Native American Press/Ojibwe News

Hunt’s legacy

October 18, 2002
The precedent-setting recall of Eli Hunt reflects Leech Lake tribal members’ growing demands for change to clean, open, and accountable government.

The irony is that Hunt was elected on similar “reform” sentiments six years ago, shortly after the convictions of former chairman Tig Pemberton, secretary Daniel Brown, and tribal attorney and state senator Harold R. “Skip” Finn. All three were later imprisoned for stealing money from the Leech Lake band.

It’s apparent that the Leech Lake recall vote reflected tribal members’ frustration and disappointment with Hunt: not only his failure to recover funds that were stolen by Finn, et al., but also his failure to reform the government so that the Leech Lake RBC is open in its operations and actively involved the people. Unfortunately, under Hunt’s administration, only a select few Leech Lakers had any reason to feel that things were getting better. The current indebtedness, estimated at $75 million, is reflective of Hunt’s problematic legacy. There has been no reform: the Leech Lake RBC still has meetings without proper notice to the people so that they can participate, holds closed “executive sessions” whenever they want (meaning that their operations continue to be essentially secret), financial reports aren’t made, and it’s nearly impossible to complete audits because the band’s financial records are in such bad shape.

It appears that there has been no one in charge for the past six years or more, and people got fed up with it.

The longstanding frustrations at Leech Lake are why the current secretary/treasurer, Archie LaRose, was elected and given a mandate to clean house.

There are serious structural problems with Leech Lake tribal government. There has been no institutional entrenchment of checks and balances, no separation of powers, and, especially given “tribal sovereignty,” no viable processes for tribal members to rein in out-of-control government except recall.

I think the vote to remove Eli Hunt sent a clear message to all other Minnesota tribal governments. People are tired of living under the circumstances that are festering not only at Leech Lake but throughout Indian country.

The debate and the power struggle will continue at Leech Lake, and tribal members will persevere until they can get people into office who will manage tribal affairs responsibly, and in an open, accountable, and honest manner.

Tribal PACs
Surprise, there is a loophole in the new campaign finance laws which allow tribal governments to make contributions to candidates for U.S. offices, even though other governments are prohibited from engaging in this kind of political activity.

We are concerned about this not only because these funds should be used for other needs of tribal members, but also because they are influencing legislation that entrenches the unaccountable power of tribal governments and their absolute control over reservation society.

With money so readily available from casino funds, tribal governments have been able to extend their influence beyond reservation boundaries, while at home problems including gangs, drug problems, suicide, chemical abuse, misuse of resources, lack of educational achievement, deterioration of the culture, and other longstanding social problems continue to fester.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this that six members of the current Minnesota congressional delegation (Martin Sabo, Jim Oberstar, Jim Ramstad, Bill Luther, Betty McCullum, and Colin Peterson) voted to strike the Native American Policy Study Commission from the FY 2003 Interior Appropriations Bill. The Policy Study Commission was to be composed of state, federal, local, and tribal officials, whose task would have been to review the health, education, housing, and crime status of Indian country and the impact of Indian gaming. Their vote against this prevented that study from happening.

With growing crime, drug, gang, and other problems on reservations, it is obvious that this kind of study is drastically needed.

It appears to us that PAC contributions killed a study which would have provided the kind of information necessary for Congress to make informed decisions serving the public interests, rather than merely succumbing to PR-firm Indian mystique and the ‘noble savage’ mentality and blindly supporting further expansions of tribal government.

Many of the Reps. argued that no study is necessary, and the funds should be used for improving conditions on the reservation. We respond that the study is indispensable, that the money given to them for campaign contributions could better be used for tribal needs, and that Congress needs to critically scrutinize the effects of ten years of gambling. Members of Congress do not have to live under the conditions that they have created on reservations, nor to be subject to the jurisdiction of tribal governments. Instead they go on carefully chaperoned trips to the reservation, get ‘Indian names,’ and are given guided tours of showcase Potemkin villages by tribal officials.

Lame duck dances with the new buffalo
It’s bizarre that after nearly four years, a governor who has shown very little interest in tribal affairs would, in the twilight days of his lame duck administration, finally bother to recognize the ‘inherent sovereignty’ of Indian tribes.

It also seems poor governance for an outgoing governor to bind the state to policies apparently formulated without public input. It’s almost Clintonesque.

We called the governor’s office to inquire about the reasons for the governor’s proclamation recognizing ‘tribal inherent sovereignty,’ and asked why the governor chose to do it at this late stage of his administration.

We also asked where in “the Constitution of the United States, treaties and statutes” are Indian tribes recognized as sovereign. We are aware that promoting ‘tribal sovereignty’ has been federal policy since the late 1970s, but are not aware of any legal basis other than lobbied policy and court-created doctrines. In response to our questions, we were told that the governor’s office would “get back” to us.

Our concern is that Indian people on reservations still do not have the civil rights protections that other citizens of this state and nation enjoy. It is doubtful that it is in the best interests of either the state or tribal members to issue such a proclamation at this time.