Performance audit, Commission of Indian Affairs

              DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA J. BLESSING, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
March 29, 1988
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Rose Mofford, Acting Governor
Mr. Edgar Walerna, Chairman
Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, a Performance Audit
of the Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs. This report is in response to a
June 2, 1987, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee.
The report discusses improvements in the Commissionfs efforts to address
State- Tribal issues. We found that since our previous report, the Com mission
has attempted to address each of its statutory duties. However, the
Commission still needs to exercise stronger leadership to function effectively.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
Sincerely,
D&& S R. Norton
Auditor General
Staff: William Thomson
Mark Fleming
Martha Dorsey
Kurt Schulte
Lucinda Trimble
CC: Mr. Tony Machukay
Acting Executive Director
2700 NORTH CENTRAI.. AVF. @ SUITE 70G O PtIOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 @ ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona Commission of lndian Affairs in response to a June 2, 1987, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted
as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes 23441- 2351
through 41 - 2379.
The Commission of lndian Affairs was established in 1953, and is charged with
serving as liaison in issues involving the State and its tribes. The Commission
consists of I S members: seven represent Arizona Indians; two represent Arizona at
large; and six are ex- officio members, including the Governor, the Superintendent of
Public Instruction, the Attorney General, and directors of the Departments of
Transportation, Health Services and Economic Security or their representatives.
The Arizona Commission of lndian Affairs
Has Improved Its Performance,
But Needs To Exercise Stronger Leadership
The Commission has made improvements since our 1985 audit. I t has made attempts
to address each of its new statutory duties, and has begun to actively identify and
address State- tribal issues. For example, the Commission held its first meeting
between tribal, legislative and Commission representatives to discuss mutual
concerns. As another example, the Commission reinstated its Inter- departmental
Committee on lndian Affairs to encourage contact among Indian- related State
agencies and tribes on State- Indian issues and concerns. The Commission also
cosponsored a Water and Land Resources Symposium to address key issues identified
through a survey of tribal leaders.
Although the Commission has taken a step forward in addressing major issues, i t
needs to exercise stronger leadership to effectively function as a State- tribal
liaison. A major weakness in the Commission's leadership is its lack of adequate
follow- through. For example, the Interdepartmental Committee meetings have
been informal sessions with l i t t l e structure and no apparent outcomes. Weak
leadership is also evident in its limited contact with tribal governments. The
Commission staff meets with slightly more than half of the 20 tribes annually, and
does not contact all tribes for its annual survey.
Two problems must be corrected before the Commission can significantly strengthen
its leadership. First, the Executive Director position and several Commission
member appointments have been vacant for an extended time. Second, Commission
staff travel funds are insufficient to allow for adequate tribal contact.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FINDING I : THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
HAS IMPROVED ITS PERFORMANCE,
BUT NEEDS TO EXERCISE STRONGER LEADERSHIP . . . . . 9
Results of Previous Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Commission of Indian A f f a i r s
Has Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
Commission Leadership
I s S t i l l Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2
Corrections Needed
To Strengthen Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
AGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1984- 85 THROUGH 1987- 88 . . . . . . . . 2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona Commission of lndian Affairs in response to a June 2, 1987, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted
as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.)
$ 941- 2351 through 41- 2379.
Comniission Role and Purpose
The Commission of lndian Affairs was established in 1953 to consider and study
conditions of Arizona's lndian citizens. The Commission's 1986- 87 annual report
states that approximately 244,600 lndians live in Arizona on 20 different
reservations. The land held by Arizona Indians and tribes amounts to more than
one- quarter of the State's total acreage.
In April 1986 the Commission's purpose and duties were more clearly specified by
H. B. 2064, which revised A. R. S. $ 41- 542. The statute now directs that the
Commission shall assist State and Federal agencies to help the tribes develop mutual
goals and to design projects for achieving these goals. I t also requires the
Commission to serve as an information source, and to facilitate and coordinate
activity among State, Federal and tribal agencies.
Budget and Personnel
The Commission consists of 15 members: seven lndian and two non- Indian members
appointed by the Governor, and six members who serve by virtue of their office. The
ex- officio members include: the Governor, the Attorney General, the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, the director of the Department of Hezlth
Services, the director of the Department of Transportation, and the director of the
Department of Economic Security, or their representatives. The Executive Director
of the Commission is appointed by the Governor. ( 1 )
P r i o r t o t h e 1986 r e v i s i o n s , t h e Executive D i r e c t o r was appointed by the Commission.
1
The Commission is required to meet quarterly with additional meetings held as
needed. The Com mission is funded for four full- ti me equivalent employees ( FTE),
II
but currently employs only three staff: a field coordinator who is serving as acting
director, an administrative assistant, and an administrative secretary. The
Executive Director position has been vacant since January 1987.
The Commission's expenditures for fiscal years 1984- 85 through 1987- 88 are
summarized below.
Table 1
ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1984- 85 THROUGH 1987- 88
( Unaud i ted)
FTE
Actual Actual Actual Estimated
1984- 85 1985- 86 1986- 87 1987- 88
Personal $ 98,900 $ 104,700 $ 98,315 $ 112,400
Se rv i ces
Emp l oyee 21,000 21,400 19,553 24,100
Related
Expenditures
Other 8,300 16,700 20,349 19,300
Operating
Travel 6,300 4,700 5,339 9,600
I n- state
Trave l - 0- 700 - 0- - 0-
Out- of- state
Equ i pmen t - 0- - 0- - 0- - 0 -
Source: Commission of Indian Affairs budget requests and Joint Legislative
Budget Committee appropriation reports.
Audit Scope and Objectives
Our audit of the Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs focused on the following two
areas.
0 Whether the Commission's effectiveness improved since our previous audit
o Whether the Commission's organizational structure needs to be changed
Our audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted governmental
auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express their appreciation to the members of the
Commission and staff and the t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s for their cooperation and assistance
during the audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the commission
The Commission's objective and purpose can be inferred from its statutory
duties, which require the Commission to act as the State's liaison in
State- tribal concerns. Arizona Revised Statutes 941- 542 states, in part:
" A. The commission shall assist and support state and federal agencies in
assisting Indians and tribal councils in this state to develop mutual goals, to
design projects for achieving goals and to implement their plans. The
corn mission shall also:
1. Assemble and make available facts needed by tribal, state and federal
agencies to work together effectively.
2. Assist this state i n i t s responsibilities to lndians and tribes of this state
by making recommendations to the governor and the legislature.
3. Confer and coordinate with officials and agencies of other governmental
units and legislative committees regarding Indian needs and goals. . . ."
2. The effectiveness with which the Commission has met i t s objective and
purpose and the efficiency with which the Commission has operated
The Commission has i rnproved its effectiveness since our 1984- 85 audit.
Because statutory revisions clarified direction of the Commission, it was able
to gear many activities toward complying w i t h i t s new statutory
responsibilities. Also, the Commission has begun to address major Indian issues
in the State, by surveying the tribes and consulting with governmental agencies
to identify the issues.
However, we determined that the Commission needs to exercise stronger
leadership in order to improve its effectiveness. Problems that will need to be
corrected before the Commission can effectively strengthen its leadership
include the absence of an Executive Director, Commission vacancies and
inadequate funding for staff travel ( see Finding, page 9).
3. The extent to which the Commission has operated within the public interest
The Commission has operated in the public interest by striving to meet its
statutory requirement t o act as liaison and by beginning to address major
State- Tribal issues. This represents an improvement over its performance at
the time of our 1984- 85 audit. A t that time, we determined that the
Commission was not addressing major State- tribal issues or otherwise f u l f i l l i n g
its liaison role. As a result, the Commission's statutes were revised to more
clearly specify its role in addressing major issues.
However, the Commission could improve its ability to address the public
interest by exerting stronger leadership. To do so, the Commission should
follow through on projects i t has begun, and should maintain more frequent
contact with the tribes ( see Finding, page 9).
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission are
consistent with the legislative mandate
This factor is not applicable since the Commission has not promulgated any
rules or regulations.
5. The extent to which the Commission has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has
informed the public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public
This factor is not applicable since the Commission has not promulgated any
rules or regulations.
6. The extent to which the Commission has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints that are within its jurisdiction
This factor is not applicable since the Commission is not a regulatory agency.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
State Government has the authority to prosecute actions under enabling
legislation
This factor is not applicable since the Commission is not a regulatory agency.
8. The extent to which the Commission has addressed deficiencies in the enabling
statutes which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g its statutory mandate
The Commission was influential in the 1986 revisions to its statutes. In March
1985 the Commission conducted a hearing to solicit tribal perceptions of the
Commission's role. The Chairman appointed a Program Planning Committee to
analyze comments and recommendations from the tribes and prepare a proposal
outlining the means to make the Commission stronger and more effective.
Included in this proposal was a draft of proposed changes to the Commission's
statutes. These proposed changes were essentially adopted, with the addition
that the Executive Director shall be appointed by the Governor.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws o f t h e Commission to
adequately comply with the factors listed in the Sunset Law
Based upon our audit work, no changes are necessary in the Commission's
Statutes.
10. The extent to which the termination of the Commission would significantly
harm the public health, safety or welfare
Termination of the Commission would not significantly harm the public health,
safety or welfare. However, the Commission's role is a potentially valuable
one. In our 1984- 85 audit we identified a need for active State involvement in
the resolution of State- tribal concerns. Overlapping legal questions and
frequent interactions of State and tribal governments create a need for
improved coordination and communication between the governments. Survey
comments obtained during the current audit reaffirm this need.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the Commission is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regula. tion would be
appropriate
This factor is not applicable since the Commission is not a regulatory agency.
12. The extent to which the Commission has used private contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be
accomplished
The Commission has not used the services of a private contractor since our
previous audit. We found no apparent need for the Commission to use private
contractors at this time.
FINDING I
THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS HAS IMPROVED
ITS PERFORMANCE, BUT NEEDS TO EXERCISE STRONGER LEADERSHIP
Although the Commission of Indian Affairs has made significant efforts to improve
its performance since our 1985 audit, stronger leadership is needed to address
State- tribal issues. The Corn mission has improved its effectiveness with State
agencies and tribal governments in some areas, but the Commission's involvement is
s t i l l limited. Lack of appointments to the Commission and limited travel funds
appear to reduce the Commission's ability to provide active leadership.
Results of Previous Audit
In our previous audit we determined that the Commission was not f u l f i l l i n g its
appropriate role. At that time, we determined that the State needs a liaison in
addressing important State- tribal concerns. However, we found that the
Commission was not addressing important State- tribal issues at the time, nor was i t
serving actively as liaison between the State and tribes.
We therefore recommended that the Legislature clarify the laws of the Commission
to give more direction as to its r o l e . As a result, in April 1986 the
Commission's statutes were revised to more specifically define its liaison role in
addressing major issues. Specifically, Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 941- 542
states:
The Commission of Indian Affairs shall assist and support State and Federal
agencies in assisting Indians and tribal councils to develop mutual goals, to
design projects for achieving goals and to implement their plans.
( ' I We a l s o recommended t h a t the Commission be terminated and replaced w i t h an I n d i a n
a f f a i r s o f f i c e w i t h i n the Governor's O f f i c e t o p r o v i d e increased a u t h o r i t y ,
v i s i b i l i t y and pol i c y d i r e c t i o n needed t o resolve S t a t e - t r i b a l issues. ( See Other
P e r t i n e n t I n f o r m a t i o n on page 17 f o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . )
The Commission shall also:
1) Assemble and make available facts needed by Tribal, State and
Federal agencies to work together effectively.
2) Assist this state in its responsibilities to lndians and tribes of this
state by making recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature.
3) Confer and coordinate with officials and agencies of other
governmental units and legislative committees regarding lndian
needs and goals.
4) Work for greater understanding and improved relationships between
lndians and non- Indians by creating an awareness of the legal,
social, and economic needs of lndians in this state.
5) Promote increased participation by lndians in local and State affairs.
6) Assist tribal groups in developing increasingly effective methods of
self- government.
Commission of lndian Affairs
Has Improved
The Commission of Indian Affairs has improved its performance since the previous
audit. It has made attempts to address each of its new statutory duties, and has
begun to address major State- tribal concerns.
A review of the Commission's activity files from fiscal year 1985- 86 through
December 1987 revealed that the Commission has attempted to meet each of its
newly revised statutory requirements. Following are six examples of the
Commission's attempts to address its statutes.
a Meeting with Legislators - In September 1985 the Commission held its first
meeting with t r i b a l , legislative and Com mission representatives to enable each
of the various groups to discuss mutual concerns. Ten legislators, seven tribal
leaders and seven corn missioners attended.
r Workshop on Legislative Process - This workshop, held in February 1986, was
the f i r s t attempt by the Commission to give tribes the opportunity to gain
knowledge on the legislative process and have input on proposed laws that
affect all citizens of the state. Representatives from 19 tribes attended the
workshop. Items discussed included the State legislative process, working with
district legislators, the Federal budget, and impacts of State and Federal
legislation.
e Interdepartmental Committee on lndian Affairs - The Commission reinstated
this committee in October 1986 to create awareness and better understanding
of State and lndian intergovernmental problems at the State level, and to
encourage dialogue among Indian- related State agencies and tribes on
State- Indian issues and concerns. The committee consists of 14 state agency
representatives, six of whom are Commission members. However, meetings are
open to anyone interested in attending. Also, the Commission plans to invite at
least one tribal representative to each meeting. The committee has met five
times in the past year and has discussed several major lndian issues such as
water resources, tourism, jurisdictional problems, game and fish law
enforcement, and health care.
e Water and Land Resources Symposium - This symposium was the Commission's
f i r s t attempt since 1979 to address current water resources and economic
development issues. Held in October 1987, the purpose of the symposium was
to discuss lndian water rights, econcmic development on the reservations, and
the management of resources on the reservations in Arizona. Seventeen tribal
leaders attended and made presentations regarding water resource issues within
their tribes. Also present were state officials from the Departments of Water
Resources, State Land, Health Services and Transportation. The Governor was
the keynote speaker. According to a Department of Watcr Resources official,
the symposium was well received by the lndian community, and has already had
some positive outcomes since the Department has received requests for
assistance in the areas of economic development and water rights. In addit'an,
as a result of the symposium, the Department is beginning negotiations to settle
water right claims with one tribe, as an alternative to court proceedings.
a Major issues and concerns report - This annual report, based on a survey of
tribal leaders and consultation with government agencies, identified major
issues and concerns intending to alert State policy makers and administrators
on current issues of particular concern to Arizona Indians. The Commission
has completed reports for each of the fiscal years from 1985- 86 through
1987- 88. Some of the issues that have been identified in the reports include
economic development, water resources, jurisdiction, health and education.
a Tribal Directory - The Tribal Directory is a continuing project, annually
updated by Commission staff. In our previous audit, we noted the Directory
was one Commission project that addressed State- tribal issues to some degree.
The Directory continues to be highly valued by the various people who use it.
The purpose of the Directory is to enhance communications and foster working
relationships by providing contact information on tribal governments, lndian
associations and Arizona agencies that have frequent contact with the tribes.
The individuals and groups that receive the directory consider i t to be very
informative, a valuable networking resource and highly useful in providing key
information regarding elected lndian officials, lndian centers and lndian
organizations.
In f u l f i l l i n g its statutory duties, the Commission has begun to actively identify and
address State- tribal issues. The Water and Land Resources Symposium, mentioned
previously, arose from a survey of tribal leaders and a Commission directive to
identify and address major issues. The Commission plans to address additional issues
in the current and upcoming fiscal years. For example, by December 1988, the
Commission plans to engage specialists in the field of economic development to
provide information regarding Arizona's economic system as it impacts lndian
communities. The Commission plans to conduct a symposium on such issues in the
future. In addition, by April 1989 the Commission plans to compile data to identify
potential inequities in health and educational services being provided to Indians.
Results of the examination will be published and distributed. The Commission could
then work with the appropriate agencies to address any inequities found.
A survey of t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s conducted by Auditor General staff further indicated
that t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s have become more satisfied with the Commission's
performance. Over half of the officials surveyed rated the Commission's overall
performance as either good or excellent. Many of the officials said the Commission
provided good information and was cooperative with their requests for assistance.
Twelve of the 18 officials surveyed indicated that the Commission was active in its
role and two o f f i c i a l s f e l t i t was becoming more active.
Commission Leadership
Is Still Limited
While the Commission has taken a step forward in addressing major issues, i t needs
to exercise stronger leadership to effectively function as a State- tribal liaison.
Specific weaknesses in the Commission's activities include lack of follow- through
and limited contact with the tribes.
The Commission tends to undertake activities without adequate follow- through. For
example, the five Interdepartmental Committee on Indian Affairs meetings held to
facilitate discussion among State agency representatives regarding Indian- related
issues have been informal sessions w i t h l i t t l e structure. A review of committee
meeting summaries found that no specific outcomes resulted from the meetings, and
items of significant importance discussed in one meeting are not continued in
subsequent meetings. As another example, the meeting between State legislators
and t r i b a l leaders was a one- time occurrence, and was basically a nonstructured,
" get- acquainted" session. Finally, although the Corn mission publishes a newsletter
during the legislative session, it does n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y explain legislative bills or
describe their potential impact on Arizona tribes and reservations. ( 1 )
Second, although t r i b a l contact is v i t a l in carrying out i t s liaison role, the
Commission's contact with tribes is limited. Direct personal contact is necessary to
ensure open and active communications between the Commission and the tribes.
However, the Commission itself is a limited means of direct contact with the t r i b e s
since there are only seven Indian members on the Commission, and yet there are 20
tribes. Moreover, in fiscal year 1987 the Commission s t a f f personally met with only
12 of the 20 tribal leaders. Other contact is also l i m i t e d . Not all tribes are
contacted when the Commission conducts i t s annual survey for major issues and
concerns. Further, the Commission disseminates information to the t r i b e s in a
newsletter format only five months of the year. Our survey of State officials,
Commission members and t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s revealed that frequent contact with the
tribes is needed to establish better lines of communication and increased exposure
for all of the tribes. Moreover, the Acting Executive Director indicated t h a t t r i b a l
leaders have asked him to v i s i t to discuss current issues. Since the Commission's
role i s that of liaison between the State and the tribes, continuous contact is
important.
Corrections Needed To
Strengthen Leadership
Two problems must be corrected before the Commission can significantly strengthen
its leadership.' 2' First, the Executive Director position and several
Commission member appointments have been vacant for an extended time. Second,
Commission staff travel funds are insufficient to allow for adequate t r i b a l contact.
( ' 1 When l e g i s l a t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y a f f e c t s a t r i b e o r group of I n d i a n s , t h e Commission
w i l l review and analyze it i n greater d e t a i l . For example, the Commission analyzed
l e g i s l a t i o n on 1 uxury use taxes on reservation smokeshops during several 1 egi s l a t i v e
sessions, most r e c e n t l y i n 1986. Commission s t a f f stated t h a t they would l i k e t o do
more in- depth analyses, but cannot do so a t the c u r r e n t s t a f f i n g l e v e l .
( 2) A t h i r d problem, upon which the Commission spent much time and e f f o r t i n the past,
involved addressing issues brought up i n our previous a u d i t and defending i t s
existence as an agency when the Governor's Executive Budget O f f i c e ( EBO) recommended
zero funding f o r the c u r r e n t f i s c a l year. This problem appears t o have been
resolved and EBO has recommended funding the Commission f o r the coming f i s c a l year.
Failure to make appointments - Lack of strong leadership has resulted primarily
because an Executive Director and several Commission members were not
appointed. The Executive Director position has remained vacant since the previous
Director resigned in January 1987. In our survey of commissioners, State officials
and tribal leaders, several of these individuals considered the absence of a
permanent Executive Director a detriment to the Commission. In addition, other
individuals interviewed outside of the survey, such as legislators, a budget analyst
and the Intertribal Council, said the absence of a strong Executive Director limited
the Commission's ability to provide active leadership.
Furthermore, vacant Commission member seats have impeded the Commission's
ability to take action on policy issues. The Commission has been lacking
appointments for two of its seven Indian members for over a year, and in one case
f o r two years. Three additional Indian members' terms ( including the Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the Commission) and the terms of two non- Indian members have
recently expired. In total, there were eight vacancies as of January 1988. As a
result, several of the commissioners are serving beyond their terms. According to
individuals within the Commission, this has caused problems because the current
members have come to show l i t t l e enthusiasm or interest in attending Commission
meetings.
Travel funds - The staff travel fund appears insufficient to allow for frequent
visits with the tribes on the reservations. Although the Commission's total travel
budget for 1987- 88 was $ 9,600, almost 90 percent of the budget was allocated for
Commissioner travel. According to Commission staff, they are not able to visit all
the tribes on a budget of approximately $ 1,000. For example, seven tribes were
visited in the f i r s t six months of the current fiscal year at a cost of $ 500, or half the
staff's travel budget for the year. Additional funds would provide the ability to
meet with all of the tribes at least once a year and some tribes a second or third
time.
While Commission memberships are vacant, some additional funds may be available
to staff. Until appointments are made and more Commission members attend the
meetings, use of existing travel funds could be improved. In fiscal year 1986- 87, the
Commission reverted more than $ 2,100 to the General Fund because
several Commissioners failed to attend Com mission meetings. Halfway through the
current fiscal year, approximately 80 percent of the Commission members' travel
budget had not been expended. To avoid reversion of travel funds that were actually
needed for staff travel, the Commission could analyze its in- state travel budget
every quarter. Any money remaining in the in- state travel budget at the end of a
quarter due to the lack of Commission member attendance could be used for staff
travel. However, once vacancies are filled and commissioner travel increases,
additional funds will be needed f o r s t a f f travel.
1. To further enhance its effectiveness, the Commission should:
A. Follow through on some of its activities already undertaken. For example,
the Commission could:
Develop formal ageridas of areas for discussion for Inter- departmental
Coordinating Committee meetings.
9 Schedule periodic meetings between legislators and tribal leaders.
r Analyze the impacts various legislation may have on Arizona
reservations.
Publish and distribute a newsletter to the tribes throughout the year.
8. Meet with tribal leaders on the reservations more regularly.
2. The Governor should appoint an Executive Director to the Commission and
promptly f i l l vacant Commission member appointments.
3. The Commission should request additional funds f o r s t a f f travel. However,
until Commission members begin regularly attending meetings, the Commission
should analyze its in- state travel budget for commissioners every quarter to
maximize use of travel funds. Any money remaining in the in- state travel
budget at the end of each quarter could be used, i f necessary, for staff travel
purposes.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the course of our audit we examined information regarding the
Commission's organizational structure and placement. Specifically, we reviewed
whether the Commission's function should be placed in the Governor's Office or
remain a freestanding agency. We found that arguments can be made for either
alternative, and the success of the Commission appears to depend more on the
leadership of the Commission and i t s s t a f f than on its organizational structure.
Previous Audit Recognized Need
And Recommended Structural Changes
Our previous audit identified a need for an agency in State government to address
the intergovernmental issues that arise among the State and the 20 tribal
governments. Overlapping legal questions, responsibilities and the frequent
interactions of State and tribal governments create a need for improved
coordination and communication between the governments. Recent discussions with
tribal chairmen, State officials, the Executive Director of the Intertribal Council
and commissioners reaffirmed the need for a State-. level liaison between the tribes
and the State.
In our previous audit we recommended that the Commission's function be placed
within the Governor's office to improve its effectiveness. The Commission itself
would be terminated and replaced with an Indian affairs o f f i c e w i t h a director
reporting to the Governor. We reasoned that such a restructuring would increase
the influence of the Commission, improve its visibility, and strengthen the
leadership of Indian affairs in Arizona. The Commission argued that this would
make it too political and would lessen its authority.
Placement in Governor's Office
Several individuals surveyed by our Office feel that the State- tribal liaison function
would be more effectively carried out i f the designated agency had a closer t i e w i t h
the Governor's Office. One state official, two tribal chairmen and one Commission
member we surveyed felt that the function should actually be under the auspices of
the Governor's Office. According to one, the Commission is too isolated as i t is now
organized. Another stated that the Commission has never been effective, and that
direct contact with the Governor's Office is the only reliable means of problem
resolution. Reasons given by the other two were that the Commission is " geared for
failure" as it is currently structured, and that the function should be in the
Governor's Office to " be closer to the top.''
In addition to these four, several other State officials, tribal chairmen and
Commissioners we contacted f e l t that a stronger relationship with the Governor's
Office would be beneficial. The policies developed by the Governor's Office can
directly impact the tribes, and the Commission should be there to represent the
lndian interest. In addition, the Executive Director of the Commission on
State- tribal Relations supports this opinion, since any state Indian affairs function
needs strong support from the Governor's Office to succeed.
Freestanding Agency
Although some of the people surveyed were dissatisfied with the Commission's
current structure, many f e l t i t s organization and structure were effective in
fulfilling the State- tribal liaison function. Most tribal chairmen and commissioners
feel that the Commission is assuming an active role and has improved in recent
years. They specifically attribute i t s success in its current structure to greater
commitment by the commissioners, better quality information being provided, and
the fact that the Commission now operates from a work plan.
Moreover, three tribal chairmen feel that placement of the function in the
Governor's Office would be detrimental to the function's effectiveness. They feel
that the environment of the Governor's Office would be too political and biased.
According to one chairman, the Governor's Office has its own agenda, and
addressing Indian affairs would be a low priority.
Leadership is More Important
Than Organizational Structure
Our audit work indicates that strong leadership, and not organizational structure,
appears to be the key f a c t o r i n determining the success of the State- tribal liaison
function. On the one hand, improvements have occurred which suggest that the
Commission may be able to function effectively as a freestanding agency. Statutory
changes have given the Commission a more specific role and additional
representation. Also, the Commission has improved its performance and has begun
to address major State- tribal issues ( see Finding, page 9).
Furthermore, the improvements s t i l l needed relate to the Corn mission's lack of
leadership, not its structure. Leadership components lacking include failure to
follow through on activities and infrequent tribal contact ( see Finding, page 9). As
discussed in the Finding, survey comments from all State officials as well as some of
the tribal chairmen point to lack of leadership as one of the Commission's biggest
problems.
ARIZONA COMMISSION OF I N D I A N A F F A I R S
B
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
@ March 21, 1988
M r . Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
2700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear M r . Norton ;
After careful review of your Preliminary Report Draft on the performance
audit of our agency, we would like to commend you and your s t a f f for the time-liness
i n which your Report was completed. However, while we agree that the
Commission needs to improve i n c e r t a i n areas, it is our opinion t h a t several
statements of the Report should be c l a r i f i e d . We would like t o r e f e r you to
the following finding of the Report :
" THE ARIZONA COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS HAS IMPROVED ITS PERFORMANCE,
BUT NEEDS TO EXERCISE STRONGER LEADERSHIP"
Under t h i s heading, the words " limited contact" on pages 12 and 13 should
include the fact t h a t while face- to- face meetings with t r i b a l leaders are
" limited," much contact i s made despite a shortage of s t a f f , through other
forms of communication based on our o f f i c e records; these include: ( a) volume
of mailings to t r i b e s , and ( b) number of telephone c a l l s logged to and from
t r i b e s ( see attached Appendix A).
Another statement under the above finding t h a t should be c l a r i f i e d so
t h a t t h e performance of our Commission i s f a i r l y represented pertains to the
Auditor's observation that "... although the Commission publishes a newsletter
during the l e g i s l a t i v e session, it does not explain l e g i s l a t i v e b i l l s or de-scribe
t h e i r potential impact on Arizona t r i b e s and reservations." Ironically,
t h i s matter was hardly mentioned i n the l a s t audit of the Commission three
years ago, even though the Commission has been providing summaries and brief
explanations of selected l e g i s t i v e b i l l s to Arizona Indian t r i b e s for years as
an ongoing a c t i v i t y . As our s t a f f reported to you before in writing, more than
900 b i l l s are reviewed by our agency prior to and during the l e g i s l a t i v e sess-ion.
Nevertheless, with a current s t a f f of only three persons, our s t a f f has
been able t o not only provide an analysis of c e r t a i n b i l l s of i n t e r e s t t o t r i b e s ,
but to track these b i l l s on a weekly basis through its l e g i s l a t i v e course i n
both houses of the State Legislature.
As you may have noted, the above comments are e s s e n t i a l l y those contained
in a previous l e t t e r sent t o you on March 3, 1988. The l e t t e r was signed by
. .
M r . Douglas March 3 , 1988
our Commission Chair . Walema, and the undersigned Acting Director
of our agency and r e views of our Commission.
We would like t o thank you again f o r i n v i t i n g a response from our agency
to your findings and hope t h a t with the abwe comments, your Report w i l l
eventually prove to be a conduit for improving the conduct of Commission
programs, and its accountability to a l l of the S t a t e ' s c i t i z e n s .
Respectfully submitted,
Edgar B, Walema, Chairman
AM: t m
enc 1. - APPENDIX A
ARIZONA COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
FISCAL YEAR 198 7 - 1 988 :
TRIBAL CONTACTS THROUGH MAILINGS:
- Memorandum relative to Planning Session Summation for the Tribal Land
and Water Symposium.
- Personal letters of invitation with copy of Land S Water Symposium
Tentative Agenda.
- Memorandum of appreciation for participation in the Land & Water Symposium.
- Memorandum explaining and enclosing a Veterans Administration Advisory
Committee on Native Americans report for comments prior to finalization and
submission to the Congress requesting action be taken on various Indian
veteran concerns and issues. - Memorandum relative to Commission appointments. Asking for the submission
of tribal names for the Governor's consideration.
- Cover memorandum relative to the Commission's quarterly Business Meeting
along with Tentative Agenda and pertinent materials. - Memorandum encouraging tribal leaders to submit names of those interested
in the Executive Director's position. - Memorandum encouraging participation in the Environmental and Health De-partment
Conference - details given. - Capitol Drumbeat Newsletters ( 6 issues). - Annual Report.
- Tribal Directory Information Questionnaires. - Tribal Directory. ( Copies for officers, tribal council members, directors
and others).
TRIBAL CONTACTS BY TELEPHONE:
- Telephone calls made by the Commission's staff to Tribal leaders taken
from daily call sheets was 152. - Telephone calls made by the Tribes to the Commission's office as taken
from daily call sheets was 271.
FISCAL YEAR 1986- 1 987 :
TRIBAL CONTACTS THROUGH MAILINGS :
- Memorandum relative to the Commission's future. - Memorandum and 1987 Tribal Directory Forms.
- Personal letters relative to Commission's budget and continuation urging
their input as to how they perceive the Commission. - Memorandum with Tentative Business Agenda for the Commission's quarterly
Business Meeting with materials. - Capitol Drumbeat Newsletters ( 6 issues) .
- Memorandum advising Tribal leaders of the " U. S. Supreme Court Decision
Upholding Indian Regulation of Bingo Games. " - Memorandum - Commission Activities Update. - Memorandum listing legislative committees relative to the Sunset Review
along with explanation. - Memorandum relative to the Commission's history, functions and activities.
( APPENDIX A CONTINUED)
- Memorandum to tribal leaders advising of EBO's actual recommendations
to abolish the office. - Personal letter to the Havasupai Tribal Council with copy of Commission
Resolution supporting the Tribe's position with reference to Nuclear
Fuels of Denver, Inc. and explaining what the Commission had done in
regard to same, with copies to all tribes. - Memorandum along with the Tribal Issues and Concerns Questionnaire.
- Memorandum relative to the Director's resignation. - Memorandum and Agenda for the Commission's sponsored State/ Tribal/~ egislators
Seminar on the Legislative Process.
- Memorandum advising tribal leaders of state positions on boards/ commissions
opening and encouraging the submission of tribal names for the Commission to
endorse and forward to the Governor for appointment consideration.
- Memorandum advising tribal leaders of appointment expirations and encouraging
the submission of names for Governor consideration along with a current a
Commissioner Listing.
- Personal letters requesting copy of tribal seals for office records.
- Memorandum with Commission Resolution supporting the Indian veterans
relative to VA guaranteed home loan program.
- Personal letter to Havasupai Tribal Council relative to mining applications
of Nuclear Fuels of Denver, Inc..
- Personal letters with Concerns questionnaire. - Memorandum with Tentdtive Agenda for the Commission's quarterly Business
Meeting with materials.
- Annual Report. - Tribal Directory Information Forms.
- Tribal Directory.
- Memorandum enclosing Brevity of Arizona Indian Reservations brochure.
- Meeting transcripts are sent to the Tribal leaders following each Commission
quarterly meeting.
TRIBAL CONTACTS BY TELEPHONE:
- Telephone calls made by the Commission's staff to Tribal leaders was 205.
- Telephone calls made by the Tribes to the Commission's office was 293.
FISCAL YEAR 1985- 1 986 :
TRIBAL CONTACTS THROUGH MAILINGS :
- Personal letter to Chairman Drennan relative to setting up the requested
meeting between the Department of Revenue, ADOT and the Attorney General's
Office relative to gasoline taxation. Several other tribes were also invited.
- Memorandum relative to recreation fees being charged by tribes to non-
Indian tourists - questionnaire also sent.
4
- Personal letter to Governor Norris relative to his speaking during the
Native American Recognition Week at b7es. ley Bolin Memorial in which the
Commission was in charge of. - Memorandum to Tribal leaders relative to participating in the Native
American Recognition Week. 4
- Memorandum with listing of legislators and reservations within districts.
( APPENDIX A CONTINUED)
- Personal letters enclosing final copy of Sunset Report.
- Memorandum and ~ entative Agenda for the Commission's quarterly Business
- MMeeemtoirnagn. d um requesting the submission of tribal names f or~ jr pvern& consi-deration
in making appointments. --,. 4-
- Capitol Drumbeat Newsletters ( 6 issues) . - > * b
- Memorandum with questionnaire relative to the Conmission's makeup and
scope of responsibilities. - Memorandum enclosing Sunset Review Response Factors.
- Memorandum advising tribal leaders of Auditor General's telephone
survey to be conducted - Sunset Review. - Meeting transcripts are sent to the Tribal leaders following each Commission
Meeting. - Memorandum with Tribal Directory Information forms.
- Tribal Directory. - Annual Report.
TRIBAL CONTACTS BY TELEPHONE:
- Telephone calls made by the Commission's staff to the tribes was 260. - Telephone calls made by the Tribes to the Commission's office was 407.