Indianz.com
Although the government faces a daunting technical and policy task in
correcting more than 100 years of financial mismanagement of the trust fund,
internal battles at the Department of Interior are delaying what is owed to
an estimated 300,00 American Indians throughout the country, court
documents, reports and interviews show.
Charged by law to provide an accurate accounting of the funds owed to
American Indians, the Interior has been struggling to do just that. Lack of
adequate records, outmoded policies and outdated or non-existent computer
systems have forced the government to start from square one.
But even though top officials say fixing those problems isn’t “rocket
science” and claim Bureau of Indian Affairs employees are committed to
fixing the broken trust, high-level disputes over management, power
structure and how to handle the five-year-old Cobell v. Norton lawsuit are
hampering resolution.
The first indications came in late February, when an appeals court upheld a
landmark ruling against the government. Soon after, the BIA’s top computer
official, who had once managed a $40 million software project now widely
seen as a failure, raised serious concerns about the status of trust reform.
Dom Nessi’s memo lead to outrage among the Cobell plaintiffs and members of
Congress. Yet just a month later, Interior officials, including Special
Trustee Tom Slonaker and BIA Deputy Commissioner Sharon Blackwell, told a
House committee that trust reform was working.
The united front belied an internal dispute court monitor Joseph S. Kieffer
III has since uncovered in three reports. According to Kieffer, lawyers at
the Interior — along with senior management, including Blackwell — have
repeatedly engaged in battles with Slonaker about the trust fund.
According to Kieffer’s first report, senior management hatched a
now-discarded plan to conduct a statistical sampling of the trust accounts
over the objections of Slonaker’s office. The plan resulted in a year and
one-half of no progress to provide Indian beneficiaries a report of the
money they are owed, wrote Kieffer.
And when Slonaker tried to present what he considered a more accurate view
of the trust reform project, his comments were edited out, according to
Kieffer’s second report about the Trust Assets and Accounting Management
System (TAAMS). The revelation has since led Interior Solicitor Bill Myers,
a Bush appointee, to remove two of his attorneys from the trust fund.
But Kieffer’s recently released report on data cleanup points to trouble at
the top. When Slonaker objected to a court-mandated quarterly report now two
weeks overdue, Myers subjected him to “criticism and obstruction,” said
Kieffer.
Kieffer also blasts the Interior for the state of communication between
Slonaker and his boss, Secretary Gale Norton. Instead of meeting with
Slonaker face-to-face about what appear to be serious misgivings about
reform, she instead sent him a puzzling letter questioning his obstinance.
“The Secretary’s letter revealed an apparent lack of direct communications
with the Special Trustee and confusion,” over his objections, wrote Kieffer.
It is a footnote, however, that is more telling: “Would it not have been
more expedient for the Secretary to meet with her Special Trustee and the
Solicitor to learn of those concerns about trust reform operations rather
than write him a letter?” Kieffer wonders.
“And why had not the Special Trustee met or talked to the Secretary about
his concerns prior to addressing them in the Quarterly Report?” he added.
Kieffer goes on to question what Norton has claimed as progress in trust
reform. In July, she signed a secretarial order giving Slonaker more power
over the project.
But, according to Kieffer, the order may do little good due to the conflicts
at the Interior. Since Slonaker has not been given direct authority over
senior managers, he is unlikely to change the heart of the problem that has
delayed justice to the Indian beneficiaries, said Kieffer.
“The genesis of the problem stems directly from the senior management,”
wrote Kieffer, “who have refused to conduct the historical accounting,
covered up their mismanagement of TAAMS’ development, and failed to
effectively address the serious data cleanup issues or provide the
management and resources necessary to accomplish that cleanup; all the while
providing this Court with overly optimistic and misleading assessments of
data cleanup and trust reform operations.”
Congress has spent $514 million on trust reform and has indicated an
unwillingness to dedicate more unless given proof that certain projects are
working. Hearings on the trust fund are expected to be scheduled soon.
for more information: click here
|
