executive branches into factions supporting and opposing Byrd. Fearing violence, the BIA sent in its own police to keep order. Ragsdale and other Byrd critics saw that move as essentially giving federal support to Byrd, since the BIA officers did not enforce Cherokee tribal court orders against Byrd. "In my view, the BIA not only failed to be neutral but propped up a tribal leader who was out of control," Ragsdale said. Byrd lost a bid this summer for re-election as head of America's second-largest Indian tribe. Gover defended his agency's actions in the Cherokee dispute: Byrd was elected, while the removed Saginaw Chippewa leaders were not. "There was another Cherokee election coming up, and the tribe has spoken, and so the problem is resolved," he said. Gover removed the old Saginaw Chippewa leaders with a letter formally recognizing the new government. Tribal police have guarded the tribal offices where the new leaders have been meeting, refusing entry to former tribal chairman Kevin Chamberlain and the ousted council members. After the ouster, the new tribal officials found documents showing that the former tribal leaders paid a Washington public relations firm $100,000 to drum up newspaper coverage aimed at removing Gover from office. Yet the non-intervention policy also has supporters in tribal governments. The Jicarilla Apache tribe in New Mexico has had "a lot of political disputes, but we've always tried to handle them internally, and I think we've handled them very well," spokesman Carson Vicenti said. The Jicarilla tribal council tried to block Arnold Cassador from taking office as president last year, then impeached him and removed him from office earlier this year. Cassador's supporters have asked the Interior Department to declare the impeachment illegal. Cassador doesn't have any recourse in tribal court, because tribal judges are appointed by the tribal council, Cassador supporter Veronica Tiller said. "You can't say, 'It's their own fight, let them fight,' " said Tiller, an author who is also a Jicarilla tribal member. Gover said the fear of violence is another reason federal officials are reluctant to take strong action. The worst scenario, he said, would be a rerun of the 1988 riot at Navajo Nation headquarters in Arizona that ended in gunfire and two deaths. The riot began when supporters of ousted tribal president Peter MacDonald tried to take over tribal headquarters. "I was told the BIA could only step in if there was a life-or-death situation like a riot," said Sneezy, a former Arizona state trooper. "That's a really poor statement, because when something like this happens, the BIA should be there to be a deterrent for escalating violence." Ragsdale said the Cherokee experience provided a harsh lesson for other tribes with political disputes. "The lesson is, don't rely on the Bureau of Indian Affairs at all. You're on your own," Ragsdale said. "It's times for the tribes to grow up and not depend on the BIA to bail us out, because the BIA is incapable of bailing us out."
