Killing the messenger
The Denver Post
August 4, 2002
Department of the Interior is its own worst enemy. Case in point: Forcing the resignation last week of Thomas N. Slonaker, the official overseeing the untangling of up to $10 billion in disputed Indian trust accounts.
Slonaker, who has been vocally critical of Interior’s foot-dragging in settling the 300,000 or so accounts, apparently committed the unpardonable sin of telling Interior Secratary Gale Norton things she didn’t want to hear.
Slonaker, a Republican and former banker, was named to the position by President Clinton but retained by the Bush administration. (We note that his predecessor also was forced out by former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt for reasons similar to those leading to Slonaker’s ouster.)
The bottom line, though, is that Slonaker’s departure comes at a critical point in the long, drawn-out dispute over the Indian trust accounts and may further delay settlement of a 6-year-old lawsuit. The dispute centers on Interior’s handling of the trust accounts for revenues from oil and gas, mineral, grazing and other leases of Indian land, with some accounts dating to 1887. There’s no question that the government failed to keep proper track of the money owed the Indians. The government already has admitted some of the records may be lost.
Slonaker’s position was created by Congress in 1994 with the express direction that the trustee was to resolve the problem, and in late 2000, Congress told Interior in no uncertain terms to settle with the Indians.
Norton shifted gears on a settlement plan after strong opposition from the tribes, further delaying a final resolution – and that could get her in even more hot water with U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. He’s the presiding judge in the Indians’ lawsuit and has sharply criticized Norton for failing to include Slonaker in planning for the trust accounts.
Washington observers say that entrenched Justice Department bureaucrats have been giving Norton bad advice. Those observers predict that if there’s more litigation, Norton is bound to lose in court. Even many Indians say it would be better for Norton to go ahead and pay out the funds rather than get sidetracked in expensive accounting exercises and possible additional litigation. “What’s the difference between paying $2 or $2.50 if it’s going to cost you $5 (to adjudicate the issue)?” one Indian told Bill McAllister, chief of The Denver Post’s Washington bureau. “Why don’t you just go ahead and pay him?” Norton may not have liked Slonaker’s criticism, but she should bear in mind that people who tell you things you’d rather not hear aren’t necessarily enemies – and those who tell you what you want to hear aren’t always your friends.
| 
