Performance audit, Commission of Indian Affairs

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
January 1985
85- 1
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
January 22, 1985
Members of the Arizona Legi sl ature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Mr. Cl i nton Pattea, Executive Director
Commission of Indian Affairs
0 Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Commission of Indian Affairs. T h i s report is i n response to
an April 27, 1983, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee. The performance audit was conducted as a part of the Sunset
Review set forth in A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
This performance audit report i s submitted to the Arizona State
Legislature for use i n determining whether to continue the Commission of
Indian Affairs beyond its scheduled termination date of July 1, 1986. The
report addresses the Commission's effectiveness in serving as a liaison
between the State government and Arizona's 20 tribal governments and
recommends changing the agency from an independent commission to an office
of Indian affairs reporting directly to the Governor.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items i n the report.
Respectful ly submitted,
Doug18 R. Norton
Auditor General
Staff: William Thomson
Mark Fleming
Deborah A. Baldwin
Dei rdre Doherty
Anthony J. Guarino
Enclosure
1 11 WEST MONROE SUITE 600 PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85lW3 ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs i n response to an April 27, 1983,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance
audit was conducted as part of the Sunset Review s e t forth i n Arizona
Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) § § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The Commission of Indian Affairs was established i n 1953 to consider and
study conditions of Arizona ' s Indian citizens. Arizona's reservation
Indian population and their extensive tribal 1 ands i l l ustrate the
significance of Arizona's Indian citizens. According to the 1980 United
States Census, approximately 152,500 Indians 1 ive i n Arizona, w i t h about
75 percent residing on 20 reservations. Reservation land amounts to about
28 percent of Arizona's total acreage.
The Commission of Indian Affairs does not adequately address the major
issues affecting Arizona' s Indian population and State agencies serving
Indian citizens. The intergovernmental relationship between the State and
tribal governments creates conflicts between the two. As a result,
important issues and concerns emerge which require coordination among
State agencies and communication between the State and the tribes.
Although coordination and communication among State agencies and tribes
are necessary to address important issues, the Commission does not f u l f i l l
these needs. The majority of the s t a f f ' s a c t i v i t i e s have 1 i t t l e impact on
significant i ntergovernmental issues. Intergovernmental concerns are not
addressed because the Commission and its s t a f f lack direction and
1 eadershi p.
The S t a t e ' s effectiveness i n addressing State- tribal concerns could be
improved if the current structure were terminated and replaced w i t h an
Indian a f f a i r s office w i t h i n the Governor's Office. Such an action would
provide the increased authority , vi si bil i ty and pol icy direction needed to
resolve State- tribal issues. The Legislature should a1 so consider
clarifying the laws of the agency, whether or not i t is restructured, to
give more direction as to its role.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FINDING I: THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS DOES NOT
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS MAJOR STATE- TRIBAL CONCERNS . . . . . . 9
Relationship Between State And Tribes Creates Issues . . . . . . . . 9
Commission Does Not Address Important Concerns o f Tribes And The State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2
Ari zona Could More E f f e c t i v e l y Address State- Tri bal
Issues By Reorganizing I t s Indian A f f a i r s Agency . . . . . . . . . .16
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 9
AGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - Actual And Estimated Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1980- 81 Through 1983- 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit o f the
Arizona Commission o f Indian A f f a i r s i n response t o an A p r i l 27, 1983,
resolution of the J o i n t Legislative Oversight Commi t t e e . This performance
audit was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n A. R. S.
§ § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The Commission of Indian A f f a i r s was established i n 1953 to consider and
study conditions o f Arizona's Indian citizens. Arizona's reservation
Indian population and 1 and base ill ustrate the significance o f Arizona's
Indian citizens. According t o the 1980 United States Census,
approximately 152,500 Indians 1 ive i n Arizona, with about 75 percent
residing on 20 reservations. The land held by Arizona Indians and t r i b e s
amounts t o about 28 percent o f the State's t o t a l acreage.
Commission Rol e and Purpose
The Commission's statutory r o l e i n addressing Indian a f f a i r s i s broad
( A. R. S. 941- 5421. I n addition t o studying the conditions of Indians, the
Commi ssion must r e p o r t t h e accounts o f i t s proceedings, transactions,
findings, and recommendations t o the Governor and the Legislature. To
f u l f i l l i t s duties, the Commission must meet twice a year. It may employ
staff, hold hearings, make investigations, and confer w i t h o f f i c i a l s of
local, State and Federal agencies t o secure t h e i r cooperation i n promoting
the welfare o f the Indian people. I n addition, the Commission may
i n i t i a t e or assist with programs on a reservation with t r i b a l council
approval.
Personnel and Budget
The Commission consists of 13 members: seven Indian members, two
non- Indian members- at- 1 arge, and four members who serve by v i r t u e of t h e i r
office. The ex o f f i c i o members are the Governor, the Superintendent of
Public I n s t r u c t i o n , t h e d i r e c t o r o f the Department o f Health Services, and
the Attorney General. The Commission employs four s t a f f : an executive
secretary, an administrative assistant, a f i e 1 d coordinator and a
secretary.
Revenues f o r Commission operation are obtained from a General Fund
appropriation. The Commission may a1 so apply for, accept, receive and
expend public and p r i v a t e g i f t s or grants o f money or property upon such
terms and conditions as may be imposed by the donor. However, the
Commission has not received any g i f t s or grants i n recent years. The
Commission's expenditures f o r f i s c a l years 1981 through 1984 are shown i n
the following table.
ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1 980- 81 THROUGH 1 983- 84
Actual Actual Actual Estimated
1 980- 81 1 981 - 82 1 982- 83 1983- 84
Empl oyees 4 4 4 4
Expenditures:
Personal Services $ 78,000 $ 86,300 $ 85,800 $ 93,200
Empl oyee Re1 ated 15,200 18,200 19,000 21 ,500
In- State Travel 7,300 3,900 2,600 3,600
Other Operating 12,300 10,600 7,800 10,300
Equ i pmen t 0 200 0 0
Total
Source : Commission o f Indian A f f a i r s budget requests f o r f i s c a l years
1982- 83 through 1984- 85
Audit Scope and Purpose
The purpose o f the audit was t o respond t o the Sunset Factors as required
by A. R. S. '$ 41- 2354 and t o evaluate:
@ The need for a coordinating body w i t h i n State government devoted
t o Indian a f f a i r s , and
The Commission's effectiveness i n meeting t h a t need.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation t o members and s t a f f o f
the Commission o f Indian A f f a i r s for t h e i r cooperation and assistance
during the course of our audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
I n accordance with A. R. S. $ 41 - 2354, the Legislature should consider the
f o l l owing 12 factors i n determining whether the Arizona Commission of Indian
Affairs should be continued or terminated.
1. The objective and purpose i n establishing the Commission
I t s enabling statutes do not state the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n establishing
the Commission o f Indian Affairs. However, the objectives and purpose of
the Commission can be i n f e r r e d from i t s powers under A. R. S. $ 41- 542. A,
which states:
.
" The Commission shall consider and study conditions
among Indians residing w i t h i n the state. The studies ,
shall be made t o accumulate, compile and assemble
information on any phase o f Indian a f f a i r s . For such
purpose the Commission may employ s t a f f personnel, hold
hearings, make investigations, and confer with ,
o f f i c i a l s of l o c a l , state and federal agencies i n order
t o secure cooperation between the federal, state and
local governments i n the promotion of the welfare o f -'
the Indian people. "
2. The effectiveness with which the Commission has met i t s objective and
purpose and the e f f i c i e n c y with which the Commission has operated
Although the Commission a c t i v i t i e s are w i t h i n i t s statutory boundaries,
the Commission has not been e f f e c t i v e i n meeting State and t r i b a l needs.
The statutes creating the Commission's duties are broad and a l l o w t h e
Commission t o undertake any a c t i v i t i e s it deems necessary. However,
through a survey of t r i b a l and State o f f i c i a l s , Auditor General s t a f f
i d e n t i f i e d many issues a f f e c t i n g both the State and the t r i b e s which the
Commission has not a c t i v e l y addressed. The Commi ssion i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y
required t o address these concerns; however, the concerns are those t h a t
the State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s indicated need t o be addressed a t the State
level. ( See Finding 1 ).
3. The extent t o which the Commission has operated w i t h i n the public i n t e r e s t
The Commission has operated i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t o a l i m i t e d degree by
p r o v i d i n g a central point f o r Indian a f f a i r s i n Arizona. Although the
Commission has engaged i n some s i g n i f i c a n t a c t i v i t i e s , the Commission's
f a i l u r e t o address major concerns l i m i t s i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the publ i c
i n t e r e s t . The Commission often provides information t o i n d i v i d u a l s upon
request. However, due t o the Commission's lack o f v i s i b i l i t y , State
agencies and t r i b e s r a r e l y request Commission involvement on major
concerns. I n addition, the Commission has not met twice a year as
required by A. R. S. $ 41 - 541. A1 though the Commission met twice i n 1983,
the Commission d i d not meet i n 1982, and as o f October, had not y e t met i n
1 984.
4. The extent t o which rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission
are consistent w i t h the 1 egis1 a t i v e mandate
This f a c t o r i s not applicable as the Commission has not promulgated any
r u l es or regul a t i ons.
5. The extent t o which the Commission has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating i t s rules and regulations and the extent t o which it
has informed the public as t o i t s actions and t h e i r expected impact on the
publ i c
This f a c t o r i s not applicable as the Commission has not promulgated any
rules or regulations.
6. The extent t o which the Commission has been able t o investigate and
resolve compl a i n t s t h a t are w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n
This factor i s not applicable as the Commission i s not a regulatory agency.
7. The extent t o which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency o f
State government has the authority t o prosecute actions under enabling
1 eqi s l a t i on
This factor i s not applicable as the Commission i s not a regulatory
agency.
8. The extent t o which the Commission has addressed deficiencies i n the
enabling statutes which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g i t s statutory mandate
The Commission does not perceive deficiencies i n i t s statutes t h a t require
change. According t o a memo from the Commission's Attorney General
representative, the Commission' s statutes are broad enough t o authorize
any a c t i v i t i e s the Commission chooses t o undertake.
9. The extent t o which changes are necessary i n the laws o f the Commission t o
adequately comply with t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n the Sunset Law
The Legislature shoul d consider the f o l l owing changes t o the Commission's
statutes.
1. Restructuring the Commission o f Indian A f f a i r s t o provide a stronger
l i n k t o the executive branch. The Legislature should terminate the
Commission and restructure it as an o f f i c e o f Indian a f f a i r s w i t h i n
the Governor's Office.
2. C l a r i f y i n g the laws o f the agency, whether or not it i s restructured,
t o give more d i r e c t i o n as i t s role. The laws should require the
agency to act as a coordinator between the State and the t r i b e s , and
t o assist the governments i n addressing important S t a t e - t r i b a l
issues. The law should r e q u i r e t h e agency t o i d e n t i f y and research
important issues and make recommendations for t h e i r resolution.
10. The extent t o which the termination of the Commission would s i g n i f i c a n t l y
harm the pub1 i c health, safety or we1 fare
Termination of the Commission o f Indian A f f a i r s i n i t s current form would
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the public health, safety or welfare. Although the
e x i s t i n g Commission may not be necessary, there i s a need f o r active State a
involvement i n the resol u t i o n o f S t a t e - t r i bal concerns. However, the
Commission i s currently not addressing the major issues i d e n t i f i e d by
State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s , but spends the majority o f time on small- scale
a c t i v i t i e s . Therefore, the Commission of Indian A f f a i r s should be
0
terminated and an o f f i c e o f Indian a f f a i r s created w i t h i n the Governor's
o f f i c e . ( See Finding 1, page 9).
11. The extent t o which the 1 eve1 o f regulation exercised by the Commission i s
appropriate and whether less or more stringent l e v e l s o f regulation would
This factor i s not applicable as the Commission i s not a regulatory agency.
12. The extent t o which the Commission has used private contractors i n the
performance of i t s duties and how e f f e c t i v e use of private contractors
coul d be accompl i shed
( I
Except f o r a study t i t l e d " Indian Employment Within State Government" i n
1977- 78, the Commission has not used the services o f private contractors
i n connection with i t s duties. The 1977- 78 study used Federal funds a
received through the Four Corners Regional Commission.
FINDING I
THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS DOES NOT ADEOUATELY ADDRESS MAJOR
STATE- TRIBAL CONCERNS
The Commission of Indian A f f a i r s does not adequately address the major issues
a f f e c t i n g Arizona's Indian population and State agencies serving Indian
citizens. The nature o f S t a t e - t r i bal re1 a t i onships creates the need f o r
coordination between these two d i s t i n c t forms o f government. However, most
Commission a c t i v i t i e s have 1 i t t l e impact on s i g n i f i c a n t issues. Arizona could
more e f f e c t i v e l y address S t a t e - t r i b a l issues by reorganizing i t s Indian
a f f a i r s agency.
Relationship Between State
And Tribes Creates Issues
The nature o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the State and t r i b a l governments
creates c o n f l i c t s . As a r e s u l t , important issues and concerns emerge t h a t
require State involvement t o improve coordination among State agencies and
improve communication between the State and t h e t r i b e s .
State- Tribal Re1 ationship - The re1 ationship between Arizona and i t s t r i b e s
I, creates the need f o r State involvement. Each o f the 20 t r i b e s i n Arizona i s a
separate government with i t s own 1 aws. State involvement with the t r i b e s i s
necessary due t o j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ambiguities between the State and t r i b a l
governments, State r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o Indians, and mutual concerns of the
governments.
0 J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Ambiguities - Varied i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and enforcement of 1 aw
resul t i n unclear and over1 appi ng j u r i s d i c t i o n a l appl ications between the
State and t r i b a l governments. J u r i s d i c t i o n a l responsibil i t y i n a
p a r t i c u l a r case may depend on whether the people involved are t r i b a l
members, Indians from other t r i b e s , or non- Indians; whether an a c t i v i t y
occurred on private, t r i b a l or State property; and whether the subject a t
issue i s the acknowledged r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f one government.
0 State Responsibil i t i e s - Arizona must meet c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
Ir and f o l l o w Federal program mandates as they a f f e c t Indian c i t i z e n s . There
are approximately 11 4,000 Arizona Indian c i t i z e n s residing on reservations
control 1 ed by 20 t r i b a l governments. A r i zona' s Consti t u t i on, A r t i c l es I I
and XX, outlines the obligations o f the State t o a l l i t s citizens, Indian
and non- Indian alike. I n addition, the State i s responsible f o r equitably
and properly d i s t r i buting Federal funds and administering Federal programs
t h a t serve Indian citizens.
e Mutual Interests - State and t r i b a l governments share common i n t e r e s t s
regarding resource a l l o c a t i o n and management, economic development, and
the delivery o f governmental services. I n addition, each government's
p o l i c i e s and a c t i v i t i e s may a f f e c t the other's plans, especially regarding
common resources such as a i r and water. The potential impacts are
s i g n i f i c a n t since Indian t r i b e s own or control about 28 percent o f
Ari zona' s t o t a l acreage. Arizona has recognized the impact o f neighboring
states on such issues as Colorado River water management by j o i n i n g
i n t e r s t a t e commissions t o promote cooperation, and it could address issues
with Arizona t r i b a l governments i n a s i m i l a r manner. a
The over1 appi ng 1 egal questions, responsi b i 1 i t i e s and the frequent
i n t e r a c t i o n s o f State and t r i b a l governments create the need f o r improved
coordination and communication between the governments. The nature o f the
r e l a t i o n s h i p produces a number of issues and concerns o f i n t e r e s t t o both a
State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s .
Current Issues And Concerns - The State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s indicated the
S t a t e - t r i b a l r e l a t i o n s h i p had suffered as a r e s u l t o f poor communications and a
the lack o f coordination among State agencies. State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s *
responded t o a survey conducted by Auditor General s t a f f concerning the major
issues the State needed t o address. Survey respondents indicated t h a t the
State has f a i l ed t o devel op adequate government- to- government re1 ations, and 0
State personnel 1 ack knowledge about t h e i r department's responsi b i 1 i t i e s t o
Indians and about t r i b a l reservations.
3 The Office o f the Auditor General contacted o f f i c i a l s from several State
agencies i ncl udi ng the Department o f Heal t h Services, the Department of
Education, the Department of Economic Security, the Governor's Office, the
Office o f Economic Planning and Development, the Game and Fish Department,
the Department o f Public Service, Department of Revenue, and the State
Land Department. I n addition, we were able t o obtain input from 17 of the
20 t r i b e s .
Survey respondents i d e n t i f i e d several issues affected by poor communications
and coordination. Some issues require coordination among the various State
agencies, while others involve improving State communications with the t r i b a l
and Federal governments. The issues i ncl ude : economic devel opmen t;
taxation; education and heal t h services del ivery ; water management issues,
i n c l uding the Central Arizona Project; and transportation planning,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i t s impact on service delivery t o r u r a l areas. I n connection
with these concerns, several respondents expressed a desire f o r a better
d e f i n i t i o n o f Federal, State and t r i b a l responsibil i t i e s .
The impact o f poor communications on such aspects o f the S t a t e - t r i b a l
re1 ationship as j u r i s d i c t i o n a l appl ications, the State's a b i l i t y t o meet i t s
responsibil i t i e s , and common intergovernmental communications are ill ustrated
by the f o l 1 owing exampl es.
A t r i b e obtained a large grant from the Federal government f o r
reservation road construction. A1 though the construction was
e n t i r e l y on the reservation, the Arizona Department o f
Transportation required p r o j e c t compl iance with i t s State 1 aws
because the Department passed the Federal money t o the t r i b e .
The State laws c o n f l i c t e d w i t h s i m i l a r t r i b a l laws on such
construction projects.
A sewer plant was constructed i n a town bordering a
reservation. The t r i b e was not informed o f the p r o j e c t even
though effluent from the p l a n t would enter nearby reservation
lands. Generally, adjacent c i t i e s and towns, which are a1 so
separate governments l i k e Indian t r i b e s , are n o t i f i e d of such
projects before permits are approved.
The Arizona Transportation Department d i d not contact a t r i b e i n
s u f f i c i e n t time t o clear a right- of- way. The Transportation
Department personnel did n o t r e a l i z e t h a t the t r i b e needed t o
contact numerous a1 1 ottees; and therefore, construction was
del ayed.
Improving S t a t e - t r i bal communication and coordination i s the appropriate r o l e
of the State Indian a f f a i r s agency. Arizona's Indian a f f a i r s agency should:
1 ) improve coordination among state agencies as t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s affect
tribes, and 2) foster better communications between the State government and
the 20 t r i b a l governments. The agency should provide overall d i r e c t i o n and
assist State agencies i n serving tribes.
Commission Does Not Address Important
Concerns O f Tribes And The State
Although there i s a need f o r State involvement t o provide coordination between a
the State and t r i b e s t o address important issues, the Arizona Commission of
Indian A f f a i r s does not f u l f i l l t h i s need. The Commission does engage i n
worthwhile a c t i v i t i e s , however, the majority of the s t a f f ' s a c t i v i t i e s are
small scale and do not address important S t a t e - t r i b a l issues. a
Intergovernmental concerns are not addressed because the Commission and i t s
s t a f f 1 ack d i r e c t i o n and 1 eadership.
The Commission has conducted several a c t i v i t i e s t h a t address important a
S t a t e - t r i b a l issues t o some degree. The Commission has sponsored ten Town
Halls t h a t have brought State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s together t o i d e n t i f y and
discuss issues. I n recent years, topics of Town Halls have included Control
of Natural Resources, State- Tri bal Re1 ationships, Indian Sel f Determi nation
and Barriers t o Realization, Communications: Overcoming Barriers and
Limitations. The Commission has also engaged i n worthwhile projects such as
developing and submitting a proposal t o obtain Federal funding t o create an
economic development center f o r Indian and minority entrepreneurs, and
assisting the Department o f Revenue on a luxury use taxation project to
c l a r i f y smokeshop 1 egi s l ation. The Commission a1 so annual l y updates and
publishes a T r i b a l D i r e c t o r y 1 i s t i n g key Arizona t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s . I n
addition, the Commission occasionally assists other State agencies and Indian a
tribes.
Most A c t i v i t i e s Are Small Scale - The majority o f s t a f f a c t i v i t i e s do not
address important S t a t e - t r i bal issues. Staff a c t i v i t y areas i ncl ude
projects ,* correspondence, and speaking engagements. Review of these
a c t i v i t i e s did not disclose areas t h a t addressed the major concerns i d e n t i f i e d
by State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s .
* According t o the executive secretary f o r t h e Commission, projects
represent items t h a t are time consuming or important.
A review o f the Commission's p r o j e c t f i l e f o r f i s c a l years 1981- 82 through
1983- 84 revealed t h a t Commission a c t i v i t i e s are not addressing major issues.
The Commission f i l e s contained 22 projects f o r 1981- 82, 23 f o r 1982- 83, and 25
for 1983- 84. A1 though projects represent the s t a f f ' s major accompl i shments,
they are usually minor tasks performed by the s t a f f . The predominant p r o j e c t
a c t i v i t y f o r the l a s t three f i s c a l years has been t o provide information. The
Commission provides information on various subjects, including State
l e g i s l a t i o n and pol icy, t r i b a l governments, Indian c u l t u r e and events, and on
the Commi ssion i t s e l f. Generally, information i s provided upon request. The
following projects represent some of the a c t i v i t i e s undertaken by the s t a f f ,
which they perceive as s i g n i f i c a n t but which do not address important issues.*
o Referral - On October 6, 1984, the Federal Emergency Disaster Agency
called the Commission's o f f i c e seeking temporary employees f o r 30 t o
90 days. The Commission's s t a f f responded by contacting the Phoenix
Indian Center's Employment Section. The Indian Center sent people t o
be interviewed.
o Mailing Labels - On February 2, 1984, the Commission's secretary
typed mailing labels f o r the Office o f Planning and Economic
Development's pub1 i c a t i o n " Directory o f State Assistance t o Indian
Reservations," and sent booklets t o various t r i b e s and Indian
organizations.
o Commission History - I n March 1984 the Commission s t a f f revised an
essav t i t l e d , " A B r i e f his tor.^ o f the Commission o f Indian Affairs."
The essay was intended f o r d i i t r i b u t i o n t o students during Commission
speaking engagements.
o A c t i v i t y Update - Twice i n 1983 the Commission s t a f f sent memos t o
omm missioners and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s informing them of c u r r e n t s t a f f
a c t i v i t i e s . Both memos were l i s t e d as projects.
o No Action - I n March 1984 the Colorado River T r i b e was involved i n a
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l dispute with the town of Parker. The t r i b e was
attempting t o assess an annual fee on 1 iquor wholesalers who crossed
i n t o reservation t e r r i t o r y t o d e l i v e r t h e i r goods. I n March 1984 the
Department o f Liquor Licenses and Control ( DLLC) asked the
Commission's executive secretary for assistance i n resolving the
issue. I n A p r i l 1984 the executive secretary wrote the Commission
chairman, a Colorado River Tribe member, and informed the chairman o f
* According t o Commission s t a f f , the p r o j e c t f i l e s may not r e f l e c t the f u l l
scope o f the a c t i v i t y involved. However, the f i l e s provide s u f f i c i e n t
information to document the purpose o f t h e p r o j e c t .
his contact with the DLLC. The chairman instructed the executive
secretary t o do nothing because the t r i b e wished t o wait f o r a
Federal court deci sion. The executive secretary took no further
action, but l i s t e d the a c t i v i t y as a project.
The Commission's correspondence f i l e s and speaking engagements also f a i l t o
demonstrate the Commi ssion' s active i nvol vement i n important State- tribal
concerns. A review of the Commission's correspondence f i l e f o r 1983- 84 showed
three general types of correspondence - 1 e t t e r s providing information on
Indian culture, h i s t o r y and other re1 ated topics; memos r e f e r r i n g individual s
t o other State agencies, t r i b e s or Indian organizations; and i n t e r n a l memos.
I n addition, the Commission's executive secretary and the f i e 1 d coordinator
speak a t various functions. The executive secretary has spoken a t high
school s, conununi ty col 1 eges, and various Indian organization meetings on
subjects ranging from current Indian problems t o the Commission's r o l e i n
State government. The f i e l d coordinator generally speaks a t high schools and
el ementary school s on various Indian- re1 ated topics, i n c l u d i n g n a t i v e American
culture.
Our review of Commission a c t i v i t i e s resulted i n 1 i t t l e evidence o f Commission
involvement i n addressing important State- tribal issues. I n addition, State
agency respondents and several t r i b a l survey respondents indicated t h a t they
do not use the Commission t o assist them i n resolving s i g n i f i c a n t problems.
The Commissions a c t i v i t i e s do not address the concerns i d e n t i f i e d by survey
respondents. For example, although poor State- tribal communication was the
problem i d e n t i f i e d most often by t r i b a l and State o f f i c i a l s , the Commission
does not aggressively seek t o improve communications. The issue of poor
communications was s p e c i f i c a l l y raised a t the 1981 Town Hall, i n which one
State o f f i c i a l indicated the need f o r State and t r i b a l meetings. However, the
Commission conducted no follow- up on t h i s issue. I n addition, the Commission
has not actively addressed the two other most commonly i d e n t i f i e d issues,
education and health care. Although both the Department of Education and the
Department of Health Services have ex o f f i c i o members serving on the
Commission, no notable e f f o r t s have been made i n these areas. The Commission
established a subcommittee on education i n July 1983, but it had not met as of
October 1 984.
The Commission Lacks Direction and Leadership - The Commission has f a i l e d t o
address major issues due t o the lack o f d i r e c t i o n and leadership. The
Commission's statutes do not provide clear guidance. I n addition, the
Commission has not directed i t s s t a f f t o act on s p e c i f i c issues. The staff,
i n turn, has not chosen t o d i r e c t i t s e f f o r t s toward major concerns. As a
r e s u l t , the Commission i s not used by State agencies and t r i b e s t o resolve
issues.
The Commission's enabl ing 1 egi s l ation provides 1 i m i ted d i r e c t i o n regarding the
Commission's r o l e i n Indian a f f a i r s . The statutes require the Commission t o
submit an annual report and consider and study conditions among Indians.
Specifically, A. R. S. S41- 542. A states:
" The commission shall consider and study conditions
among Indians residing w i t h i n the state. The studies
shall be made t o accumulate, compile and assemble
information on any phase o f Indian a f f a i r s . For such
purpose the commission may employ s t a f f personnel, hold
hearings, make investigations, and confer with
o f f i c i a l s o f l o c a l , state and federal agencies i n order
t o secure cooperation between the federal, state and
local governments i n the promotion o f the welfare o f
the Indian people.
Although the statute i s not specific, it does not i n h i b i t the Commission from
addressing S t a t e - t r i bal concerns. The Commission' s Attorney General
representative does not f i n d the statute r e s t r i c t i v e . I n a memo t o the
Commission's executive secretary he stated t h a t the purpose o f A. R. S.
941 - 542 . A i s extremely broad. Speci f i c a l ly , he said t h e s t a t u t e :
". . . i s extremely broad, presumably subject only t o
the imagination o f the members of the Commission,
budgetary r e s t r i c t i o n s , and a nY 1 egal
p r o h i b i t i o n s . . . . Thus subject t o i t s budget and
general c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and statutory 1 i m i t a t i o n on a1 1
state agencies, the Commission' s mandate and powers are
not limited." ( emphasis added)
Additionally, the Commission has f a i l e d t o meet and provide d i r e c t i o n t o i t s
staff. Although A. R. S. S41- 541 . E requires the Commission t o meet a t l e a s t
I) twice a year, the Commission only met twice between January 1982 and October
1984. The meetings were held i n June and July of 1983.* Even when the
Commission does meet, 1 i t t l e guidance i s given t o the s t a f f . Review of
Commission minutes from January 1981 through October 1984 showed few instances
i n which s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s are given t o the s t a f f . Moreover, the chairman
indicated t h a t the s t a f f appears t o operate well enough on i t s own.
Without s p e c i f i c guidance from the Commission, the s t a f f has not chosen t o a
pursue major issues. According t o the chairman o f the Commission, problems
have already been addressed by the time they are brought t o the s t a f f ' s
attention. Further, the executive secretary indicated t h a t the Commission
does not i n i t i a t e contacts with State agencies or t r i b e s t o address issues.
( The Commission l a t e r indicated the lack of travel funds has hampered the
s t a f f ' s a b i l i t y to travel t o reservations t o i d e n t i f y issues. However, as our
survey shows, travel i s not essential f o r i d e n t i f y i n g c r i t i c a l issues).
Instead, the Commission often r e l i e s on other e n t i t i e s , such as the a
I n t e r - T r i b a l Council, t o take the 1 ead r o l e i n addressing issues.
As a r e s u l t o f the Commission's f a i l u r e t o agressively pursue issues, it has a
low p r o f i l e f o r both t r i b e s and State agencies. Both t r i b a l and State agency a
survey respondents indicated t h a t they do not use the Commission t o resolve
major issues. I n addition, some stated t h a t they viewed the Commission as too
passive. Instead o f working through the Commission, State agencies and t r i b e s
may work with each other or intermediary groups such as the Inter- Tribal
Council o f Arizona. While such a piecemeal approach may be effective i n
addressing immediate problems, the long term e f f e c t may be fragmentation of
e f f o r t and recurring problems.
A r i zona Could More E f f e c t i v e l y Address State- Tri bal
Issues By Reorganizing I t s Indian A f f a i r s Agency
The State could strengthen i t s a b i l i t y t o address S t a t e - t r i b a l concerns by
reorganizing i t s Indian a f f a i r s agency. The need f o r coordination i n
* Ihe Commission chairman indicated t h a t the meetings have not been held due
t o the lack o f appointments o f new Commission members. Although A. R. S.
$ 41 - 541. B requires members t o hol d o f f i c e u n t i 1 successors are appointed
and qua1 i f i e d , the chairman indicated that commissioners whose terms have
expired are reluctant t o attend meetings.
addressing State- tribal issues has been i d e n t i f i e d by several groups. The
State's effectiveness i n addressing S t a t e - t r i bal concerns coul d be improved by
terminating the Commission and replacing it with an Indian a f f a i r s o f f i c e with
a d i r e c t o r reporting t o the Governor.
Both State and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s have i n d i c a t e d t h e need f o r coordination t o
address c r i t i c a l issues a r i s i n g from the State- tribal re1 ationship. Most
State o f f i c i a l s surveyed by our Office indicated t h a t they desired overall
d i r e c t i o n and assistance t o implement State p o l i c i e s a f f e c t i n g t r i b a l and
State governments. Tribal o f f i c i a l s s a i d t h e State should obtain t r i b a l
involvement early i n the l e g i s l a t i v e process and i n State plans t o address
State- tribal concerns, increase State o f f i c e s ' awareness o f t r i b a l governments
and reservation c i rcumstances, c l ear the way for intergovernmental agreements,
and follow up on a c t i v i t i e s t o ensure proper implementation. Both State
andtri bal o f f i c i a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t an e f f e c t i v e coordinating body would
anticipate and address potential problem areas; recognize t r i b a l government
sovereignty and gain the confidence o f t r i b e s ; promote a dialogue between
1 egi s l ators, t r i b a l 1 eaders, and State agency admi n i strators; and study major
issues and the ramifications o f proposed 1 egi s l ation.
The need for coordination was also expressed by the Commission on State- Tribal
Re1 ations.* According t o an o f f i c i a l o f the Commission on State- Tribal
Re1 ations, each State agency shoul d be reponsi bl e f o r devel oping a
satisfactory r e l a t i o n s h i p with tribes; however, there i s a need for a
special ized coordi nati ng body.
Arizona should reorganize the structure o f i t s Indian a f f a i r s agency t o more
effectively address S t a t e - t r i b a l re1 ations. The Commission i s currently
structured as an independent State agency with 13 commission members and four
* The Commission on State- Tribal Relations was created i n 1977 by the
National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Congress of
American Indians, and the National Tribal Chairmen's Association. It i s
composed of state governors, t r i b a l chairmen or presidents, attorneys
general and 1 egi sl ators.
f u l l - t i m e staff. Reorganizing t h e s t r u c t u r e and placing the agency w i t h i n the
Governor's o f f i c e coul d improve i t s effectiveness. Such a r e s t r u c t u r i n g could
provide the f o l l owing improvements.
0 Additional authority - According t o an o f f i c i a l from the Commission
on State- Tribal Relations, commissions i n general do not have the
authority needed t o influence agencies t h a t do not cooperate i n
resolving issues. Connecting an Indian a f f a i r s agency t o a
Governor' s Office provides the incentive needed f o r state agencies t o
work on resolving issues. Although the Governor i s an ex o f f i c i o
member o f the Commission, the Governor delegates t h i s responsi b i l i ty
t o an Gffice o f Economic Planning and Development o f f i c i a l , thus the
Commission lacks a d i r e c t t i e t o the Governor.
0 Improved V i s i b i l i t y - The Commission currently has a low v i s i b i l i t y .
State agencies and t r i b e s have not brought s i g n i f i c a n t issues t o the
Commission regularly. The current agency i s outside the mai nstream
of State agencies and tribes. The agencies and the t r i b e s often deal
d i r e c t l y with one another, or work through established Indian
i n t e r e s t organizations. Therefore, issues are dealt with on a
fragmented basis and recurring problems are not addressed with
continuity. An Indian a f f a i r s o f f i c e t i e d t o the Governor's Office
would have the higher p r o f i l e needed t o overcome these problems.
0 Improved leadership - Elimination o f t h e c u r r e n t s t r u c t u r e could
strengthen leadership o f Indian a f f a i r s i n Arizona. Because the
Commission has met infrequently, the s t a f f had no ongoing policy
d i r e c t i o n provided by Commission. Placing the Indian a f f a i r s office
w i t h i n the Governor's Office would allow the Governor to provide the
agency with needed ongoing policy direction. I n addition, by
eliminating the Commission the problem o f l a t e appointments to the
Commission would be eliminated. The d i r e c t o r could obtain input from
e x i s t i n g e n t i t i e s such as the Inter- Tribal Council and the Indian
Development D i s t r i c t o f Arizona, and from Indian desk personnel i n
State agencies.
An effective Indian a f f a i r s o f f i c e shoul d perform several basic functions.
According t o an o f f i c i a l o f the Commission on State- Tribal Relations, the
state Indian a f f a i r s agency should: 1) define issues i n ways the State and
t r i b e s can manage, 2) be aware of the scope o f issues, 3) coordinate
a c t i v i t i e s t h a t involve two or more agencies, and 4) act as a l i a i s o n between
groups. The Indian a f f a i r s o f f i c e would not make decisions f o r the State
agencies or tribes, but assist them i n resolving disputes and coordinating
a c t i v i t i e s .
CONCLUSI 014
The Commission of Indian A f f a i r s does not adequately address major issues
a f f e c t i n g Arizona's Indian population and the State agencies t h a t serve
Indians. The unique nature o f S t a t e - t r i b a l relationships creates the need f o r
coordination between the two governments. However, the Commission r a r e l y
addresses issues t h a t concern the two governments. A r i zonal s abi 1 i ty t o
address State- tribal issues could be improved by reorganizing the Commission's
structure and c l a r i f y i n g i t s 1 aws t o give more d i r e c t i o n on the agency's role.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should consider r e s t r u c t u r i n g t h e Commission of Indian
A f f a i r s t o provide a stronger l i n k t o the executive branch. The
Legislature should terminate t h e c u r r e n t Commission and restructure it as
an o f f i c e o f Indian a f f a i r s w i t h i n the Governor's Office.
2. The Legislature needs t o c l a r i f y the 1 aws o f the agency, whether or not it
i s restructured, t o give more d i r e c t i o n as t o i t s role. The laws should
require the State's Indian a f f a i r s agency t o act as a coordinator f o r the
State and the tribes, and t o assist the governments i n addressing
important S t a t e - t r i b a l issues. The law should r e q u i r e t h e agency t o
i d e n t i f y and research important issues, and t o make recommendations for
t h e i r resol ution.
8
A R I Z O N A C O M M I S S I ; O F I N D I A N A F F A I R S
.-.
1 6 4 5 W E S T J E F F E R S O N P H O E N I X . A R I Z O N A 8 5 0 0 7
Mh. Vough R. Nottton, Audikon G e n d
17 7 Wut Mantoe, S& e 600
Phoenix, AtLizona 85003
Dean MtL. Norrkon:
W& h nedmence t o qom RuXm o 6 Januuhq 1 7 , 1 9 8 5, om o 6 dice h a
no 6wc; tha commena2 t o odds aR: tkin Xime on the nevhed pnel5mi~ anq
h d t ad the audi; t heporrk. Om Cummindion deeh th& . iA RuollL; tion
and accompanqing ntaR: emevl; t od Januuhq 3, 7985, i n KeApOnhe ; b y a m phe-
Riminany dhu~ t, apkeq ducrtiben the ComtniAnionth podXon and e x p e d
; thobe documem% t o be made a p& 06 the din& neporrk submitted ; ta the
LeghLcLtune.
AA expnenaed bedohe, not oMRq dou the Cammindion d; DLongLq oppode
the pfiopond t o a b o u h the Indian AddaLm Cornmindion and u; tabRinh an
oddice 06 l n h add- undm the Gov~ hnun'n oddice, but o b j e d t o the
meAhod by which t h u e conctuniam wme dtLcrwn and t o nwnaoun dam2 omitted;
don imtance, : the nepod ~& t o mention the depth and gnavLtq 06 majoh
h n u u covmed i n Cammindion- nponhoned Indian Town H u l & by pnodunionah
and exp- on nuch chi/ ticd hnuen a~ Indian hedeth cane w& h nenpect
; to Xhe aXatewide AHCCCS p h o g m , dchool dinancing and impact a i d pnogm
~ u n d ~ In, d ian w& a h i g h 2 and cmenX h w 4 , atate-; Dtiba. t juhindidond
p n o b l m and 60 dorrkh; atY dinphng the change made i n the neporrk th&
; the Comminclion d o u nut adhuh majon concam.
In any ccme, knowing that the Indian ; trtibu w i l l be i n t a a t e d i n
the outcome 06 I t h h inte, tviav w& h a btadl] pmon 06 qoun oddice, wLU
you plecme CeX un know i d the genemt conctuniom 06 yam nepottt can
now be hdecmed don pubfic in~ ohmaLLon pmpohen!
ELLIOTT BOOTH - CHAIRMAN
c&+=& L7f ,. azez
CLINTON M. PATTEA,
Q
! O F I N D I A N A F F A I R S
1 6 4 5 W E S T J E F F E R S O N P H O E N I X . A R I Z O N A 8 5 0 0 7
Janumy 8 , 1985
Mx. Dough R. Nohton, AuaZtoh GenM
1 7 1 Wat Momoe, S d e 600
Phoenix, ktLizona 8.5003
We w h h t o acknowledge trecdpx 06 gout lette, t da; ted Januafiy 4,
7985 wah endoswtu.
Endoaed pleae dind the Raolui2un and AaXachmenx2 s& u% ng
fie Comminsion od Indian A d d a i m ' pos& on hekuXve t o qout Phdininmy
Sum& Reviw A& Dmdt.
In keviwing the Vmdt, the Comminaion o d ~ i d oypp oned Xhe
cond~~? sionthna t the Comm& aian ad Indian Ahha,& b hudd be. tetwninated
md phced undm ; the Govmnon's Oddice.
We Look hommd t o dhcunaing ; the conduiom uti. th you and youtr
a; taad on Wednuday, Janumy 9th at 2: 00 P. M. i n yowt oddice. I t A
hoped ; that we can heach an amicable condunion h W v e ; to ; the Com-minaion'a
& uh, te.
CLINTON M. PATTEA,
End. R a o l d o n and Wachrnent ( a )
A R I Z O N A C O M M I S S I O N
.- .=&'
; O F I N D I A N A F F A I R S
@
.-.
1 6 4 5 W E S T J E F F E R S O N P H O E N I X . A R I Z O N A 8 5 0 0 7
RESOLVED, THAT, the Artizona Comminaion 06 Indian A d d a A ~ o6dici& y oppoba
; the conduniom neached i n fie Pne! im- inahy V m h t Repakt
made by the Odbice 06 , the Auditon G e n d dot the ~ o ~ o w i n g
t e a om : ( Pen; tinent RaoLu; tion Aktachment endoa ed I
Inadequate budgd
Uwremfic e x p e M o m
BLLie; t- Ln .& JLGWX . , ' om heganding bXatu; te~
L& fing 06 pnojed appanedy ove.& oohed
A l l hequa& t o the Comminaion have been addhased
The hepa& & un6airL and b d e d
~ u ~ f i o n u bml edl zod 06 acemkivting a3iba. L haporz? lc? b
IncompL& e ~ indinga on Indian education and he& h
catre concehM
3E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, ; tha; t ; the Co& aion 06 Indian A i $ d d d i r t e d L t h
Execukive SecneXmy , to phepane tkin documm. t doh aubminaion
wLth the Rao1u; tion Wchment t o the O& aice 06 the Auditoh
Genehd doh ~ u n t h mc o m i d W o n prtion t o & inaeizing the
Vhad; t.
1 hmeby c m d y t h a t t h e donegoing RehoLuLLon and Machmed w a duRy
comidmed by ; the Artizonu Comminbion oh Indian A d d d at a d u l y ca. Ued
meeting i n Phoenix, A/ tizona, whme a quohum w a phaeutt when the Re, bolu; tion
atd R- t; tachmed w a adopted and appnoved by a vat e 06 12 i n davoh and 0 oppoaed
on Zlzin 3- 4 06 Januahy, 1985.
~ $ 2 . & d ~
ELLIOTT BOOTH - CHAIRMAN
ARIZONA COhO~ lSSION Of INDIAN AFFAIRS RESOLUTION ATTACHIVENT
The Pm6onmance A u m 06 the Comminaion 06 Indian Add& b e m no
/ tea, i% fic n u o a h i p t o the actual opaaiion 06 khe Comminaion a pao-vided
by S W e , The Cammhaion w a not daigned an a " aupm agency'' t o
deal wLth ; the t e a 06 thouan& 06 lndiaa Riving & kin krtizona i n & evtty
fibs; nmu: tony mandate h t o ". . . coaidm and n& dy condi; tiom among
Tndiavt~ s t a i d i n g & kin the a; tate. t'
The S u a d Repoht h U c db ecaue the Comminaion d o a not intmgme
WZ; t/ Libal , tide; doh the a e v M h m o m U t e d i n the Raolu; tion tkin
Comminaion cannot and ahodd not a t t e m p t t o diotate t o the X b a 06 Rttizona.
la% c o o x d i n ~ o nan d communicaiion 6unc; tioa m e being m d a w U a ponnible
undm exinfing phoceduha; i d mechanical imphoveme& ahe necanahy, they can
be implemevtted wah approphiate dundingo B u t the necornmenda. LLon to tmminate
Rhe c m e n t a; DruckwLe and heplace Lt uuXh a n u doton od " agency" h umuppohted a
by the evidence, uwanted by the ; tjtiba, and 1ud. t beyond the scope 06 SuaeX
Review.
SUNSET FACTORS
06 the & oeRve 6aolo. a Lhted on paga 5- 6 06 the Repaht, dive m e a
adnktte& y not applicable and the o t h m not auppotr/ ted by the d a t a appatievLtey
obRdined though phone cat!& t o individuah i n the Z t i b a . None 06 the
ltponLtiven accompLhhme& 06 the c0mI?& di0~ i n b2 apecidied aphme 06
communica; tion and coondincztion m e Rhted on even mentioned i n the Repoht.
Adtm a t o ; W y nega; tive analyah which o d ni gniaicant documeWon, the
trepoht auggah a nemedy 06 aeAXng up an " oddice" beyond leghLaLive con; firol ( I
doh heanom 06 which m e undem at be&. Thme b o d y one g e n d " dinding"
on page 9 , aLthough paga 9- 7 5 puhpoht t o analyze Indian concmnh i n krtizona.
Then suggafing that t h a e concmm m e not being meX, the Repoht gou beyond
h Au& 6unotion and / recammen& abohting the Comminhion. Pobhibly tkin h
b e c a ~ e06 lack 06 knowledge a t o the natuhe 06 M b d govanrnent v b - a - v h
4- e govmnmeutt, and 06 what the X b a t h m e l v a want i n the way o 6 auppoht ( I
& om K z o n a govmnment. Fon exmple, the nepoht contrectey necogniza thcLt each
06 the kurenty ; t/ Liba h a a epmate govmnment ul. ith own ma ( page 9 I ,
Xhae m e kureutty govmning u& uLth compleXdy di6&~ m..- at L t i h d ~ aa bouX
" iuttm6mence & om Phoenix." The fibs i n d i v i d W y and at dihbment lev&
06 activLtq pmmote thein n u o m c a and advance . t h h individual beX6- govehnment. , The moat that any agency " whdhm i n Comminaion darn oh o t h ~ t r ~ h ec" an do h
, to btting t h a e uniqueXy di66men. t ; tjtibu togetha ; to exchange i d e a , contaw3,
appkoacha, d c . Tkin h a been one 06 the kighat pttiohi; tiu 06 the Camminaion;
Y W ag o " amveya" wme ~ e tdo e xchange and communica; te among tlze Z t i b a .
A6tm X b d ob jeotion, the pxaevtt & onmat 06 a n n d " Indian Town Hal.&'' w a
adopted, and ouccan~& y. Howevm, budgetatiy . tMvd lhni- tetioa ( ace d a t a on
page 2 06 the Repoht a to ; Drav&) have d/ tanfic& y cuA: back $ kin afiong tooL
06 communication. The unud 6ohma; t 06 a kuro- day gathening 06 the . t/ tibeh i n an
Indian envhonment, whme a; tcl; te and 6edma. t agenda codd comrnu) ucd; te t o
Ithem, h a been cut back 20 one- day i n 1983 dok lack o fiaveX dunding.
ARIZONA COMMlSSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT ( CONTINUATlON) 2
In addition t o budgeA - OM, them atre b U - i n Rimi- ta; tiom i n the
mbfing n; ta; t& e. Though the Cornminaion techutic& y A not LhXed an t o
npecidic activLty, the type 06 ivttmdmence auggen; ted by ; the hep0tLt unwanted
and LmponnibLe. The Cammindion 06 lndian AbdaLth cannot i n t a d m e i n anoXha
n; ta; te/ t; edd depatLtrnentta opmaiiou and aadinhZta- tion uvteena npeciiicalXy
hequated Xo do no by the depamhent. T n i b d au; tonomy p h o p d y henewt4
au, thohi; btLian appttoach by any nfute agency. On page 7 1 t h e e l'exmplenll me
given iukich nuggua t h a t t h e Comminnion n hould involve Lixdd i n dedad
gmm2 doh hoad comkrrucXLon, newen p l a n A , and nigh- 06- way on hamvatioM.
The Comminaion h a no authohi. ty i n thene atrean, no legal nXad6 t o xenolve
condficA 06 law and no n i g h t t o irttehame i n individud ; ttLibd deatingn.
Ccwtaiutey, the Comminnion can ac; t an a llde& ng hollnel' 6ott ; thibaL concam,
and even hdp o u t on pho j e d when & equated, but t h a e 6uncXLonn wLU not be
hpttoved by tehmina., ting the exinfing nkrruotuhe.
On page 12 the hep~ htn ecognizen the nigutidicance 06 Xhe " Town H a l l 1 '
activity, and the daak annu& y publhhed by the Comminnion, but then doiun-gtadu
the activfien a ' 2 m a U ncde. " The ncde 06 a c ; t i v X u h a diheot
phaduct at; Xhe leghLa; tive mandate and ~ unding, a ou; teined above. BuA: even
uzi, tlz Xhene L4Jruhk . , ' o u , it h u n d d t o ovudook m W p l e p ~ joe d which the
Comminnion h a cartrtied out nuccaat; uRey i n Xhe p a t . Ova the pant nevcxal
( not Xhnee) y e w , ukth mom budgeX doh l m v d , the Comminaion han activdy
pmued p a jecA nubntauttialXq beyond the 6~ U t e d on paga 72- 13 od the
hepo/ r; t. ( See rnmonandum Xo Audi; tott Baldutin @ om Cfiaon Pa; ttea dded A u g ~ t6 ,
1964, e i g h t pagen attached).
The Cammindion 06 Indian Ad~ aCu h cutrhenAXy devdoping a 6 i d t y ( 50)
page PmonneL Man& butt the CoRonado Rivm Indian Tniba; the Luxmy Une
Taxa& ion phojec; t iukich invoLved a gtted ded 06 , the and eb6orr; t on behdd 06
Rhe Comminnion nta66 i n rnonLtoning, coohdinating and keeping a l l inkehuted
w aap phained 06 happeutingn; Na; tive AmQhican Indian Day whaein the Com-minnion'n
Executive Secne,& my pamXcipated on a n p ~ o i a lc ornwee devdoping
a c t i v ~ e n / e v e6o~ tt a weeh- long cdebkdtion. The Comminnion wan i n
chatrge a 6 an a- In dian pttogttm hdd i n the WenLey Bofin Memonid Plaza doh
a; ta; te mployea and o t h m t o enjoy ; thibd c W e and mad&; the Gila Riva
Eahey Ckiedhoud PaRicy Cauncie Bykwa wme y d e Lengthy and conoine; the
Comminnion'n paojed 6de whmein ; two diddehektt pttopon& wehe devdoped
; to 0bZai. n d e d d ~ unding t o meate an Economic Development Centa & oh Indian
and minohity e& epheneum; the AtLizona Rumvakiom In BtLevLty B/ rochuhe de-vdoped
by the oddice t o pxornote toukinm & kin the State; the Cornminnion'~
ExecuLLve SemeAmy wan involved e x t e ~ n i v d yw Lth the Phoenix Indian High
SchooL Band'a going t o WahingXon, D. C. t o pa- kticipde a the 6 h f AkLzo~ a
Indian gttoup t o manch i n the Independence Day Pahade; ff. B. 2237 Death
CUdication on Indian ~ a ~ n v a t i ow~ h~ nn einw e wotthed d o a d y with the
S; ta; te He& h Depatr; trnen; t at ; th& t e q u ~ atn d Ztibd Law enbotrcement agencia
i n implemeutting the new nta, tu. ta on- tr~ mvation; nott the Navajo County
Recdignment ,& hue dot Sena; tott Hubband whmein the Commdaion went . to the
Skdte Land DepcuLtmenttn dhad& Lng divhion and had ovQneayn done indicating
boundakia and pttopon ed chang u .
ARIZONA COIUMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT ( CONTINUED) 3
Thae me junk a 6w m e a oQ hpontaMce ; the Cammindion 06 Indian A6Qai. u a
wohhed i n to devdop atate- Mbal hdaxXomkip bat yeA: aeen by the a& tecun
Ito be h d e v a n t .
kee hequa& don n a v i c a t o the Comminaion have been addtraned. To the
knowledge 06 the Comminaion and n; taQd, thme have not been phob& em/ Aaua
bhought to Rhe Comminaion d t h m by a atatelQedmal depan; tment oh X b e that a
have not been adhenbed. Repeatedey memXoned i n the vhadt LA that the Com-minnion
06 Indian A6Qai. u h a not addhabed the majoh Aaua 06 aakte- Wbal
trda; tiovL\ lhipa. Plea e xeda ; to the attached " Majox Iaauu IdeuttiQied By The
Kzanu Comminaion oQ Indian Addaim" which A devdoped each yem at ; the
hequat 06 the Govmnah, 1egLAlaxXve l e a d m and budgeX oaaica. In tkin
daue papa noX only me the Aauu i d e d d i e d buA avaieable opfion~ given
doh hualution.
Some idea 06 the b h in jected into Zkin RepotLt can be gained by nofing
& at the mWpLe paojed indicated i n the attached mat&& me mentioned
paaing, only bh; ed& y, buA on page 13 06 the hepotLt compahcl; tively &~ nctionn
auch a typing lab& me deXctieed. The bucccb~ 6uR 1981 and 19b3 Indian Town a
U r n me& nga axe not even meuttioned.
The Comminaion hecogutiza ; that many i n t m v i w e u contacted by the Audi; ton'a
UQQicem ay have minundmtood the Qunction 06 the Comminaion and 6 e L t Lt
dhoLLed & he a mahe a o t i v h t paxt i n actual X L b a l phojed. Bu; t we quafion
whdhm the Zjidd data A & trrRy rrdevant ; to ; the c o n U i o n ~ Xated, that Xhe
Comminnion be abofihed. We have not been aw~ ninhed wLth ; the QieLd da.- ta ( aee
1uXet~ d ated Janumy 3, 7985 t o Mh. NotLton, aXtached). The blank Q ooQ~
khe aunvey qua fionnaitta appatrevLtey un ed have no bQahing upon ; the h a u a
x& evant t o SUM eX Reviw. foh example, q u a h n 5 ahh which agencieh
me couttac; ted moat & equeuttey; doutteen a g e n c i ~ m e U t e d , one being Xkin
Camminaion. The amwa t o ; that quenfion cannot poanibly phovide any data
( I
pelrXLnent t o SUM& Reviw. CefLtaiMRy, t h a e can & aya be hnpkovemevtt i n
clhection and leadmkip, and tkin Comminaion LA phobably no excepfion ; to the
phopoaLi5on. B u t the nolution LA no; t t o ncnap the Camminnion; that amounA ko
" thnowing the baby o u w~ L th the bath WCLtm."
1n ; the meail oQ Indian educcLtion and he& h catre concmnn, the Comminaion a
h u ~; t aken an active hole i n commuuticaxXng avdieabiLLty 06 amvica - ugh
; the Indian Town ff& Qohrnat. We do not p m c b e oun job ; to be t o o v a a p
d f i n g educdon and he& h cane agencia; nathm, we bQRieve Xhe l e g h l a t w ~ e
Xended ; tkin Comminaion ; to ptomdgate inQomaxXon i n t h a e anea. Tkin we
have done. . The bahta~ n4Jz; t on page 14 ; that ; the Commhaian " ha not actively
addhabed" khene h a u a LA a h p l y & ue, nun LA Xhae any auggehfion ail Xo
how b& a ; to " addheha" Xhae mean. Voa the Auditon huggQnt we 6 d Up a
compdng DepatLtmevtt dot educ& on oh heaeth cahe? We tkinh not. The Com-minaion
now hail mmbm dkom both thoae agenda having Ex- OdQido. Thue
haounce p m o a actively pahticipde i n ; the Comminaion'a Qunctioa; i d Xho~ e
depantmem need hdp wLth the Mba, the. y know ; the Cornnuhaion h hme and
available.
ARIZONA COAfMlSSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RESOLUTION ATTACffiMENT ( CONTINUED) 4
CONCLUSION
Repeatedey thnoug h ; the RepotLt one a edence i. 6 dound which ha@, "; the
omm mind ion d o a not adequatQey adahas majotr i. 6nuafl ad6eoting A/ tizonatn
lndianh. I t A uncleat whaX acope 06 ac; tion A meavtt by " ad& aaff. The
Comminaion hm camh; terLt& y done what ; the LegALatwLe toLd Lt ; to do wkich A
a3 " cornidch and nfudy" Indian concetm. 16 the leghlatuhe Lctin h a t o cheat&
a " aupm agency" 6otr lndian ad@ La Lt may do d o . 16 fhe agency A t o
" identidy and naeutch 2npohtan. X A a u u and make hecommenddarn don th&
tre, 601u; tionff ; the Repokttn condunion augga& then dunding don hame and
nubatam%& expamion 06 the Comminnion would be necuaaxy.
We believe a much b& m trecommendation w o d d be ; to trea66hm ; the Com-minaion'a
apeoidic LknLted troLe i n commuuticdon and cootrdindon; ptrovide
apptrop~ Late dunding d o t upghading t h a e 6unC; tio~; and ; thu & ow ; the
Comminnion ; to intenhidy ih ac; tivhXa i n f h a e ~ igvLidicavLt uteah. Comedon
06 pet~ onmance, leadwhip otr vAabd% ty w i l l ~ olXow @ om khuh upghading the
Comminnion'. h exinlting 6unc; tion~.
WB- ZL--,
DAVID RAMZREZ - VICE- CHAIRMAN
-, r
/ ( 3-'' ' L< g/ CLINTOM M . PATTEA, r€ XECUTIVE SECRETARY
PR/ dd/ han
Arttachmenix : Rebetence Documw~ t
( A ) Augunf 6 , 1984 Memonandum t o AuUoh Debbie Bddwin
( B ) Majotr laaua Identidied by the Comminnion
( C ) LaXm 06 Januuty 3, 1985 t o hh. Nohfon
( D ) Ph~ ghcunl n6o&~ ndonco d& M. ing Go& and Objeotivu
( E l k z o m RumvCL- tiom 1n 73ftev. i. t~ B/ Lochw~ e
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
Comdaion RaoLutian da; ted Januuhy 3- 4, 1985 dung wLth Raalutian
ACtuchment compaaed ad @ UIL pagen.
A) Mematrandurn 06 Augu6. t 6 , 7 984 Qhum M&. Cfintan Me P a ~ 2 e . q
Comminaion Execuk. ive S e c h W y t o MA, Debbie B d h i n , Audi; toh;
Rapon? s e t o Suwd Faotaa . ( Redaenced on RaaLukion W c h e d
page 2 ) .
a
8) Majut Iaaua Ideddied By The Kzana Comminhion 05 Indian
Aa@ in~- SMe- Tnibd R M o n ~ k i p a , Papa covl; tdined S m e -
ment 06 Ibaue; Backgxound; Fhcd Impact; Social, Envhonmental
and Economic Impact; Available Op; tiom and Recornrnendatiow,
( Redaenced on R a o ~ a Wn c hment page 3 ). ( I
C ) LeAta t o UtL. Noxton, Audi/ tan G e n W dded Januahy 3, 1985
hequafing back- up daZa auppahting Ah& condunionh . ( Re-amenced
on Rao& on ACtuchmed page 3 ) .
D) Phagrram 7n~ om& ion SmmM containing ; the Comminbian'h
Phogtam Dachip; tian; Pxagmn G o a h and Ob j e d v a ; Ptragrram
P& n? s; Pnogm R a u . ( Rebaenced an Raol& on Attachment
paga 3- 4 I .
E ) A. rtizana Renmv& ian? s In BhevLty mochme dacnibing ; the. hum-vatia~
ni n a thumbnail manna, mieeage and a W u d o v t i l , d c .
a
NOTE: THE COMMISSION OF I N D I A N AFFAIRS PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL 30
PAGES OF REFERENCE DOCUtilENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
AVAILABLE ON REQUEST FROM THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL.
1 6 4 5 W E S T J E F F E R S O N P H O E N I X . A R I Z O N A 8 5 0 0 7 -- A
Mk. Dough R. Nohton, Audi; toh Genmd
1 1 1 Wuk Mowtoe, SuXe 600
Phoenix, Anizona 65003
Endoaed pleane hind a te, t. t- m @ om Comrnhnionm Pad G. Rea, Jk.
ddted lanumq 17, 1985.
Peh neyuuk, we me ~ ommding kkin 1- a t o you ko be made a
pcVLt oh documevttdtion going ko khe Leg. inRa; twte n W v e ko youh hind
/ tepotrA: and ih conduniov~ cl pettaining ko ow Agency.
76 khae me any yua; tiom n& a; tive Ito name, contuct the odhice
at y a w conv evtience .
ELLIOTT BOOTH - CHAlREY1AN
CLINTOAM~. PATTEA.
LAW OFFICES
PAUL C. REES, JR.. P. C.
LAWYERS
PAUL G. REES. JR.
H. MICHEAL WRIGHT
Mr. Clinton M. Pattea
Executive Secretary
ARIZONA COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
1645 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Re: Auditor General's " Sunset Review"
145 EAST UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
TUCSON. ARIZONA 85705
TELEPHONE ( 6 0 2 ) 6 2 4 - 2 3 6 4
Dear Clinton:
I received and reviewed with interest the response of the Auditor
General in his letter of January 4, 1985, concerning the " summary
of issues" allegedly used as a basis for the conclusion that the
Commission ought to be abolished. This is pure nonsense, and I
request that my letter be made a part of the official response of
the Indian Commission.
Apparently a member of the " team" doing the survey called seven-teen
of twenty tribes, and over the phone asked them to identify
those issues most important to the tribe. Because fourteen iden-tified
" poor communication between state and tribal governments"
as an area of concern, somehow the Auditor concludes this is some
form of an indictment against the Commission. Nonsense. Because
thirteen representatives thought that education was an important
area of concern does not mean that the Commission should imme-diately
start opening schools on the reservations.
The point is this: The conclusions drawn by the Sunset Review
bear no reasonable resemblance to the fact that these tribes
identified these issues as significant ones for Indians in Ari-zona.
It is true that communication and coordination between the
tribes and other levels of government could become an important
part of the Commission's functions, but only if the Legislature
so intends and funds same; and only if the tribes then choose to
communicate through the Commission. Most times, that is not go-ing
to happen. For example, if a tribe wants to talk to somebody
about building a road, it will call the branch of state or local
government dealing with road building itself, and not simply rely
on the Commission for making that call. If the Commission tried
to intrude in such an area, you can visualize that the tribal
authorities would probably tell us to " get lostw.
A survey of this sort affords no basis at all for saying that the
Legislature ought to terminate the Commission in favor of some
' GAUL G. REES. JR.. P. C.
LAWYERS
Mr. Clinton M. Pattea
January 17, 1985
Page Two
new bureaucratic arm to the Governor's arm. The Arizona Commis-sion
of Indian Affairs has a significant program of helping the
tribes to interchange ideas through its " Indian Town Hall" con-claves;
this can be expanded to improve communications. It is
simplistic and counterproductive simply to try to wipe out the
Commission and put it under the Governor's office. I am sure
the Legislature will concur when it has an opportunity to re-view
the entire matter. The resolution and attachment sent to
the Auditor General should be placed in the report; I do not see
them in the Amended Draft which I received on January 12, 1985.
I think that we should insist that they be forwarded to the proper
Legislative committees.
Sincerely,
Commission Member