FWDP: Indian Self-Government Process Evaluation: Preliminary Findings - Preliminary report of year-long tribally initiated study undertaken by CWIS to evaluate the Self-Governance Demonstration Project.
                               ******************
                                A SIMPLE REQUEST
                               ******************
                                                                        
       Many of our files are unique and/or copyrighted by The Center For 
       World  Indigenous  Studies  and The  Fourth  World  Documentation 
       Project.   All  FWDP  files  may  be  reproduced  for  electronic  
       transfer  or posting on computer  networks  and  bulletin  boards 
       provided that:
       
          1. All text remains unaltered.
          2. No profit is made from such transfer.
          3. Full credit is given to the author(s) and the Fourth World 
             Documentation Project.
          4. This banner is included in the document if being used as a 
             file on a BBS, FTP site or other file archive.

       Thank you for your cooperation.

       John Burrows
       Executive Director
       Center For World Indigenous Studies

   ()-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=()
   ||///////////////////////////////////||
   ||=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-||
   ||                                                                      ||
   ||    The Fourth World Documentation Project runs entirely on grants    ||
   ||    and private donations.  If  you find this  information service    ||
   ||    useful to you in any way, please consider making a donation to    ||
   ||    help keep it running.  CWIS is a  non-profit  [U.S. 501(c)(3)]    ||
   ||    organization.   All donations are completely tax deductible.      ||
   ||    Donations may be made to:                                         ||
   ||                                                                      ||
   ||    The Center For World Indigenous Studies                           ||
   ||    ATTN: FWDP                                                        ||
   ||    P.O. Box 2574                                                     ||
   ||    Olympia, Washington  USA                                          ||
   ||    98507-2574                                                        ||
   ||                                    Thank You,                        ||
   ||                                    CWIS Staff                        ||
   ||                                                                      ||
   ||=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-||
   ||///////////////////////////////////||
   ()=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-()

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::  This file has been created under the loving care of  ::
::     -= THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT =-      ::
::                 A service provided by                 ::
::        The Center For World Indigenous Studies        ::
::                                                       ::
::    THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT ARCHIVES    ::
::         http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/fwdp.html         ::
::        THE CENTER FOR WORLD INDIGENOUS STUDIES        ::
::       http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/cwisinfo.html       ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

DOCUMENT: 298PRELM.TXT


              SELF-GOVERNMENT PROCESS EVALUATION PROJECT

                            Copyright 1996 
                  Center for World Indigenous Studies
                          All Rights Reserved

               Principal Investigator: Rudolph C. Ryser

     [Ed. Note: The Final Report of the Indian Self-Government 
     Process Evaluation Project was released in July 1996.  
     Copies of the Final Report may be purchased for $15.00 ($US) 
     each plus $2.00 Shipping & Handling for the first two copies 
     and $0.50 for each additional copy. See address below for 
     more information.]


                          *****************
                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
                          *****************

     Thirty three Indian governments have engaged in negotiations 
     and concluded at least one and sometimes two Compacts of 
     Self-Government with the United States between 1990 and 
     1995.  The principles guiding the original negotiation of 
     these compacts originally defined by Indian leaders in 1986 
     and 1987 emphasized the establishment of a government-to-
     government framework with the United States on a tribe-by-
     tribe basis.  Emphasis was placed on the importance of these 
     agreements being between each Indian government and the 
     United States government as a whole instead of Indian 
     governments dealing with agencies.  The goals for self-
     government were based in these original principles, but 
     there was a separation between principles and goals. 

     Two studies have been conducted to serve as annual self-
     governance assessments.  The first study in 1993 emphasized 
     Indian government compliance with compacts and the 
     effectiveness of accounting and budgetary systems.  The 
     second study (1994, 1995) emphasized "costs and benefit," 
     depending on a series of questionnaires to get opinions from 
     Indian governments and officials of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs and the Office of Self-Governance.  This study was 
     generally approving of the creative and effective activities 
     of Indian governments and critical of the United States 
     government's compliance with Congressional and Compact terms 
     and requirements. 

     The current study, the Self-Governance Process Evaluation, 
     is a study measuring the increase or decrease of self-
     governing powers in Indian governments, the effectiveness of 
     parties to Compact negotiations and recommendations to 
     Indian governments for approaches to the exercise of 
     governmental powers and approaches to negotiating future 
     compacts with the United States. 

     Based on a review of documents (historical and contemporary), 
     the following preliminary findings are offered for subject 
     governments' consideration: 

          * The United States government generally is not 
            seriously participating in the development and 
            conduct of the self-government initiative. 

          * Compacts have not resulted in each Indian government 
            arranging a government-to-government framework with 
            the United States, and Indian governments are engaged 
            in negotiating Compacts on an agency-by-agency basis 
            resulting in a pattern of relations similar to PL-638 
            contracting. 

          * The United States government has pledged under the 
            Helsinki Accord of 1975 to conduct government-to-
            government relations and increase the social, 
            economic and political development of Indian nations, 
            but it has failed to take the initiative to implement 
            these commitments by seriously engaging Indian 
            governments in self-governance compacts. 

          * Baseline Measures Reports from subject Indian 
            governments and the study conducted by the Department 
            of the Interior (August, 1995) confirms that Indian 
            governments have made major progress toward social, 
            and economic development as a direct result of the 
            self-governance initiative. 

          * Indian governments are emphasizing social and 
            economic development at the expense of political 
            development, this possibility suggests the future 
            weakening of governments and their becoming dependent 
            on federal agencies. 

     The Final Report will test these findings and confirm or 
     deny them.  It will also address new findings uncovered by 
     direct research and offer recommendations for approaches to 
     future Indian government actions and negotiations with the 
     United States. 


                     PRELIMINARY FINDINGS REPORT 

     
     NATIONS MOVING TOWARD SELF-GOVERNMENT: 

     The goal of self-government has been emphasized by Indian 
     nations to reduce or eliminate the influence of "the 
     dominant federal establishment which exercises such great 
     control over their lives and affairs (Commission on State-
     Tribal Relations, Handbook: State-Tribal Relations:38-39 
     [undated] as quoted in Ball, 1988:69-70).  The only other 
     concern is that control over Indian interests by a 
     neighboring state is worse.  As the Commission on State-
     Tribal Relations observed in its Handbook (circa 1980) 
     "States stand to inherit governmental authority on 
     reservations if tribes lose it; federal Indian policy makes 
     them natural rivals so long as tribal governments are not 
     considered permanent" (Handbook at page 40 cited in Ball, 
     1988:70).  The long road to self-government has been filled 
     with "pit-falls." Under rules defined by the U.S. Supreme 
     Court and Acts of the U.S. Congress efforts by Indian 
     nations to achieve political and economic self-sufficiency 
     by making stronger governments are met with threats of 
     withdrawing U.S. government support in an effort to force 
     Indian nations under the control of states.  If Indian 
     nations have weaker tribal governments then they are more 
     likely to experience state government attempts to take 
     control over Indian people and lands. (Ball, 1987:76)  This 
     double edge to federal and state claims on Indian people and 
     territory constitute a constant bind from which Indian 
     nations have long worked to extricate themselves.  Self-
     determination and self-government been the most frequently 
     advanced Indian nation policy. 

     The noted jurist Felix Cohen recognized the threats to 
     Indian rights from many directions in his 1942 HANDBOOK OF 
     FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, but no threat was regarded greater than 
     that of an agency of government that is not accountable to 
     Indian people.  Cohen observed: 

          The most basic right of all Indian rights, the right of 
          self-government, is the Indian's last defense against 
          administrative oppression, for in a realm where the 
          states are powerless to govern and where Congress, 
          occupied with more pressing national affairs, cannot 
          govern wisely and well, there remains a large no-man's 
          land in which government can emanate only from 
          officials of the Interior Department or from the 
          Indians themselves.  Self-government is thus the 
          Indians' only alternative to rule by a government 
          department. (Handbook of Federal Indian Law [Cohen I], 
          1942:122 as cited in Minugh, Morris, Ryser, 1989:102) 

     THE UNITED STATES AND THE PROMISE OF INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT 
     UNDER THE 1975 HELSINKI ACCORD 

     The United States of America in 1979 first established an 
     international commitment to specifically promote the self-
     determination of Indian nations and support the resumption 
     of self-government by Indian nations  (November 1979 "Report 
     of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 
     'Fulfilling Our Promises: The United States and the Helsinki 
     Final Act,' Chapter: 'American Indians,'" pp 149-161.).   
     Testimony concerning the United States treatment of Indian 
     peoples was received during hearings conducted by the United 
     States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 
     April 1979.  At this hearing the U.S. Commission on Civil 
     Rights, tribal organizations, and Indian interest law firms 
     presented criticisms of U.S. treatment of Indians -- "both 
     as citizens of Indian nations and tribes, and as individual 
     minority group members" (living off reservations).In its 
     report submitted in compliance with the Helsinki Final Act, 
     the United States stated that Indian nations and Indian 
     Rights are subjects of international concern for which it 
     accepts responsibility: 

          ... Indian rights issues fall under both Principle VII 
          of the Helsinki Final Act, where the rights of national 
          minorities are addressed, and under Principle VIII, 
          which addresses equal rights and the self-determination 
          of peoples. (Fulfilling Our Promises, Annex B: American 
          Indians, 1979:149) 

     As the National Congress of American Indians observed in its 
     August 10, 1983 statement to the United Nations Working 
     Group on Indigenous Populations : 

          In accord with Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act, 
          the United States has pledged itself to applying and 
          upholding inter alia the International Covenants on 
          Human Rights in its dealings with individual Indians 
          and natives as persons.  This has particular 
          significances (sic) for those tribal people who were 
          relocated away from Indian territories by the United 
          States government and now reside in non-Indian urban 
          and rural localities. 

          In accord with Principle VIII of the Helsinki Final 
          Act, the United States of America has solemnly pledged 
          itself to applying and upholding international 
          covenants including the United Nations Charter in its 
          dealings with organized Indian and native nations and 
          communities.  Principle VIII applies to United States 
          government dealings with "recognized tribes," 
          "unrecognized tribes" and "terminated tribes." (NCAI, 
          1983:3-4) 

     Of particular relevance to the self-governance process is 
     the application of Principle VIII which advocates the same 
     concept as Article 76 of the United Nations Charter which 
     addresses the right of peoples to political self-
     determination: 

          ...to promote the political, economic, social, and 
          educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust 
          territories, and their progressive development towards 
          self-government or independence as may be appropriate 
          to the particular circumstances of each territory and 
          its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the 
          peoples concerned....(United Nations Charter) 

     Principle VIII also recalls the language of the Declaration 
     on the GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND 
     PEOPLES with the affirmation that peoples "freely determine 
     their political status": 

          The 'political status' which each people has the right 
          freely to determine by virtue of the equal rights and 
          self-determination of peoples comprises both 
          international status and domestic political status. 
          Consequently the application of the principle of equal 
          rights and self-determination of peoples in the 
          political field has two aspects, which are of equal 
          importance. (UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), 
          14 December 1960) 

     The importance of the U.S. report to the Commission on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Organization on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] as of 1995) is 
     that it was acting in compliance with an international 
     agreement and in response to criticisms directed at the 
     United States government's treatment of Indians.  (The U.S. 
     Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe was created 
     in 1976 as an independent government agency with 12 members 
     from Congress, representing both houses, and 2 
     representatives of the executive branch.) While reports 
     about the United States government's response to criticisms 
     was generally ignored domestically, a great deal of 
     attention was given to the report internationally.  The 
     Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (then Forrest 
     Gerrard) was reported in United States Department of State 
     Special Report No. 73 to have "reached the need to develop a 
     mechanism to improve involvement and participation by tribal 
     governments in the Federal Government decision-making 
     process as it related to the GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT 
     relationship and trust responsibility" ("Implementation of 
     Helsinki Accord", US Department of State, December 1, 1979-
     May 31, 1980:4).  This report was submitted by the US 
     Administration as proof that the U.S. government was 
     complying with the Helsinki Accord. 

     On August 1, 1975, the United States government, Canada and 
     33 European states signed the Helsinki Final Act to 
     establish a framework for the 35 participating states to 
     deal with security and human rights issues in four parts, 
     divided into three "baskets,": 

          Basket I:    the problems of security, 

          Basket II:   economic relations, 

          Basket III:  contacts among peoples, basic human 
                       rights, and standards of international 
                       conduct                                   

     The United States placed Indian Rights under "Basket III" 
     creating an international commitment to undertake relations 
     with Indian nations within a government-to-government 
     framework of mutual respect and cooperation.  While 
     documents attest to United States government commitments 
     made to advance Indian self-government within a government-
     to-government framework, no officials dealing directly with 
     Indian nations readily cite compliance with the Helsinki 
     Accords as the reason for such a policy.  President Ronald 
     Reagan affirmed in 1983 the commitment of his administration 
     to undertake a policy of promoting Indian self-government 
     within a government-to-government framework, but he failed 
     to note that his policy conformed with the 1979 commitments 
     made under the Helsinki Final Act. 

     PREVIOUS STUDIES: 

     The process of defining a government-to-government 
     framework, negotiating Compacts, and further elaborating 
     arrangements between Indian governments and other parts of 
     the U.S. government was not the subject of the Annual 
     Assessment authorized by the Department of the Interior's 
     Office of Self-Governance. 

     No overall study has been undertaken to determine whether or 
     to what degree Indian governments are achieving the goal of 
     self-government, and whether or to what degree the process 
     between Indian governments and the U.S. government is 
     building an effective government-to-government framework 
     that assures a mutually acceptable balance in the exercise 
     of sovereign powers.  A first phase evaluation of the 
     process and the goals of Indian governments in connection 
     with shifting powers from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to 
     Indian governments will give answers to these questions. 

     OKLAHOMA STUDY 

     After a review of the documents and literature, it is 
     apparent that only one study has been undertaken, 
     Northeastern State University's May 1993 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT, 
     to consider the "impact of self-governance" on Indian 
     nations.  The Study concluded: "generally that Self-
     Governance had a positive impact at the Tribal level and 
     should continue." 

     STUDY OF THE TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, 
     DR. KEN REINFELD. 1995 

     The Department of the Interior was required under section 
     305 of Title III of Public Law 100-472 to prepare a report 
     of the costs and benefits of the Self-Governance 
     Demonstration Project.  Though apparently completed in the 
     Summer of 1994, the report entitled STUDY OF THE TRIBAL 
     SELF-GOVERNANCE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT was not presented in 
     its draft form until August 24, 1995. 

     Remarkably, the 131 page study conducted by Dr. Ken Reinfeld 
     of the Secretary of the Interior's Office of Policy Analysis 
     was a draft analysis of individual response questionnaires 
     completed by Indian governments concerned with the 
     achievement of tribal goals.  While there were 
     questionnaires sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 
     Office of Self-Governance, the only thing that seems clear 
     about U.S. government responses is that Senior U.S. 
     officials failed to define U.S. interests and goals 
     resulting in confusion among U.S. officials and staff 
     concerning the self-governance process.  No evidence was 
     presented in Dr. Reinfeld's study indicating that Senior 
     U.S. officials either understood U.S. intentions in 
     connection with the self-governance process or whether U.S. 
     officials had any long term policy goals for the government 
     of the United States.  

     The purpose of the study was to "...[D]etermine what has 
     been learned from the research and demonstration project by 
     identifying its relative costs and benefits and offering 
     suggestions for refinement and improvement as the tribal 
     self-governance program is being established pursuant to 
     title IV." (Reinfeld, 1995 Letter to Reviewer, Deer, DOI, 
     Aug. 24, 1995) 

     The study generally confirms vigorous and creative 
     developments on Indian reservations and in Indian 
     communities as a direct result of the Self-Governance 
     Demonstration Project. It demonstrates that Indian 
     governments generally consider the flexibility of decision-
     making as constructive and supportive of tribal cultural, 
     economic and political development. 

          The planning process used by self-governance tribes 
          allowed them to envision desired results and determine 
          what needs to be done to achieve the desired results. 
          ...the major benefit of the tribal self-governance 
          demonstration project was the significant increase in 
          the involvement and participation of tribal members in 
          tribal government activities, including the setting of 
          tribal priorities and policy directions. (Reinfeld, 
          1995:21) 

     When relations between Indian governments and the United 
     States government are discussed, there is generally an 
     unfavorable opinion.  This is reflected in the failure of 
     self-governance compacts to define a government-to-
     government framework effectively, since in the opinion of 
     Dr. Reinfeld these agreements have resulted in "government-
     to-agency" agreements: 
      
          As the tribal self-governance demonstration projects of 
          the DOI and Indian Health Service (IHS) proceded (sic), 
          RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 
          PARTICIPATING INDIAN TRIBES HAVE BEEN FORMALIZED ON A 
          GOVERNMENT-TO-AGENCY BASIS.  Both of these federal 
          agencies have entered into separate compacts and 
          funding agreements with their own requirements and 
          provisions.  UNLESS A CONCERTED EFFORT IS UNDERTAKEN, 
          EACH PARTICIPATING FEDERAL AGENCY IS LIKELY TO DEVELOP 
          ITS OWN POLICIES, SYSTEMS, PROCURES, AND REQUIREMENTS.  
          While this arrangement may be more convenient for the 
          particular federal agencies, it is more burdensome for 
          tribal governments. (Reinfeld, 1995:14) 

     The suggestion that a "government-to-agency" framework 
     instead of a government-to-government framework has resulted 
     from compacts constitutes a serious indictment of the U.S. 
     government and its failure to seriously monitor its own 
     compliance with Compacts signed with Indian nations.  It 
     also suggests that the United States government is not 
     taking the Compact of Self-Governance as a serious matter.  
     Further evidence that the U.S. government is not seriously 
     dealing with its agreements with Indian governments receives 
     attention by the study: 

          ...baseline measurements were not used by BIA.  A major 
          weakness of the project involved the lack of mutually 
          determined baseline measurements being developed. 
          (Reinfeld, 1995:78) 

     In addition to the failure of the United States Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs to reduce its personnel, functions and 
     services to match to funding transfers to Indian governments 
     increases the sense that the United States government has 
     not treated the self-governance initiative seriously.  
     Between general praise for the accomplishments of Indian 
     governments and failures by the United States government the 
     study suggests a fundamental re-evaluation of approaches and 
     strategies by Indian governments is essential. 


     THE CURRENT STUDY: 

     Many Indian governments have been involved in nearly eight 
     years of planning, research, negotiations and social, 
     economic and political change.  Two studies confirm that 
     Indian governments can handle funds efficiently and with 
     appropriate controls, and they confirm that Indian 
     governments can be creative when the burden of federal 
     agency controls are removed.  The Self-Government Process 
     Evaluation is an eight month study to focus on decision 
     making instruments (resolutions, communications, treaties, 
     constitutions and compacts) and the process of reassuming 
     self-government within a framework of government-to-
     government relations with the United States government.  Are 
     Indian governments reassuming governmental powers? Is the 
     United States government reducing its control over subject 
     Indian governments.  Are Indian governments negotiating with 
     the United States as political equals and is a government-
     to-government framework being defined for each Indian 
     government?  Are Indian nations holding the United States 
     accountable for its commitments?  Are Indian nations making 
     decisions consistent with growing powers of self-government? 


     PURPOSE 

     The PURPOSE of 298SGPE is to:
     
          Evaluate and analyze the specific measures 
          demonstrating changes in tribal government self-
          government activities, changes in the level of control 
          exercised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs over Compact 
          Tribes, and the effectiveness of negotiations and a 
          government-to-government framework established to 
          advance self-government and the initiative generally. 

     The GOAL of 298SGPE is specific in relation to this more 
     broadly presented purpose: 
     
          Evaluate changes in the Compact between Tribal 
          governments and the U.S. Government, and provide a 
          negotiation and framework analysis with recommendations 
          in two discrete reports to all of the Compact 
          governments in the form of a Preliminary Findings 
          Report in October 1995 and a Final Report by or before 
          March 1, 1996. 

     SCOPE 

     The Self-Governance Process Evaluation Project is a 
     "documents and records" research effort which emphasizes 
     "descriptive information" and coding of that information in 
     consistent ways to measure "frequency" over time.  We will 
     examine whether Indian government decision-making is 
     increasing self-government, maintaining the status quo or 
     decreasing self-government.  On the basis of pre-defined 
     measures for self-government and measures for diminished 
     self-government, descriptive information will be compared 
     with these measures and coded accordingly. 

     Measures have been formulated on the basis of "initial 
     goals" set by the "First Tier Tribes" who originally defined 
     and formulated the Self-Governance initiative in various 
     documents and reports generated by these governments, 
     between Fall 1987 and Fall 1989 including the: 

          * RED PAPER (Hoopa, Lummi, S'Klallam and Quinault) 1989. 

     Measures have also been based on definitions and goals as 
     set out in: 

          * SELF-GOVERNANCE: A TRIBALLY DRIVEN INITIATIVE, the 
            governments of Hoopa, Jamestown S'Klallam, Lummi and 
            Quinault. 1992. 

          * SELF-GOVERNANCE: A NEW PARTNERSHIP, Lummi Nation 
            Self-Governance Communication and Education Project: 
            Lummi Nation. 1995. 

     Analysis and further definitions draw also from the 
     following references: 

          * REPORT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS TO REVIEW THE 
            EXPERIENCE OF COUNTRIES IN THE OPERATION OF SCHEMES 
            OF INTERNAL SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. 
            (UN Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human 
            Rights, Nuuk, Greenland, 24-28 1991 - 
            E/CN.4/1992/42/Add.1) 

          * STUDY OF TREATIES, AGREEMENTS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTIVE 
            ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN STATES AND INDIGENOUS 
            POPULATIONS; First Progress Report, Dr. Miguel 
            Alfonso Martinez, Special Rapporteur, UN Economic and 
            Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, 
            Switzerland, (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/32) 25 August 1992. 

          * INDIGENOUS PEOPLES EXPERIENCES WITH SELF-GOVERNMENT. 
            Edited by W.J. Assies and A.J. Hoekema. International 
            Working Group on Indigenous Affairs and the 
            University of Amsterdam, Copenhagen 1994. 

     Measures are further informed by contributions of Indian and 
     other scholars in: 

          * INDIAN SELF-GOVERNANCE (Center for World Indigenous 
            Studies, 1989) 

          * "Constitution, Court, Indian Tribes," by Milner S. 
            Ball AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION RESEARCH JOURNAL, 
            Chicago. Vol 1987, No. 1, 1987. 

     Raw documents requested from all the governmental parties 
     directly connected to the self-government initiative further 
     inform the analysis.  The information will be codified in 
     data sets and all documents will be catalogued using a bar 
     coding system. From the documentary consolidation and 
     codification, investigators will analyze data results, 
     conduct cross-referenced comparisons of coded results, and 
     evaluate frequency scales to draw conclusions and formulate 
     recommendations in a Final Report. 

     SIGNIFICANCE 

     This study addresses whether Indian nations are achieving 
     new levels of political development -- offering new measures 
     for determining the political development of Indian nations, 
     and whether intergovernmental agreements with the United 
     States provide a working framework for ensuring a long term 
     and constructive government-to- government relationship. 

     THE SELF-GOVERNANCE PROCESS EVALUATION PROJECT examines 
     changes in Indian government decision-making and changes in 
     the exercise of governmental powers which specifically 
     addresses the question: To what degree are Indian 
     governments reassuming the capacity to exercise self-
     government as a direct consequence of each government 
     entering into a COMPACT OF SELF-GOVERNANCE with the 
     government of the United States of America.  This study also 
     addresses the subsidiary, but no less important question: Do 
     the current intergovernmental compacts serve as an effective 
     intergovernmental framework to ensure the resumption of 
     governmental powers by Indian governments, or should their 
     be further steps to evolve a stronger framework?  This study 
     relies on a process of systematically measuring the relative 
     level of self-government as reflected in the decision-making 
     instruments of the subject governments. 

     The current study does not assess "cost-benefit," and it 
     does not examine whether Indian governments have new 
     administrative systems or effective financial management 
     systems.  These have been the subjects of previous studies.  
     This study attempts to measure the change in the level of 
     self-government of subject Indian governments and whether 
     the government-to-government framework contributes to 
     achieving self-government goals.   To the extent that 
     reassumed powers are those powers formerly assumed by the 
     United States then the Indian governments have the aim of 
     reducing U.S. governmental control over each Indian nation.  
     The result of this process is presumed to be greater self-
     government.  Providing a measurement of whether self-
     governing powers have indeed increased as a result of the 
     negotiation of Self-Governance Compacts will enable Indian 
     governments to determine whether they are actually achieving 
     their goal of self-government.  Indian governments will gain 
     insights from this study into the effectiveness of their 
     decisions and they will gain insights into the negotiation 
     process with the United States and whether this process 
     should be changed to achieve established goals. 


     METHODOLOGY 

     Thirty-three Indian governments (including Alaskan native 
     corporations and villages) concluded Compacts with the 
     United States government and protocol "Funding Agreements" 
     in relation to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs between the Summer of 1991 and Winter of 
     1995.  The United States government's Office of the 
     President in the White House, Secretary of the Interior and 
     Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs were 
     the executive participants in the formulation of compacts 
     and protocols.  Documentary information is being collected 
     from all of these entities and agents acting on their behalf 
     under the following categories: 

          1. Key communications and minutes of meetings in 
             connection with negotiations and "framework setting" 
             activities for the period of October, 1987- June, 
             1995. 

          2. Compacts formally concluded between 1991 and Winter 
             1994 and protocol "funding agreements" concerning 
             the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Treaties and other 
             agreements. 

          3. Constitutions of all Compact parties. 

          4. Resolutions, laws, binding motions and directives 
             adopted and issued by all Compacting Indian 
             governments for the periods of October 1987 to 
             August 1990, and from September 1990 to March 1995. 

     Requests are being made of the Self-Governance Coordinators 
     for each of the thirty three Indian governments and of the 
     Self-Governance Director for the U.S. Department of the 
     Interior to supply the materials listed above.  Request will 
     be made of SENSE, Inc. Washington, D.C. for documents and 
     records relevant to this study for the periods indicated due 
     to that agency's coordinating role between Indian nations 
     during the early phases of the self-governance initiative.  
     Each document relevant to the study received from Indian 
     governments, the United States government and independent 
     sources will be reviewed and evaluated as a "decision 
     instrument" and be assigned two numeric values and a 
     descriptive value.  One numeric value will be assigned to 
     reflect whether a decision is an exercise of governmental 
     power or a relinquishment of governmental power.  The second 
     numeric value will be assigned to reflect whether the 
     decision constitutes a resumption of governmental power or a 
     maintenance of governmental power in the United States.  
     While specific requests for documents are made to the 
     governments and independent sources, the study is subject to 
     whether a source wishes to limit availability of 
     documentation or respond fully to the request.  Depending on 
     availability, up to five case studies will receive 
     particular emphasis within the overall study. 


     PRINCIPLES OF NEGOTIATIONS AND GOALS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT: 

     The Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project became a 
     part of the Congressional Appropriations Act for 1988 and 
     was passed by the Congress on December 22, 1987.  
     Anticipating the eventual establishment of the initiative as 
     negotiated with Congressman Yates's Sub-committee, Lummi 
     Chairman Larry Kinley formulated the principles for 
     negotiating a self-government agreement.  In his December 2, 
     1987 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Indian 
     Affairs, the Lummi Chairman listed for the Committee ten 
     basic principles that would become the guide-posts for 
     eventual negotiation of agreements on self-government with 
     the United States. These principles, or intentions, 
     reflected the views of American Indian leaders who had been 
     working to develop a new relationship with the United States 
     for the previous two years. 

     NEGOTIATION PRINCIPLES: 

          1. THERE ARE NATURAL TENSIONS BETWEEN SOVEREIGNS:  
             Tensions between nations and between nations and 
             states over sovereignty and jurisdiction are a 
             natural consequence of geography.  To reduce these 
             tensions, or direct the tensions toward peaceful 
             resolution, mechanisms are established between 
             governments.  Government-to-government relations, 
             formalized to ensure appropriate resolution of 
             disputes and mutual cooperation are the customary 
             means for neighbors to deal with one another. 

          2. GREATER-POWERS PROTECTING LESSER-POWERS DOES NOT 
             PRECLUDE LESSER-POWERS FROM EXERCISING FULL POWERS 
             OF SOVEREIGNTY. 

          3. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AND THE DUTY OF A GREATER 
             POWER: The U.S. Trust Responsibility toward Indian 
             Nations must be interpreted as a duty to protect and 
             assist an Indian Nation until it achieves the full 
             powers of self-governance on a political plain equal 
             to that of the United States of America. 

          4. FEDERATION OF MICRONESIA: A MODERN APPLICATION OF 
             TRUST.  Some contend that Indian nations should 
             forever remain in a trust status dominated by U.S. 
             bureaucracies or be assimilated and disappear.  * * 
             * Seeking to govern themselves, the Micronesians 
             entered into direct government-to-government 
             negotiations with representatives of the U.S. 
             government with ambassadorial status to develop a 
             Compact of Free Association.  What was once a trust 
             territory is now four separate and distinct national 
             units (THREE OF WHICH ARE NOW MEMBERS OF THE UNITED 
             NATIONS AS RECOGNIZED STATES [RCR]). 

          5. THE U.S. DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM IS AN INAPPROPRIATE 
             FORUM OF JUSTICE IN INDIAN AFFAIRS.  The appropriate 
             arena for these questions is in direct negotiations 
             within the framework of government-to-government 
             relations, and not the alien U.S. Courts. 

          6. THE COURT SYSTEM VIEWS ALL TRIBES AS THE SAME AND 
             APPLIES ITS DECISIONS UNIFORMLY WHEN, IN FACT EACH 
             TRIBE IS UNIQUE IN ITS TREATY RELATIONSHIP TO THE 
             UNITED STATES.  Indian governments must be dealt 
             with individually in relations with the United 
             States government. 

          7. U.S. INTERVENTION INTO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF 
             INDIAN NATIONS DEGRADES THE PRINCIPLE OF TRUST 
             RESPONSIBILITY AND DELIBERATELY SEEKS DISINTEGRATION 
             OF THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FABRIC OF 
             TRIBAL SOCIETIES. 

          8. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPEAKS WITH MANY VOICES ON 
             INDIAN AFFAIRS PLACING LEGITIMATE LEGAL RIGHTS IN 
             THE POLITICAL ARENA. 

          9. TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNMENT WITH UNITED STATES SUPPORT IS 
             AN ESSENTIAL, BASIC GOAL OF TRIBAL LEADERSHIP. 

         10. TRIBES AND THE UNITED STATES MUST INITIATE A 
             MEANINGFUL GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT PROCESS TO 
             ACHIEVE INDIVIDUAL TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNMENT. (Lummi, 
             1987) 


     SELF-GOVERNMENT PROCESS GOALS: 

     By 1989, the principles originally announced by the Lummi 
     Chairman in 1987 were amplified by a statement of goals: 

          1. Formalize relations between the United States and 
             Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis; 

          2. Allow Indian Tribes to determine internal 
             priorities, redesign programs and reallocate 
             financial resources to more effectively and 
             efficiently meet the needs of their Tribal 
             communities; 

          3. Promote greater social, economic and political self-
             sufficiency among Indian Tribes; 

          4. Establish better accountability through expanded 
             Tribal Council decision-making authority; 

          5. Institute administrative cost-efficiencies between 
             Tribal governments and the United States through 
             reduced paperwork burdens and streamlined decision-
             making process; and, 

          6. Change the role of the Federal agencies serving 
             Indian Tribes by shifting their responsibilities 
             from day-to-day management of Tribal affairs to that 
             of protectors and advocates of Tribal interests. 

     The principles stated by the Lummi Chairman set out the 
     broad guidelines and purpose of the negotiation of self-
     government compacts with the United States.  Consideration 
     of goals without taking into account the principles on which 
     the goals are based creates artificial assumptions that can 
     be misleading.  The intentions behind goals determines 
     whether these goals can actually be achieved.  An initial 
     comparison of principles with goals suggests whether there 
     is any coherence between original intentions and subsequent 
     goals.  In the table below, Indian nation principles cohere 
     most strongly with the Goal 1 of formalizing relations 
     between the United States and Indian tribes on a government-
     to-government basis, and with Goal 6 of changing the role of 
     Federal agencies serving Indian tribes. 


          COHERENCE OF NEGOTIATION PRINCIPLES WITH TRIBAL GOALS 
     -------------------------------------------------------------
                                   *** SELF-GOVERNMENT GOALS ***  
      NEGOTIATION PRINCIPLES         | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |     
     ------------------------------------------------------------- 
    | 1. Gov-to-Gov Mechanism        | X |   |   |   |   |   | 1 | 
    | 2. Lesser Power Sovereignty    |   |   | X | X |   |   | 2 | 
    | 3. Trust: Elevate/Protection   | X |   | X | X |   | X | 4 | 
    | 4. Trust: Modern Application   | X |   | X | X |   | X | 4 | 
    | 5. Direct Negotiations         | X |   |   |   |   |   | 1 | 
    | 6. Indiv Tribe/US Treaty Rel.  | X | X |   |   |   |   | 2 | 
    | 7. Non-Interference Internal   |   | X |   |   |   | X | 2 | 
    | 8. Political Relationship      | X |   |   |   |   | X | 2 | 
    | 9. U.S. Assistance             |   | X |   |   | X | X | 3 | 
    | 10. Gov-to-Gov Process         | X |   |   |   | X |   | 2 | 
    -------------------------------------------------------------- 
      Level of Coherence:                                      23
    -------------------------------------------------------------- 


     As earlier studies indicate, Indian governments tended to 
     emphasize Goals 2,3,4,5.  Such an emphasis is in part 
     consistent with the original intent of the self-governance 
     process, but the two pillars of the process (as represented 
     by Goals 1 and 6) received less attention (Reinfeld, 1965) 

     PRELIMINARY FINDINGS: 

          * Though the United States government first stated a 
            policy of self-determination it 1970, it has not 
            expressed its own interests in relation to the self-
            governance process.  The U.S. government entered into 
            negotiations with Indian governments and never 
            presented its own interests as a matter of 
            negotiation.  Since the United States government 
            expressed no goals of its own, officials of the U.S. 
            government apparently assumed that there was 
            fundamental agreement with Indian government goals.  
            The failure of the United States government to 
            address its interests and goals in the context of 
            negotiating compacts may prevent the United States 
            from fully complying with Compacts of Self-Governance 
            and Funding Agreements.  A failure to comply with 
            compacts is highly likely since unstated interests 
            and goals may become the basis for not complying with 
            intergovernmental agreements with Indian nations. 

          * Of the thirty-three Indian Governments, many have 
            negotiated a second Compact, though the second is 
            with the Indian Health Service.  It appears that the 
            negotiation of such additional compacts adds to 
            tribal and federal expenses unnecessarily while 
            undercutting tribal government negotiations with the 
            US.  An underlying concept for the self-governance 
            process has been that each Indian nation must have 
            relations with the whole of the United States 
            government and not merely an agency.  One Compact per 
            nation appears to be all that is necessary amended by 
            a series of protocols or funding agreements.  If 
            nations are obliged to negotiate a Compact with an 
            agency they are bound to experience agency overload 
            and an immense bureaucracy.  This is one thing Indian 
            nations were attempting to avoid. 

          * Even though Indian nations have had the right since 
            1976 to appeal to the Commission on Security and 
            Cooperation in Europe to ensure U.S. compliance with 
            the Helsinki Final Act, no Indian nation has either 
            contacted the U.S. Commission or the Organization on 
            Security and Cooperation in Europe based in Europe 
            regarding the self-governance process. 

          * Baseline Measures Reports from subject Indian 
            governments and the study conducted by the Department 
            of the Interior (Study of the Tribal Self-Governance 
            Demonstration Project-1994-August 1995) confirm major 
            progress by Indian governments toward the achievement 
            of goals 2,3, and 5 though these reports tend to 
            emphasize program and budget elements at the expense 
            of questions of political development. 

          * Baseline Measures Reports from subject Indian 
            governments confirm little overall measurable 
            progress toward achieving goal 6.  Indeed, 
            preliminary evidence suggests the Bureau of Indian 
            Affairs is resisting reductions in functions, and 
            costs corresponding to the levels of pass-through 
            funding, and the United States government paying 
            little serious attention to the commitments contained 
            in Compacts. 

          * While there is some evidence suggesting progress in 
            goal 4 in the first part "better accountability" 
            there is limited evidence of "expanded Tribal Council 
            decision-making authority" which would indicate 
            resumption of greater governmental powers. 

          * Goals 1,4 and 6 most directly address the original 
            principles of negotiations, but primary emphasis has 
            been on the affirmation of Goals 2,3 and 5 in the 
            Baseline Measures Reports and Studies. 

          * Compacts have not resulted in each Indian government 
            arranging a government-to-government framework with 
            the United States, and Indian governments are engaged 
            in negotiating Compacts on an agency-by-agency basis 
            resulting in a pattern of relations similar to PL-638 
            contracting. 


                       ________________________

                              REFERENCES:

     1993. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SELF-GOVERNANCE DEMONSTRATION 
          PROJECT. Northeastern State University.  

     Ball, Milner. 1987 Constitution, Court, Indian Tribes. 
          AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION RESEARCH JOURNAL. 1987: num. 1 
          (1-139.)  

     Lummi Nation. 1995. SELF-GOVERNANCE: A NEW PARTNERSHIP. 
          Lummi Nation: Lummi Nation Self-Governance 
          Communication and Education Project.  

     Lummi, Quinault, Hoopa, and Jamestown S'Klallam. 1992. SELF-
          GOVERNANCE: A TRIBALLY DRIVEN INITIATIVE. Lummi Nation: 
          Lummi Communications and Education Project.  

     Minugh, Carol J., Glen T. Morris and Rudolph C. Ryser. 1989. 
          INDIAN SELF-GOVERNANCE. Kenmore: Center for World 
          Indigenous Studies.  

     National Congress of American Indians, Executive Committee. 
          1983.  ON THE EVOLUTION OF STANDARDS CONCERNING THE 
          RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS (Statement before the 
          UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Geneva, 
          Switzerland). (1-5.)  

     Helsinki Final Act (1975) 

     Reinfeld, Kenneth. 1995. DRAFT STUDY OF THE TRIBAL SELF-
          GOVERNANCE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT. Washington, D.C.: US 
          Department of the Interior.  

     US Commission on Security & Cooperation in Europe. (1979) 
          American Indians. In FULFILLING OUR PROMISES: THE 
          UNITED STATES AND THE HELSINKI FINAL ACT. pp. 148-164 
          US Government Printing Office.  

     U.S. State Department. 1980 Implementation of Helsinki 
          Accord, Eighth Semiannual Report. SPECIAL REPORT NO. 
          73. (1-20.)  


   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   To have a current Center For World Indigenous Studies Publication
          Catalogue sent to you via e-mail, send a request to

                          jburrows@halcyon.com

                                  

                http://www.halcyon.com/FWDP/cwiscat.html
   
                  Center For World Indigenous Studies
                             P.O. Box 2574
                          Olympia, WA  U.S.A.
                               98507-2574

                           FAX: 360-956-1087
       OCR Provided by Caere Corporation's OmniPage Professional