Bureau of Indian affairs sucks

Cherico

Well-known member

When the U.S. government took control of Native Americans' property rights in 1887, Indians were assured they would receive all the income from their land. They never did. The Cobell v. Salazar class action lawsuit resulted in a settlement for Native American plaintiffs.

According to accounts from whistle-blowers, money belonging to individual Indians was pilfered, skimmed, redirected, or thrown in with general government funds by the U.S. Department of the Interior or its appointed representatives.

In 1996 banker Elouise Cobell filed a class action lawsuit charging the government mismanaged more than $100 billion in oil, timber, grazing and other royalties on land owned by some 500,000 individual Indian beneficiaries.

After a trial in June 2008, Judge James Robertson ordered that the government is responsible for about $455 million of missing Native American money. The Native American plaintiffs expressed disappointment at the verdict, which holds the government accountable for only a fraction of the amount descendants claim to be owed, and have not yet said whether they will appeal.

In early December 2009, the government offered and the plaintiffs accepted a settlement in this 13-year-old case. The settlement provides $1.4 billion to be shared among the plaintiffs (yielding just $1000 per plaintiff). The federal government commits another $2 billion to buy up small shares of scattered properties from their current owners. The settlement includes the creation of a "$60 million federal Indian Education Scholarship fund to improve access to higher education for Indian youth, and … a commitment by the federal government to appoint a commission that will oversee and monitor specific improvements in the Department's accounting for and management of individual Indian trust accounts and trust assets, going forward.

In late 2010, the House and Senate both approved the Cobell lawsuit settlement. In addition to the payments to individual class members, the Cobell settlement agreement provides for a $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund, through which interested individual owners receive payments for voluntarily selling their fractional interests in Indian country land. That land would then be held in trust for the tribe with jurisdiction.

1915

The Report of the Joint Commission of the Congress of the United States described the "great wealth in the form of Indian funds" [derived from lands held in trust] as "an inducement to fraud, corruption, and institutional incompetence almost beyond the possibility of comprehension."

1934

The Indian Reorganization Act was passed. It stopped all further allotments of portions of tribal reservations to individual owners. It also made perpetual the special trust arrangements which had been created for the lands deeded or allotted to individual Indian owners.

1955

A U.S. General Accounting Office report stated, "The deficiencies [in trust management] include disbursements of individual Indian moneys without adequate support, deficiencies in accounting for cash and bonds and in computation and distribution of interests income and other weaknesses in internal procedures."

1986

David Henry, an accountant with BIA, became a prime whistle-blower on the fraud and mismanagement which he witnessed was taking place within the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding funds held by BIA for tribes and individual Indian owners/allottees.

1990

During oversight hearings, then-Rep. Albert Bustamante (TX) reportedly stated, "I have a tribe that I represent in my district, but throughout the years, most of these people have been abused by many, and you in the BIA ought to be the ones that really look after them. If this happened in Social Security, I tell you there would be a war. If we can manage Social Security, we ought to be able to manage this."

1991

Secretary of the Interior's Annual Statement and Report to Congress stated, "The Bureau's management of Individual Indian Monies (IIM) [accounts] and Tribal trust funds is inadequate to properly maintain and administer the $2 billion dollar fund for which it has responsibility. The BIA's management of tribal and Individual Indian Trust Funds lacks effective management/internal controls, reliable systems and management information. Tribal and individual accounts lack credibility and have never been reconciled in the entire history of the trust fund."

1992

The House Committee on Government Operations published its report entitled "Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Mismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund." It contained serious accusations of malfeasance, and called for significant changes in the Department of Interior's handling of IIM and tribal trust funds.

1994

The Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 was enacted which made significant changes in the Department of Interior organization and its administration of the trust funds. Its passage came despite the vigorous opposition of the Department of Interior. Under the act, a Special Trustee was appointed to serve directly under the Secretary of Interior, and separate from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in an effort to remedy the problems in both tribal accounts and IIM accounts.

June, 1996

The Native American Rights Fund and attorney Dennis Gingold filed Cobell v. Babbitt in U.S. District Court on behalf of five named individual Indian account holders as a class action to compel an accounting and adjustment of accounts. It also sought to establish better policies for appropriate future management of the Indian trust funds.

June, 1996

The BIA created a new officer, The Special Trustee, who testified to Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that the IIM account system was "as bad or worse" than the system used for tribal accounts. During the hearing, Sen. McCain (AZ) stated, "Trustees receive and disburse funds all the time for other Americans, and if they blow it they pay. In this case it's the Native Americans who are rightfully owed the money and the federal government who will be forced to compensate for their loss."

November, 1996

The first of several judicial orders was entered in Cobell v. Babbitt requiring that the government produce and give to the plaintiffs' attorneys all records of accounts relating to the five individual plaintiffs.

February, 1997

The case was certified as a class action lawsuit by Judge Royce Lamberth, meaning all orders entered for the benefit of the five named plaintiffs (such as the order to produce records of account) would also relate to all members of the class. It was estimated at that time that 300,000 individual Indians and their descendants were members of that class, but that estimate has since been increased to about 500,000.

November 1998

Judge Lamberth issued an important ruling, over strenuous objections of lawyers for Department of Interior, that in managing IIM accounts the federal government would be held to the same account management standards as any other trustee such as a bank, rather than to the less strict statutory governmental standards. One major consequence of this ruling is that the burden of proof (that there had been appropriate management of funds and proper payments from the accounts to the beneficiaries) became the responsibility of the Department of Interior, rather than that of the plaintiffs.

February, 1999

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Assistant Secretary Kevin Gover, and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin were all found to be in contempt for failure to produce records as required by court orders.

May, 1999

The government acknowledged in writing that while the case was pending, the Department of Treasury had destroyed 162 boxes of relevant documents.

June, 1999

A seven-week trial was held. During his testimony, Secretary Babbitt admitted that the fiduciary responsibilities of the U.S. were "not being fulfilled."

Spring and summer, 1999

Settlement discussions between the parties with the help of mediators were undertaken but were unsuccessful.

December, 1999

Judge Lamberth held that the United States had breached its fiduciary duties and had "unreasonably delayed" trust reform efforts; and he ordered continued judicial oversight for at least five years. The government appealed this order.

November, 2000

The Department of Treasury admitted destruction of substantial numbers of additional records which were under its control.

Early 2001

The case became renamed Cobell v. Norton, to reflect the change of identity of the new Secretary of Interior.

February 2001

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the major findings of Judge Lamberth. "Not only does the 1994 Act plainly reaffirm the government's preexisting duty to provide an accounting to IIM trust beneficiaries, but it is plain that such an obligation inheres in the trust relationship itself." At another point in the decision the court stated, "…the magnitude of the government's malfeasance and potential prejudice to the plaintiff's class" justified great latitude in the judge's continuing oversight.

June 2001

The Senate Government Affairs Committee issued a report in which it described the handling of these funds as one of the 10 worst examples of federal government mismanagement, second only to the Big Dig in Boston.

October 2001

Government lawyers revealed to the district court that Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Neal McCaleb had erased his electronic communications relating to Indian trust funds for a period of 10 months, despite court orders and internal policy to the contrary. Those communications reportedly included figures on the amounts of money going in and out of Indian trust fund accounts.

November 2001

Judge Lamberth ordered Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Assistant Secretary Neal McCaleb to stand trial for being in contempt of court. McCaleb resigned shortly thereafter, and as a consequence he did not have to stand trial. The hearing took place several months later, and Norton was found by the judge to be in contempt.

March 2005

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that the FY 2006 budget request for the Department of Justice includes $7.4 million and 18 positions to defend the United States in law suits filed by various tribes for mismanagement of tribal assets by the Department of Interior. He stated, "The United States' potential exposure in these cases is more than $200 billion."

2008

The case is renamed Cobell v. Salazar to reflect the new Secretary of the interior. Following a trial, Judge James Robertson ordered that the government is responsible for about $455 million of missing Native American money. The Native American plaintiffs expressed disappointment at the verdict, which holds the government accountable for only a fraction of the amount descendants claim to be owed.


Essentially the Beruo of indian affairs a federal organization has been utter shit to the native americans for a long time.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
Yeah -- they have been treated like shit by the American government. :(

On the one hand, they're owed a hell of a lot more money than what's being put forth in this case, and the mismanagement and betrayals by the American government are criminal to the point that if it were anyone/anything else, not even the Democrats and their corruption or the Republicans with their ineptitudes could try to blow this over.

On the other hand, it's now pretty unrealistic to expect the full (billions) amount, and if the Native American lawyers continue to press the issue, there's a very good chance the government is going to basically "lolno fuck you" and screw them over even further.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Not really surprising, screwing over the Indians was BIA modus operandi from the day it was established. There was a reason why back in the day Indian Agents were seen as the main reason for bloodshed between Indians and whites.
 

49ersfootball

Well-known member

When the U.S. government took control of Native Americans' property rights in 1887, Indians were assured they would receive all the income from their land. They never did. The Cobell v. Salazar class action lawsuit resulted in a settlement for Native American plaintiffs.

According to accounts from whistle-blowers, money belonging to individual Indians was pilfered, skimmed, redirected, or thrown in with general government funds by the U.S. Department of the Interior or its appointed representatives.

In 1996 banker Elouise Cobell filed a class action lawsuit charging the government mismanaged more than $100 billion in oil, timber, grazing and other royalties on land owned by some 500,000 individual Indian beneficiaries.

After a trial in June 2008, Judge James Robertson ordered that the government is responsible for about $455 million of missing Native American money. The Native American plaintiffs expressed disappointment at the verdict, which holds the government accountable for only a fraction of the amount descendants claim to be owed, and have not yet said whether they will appeal.

In early December 2009, the government offered and the plaintiffs accepted a settlement in this 13-year-old case. The settlement provides $1.4 billion to be shared among the plaintiffs (yielding just $1000 per plaintiff). The federal government commits another $2 billion to buy up small shares of scattered properties from their current owners. The settlement includes the creation of a "$60 million federal Indian Education Scholarship fund to improve access to higher education for Indian youth, and … a commitment by the federal government to appoint a commission that will oversee and monitor specific improvements in the Department's accounting for and management of individual Indian trust accounts and trust assets, going forward.

In late 2010, the House and Senate both approved the Cobell lawsuit settlement. In addition to the payments to individual class members, the Cobell settlement agreement provides for a $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund, through which interested individual owners receive payments for voluntarily selling their fractional interests in Indian country land. That land would then be held in trust for the tribe with jurisdiction.

1915

The Report of the Joint Commission of the Congress of the United States described the "great wealth in the form of Indian funds" [derived from lands held in trust] as "an inducement to fraud, corruption, and institutional incompetence almost beyond the possibility of comprehension."

1934

The Indian Reorganization Act was passed. It stopped all further allotments of portions of tribal reservations to individual owners. It also made perpetual the special trust arrangements which had been created for the lands deeded or allotted to individual Indian owners.

1955

A U.S. General Accounting Office report stated, "The deficiencies [in trust management] include disbursements of individual Indian moneys without adequate support, deficiencies in accounting for cash and bonds and in computation and distribution of interests income and other weaknesses in internal procedures."

1986

David Henry, an accountant with BIA, became a prime whistle-blower on the fraud and mismanagement which he witnessed was taking place within the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding funds held by BIA for tribes and individual Indian owners/allottees.

1990

During oversight hearings, then-Rep. Albert Bustamante (TX) reportedly stated, "I have a tribe that I represent in my district, but throughout the years, most of these people have been abused by many, and you in the BIA ought to be the ones that really look after them. If this happened in Social Security, I tell you there would be a war. If we can manage Social Security, we ought to be able to manage this."

1991

Secretary of the Interior's Annual Statement and Report to Congress stated, "The Bureau's management of Individual Indian Monies (IIM) [accounts] and Tribal trust funds is inadequate to properly maintain and administer the $2 billion dollar fund for which it has responsibility. The BIA's management of tribal and Individual Indian Trust Funds lacks effective management/internal controls, reliable systems and management information. Tribal and individual accounts lack credibility and have never been reconciled in the entire history of the trust fund."

1992

The House Committee on Government Operations published its report entitled "Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Mismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund." It contained serious accusations of malfeasance, and called for significant changes in the Department of Interior's handling of IIM and tribal trust funds.

1994

The Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 was enacted which made significant changes in the Department of Interior organization and its administration of the trust funds. Its passage came despite the vigorous opposition of the Department of Interior. Under the act, a Special Trustee was appointed to serve directly under the Secretary of Interior, and separate from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in an effort to remedy the problems in both tribal accounts and IIM accounts.

June, 1996

The Native American Rights Fund and attorney Dennis Gingold filed Cobell v. Babbitt in U.S. District Court on behalf of five named individual Indian account holders as a class action to compel an accounting and adjustment of accounts. It also sought to establish better policies for appropriate future management of the Indian trust funds.

June, 1996

The BIA created a new officer, The Special Trustee, who testified to Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that the IIM account system was "as bad or worse" than the system used for tribal accounts. During the hearing, Sen. McCain (AZ) stated, "Trustees receive and disburse funds all the time for other Americans, and if they blow it they pay. In this case it's the Native Americans who are rightfully owed the money and the federal government who will be forced to compensate for their loss."

November, 1996

The first of several judicial orders was entered in Cobell v. Babbitt requiring that the government produce and give to the plaintiffs' attorneys all records of accounts relating to the five individual plaintiffs.

February, 1997

The case was certified as a class action lawsuit by Judge Royce Lamberth, meaning all orders entered for the benefit of the five named plaintiffs (such as the order to produce records of account) would also relate to all members of the class. It was estimated at that time that 300,000 individual Indians and their descendants were members of that class, but that estimate has since been increased to about 500,000.

November 1998

Judge Lamberth issued an important ruling, over strenuous objections of lawyers for Department of Interior, that in managing IIM accounts the federal government would be held to the same account management standards as any other trustee such as a bank, rather than to the less strict statutory governmental standards. One major consequence of this ruling is that the burden of proof (that there had been appropriate management of funds and proper payments from the accounts to the beneficiaries) became the responsibility of the Department of Interior, rather than that of the plaintiffs.

February, 1999

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Assistant Secretary Kevin Gover, and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin were all found to be in contempt for failure to produce records as required by court orders.

May, 1999

The government acknowledged in writing that while the case was pending, the Department of Treasury had destroyed 162 boxes of relevant documents.

June, 1999

A seven-week trial was held. During his testimony, Secretary Babbitt admitted that the fiduciary responsibilities of the U.S. were "not being fulfilled."

Spring and summer, 1999

Settlement discussions between the parties with the help of mediators were undertaken but were unsuccessful.

December, 1999

Judge Lamberth held that the United States had breached its fiduciary duties and had "unreasonably delayed" trust reform efforts; and he ordered continued judicial oversight for at least five years. The government appealed this order.

November, 2000

The Department of Treasury admitted destruction of substantial numbers of additional records which were under its control.

Early 2001

The case became renamed Cobell v. Norton, to reflect the change of identity of the new Secretary of Interior.

February 2001

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the major findings of Judge Lamberth. "Not only does the 1994 Act plainly reaffirm the government's preexisting duty to provide an accounting to IIM trust beneficiaries, but it is plain that such an obligation inheres in the trust relationship itself." At another point in the decision the court stated, "…the magnitude of the government's malfeasance and potential prejudice to the plaintiff's class" justified great latitude in the judge's continuing oversight.

June 2001

The Senate Government Affairs Committee issued a report in which it described the handling of these funds as one of the 10 worst examples of federal government mismanagement, second only to the Big Dig in Boston.

October 2001

Government lawyers revealed to the district court that Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Neal McCaleb had erased his electronic communications relating to Indian trust funds for a period of 10 months, despite court orders and internal policy to the contrary. Those communications reportedly included figures on the amounts of money going in and out of Indian trust fund accounts.

November 2001

Judge Lamberth ordered Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Assistant Secretary Neal McCaleb to stand trial for being in contempt of court. McCaleb resigned shortly thereafter, and as a consequence he did not have to stand trial. The hearing took place several months later, and Norton was found by the judge to be in contempt.

March 2005

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that the FY 2006 budget request for the Department of Justice includes $7.4 million and 18 positions to defend the United States in law suits filed by various tribes for mismanagement of tribal assets by the Department of Interior. He stated, "The United States' potential exposure in these cases is more than $200 billion."

2008

The case is renamed Cobell v. Salazar to reflect the new Secretary of the interior. Following a trial, Judge James Robertson ordered that the government is responsible for about $455 million of missing Native American money. The Native American plaintiffs expressed disappointment at the verdict, which holds the government accountable for only a fraction of the amount descendants claim to be owed.


Essentially the Beruo of indian affairs a federal organization has been utter shit to the native americans for a long time.
It's been going on for that long ? SMH.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Yeah...

Seems to line up with my understanding of the reservation system, at least assuming FEE's a valid source:




Honestly, though, I think if there's any racial group with every right to be resentful, it's Native Americans that are still getting the rawest deal of them all. Really, it's sad and shameful that the GOP (who don't seem to give a shit) and the Dems (who view them as puppets) don't seem to give a shit, and that it takes someone else entirely to actually bring the issue to light and suggest a solution.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Yeah...

Seems to line up with my understanding of the reservation system, at least assuming FEE's a valid source:




Honestly, though, I think if there's any racial group with every right to be resentful, it's Native Americans that are still getting the rawest deal of them all. Really, it's sad and shameful that the GOP (who don't seem to give a shit) and the Dems (who view them as puppets) don't seem to give a shit, and that it takes someone else entirely to actually bring the issue to light and suggest a solution.

Hey the left is doing the really important thing here, and making sure we rename our sports teams!
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Yeah, the BIA is a blight of an agency that has caused more harm than good. It competes with the Veteran Affairs Admin for rank incompetence, corruption, and failure at it's mission.

Tribal politics and anything around reservation/land trust/alaska native corporation set up are a whole new layer of political headache for local and state politics.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Yeah, the BIA is a blight of an agency that has caused more harm than good. It competes with the Veteran Affairs Admin for rank incompetence, corruption, and failure at it's mission.

Tribal politics and anything around reservation/land trust/alaska native corporation set up are a whole new layer of political headache for local and state politics.

Id honestly say the BIA is worse then Veterans affairs, both are bad but the VA periodically gets cleaned up as actual veterans get into political office, the BIA just seems to be determined to be horrible.
 

edgeworthy

Well-known member
Let us not forget United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). Where the Supreme Court ruled that even by the shaky standards of an Indian Treaty the US Government acted illegally.
And, with interest, owes the Lakota people over a Billion Dollars in compensation.
The Tribal Council won't take the money. They are sticking to the position that they want their land back.
(Which by the way would include Mount Rushmore!)
 

ParadiseLost

Well-known member

1990

During oversight hearings, then-Rep. Albert Bustamante (TX) reportedly stated, "I have a tribe that I represent in my district, but throughout the years, most of these people have been abused by many, and you in the BIA ought to be the ones that really look after them. If this happened in Social Security, I tell you there would be a war. If we can manage Social Security, we ought to be able to manage this."

I had to bring attention to this.

Honestly, the reservation system was horrible, Native Americans should've just been rolled into the rest of the population, been given full citizenship, and there should have been no reservations.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
I had to bring attention to this.

Honestly, the reservation system was horrible, Native Americans should've just been rolled into the rest of the population, been given full citizenship, and there should have been no reservations.
Most of us would rather continue to have some kind of Tribal sovereignty with our own governments.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
Let us not forget United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). Where the Supreme Court ruled that even by the shaky standards of an Indian Treaty the US Government acted illegally.
And, with interest, owes the Lakota people over a Billion Dollars in compensation.
The Tribal Council won't take the money. They are sticking to the position that they want their land back.
(Which by the way would include Mount Rushmore!)
Neither are going to happen. I'm being a realist here.

The most they're going to get is a few hundred million dollars, not the billions owed or their lands back. If they keep pushing the issue, I get the feeling the US gov is basically just going to leave them without a pot to piss in out of spite. And, yes, I'm fully confident they'd do that.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
My grandmother is descendant from one of the smart tribes that just sold of their land and became American citizens. They aren't officially recognized as a tribe because of this, and are better off for it.
No Indian Casino on your property, then? :p In seriousness, were there any other long lasting effects from selling?
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
We are not legally Indians. I'm also fairly certain that most of the tribal descendants don't even know they have Indian blood. My grandma is the last person in my family where the heritage is visible.
Have you ever thought about something like 23andMe just out of curiosity?
 
America seems to see its enemies as food and loves to play with said food. They half-bake reconciliation AND we half-bake removal. the result is the creation of political enemies and the political ammo to give them legitimacy and then we wonder why our mistakes keep coming back to bite us in the butt centuries later.

At this point, I sadly think it's been too long to fix anything. Everything is just too far gone. I fear we may have made that same mistake with the black population. The lesson to learn from this is never go half-measure. If you make a political promise keep it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top