Oklahoma’s Second Century Building Alliances · existed for so long between tribes and government / private sector parties will continue to prevent large scale, mutually beneficial

The 2007 Town HallAn Official Oklahoma Centennial Conference

Quartz Mountain Resort Arts and Conference Center, Lone Wolf, OK, October 28-31

Building AlliancesOklahoma’s Second Century

Tribal Governments and Oklahoma’s Public and Private Sectors

2 - Building Alliances An Official Oklahoma Centennial Conference © The Oklahoma Academy

The Oklahoma Academy 2007 Town Hall

An Official Oklahoma Centennial Conference

Craig KnutsonResearch Coordinator

2007 Town Hall

Michael LapollaResearch Coordinator

2007 Town Hall

Julie KnutsonPresident & CEO

Oklahoma Academy

© The Oklahoma Academy An Official Oklahoma Centennial Conference Building Alliances - 3

This Research Says ... “Saddle Up, Oklahoma”Craig Knutson and Mike Lapolla, Academy Research Coordinators and

Julie Knutson, Academy President and CEO

The Oklahoma Advantage?There are many things that Oklahoma will neverhave such as high mountains, blue oceans and deepwater ports. These - and other unobtainable civicassets - seem to be contemporary magnets fordevelopment. But what DO we have that no otherstates possess? That would be 37 sovereign tribalgovernments each with special authority, advantagesand responsibility. And we have a public and privatesector (very) slowly developing an expertise ofworking with these tribes.

This ResearchVeteran Town Hall members and Academy leaderswill notice that this document is not as long as inprevious years. There are two reasons for that.

One is that we made a conscious decision to doreduce the work to 100 pages in order that it be lessintimidating and a more “user friendly length”. Theother is that we really could not identify a full 100pages of material relevant to the “alliances” that wehoped to find. Therein lies our major research finding– while there are some alliances, there are not asmany as we had presumed.

Therein also lies our opportunity. We know by theexisting alliances that “win-win’ is very possible. Butwe could not find an abundance of examples. Thatshould inspire all of us to create “win-win” in anynumber of civic areas such as health care, oil and gas,banking, economic development, education,infrastructure and other key elements of society.

AlliancesWhen you cut through all the fog, there arefundamental reasons why there are not already alarge number of dynamic alliances. The primaryreason is that there is not much knowledge and a lackof understanding about how tribal governments workand how alliances could work. The other reason isthat Oklahoma is a very young state and alliancestake time to develop. Now comes trust.

TrustProbably as fundamental - perhaps the MOSTfundamental - is TRUST. There is ample evidencethat tribes and non-tribal entities are wary of eachother. Each presumes the other is seeking advantage -and most have incomplete understandings of thepolitical systems at work. Bob Sullivan and PrincipalChief Jim Gray (Osage) will state:

“For Tribal and non-tribal parties to prospertogether, rather than to simply coexist, it is essentialthat this kind of trust be earned by all parties throughperformance. Otherwise, the barriers that haveexisted for so long between tribes and government /private sector parties will continue to prevent largescale, mutually beneficial prosperity.”

PoliticsIt is not well understood or appreciated that tribalofficials are involved in the electoral process too!Howard Barnett’s article includes this:

“But a subtle impediment – and one we non-Indianstend to forget – is that the tribal government withwhich you are negotiating is elected and the electedofficials are themselves keenly cognizant of their owntribal politics and how any agreement they mightmake could affect the next election.

This was vividly brought home to me in a negotiationthat had become bogged down over a complicatedissue. I proposed a rather complex and I thoughtelegant solution, to which the Chief of the triberesponded,––“That works. We could do that. Ofcourse I wouldn’t get re-elected, but we could dothat.” So much for my elegant solution!

SummaryThere it is in one page. The challenge of the TownHall is to identify tribal and non-tribal alliances thatallow each party to accomplish something they couldnot do alone. These alliances must be politicallyacceptable to all parties - and leavened with trust;alliances that create a win-win and benefit all


-Oklahoma's Capitol was one of only two capitol buildings de-signed for a dome which didn't have one put on when it was firstbuilt. The other was the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Just asPresident Lincoln put the dome on the U.S. Capitol as a symbol ofthe vibrancy of the Union, we in Oklahoma put a dome on ourcapitol five years ago as a symbol of Oklahoma rising. We were toopoor to put a dome on in 1918 but we could do it in the 21st Cen-tury.

The 22 foot bronze sculpture "The Guardian" (facing page) wasselected by the Arts Standard Committee of the Capital Preservation Commission to topthe Oklahoma State Capitol Dome in a dedication ceremony that occurred on November16, 2002. It was created by Enoch Kelly Haney, the Principal Chief of the SeminoleNation of Oklahoma. His grandfather, Willie Haney, was chief of the Seminole Tribe inthe 1940's.

Principal Chief Haney is an internationally recognized artist who has exhibited through-out the United States, Europe, and Asia. As a professional artist, Chief Haney owns andoperates Haney, Inc., an art business in Seminole, Oklahoma and has earned the title of"Master Artist of the Five Civilized Tribes".

A member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Chief Haney has also served in theNative American Community as a business consultant, councilman and planner/businessmanager for the Seminole nation; andd has also served in the Oklahoma State Senate.

(see www.kellyhaney.com)

The GuardianOklahoma’s Symbolic Alliance

Created by Enoch Kelly Haney



2007 Town HallAn Official Oklahoma Bicentennial Event

This Research Says ... “Saddle Up, Oklahoma”Craig Knutson and Mike Lapolla, Academy Research Coordinators andJulie Knutson, Academy President and CEO ................................................................................................ 3

Oklahoma’s Symbolic Alliance ...................................................................................................................... 4

NEW MEXICO & ARIZONA

American Indians in New MexicoReport of the 21st New Mexico First Town Hall, June 4-7, 1998, Albuquerque, New Mexico ..................... 9

American Indians in Arizona“American Indian Relationships In a Modern Arizona Economy”Sixty-Fifth Arizona Town Hall, October 30 - November 2, 1994 ................................................................ 16

OKLAHOMA

Prairie - Indian Territory - OklahomaCharles W. Blackwell, Esq., Chickasaw Nation Ambassador to the United States of America:Dr. Rennard J. Strickland, American Indian Law Center, University of Oklahoma School of Lawand Michael C. Hoenig, Esq. and Alicia F. Madalena ................................................................................ 21

SOVEREIGNTY

The Independent Origin of Tribal SovereigntyResearch compiled by Ryan Leonard, Attorney at Law, Oklahoma City..................................................... 25

GOVERNMENTS

The Unoffical Congressman for Indian CountryRepresentative Tom Cole, 5th Congressional District, Oklahoma .............................................................. 31

The Federal-Tribal RelationshipBy Neal McCaleb, Former Assistant Secretary of Interior-Indian AffairsMember, Chickasaw Nation......................................................................................................................... 34

Tribal Sovereignty: The Reality of NegotiatingHoward Barnett, former Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor .................................................................. 37

State Persective on Tribal SovereigntyScott Meacham, Treasurer, State of Oklahoma............................................................................................ 40

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

American Indian Land Tax CreditsOklahoma Department of Commerce .......................................................................................................... 43


State Policy Towards Tribes and Economic DevelopmentLarkin Warner, PhD, Regents Professor Emeritus, Oklahoma State University ......................................... 44

The Local Economic Impact of Tax Exempt Tribal Retail SalesMark C. Snead, Ph.D., Director, Center for Applied Economic Research, Oklahoma State Universityand, Steven R. Miller, Ph.D., Director, Center for Economic Analysis, Michigan State University ........... 58

Sustainable Cultural TourismLinda Turnbull-Lewis, Corporate Marketing Consultant, Cherokee Nation .............................................. 61

A Snapshot of Tribal Operations on OklahomaOklahoma Indian Nations Directory, Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission - 2006 Edition..................... 65

ALLIANCES

Alliances Are Not NewMary Jane Warde, PhD, Historian, Stillwater, Oklahoma .......................................................................... 67

Choctaws and DurantTim Young, Assistant City Manager, City of Durant .................................................................................... 69

Cherokees and TahlequahS. Diane Kelley, Group Leader, Cherokee Nation Career Servicesand Steven Edwards, Special Assistant, Cherokee Nation Career Services ................................................ 71

Sac & Fox and City of ShawneeJames C. Collard, Ph.D., City Manager, City of Shawnee .......................................................................... 73

Osage and the OilmanJim Gray, Principal Chief of the Osage Nation, andBob Sullivan, independent oil and gas operator, Tulsa ............................................................................... 76

Cherokees and Health CareMelissa Gower, Group LeaderHealth Services/Government Relations, Cherokee Nation .......................................................................... 78

American Indian Cultural Center & MuseumGena Howard, Oklahoma Native American Cultural & Educational AuthorityMary Ann Osko, Oklahoma Energy Resources Board................................................................................. 81

Alliance for Roads and BridgesMichael Lynn, Director, Roads Program, Cherokee Nation........................................................................ 84

The National Hospital for the American Indian?Michael Lapolla, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma ........................................................ 86

ALLIANCES REDUX

The Kiowa-Clemente “Alliance”Sanders Huguenin, Vice President for Academic Affairs andAssociate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma ................................... 89

Concentrations of Indian Populations......................................................................................................... 91


NEW MEXICO&

ARIZONA


INTRODUCTIONThe Twenty-First New Mexico First Town Hallconvened in Albuquerque on June 4, 1998 toexplore the state of individual and governmentalrelations and to identify ways to overcomechallenges to achieving better relations betweenthe 19 New Mexico pueblos, the Jicarilla ApacheTribe, the Mescalero Apache, and the NavajoNation as well as other America Indians residing inNew Mexico and their neighbors. The Town Hallrecognizes that while there are many obstacles tobetter relations, many opportunities exist fordeveloping more productive, positive relationsbetween New Mexico American Indians and theirneighbors to take steps to communicate better andturn opportunities into successes.

PERCEPTIONS AND BELIEFSThe history of relationships between AmericanIndians and their neighbors in New Mexico is longand complex. Much of the current relationship isthe result of ignorance, broken promises andviolent conflict. Today, among both AmericanIndians and their neighbors, there remainsignorance, fear, mistrust and misunderstandings.This history and atmosphere of mistrust andmisunderstanding is responsible for many presentconflicts, which can be initiated by eitherAmerican Indians or non-Indians. Sometimes,actins taken by federal, state, andlocal governments encroach orthreaten to encroach upon tribalsovereignty, which includes theinherent right of tribes to self-govern. Other times actions takenby tribes in defense of theirsovereignty are perceived asthreats, or at least inconveniences,by the non-Indian public. Bothmay result from misunderstandingand lack of communication.

American Indians in New MexicoReport of the 21st New Mexico First Town Hall, June 4-7, 1998, Albuquerque, New Mexico

The Town Hall acknowledges that many AmericanIndians and non-Indians hold certain negativestereotypes and generalizations about each other –many of them perpetuated by institutions,including the media – which interfere with theestablishment of better relationships. AmericanIndians pay taxes and contribute significantly tothe economy of New Mexico, particularly incommunities neat the pueblos and reservationsthrough commerce and trade, which includesprofessional services, tourism, arts and crafts,economic development, including gaming, andnatural resources.

Inaccurate and unfair generalizations fail to takeinto account that American Indian people havefaced many challenges as a result of their uniquehistory. Education for American Indians is oftenbelow non-Indian school standards. AmericanIndians who live off their reservation in urbancommunities have special needs which often arenot recognized or met by the public, private, ornon-profit sectors. Urban Indians are rapidlyincreasing in number and their presence has beenlargely invisible to state, local, tribal, and federalgovernments. Moreover, American Indiansstruggle constantly to uphold deeply held spiritualand familial traditions while attempting to adjust tonon-Indian business, education and social systems.

The Town Hall strongly urgesAmerican Indians and non-Indians alike to become moreeducated about American Indianpeople and tribal governments inorder to become more sensitiveto their interests and concernsand low they affect all NewMexicans.


The Town Hall made some general observationsabout how American Indians and their neighborscould expand their understanding of each other. Aconstant effort to increase mutual sensitivity toAmerican Indian issues can begin at the earliestages. Young Americans and their neighbors can beencouraged to form relationships with each otherthrough organized personal interaction in schoolsand sports. School curriculum should strengthenthe accuracy of historical instruction andappreciation of the diverse cultures.The Town Hallalso recognizes the need for more effective,positive use of the media; the drafting ofeducational materials focusing on Indian historyand current issues, perspectives, andaccomplishments. In addition, the New MexicoBoard of Education should be encouraged to adoptan approved curriculum prepared by Indianeducators that promotes Indian history, culture,values and perspectives as part of out overalleducational process.

Non-Indians should take some relatively simplesteps to include tribal governments in public affairsof the outside world. For example, invitingparticipation of tribes and pueblos in appropriateregional governmental organization would be aneffective way to build state/tribal relations withrespect to New Mexico’s issues of water and landuse planning.

There are 22 unique tribal entities in New Mexico,each with autonomous governments. In addition,significant numbers of American Indians fromtheses and other tribes, numbering approximately33,000 persons, live in our urban areas. Thesespeoples and entities are also comprised of families,chapters and bands, each with distinct customs,values, and practices. The tendency to generalizeabout American Indian tribes and pueblos in NewMexico is central to problems non-Indians facewhen attempting to establish business or servicerelationships with American Indian tribes.

Difficult issues often appear to be insurmountable.But difficult issues are opportunities forcooperative, consultative work.

We can always agree to disagree. It is better forfederal, state, local, and tribal governments as wellas citizens to work cooperatively, to seek acommon ground.

FINANCING AND DELIVERY OF SERVICESHealth care, education, housing, economicdevelopment, business regulations and taxation allaffect the quality of life on American Indianreservation and in surrounding communities. TheTown Hall recognizes a clear need for improvedcollaboration and coordination among state andtribal governments to improve delivery of services,increased funding in certain areas, and greaterparticipation by individuals and groups who are thebeneficiaries of healthcare and education funding.

The Town Hall consensus is that dual taxation –tribal and state taxation of identical activities ontribal lands – is inappropriate because it caninfringe on tribal sovereignty and can hurt bothtribes and the state by discouraging businessdevelopment on pueblos and reservations. Manyoptions were considered for resolving the problem:from the outright elimination of state taxation onAmerican Indian land, to revenue sharing, tocomprehensive evaluation of state governmentexpenditures for programs benefiting Indianscompared with the state tax revenues generatedfrom American Indian lands, American Indianactivities, and individuals. The town Hallrecommends that the state and tribes work on agovernment-to-government basis to proposelegislation to eliminate the negative consequencesof the total tax structure on American Indiangovernments, communities, and New Mexicobusinesses.

Moreover, the Town Hall recognizes a need forstate and tribal government s to acknowledge eachothers’ law-making, regulatory, and enforcementauthorities. Expanded use of joint powers’agreements within the legislative, executive, andjudicial branches could do much to establishformat, government relations among AmericanIndian tribes and pueblos and state and localgovernments.


The Town Hall recommends that state personneland contracting codes be amended to increaseAmerican Indian employment and contractingopportunities on state projects involving Indiancountry.

Health care funding and delivery are evolvingnationwide in the direction of a managed systemwhich affects health care choices and negativelyimpacts health services to American Indians andNew Mexicans. This movement toward controlledcost containment is causing great dissatisfactionamong American Indian leaders and beneficiariesabout how financing decisions are made, howfunding is controlled, and whether AmericansIndians’ health care needs are the primary interestbeing served. The Town Hall recommends that thePublic Regulation commission and the Legislatureestablish a task force representative of all tribalentities and urban Indians to implement a formaconsultation process to adopt, regulate, andimplement state/federal mechanisms to improvehealth care service delivery to American Indianpeople, including long-term care services for thosewith disabilities.

American Indians and their neighbors alike haveconcerns about acquiring quality education fortheir children. The quality of that education shouldbe consistent regardless of the child’s communityor the location of his or her school with particularemphasis on improving American Indian studentachievement. Student competency andunderstanding of cultural diversity shall berequired as part of the State Board of EducationContent Standards and local educational plans forstudent success.

The Town Hall recommends that individualsbecome more active, organize themselves asparents and communities, and run for electiveoffice on school boards to make the greatestpossible impact on educational services in theircommunities. Of specific focus are programs thatreaffirm multiculturalism and multilingualeducation, and reject English-only curricula whilerecognizing the importance of English proficiency.

Additionally, programs that focus on helpingyoung people in preparation for competencyexams, and help them make the transitions fromsecondary and post-secondary schools to universitysettings are recommended.

American Indians and non-Indians concernedabout the quality of education for all AmericanIndian students will form a statewide coalition toaddress the numerous issues raised at this TownHall and to develop an implementation plan. It isfurther recommended that the State Board ofEducation and Department of Education beresponsible for facilitation this process.

The Town Hall recommends that teachercompensation, training and recruiting all beconsistent and improved for all New Mexicoschools. Of special importance is the requirementof education teachers in diversity and AmericanIndian culture and history. The tribes, privatesector, and legislators will be called upon toappropriate new revenues to education, includingtransportation and capital improvements.

The Town Hall recommends that tribal,educational and all leaders examine state fundingfor public schools and the factors taken intoconsideration to equalize that funding for allschools serving American Indian students.

A VISION OF NEW MEXICOThe Town hall expressed its vision of New Mexicoclearly and eloquently: That People of all culturestreat each other with respect and understanding;multiculturalism is celebrated for the differences itdisplays and for the strength it provides; AmericanIndian communities continue to govern themselveswithout threat from their neighbors; disadvantagedcommunities are provided the educational andtechnological tools to improve their economicwealth, and opportunities for economic prosperityare shared; religions and spiritual beliefs aremutually recognized and respected; quality healthcare and housing are universally available; theenvironment is protected for the common good; theearth, air, water, wildlife, and other natural


resources are utilized responsibly and respectfully;and sacred lands are preserved; American Indiansand non-Indian reach out and communicate in aspirit of cooperation to prevent and resolvedisagreements.

Following are some excerpts from visionstatements drafted by the eight panels of the 21st

Town Hall: “A place where individuals,communities, institutions, their values, beliefs andtraditions are respected, valued and honored; aplace where future generation of New Mexicanshave a forum where each can dialogue and createavenues for compromise, enabling individuals andcommunities to maximize their potential whilerespecting the differences within each group.”

“A New Mexico where:

• All citizens and legislators understand thespecial issues involved in American Indianeducation;

• Tribal sovereignty is mutually understood andrespected;

• All parties are included in the processes so thatour diversity can be our strength;

• The media accurately reflect American Indianissues;

• Barriers to economic development areeliminated, while maintaining our cultures andpreserving what is unique about New Mexico;

• “The special community known as NewMexico increasingly will require its residentAmerican Indians and their non-Indianneighbors to pursue common solutions whilerecognizing each others’ inherent differencesand desire for independence.”

• “Where all people recognize that the diverseand interlocking nature of New Mexico’scultures is dependent on cooperation andrespect.”

• “A future in which sovereignty is not a defenseof land base threats to tribes, wheresovereignty is an inherent right to governourselves and allow tribes to continue toeducate themselves about what sovereignty is.”

• “A partnership of cultures rather than a“melting pot” approach.”

• “A genuine respect for our environment and aconscious effort by all parties to prudently usenon-renewable resources.”

• “A healthy community, in body and soul, thatinspires hope for all people not only here butas a national whole and as members of thehuman family. A vision that the state does notview the American Indian culture as ahistorical relic but as a thriving and healthy,contributing culture that adds to our lives asresidents and the nation as a whole.”

• “Health care and education that are affordableand accessible to all communities, focusing onprevention as well as treatment.”

• “Acting as role models for our youth.”

• “Learning from our mistakes and planning amore caring community. Not repeating themistakes of overdevelopment in ourcommunities. Respect the spiritual sites ofindividual tribes.”

The Town Hall recognized many examples ofprograms that will help New Mexico achieve itsvision: the most ideal future that can be described.The success stories cover many aspects of life inthe modern era. There are many widespread, butlittle-known efforts to build bridges ofunderstanding. The number and diversity ofongoing projects and one-time initiatives clearlyoffer many models of cooperation andparticipation that can be implemented by othertribal and non-Indian governmental leaders tofoster better communication and relations.


Because these successes are numerous, andbecause specific details could not be fullydeveloped during the Town Hall, they are listed inthe appendix.

BUILDING BRIDGESThe Twenty-First Town Hall produced a number ofprocess improvements and new relationshipframeworks to advance the building ofrelationships between American Indians and non-Indians. The recommendations include bettercommunication and establishment of personal andbusiness relationships as well as those that wouldimprove the government-to-governmentrelationships that are so important to providingservices to New Mexico residents.

The Town Hall stronglyrecommends that thegovernor issue anexecutive order and theState Legislaturememorialize that thestate adopt a policysimilar to 1EO 13083and 13084 directingconsultation andcoordination with Indiantribal governments. Thestate must assure thatthis policy isimplemented at alllevels of government.

The Town Hall recommends the continued pursuitof options and processes to develop an integratedhealth care delivery system for American Indiansthat will not abrogate the federal trustresponsibility. The health care industry ischanging and is becoming more difficult tounderstand. Theses changes are especiallychallenging for Indian people because of culturaland language differences. The effect is that it isbecoming harder for American Indian people,particularly the elderly, to acquire health careservices.

The Town Hall recognizes that one of the greatesthandicaps of the Indian Health Service is itsseverely inadequate appropriations. There is noassistant secretary position in IHS that isanalogous to the assistant secretary position inBIA, for example, and therefore there is no onewith the authority or mandate to advocate onbehalf of HIS. Because HIS has sufferedtremendously as a result and because Indian healthis a trust responsibility, the Town Hall believes thisposition should be created and staffed, that ourcongressional delegation sponsor this initiativewith appropriate legislation, and that New Mexicotribes should spearhead and follow through tosupport this legislation.

The Town Hall alsorecommends thatcultural sensitivitytraining be required ofall new and existingstate and localgovernment employees,in order to fosterunderstanding ofAmerican Indian issuesamong the governmentwork force. Thistraining should be donethrough a diversityprogram of qualifiedtrainers. Additionally,all newly electedofficials should be

encouraged to attend special training on AmericanIndian issues of tribal sovereignty andintergovernmental relations.

The Town Hall also recommends that courses inHew Mexico’s cultural diversity be required forteacher certification. All education licensure, newand renewal must include multiculturalcompetency.

The State Board of Education shall ensure thatstate-adopted instructional materials thoroughlycover American Indian history, sovereignty, and


intergovernmental relations. The statewide IndianEducation Coalition will develop specificrecommendations for publishers and writers ofAmerican Indian history textbooks and materials toensure that all their materials are historically andculturally accurate and appropriate.

The New Mexico First Town Hall recommendsthat existing state and local agencies be responsiveto all American Indian religions and sacred sitesfor preservation. It is further recommended that allsites be preserved in spite of economic pressuresthat may cause desecration of these sacred sites.Many of these sites are still continuously beingutilized by American Indian people.

The Town Hall recommends that the Office ofAmerican Indians Affairs be empowered to take onadditional duties aimed at improving theframework and developing protocols for bettergovernment-to-government relationships. TheTown Hall recommended that new procedures beformalized and institutionalized by which the state,local and tribal governments can work throughconflicts and resolve them before resorting tolitigation. Also the Town Hall found the need forevermore communication and meetings duringtimes of transition in state, local and tribalgovernments.

The Town Hall recommends that New Mexico’sexecutive and legislative branches work on agovernment-to-government basis with tribalgovernments to conduct tactual studies and then torecommend mutually acceptable solutions to:

• dual taxation on American Indian reservations

• sharing of revenue derived from activitiesincluding by not limited to gross receipts taxes,tourism, severance taxes, and law-enforcementrevenue.

• support pending legislation and 2Title 8 PL 874(impact aid) funding; that provides for directsupport and augmentation of American Indianeducation

• the addition of pre-schools for all pre-kindergarten students below the poverty levelto be funded by the Legislature.

• address the problem of American Indianstudent school attendance

• Encourage representation of American Indianson rural and urban school boards.

The Town Hall recommends that state, local, andtribal governments cooperatively undertake acampaign presenting examples of possiblecontributions of American Indians to help fosterbetter relation with non-Indian people in NewMexico. Furthermore the town Hall recommendseffective use of media to reach the general publicand create a positive self-image for youngAmerican Indian people.

The Town Hall also identified a number ofactivities that American Indian communitiesshould undertake to help foster better relationswith non-Indian people in New Mexico. Moreeffective use of the media, including mainstreamnewspapers, radio talk show, as well as electronicmedia on the Internet.

The Town Hall leaves it to the citizens of NewMexico to find more innovative and appealingways of reaching out. Suggestions includeestablishing an in-state sister city program betweenAmerican Indian and non-Indian communities andcreating a “United Nations” concept in NewMexico.

The Town Hall also urges greater interactionbetween American Indians and their neighbors on apersonal level, which will result in less mistrustand greater understanding and will lead to betteroverall relations. For example, activities as simpleas community potluck dinners would encourageworking together through the traditions of”breaking bread” and sharing physical, spiritual,mental, and emotional nourishment, whilerecognizing there remain some tribes who wish tocontinue to be private as a means of preservingtheir culture.


The Town Hall recognizes and supports theprocess and protocols identified in the July 1996State/Tribal Memorandum of Agreement to workcooperatively on a government-to-governmentbasis.

The Town Hall recommends that tribes considerenhancing economic development throughadoption of business and commercial codes,ensuring that tribal courts have fair andunderstandable procedures, and that they exploreopportunities to partner with business and othergovernments.

The Town Hall recommends that the New MexicoCongressional Delegation secure funding for tribalcourse as authorized but not yet appropriated underthe Tribal Justice Act.

The entities that are responsible for these bridge-building efforts are too numerous to mention. Thelist includes every person, every business, everyschool every media organization, everygovernmental agency, every tribe, every puebloand every religious leader. That is becausebuilding truly productive and positive relationshipstakes everyone’s work over a long period of time.

CONCLUSIONThe Twenty-First New Mexico First Town Hallbegan with a remark that American Indians arealways having to fight for what they need. TheTown Hall recognizes the truth in this statement. Itconcludes that more consistent two-waycommunication and understanding will make itpossible to establish the government-to-government relationships that will reduce the needto fight and bring more positive action for NewMexicans.

American Indian people have many emergingchallenges that are unacceptable: suicide amongyouth, very high dropout rates from school andjuvenile crime. The Town Hall concluded that theyshould not have to fight to protect their right togovern themselves and determine their destiny.

This town Hall was convened in a loving spirit ofhope and unity. It ended with a hopeful call forAmerican Indians and non-Indians to communicatebetter, to recognize that their differences are theirstrengths, to face problems together, and to worktogether for the benefit of New Mexico. Andfinally, but most importantly, the Town Hallbelieves that American Indian tribes and AmericanIndian people have a right to exist and thrive as adistinct culture, with a unique histories andgovernment, and that the preceding discussions,positions, and recommendations reflect this belief.

1 Federal Executive Order referring to the issue offederalism and the unique legal relationship oftribal governments with the federal governmentand the order to executive agencies to consult andcoordinate with tribal governments on all issuesdirectly affecting them.

2 At this time the State of New Mexico takes 95% ofthe Title VIII PL-874 (Impact Aid) funds from theNative American Student living on tribal lands.They equalize this funding among all schooldistricts. The Title VIII

PL-874 was intended to be used to offset the lackof property tax.


A Message from the ChairmanIn the rapid pace of today’s living, men andwomen of stature and ability too often aretied solely to the particular sphere of theirown everyday activities. Yet the veryqualities that have made these peopleleaders in their fields of endeavor are thoseessential to the understanding and solutionof many of the broad concerns that face allArizonans.

With this in mind, the Arizona Town Hallsbegan in October 1962 to bring togetherdifferent groups of leading citizensperiodically for a thorough considerationof various issues and concerns facing ourstate. These groups are selected carefullyto constitute a valid cross section of stateleadership – geographically andoccupationally – representative of a widediversity of political, social and economicphilosophies.

There have been sixty-five Town Halls todate. The sixty-fifth, held at GrandCanyon on October 30-November 2, 1994,addressed - “American IndianRelationships in a Modern ArizonaEconomy.” More that fifteen yearshad passed since the last Town Hallon a similar topic in 1979.

Since that time we have seen astrengthening of tribal governmentsas tribes have sought and assumeda greater role in administering theirown affairs for their benefit. Inmost recent years we also haveseen the passage of the 1988Federal Indian Gaming RegulatoryAct and the struggles and

disagreements that tribes across thecountry have encountered as they haveworked to expand gaming operations on anumber of their reservations. As thisbackground report went to press in lateAugust of 1994, each day was bringingfurther events that would affect the TownHall discussions.

The U.S. Senate had recently scrapped aproposal that was the result of months oftribal/state negotiations seeking toestablish new standards for casinos onreservations and was attempting to draft asubstitute bill. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (bordering onScottsdale) had just voted to establishcasino gambling on their reservation; theNavajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe havevoted against the establishment of casinogaming.

Each of these actions serves to highlightthe need to develop more positive workingrelationships between Arizona Indian andnon-Indian communities for the future.

To provide all theparticipants in the Townhall with fundamentalbackground informationfrom which to launchtheir detaileddiscussions, TheUniversity of Arizona,working together withNorthern ArizonaUniversity, developedthe followingbackground on thesubject. Our sincere

American Indians in Arizona“American Indian Relationships In a Modern Arizona Economy”Sixty-Fifth Arizona Town Hall, October 30 - November 2, 1994


thanks go to the universities and to themany individuals involved whocontributed long, concentrated hours ofwork to prepare this thoughtful andinformative report. Please keep in mindthat this volume has been developed togive laypeople a broad background on thesubject.

There were a number of Town Hallparticipants who work daily within thissubject area for whom this text servedprimarily as a good review. On the otherhand, it provided a solid introduction to thetopic for the majority of the participantswho were not that familiar with manyaspects of this topic.

The Town Hall recommendationsregarding American Indian relationshipshave been combined with the universites’background information into this finaldocument that will be circulated widelythroughout the state.

It is our belief that the total report will beof lasting value to Arizona’s publicofficials and other citizens as we all striveto develop a win/win relationship’– a winfor Arizona’s Indian tribes in securinglong-term prosperity for a greater numberof their people and consequently a win forall Arizonans in improving the state’soverall economy and well being.

Sincerely,

Barbara RalstonChairman of the Board

ForwardIndian gaming, which has increaseddramatically throughout the state over thepast two years, has become the catalyst forheated discussion among Arizona’scitizens, including those who took part inthe June 1993 discussion to select topicsfor the 1994 Town Halls.

However, those discussions quicklybrought to light the fact that Indian gamingis serving as the “lightening rod” tohighlight issues that have existed since thefounding of our country: the many anddiverse issues of American Indian/non-Indian relationships.

The Sixty-fifth Arizona Town Hallbackground report outlines some of thesenumerous and diverse issues.

In the state of Arizona, 21 sovereign Indiannations reside on 20 reservations thattogether constitute approximately 28percent of the state’s land base – a greaterproportion than in any other state.Historically, American Indians living onreservations have formed the poorestminority population in the United States.

Yet, in spite of their physical remotenessand, often, a lack of modern infrastructure,several Indian communities have recentlyimplemented successful economicdevelopment projects that have reducedunemployment, increased individual andtribal incomes, and subsequently reducedoverall tribal poverty. Included in thesesuccessful development activities areIndian gaming operations.

In the state of Arizona, 16 tribes areestablishing, or are in the process ofestablishing, gaming facilities on theirreservations. In the views of many triballeaders, gaming represents the first realhope of building substantial economies on


the reservations by using gaming revenuesas a catalyst for other long-term economicdevelopment projects. But not all tribescan benefit from gaming; manyreservations are located in remote areas ofthe state and cannot be readily accessed bypotential customers. (A detailed discussionon Indian gaming can be found in Section3 of this background report).

The Sixty-fifth Town Hall focusedapproximately one-fourth of its discussionson Indian gaming issues, but not on thequestion of whether Arizona should havegaming; Indian gaming on the reservationsalready is specifically permitted by federallegislation and has been in practice to alimited extent in other areas throughout thestate for some time. The concerns thatwere discussed revolve around the legaland political issues involved, state andfederal regulation of gaming, and theimpacts and potential impacts onreservation economic development nowand for the future.

The greater portion of the three-daydiscussions considered the numerous otherconcerns that brought to the forefront thecircumstances of economic developmenton Indian reservations: how to maintainstrong sovereign governments that caneffectively manage the responsibility forstrengthening and maintaining physicalinfrastructures, health care, education,housing, law enforcement and socialservices on reservations while workingwith other local governments in Arizona.

The background report, prepared forcareful study by participants beforearriving at the Town Hall, sought toprovide information, to delineatecontentious issues that may presentobstacles to viable economic developmenton Indian reservations, and to providefocus subjects to stimulate discussion at

the Town Hall. Throughout the report, youwill find examples of Indian/non-Indiancooperation, disagreement, jointundertakings, political compromise andmisunderstandings.

Indian gaming, as well as other effectiveeconomic development projects onreservations, offers multiple and diverseopportunities for new approaches toworking through both Indian and non-Indian concerns, and not just thoseconcerns directly related to developmentand the economy but also those related tointerpersonal issues.

How can we mutually recognize theproblems presented by the commingling ofIndian and non-Indian cultures?

How can we, together, best deal with thoseproblems? There are, and probably willcontinue to be, cultural issues andcircumstances that will lead tomisunderstandings between Indians andnon-Indians.

The new hope for more positive economicsituations on Indian reservations has thepotential to bring with it a betterunderstanding and improved relationshipsbetween American Indians and non-Indians.

To foster positive relationships betweenArizona’s American Indians and non-Indians, Arizonans and Indian tribes needto develop a position regarding Indianeconomic development on reservations thatwill provide a win-win situation for Indiantribes and the state as a whole. Such aposition will assist Arizona’s Indian tribesin securing long-term positive economicdevelopment for their people, andultimately will improve the state’s overalleconomy and well-being. The Sixty-fifthArizona Town Hall sought to take a step inthat direction.


TOWN HALL SUMMARY

The 65th Arizona Town Hall constructivelyaddressed two interwoven issues ofsubstantial significance to all Arizonans—relations between American Indians andnon-Indians, and economic developmentefforts involving both groups. Recentdevelopments in Indian gaming provided thecatalyst for weaving these issues together inthe hope of strengthening the economicfuture of all Arizonans. Following are just afew of the major findings andrecommendations.

• The principal barrier to American Indiansand non-Indians working together is thepervasive lack of understanding and trust.Communication and education are thekeys to removing this barrier. Betterconduits for communication of tribal viewpoints to state and local governmentsshould be instituted. Two suggestions – 1)a cabinet-level office created in stategovernment and 2) representation oncommittees appointed by state legislativebodies.

• The concepts of “sovereignty”and”“federal trust responsibility” arewidely misunderstood and justifysignificantly more energy and attentionthan they have received to date.

• The B.I.A. needs to continuouslyreevaluate and redefine its role to reflectthe growing self-sufficiency of tribes; thisfederal bureaucracy poses inherentbarriers to tribal self-determination andprogress.

• Tribal leaders must create an environmentand infrastructure to allow developmentand progress. Tribal leaders are focusing,and need to focus more, on creating theirown solutions and resources and onredefining their relationships with thefederal government.

• Tribal, state and local governments canmore effectively come together byfocusing on long-range goals instead ofalways dealing in crisis management.

• In order to develop a common factualbasis for further addressing statetaxations policy toward AmericanIndians, Town Hall recommends that anappropriate group be commissioned toquantify taxation issues with relevantrepresentation from all affected parties.

• Town Hall believes that gamingactivities on reservations havesuccessfully provided American Indiansand tribes with numerous benefits thatmight otherwise never have occurredand have provided the economic base formany tribes that federal programs failedto generate. On balance, the benefits totribes and tribal members clearlyoutweigh the detriments.

• Local governments are not and shouldnot be involved in regulating Indiangaming. However, it is particularlyimportant for communities near Indianreservations with gaming to coordinateefforts and engage in cooperativeplanning with tribes to address land use,transportation infrastructure and lawenforcement needs.

• Conventional lenders must make agreater commitment to understand thefinancing needs of tribes and work withthe tribes to find creative solutions.Tribal interests, on the other hand, mustwork to better understand what lendersneed to proceed with financing.

• Coordination of state, local and tribaleconomic development plans must takeplace in the future.


OKLAHOMA


PrairieThe story of Oklahoma, as it is today, formallybegan when President Jefferson arranged theLouisiana Purchase in 1803. Before then most ofit was simply tall prairie visited occasionally bygroups of native peoples hunting in the vastbuffalo herds that fed on the rich grasses or whowere traveling through on their way to someplaceelse. It was an area where water could be precious,the weather unpredictably extreme with few placesof natural habitability. The Caddo people likelyoccupied parts of southeastern Oklahoma at certaintimes of the year and the Wichita certainlyidentified specific parts of the western lands astheirs. For most other Tribes, their historicpresence in Oklahoma was not permanent.

There are vivid accounts from early travelers ofhunting and warfare on the prairie by the nativenomadic plains peoples such as the Comanche,Kiowa and Cheyenne. The prairie seems to havebeen respected as a common area for hunting andseasonal retreat; it wasn’t considered suitable forpermanent habitation at the time. Native oralhistory says this is the way it had been forhundreds, if not, indeed, thousands of years.

Indian TerritoryWritten history began when Thomas Jefferson hadthe idea to use the southern prairie lands in theLouisiana Purchase to re- locate native peoplesfrom the various places where they were living. Hefelt lands in the U.S. states, including traditionaltribal lands, needed to be acquired for agrarian useby non-native, Caucasian farmers. Jefferson, aplanter from Virginia, therefore devised a plan tomake all land east of the Mississippi available forfarming and he had to move the tribal peoples whohistorically occupied these lands to places west ofthe Mississippi. Andrew Jackson, a militaristicwoodsman from Tennessee, implemented his plan.Indian Territory was thus born.

Individual tribal governments had and still do haveindependent authority as domestic sovereignnations over their individual tribal populations andover their individual tribal lands. Tribes trace theirauthority back to when their sovereignty wassupreme, i.e. before European contact. Thesovereignty of native nations was respected andacknowledged by the French, Spanish, and Englishexplorers and immigrants.

Ultimately, the American founding fathers(Jefferson being one of them), memorialized thisrespect and acknowledgement by recognizingAmerican Indian tribes and their sovereignty in theCommerce Clause as they wrote the Constitutionof the United States. Respect andacknowledgement of tribal sovereignty isembodied in law and society today.

Every United States President since John F.Kennedy, regardless of political party, has formallyacknowledged this tribal sovereignty and thepowers of tribal selfgovernance. Being domesticsovereign nations, however, tribal governmentsand their tribal citizens are subject to the plenaryregulatory power of the United States Congress.

This creates the Federal – Tribal trust relationshipand is why there is a committee on Indian Affairsin the U.S. Senate and why the House ofRepresentatives give responsibility for AmericanIndian affairs to the Natural Resources committee.This trust relationship is legal and affirmed by theSupreme Court of the United States.

OklahomaOne hundred years ago when Indian Territory wasmerged into the new state of Oklahoma, most ofthe tribally owned land was taken. Thesovereignty of the tribal governments did remainintact and the individual tribal citizens retainedtheir historic tribal citizenship and became citizens

Prairie - Indian Territory - OklahomaCharles W. Blackwell, Esq., Chickasaw Nation Ambassador to the United States of America:

Dr. Rennard J. Strickland, American Indian Law Center, University of Oklahoma School of Lawand Michael C. Hoenig, Esq. and Alicia F. Madalena


of Oklahoma as well. Each class of citizenship,U.S., state, Tribal and local has a separate set ofrights and responsibilities.

A substantial number of Indian Tribes and Bandswere removed to Indian Territory and of thosethirty- nine (39) federally recognized tribes remainin Oklahoma today [ed. note: there are 37 FRT asof August 2007]. Each one is separate and distinctwith its individual government, land, culture,identity, language and citizenry. Each one isunique and separate unto itself. By conservativeestimate based on the 2000 official U.S. Census,there are more than 350,000 Oklahomans living inOklahoma who are enrolled citizens of these 39tribes. This does not include mixed- blooddescendants who are not enrolled. The nativetribal imprint on Oklahoma land and its people isdeep and permanent.

Just as the Federal government and stategovernments, each of the thirty- nine tribalgovernments in Oklahoma has a responsibility totend to the well- being and safety of its citizens.Tribal governments have been doing this for manyhundreds of years. Tribal government sovereignjurisdiction covers its citizens, tribal land and thosepeople on it. A tribal government, in the course ofexercising its governmental duties andresponsibilities exercises the following sovereignrights, recognized and enforced by the UnitedStates Congress and judicially confirmed, to:

1. Self-government.2. Regulate property.3. Tax.4. Maintain law and order.5. Regulate domestic relations.6. Establish and regulate commerce and trade.

Tribes exercise these rights not only to protectthemselves from state and federal incursion butalso to control their individual destinies assovereign nations.

For example, tribes most often assert theirsovereign rights in these areas:

Natural ResourcesTribes are the owners of the natural resources onand under their land. Tribes can regulate theconduct of members and non-members on triballand, set environmental standards, and determine ifand how natural resources such as natural gas,coal, and timber will be developed and/ or used.

Cultural PropertyBeginning with it’s very name,’“Oklahoma”(Choctaw: “Home of the People.”), this state isheavily influenced by names, art, languages,stories, music, beliefs, religious symbols and tribalcommunity values of the state’s native citizens andtribes. A sensitive and appropriate use of thesecultural properties for commercial or privatepurposes should only be done with the advice andconsent of the affected tribe. The influence ofIndian art and religious symbolism on modernAmerican culture is undeniable.

American Indians are protected by the sameintellectual property laws as every other person inthe United States. Additionally, Congress haspassed specific laws, like the Indian Arts andCrafts Act, which prevents non-Indians fromfalsely portraying and trading art and crafts asIndian made and carries fines of up to $1,000,000and/ or five (5) years imprisonment for sellingproducts presented as Native American made whenthey, in fact, are not. It assures authenticity.American Indian human remains and funeraryobjects are specifically protected by the NativeAmerican Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Hunting and FishingThe hunting, fishing and gathering rights affordedIndian tribes are based in treaties, statues,executive orders or agreements. These are rightsthat cannot be taken by Congress or the courtswithout compensation. Tribes have the right toregulate hunting and fishing by members and, inmost instances, non-members on tribal lands.

TaxationThe power to tax is a fundamental element ofinherent tribal sovereignty. Indian tribes have the


power to levy taxes on members, non-members,and non- Indians on tribal trust land.

Individual Indians in Oklahoma are subject tofederal, state and local taxes includingunemployment, FICA, and social security. Thereare certain federally- mandated tax benefitsintended to encourage and provide incentives todoing business with Indian tribes. Tribalgovernments can issue tax- exempt bonds.

Political Process.Although not directly represented in Congress,Indian tribes and individual Indians still take partin the federal political process in a multitude ofways. First, people vote. Native Americans holdseats in the Congress, occupy high rankingpositions within federal agencies, and work in alllevels of the American legal system and sometribes maintain a diplomatic presence inWashington, D.C. When they vote, many tribalmembers cast their ballot for candidates or issueswhich will advance certain causes or issues thatbenefit their tribe and American Indians generally.Tribes also make their political presence known byproffering certain matters to the appropriatepolitical bodies and encouraging support forvarious positions. They also educate lawmakers onissues important to the tribal government.

Criminal Jurisdiction.Tribal criminal jurisdiction, the power to establishrules of conduct and to punish those who violatethe rules, generally extends to offenses committedby one Indian against another within the Tribe’sterritory. Tribes rarely have criminal jurisdictionover non-Indians unless they have cross- currentagreements with the state or local governmentswhich serve the common good.

Civil Jurisdiction.Civil Jurisdiction is meant to maintain the cultures,values, and identity of a particular tribe. Examplesof categories that fall within civil jurisdiction are:divorce, child custody, adoptions, property tax,land zoning, inheritance, and sales of goods andservices.

Federal ServicesBy treaty and law, the Federal Governmentprovides many services to federally recognizedIndian tribes. Many tribes are becoming moreindependent by administering these Federal serviceprograms for themselves. Further, as tribes becomemore capable through various and diverse businessventures at creating self- sustaining independenteconomies, their financial dependence on thefederal government is lessened for such things aseducation, health services, and housing. Thisgrowing economic success strengthens the federaltrust relationship at a true government – to –government basis. It also creates stronger mutuallybeneficial relationships with the government ofOklahoma – the Home of The People.


SOVEREIGNTY


The Independent Origin of Tribal SovereigntyResearch compiled by Ryan Leonard, Attorney at Law, Oklahoma City

This article was excerpted from Felix Cohen’sHandbook of Federal Indian Law (footnotesomitted). Reprinted with permission of thepublisher.

Historical OverviewMost Indian tribes were independent, self-governing societies long before their contact withEuropean nations, although the degree and kind oforganizations varied widely among them. Theforms of political order included multi-tribalconfederacies, governments based on towns orpueblos, and systems in which authority rested inheads of kinship groups or clans. For most tribes,these forms of self-government were also sacredorders, supported by creation stories andceremonies invoking spiritual powers.

Like other governments, Indian tribal governmentsorganized collective action, facilitated socialcontrol, and resolved disputes. While most tribeshad no written laws, individual behavior wasguided by elaborate norms of conduct. Mostviolations of these structures were preventedthrough community pressure in the form ofmockery, ostracism, ridicule, and religioussanctions. Those who transgressed againstcommunity norms faced an agreed upon sanction.Depending on the tribe’s system of law, suchsanctions might include a payment to the family ofthe injured party, banishment, or, for especiallyserious offenses, physical punishment or death. Inshort, tribes had their own traditional, thoughmostly informal and unwritten, governmental andlegal systems.

Contact with the European nations significantlychanged the nature of tribal governments. Mosttribes have adopted written constitutions and legalcodes, establish their laws primarily through tribalcouncils, and resolve disputes and enforce legal

requirements in tribal courts. Yet some traditionalforms, such as the general council, still functionamong smaller tribes, including several in southernCalifornia and Pueblos in New Mexico.

Self-GovernmentThe history of tribal self-government forms thebasis for the exercise of modern powers. Indiantribes consistently have been recognized, first bythe European nations, and later by the UnitedStates, as “distinct, independent politicalcommunities,” qualified to exercise powers of self-government, not by virtue of any delegation ofpowers, but rather by reason of their original tribalsovereignty.

The right of tribes to govern their members andterritories flows from a preexisting sovereigntylimited, but not abolished by, their inclusion withinthe territorial bounds of the United States. Tribalpowers of self-government are recognized by theConstitution, legislation, treaties, judicialdecisions, and administrative practice.

They necessarily are observed and protected by thefederal government in accordance with arelationship designed to ensure continued viabilityof Indian self-government insofar as governingpowers have not been limited or extinguished bylawful federal authority. Neither the passage oftime, nor the apparent assimilation of nativepeoples, can be interpreted as diminishing orabandoning a tribe’s status as a self-governingentity.

Once recognized as a political body by the UnitedStates, a tribe retains its sovereignty until Congressacts to divest that sovereignty.

Perhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law,supported by a host of court decisions, is that those


powers lawfully vested in an Indian nation are not,in general, delegated powers granted by expressacts of Congress, but rather’“inherent powers of alimited sovereignty which has never beenextinguished.” The Supreme Court has observedthat “Indian tribes still possess those aspects ofsovereignty not withdrawn by treaty or statute, orby implication as a necessary result of theirdependent status.”

This principle guides determinations of the scopeof tribal authority. The tribes began theirrelationship with the federal government with thesovereign powers of independent nations. Theycame under the authority of the United Statesthrough treaties and agreements between tribes andthe federal government and through the assertionof authority by the United States. Federal treatiesand congressional enactments have imposedcertain limitations on tribal governments,especially on their external political relations, andthe Supreme Court has issued common law rulingsthat introduce further limitation as a matter offederal common law.

But from the beginning, the United Statespermitted, then protected, continued internal tribalgovernment. In so doing, the United States applieda general principle of international law to theIndian tribes. The established tradition of tribalindependence within a tribe’s territory has survivedthe admission of new states, citizenship of theIndians, and other changes in American Life.Today, courts consider the backdrop of tribalsovereignty in addressing federal Indian lawissues.

The historic notion of tribal independence, subjectto paramount authority in the United States, wasreflected in the original Constitution’s mention ofthe Indians in two contexts: The Indian commerceclause recognized tribes as sovereigns along withforeign nations and the several states, whilegranting the federal government exclusive powerover Indian affairs. This clause empowersCongress to “regulate Commerce with foreignNations, and among the several States, and with

the Indian Tribes.” The scope of federal powerunder the Indian commerce clause has developedunder Supreme Court decisions differently than thepowers over foreign and interstate commerce.Although the Supreme Court has recentlynarrowed congressional powers under the interstatecommerce clause, it has continued to interpret theIndian commerce clause as authority for broad andexclusive federal powers and responsibilities inIndian affairs.

The scope of federal authority over tribes has beensubject to debate and criticism, but theconstitutional recognition of tribes as sovereigns ina government-to-government relationship with theUnited States has remained a constant in federalIndian law.

The other mention of Indians in the Constitutionalso reflects the framers’ understanding of theseparate but limited sovereign status of tribes.Namely, “Indians not taxed” are excluded from thedefinition of “free Persons” to be counted indetermining the representatives or apportioningdirect taxes. This exclusion recognized tribalmembers as citizens of distinct sovereigns.

The CourtsFrom the earliest years of the republic, courts haverecognized the political independence and self-governing status of Indian tribes. In the 1831 caseof Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Courtclassified the tribes as “domestic dependentnations” whose “relation to the United Statesresembles that of a ward to his guardian.”

The next year, Chief Justice John Marshall’sopinion for the Court in Worchester v. Georgiaexplained that the guardian-ward relationship didnot abolish preexisting tribal powers or make thetribes dependent on federal law for their powers ofself-government.

Applying principles of international law, ChiefJustice Marshall recognized that Indian tribes wereinitially treated as sovereigns by the European


nations and later consented to enter into alliancesor treaties with those nations. When the UnitedStates succeeded to the European claims, itfollowed a similar policy of entering into alliancesthrough a series of treaties, which itself evidencedan acknowledgement of the tribes’ sovereignstatus. Accordingly, the United States hadassumed the role of “protector” of the Indiantribes, acknowledging and guaranteeing theirsecurity as distinct political communities inexchange for their friendliness to the United States.

The protectorate relationship did not extinguishtribal sovereignty because it was a “settleddoctrine of the law of nations . . . that a weakerpower does not surrender its independence“– itsright to self-government, by associating with astronger, and taking its protection.” Tribesremained states with powers of self-government,despite coming under federal power. The UnitedStates assumed a fiduciary obligation, ensuring thetribes’ continuing integrity as self-governingentities within certain territory.

This protectorate relationship not only preservedtribal government, but insulated it from stateinterference. As the Chief Justice states,’“TheCherokee nation . . . is a distinct community . . . inwhich the laws of Georgia can have no force . . .but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, orin conformity with treaties, and with the acts ofCongress.”

The independent origin of tribal power has beenthe criterion for decisions in other Supreme Courtopinions as well. For example, in 1896, in Taltonv. Mayes, the Court held that the CherokeeNation’s criminal courts were not subject to theFifth Amendment requirement of indictment by agrand jury because they were not courts of theUnited States. Although recognized by the federalgovernment as a sovereign nation, the CherokeeNation was neither part of the federal governmentnor derived its powers by delegation fromCongress. ’“[A]s the powers of local selfgovernment enjoyed by the Cherokee nationexisted prior to the Constitution, they were are

operated upon by the Fifth Amendment, which, aswe have said, had for its sole object to control thepowers conferred by the Constitution on theNational Government.” Similarly, in United Statesv. Wheeler, the Supreme Court held that it did notconstitute double jeopardy for a Navajo tribalmember to be tried for a criminal offense in boththe Navajo and federal courts because the NavajoNation and the United States are separatesovereigns. “{T}he power to punish offenses,against tribal law committed by Tribe members,which was part of the Navajos’ primevalsovereignty, has never been taken away from them,either explicitly or implicitly, and is attributable inno way to any delegation to them of federalauthority.” When the Navajo Nation exercisescriminal jurisdiction, “it does so as part of itsretained sovereignty and not as an arm of theFederal Government.”

And in ”United States v. Lara, the Supreme Courtfound that sequential tribal and federalprosecutions of an Indian for a crime committed ona reservation other than his own was likewise notbarred by the double jeopardy clause, because “theTribe acted in its capacity of a separate sovereign.”Although the Court itself had earlier found thattribes were implicitly divested of inherent criminaljurisdiction over nonmember Indians because oftheir dependent status, Congress responded to thedecision by enacting a law “recogniz{ing} andaffirm{ing}” the tribe’s “inherent” power toprosecute nonmember Indians.

In upholding Congress’s constitutional authority toenact the statute, the Court concluded that thefederal statute served merely to reactivate theindependent source of tribal powers overnonmember Indians, and did not transform thetribal prosecution into an act of the federalgovernment.

As the Lara case demonstrates, inherent tribalpower may be recognized and affirmed byCongress in situations in which federal courts havepreviously found that the political branchesimposed restrictions on that power. Tribal powers


so authorized are entirely attributable to Indiannations, and not to the federal government thatmerely acknowledged them. In addition toinherent sovereign powers, tribes may alsoexercise powers specifically delegated by Congressthrough treaty or statute. Whether such statutesactually delegate federal power, as opposed toaffirming or recognizing inherent tribal power, is amatter of congressional intent.

OKLAHOMA TRIBESOklahoma today is home to 37 federallyrecognized Indian tribes and nations (with anadditional two historical tribes petitioning forrecognition), only a few of which occupied anypart of the state before European contact. Theremaining tribes were resettled there, most of theminvoluntarily and some of them forcibly, under thefederal government’s nineteenth century removalpolicy.

The first tribes removed to what is now Oklahomawere the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Cherokeeand Seminole, sometimes called the Five CivilizedTribes. Under a series of treaties, some of whichwere forced on them, the Five Tribes moved fromthe southeastern states to what is now Oklahomaand adjacent parts of Arkansas and Kansas. TheFive Tribes established comprehensivegovernments in their territories and exercised selfrule relatively free from federal interference.

Other tribes were resettled to the north and onparts of the Five Tribes’ removal lands that thegovernment reacquired from them. Many of theremoval treaties of the 1830’s promised that thelands set aside for the tribes would never beincluded within the boundaries of any state ororganized territory without tribal consent.

The Civil War had serious consequences for theFive Tribes. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations,whose lands adjoined Confederate states, sidedwith and made treaties with the Confederacy. Theother three tribes were divided, and some leadersof each tribe made treaties with the Confederacy,although loyalist factions continued to favor the

North. In 1866, the Five Tribes were compelled toagree to new treaties that ceded western portions oftheir territories, abolished slavery, granted rights-of-way for railroads, provided for eventualallotment of tribal lands, and authorized increasedfederal control.

After the Civil War, many Plains tribes wereremoved to the western Indian Territory landsyielded by the Five Tribes. Thousands of non-Indians settled in Indian Territory illegally,including many lawless and violent persons whomade the Five Tribes’ lands notorious as havensfor bandits and killers. In 1889, Congressestablished a special federal court for IndianTerritory in an effort to maintain law and order,and opened the “unassigned lands” in centralIndian Territory to white settlement.

The term “Indian Territory,” first used in the1830’s, gradually came into common use as thecollective term for the lands of the Five Tribes andothers settled among them. In the OklahomaOrganic Act of 1890, Congress defined theboundaries of the Indian Territory as the lands ofthe Five Tribes and the Quapaw Agency Tribes.The Organic Act created the Oklahoma Territory inthe western portion of the original Indian Territoryand established a typical territorial governmentthere.

Consistent with the treaty guarantees of the 1830’sthat tribal lands would never be included withinany state or organized territory without tribalconsent, the Organic Act provided that the lands ofthe Five Tribes and the Quapaw Agency Tribescould be included within the boundaries of the newOklahoma Territory whenever any tribe notifiedthe President of its consent. In addition, the Actexpressly preserved tribal authority and federalIndian jurisdiction in both the Oklahoma andIndian Territories.

During the 1890’s, the lands of most of the tribesin the Oklahoma Territory were allotted pursuantto the authority of the General Allotment Act of1887. The Act, however, excepted the lands of a


number of tribes in Oklahoma from its provisions,including the lands of the Five Tribes and theOsage Nation. In 1893, the Dawes Commissionwas established to seek allotment of the lands ofthe Five Tribes, and in 1898, Congress enacted theCurtis Act, which provided for allotment of theFive Tribes’ lands and authorized townsites thatwere opened to non-Indian ownership.

Allotment agreements and statutes followed. In1906, the Five Tribes Act and the Osage AllotmentAct addressed allotment and other matterscomprehensively for the respective tribes. Thatsame year, the Oklahoma Enabling Act providedfor the admission of Indian Territory andOklahoma Territory as the state of Oklahoma.Statehood was proclaimed in 1907.

When Congress enacted the Indian ReorganizationAct (“IRA”) in 1934, tribes in Oklahoma wereexcepted from many of the important provisions.Two years later, however, Congress enacted theOklahoma Indian Welfare Act (“OIWA”), whichauthorizes tribal organization in a manner similarto the IRA and extends to tribes organized underthe OIWA “any other rights or privileges securedto an organized Indian tribe under the [IRA].” TheOsage Reservation, however, is excepted from theOIWA.

Since statehood, the status of Indian tribes inOklahoma has been similar to that of tribes inother states. The Five Tribes and the Osage Nationhave, however, been excepted from a number ofgeneral Indian statutes in addition to the IndianReorganization Act. These include a 1910 statuteproviding for certain leases and sales of timber,certain laws addressing heirship, wills, and publicdomain allotments, and the 1909, 1924 and 1938mineral leasing laws. Most of the special laws forOklahoma Indians enacted since statehood havedealt with the property rights of individualmembers of the Five Tribes and the Osage Nation.

Indian Country in OklahomaUnder former law, the entire Indian Territory wasIndian country before 1889. Since 1948, Indian

country has been defined by federal statute, but itsapplication in Oklahoma has not always been clear.The 1948 Indian country statute includes “all landwithin the limits of any Indian reservation . . .notwithstanding the issuance of any patent.” Thestatus of most Indian reservations withinOklahoma has not been judicially determined,although a few court opinions have held orassumed that certain reservations in Oklahomawere disestablished by laws ceding tribal lands oropening the reservations to settlement. In recentyears, however, Congress has frequently definedthe term”“reservation” for purposes of particularstatutes to include “former Indian reservations inOklahoma.”

Lands retained or held in trust or restricted statusfor an Indian tribe are Indian country, regardless ofwhether or not those lands constitute a “formal”reservation. Indian country status attaches to theland regardless of how it came to be held in trustor restricted fee. Thus, Indian country includestrust lands retained for a tribe within its originalreservation or original treaty, or executive order,lands retained in trust or restricted status for theFive Tribes, and lands subsequently acquired orreacquired within original tribal boundaries andtaken into trust. It is immaterial to Indian countrystatus whether the original tribal reservationremains intact.

The 1948 statute further includes “all dependentIndian communities.” Dependent Indiancommunities have been judicially defined as areasset aside for the use of Indians under thesuperintendence of the federal government.Because of continuing federal supervision overmany Indians in Oklahoma, it is likely that anumber of Indian communities in the state aredependent Indian communities. Finally, trust andrestricted Indian allotments are also consideredIndian country.

For additional reading, see Felix Cohen’sHandbook of Federal Indian Law, 2005 edition,copyright American Indian Law Center, Inc.,Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2005.


GOVERNMENTS


The Unoffical Congressman for Indian CountryRepresentative Tom Cole, 5th Congressional District, Oklahoma

Meet Tom ColeTom Cole became the Representativefor Oklahoma's Fourth District onNovember 6th, 2002.

Congressman Cole is a member onthe House Armed Services Committeeto which he was appointed in 2002.He also serves on the NaturalResources Committee. Cole serves asa Deputy Whip in the U.S. House. Healso serves as Chairman of theNational Republican Congressional Committee,making him a member of the House GOPLeadership.

He has served as a District Director for formerCongressman Mickey Edwards, a member of theOklahoma State Senate, and as Oklahoma'sSecretary of State. In this capacity he served asformer Governor Frank Keating's chief legislativestrategist and liaison to the state's federaldelegation. Keating tapped Cole to leadOklahoma's successful effort to secure federalfunds to assist in the rebuilding of Oklahoma Cityin the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. MurrahFederal Building on April 19th, 1995.

Rep. Cole holds a B.A. from Grinnell College, anM.A. from Yale University, and a Ph.D. from theUniversity of Oklahoma. He has been a ThomasWatson Fellow and a Fulbright Fellow at theUniversity of London. He currently serves on thenational Board of the Fulbright Association. Healso serves on the board of the Aspen Institute.

Tom Cole is a fifth generation Oklahoman and anenrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation. He iscurrently the only Native American serving inCongress and was inducted in the Chickasaw Hallof Fame in 2004.

As the only enrolled member of anIndian tribe currently serving in theUnited States Congress, I have thedual honor of not only representingthe people of Oklahoma’s FourthCongressional District, but also ofbeing the unofficial Congressmanfor Indian Country. In this role Imeet with Indian tribal leaders fromall over the country and act as theiradvocate in the U.S. House and thefederal government at large. And

while many of America’s tribes are enjoyingunprecedented successes, the age-old struggle toprotect Native American rights continues to thisday.

From their earliest experiences with the UnitedStates Government, American Indian tribes havebeen engaged in efforts to protect their tribal landsand defend their sovereign rights. It has been along and difficult struggle and one in which wehave secured many important victories, but alsosuffered many bitter defeats.

Many of the first interactions between the NativeAmericans and the European Settlers involved landsales. These land sales were often transacted inways that were very biased against the interests ofthe tribes. Perhaps most importantly, the veryconcept of private property was one with whichNative Americans were unfamiliar so one canmake an argument that the tribes did not fullyunderstand the transactions in which theyengaged. There is also the issue of whether or notthese sales were even voluntary. Thomas Jeffersonwrote in Notes on the State of Virginia that theIndian lands acquired by the state of Virginia were“sometimes made with the price in one hand andthe sword in the other.”


In 1823 the U.S. recognized the rights of NativeAmerican landholders in Johnson v. McIntosh byestablishing that only the federal government couldenter into land deals with the tribes while alsoruling that the tribes had a right to occupy and usethe land even though it might be owned by theFederal Government. This, however, changeddramatically with the passage of the IndianRemoval Act which allowed the federalgovernment to forcibly remove Indians andrelocate them to other parts of the country.

When the Federal Government attempted toremove the Cherokee’s from Georgia to Oklahomathe tribe asserted their rights as an independentnation and challenged the United States’ authorityto force them from their ancestral lands.

Ultimately they prevailed in the Supreme Courtwhich held that they were indeed a sovereignnation and that they could only be removed if theyagreed to do so in a treaty that was ratified by theU.S. Senate. While the vast majority of theCherokee’s were opposed to removal, a smallgroup supported it.

In a misguided attempt to preserve their nation,tribal members Major Ridge, his son John Ridgeand Elias Boudinot formed a treaty party andsigned the Treaty of New Echota, thus giving thefederal government the document they needed forSenate ratification, and the subsequent removal ofthe Cherokee Nation. Both Ridges and Boudinotwere killed by the Cherokees for their betrayal.

In 1838, General Winfield Scott began the processof forcibly relocating 17,000 Cherokee menwomen and children to Oklahoma. It was a brutalbusiness that involved concentration camps andforced marches in the dead of winter.Approximately 4000 died along the way, earningthe route and the journey the name “The Trail ofTears”.

The Federal Government continued their policy ofIndian removal through the Indian AppropriationsAct of 1851 which created the Native American

reservations in what is today the State ofOklahoma. This policy was disastrous from thebeginning and caused a great deal of strife betweenthe tribes and the white settlers, as well as betweenthe tribes themselves.

By the late 1800s, the United States had begun torecognize that forced relocation of Indians was afailed policy. As a result they passed yet anotherlaw - the General Allotment Act - or the Dawes Actas it is more commonly known. This act changedthe policy of having the federal government grantland to tribes and replaced it with a policy ofgranting land to individual tribe members.

In order to determine eligibility for Allotment, theDawes Commission was required to obtain themembership lists of the Five Civilized Tribes(Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw andSeminole). Since the tribes did not keep very goodrecords a new roll had to be taken. More than250,000 people applied for membership but theDawes Commission enrolled less than half of that. The roll was closed in 1907 and is consideredcomplete. To this day, in order to enroll as amember of one of the Five Civilized Tribes, anindividual must be able to trace an ancestor tothose original Dawes rolls.

The Dawes Act may have been well intentioned,but its results were disastrous for Indian peopleand tribal governments. In the process of“privatization” thousands of Indians were cheatedout of their lands. Tribal governments, thedefenders of native peoples, were stripped of theirauthority and their resources. It was only throughtheir tenacity and resilience that tribes survived ascultural and political entities.

In the modern era the relationship between Indiantribes and the federal government is stillsometimes adversarial. There are numerousexamples of Indian tribes possessing something ofvalue that the federal government will attempt totake away, or otherwise appropriate from theIndians. The abominable mismanagement of theIndian lands held in trust is one such example.


The Department of the Interior’s own internalreport concluded that this mismanagement hadcreated a liability of $10 to $40 billion to the tribalbeneficiaries.

But a former Assistant Interior Secretary for IndianAffairs told ABC News that “there will probablyhave to be some kind of an agreed settlement onthe issue because of the problematic - the problemof finding all the source documents. We can’t doan accounting, I can’t refute how much the Indianssay they are owed. That’s the problem.”

Finally, no discussion about the relationshipbetween the tribes and the federal government canbe complete without addressing the issue of tribalgaming. In 1988, Congress passed the IndianGaming Regulatory Act which gave the tribes theright to open casinos on their lands as long as thestates in which they are located have some form oflegalized gaming as well.

These gaming operations have revitalized manytribes throughout America by making themwealthy, economically diverse (most tribes reinvestgaming revenues into other profit centers such asbanks, hospitals, resorts, radio stations, etc), andindependent. And yet, with all of the obviousbenefits that tribal gaming has brought to IndianCountry, there those in the federal government andat the state level who still want to stop it’sexpansion, regulate it out of existence, orotherwise figure out how the make sure non Indiangovernments get a bigger slice of the pie.

For example, earlier this year the Congressconferred federal recognition on five VirginiaIndian tribes. But this recognition came only afterthey had agreed to negotiate away some of theirsovereignty by agreeing not to engage in gaming. This occurred in a state whose state lotteryjackpots routinely top $100 million.

Another example is the Oneida tribe of New Yorkwho negotiated a compact with New York state forgaming in 1993 and had it approved by theDepartment of the Interior. It’s clear in hindsightthat the state of New York did not anticipate therevenues that the Oneida’s would generate fromtheir Casino / Spa. Ten years after signing thecompact, the State of New York asked theDepartment of the Interior to throw it out so theycould demand a bigger piece of the pie. Remarkably, the Department of the Interioractually considered the request. Fortunatelyhowever, they recognized that a deal is a deal andrecently ruled in favor of the tribes.

Lest I present a completely bleak assessment of thefederal tribal relationship, let me also say that Ithink that relationship has never been better than itis today. Tribes themselves enjoy greater publicapproval than at any time in my lifetime, many ofthem have significant financial resources, and theyhave a number of strong advocates in the U.S.Congress.

Frankly, I think the majority of the problems thatIndians face in dealing with the federalgovernment are exactly the same as the rest of thepopulation does. Big government and stubbornbureaucracies are inherently inefficient, wastefuland lacking in compassion.

For the first time in centuries, however, NativeAmericans have the resources, the know-how, andthe sophistication to push back when the federalgovernment usurps their sovereignty or otherwisetries to trample their rights.

I am an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nationand we like to describe ourselves as “Unconqueredand Unconquerable”. I believe more and more thatproud description can be applied to Indian Countryas a whole.


The Federal-Tribal RelationshipBy Neal McCaleb, Former Assistant Secretary of Interior-Indian Affairs

Member, Chickasaw Nation

Meet Neal McCalebMr. McCaleb is the former head of theBureau of Indian Affairs in Washing-ton and has twice led the Oklahoma’stransportation system.

An enrolled member of the ChickasawNation, McCaleb was appointed byPresident George W. Bush to lead theBureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in2001. In nearly two years in the post,McCaleb led in the reorganization ofthe BIA to make a more responsive and effectivetrustee organization for Native American interestsin the management of 56 million acres of IndianTrust Land.

Since leaving the BIA in 2003, McCaleb has servedthe Chickasaw Nation as an advisor to Gov. BillAnoatubby. He is charged with assisting theChickasaw Nation with the development of long-term economic strategies. McCaleb also serves onthe board of directors of Bank 2, which is whollyowned by the Chickasaw Nation. He serves asChairman of the Board of Directors of ChickasawNation Industries, Inc. Neal also served more than10 years as the state secretary of transportation forformer Govs. Frank Keating and Henry Bellmon.While transportation secretary and director of theOklahoma Turnpike Authority, McCaleb helpeddevelop plans for the John Kilpatrick Turnpike inOklahoma City and the Creek Turnpike in Tulsa.Under Gov. Keating, he led the largest highwayconstruction program in state history.

He has experience in the private practice ofengineering and real estate development for 32years . He has also spent 20 years in public serviceincluding eight years in the state Legislature.During his tenure in the House of Representatives,he served four years as the Republican floor leader.

The relationship between the FederalGovernment and the several IndianTribes located within the UnitedStates is clearly set forth in Article ISection 8 Clause 3 of the Constitutiongiving the Federal government thepower “To regulate commerce withforeign nations and among the severalstates and with Indian Tribes.” Thisauthority and the limitation of thestates to contract with Tribes isfurther articulated in the “Non-Intercourse Act” of 1796 which

prohibits states or persons from making contractswith Indian Tribes and reserving that power to theFederal Government.

This authority derives from colonial practicerecognizing indigenous peoples occupying thiscontinent prior to the arrival of the Europeanpowers as sovereigns and that their sovereigntywas inherent and not delegated.

The Judicial recognition of Tribal sovereignty wasestablished by the US Supreme Court in the“Marshall Trilogy” defining the Tribalgovernments as “dependent Sovereign Nations” in1832.

The Federal-Tribal relationship in the early 19 th

century was clearly adversarial as evidenced by thefact the Bureau of Indian Affairs was located in theWar Department until 1854 when it was transferredto the Department of the Interior. During theTreaty period which ended in 1876 the BIA wasdelegated the role of federal TRUSTEE by theCongress and pursuant to the Dawes Allotment Actof 1887 the BIA’s role of Trustee became moreclearly defined to protect the Tribes and individualIndians from the alienation of the title to theirlands by placing the land titles in the name of the


USA with the BIA acting as Trustee in all mattersrelating to sale, lease, management of/orobligations upon Indian lands. The BIA alsoassumed the responsibilities of the federalgovernment established by treaty to care for health,education and welfare of the tribes as well as theirlands. This lead to the BIA establishment ofIndian boarding schools, health clinics, tribalpolice, various land management and conservationprograms as well as many welfare and economicdevelopment programs. The health programs werestripped away from the BIA in the 1950’s andassigned to the US Public Health Service now the“Indian Health Service”.

After the Allotment Act of 1887 the Indian Estateeroded from 150 million acres to less than 50million acres and Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)of 1934 officially reconstituted the Tribalgovernments under the supervision of the BIA, thatis that all acts and policies of the Tribalgovernment had to be approved by the BIA. Theplight of tribal governments and the economy in“Indian Country” continued to decline until theCongress passed the “Indian Self DeterminationAct of 1975” recognizing the Tribes’ rights to selfgovernance and management of their own affairs.This Act gave the right and authority to “takeover” any programmatic function of the federalgovernment for the tribe except Trust functions andto contract with the BIA to operate that programand be compensated for that work. Under the SelfDetermination Act many tribes began to developmanagement skills and operational systems overthe next twenty years that would launch them intobusiness enterprises.

The Congress recognized that almost all economicdevelopment programs on Tribal lands had failedor fallen dramatically short of their intendedpurpose. In 1988 Congress passed the “IndianGaming Regulatory Act” (IGRA) pursuant to theSupreme Court decisions that prohibited statesfrom interfering in tribally operated gamingbusinesses on tribal lands and defined theregulations for operating such enterperises. Therest is history and many tribes have become

economically self-sufficient and prosperous. Thereare 82 casinos and gaming facilities in Oklahomagenerating over two billion in gross operatingprofits and employing some 16,000 Oklahomans.This has made possible Tribal capital creation on ascale that has stimulated other non-gamingeconomic enterprises resulting in still furtheremployment and economic growth both for IndianTribes and the communities in which they operate.

Many Tribes have invested their new foundfinances to supplement their tribal services andassist the non-Indian community in financingpublic improvements such as roads, water supplysystems and waste water treatment centers.

Meanwhile the BIA as Trustee still controls muchof the Tribes future including gaming operationsand new land to Trust decisions. The land to Trustdecision is paramount to Tribal governmentsbecause their authority and jurisdiction is limitedto lands held in Trust thus limiting the opportunityto extend and improve their gaming operationsnear attractive markets.

Significant to gaming and other economicdevelopment opportunities the BIA unilaterallyholds the decisions for Federal Tribal recognition,land to trust approval and approval of class threegaming compacts with states as required by IGRA.The BIA also maintains its authority to approveTribal Constitutions and control over certainbusiness activities.

The Trustee relationship has created a conflictedrole for the BIA as it has the responsibility ofprotecting and conservation of assets whileadvancing economic development which alwaysentails risk of assets. There is also the openquestion of the effectiveness of the BIA formismanagement (of) Individual Indian accountsknown as “Cobell vs. Secretary of Interior” whichhas drug on tin the courts for twelve years andadversely affected the BIA’s ability to function.Regardless of Court action the Congress mustappropriate the funds for any settlement which ithas shown no interest in doing. This suit on the


part of “Individual Indian Money Accounts” anddoes not involve any Tribal claims which are nowbeginning to surface since the Congress ser adeadline for asserting such claims against theFederal government.

At the local level the trust status of Indian landshas created much concern and in many casesantipathy for tribal economic interests. Land(s)held by the Federal government are tax free andthe Tribes economic activities on trust land are nottaxable by the state or local government. Localgovernments often object to putting land into trustbecause of the loss of local taxes.

On the positive side Tribes bring funds notavailable to state and local governments into playin provided facilities and services that benefit theentire population in the service area as OklahomaIndians are interspersed and integrated into theoverall population unlike reservation states. It isestimated that collectively Oklahoma Tribes bringmore than $700million/year in federal funds tolocal government services including federal roadfunds leveraged with Tribal participation. Thesefunds are spent on public education, healthfacilities, roads/bridges and public safety, inaddition Tribes are using their new foundprosperity to supplement and leverage state andlocal funds in lieu of taxes for public works andprograms.

The challenge for Oklahoma and Tribes is how tooptimize its unique position as home to 37federally recognized (and two other historicaltribes applying for recognition) tribes bypromoting their prosperity through symbioticalliances while protecting the vitality and growthof its existing economy.


Tribal Sovereignty: The Reality of NegotiatingHoward Barnett, former Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor

Meet Howard BarnettMr. Barnett served as Chief of Staffto Governor Frank Keating from1999 to January 2003, making himthe governor’s primary advisor. Inaddition to managing the chiefexecutive’s staff, Howard supervisedthe creation and implementation ofpolicy, legislation and thegovernor’s agenda. He also directedthe management of the relationshipsbetween the governor’s office withother state agencies, other govern-mental agencies and Indian Tribes, as well asrepresenting the governor in various forums.

Prior to joining the governor’s office, Howard wasappointed by Governor Keating as Oklahoma’sSecretary of Commerce and Director of the Depart-ment of Commerce in 1998. In his role as cabinetsecretary, he oversaw 20 agencies. As the com-merce department’s director, he oversaw thedevelopment of a reorganization plan for theagency to increase its efficiency and align itsservices with those of its customers.

Howard received his B.S. in Business Administra-tion from the University of Tulsa and J.D. fromSouthern Methodist University. After receiving hislaw degree, Barnett practiced law in Tulsa, work-ing primarily in securities and corporate law. Hejoined Tribune/Swab-Fox Companies, Inc., in1985, rising to Chief Executive Officer in 1993 andserving in that role until the sale of the company,then called T/SF Communications, in 1997. Barnettthen served a year as the Director of BusinessDevelopment for New York-based The OfficialInformation Company and led several successfulacquisition and new venture efforts.

Howard received the Academy’s 2007 KeyContibutor Award last August.

When I was Chief of Staff for Gover-nor Frank Keating from 1999 to 2003,I was the primary liaison/negotiatorfrom the Governor’s office for tribalcompacts. Governor Keating set thetone for such negotiations early in hisAdministration by affirming hisintention to work with the tribes andnot to resolve issues through thecourts, if possible.

Our approach to tribal negotiationswas based on three principles: first,

Tribal Sovereignty is a reality and must berespected; second, it was always preferable tonegotiate than to litigate; and third, anynegotiations for an agreement between twosovereigns (the state and a tribe), to be successful,must result in a “win-win”.

Based on these principles, we conducted variousnegotiations, but, I must admit, we did not breakmuch new ground. While we negotiatedthroughout much of my three and a half years asChief of Staff over such big issues as gaming,cigarette sales, car tags and water, with theexception of one compact on car tags with theCherokee Nation, the only compacts actuallyentered into were continuations of existingagreements or forms of agreements entered intowith one tribe and copied for another, such as theexisting tobacco compacts and cross-deputizationagreements.

Depending on their point of view, people haveviewed this absence of breakthrough compacts aseither valiant protection of Oklahoma’s ownsovereignty or as bad negotiating on our part. Thetruth is that achieving a proper balance in straightsovereign-to-sovereign negotiations is not easy.Look at the successful implementation of a new


tribal gaming regime during Governor Henry’sfirst term which was accomplished through a voteof the people whose vote was solicited by makinga special allocation of the state’s share of theproceeds to education. At the risk of soundingpartisan, this was done by a Democrat Governorwhile the Democrats controlled both houses of thestate legislature, a luxury we did not have even ifwe had wanted such a piece of legislation.

Our state statutes delegate the power to negotiatewith tribes to the Governor. There is a specialcommittee of the legislature to approve anycompacts and in some cases the legislature as awhole must approve. That is the politics ofcompacting which must be borne in mind whensuch negotiations commence. But there are alsoissues of public policy which do – or should –impose other restraints on the compacting process.

For us in Governor Keating’s Administration, thosepublic policy concerns were two fold (in additionto any which might apply to the subject matter ofthe specific negotiations, e.g. should we sell waterout of state?): first, any agreement must havetransparency, i.e. each side must be able to knowexactly what the other is doing under theagreement to confirm compliance. Second, theremust be clear, agreed to enforcement mechanisms.

Frankly, while these sound good, they become realimpediments to reaching an agreement with asovereign entity such as a state or a tribe. That isbecause both go directly to the definition of what asovereign is entitled to.

This is particularly true with tribes where theactivity that is sought to be made subject to acompact with the state is almost always owned bythe tribe itself (the sovereign), whether that is acasino, a fuel plaza or a tobacco shop.

The idea that the State of Oklahoma would want tobe able to look at, in effect, the tribe’s books was –reasonably, in my opinion – viewed by many of thetribes with which we negotiated as a violation oftheir rights as a sovereign to not be subject to

review by another co-equal sovereign. Thus, thetransparency issue required lots of long andtedious discussions and was often the issue whichbroke the negotiations.

On enforceability, a sovereign – whether a state ora tribe – has sovereign immunity from being suedunless it agrees to waive this right. Thus, the firstissue was whether and to what extent would eachside waive its sovereign immunity. In addition,there was the issue of in what venue wouldenforcement occur assuming sovereign immunitywas waived. Each side was honestly concernedabout granting the other’s courts jurisdiction.While federal court was an option, it was neitherdesirable nor was it clear that we could agree toconfer jurisdiction on such courts without specialfederal legislation. Arbitration was an option andoften could be a good one.

And these two issues worked in concert. If thetransparency issue is not resolved satisfactorily,then the enforceability issue was moot anyway.That’s because if the side seeking enforcement wasnot able to know the facts from the other side, thislack of transparency blunted the viability of thebest crafted enforcement provisions. And,obviously, the opposite was true as well: knowingthere was a problem without the ability to doanything about it was probably worse.

So ironically the notion of sovereignty and what itembodied is a source of friction when it comes toimplementing any compact or agreement betweenthe state and a tribe. But a subtle impediment –and one we non-Indians tend to forget – is that thetribal government with which you are negotiatingis elected and the elected officials are themselveskeenly cognizant of their own tribal politics andhow any agreement they might make could affectthe next election.

We understand and acknowledge the taking intoaccount of political reality in the actions of ourstate elected officials, but we need to rememberthat it applies just as much to tribal officials.


This was vividly brought home to me in anegotiation that had become bogged down over acomplicated issue. I proposed a rather complexand I thought elegant solution, to which the Chiefof the tribe responded,–“That works. We could dothat. Of course I wouldn’t get reelected, but wecould do that.” So much for my elegant solution!

The point here is really one of caution for theTown Hall participants. Good ideas and goodrecommendations are great. Implementation ishard. While we non-Indians are well aware of theanimosity and distrust that many of our fellownon-Indians view any agreements with tribes,believe me when I tell you that the leaders of thetribes face the same type of vocal (hopefully)minority which believes that sovereignty entitlesthe tribe to do anything it wants and any agreementwith the State is a denigration of those rights.

This political reality – in addition to the otherissues I raised and the natural opposition towhatever is the subject of the negotiations – makethe implementation of any agreements between theState and a tribe difficult. It is only with clearcommunication, honest recognition of the barriersand trust that these things can be overcome. Thisis a high bar even for the most well intentionednegotiators.


State Persective on Tribal SovereigntyScott Meacham, Treasurer, State of Oklahoma

Meet Scott MeachamScott Meacham is the 17th StateTreasurer of Oklahoma. Prior tobecoming treasurer, he served asDirector of State Finance. Hecontinues to serve on thegovernor’s cabinet as Secretary forFinance and Revenue.

As cabinet secretary, chiefnegotiator and policy advisor toGovernor Henry he will be theprincipal state official negotiatingtribal compacts and contracts.

Scott formerly served as Chief Executive Officer ofFirst National Bank & Trust of Elk City.

He is a fifth generation Oklahoman and a graduateof Chickasha High School and the University ofOklahoma. He holds a bachelor’s degree infinance, a Masters of Business Administration anda law degree.

The relationship between the State of Oklahomaand tribal governments is an evolving relationship.As with any evolving relationship, this relationshiphas been marked with its struggles and itssuccesses.

In its early stages, the relationship was marked bythe state’s resistance to acknowledge tribalsovereignty. The resistance manifested itselfprimarily in the area of tax policy. Tribes began toopen smoke shops that sold to both tribal and non-tribal members. Tribal smoke shops collected nostate sales tax and no state wholesale tobacco taxeson their sales. This gave the tribal stores a distinctprice advantage over the non-tribal retailers whichcaused market share to shift away from the non-tribal retailers.

The state initially asserted that thetribal smoke shops were obligatedto collect state taxes on all sales.The tribal governments objectedand litigation resulted.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled the state could not tax sales totribal members but that the tribewas obligated to collect state taxeson sales to non-tribal members.However, the state was prohibitedfrom taking legal action against thetribe to collect the tax. Thus, theCourt left the state and the tribal

governments with compacts as the only practicalmechanism to provide for the taxation andcollection of tax on sales by tribal smoke shops tonon-tribal members.

This Court ruling led to the first compacts betweenthe state and the tribal governments. The initialcompacts dealt with tobacco sales while latercompacts dealt with fuel sales and the collection ofstate fuel taxes.

The initial tobacco compacts were for a 10-yearterm. The compacts locked in a price advantagefor the tribal smoke shops of 100% of the stateretail sales tax and 75% of the state wholesaletobacco tax. As a result of this price advantage,market share migrated to the tribal smoke shops.This market migration led to increasing resentmentby non-tribal retailers and resulted in pressurebeing put on the state for different, more equitablecompact terms when the compacts started expiring.

The tribal governments, of course, objected to anychange in terms feeling the price advantage theyenjoyed under the original compacts was a benefitthey negotiated for and reflected their sovereignty.


At this point in state-tribal relations a new dynamicstarted emerging - - tribal gaming. Tribal gamingrevenues had become an important part of tribaleconomies. These revenues were at risk, however,due to the possibility of the federal governmentchanging the definitions of permissible–“bingo” toexclude all of the electronic slot machine-likegames in use in the tribal casinos.

From the state’s perspective, tribal casinosgenerated no state revenues and the state wasunable to regulate the gaming activities at tribalcasinos. Additionally, the state’s horse racingindustry was about to disappear because of higherpurses offered by racetracks located in other statesthat offered gaming at their horse racing tracks(“racinos”).

This led to a new chapter in state-tribal relationswhere the state and the tribal governmentsnegotiated a “win-win” compact that was mutuallybeneficial to both the state and the tribalgovernments. From a tribal perspective, thesecompacts protected and expanded the games tribalcasinos were able to offer. From a stateperspective, the state was able to assure basicminimum regulatory standards at the tribal casinosand generate additional funding for education.

Although the gaming compacts ushered in a newera of the state and the tribal governments workingtogether for the mutual benefit of bothgovernments, significant challenges remain. Manytribal members define tribal sovereignty verynarrowly to include no state taxation or regulationof any activity that occurs on tribal lands. At thesame time, many non-tribal members resent andresist the special legal and tax status thatsovereignty affords the tribal governments.

History has proven, however, that only by workingtogether can the state and the tribal governmentsbe mutually successful. The best definition oftribal sovereignty, then, is two independentgovernments working together through negotiationand compromise for the benefit of all of theirrespective citizens.


ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT


American Indian Land Tax CreditsOklahoma Department of Commerce

Two-thirds of Oklahoma, because of its uniqueNative American heritage, qualifies for specialfederal tax treatment. Businesses locating orexpanding in these areas benefit by accelerateddepreciation of investment and by employment taxcredits when employing tribal members or theirspouses.

Federal legislation clarifies the location of specialAmerican Indian lands in Oklahoma that qualifyfor related tax credits benefiting new and estab-lished businesses in Oklahoma. The Tax Relief andHealth Care Act of 2006, signed by President BushDec. 20, includes extension through Dec. 31, 2007of the tax incentive for businesses locating onformer Indian lands. More than two-thirds of thelands in Oklahoma meet the Internal RevenueService-qualifying definition of former Indianlands and qualify for accelerated depreciation.Qualifying lands may include previous tribal landwhich may have been transferred to new owners.Oklahoma has the largest percentage of AmericanIndian population in the country. The federalemployment tax credit is applicable to businesseslocated in the qualifying areas that employ enrolledAmerican Indians and their spouses.

Benefits

Depreciation IncentivesThe depreciation incentive provides a shorterrecovery period of approximately 40% for mostnon-residential depreciable property. The propertymust be placed in service during calendar years1994-2007 and must be used in an active trade orbusiness which includes the rental of real propertyfor such purposes.

This federal tax deferral can substantially increasethe after-tax income of businesses. Since Oklahomataxable income is based on federal taxable income,the depreciation benefit will automatically applyfor Oklahoma tax purposes.

Employee CreditThe employment tax credit is 20% of increasedwages over those paid to qualified individuals in1993, including health insurance premiums paid bythe employer. Wages of individuals eligible for thetax credit may not exceed $30,000, indexed after1993, and the credit is applicable to new wages ofup to $20,000 for years 1994 through 2007. Theindexed wage level for 2005 is $42,000. IRS Form8845 is used for computing and claiming the credit.In the case of: The applicable recover period is:

3-year property 2 years5-year property 3 years7-year property 4 years10-year property 6 years15-year property 9 years20-year property 12 yearsNon-residential real 22 yearsproperty (39 years)

Example: The regular depreciation on a commer-cial building with a cost of $1 million would be$25,641 annually for 39 years. The accelerateddepreciation would be $45,454 annually for 22years. This would substantially increase the taxpay-ers' present value of available dollars.

Example:Company A has a qualified employee to whom thestore pays $15,000 in total wages and healthinsurance in 1993. In 1994, the company pays thesame person $26,000. The credit is computed asfollows:

1994 Wage/Health Insurance (maximum allowedby Federal Government) $20,0001993 Wage/Health Insurance $15,000(Increase) $ 5,000Rate of Credit x 20%

Indian Employment Credit $ 1,000


State Policy Towards Tribes and Economic DevelopmentLarkin Warner, PhD, Regents Professor Emeritus, Oklahoma State University

Meet Larkin WarnerDr. Larkin Warner has been a loyalmember of the Oklahoma Academysince its rebirth in 1985. Thisarticle is a reprint of research forOklahoma 2000, Inc. in 1989.

While that is almost 20 years ago -the facts don’t change much and theopportunities not at all.He suggeststhat because the article is stillrelevant - that the purpose of thisTown Hall is validated.

Dr. Warner is a recipient of OSU’s LeadershipLegacy Award. Larkin’s leadership in economicforecasting has chronicled areas ranging from thestate’s educational future to it’s water resources,from health and human services to revisions of theConstitution, from Native American economicissues to the history and future of Oklahoma’seconomy.

Dr. Warner, a Phi Beta Kappa, began a nearlyforty year association with OSU as an AssistantProfessor for the Department of Economics. Hisdistinguished professional career included aresearch position with the Kerr Foundation andinduction into the prestigious Oklahoma HigherEducation Hall of Fame.

IntroductionA strong case can be made that Oklahoma hasspecial advantages in state economic developmentefforts because of its Native American tribalorganization and the special legal status of tribalgovernments, Indian people and Indian land.These advantages include special tax status, cost-saving regulatory relief & financial assistancereducing both capital and labor costs. Additionallythere are unique cultural attributes which generatetourist-related economic development.

This strong case for Indian-relatedeconomic development has beenenhanced by the following threefeatures. First, federal governmentpolicy since the 1960s hasemphasized tribal self-sufficiency as ageneral goal and has recognized theneed for appropriate economicfoundations. Second, there hasemerged a significant cadre ofarticulate, aggressive, and effectiveleadership among the NativeAmerican population committed toIndian economic development.1

Third, Oklahomans have become more receptiveand, in some cases, enthusiastic about capitalizingon Indian economic development potentials. Thisreceptiveness was nurtured by the desire foreconomic growth from any source as the state’seconomy languished following the relativecollapse of energy prices.

To the extent, however, that the case for Indianeconomic development rests on tribal sovereignty,state government in Oklahoma finds itself in anambivalent position. Under the civics booktreatment of the nation’s three-tier system offederalism, state government possesses a degree ofsovereignty within its own borders includingauthority to create, control, and empower units oflocal government including municipalities,counties, school districts and special districts.Needless to say, Indian tribal organizationsasserting sovereign powers not unlike those ofindependent nations do not fit readily into thisthree-tier system. Trouble spots are especiallylikely to emerge in tax jurisdiction, the regulatoryenvironment, and in the administration of civil andcriminal justice.

The balance of this report introduces some of theeconomic development advantages of tribes,reviews the importance of Indians in the Oklahoma


economy, suggests some approaches to sorting outmajor issues involving Oklahoma state governmentpolicy toward Indian tribes and economicdevelopment policies, and assesses some of thechallenges for future state and tribal policy.

It is important to note at the outset that, for manyIndian people, any government policy conjures upa host of negative images often extending far backin time. In Oklahoma, these negative images areenhanced by a peculiar and sometimes unattractivehistory of relations with the state’s now-dominantwhite culture. 2 At the same time, the dominantculture has often been incredulous and resentful ofIndian people’s reluctance to adhereenthusiastically to the precepts of free-marketcapitalism and competitive individualism. In thiscontext, it is difficult to formulate policy – or evento discuss policy. Yet there are significantopportunities, and Oklahoma especially needs toconsider intergovernmental state policy towardIndian tribes and economic development.

Potential Tribal Advantagesfor Economic DevelopmentThe importance of Indian tribal government toOklahoma economic development is easilyestablished by describing a hypothetical enterpriselocated on Indian land (referred to legally as IndianCountry) with as appropriate degree of Indianownership. Such as enterprise might do thefollowing:

• Pay no local property or other taxes.• Pay no state taxes including the state corporate

income tax.• Pay no payroll tax for unemployment

insurance.• Not be subject to Oklahoma’s requirements

regarding workers’ compensation insurance.• Have independent access to federal

designation as a foreign trade zone.• Be protected from lawsuits by the shield of

sovereign immunity of the tribal government.• Be incorporated under tribal statutes.• Be subject to tribal courts where such courts

have jurisdiction rather than state or federalcourts.

• Have access to low-interest financing throughtribal issue of tax-exempt bonds not subject tothe federal volume cap applying to the state asa whole.3

• Utilize many federal government programsaimed at stimulating Indian economicdevelopment including job training wagesupplements for workers, direct loans, loanguarantees, grants, and technical assistance.4

• Be placed in a favored position in bidding ongovernmental contracts.

• Produce goods and services otherwiseprohibited or controlled by state government.

It is doubtful that an enterprise availing itself of alltheses attributes is to be found anywhere inOklahoma. Moreover, the legal status of some ofthe items is cloudy. Nevertheless, the list isimpressive and should catch the eye of anyentrepreneur thinking of locating or expanding inOklahoma.

Roughly one out of twenty Oklahomans wasIndian in the 1980 census. As workers and citizensIndian people participate in all aspects of thestate’s economic system. On average, however,this participation does not generate levels ofeconomic well-being which match the state’s whitepeople. A significant share of Oklahoma Indiansare members of and/or associate with tribalorganizations which are de facto and de jure unitsof government. In addition to standard functionsof government, tribal organizations have becomeengaged in various types of business enterprise.

Economic Characteristics of Indian PopulationGetting a fix on such a basic feature as the size ofOklahoma’s Indian population is quit difficult. Forstatistical purposes, it is necessary to rely primarilyon the reports of the U.S. Bureau of the Census.Persons responding to census questionnaires areasked to identify themselves within a hybrid groupof racial/national categories including “White,Black, Chinese, Indian (Amer.),” etc.

The number of Oklahomans identifying themselvesas Indian rose from 97 thousand in 1970 to 171thousand in 1980 – an increase of 76 percent while


the total state population grew 18 percent.Although the true Indian population no doubtexpanded during the 1970s, it is obvious that alarger number of the state’s population werewilling to designate themselves as Indian in 1980.Given a growing pride in being Indian, it is likelythat the 1990 Indian share of Oklahoma’spopulation will rise above its 1980 level of 5.7percent.

It must by remembered that all census-based dataon Oklahoma Indians overlap but do not specifythe number of Indians defined from anotherimportant perspective. For many purposesincluding an understanding of tribes as units ofgovernment, the title “Indians” is a legal ratherthan a racial label. From this point of view, anIndian as a member of a tribe is a citizen of whatthe U.S. Supreme Court in 1831 labeled a“domestic, dependent nation.” 5

A few features mainly from the 1980 Census ofPopulation highlight the economic significanceand status of Indians in Oklahoma.6

• Half the state’s Indians lived in towns of 2,500population and above, half lived in smallercommunities and the open countryside.

• One out of five Oklahoma Indians lived in theOklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitan areas.

• Oklahoma Indians’ 1979 median familyincome was only 62 percent of the levelrecorded for whites and was 15 percent abovethat of black families.

• Indians’ unemployment rate was twice that ofthe state as a whole; for Indians the share ofthe adult population at work or unemployed(looking for work) was only slightly less thanthe share for all Oklahomans.

• In 1979 (when Oklahoma’s energy economywas booming), one-fifth of Indian families hadincome less than the federally-designatedpoverty level.

• For Oklahomans 25 years old and over in1980, 44 percent of the Indians had notgraduated from high school.

• In 1987, Indian families accounted for 12.2percent of all families receiving Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children; thisproportion was about twice the Indian share ofstate population.7

• By virtually all measures, urban Indians arebetter off economically than are rural Indians;Indians in the Oklahoma City and Tulsametropolitan areas also fare better than theirnon-metropolitan counterparts.

• Indian trust lands with U.S. Bureau of IndianAffairs administration account for 1.1 millionacres out of Oklahoma’s total land area of 45million acres.8

• Indian households are no different from therest of Oklahoma in terms of likelihood ofreceiving wage and salary income; they areless likely to receive self-employment incomeand interest, dividend, and rent income.

The picture that emerges is that of a minoritygroup within Oklahoma’s population which iseconomically active (at work or looking) to nearlythe same extent as the entire population, but whoseeconomic status falls far short of the statewide

TABLE 1Percent of Households with Income

from Various Sources, Oklahoma, 1979

Types of Income State IndiansWage and Salary 74.9 75.0Nonfarm and self-employment 11.3 7.4Farm self-employment 6.3 4.3Interest, dividend, or rent 33.5 19.4Social Security 26.8 25.2Public assistance 7.8 14.0All other 20.9 24.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of thePopulation, 1980, PC 80-1C 38, Okla., pp 52 and 71


averages. In 1979, it would have taken additionalmoney income of $429 million just to bring theIndian populations’ per capita income up to thestate average. Given inflation and the probabilitythat deteriorating economic conditions after 1982have had a differentially great impact on the poor,it could easily take as additional $1 billion ofpersonal income to raise the Indian average to the1988 state average. Put differently, lack of fullIndian economic development can be viewed asplacing a billion dollar-a-year drag on the state’s$42 billion personal income.

The Extent of Tribal OrganizationThere are 38 federally-recognized tribal units inOklahoma maintaining tribal offices. Owing totheir official relationship with the U.S. Bureau ofIndian Affairs, these organizations are units ofgovernment. All told, portions of 65 tribes inhabitOklahoma.9 All Indians reported in the 1980Census of Population are not enrolled in tribes.However, a special survey of Indians undertaken in1980 suggests the relative scale of tribal affiliationfor Indians living outside the urbanized areas ofOklahoma City, Enid, Tulsa, and a smallOklahoma portion of the Ft. Smith, Arkansas,urbanized area. Three-quarters of the 113thousands Indians covered in the special surveyidentify with one o f the original Five CivilizedTribes settling in Oklahoma as a result of theirforced removal from southeastern states in the1830s and ‘40s. Six other tribes accounted for 10percent of the total, and another seven percent wasspread among 22 smaller tribes.

Tribal organizations can involve substantialeconomic activity. In 1986-87, the University ofOklahoma’s Southwest Center for HumanRelations surveyed 31 federally-recognized tribesin Oklahoma. Sixteen tribes responded generatingthe following aggregate information:10

Tribal budgets: $49 millionTribal government employment: 2,253 personsFederal and state assistance: $81 millionSales of tribally-owned businesses: $52 millionEmployment in tribal-owned bus: 863 persons

Examples of the kinds of manufacturingenterprises resulting from tribal economicdevelopment efforts are listed in Table 3 for 1983.Data in Table 3 are from the U.S. Department ofInterior and emphasize the Choctaw and CherokeeNations manufacturing development at that time.Other types of enterprise pursued by tribes include

TABLE 2Selected Tribal Affiliation

Indians Living Outside of Urbanized AreasOklahoma 1980 a

Total 113,397

Five Civilized Tribes Cherokee 45,681 Chickasaw 5,261 Choctaw 19,544 Creek 10,357 Seminole 3,459 Subtotal 84,302

Selected other tribes Cheyenne-Arapaho 2,808 Comanche 2,961 Delaware 1,148 Kiowa 3,048 Pottawatomie 1,096 Sac and Fox 1,055 Subtotal 12,116

22 other tribes 8,402

Tribes not reported 8,577

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of the Popula-tion, 1980, American Indians, Eskimos and Aleutson Identified Reservations and in the HistoricAreas of Oklahoma (excluding urbanized areas),PC 80-2-D, Part 1, pp 95-97.

a: Excludes Indians living in “urbanized areas” ofOklahoma City, Lawton, Tulsa, Enid and the FortSmith, AR area of Oklahoma. Excluded are all orpart of 23 counties in NW and far SW Oklahoma.

b: Includes Apache, Caddo, Osage, Otoe, Pawnee,Ponca, Absentee Shawnee, Eastern Shawnee,Kaw, kickapoo, Miami, Modoc, Oklahoma Iowa,Ottawa, Peoria, Iroquois, Quapaw, Seneca-Cayuga, Sioux, Tonkawa, Wichita and Wyandottetribes.


tourist attractions, crafts, bingo operations, smoke-shops, horticultural products, and farming/ranchingactivities.

In recent years, federal government policy hasprovided many stimuli for the growth of tribalgovernment units. Of special importance has beena shift in Bureau of Indian Affairs policy occurringin the mid 1960s in which tribes are given theopportunity to contract for and administer servicesto Indian people which were formerly handleddirectly by the Bureau.11

Other important programs involve housing, healthservices, job training, and energy conservation.Tribes, as units of government, also receivedfederal revenue sharing payments while thatprogram was in effect.

Indian Tribes and State GovernmentSorting Out The Issues

What should Oklahoma state government’s role bewith respect to Indian tribes and economicdevelopment? General areas of focus includepubic assistance, edducation and human resourcedevelopment, the prevention of discrimination, the

promotion of entrepreneurship, and thedevelopmen of an orderly framework forintergovernmental relations with tribes.

Public AssistanceTo the extent that the state’s Indian peopleexperience severe economic need, it is appropriatefor the state to provide various forms of publicassistance such as AFDC and food stamps.However, these federally-mandated programs areavailable to all Oklahomans regardless of race,ethnic background, etc. They are not programsdesigned specifically for Indians. The purpose ofsuch entitlement programs is maintenance ratherthan development. The history of the state’sIndians is replete with examples of too muchdependency on government assistance. Part of theeconomic development challenge is to break thattie of dependence through education and jobcreation.

Education and Human Resource DevelopmentLess-than-adequate education is part of the reasonfor relatively low income. This applies to allpersons both Indian and non-Indian. But Indiansdo appear to have less than average levels ofeducation. The State Department of Educationparticipates in several federally-funded programs

TABLE 3BIA Identified Businesses on Indian Trust Lands, Oklahoma 1983

Indian Trust Land Name of Business Ownership a Business Type Est EmploymentChoctaw Nation Oklahoma Aerotronics, Inc. Indian Electronic components 400Choctaw Nation David Timber Company Indian Railroad ties, timber byproduct 350Cherokee Nation Cherokee Nation Industries, Inc Indian Electrical equipment 116-150Choctaw Nation Fountain Industries Tribal Children’s apparel 85Cherokee Nation Facet Enterprises, Inc. Other Industrial filters 57Seminole Nation Controlled Products Corp. Other Plastic products 25-49Cherokee Nation Sequoyah Electronics, Inc. Indian Electronics assembly 25-49Chickasaw Nation Chickasaw Enterprises Tribal Windows and cabinets 30Choctaw Nation Chief Trailer Manufacturing Indian Livestock trailers 15Cherokee Nation Heath Ceramics Other Tile 15Kiowa Tribe Apache Meat Processing, Inc. Indian Meat processing 11

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Report of the Task Force on Economic Development, July 1986, pp 146-49.

a: Indian means some share of Indian ownership; Tribal means tribal ownership.


targeted at Indians in common schools andoffsetting the property tax exemption of Indiantrust lands.12 In fiscal year 1987, these federalfunds amounted to $32 million. 13 With a schoolsystem generally underfunded, it is likely thatIndian children would be served best by the samesort of overall school improvements which wouldserve best the interests of all children in the state.In fact, such overall improvement would increasethe leverage exercised by the existing Indian-specific programs.

Good personal health is related positively to laborproductivity and earnings. State government inOklahoma faces an increasingly complex set ofproblems in health policy. Again, these are notIndian-specific, though their solution would be ofbenefit to Indians. Although the federal IndianHealth Service provides special services andfacilitate for Indians at great cost (nearly $100million in FY 8714), Indians living in metropolitanareas often find access to be difficult and must relyon the same services as their non-Indian neighbors.

Alcoholism is a special health problem impedingthe economic progress of a differentially largenumber of Oklahoma Indians. It was estimatedthat, during the period 1968-78, the rate of NativeAmerican deaths in Oklahoma from alcoholismwas roughly three times that of the rest of thepopulation. Some tribal groups appear especiallycursed with this disease; during the 1968-78decade, it was estimated that 29.7 percent of all thedeaths for the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe werealcohol-involved.15 Again, however, it is clear thatthe absolute number of Oklahomans involved isalcohol abuse greatly exceeds the number ofIndians with that problem. Thus enhanced statepolicy toward alcohol abuse in general should alsobenefit Indian people.

Discrimination and Civil RightsDiscrimination against Indians can impede stateeconomic development. Where labor and otherresources are forced into less-efficient functionsand uses due to prejudice, total production withinthe state is reduced. The framers of Oklahoma’s1907 constitution saw to it that de jure

discrimination against Indians was limited. (Theywere less solicitous of blacks; Jim Crow laws werepart of the Oklahoma Statutes well into the 1960s.)

By the late 1960s, state and federal legislation hadprovided a basis for attacking many forms ofdiscrimination. Concern over discrimination andcivil rights continues, although there has been ashift in focus. A hearing of the OklahomaAdvisory Committee to the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights was held in Okalahoma City on Sept.1, 1988 to receive testimony on Native AmericanCivil Rights Issues. The Director of the OklahomaHuman Rights Commission reported that fewcomplaints arise concerning employment, housing,and public accommodation for Indians16. AnAssistant Attorney General testified that his stateoffice had not been utilized by Indians concernedwith civil rights issues during the past four years17.

The big issues in Indian civil rights now appears tofocus not on the rights of individuals but rather onthe rights of Indians as participants in tribalsovereignty. The issue of tribal sovereignty hastranscended concern over the more common formof de facto personal discrimination and violation ofpersonal civil rights.

Native American Enterprise andState Economic DevelopmentIn all communities throughout the nation theconcern for economic development is focusedincreasingly upon small business development andentrepreneurship. Studies indicate that most newjobs are created by small business. Indianentrepreneurship in Oklahoma may operatethrough tribal government and tribal enterprise onthrough the initiative of private Indian owner-managers. Indian owners may have facilities ontrust land or elsewhere.

From the point of view of the tribe or of Indianpeople in general, any Indian-owned business ornon-Indian business operating on Indian landinvolves economic development. Jobs for Indiansare created and incomes are enhanced. However, itmust be noted that, from the point of view of thestate as a whole, some Indian enterprises involve


little or no general economic development. Thecritical feature relates to whether or not there issome basic activity which generates a financialflow entering the state or whether or not a good orservice is produced within the state which hadbeen purchased out-of-state.

A smoke shop selling tobacco products free ofstate taxes is an example of an Indian enterprisewhich involves economic development from anIndian perspective, but which has little or noimpact on the overall state economy. A carton ofcigarettes purchased at a smoke shop usuallymeans a carton not sold elsewhere in the state. Theoverall flow of income in Oklahoma is rearrangedbut not enhanced. On the other hand, a tribalmanufacturing facility shipping most of itsproduction out-of-state enhances the overall levelof employment and income in Oklahoma withpositive secondary effects on other sectors of theeconomy.

From a political as well as an economic point ofview, these distinctions are quite important. Asrecent sessions of the Oklahoma Legislature haveamply illustrated, it is easy to marshal politicalsupport for economic development-related taxbreaks – particularly for manufacturing andprocessing. Even gambling operations likely tobring in out-of-staters have received tax breaks;the sales tax applying to pari-mutual horse racingbets is substantially less than the state’s averagegeneral state and local sales tax rate. At the sametime, the Legislature did not see fit to passlegislation exemption smoke shops from statetaxes.

Setting aside more fundamental issues of tribalsovereignty, it would be beneficial to sort out thosetypes of Indian-related economic activity whichare part of general state economic development.For example, if good data were available, it mightbe established that high-stakes tribal bingo withmany out-of-state players has a significant generalimpact on the Oklahoma economy not unlike amanufacturing plant or a major tourist attraction.

Intergovernmental RelationsThe volume of litigation concerning economic andother rights and actions of tribes and tribalgovernment attests to some confusion about theextent and nature of tribal sovereignty. Nowhere isthis confusion more evident than in the case oftaxation.18 Indian law is a significant field inAmerican jurisprudence.19 (A special curriculum isnow being offered in the subject at the OklahomaCity University School of Law.) It is not thepurpose herein to delve into the “true” nature oftribal sovereignty. However, in sorting outOklahoma state government policy in this area it isimportant to set forth a few propositions affectinginter-governmental relations in this field of policy.

• The extent of tribal sovereignty is substantial;some aspects of sovereignty predate the U.S.Constitution.

• Tribal sovereignty can be the basis foreconomic advantage to non-Indian businesseslocating on Indian land and to tribalenterprises.

• The boundaries of sovereignty are likely to bedifferent for different tribes; statutory andtreaty histories are highly variable. Thisdiminishes the role of precedent where there islegal conflict over sovereignty.

• Congress and the federal governmentbureaucracy possess great power, both legaland financial, over Indian tribes; the unsettlednature of Indian law is partly due to federalinaction.

• Conflicts over sovereignty between tribes andOklahoma State Government frequently resultin litigation; except for cases involving smokeshops, the state normally loses.

The failure to sort out and define clearly the natureof tribal sovereignty from an economicdevelopment perspective could retard businessdevelopments in Oklahoma. Given all thepotential advantages for Indian enterprise, the


question arises as to why there has not been moreIndian-related development. Surely one of thereasons relates to the perceived uncertainly aboutintergovernmental relations on the part ofentrepreneurs considering locating on Indian land.Other things being roughly equal, business tries toavoid unstable institutional and legal settings.Unfortunately, the instability associated withpersistent conflict over intergovernmental relationsis occasionally supplemented by unstable andfractious tribal politics.

Specific State Policies TowardIndian Tribes and Economic Development

Specific state policies relating to tribal governmentand economic development run the gamut fromtraditional economic development efforts to taxadministration. Policy is fragmented andsometimes contradictory.

The Oklahoma Department of CommerceIndian people were not overlooked as Oklahomarefurbished and expanded its state governmenteconomic development programs. In 1987, anIndian economic development specialist was addedto the staff of the Oklahoma Department ofCommerce (ODOC). This individual works withtribal organizations and others to help site newenterprise and expansions on Indian land.Arrangements can be made to use funds from theOklahoma Industrial Finance Authority (OIFA) forIndian related projects.

For example, Sac and Fox Industries (a corporationowned by tribe of the same name) received a $1.2million loan from OIFA to help with its 1988acquisition of a garment plant in northeasternOklahoma. Assistance is provided in puttingtogether packages of incentives including thoseavailable from the federal government.

Also under ODOC and its Oklahoma Futures boardis the responsibility of a strategic planning foreconomic development. As part of acomprehensive effort in 1987-88, a CulturalDiversity and Economic Development task Force

prepared a report on the role of minorities in statedevelopment with special emphasis on Indianpeople.20 The report decries Oklahoma’s failure tocapitalize on tribal assets in the economicdevelopment activities.

• Tribal enterprises represent sources of greatcurrent and potential income, but we litigaterather than cooperate.

• Tax benefits on Indian lands abound, and yet weseek them abroad.

• Indian labor is plentiful, productive, andreasonable in cost, but its potential is notrealized.

• This labor supply also includes well-educated,qualified Native American professionals.

• Extensive tracts of land are held in public trust,but rather than developing this land for newenterprise, we look elsewhere for building sites.21

• One of the Task Force’s major short-run goalsinvolves the attraction of “new business venturesand investment to Indian trust lands” by 1995.22

Also within the ODOC structure is an Office forMinority and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.Established by the Oklahoma Legislature in 1987,this office has a broad range of statutory authorityto assist minority-owned businesses.23

Office of Public AffairsThe Oklahoma Minority Business EnterpriseAssistance Act was passed in the1987 session ofthe Legislature.24 This law requires the StatePurchasing Director of the Office of Public Affairsto implement a system of bid preferences forminority-owned firms whenever the share of statecontract funds going to such firms drops below tenpercent. Exempted from the requirement arehighway and other contracts administered by theOklahoma Department of Transportation.


TourismA recently-issued colorful 36-page bookletpromoting Oklahoma tourism typifies the state’semphasis on its Indian heritage as a touristattraction.25 With the proceeds of a recently-enacted (1987) room and restaurant tax of 1/10 ofone percent earmarked for tourism advertising bythe Oklahoma Department of Tourism andRecreation, the state will be placing even greateremphasis on Indian culture.

A major analysis of travel marketing anddevelopment was delivered to the state in 1987 bythe accounting firm, Price Waterhouse. Theanalysis suggests room for improvement in effortsto leverage Indian attractions to promote tourism.The report reached the following conclusion.

The Most common theme among Oklahoma’sattractions is Western Heritage/Native Americans,but there is no central focus for these attractions.

Many Oklahoma attractions are centered aroundthe themes of the “Old West” including the historyand culture of Native Americans. These attractionsare, however, scattered across the State with nosingle attraction providing a focal point. In factthere are a limited number of such attractions thatoffer significant activities and access to “Cowboysand Indians;” those that do exist tend to be locatedin relatively out-of-the-way places. In factinformation on such events – such as Oklahoma’smany pow wows – is not widely distributedoutside of the Native American population.Travelers would have to spend considerable timedriving between theee various attractions and eventhen may not enjoy a rich and comprehensiveexperience of Oklahoma’s Western Heritage.26

Some members of the Oklahoma Legislature havebecome concerned at inadequate emphasis onIndian culture in tourist development efforts. A1988 resolution (H.J.R. 1039) noted that theDepartment of Tourism and Recreation had not“fully explored the use and availability of ourIndian lands and heritage in drawing new businessand tourism interests into this state.” Theresolution contained the following directive.

The Oklahoma Tourism and RecreationDepartment is hereby directed to workwith the various Indian tribes in this stateto fully develop the tourist attractionpotential of tribal trust lands. Thedepartment is further directed to advertiseand promote Indian lands and heritage inthis state to out-of-state tourism industries.

The measure did not get beyond the HouseCommittee on Tourism and Recreation.

Both the Lieutenant Governor and the Governorhave been reported as favoring some sort of majorstate cultural center emphasizing NativeAmericans. Lieutenant Governor Robert S. KerrIII has proposed using proceeds form a turnpikebond issue to help pay for such a facility.Governor Henry Bellmon would apparentlyfinance such a major tourist attraction as part of alarge capital improvement bond issue.27 Clearly,the design, sitting, and financing of such a world-class facility would require very detailed analysisand planning. In late 1988 such initial feasibilitywork had not yet been undertaken.

The Oklahoma Indian Affairs CommissionThe nine-member Oklahoma Indian AffairsCommission was established in 1967.28

Commission members must have one-fourth orgreater Indian blood. The purpose of theCommission is to “work toward promoting unity,purpose and understanding among the Indianpeople of Oklahoma.” It is also supposed to serveas a liaison between Indians, federal agencies, andthe executive and legislative branches of stategovernment. It is a relatively small agency withfive employees and a FY 88 operating budget of$157 thousand.29 Included among the agency’srecent activities are the preparation of a handbookon Indian child welfare and the distribution of$600 thousand in oil overcharge funds to tribes forhousing weatherization and utility billsupplements.


Units at the University of OklahomaLocated within the University of Oklahoma’sContinuing Education and Public Service unit, theAmerican Indian Institute implements projects andprograms relevant to Indian people throughout thenation. It also operates and maintains acomputerized bibliographic data base of abstractsof Indian studies and reports. This service isreferred to as the Native American ResearchInformation Service. The Southwest Center forHuman Relations Studies is also within the sameadministrative unit at the University of Oklahoma.Although the Center deals with matters related toall minorities, it places emphasis on Indian issues.Legal issues involving Indian people are the focusof the Law Center’s specialized journal, theAmerican Indian Law Review.

Clarifying Intergovernmental RelationsThe 1988 session of the Oklahoma Legislaturepassed WB 210. The essence of the bill is toauthorize Oklahoma state government to enter intocooperative agreements with federally recognizedIndian tribes. Initial work on the bill wasundertaken by a special task force on Indiansovereignty appointed by Governor HenryBellmon. These agreements are to require theapproval of a newly-formed Joint Committee onState-Tribal Relations and the U.S. Secretary ofthe Interior or his designee.

In a preamble, SB 210 asserts that the state“acknowledges federal recognition of IndianTribes” and “recognizes the unique status of Indiantribes within the federal government.”

No doubt the passage of SB210 attests tolegislative intent to begin to come to terms withthe legal existence of Indian tribes in Oklahoma.Yet the fact that such legislation was not passeduntil 1988 also attests to the historical reluctanceof state government to deal affirmatively withtribes in an intergovernmental framework.Moreover, this reluctance is nowhere more clearthan in a comparison of a committee substitutedraft of SB 210 with the final outcome.30 Thatdraft would have permitted “intergovernmental

cooperative agreements” between federallyrecognized tribes and both the state and units oflocal government. No legislative committeeapproval of agreements was to be required, and theagreements simply were to be subject to the“respective constitutional procedures” of the stateand the tribes. Clearly, the final version of SB 210went a much shorter distance in recognizing tribesas units of government and in facilitatingintergovernmental arrangements with tribes.Moreover, even the committee substitute did notgo as far as one of SB 210’s predecessors. In1985, the Oklahoma House of Representativespassed HB 1199. That legislation included explicitrecognition of the “government-to-government”nature of relationships between state governmentand the federally-recognized tribes. It alsoincluded the requirement that the state recognize“tribal judicial systems and their decisions, and thelegislative and executive actions of the ….TribalGovernments.” HB 1199 did not succeed in thestate’s Senate.

State Tax AdministrationOne of the key ingredients of sovereignty is thepower to tax. Where business enterprise operateson Indian land, it can be argued that Oklahomastate government has no more power to levy statetaxes on such an enterprise than it has to levy statetaxes on a firm in Austria. It can also be arguedthat all economic activity within Oklahoma’sphysical boundaries is subject to state taxes.

The Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) has spent agood deal of time in courts (including tribal courts)in recent years attempting to collect taxes onIndian-related enterprise. Much of the litigationhas dealt with the state’s cigarette tax applied tosmoke-shops and the sales tax applied to bingohalls. Although decisions are often quite narrow intheir application, tribal sovereignty appears toprevail more often than not. On June 27, 1988, forexample, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected anappeal by the Oklahoma Tax Commission is a caseinvolving a Creek Nation bingo operation inTulsa.31 The Commission is also challenging theChickasaw Nation’s bingo operation at Sulphur,


though in mid-summer 1988 it was experiencinglack of success in procedural matters before a U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals.32 However, theOklahoma Supreme Court was more favorablyinclined toward the Commission’s position in aJuly 1988 decision involving the Citizen Band ofthe Pottawatomie Tribe.33 The Court held the salestax applicable since the bingo operation inShawnee was being run by a non-Indian firm notacting as the tribe’s agent. This may have been aPyrrhic victory for the Commission; in less thantwo months the Pottawatomies reclaimed theirbingo hall with intention of running the operationthemselves.34

Conflict over smoke shop operations has been atleast as acrimonious as bingo litigation. Forexample, in May 1986 the commission seized asmoke shop inventory in Ottawa County allegingillegal failure to collect state taxes. More thantwo years later the United Keetoowah Band ofCherokee Indian sued the Commission, itschairman, and local officials for carrying out theraid without legal authority.35

Tax officials with the state believe that there isreasonably clear precedent that the state can collecttobacco taxes on retail sales by tribes or Indianindividuals to non-Indians. 36 However, there arelegal nuances involved in each situation which willsurely serve as the basis for continued litigation.

Another area of tax conflict involves payroll taxescollected by the Oklahoma Employment SecurityCommission (OESC) as a part of the federal-stateunemployment insurance program. The tax ratepaid by employers is affected by their pastexperience in terminating or laying off employeeseligible for benefits from a trust fund. The OESCbrought suit against several tribes for failure to paythe payroll tax. In mid-1988 the U.S. DistrictCourt held that since neither Congress nor thetribes themselves had waived sovereign immunity,the court had no jurisdiction in the matter. It isdoubtful that OESC will appeal. This decisionappears to leave in doubt (1) the eligibility ofterminated employees of non-participating tribes to

receive unemployment insurance benefits and (2)the status within the program of the majority ofOklahoma tribes which voluntarily elect toparticipate. One solution is for the tribesthemselves to establish unemployment insuranceprograms. However, any form of workableinsurance program usually relies on the averaging-out of the behavior of a large number ofparticipants.

In 1985, Oklahoma’s voters approved aconstitutional amendment providing a five-yearproperty tax exemption for new or expandedmanufacturing plants. Ancillary to this exemptionwas a provision requiring state government toreimburse local jurisdictions for taxes lost as aresult of the exemption.37 Enterprises locatingfacilities on Indian land have access to property taxexemption in perpetuity. However, the state’sprogram for reimbursing local government wouldnot apply in such instances. This may lead localpublic officials otherwise willing to promote sitingfacilities on Indian land to favor other locationwith more positive impact on the local tax base.

Where taxes and tax revenues are concerned, it isreasonable to assume that state agenciesresponsible for their collection will do so withvigor. Nothing raises the public’s ire more quicklythan an indication that some are getting awaywithout paying taxes. Thus it is not unreasonableto expect the OTC and OESC to attempt to collecttaxes from tribal and other Indian-relatedenterprise – including going to court if necessary.Nor is it unreasonable for tribal officials and thosedoing business on Indian land to pursue all meanspossible to avoid paying state taxes, and in sodoing to test the limits of tribal sovereignty in thecourts. Any manager whose organization paysmore taxes than necessary is violating a fiduciaryobligation. It is unfair to charge either stateofficials or Indian leaders with acting in bad faith;both sides appear to be acting responsibly.

New Federal Action and StateResponsibilities Regarding Indian GamingFurther conflict over bingo and other forms ofgambling operations under the jurisdiction of tribal


governments is likely to develop as a result of newfederal legislation. In October 1988, PresidentReagan signed the “Indian Gaming RegulatoryAct” establishing and empowering a three-memberNational Indian Gaming Commission (S. 555).The commission has the power to regulate tribalbingo operations. Perhaps more important, the lawestablishes a procedure by which states whichallow other types of gambling operations mustnegotiate in good faith with a tribe wishing toestablish such operations. The negotiations are tolead to a Tribal-State compact. Within less thantwo months of the signing of this new federallegislation, the Comanche Indian Tribe ofOklahoma requested such negotiations concerningthe establishment of a pari-mutuel horse racingtrack in Comanche County. Initial response bystate officials indicated uncertainty as to who,within state government, is responsible for suchnegotiations. For example, an Assistant AttorneyGeneral stated that there is nothing in theOklahoma Constitution giving the Governorauthority to negotiate with tribal governments.38

Challenges for State/Tribal PolicyEven though all parties are behaving reasonably,the fact remains that a good deal of resources arebeing devoted to determining the nature of tribalsovereignty in Oklahoma. Much of this relates tocivil litigation relevant to state and tribal economicdevelopment. Although beyond the scope of thisreport many similar types of issues arise withrespect to the enforcement of criminal law inIndian country. In spite of litigation, a good dealof confusion remains.39

Confusion over the nature and extent of tribalsovereignty can create uncertainties leading privatecapital to shy away from partnerships with Indiantribes. Uncertainties are enhanced where thereappears to be political instability within tribalgovernment and uneasiness about tribal courts.40

In 1984, a U.S. Presidential Commission on IndianReservation Economics listed rapid turnover oftribal government as an obstacle to economicdevelopment.41

Unfortunately, one of the most important obstaclesto economic development on Indian land relates tolocation. Locations outside of Oklahoma’s majormetropolitan areas – whether Indian land or not –are often at a disadvantage with respect to therequirements of many types of business enterprise.Most Indian land is in smaller cities and ruralareas. Thus even where a tribal government isstable and is pursuing a conservative course withrespect to testing the limits of sovereignty, its landand that of the members of the tribe may be poorlylocated.

State government is committed to promotingbalanced economic growth throughout Oklahomaand to promoting the well-being of all its citizens.Within this framework there appear to be severalmajor options for policy with respect to Indiantribes.

• Status Quo: Continue modest support fortribal development through the OklahomaDepartment of Commerce and other agencieswhile litigating sovereignty issues in the fieldsof taxation and regulation.

• Comprehensive Rural Development Strategy:Integrate the use of tribal governmentadvantages into a broad-based developmentstrategy aimed at maintaining and restoringthe economic viability of small towns and ruralareas throughout the state; provide resourcesto enable tribes to improve their infrastructure– including their administrative capacity andjudicial/law enforcement systems.

• Proactive Intergovernmental relations:Continue the work begun by SB 210 in 1988.Include arrangements with tribal governmentsin the authority granted to other units ofgovernment by the state’s InterlocalCooperation Act;42 develop procedures fordispute resolution through conciliation andmediation where tribal sovereignty come intothe conflict with state government and itssubdivisions.


Finally, it must be emphasized that Oklahoma isnot the only state facing problems andopportunities relating to Indian tribes andeconomic development. The nation’s fifty stategovernments are a vast network in which publicpolicy experiments are continuously taking place.Oklahoma leaders learn much from what is goingon in other states. The 1988 National Conferenceon Native American Sovereignty held by theOklahoma City University School of Law is a casein point. The Western Governors’ Association hasdevoted a good deal of effort to comparativeanalysis of state-tribal relations. A 1988 draftreport by that organization contains a challengingrecommendation that “state/tribal relations couldbe broadly improved by the establishment ofstrong government-to-government relationsbetween the tribes and state government.43

Future state economic development policy inOklahoma is likely to place greater emphasis onNative American matters. In order to capitalize onthe advantages of Indian tribal governments for thegreater good of the state and for the economicwell-being of Indian people, both the state and thetribes may have to yield a bit of sovereignty.

End Notes

1 Stephen Cornell, The Return of the Native: American Indian PoliticalResurgence , New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

2 Angie Debo, And Still the Waters Run, Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1940.

3 “State Overlooks Financing Potential of Indian Tribes, ” The JournalRecord, July 15, 1988; “Have you ever considered operating or locatingfacilities offshore to reduce business costs and taxes? It’s a shorter tripthan you think,” promotional brochure of Sac and Fox Tribe of Oklahoma,Stroud, Oklahoma 1988; Robert D. Anderson, Tax Incentives forDeveloping a Private Sector on American Indian Trust Lands: A TribalPerspective, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, 1988

4 U.S. Department of the interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division ofFinancial Assistance, Financial Assistance Available for Indian EconomicDevelopment Projects, 1985.

5 F. Browning Pipestem, “The Mythology of the Oklahoma Indians Revisited– A Survey of the Legal Status of Indian Tribes in Oklahoma Ten yearsLater: in Foundations of Sovereignty and Jurisdiction (School of Law,Oklahoma City University, June, 1988) and The Cherokee Nation v.Georgia 30 U.S. 1 (1831).

6 For more detail, see Margaret Abudu Green, et.al., Report on the EconomicImpact of American Indians in the State of Oklahoma (Norman; TheSouthwest Center fore Human Relations, University of Oklahoma, May1987) and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1980, PC 80-1-C38, Okla.; for earlier summaries of economic and social characteristics,see Joseph E. Trimble, An Index of the Social Indicators of the AmericanIndian in Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma, Office of Community Affairs andPlanning, 1972; Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission, A Summary ofStatistics for the Indian in Oklahoma, May 1975.

7 Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Annual Report FY 1987, p. 36;see also Charles W. Kerr, “American Indians Receiving DHS Services inOklahoma,““Oklahoma Department of Human Services, February, 1985.

8 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Annual Report ofIndian Lands as of Sept. 30, 1984.

9 Thirty-eighty tribal organization offices are reported in OklahomaDepartment of Libraries, Directory of Oklahoma, 1987-1988, p. 257f. Arecent history of the Oklahoma Indian reports a total of 65 tribes, RennardStrickland, The Indians in Oklahoma, Norman: University of OklahomaPress, 1980, p. 160. This figure is the same as reported in Muriel H.Wright, A Guide to the Indian Tribes of Oklahoma, Norman: University ofOklahoma Press, 1951.

10 Margaret Abudu Green, op.cit p. 45.

11 For a discussion of the role of Oklahomans in implementing this change inpolicy, see William Carmack, “A New Approach to Indian Affairs,” inArrell Morgan Gibson, ed., Between Two Worlds, Oklahoma City:Oklahoma Historical Society, 1986; see also Theodore W. Taylor, TheStates and their Indian Citizens, U..S. Department of Interior, Bureau ofIndian Affairs, 1972.

12 Margaret Abudu Green, op. cit. p. 46 f.f. and Appendix 6.

13 Ibid., p. 51.

14 Ibid.

15 Marcy C. Dufour, et. Al., ‘Differential Alcohol-Involved ProportionateMortality Among Oklahoma Indians: A Tribal Comparison,” inProceedings of the 1985 Public Health Conference on Records andStatistics , U.S. Public Health Service, DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 86-1214. pp.485-89.

16 Testimony of Ronald Lee Johnson, Director, Oklahoma Human RightsCommission, at hearing of Oklahoma Advisory Committee to the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights, Oklahoma City,, September 1, 1988.

17 Testimony of Stephen Lamirand, Assistant Oklahoma Attorney General, athearing of Oklahoma Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights, Oklahoma City, September 1, 1988.


18 William V. Vetter, “Tribal and State Taxation of Property and Activitieswithin the Exterior Boundaries of Indian Reservations,” (South DakotaLaw Review , Vol.31, Summer 1986), pp.602-26.

19 Rennard Strickland, ed., Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law,1982 ed. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Bobbs-Merrill, 1982.

20 Report to the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, Cultural Diversity andEconomic Development Task Force, Jerold C. Walker, Chairman,December 31, 1988.

21 Ibid., p. 7.

22 Ibid., p. 16.

23 74 O S. Supp. 1987£ 5010.1 ff.

24 74 O.S. Supp. 1987£ 85.45 ff.

25 Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation, Discover Oklahoma,1889-1989 Centennial of the Oklahoma Land Rush, no date.

26 Price Waterhouse, Grey Advertising and Dr. Clare A. Gunn, ProposedMaster Plan for Travel Marketing and Development for the State ofOklahoma , State of Oklahoma, Tourism and Recreation department,November 1, 1987, Vol. 2, p. 127.

27 “State Seems Ready to Take Advantage of Indian Heritage,” AssociatedPress feature, Stillwater News Press, November 27, 1988, p. 8C.

28 74 O.S. 1981£ 120a ed. Seq..

29 1987 Sess. Laws 1103

30 Committee Substitute, SB 210, dated 02/19/88.

31 “High Court Rules Indian Bingo Not Taxable,””Tulsa World, June 28,1988, p. A1 f.

32 “Bingo Hall Tax Ruling Leaves Issue Clouded,””The Daily Oklahoman,July 20, 1988, p. 6.

33 “Non-Indians Bingo Tax Due, Court Decides,” The Daily Oklahoman, July20, 1988, p. 6.

34 “Tribe Wins Back Bingo Hall,” The Daily Oklahoman, September 3, 1988,p. 1.

35 “Keetoowah Cherokees Sue State for Smoke Shop Raid,””Tulsa World,July 15, 1988, p. 6A.

36 The precedent emphasized is a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1980,Washington v. Confederated Colville Tribes; see Strickland, Felix S.Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, p. 415.

37 62 O.S. Supp. 1987,£ 193.

38 “Indian Track Negotiations Puzzle State,””The Daily Oklahoman,December 1, 1988, p. 1.

39 See, for example, “Indian Land Confusing, Panel Says,””The DailyOklahoman , September 2, 1988, p. 4, for comments by U.S. Attorney BillPrice before the Oklahoma Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commissionon Civil Rights.

40 Jesse C. Trentadue, “Tribal Court Jurisdiction Over Collection Suits byLocal Merchants and Lenders: An Obstacle to Credit for ReservationIndians,”” American Indian Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, n.d., p. 49.

41 U.S. Presidential Commission on Indian Reservation Economies, Reportand Recommendations, to the President of the united States, November1984, p. 33.

42 74 O.S. 1981£ 1001 et. seq.

43 Western Governors Association, Western State-Tribal Relationships,Preliminary Report, February 29, 1988, p. 10.


The Local Economic Impact of Tax Exempt Tribal Retail SalesMark C. Snead, Ph.D., Director, Center for Applied Economic Research, Oklahoma State University

and, Steven R. Miller, Ph.D., Director, Center for Economic Analysis, Michigan State University

IntroductionOklahoma’s Indian tribes are becoming anincreasingly important component of state andlocal economic development and are expandinginto most industry sectors, including the traditionalretail trade sectors. While most efforts by tribes toexpand local economic activity are generallyviewed quite favorably, the tax-exempt nature oftribal owned businesses raises unique concerns formunicipal government as tribes expand theirpresence in retail. In Oklahoma, municipalgovernments are highly dependent upon the localsales tax to fund services (deriving an average of40 percent of total revenues from sales taxes) andface the real concern that tribal retail expansionmay redirect locally generated sales tax revenue totribal governments and hamper their ability toprovide necessary public services.

We recently conducted a study of the tribal retailissue that focuses specifically on the Shawnee,Oklahoma (Pottawatomie County) region, a marketarea shared by the city with five tribes, and onethat is experiencing rapid expansion of tribe-operated businesses.1 The purpose of the study isto assist municipal governments better understandthe economic implications of the expansion of tax-exempt tribal businesses into the sales tax-producing business sectors. The study is likewisedesigned to help tribes better understand theeconomic impacts they exert on the local economyby expanding into the retail sector versus otherindustry sectors.

Perhaps most importantly, the project is intendedto serve as a bridge for dialogue between tribal andmunicipal governments that might lead to strongerintergovernmental cooperation and more effectivelocal area economic development. The ongoingexpansion of tribal governments and tribe-operatedbusinesses is changing the definition of localgovernment in many communities as tribal andmunicipal governments become increasingly

intertwined in the process of providing publicservices in the cities in which they operate. Tribesnow routinely levy sales taxes at tribe-operatedretail establishments and are assuming many of thefunctions traditionally provided by municipalgovernment such as the development ofinfrastructure and public utilities. In lieu ofproviding services directly, many tribes makevoluntarily tax payments to municipalgovernments and contribute in meaningful ways toprovide local social services, medical care, andcultural activities. Understanding the newinterrelated nature of municipal and tribalgovernance has become a vital aspect of localeconomic development. (Endnotes) 1 The fullreport titled “Tax Exempt Tribal Retail Sales: AnEconomic Assessment of the Impact on Shawnee,Oklahoma” will be released later this summer.

Modeling Tribal Retail ExpansionOne of the major challenges in assessing theeconomic impact of tribal retail expansion is theinability of the traditional tools of economicimpact analysis to capture many of the potentialimpacts from the shift into retail trade by tribalentities. Most economic impact models measureonly the direct impact of tribal retail operationsand fail to capture many of the changes in localeconomic activity that can be triggered by theshifting of retail trade to tribal ownership. A majortask set forth in the study is the construction of acustom economic model of the Shawnee areaeconomy that is capable of explaining a broadrange of expected impacts from tribal retailexpansion. We construct a custom ComputableGeneral Equilibrium (CGE) model for theShawnee area economy that provides an effectiveframework for better understanding the oftensubtle ways in which tribal retail expansion islikely to reshape the local economy - beyond thedirect impact on sales tax revenue to the city.


CGE models represent the latest generation ofeconomic modeling tools and are able to integratethe behavior of governments, businesses, andhouseholds into a detailed model of the localeconomy. The CGE model used in the study isunique in that it is structured specifically for thePottawatomie County economy and contains anindustry sector for tracking the tribal provision ofretail goods and services and a separate tribalgovernment sector that collects taxes and engagesin government spending.

The model is especially useful for evaluating thequestion of tribal retail expansion because it canused to evaluate shifts in revenue betweengovernments, as well as changes in the price ofgoods and services, changes in tax rates,fluctuations in wagerates, variations in theuse of capital and laborin the region, changesin imports and exportsof goods and services,and other dimensions ofthe local economy.

The model is used tostudy the economicoutcomes of a shift of aportion of the existinglocal retail industry totribal ownership andremoval of the goodsfrom the local tax base.

Tribal government is assumed to collect sales taxon these goods and retain the revenue for tribalspending purposes. Because the ultimate impact oftribal retail expansion is dependent upon the use ofthe revenue, the impact is evaluated assumingvarious local uses of the revenue by tribalgovernment including income transfers to tribemembers, the provision of health care and socialservices, infrastructure development, and to fundbusiness expansion in alternative local export-based industry sectors.

Finally, the model is used to consider the impactfrom an increase in tax rates by local governmentin response to a decline in tax revenue and toevaluate the differing impact of local spendingversus spending outside the region by the tribe.

Implications for Local GovernmentThere are a number of implications for localgovernment that can be drawn from the CGEmodel simulations. The most important result isthat a shift in retail activity to tribal ownership canhave a substantial positive economic impact on alocal economy if tribal tax revenue is spent withinthe local region.

The stimulative economic response is drivenprimarily by sales tax revenue that was formerly

remitted to stategovernment but is nowretained and spentlocally by tribalgovernment.

Because state spendingformulas do notcurrently adjust fortribal absorption ofsales tax revenue, thisrevenue is re-injectedback into the localeconomy and can createlarge economic rippleeffects.

However, tribal retail expansion simultaneouslycreates a budget gap for state and localgovernment. A simulated shift of $25 million inexisting retail to tribal ownership produces a$730,000 loss in tax revenue to the city in the basesimulation. County government similarly incurs arevenue reduction. Any resulting budget shortfallleads to a significant reduction (or slowing of thegrowth rate) in local government spending under alocal balanced budget requirement.

Is the added economic activity enough to offset therevenue lost by local government? The simulations


show that the added economic activity generatedby tribal spending will produce only enoughrevenue to offset a very small portion of therevenue shifted from municipal government totribal government. Hence, tribal retail expansionstimulates local economic activity, but not enoughto avoid adversely impacting those localgovernments most reliant upon the sales tax tofund public services and who face a statutoryrequirement to maintain a balanced budget.

The results also illustrate that spending tribal taxrevenue outside the region always has a decidedlynegative economic impact. This represents aleakage of tax revenue outside the region that wasformerly spent predominately in the local economyby city and county government.

If tribal revenue is spent locally, the results furthersuggest that the intended use of the sales taxrevenue plays a large role in determining the sizeof the resulting impact on the local economy.

Spending tribal tax revenue on the same types oftraditional government services currently providedby municipal government generates only minorchanges in the composition of the local economy.Income transfers to tribe members have thesmallest expected overall economic impact as theyencourage a transition away from production andtoward household consumption. Spending oneither infrastructure or health care and socialservices produces much larger relative impactsthan income transfers, with infrastructureexpenditures having the larger impact of the two.

Tribal tax revenue is also commonly used to fundthe expansion of local business activity. Weexamine the impact on the local economy of usingtribal sales tax revenue to expand retail versusother local export industries. Among the key localexport sectors, an expansion in retail exports has amuch smaller economic impact than an expansionof exports in either the manufacturing,transportation and warehousing, or professionaland business services sectors.

The gains in local household income are 2-3 timesgreater with the other key export sectors than withretail. Output gains in the local economy aresimilarly 2-3 times greater with the other exportsectors than with retail. Total state and localgovernment revenue is also significantly lower inthe region when the tribes expand retail versus theother export sectors. For example, expandingmanufacturing exports rather than retail exportsproduces nearly twice the gain in total state andlocal government revenue relative to retail. Inshort, while the tax advantage enjoyed by tribalretailers encourages future expansion of retail, it isunlikely to generate the greatest overall economicimpact in the local economy.

Local government may also be forced to raise thelocal sales tax rate to offset any shift in tax revenueto tribal government. The findings suggest that thecity would have to increase the local sales tax rateby approximately 0.25 percent in order to recoverthe sales tax lost to a $25 million shift in retailsales to tribal ownership. Given the long-runpotential for tribal retail expansion in the localmarket, it seems unlikely that an increase in thesales tax rate can be used to offset anything otherthan a minor tribal shift in the local retail base.Other means will have to be found to raise revenueor city-provided services will have to be reducedas tribal retail expands.

In summary, these CGE model simulations providemunicipal policymakers with the first detailedexamination of tribal retail expansion in a localeconomy in Oklahoma. Tribal governments arealso afforded an evaluation of alternative uses oftribal tax revenue in order to better meet tribaleconomic development objectives. It is hoped thatthis information will aid Oklahoma cities andsovereign tribal governments that share a commongeographic region to form more collaborativeeconomic development agendas.

1 The full report titled “Tax Exempt Tribal RetailSales: An Economic Assessment of the Impact onShawnee, Oklahoma” will be released later thissummer.


Meet Linda Turnbull-LewisLinda Turnbull-Lewis is one of the first NativeAmerican woman to serve as a CorporateExecutive Director of Marketing and CasinoPromotions/Entertainment Director for majorresort destinations in Las Vegas, Nevada. She is aCherokee tribal member and served 5 years withinthe executive branch of her tribal government as amarketing/ economic business developmentspecialist and program director prior toestablishing her own independent marketingconsultant firm in 1995. She has worked withCherokee Principal Chief Wilma P. Mankiller,Cherokee Principal Chief Chad Smith as well asrepresentatives from 57 different tribes.

Turnbull-Lewis has served as a corporatemarketing consultant for Cherokee NationEnterprises (CNE) since 2000, and acted in thecapacity of team lead for the Cherokee NationCultural Tourism Development Plan project since2005. The Cherokee Nation integrated culturaltourism project is part of Principal Chief ChadSmith’s initiative to develop cultural tourism in all14 counties of the Cherokee Nation’s jurisdictionalterritory in northeastern Oklahoma.

She graduated from Markoma Bible Academy inTahlequah, Oklahoma and attended Oklahoma State University. A featured speaker/moderator atthe World Gaming Congress & Expo, Turnbull-Lewis has several articles published in thequarterly supplements to International Gaming &Wagering Business (IGWB) “Indian GamingBusiness”. co-author of a 600 page book on tribalgovernment elections and has a published tribalhistorical article

Planning For SuccessThe Cherokee Nation has been resilient, efficient,and competitive in all aspects of theirorganizations. Establishing Ga-Du-Gi* has shownhow effective the Cherokee Nation can be. TheCherokee Nation has demonstrated success andgrowth in multiple areas. The one resource that hasyet to be used is sharing the Cherokee experiencesthat make the Cherokee Nation so unique andappealing to outsiders.

Cherokee Nation has always had tourism, just noton the scale of which it is capable. Through theefforts of CNCT, this idea will become a reality.

Given the success that Cherokee NationEnterprises (CNE) has achieved in gaming,cultural tourism is positioned to ride themomentum and over time will prove a significantmarket.

*Ga du gi (Working together as individuals,families and communities for a quality of life forthis and future generations by promotingconfidence, the tribal culture, and an effectivesovereign government.)

A Rising Tide Floats All Boats

Success of Cherokee Nation Cultural Tourismmeans success for Oklahoma Tourism, and successof Oklahoma Tourism means success for CherokeeNation Cultural Tourism.

Cooperative planning keys to ensure that culturaltourism development is successful are:

• Consistent, Quality Leadership ThroughCNCT

• Utilization of All Packages and PropertiesAvailable

Sustainable Cultural TourismLinda Turnbull-Lewis, Corporate Marketing Consultant, Cherokee Nation


• Ensure Effective Distribution of Product

• Establish Cherokee Nation Cultural TourismPartners (CNCTP) Quality Partners to AssistWith Cultural Tourism Guest Experience

• Reach Target Segments Through StrategicEffective Marketing Mix

• Make Certain Our Tourism/Guests “Livethe Cherokee Experience”

Cooperative PlanningDevelopment of the Cherokee Nation CulturalTourism (CNCT) Plan, under the direction ofCherokee Nation and CNE administration,included staff from numerous CNinstrumentalities. Representatives from local,county, state and regional public instrumentalitiesand private sector tourism industry alsoparticipated in five wrking conferences onCherokee Nation Cultural Tourism Developmentduring 2006 .

The Cherokee Nation Cultural Tourism StrategicPlan serves as a roadmap for development andlong-term sustainability of Cherokee NationCultural Tourism.

Cooperative Planning between Cherokee Nation,the State of Oklahoma, local, county and regionalmunicipalities as well as private sector TourismIndustry partners to ensure goals and desiredoutcomes are mutually beneficial included thefollowing key growth elements and considerations:

1. Tourism Infrastructure Natural Resources,Transportation, Services, etc.

2. Governing Policy & Regulations Evaluation oflong term effects on communities, lifestyle, etc.

3. Public/Private Synergy Partnerships, JointVentures, etc.

4. Tourism Experiences Attractions, Events,Destinations, Arts & Crafts, etc.

5. Maintaining and Expanding Target MarketSegments Marketing, Advertising, Promotions,Sales, Information & Education

6. Feasibility - Evaluation and Selection ofPriority Projects & Development Year 1 - 3Individual Projects & Business Plans

(CNCT) Sustainable PartnershipsCNCT understands that sustainable partnershipsrequire quality communication between all entities.Working together with the State of Oklahoma andprivate sector Tourism Industry businesses andorganizations toward realization of desired mutualoutcomes includes:

• Cooperative Strategic Planning and Marketing

• Pooling Marketing Efforts and Resources toDevelop and Grow Tour & Travel, Meeting &Planning Markets

• Cherokee Nation Cultural Tourism Partners(CNCTP)

Cherokee Nation Cultural Tourism PartnersThe Cherokee Nation Cultural Tourism Partners(CNCTP) will work with the Oklahoma TourismAssociations. CNCTP will work with both thepublic and private sectors in the development ofCherokee Nation Cultural Tourism . The CNCTPwill ensure cultural, historic, and linguisticauthenticity of the partner tourism product orservice, as well as protect and enhance the CNCTbrand for the Cherokee Nation and its partners.

The objective is to work together with localbusinesses in the promotion of Cherokee Tourismthrough various courses and certifications toincrease the positive experience of the tourists.CNCT intends to draw in Cherokee Nation citizensto become key players in our effort to offer anenriched cultural experience. CNCT will assist incottage business development based on CherokeeNation citizens developing their own touristattractions such as a Cherokee product, excursion,or historic site development. There will be a fee forbeing certified by the CNCTP.


The benefits of the CNCTP certification willconsist of:

• Enhancement of a guest’s cultural experience

• Strategic partnering to offer guaranteedbusiness through the bookings of CherokeeNation Cultural Tourism

• Higher return on investment from marketing asCNCTP adds the partner’s business to themarketing strategy

• Increase partner’s profitability and marketstability

The CNCTP requirements will include thefollowing:

• Knowledge of Cherokee history & Culture

• Key words and phrases in Cherokee language

• Training Certifications in CNCT customerservice and business development

• Industry specific certifications i.e.

• Hotel/Housekeeping standards, Restaurantquality standards, and others that may apply

• Annual performance standards reviews (SecretShoppers will be implemented to assurequality of members)

• Certification will be renewed bi-annually

Increase Tour & Travel OptionsCherokee Nation will work with the State ofOklahoma and the Tour &Travel Industry world wideto increase tourism options.

CNE has initiated the firstof a myriad of new tourismoptions by establishingCherokee Nation CulturalTours. CNCT will offertourism packages to fitmarket demand. Because

there is a multitude of excursions potentiallyavailable, CNCT will subsequently expand into all14 counties of the Cherokee Nation jurisdictionalboundaries. Getting guests from destination todestination in a reliable and pleasant journey willbe key.

As CNCT grows, transport options will beexpanded and upgraded. While the main hub isbased in Catoosa, facilities are available for CNCTto accommodate bus excursions providing for alarger market segments because of CNE resortdestination areas in seven locations, each withinproximity of major airports and interstatehighways. Catoosa is home to one of CNE’s largestCasino Resorts, which has 300+ rooms and is inthe process of a major expansion. This will also liftarea revenues.

Accommodation and capacity for more air-tour andbus tour excursions provide more potential jointventures within Tulsa, such as two world-classmuseums, Philbrook and Gilcrease. They will alsoprovide an opportunity for CNE to partner inestablishing a a major increase in area tourismnumbers.

Marketing & Promoting CNCTThe marketing and promotion strategy for CNCTwill be carried out and implemented by themarketing department within CNE as well as theCherokee Nation. Websites have already beenestablished. The Cherokee Nation NationalHoliday and Tourism Office and CNE will workclosely with the state and CNCTP members topromote tour and travel options here in theCherokee Nation’s 14 counties in northeastern

Oklahoma.

Aside from an effectiveand proven marketing planto promote CNCT, one ofthe most effective forms ofmarketing is “Word ofMouth”. CNCT providesthe opportunity for theCherokee-owned tourismbusinesses to provide such


a cultural experience for the guest that they singthe praises of the Cherokee experience.

As the marketing and promotion strategy brings inguests, it is the duty of the CNCTP members toensure that the visit the guest has experienced isone they will never forget.

Commitment To Partnerships

The Cherokee Nation is committed to long-termsustainable growth in Tribal Cultural Tourism andexpanded Tourism opportunities for all Oklahomatourists along with quality working partnershipsrequired to achieve desired outcomes.

The Cherokee Nation is continuing development ofa long term comprehensive Cultural Tourism Plan.

Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Nation Enterprises(CNE) cultural tourism offices will provideconsistent quality information that makes long-term sustainable working partnerships possiblebetween local and state municipalities as well asregional and international tourism industryprofessionals world wide.

Please visit the following Cherokee Nationwebsites:

• Cherokee Nation Casinos Resorts:www.cherokeecasino.com

• Cherokee Nation Travel:www.cherokeenationtravel.com

• Cherokee Nation: www.cherokee.org

• Cherokee Heritage Center & Museum:www.cherokeeheritage.org

For further information contact:

Cherokee Nation Enterprises (CNE)Marketing Division

Cherokee Casino Resort777 West Cherokee StreetCatoosa, OK 74015(800) 760-6700


A Snapshot of Tribal Operations on OklahomaOklahoma Indian Nations Directory, Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission - 2006 Edition

Absentee Shawnee 3,014 2,293 1 1 1 2 1 0 YESAlabama Quassarte TT 369 359 0 0 0 1 0 0 NOApache 1,986 1,688 1 1 1 1 1 1 YESCaddo 4,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 YESCherokee 240,000 150,000 0 4 50 2 0 YESCheyenne & Arapaho 11,507 7,893 1 1 1 1 1 1 YESChickasaw 38,000 22,000 5 15 3 17 7 3 NOChoctaw 170,000 NOCitizen Potawatomi 25,719 8,619 1 2 1 1 1 0 YESComanche 12,500 9,000 2 4 1 15 0 0 YES

Delaware Nation 1,369 804 0 1 1 1 0 0 YESDelaware Tribe 10,408 3,519 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOEastern Shawnee 2,362 475 1 1 1 2 0 1 YESFort Sill Apache 580 257 0 1 0 1 0 0 NOIowa 519 375 1 1 1 1 1 1 YESKaw 2,805 1,270 0 1 1 1 2 1 NOKialegee Tribal Town 318 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOKickapoo 2,600 2,000 0 1 0 2 1 0 YESKiowa 11,321 6,958 0 0 0 1 0 0 YESMiami 3,303 773 1 1 1 0 0 0 YES

Modoc 200 120 1 1 0 1 0 0 YESMuscogee (Creek) 60,884 42,996 0 8 1 31 0 2 YESOsage 16,031 5,613 0 4 0 11 0 0 YESOtoe-Missouria 1,442 0 1 0 2 2 2 YESOttawa 2,400 858 0 1 0 1 1 0 YESPawnee 3,027 2,021 0 1 0 1 2 1 YESPeoria 2,754 740 1 2 0 0 0 0 YESPonca 3,229 2,297 0 1 1 1 0 0 YESQuapaw 3,240 892 0 1 0 1 1 0 YESSac & Fox 3,342 923 0 2 0 12 0 0 YES

Seminole 14,993 11,787 0 2 0 3 3 1 YESSeneca-Cayuga 4,260 2,162 0 1 0 2 0 0 YESShawnee 1,800 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 YESThlopthlocco Tribal Town 517 426 0 1 0 0 0 0 NOTonkawa 430 365 1 2 0 2 0 0 NOUKB of Cherokees 9,741 9,187 0 1 0 0 0 0 YESWichita & Affiliated Tribes 2,350 1,717 0 0 0 0 0 0 YESWyandotte 4,000 1,630 0 1 0 1 1 1 YESEuchee (Yuchi) 137 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO

TOTAL 677,457 305,352 17 65 15 166 27 15 29

ENROLLMENTSIN U.S IN OK OTB CASINO BINGO SMOKE FUEL TRUCK TAGS


ALLIANCES


Alliances Are Not NewMary Jane Warde, PhD, Historian, Stillwater, Oklahoma

Alliances have been part of Oklahoma life sincelong before there was an “Oklahoma.” Across thecenturies, many Indian peoples have found themuseful, and they have reflected a variety ofinterests and purposes—diplomacy, economics,religion, politics, and culture to name a few.

The earliest alliance recorded in writing occurredabout 1740 when the Wichita and Comanche tribesformed an alliance based on economics. TheWichitas acted as middlemen in a trade system thatextended across and far beyond today’s Oklahoma.They bartered farm produce to the Comanches forbison robes, horses, and slaves taken in northernMexico. They exchanged these Comanche goodswith French traders for European items.

About 1790, after the Kiowa tribe migrated ontothe Southern Plains, they made a peace with theComanches that is still unbroken today. Afterinitial bitter warfare, the allied Cheyenne andArapaho tribes and Kiowa-Comanche-PlainsApache alliance established peace in 1840 byexchanging mountains of gifts at a great meetingon the Arkansas River in Colorado. Until the endof the Plains Wars, about 1875 in Oklahoma, thesefive tribes often camped and fought together,maintaining a defensive alliance against what theysaw as Anglo-American incursion.

Among the tribes that came to Oklahoma from theeastern United States, there was also a centuries-old tradition of diplomacy and alliance-building.Best known were the Iroquois Confederacy(including today’s Seneca-Cayuga Tribe inOklahoma) and the Muskogee Confederacy(including today’s Muscogee, or Creek, Nation,Euchee Tribe, and the Alabama-Quassarte,Kialegee, and Thlopthlocco tribal towns). Severalother tribes in Oklahoma today had joinedalliances formed by Pontiac (1763) and Tecumseh

(the early 1800s). Once in the Indian Territory, theFive Civilized Tribes continued their tradition ofcreating proactive alliances. In 1861 they foundedthe Grand Council of the Indian Territory toconsider whether to ally their nations with theConfederacy, which promised them bettertreatment. They met again with other territorialtribes in 1865, at the end of the Civil War, asdefeated enemies of the Union but hoping topresent a united front.

Required by their 1866 Reconstruction treaties towork toward creating an Indian state, delegates ofthe Five Civilized Tribes joined other IndianTerritory nations at the Okmulgee ConstitutionalConvention in 1870 and formed the InternationalCouncil of the Indian Territory. The true intent ofthis alliance was to oppose formalterritorialization, the end of their sovereignty, andallotment of their communal lands.

As Sac and Fox Chief Wequawhoka wrote to thePrincipal Chief of the Creek Nation in 1881, “Weare brothers we must be one mind.” Faced with theboomer threat by David L. Payne in the mid-1880s, their delegates worked together to assure afederal court decision banning him and otherwould-be homesteaders from the territory. Theymet periodically until looming Oklahomastatehood shattered their last hopes of continuingthe status quo. Even then, the alliance met one lasttime to create the State of Sequoyah.

Indian Territory citizens also worked together inother alliances for other purposes. Many FiveCivilized Tribes leaders believed adopting aspectsof Anglo-American culture such as Christianityand English education would protect theirsovereignty in a changing, often hostile world.Anglo-American missionary societies extendedEnglish education along with Christianity, and by


the 1840s the governments of the Five CivilizedTribes were contributing their national funds tobuild and support schools staffed by missionarysocieties. Through the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies, Indian Christians worked withinorganizations such as the Muskogee BaptistAssociation, Indian Methodist Conference, South,and Baptist Muskogee, Wichita, and SeminoleAssociation to spread and support Christianity inthe Indian Territory.

At the same time, after the devastation of the CivilWar, Indian citizens rebuilt their homes,businesses, farms, and livestock herds. Aninnovation was the Seminole and Muskogee LiveStock Association created by Indian Territoryranchers to regulate and protect their enterprise.Frequently local newspapers carried illustrations ofbrands registered to members of this alliance.

As the range cattle industry flourished generally inthe late 1800s, non-Indians moved their herds ontoIndian lands as lease-holders or partners of Indianranchers. Consequently, two large non-Indianalliances on Indian land developed in the 1880s:the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association and theCheyenne and Arapaho Live Stock Association.

Another initiative related to territorial agriculturewas the Indian International Fair, an outgrowth ofthe Okmulgee Constitutional Convention.Although Creek and Cherokee officers establishedthe fair organization in 1873, by 1892 its officialsincluded members of all the Five Civilized Tribesand the Sac and Fox tribe.

Until the end of the century, Indian people from allover the territory converged annually on Muskogeeto view and compete for prizes in exhibits ofagricultural produce, livestock, manufacturedproducts, home-making skills, art, and “Indianwork.” Other attractions included parades, horseraces, and competitions in horsemanship by maleand female riders.

Although Indian people saw their sovereigntyerode near the turn of the twentieth century, somecontinued to form alliances to protest conditionsthey believed were unjust. A group of Cherokees,Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks joined togetherin the Four Mothers’ Society under the leadershipof Eufaula Harjo and Redbird Smith to protestallotment of their lands. Ironically, the AmericanFederation of Indians was formed in 1934, withOklahoman Joseph Bruner as president, tooppose—among other things—the IndianReorganization Act that ended allotment.

The mid-twentieth century saw many OklahomaIndians move to urban areas away from their tribalcommunities. In those sometimes alien urbansettings, they founded new intertribal alliances,social organizations such as the Intertribal IndianClub of Tulsa and the Oklahoma City Indian Club,which continue to celebrate Indian cultures.Likewise, tribal students at the state’s colleges anduniversities founded Indian clubs to providemutual support and social ties.

As the twenty-first century begins, Indian alliancesof many types continue to flourish. While Indiannations have built on earlier treaties and morerecent federal legislation and judicial decisions toreclaim their sovereignty, they have engaged innew enterprises to benefit their citizens. Theexpansion of Indian smoke shops, motor fuelsdistribution, and casinos has come throughcompacts with state government. Some tribalservices, particularly law enforcement, haverequired accommodation and alliances with cityand county governments.

All this has produced complex issues involvingboth Indian and non-Indian governments as well asfederal administration, and new issues willprobably arise in the future. As they did in earliercenturies, the Indian nations have continued toform councils and use alliances with old and newpartners, seeking greater strength and commonground in confronting common problems.


The Choctaw Nation, encompassing all ofSoutheastern Oklahoma, has become a powerfuland vital economic force. Since the past couple ofdecades, the Choctaw Nation has been engaging inseveral enterprises in an effort to improve not onlythe Nation’s financial health, but also the financialhealth of their members and the residents ofSoutheastern Oklahoma. In an effort to moveaway from federal subsidies, the Choctaw Nationhas been aggressively working to become 100%self-reliant.

Substantial progress has been made towardmeeting this goal by creating enterprises that notonly generate revenue for tribal programs, but alsocreate jobs for tribal members and others living inSoutheastern Oklahoma. Some of their largerenterprises include the Choctaw Manufacturing &Development Corporation, Choctaw ManagementServices, Choctaw Casinos & Resorts, ChoctawRacing Services, and CNH Consulting.

At the same time, the City of Durant has madegreat strides to focus on economic development.Durant, just like the rest of SoutheasternOklahoma, has been plagued by poverty and thelack of economic mobility. In the 1990’s, the Cityleaders made the decision to invest in quality jobs.Since, the City has dedicated a º cent sales tax tojob creation, and appropriated an additional º centequivalent to economic development.

Both the City and the Choctaw Nation areexperiencing a renaissance economically. With theChoctaw Nation headquarters located in Durant, astrategic partnership with the two entities isnatural. Both have realized that what is good forone is also good for the other. Durant and theChoctaw Nation have shared goals and values,with economic development and improvements toquality of life topping the list. Some of the recentprojects the Choctaw Nation and the City ofDurant have partnered on are listed below:

Big Lots Distribution Center – In May 2003, the Cityof Durant and the Durant Industrial Authority (DIA)required an additional $231,715 to complete theconstruction of a new road to access and serve thenew Big Lots Distribution Center. This road, BigLots Boulevard, is over 4,500 feet long and wasengineered to a concrete standard to handle thealmost continuous travel of semi-tractor trucks.Infrastructure improvements for the Big LotsDistribution Center also called for the constructionof a one million-gallon water tower at a cost of over$3 million. Grants and loans were secured from theEconomic Development Administration (EDA), theOklahoma Department of Commerce (ODOC), andthe Oklahoma Department of Transportation(ODOT) to help fund these improvements. Bypartnering with the Choctaw Nation, the City ofDurant and the DIA were able to apply for additionalfunding. For example, instead of the City of Durantand the DIA receiving the maximum EDA grant of$750,000, a grant in the amount of $1.5 million wasreceived instead by partnering with the ChoctawNation.

US-69/75 Improvements at Choctaw Rd – US-69/75 is a major travel corridor between Dallas, TXand Durant. Located only ten miles from the RedRiver (the Oklahoma-Texas State line) and ninetymiles from downtown Dallas, the traffic generatedfrom the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to theChoctaw Casino and Resort, located at US-69/75’sintersection at Choctaw Rd. has continued to grow.As a result, improvements to this intersection havebecome necessary for both economic and safetyreasons. In April 2005, the City of Durantpartnered with the Choctaw Nation and ODOT tofund the signalization of this intersection, alongwith improvements to the slip ramps and frontageroad. Safety in this area has since improved, yettraffic generated at this intersection againwarranted additional modifications and

Choctaws and DurantTim Young, Assistant City Manager, City of Durant


improvements. In January 2007,the City of Durant, ChoctawNation, and ODOT entered into apartnership to add additional left-turn queue space and turn lanes,along with the expansion ofChoctaw Rd. from US-69/75 toBig Lots Blvd from a two-lanecross-section to a five-lane cross-section. Construction on thesemodifications is expected to becompleted in 2008.

Fire Station #3 (Choctaw Substation) – TheChoctaw Nation has been rapidly developingDurant’s southern territory with the opening of theChoctaw Coliseum, Choctaw Arena, ConventionCenter, and the expansion of the Choctaw Casino& Resort. The Choctaw Nation is also consideringthe construction of an RV park in the near future inthe area. With the Choctaw Nation’s investment inthis area, new developments, such as restaurantsand hotels are either under construction or in theplanning stages. However, the nearest fire stationis nearly four miles away! Out of concern for theirpatrons, the Choctaw Nation graciously submittedan application on behalf of the City of Durant toconstruct a new emergency response complexhousing the City’s third fire station and some unitsof the Bryan County Ambulance Authority. Thiscomplex will also house Durant/Bryan CountyEmergency Management and will be able to act asa backup site for the Bryan CountyCommunications Center (911 Dispatch). Fundingwas approved. The Choctaw Nation is alsoproviding the cash match and constructing thecomplex with the Choctaw Nation’s constructioncrews. The City will staff, equip, and operate thecomplex. The new sub-station is expected to becompleted and in operation in early 2008.

The Choctaw Nation has also been a great civicpartner by investing in projects that improve thequality of life of those that live, work, and visitDurant. For example, when the City of Durant andDIA were preparing to dedicate the new CardinalGlass manufacturing plant in June 2004, the

employees of the Choctaw Nationvolunteered hundreds of hourshelping’“spruce up” thecommunity. These acts ofgenerosity has helped encourageothers in the community to getinvolved in helping pick up trashand clean up the appearance of theDurant.

In December 2006, the City ofDurant and the Durant

Community Facilities Authority (DCFA) dedicatedthe new Durant Multi-Sports Complex constructedat a cost exceeding $8 million. This complexcovering almost 200-acres of land houses four newsoftball fields, four new baseball fields, a state-of-the-art track, and several soccer/football fields atone location. Additional amenities includeconcession stands, restrooms, locker rooms, andpermanent stands/bleachers. Future plans call forthe construction of a 17-acre lake with walkingtrails, picnic areas, and additional athleticcompetition space. The Choctaw Nation hasgraciously offered to construct the new 17-acrelake, along with basic access to the lake, for theCity at the Choctaw Nation’s cost. The value ofthe Choctaw Nation’s generosity is valued at over$0.5 million. Engineering has been completed andconstruction will commence as soon as all permitsfrom various state and federal agencies have beenreceived.

The Choctaw Nation and the City of Durant are inconstant communication and partnership with eachother on projects that benefit each other bothdirectly and indirectly. With the Dallas-Fort WorthMetroplex quickly growing to the North,opportunities for both entities continue to expand.Both are members of Team Durant, aconglomeration of entities in the Durant area thatwork together to present a unified effort to attractand prepare for these new opportunities. Thiseffort has continued to grow in strength and hasalso resulted in a friendship between the City ofDurant and the Choctaw Nation that both hope willlast for an eternity.


Cherokees and TahlequahS. Diane Kelley, Group Leader, Cherokee Nation Career Services

and Steven Edwards, Special Assistant, Cherokee Nation Career Services

The City of Tahlequah, Northeastern StateUniversity, and the Cherokee Nation make up theeconomic base of Cherokee County in NEOklahoma. Through the efforts of all three entitiescoming together, they have been able to help bringeconomic growth to that sector of the state.

In 1999, we had new leadership at the helm of theCity of Tahlequah, NSU, and the Cherokee Nation.The mayor of the city, president of the university,who was on the North end of town, and thePrincipal Chief of the Cherokee Nation was on theSouthern edge of town began meeting monthly forbreakfast to collaborate on issues and events forthe area, as well as, how they could offerassistance for the community. These meetingsopened the door for collaboration and coordinationon a major economic development project called:“American Woodmark” which has been the springboard for other projects to follow.

Tahlequah was primarily viewed as a “college”town with fast food joints and with the IllinoisRiver and Lake Tenkiller for recreational activitiesincluding: river float trips, swimming, skiing, andfishing on the nearby lake. Tahlequah was also theCapitol of the 2nd largest Indian Tribe in the UnitedStates.

Other than the rural nursery operations in the areasurrounding Tahlequah, no major manufacturingindustries existed in the community. This factprompted the three major entities to envision aplan requiring all three working together tosuccessfully bring good paying jobs inmanufacturing to the area.

In the Spring of 2001, meetings began with theCity’s Economic Development Board andCherokee Nation’s Commerce and Employmentand Training programs for the purpose ofcollecting data and demographics for apresentation the Woodmark company.

Once the information was gathered and analyzed,the group went into action finalizing the plan andcoordinating furthering the project bycollaborating with other agencies and governmententities.

Two on-site meetings took place at NortheasternState University with the Chief Officers of thecompany. Information was exchanged regardingthe company, its product, and revenue base. Thecity officials brought all key players of thecommunity together to share with the Woodmarkofficials information about the uniqueness of ourcommunity, educational and training facilitiesavailable, as well as a labor pool ready to go towork. The existing infrastructure in Tahlequah’sIndustrial Park was ideal for the type of businessWoodmark would bring to the community.

The Cherokee Nation offered help in locating abuilding for start-up prior to the Industrial Parkfacility being built, job recruitment, on-the-jobtraining, and work experience placement to keepwith the overflow of people coming in for pre-assessment testing, training, and job interviews.

The City of Tahlequah and Tahlequah PublicWorks Authority presented the infrastructure of thecity. Items discussed ranged from electrical, gas,water and sewage capacity, roads, capitalimprovement to the cost factor one of the lowest inthe state.

The Tahlequah Airport Authority gave apresentation on the Municipal Airport. Theyshowed plans for expanding the runwayaccommodating larger planes. They explainedcurrent airport status on the expansion project anda tentative completion timeline. This proved to bea real incentive to Woodmark officials.

Our Congressman, State Elected Officials, alsocame to the table to offer their support at theFederal and State level. The Oklahoma State


Commerce Department came to the table with taxincentives. Our elected State Legislature came tothe table with Industrial Area dollars for thepurpose of road construction to upgrade existingroads to handle the many trucks coming in and outof the Industrial Park in support of Woodmarkoperations.

The State Career Technology Center offeredcustomized services such as job analysis, pre-employment and pre-production training,instructional materials, and curriculumdevelopment. The State WorkForce offered pre-application testing and assessment prior to theinterview process. Eastern Workforce InvestmentBoard offered assistance with manuals, brochuresfor the workers, and drug testing services.

Southwestern Bell Corporation brought an addedincentive to the table. Their intent was offering tobring fiber optics into the Industrial Park. Toursand lunch were provided by the team. TheÄ“RedCarpet” treatment was in place to entice the groupfrom Woodmark that Tahlequah was the place theywanted to be for their company’s continuedgrowth.

The next leg of the journey took a group fromTahlequah aboard the Cherokee Nation TribalPlane to Gas City, Indiana to look over their plantthat would be mirrored in Tahlequah. They wantedus to see the plant, how it was set up, the typeworker they looked and the type training thatwould be needed. The group consisted of theMayor of Tahlequah, City Industrial AuthorityRepresentative, superintendent of the CareerTechnology Center, and the Director of CherokeeNation’s Career Services Group. The groupreturned and began meetings with their teams.Partnerships began meetings for the purposes ofbeing ready when Woodmark’s announcement tookplace.

A special day in the history of Tahlequah tookplace on January 9, 2002 with the groundbreakingof the new “Woodmark“– Tahlequah” Companyfacility. The company’s planned employment of250 people with good paying wages andoutstanding benefits.

This day was one of the biggest that has been heldin Tahlequah. The event began with a luncheon atthe Northeastern State University campus hostedby Southwestern Bell Corporation. Next, was anews conference prior to a reception at the IndianCapital Technology Center in the TahlequahIndustrial Park. A short program acknowledgingall of the people who came together to make this acomplete success. The groundbreaking eventfinale was the auctioning of a Kitchen Cabinet setand a reception at the Restaurant of the Cherokeeshosted by the Cherokee Nation.

Today, five years later, American Woodmark is oneof the leading industries in our area with aworkforce of 250 employees. Since Woodmark,the team has collaborated on many other economicdevelopment projects using the Woodmark Projectas a blueprint in other parts of NortheasternOklahoma.A very positive example of what canhappen when we “Come Together ––“Ga-du-gi.”

Challenges

1. Bring all three groups together – working forthe same goals and values.

2. Being able to bring all of the partnerstogether from WorkForce Oklahoma,Oklahoma Career Technology, CherokeeNation, Northeastern State University, theCity of Tahlequah, Tahlequah Public Works,Authority, Cherokee County Government,Southwestern Bell Corporation, and FederalCongressional and Senate Members.

3. Everyone having the same “Vision” tomarket the company from a public relationsperspective.

Opportunities

1 Economic Development Growth2 Jobs3 Revenue for the Community4 Tahlequah on the map for future ventures.


Sac & Fox and City of ShawneeJames C. Collard, Ph.D., City Manager, City of Shawnee

Meet ShawneeThe area surrounding Shawnee was settled afterthe Civil War by a number of tribes that the federalgovernment had removed to Indian Territory. TheSac and Fox originally were deeded land in theimmediate area but were soon followed by theKickapoo, Shawnee, and Pottawatomi Indians.Members of the tribes continue to reside today inand around Shawnee.

Over the course of the 1870s, Texas cattle droverspushed their herds across Indian Territory; therewere four major trails, with the West Shawnee trailcrossing near present-day Kickapoo and MainStreets. With the cattle drives came railroads; as aresult, pressure began to build to allow permanentwhite settlements in a region that previously hadbeen reserved by treaty to native Americans. Theone other event that foreshadowed the coming ofwhite civilization was the establishment in 1871 ofthe Quaker mission near the current Mission HillHospital, where an old building still marks thespot. That first missionary, Joseph Newsom,opened a school in 1872, and by 1876 a post officeand trading post had been established a quartermile west of the mission at what became known asShawnee Town.

The quarter section of land on which the originalcity was built, was entered by Henry G. Beard, in1892. In the early spring of 1885, Mr. Beardentered into an agreement with the promoters ofthe Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf RailroadCompany, then extending its line from Memphis,Tennessee, to Amarillo, Texas, to build through hisfarm, and in consideration he gave the railwaycompany one-half his claim of one hundred andsixty acres. The road was accordingly built throughhis farm, and the City of Shawnee began on July 4,1895, its existence as a thriving, growing andexpanding commercial centered, at which time thefirst train arrived.

The Shawnee city limits straddle four tribalreservation areas. These are the AbsenteeShawnee Tribe, the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, theKickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Sac & FoxNation. In addition, the City lies in closeproximity to the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma and theSeminole Nation. The In-State enrollment of thesetribes ranges from 375 (Iowa) to 11,787(Seminole).1 According to the most recent U.S.Census data, Shawnee has just under 30,000residents, 12.8 percent of whom are tribalmembers, the largest population subgroup withinthe City.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the tribalmembers would be well represented in communityaffairs. And indeed this is the case with manytribal citizens participating in activities rangingfrom the Chamber of Commerce, to social serviceorganizations and school events. Unfortunately,formal contact between the municipal and tribalgovernments has been sporadic over the years.

A recent study showed that the political leadershipof the city and tribes in the Shawnee area believecooperation between their entities is important.This is illustrated by a meeting in June of 2007 thatincluded the leadership of the City and all sixtribes during which the opportunities for jointventures was discussed.

An important example of the benefits to tribal-municipal cooperation is the relationship betweenthe City of Shawnee and the Sac & Fox Nation.Since 2001, there have been five major jointinfrastructure projects funded and/or completedwith one more currently underway.

This article will provide a synopsis of thoseprojects.


The Sources of MoneyFederal funding for tribal transportation projectsresides with the Federal Highway Administrationworking in concert with the Bureau of IndianAffairs. Together these two agencies allocatemoney for the design and construction of roads andbridges on tribal lands based on the needs of theindividual tribes.

The primary mechanism for distributing thesefederal monies is the Indian Reservation RoadsProgram (IRR). The IRR program funds aredistributed to BIA areaoffices for the constructionand improvement oftransportation facilities,including roads, bridgesand public transportationsystems.

However, in Oklahoma thetribal reservationboundaries are “checker-bordered” with individualplots of ground eitherbeing placed into federaltrust or owned on the basis of a fee simplepurchase by either tribal or non-tribal citizens.Even so, the tribes still retain a responsibility tomeet the transportation needs of their citizens.2

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation(ODOT) provides funding for many road projectsthat include the financial participation of the tribaland municipal governments. This has been ofgreat benefit to the citizens of Shawnee and theSac & Fox Nation.

ODOT also administers the Federal TransitAdministration’s Section 5311, Non-UrbanizedFormula Grant program that is provided tocommunities with a population of less than 50,000.Eligible local sponsors of this program includelocal public bodies and Indian tribes.3 The City ofShawnee allocates money each year totransportation and other infrastructure projects aspart of its annual capital budget process. Many ofthese ventures entail joint funding arrangementswith other governmental entities.

Finally, the Sac & Fox Nation, as a sovereigngovernment can allocate revenues from non-federal sources to any project it chooses, such asthose discussed below.

Harrison Street(State Highway 18) ImprovementsIn 2001, the City of Shawnee entered into anagreement with the Sac & Fox Nation, theOklahoma Department of Transportation, and theU.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to widen HarrisonStreet (State Highway 18) from Interstate 40 to

Westech Road. This entailed theconstruction of a traffic laneupgrade, including thereinstallation of curb, gutter anddrainage structures and theaddition of a traffic signal at theintersection of Westech andHarrison.

The City provided $20,000toward the cost of the trafficsignals. ODOT provided theproject design, inspection,construction oversight, and

funding in the amount of $260,000. The Sac &Fox Nation with BIA funds provided $750,000.The total cost of the project was $1,030,000. TheCity benefited from the increased traffic flow intoan area of town that is experiencing the addition ofseveral commercial enterprises while the Tribebenefited through easier access to their Casino.

Rock Creek Bridge Replacement on HarrisonIn conjunction with the widening of State Highway18, the Sac & Fox Nation, the City of Shawnee, theOklahoma Department of Transportation, and theBureau of Indian Affairs agreed to remove anexisting 2-lane bridge over Rock Creek and replaceit with a new 5-lane bridge. The City, as part of aright-of-way agreement with ODOT, wasresponsible for relocating the water and sanitarysewer lines. ODOT provided the design,inspection, construction oversight, and $1,000,000in funding. The Sac & Fox Nation, through theBIA provided $50,000 plus an additional$1,500,000 from the Indian Reservation Road and


Bridge Program (IRRBP). All entities benefitedfrom the traffic safety upgrades on a State highwaythat connects Interstate 40 with Interstate 44.

Water and Sanitary Sewer Line ExtensionsIn December 2003, the City of Shawnee and theSac & Fox Nation agreed to jointly extend waterand sewer lines east on Westech Road fromHarrison Street. The purpose of the project was toserve the tribal Casino with these utilities whileallowing the City to continue the strategy ofeventually providing a water/sewer line loop on thenortheast side of town. The City designed theproject, prepared the bid documents, let the projectfor bid, and provided construction inspection andoversight. The Tribe reimbursed the City for 100%of the $26,425 in construction costs.

Brangus Road Paving ProjectBrangus Road is the eastern boundary of theShawnee city limits. It is also a County Road. Theproject upgraded a one-mile stretch from gravel toasphalt. The agreement was reached in 2004between the City, Potawatomie County, the BIA,and the Sac & Fox Nation. The City designed theproject at a cost of $20,000 while the Countygovernment constructed the project with in-housepersonnel and equipment. The Tribe supplied$150,000 in BIA money to cover the County’sconstruction costs.

Railroad Bridge over US 177The purpose of this project is to remove andreplace a deteriorating and unsafe bridge. The Cityhas agreed to provide any needed right-of-way andrelocation of utilities. ODOT is doing the design,bid letting, inspection, and construction oversight.ODOT is also jointly funding this $4,634,728project with the Sac & Fox Nation.

Westech Road Paving ProjectThis joint project between the City of Shawnee andthe Sac & Fox Nation will reconstruct WestechRoad from Harrison Street east approximately1600 feet as a 3-lane, curb & gutter roadway. The

City will let the project bids, provide constructioninspection and administration. The Tribe willdesign the project and reimburse the City for 100%of the construction costs. The project is scheduledto be bid out in July 2007 and is expected to costapproximately $523,000.

Future VenturesIn May 2007, the City of Shawnee formallyrequested the Oklahoma Department ofTransportation begin examining the possibility ofconstructing an interchange on I-40 at BryantRoad. This request has since been forwarded tothe Federal Highway Administration for review.An integral part of this undertaking is the role theSac & Fox Nation will play in the project fundingand design.

As is evident, the City of Shawnee, the Sac & FoxNation and the Oklahoma Department ofTransportation have an outstanding track record ofcollaboration. The combined total of just theseprojects is just under $9 million, not counting theupcoming Interstate Highway interchange. It isalso important to note that the relationship betweenthe City of Shawnee and the Sac & Fox Nation isjust one example of tribal-municipal cooperation inthe Shawnee area.

The City is also in current discussions with theCitizen Potawatomi Nation concerning a roadinterchange reconstruction and the joint extensionof additional water lines into the tribal area. Inaddition, the City has an excellent workingrelationship with the Absentee Shawnee andKickapoo tribes and is looking forward todeveloping a sub-state regional economicdevelopment strategy with all the tribes in theimmediate area.1 Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission. 2006.

Oklahoma Indian Nations Pocket Pictorial Directory2 Meck, S., Retzlaff, R., Schwab, J. 2007.

NCHRP Synthesis 366. Tribal Transportation Programs: A Synthesis ofHighway Practice, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board -National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

3 Oklahoma Department of Transportation Website. Available Online atwww.okladot.ok.us.


Osage and the OilmanJim Gray, Principal Chief of the Osage Nation, and

Bob Sullivan, independent oil and gas operator, Tulsa

As tribal relationships with both the state ofOklahoma and non-tribal private parties areevolving. The experience of the Osage Tribe ofIndians, now Osage Nation, with non-tribal oil andgas operators can serve as an encouraging andpositive model.

At the heart of this successful cooperativerelationship are mutually beneficial economicactivities based on incentives provided by theNation and the application by oil and gas firms ofmodern technology tooilfield exploration andproduction practices onthe Osage mineralestate.

All of the minerals inthe entirety of the OsageReservation are ownedby the Osage Nation.For more than 100years, the Osages havegranted leases tooperators at publicauctions and encouragedoil and gas development.

The oil boom of 1905 to 1930 brought incrediblewealth to the Osages through their royaltyinterests, and to oil companies who leased anddrilled on the Reservation. During that time thephrase “the Osage” was coined to refer to thisspecial place. Exploration was based on surfacegeology and scientific leads considered veryprimitive by today’s standards.

As the oil industry spread to many other parts ofthe country and around the world, “the Osage”eventually became a province considered “pickedover” by the industry, and production dwindled.

Even in oil booms of more recent times, such asthe hyperactivity of the early 1980’s, “the Osage”experienced little more than a temporary flatteningof its decades long production decline. When thatboom ended in the mid-80’s, the decline of both oiland natural gas production resumed at an alarmingrate in “the Osage”.

By the late 1990’s, production of oil from thereservation had dropped to one-third of its 1980level and gas was down to one-fourth of its

production level.

In the late 1990’s, theOsage Nation decidedto do something aboutthis critical erosion ofoil and gas productionon its mineral estate.The Nation initiated aprogram ofincentivizing the oiland gas industry tobring moderntechnology to theOsage Reservation with

the objective of revitalizing this once prolificproducing province.

The key element of its incentive program was thegranting of concessions to qualified oil and gascompanies. The terms of these concessionagreements allowed the company owning theconcession a protected time period during whichonly that company could acquire leases in aspecific geographic area.

This protection allowed participating companies tojustify large dollar expenditures for the applicationof modern exploration and production techniques,including 3-Dimensional seismic, horizontal and

OSAGE COUNTY PRODUCTION 1980 - 2007

OIL

GAS

10,000,000

1,000,000

100,000

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008


lateral drilling, coal bed methane extractionmethod, and modern fracturing techniques. Inexchange, the operators committed to anaggressive drilling program and the results havebeen dramatic. Since 1999, the decline in oilproduction has been reversed and through 2006there has been an approximate 40% increase in theproduction of increasingly valuable barrels of oil.Even more dramatic is the increase in theproduction of natural gas which has increased ten-fold in a short seven-year period, due in large partto coal bed methane projects undertaken onconcessions granted by the Nation.

From the perspective of tribal/non-tribalrelationships, it is very clear that both parties arehighly motivated by economics, and both partieshave something to contribute to the formula forimproving economics. Oil companies need placeswhere their high risk investments can be madeprudently with reasonable chance of success. TheOsage Nation has been and remains in a position toprovide that economic setting. For its part, theNation has a legal responsibility to prudently andintelligently manage its large mineral estate for thebenefit of tribal members, and it is doing so in partby bringing in, through use of concessionincentives, industry parties who can accomplishthat very objective.

This cooperative process has been accomplishedthrough the good will of both Tribal members andindustry participants, although several significantobstacles were overcome along the way. Allowingoil and gas operators a protected leasing area for aspecific length of time seemed at first to be toomuch of an incentive to some tribal members.

However, that perception was dissipated bysignificant and dramatic results that created anorderly processing of a flood of drilling permits,archeological studies, field inspection, and othernecessary elements of exploration and productionand through tribal and Federal regulatory oversightsystems. Industry personnel, working with theOsage and the BIA’s federal agency personnel,have worked together to improve this process.

Osage representatives and industry personnel havefound themselves working together to overcomeinfrastructure issues associated with bringingelectricity to new producing areas in the countyand providing rights-of-way for new oil, gas andwater pipeline systems. In short, everyone iseconomically motivated to make the right thinghappen.

The cooperative relationship between the oil andgas industry and the Osage Nation has continued toevolve, and in the last 25 years has grown toinclude a strong partnership in environmentalcompliance. The Osage Nation assists the U. S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with aregulatory program that oversees the re-injectionof saltwater produced during oil and gasoperations.

One of the most important functions that theNation performs involves assisting the oil and gasoperators with compliance requirements,applications for permits and testing of theirinjection wells. The Nation notifies the operatorsof problems that need to be addressed before theproblems become severe, thereby sparing theoperators additional costs for repairs oradministrative costs associated with enforcement.Mutual respect and trust between Osage Nationenvironmental personnel and industry personnelhas developed as a result of this association.

In the long run this cooperative effort on the OsageReservation may well evolve into joint projectsbetween Tribal and non-tribal parties outside of theoil and gas industry. The trust that has grownamong parties over the Osage success is arguablythe most beneficial outcome of this cooperativeeffort.

For Tribal and non-tribal parties to prospertogether, rather than to simply co-exist, it isessential that this kind of trust be earned by allparties through performance. Otherwise, thebarriers that have existed for so long betweentribes and government/private sector parties willcontinue to prevent large scale, mutually beneficialprosperity.


Cherokees and Health CareMelissa Gower, Group Leader

Health Services/Government Relations, Cherokee Nation

The Cherokee Nation is a government, culturalentity, social service agency, and regionaldevelopment organization deeply committed toadvancing the health and social well-being of itscitizens through the improvement of itscommunities, creation of a strong economy, andpreservation of the Cherokee language.

In order to achieve such lofty goals, the CherokeeNation has placed an emphasis on collaborationwith Oklahoma state agencies, local governments,and the private sector. Several of the successfulcollaborations are included in this document,followed by recommendations to increaseopportunities for building future alliances.

ALLIANCES

Cherokee Health Partners – Cherokee HealthPartners, LLC, is a partnership between theCherokee Nation Comprehensive Care Agency andTahlequah Hospital Authority and is located withinthe Tahlequah City Hospital. The partnership wascreated to allow both Tribal and non-Tribalpatients to receive necessary diagnostic testinglocally instead of traveling to distant locations.Examples of services offered include cardioimaging and nuclear medicine testing. Thepartnership has been very beneficial to the elderlypopulation, especially thoseresiding in retirementfacilities and those unable totravel long distances.

EagleMed – EagleMed is anair ambulance service inTahlequah. EagleMed wasthe result of a joint effortbetween the CherokeeNation, Tahlequah CityHospital and W. W. HastingsIndian Hospital.

Ardent Health Care System - In 2002, theCherokee Nation sought the participation from theHillcrest Healthcare System, owned by ArdentHealth Services, to participate in the developmentof the Cherokee Nation Health Services LongRange Plan. Since that time, the Cherokee Nationhas worked closely with the Hillcrest HealthcareSystem on a myriad of issues ranging fromcoordinating care throughout the greater Tulsa areato advocating for additional funding for Indianhealth.

Health Information Exchange – Oklahoma isamong nineteen states receiving funding throughthe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(AHRQ) to develop a broad scale healthinformation exchange organization. NamedSMRTNET, the expandable network has beendeveloped over a two-year period by a team ofover sixty people and several national experts.Initial partners are the Oklahoma State Departmentof Health, Oklahoma Department of Mental Healthand Substance Abuse Services, Cherokee Nation,Tahlequah City Hospital, Northeastern OklahomaCommunity Health Center, W.W. Hastings IndianHospital, and Northeastern State University.

The SMRTNET personal health record provides aprivate, comprehensive, longitudinal, portable

record that enablesconsumers to storepersonal healthinformation. Thefoundation ofSMRTNET solutions isits ability to enableconsumers to bettermanage their ownhealth, and the health oftheir family members,with regards to allergies,


medical conditions, surgeries, medical tests,measurements, immunizations, medications, andclaims. The mission of SMRTNET is to create anInternet-based healthcare community that connectspersons and healthcare providers and also offersstorage for critical health information within aPHR, enabling individuals to better manage theirown health. By providing the right tools,consumers have access to the most current healthinformation.

Cherokee Elder Care - The Cherokee Nation willsoon begin operating the first Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) program inthe United States located in a Tribal, as well asrural, community. PACE is offered through theCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS). Cherokee Elder Care will provide andcoordinate a variety of both medical and non-medical services for frail elders. Services will beprovided both in the participants home and thoughthe Cherokee Elder Care Facility. Services will beprovided by the Elder Care team which includes aphysician, nurses, therapists, social workers, homecare providers, and transportation specialists.Persons participating in the Elder Care programwill receive services based on their individualneeds. Additional services for the Elder Careparticipant will be provided as needed.

Cherokee Elder Care will serve both Tribal andnon-Tribal elders from a facility located inTahlequah which is currently under constructionand will open in 2007. Cherokee Elder Care willserve frail elders age 55 and over who may requiremedical and supportive services in order to remainliving safely in their home and community. Thecost of the Cherokee Elder Care Program will becovered for most participants through acombination of Medicare and Medicaid resources.However, the program will also be open to personswith other payment sources. The TahlequahCherokee Elder Care facility will have the capacityto serve 150 elders. In addition to the Tahlequahfacility, future plans include additional sites inStilwell, Muskogee, and Claremore.

Emergency Response and Preparedness - The14-county service area of the Cherokee Nationincludes six Cherokee Nation clinics, twoCherokee Nation satellite clinics, a student/employee health center, and two Indian HealthService (IHS)SHH hospitals with tremendouscapacity to respond to public health events. TheCherokee Nation consistently provides assistancewhen a need exists and examples include wildfires,winter storms, accidents, epidemics, and mostrecently in tornado and hurricane relief efforts.The citizens and municipalities located within theCherokee Nation’s jurisdiction, as well asadjoining communities, rely heavily on theCherokee Nation to provide health services,emergency services, food, clothing, and shelter intimes of need. In such times of need, the CherokeeNation does not differentiate between Tribalcitizens and non-citizens and provides assistance toall affected to the extent allowable by law.Additionally, the Cherokee Nation recently joinedthe 911 Communication Center.

PROMOTING HEALTH

Steps to a Healthier Cherokee Nation – theCherokee Nation is one of forty grantees in theSteps to a HealthierUS (Steps) program within theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC). The Steps program is a highly successful,community-based initiative to combat chronicdisease by addressing poor nutrition, physicalinactivity, and tobacco use. Because communitieswithin the Cherokee Nation are populated by bothIndians and non-Indians, the Cherokee Nation hasplaced an emphasis on making Steps programsavailable to both populations. A few examples ofthe positive impact of the Steps program include:

• Providing funding to rural schools to improveaccess to physical activity

• The development of Students Working AgainstTobacco (SWAT) teams

• Partnerships with the Cherokee County HealthDepartment


• Increasing participation in the OklahomaTobacco Telephone quit line

Conducting Youth Risk Behavior Surveys – TheCherokee Nation, working with the OklahomaState Department of Health, conducted a survey innortheastern Oklahoma to be utilized by areaschools to develop school health policies andcommunity based programs to prevent and orreduce health risk behaviors among adolescents.

Northeastern State University - Cherokee NationHealth Services operates an agreement with theSchool of Optometry at Northeastern StateUniversity for the provision of optometric servicesthroughout the Cherokee Nation. Optometrystudents in their fourth-year residency, under theclinical direction of optometry practitioners andprofessors, provide services to Tribal citizensthroughout Cherokee Nation clinics, and W.W.Hastings and Claremore Indian hospitals.

University of Oklahoma, Tulsa – Given the highincidence of cancer and diabetes in Oklahoma, theCherokee Nation and the University of Oklahoma,Tulsa (OU-Tulsa) have developed a partnership toidentify areas of collaboration for the prevention,treatment, and research of diabetes and cancer.

ALLIANCE OPPORUNITIES

Formalizing Communication Processes ––Whilenumerous examples exist of a positive workingrelationship between Oklahoma State Agencies andTribal governments, a government-wide policyregarding Tribal consultation currently does notexist. Given the numerous overlappingresponsibilities of State agencies and TribalGovernments, it is beneficial to develop amechanism for communication to increasecollaboration on various matters related to health,human services, homeland security, andtransportation. In addition to consultation, effortsshould be made to promote the participation ofelected Tribal officials on various boards,commissions, etc.

Collective Advocacy for Equitable Funding –Tribal governments, the State of Oklahoma, localgovernments, and the private sector should seekways to collectively advocate, through theOklahoma Congressional delegation and federalagencies, to ensure that Oklahoma receivesequitable funding in the distribution of federalfunds among the states. Examples include IndianHealth Service funding, transportation funding,etc.

Ensuring Tribal Eligibility to Participate inFederally Funded Public Health Programs/Funding – The public health infrastructure inOklahoma must include Tribal health systems.Ensuring Tribal governments are actively includedin the funding and planning for such efforts will becritical to the success of Oklahoma public healthefforts and the health and well being of allOklahomans.

CONCLUSION

The Cherokee Nation has a strong record ofsuccessful collaboration with the State ofOklahoma and its agencies, local governments, andthe private sector. It is the hope of the CherokeeNation that the outcome of the 2007 OklahomaAcademy Town Hall Conference will identifysolutions to reduce barriers to further cooperation.


American Indian Cultural Center & MuseumGena Howard, Oklahoma Native American Cultural & Educational Authority

Mary Ann Osko, Oklahoma Energy Resources Board

In 1994, the OklahomaLegislature created the NativeAmerican Cultural &Educational Authority (NACEA)to promote the history andculture of Oklahoma’s AmericanIndian tribes. By thatlegislation, the NACEA wasauthorized to construct andoperate a Cultural Center andMuseum to create an awarenessand understanding of the historyof tribes in relation to their presence in Oklahomatoday and forced removal to Oklahoma underFederal law.

Today, there are 39 tribal governments livingwithin the borders of Oklahoma. Each tribe has astory of a journey that is compelling and unique. Itis the mission of the NACEA to communicate thehistorical Oklahoma American Indian experienceand to facilitate the ongoing documentation andexpression of Native culture.

The American Indian Cultural Center & Museumproject would not be possible were it not for thepartnerships and alliances that have been formedand have been an integral part of conceptualplanning, the construction that we see today, andthe cultural and educational programs that will bein place in the future. From acquisition of the landto the execution of the institutional programs,community members, tribes, state, city and federalgovernments have come together to ensuresuccessful completion of this special project.

A desire to create the Center has been a vision ofthe community for over 30 years. In 1996, theNACEA selected a physical home for this visionwith its committed partner, the City of OklahomaCity. Then Mayor Kirk Humphreys and the City

Council championed the City’scommitment to donate the landand an additional $5 million indevelopment funding. The Cityof Oklahoma City offered a siteat the southeast corner of the I-35 and I-40 intersection, neardowntown on the OklahomaRiver. Title to the land hassince been transferred, and theNACEA continues itspartnership with the City and

the Oklahoma Riverfront RedevelopmentAuthority. In 2001, the Oklahoma Department ofTransportation joined the City of Oklahoma City inproviding additional land and transferred 15 acresto the NACEA.

The American Indian Cultural Center & Museumsite is located at the gateway to the City and thegeographic center of the State. The site hasundergone a healing process, since it was oncean industrial location which housed over fiftyproducing oil and gas wells. The NACEA and itsconsultants have partnered with the OklahomaEnergy Resources Board (OERB) and theOklahoma Corporation Commission to repairenvironmental damage to the site.

Seven oil and gas wells have been successfullyplugged and a pipeline removed. Approximately7,000 discarded tires have been removed, as wellas debris and petroleum and salt residues. Otherproject partners providing support and on-siteservices during the early stages of the AmericanIndian Cultural Center site development includethe Oklahoma Department of Transportation, theOklahoma Department of Environmental Quality,the City of Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma CityWater Utilities Trust, the Riverfront DevelopmentAuthority, the University of Oklahoma Department


of Civil Engineering, DCP Midstream, SuperiorPipeline, Plains Marketing Pipeline and OklahomaGas & Electric.

Oklahoma State agencies and Federal agencieshave contributed immeasurable partnership effortstoward the ongoing development of the Center.Federal Agencies such as Housing and UrbanDevelopment, Environmental Protection Agency,and the Institute of Museum & Library Serviceshave contributed significant funding todevelopment of the site and to the Center as aninstitution. And significantly, the positiveforesight and alliance of the OklahomaCongressional Delegation has been an integral partof the development Cultural Center.

The Oklahoma Department of Commerce hasprovided the necessary administrativeinfrastructure to enable the small staff of theNACEA to operate successfully. Although theCultural Center is a large project, the agency staffhistorically has been small, relying on the supportand partnership of the positive alliance with theOklahoma Department of Commerce.

The Oklahoma Department of Central Services andthe Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authorityhave proven to be major players in the ongoingdevelopment and construction of the project.

In partnership with the University of Oklahoma,the State Department of Agriculture, Food andForestry provided assistance to the Cultural Centerthrough a successful Stream Water RestorationStudy. The University of Oklahoma has also beena major partner with the NACEA by creating aninitiative to develop a resource for Native studentsin Geological Sciences; and Cultural Center Artsinitiatives continue to draw upon the partnership ofthe University’s School of Art and Art Department.

The Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission hasbeen a partner in tribal outreach and assisting inthe development of educational materials regardingtribes and their historic presence in Oklahoma.During the State Centennial year, the OklahomaCentennial Commemoration Commission has

They Said ...

“One of our highest duties is to safeguardMother Earth,” Roth said. “The staffs of theOERB and the OCC put those words intoactions that benefit all of Oklahoma.”Corporation Commissioner Jim Roth

“It is an interesting area because itcelebrates Native American culture. Theytook care of the land, we came in and didnot take such good care of it, so now we aregoing to celebrate making that land wholeagain, healing that land. I appreciate thepeople of the oil and natural gas industrytaking the lead on this, and I take my hat offto them.” Former Oklahoma City mayorKirk Humphreys

“The OCC expects to locate and plug morewells as development work continues on thecenter,” Cloud noted. “This project isfurther proof of the benefits of the uniqueOCC/OERB partnership. It is a partnershipwe are extremely proud of, and hope otherstates will also adopt.” OklahomaCorporation Commission Chairman JeffCloud “We deeply believe in the mission andpurpose of the cultural center and museum,which is Oklahoma’s newest state agency.”We gave the highest priority to this project,and the OCC and OERB staff gave their allto see that it was a success.” CorporationCommissioner Bob Anthony

“Through the cooperation of people ingovernment and private industry, we areimproving the value of Oklahoma, itsaesthetics and the beauty of thecountryside.” Former OERB Chairman JimPalm


played a major role in promoting the CulturalCenter as a source of education about the tribes.Community organizations, including the GuthrieCentennial Committee, have also been advocatesfor Center Outreach and Public Programs. TheOklahoma Arts Council has continued to providesupport in the development of arts programs andpolicies for the Cultural Center programming, aswell as a sponsoring exciting contemporary NativeAmerican arts exhibitions, such as the Artrain USAtraveling exhibition.

The Oklahoma Department of Tourism andRecreation has been a supporter of the NACEA’sefforts to build a Visitor/Welcome Center withFederal Transportation funds. These funds couldnot be administered were it not for the continuedassistance of the Oklahoma State Department ofTransportation. The Oklahoma Historical Society(OHS) and the State Museum of History have setthe bar by providing world-class visitor experienceand education on our state’s history.

The NACEA enjoys a most positive relationshipwith OHS and the State Museum, with thepotential for shared exhibit and programmingopportunities. The Oklahoma Historical Societyand the NACEA have also signed a Memorandumof Understanding as an expression of committedpartnership and support in the SmithsonianAffiliations Program.

The Cultural Center and Museum will be designedto provide education about the tribes and celebratethe diverse histories, cultures and achievements ofthe Native American community. The Center willserve as a satellite institution that will complementand connect institutions across the state and nationthrough programming and cultural tourismactivities.

Partner organizations, like Red Earth, Inc., havecollaborated with the NACEA to understand howthe Cultural Center site can truly complement the

activities of organizations with like missions whilestrengthening Oklahoma’s unique position as acorridor of cultural experience. The AmericanIndian Cultural Center & Museum has partneredwith other cultural institutions, such as theNational Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum, toprovide the Braided Paths exhibit for theOklahoma City Arts Festival. The Center alsosigned a Memorandum of Understanding with theNational Museum of the American Indian, and asthe project progresses, will identify mutuallybeneficial areas of partnership.

The Cultural Center’s central location in the State,and Indian Country, will connect tribes and tribalinstitutions. Tribal Governments in Oklahomahave played a major role in the development of theAmerican Indian Cultural Center & Museum byproviding input for the design and programmingconcepts. Tribes and Native communitiesthroughout the state have contributed immensely tothe exhibition content development.

Tribes and tribal businesses have also contributedto critical funding of the project, including debtservice on the 2005 state bond issue, projectcapital campaign, and the continuing programinitiatives that engage all Oklahomans, Native andnon-Native alike. The ceremonial groundbreakingevent, the Groundblessing, took place onNovember 1, 2005. Every tribe in the State ofOklahoma contributed to the success of thismonumental event in the development of theproject.

The NACEA is committed to the successfulcompletion of a world-class American IndianCultural Center & Museum. This vision would notbe possible were it not for the city, state, federal,tribal and institutional alliances that have beenformed over the years.


Alliance for Roads and BridgesMichael Lynn, Director, Roads Program, Cherokee Nation

BACKGROUNDCooperation between Cherokee Nation and theState of Oklahoma has improved significantly overthe last ten years where the subject oftransportation is concerned. Much of this successcan be attributed to the compacts negotiated fortobacco, motor fuels tax, licensing, and gaming.These compacts give tribal governments theopportunity to generate resources that were notpreviously available.

They also allow tribes to be included in thedecision-making process. Now, tribal governmentsare bringing money to the table and morecooperative transportation projects are happeningas a result. Cherokee Nation is no stranger to thisidea and is benefiting from compacting much likethe State of Oklahoma. Before the compacting era,both parties tended to be on opposite ends of thetransportation-related-spectrum.

In general, another factor that has improved Tribal/State transportation-relations is the recognition oftribal sovereignty. From the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 tothe recently adopted Safe, Accountable, Flexible,Efficient, Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy ofUsers (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, federal legislationhas continually required states to coordinate withtribal governments with respect to the planning andprogramming of transportation projects.

Likewise, the Oklahoma Legislature recentlyenacted the first-ever Tribal Advisory Board toallow for better coordination with the OklahomaDepartment of Transportation (ODOT).

All of these events have produced a uniquerelationship that is based on common values andcommon ground.

DISCUSSIONThe Nation and the State first came together on ahighway project in 1998 when ODOT waspreparing to improve SH-82 in Cherokee County.The Nation contributed $50,000,00 towards theproject, which was a direct result of the previouslynegotiated motor fuels tax compact in 1996.

The Nation uses approximately 25% of its fuel taxfunds to improve rural roadway systems within theNation’s boundary. Consequently, the Nationallocates more funding for rural road and bridgeimprovements compared to the previous county-allocation-formula through the Oklahoma TaxCommission. This was all made possible thanks tothe compact.

In 2005, the Nation completed its first-ever long-range transportation plan. Its primary purpose wasto provide guidance on the use of Federal IndianReservation Roads (IRR) funding. Where thehighway system is concerned, IRR programeligibility is restricted to those facilities that servea specific interest of the Nation.

The I-44 and 193rd Street Interchange (Tulsa)obviously met this condition due to the sheereconomic impact of the Cherokee Casino.

As the Nation’s gaming industry expanded into the21st Century, the Nation and the State soon realizedthe need to improve the access to these types offacilities. Thus, the I-44 and 193 rd StreetInterchange, in Catoosa, became one of the firstprojects in the state to gain major attention.

As early as 2003, the Nation made considerableefforts to elevate the project to high priority statuswithin ODOT and the halls of Congress. As aresult, the Nation and ODOT agreed to jointlysupport the project, which later received $2 millionfrom federal appropriations in 2005, and an


additional $2.4 million in SAFETEA-LUauthorizations. This funding helped to completethe engineering processes and approximately 7-1/2% of the construction costs. The total projectcosts are estimated to be around $50 million.Plans are underway for the tribe to contribute anadditional 10% towards the cost of the project.

At the Nation’s request, ODOT invited tribalofficials to participate in the I-44/193rd St.Interchange design meetings during 2005. Thiswas a rare occasion and maybe the first example ofdirect tribal involvement in the design of anODOT-managed highway facility.

As a result, these meetings sparked a new chain ofevents whereby the Nation is currently involved inthe planning and design of highways serving theNation’s other Casinos in West Siloam Springs,and Roland, Oklahoma. However, the cooperationdid not end here.

The Nation and the State came together once againin 2006 when the tribe was awarded $4.7 milliondollars in IRR Bridge funding for eight (8)highway bridge projects. The bridges were incritical condition with some dating back to theearly 1900’s. The Nation’s contribution towardsthese bridges ranged anywhere from 20-80% of thetotal construction costs.

CONCLUSIONThe chain of events that occurred during the1990’s obviously played a significant role infostering the present-day transportationrelationship between the Nation and the State.Without these events, it is highly unlikely that wewould be as far as we are today. Now, we arefinding ways to work together instead of workingseparately.


The National Hospital for the American Indian?Michael Lapolla, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma

The Indian Health Service(all italics per www.ihs.gov)

Mission - to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritualhealth of American Indians and Alaska Natives to the highestlevel.

Goal - to assure that comprehensive, culturally acceptablepersonal and public health services are available andaccessible to American Indian and Alaska Native people.

Foundation - to uphold the Federal Government's obligationto promote healthy American Indian and Alaska Native people,communities, and cultures and to honor and protect theinherent sovereign rights of Tribes.

Members of federally recognized American Indian and AlaskaNative Tribes and their descendants are eligible for servicesprovided by the Indian Health Service (IHS). The IHS is anagency in the Department of Health and Human Services thatoperates a comprehensive health service delivery system forapproximately 1.8 million of the nation’s estimated 3.3 millionAmerican Indians and Alaska Natives. Its annual appropria-tion is approximately $3 billion.

Federally recognized American Indian Tribes and AlaskaNative corporations enjoy a government-to-governmentrelationship with the United States of America. This uniquerelationship has been given substance through numerousSupreme Court decisions, treaties, legislation, and ExecutiveOrders. The provision of health services grew out of thisgovernment-to-government relationship. The IHS is theprincipal Federal health care provider and health advocate forIndian people.

The principal legislation authorizing Federal funds for healthservices to recognized Indian Tribes is the Snyder Act of 1921.It authorized funds "for the relief of distress and conservationof health . . . [and] . . . for the employment of . . . physicians . .. for Indian Tribes throughout the United States."

Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and EducationAssistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended) to provideTribes the option of either assuming from the IHS the adminis-tration and operation of health services and programs in theircommunities, or to remain within the IHS administered directhealth system. Congress subsequently passed the IndianHealth Care Improvement Act (P.L. 94-437), which is a health-specific law that supports the options of P.L. 93-638.

The goal of P.L. 94-437 is to provide the quantity and qualityof health services necessary to elevate the health status ofAmerican Indians and Alaska Natives to the highest possiblelevel and to encourage the maximum participation of Tribes inthe planning and management of those services.

IHS services are provided directly and through triballycontracted and operated health programs. Health services alsoinclude health care purchased from private providers. TheFederal system consists of 33 hospitals, 59 health centers, and50 health stations. In addition, 34 Urban Indian healthprojects provide a variety of health and referral services.

The IHS clinical staff consists of approximately 2,700 nurses,900 physicians, 400 engineers, 500 pharmacists, 300 dentists,and 150 sanitarians. The IHS also employs various alliedhealth professionals, such as nutritionists, health administra-tors, and medical records administrators. The IHS has avacancy rate of about 12% for health professional positions,ranging from a vacancy rate of 5% for sanitarians to 25% fordentists. Through P.L. 93-638 Self-Determination contracts,American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native corporationsadminister 15 hospitals, 221 health centers, 9 residentialtreatment centers, 97 health stations, and 176 Alaska villageclinics.

THIS PROPOSALThe National Museum for the American Indian wasdedicated in September 2004. Coincidentally,Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole was designatedto represent President Bush during the openingceremonies.

It would be glib to ask “why do we need anothermuseum featuring Indians.” The serious answer isthat the number of museums are irrelevant - it is thepurpose and spirit of the museum that counts. Inthe spirit of this Town Hall, let’s consider a Na-tional Hospital for the American Indian. DoAmerican Indians already have a network ofhospitals? Well yes they do. So the glib question is“why do we need another?”

For starters, no one has ever accused federallysponsored health care for American Indians asbeing too generous. And related research isfragmented and underpowered at best.


The Indian Health Services facilities provide basichospital care. More complex services contracted tonon-Indian facilities nationwide.

To answer the question with a series of questions.Why does the Navy need Bethesda Naval Hospital?Why does the Army need Walter Reed? Why doesthe nation need a St. Jude’s Hospital for children?Why do we need a National Zoo, a national any-thing. All the answers are the same. There is adistinct place for facilities of national and focusedexcellence. American Indians need this hospital.

Such a facility should be located in Tulsa. Such afacility could be the poster child for a new alliancecreated in the spirit of this Town Hall. It would bean alliance of tribes with federal, state and localgovernments - and the University of OklahomaCollege of Medicine. Why Tulsa?

Tulsa is extraordinarily centrally located in theLower 48. Tulsa is without a publicly funded healthcare facility. Tulsa has emerging medical educationand research enterprises. Such a facility could servea critical mass of American Indians located ineastern Oklahoma as well as the rest of the state -and it will not be far from the other major concen-trations of Indians in Arizona and New Mexico.

The overall purpose would be to create a center oftreatment and research excellence for Indian-specific health care needs such as complex diabetescare. And such a hospital could easily be operatedin a culturally reinforcing manner.

The hospital will be designed to complementexisting American Indian facilities - not duplicatethe services. This hospital would cater to complexand specialty care services. Consider the followingpossibilities:

Federal GovernmentOklahoma’s congressional delegation would likelybe four square behind this idea. Possibilities ofblending this hospital with a new VA capacity inTulsa are intriguing.

State/Local GovernmentThere is likely no need for these government tofund the hospital. It is likely that the most appropri-ate role of the sate would be to encourage andsupport the effort - and to fast track the process inany way possible.

Tribal GovernmentsIt is envisioned that tribal governments would besignificant stakeholders - and investors - in theenterprise. The number of tribes invited to partici-pate is an open question.

Private SectorOklahoma hospitals have significant managementexpertise and should be solicited by the federal andtribal governments to assist in the development ofservices and operations.

University of OklahomaThe University has a significant health care rela-tionship with Oklahoma tribes. As the University isdeveloping centers of excellence in diabetes andcancer in Tulsa - these are two natural focal pointsfor a National Hospital for the American Indian.

FinancingSuch a hospital could be jointly financed by aconsortium of tribes and the federal government. Itwould be elegant if financing could be managedthrough a series of tribal banks. Ongoing opera-tional funding be primarily by the tribes as rev-enues could be assessed to using tribes on a propor-tional basis. The federal government would providean operating subsidy.

SUMMARYThis concept is balanced and compelling at almostevery level. It blends with the emerging economiccapacity of tribal governments, and the growingmedical education and research enterprises of NEOklahoma. This proposal is one of many that willallow tribes to leverage hard earned revenue toprovide additional and needed services for tribalmembers, and fellow American Indians nationwide.


ALLIANCES REDUX


The Kiowa-Clemente “Alliance”Sanders Huguenin, Vice President for Academic Affairs and

Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma

My StoryI have an unusual night job. Over the last sixyears, I’ve spent countless evenings discussingWestern classics and Kiowa stories with groupsof Kiowa elders and students. It’s part of team-teaching the Kiowa Clemente course, a cross-cultural humanities seminar. If someone hadtold me ten years ago that I’d be spending nightsin Anadarko, Oklahoma, discussing Dante’sInferno and Saneday stories1 with members ofthe Kiowa tribe, I wouldn’t have believed it.Nonetheless, that’s exactly what has happenedand I’ve found it to be one of the mostintellectually stimulating and rewardingexperiences of my life.

I believe it has been a profitable experience formy students also. I can imagine that manypeople would be skeptical that American Indianscould benefit from studying the Western classics,especially when other curricula might seem moreimmediately applicable to improving theireconomic straits. I suspect many others wouldbristle at the idea as arrogant and imperialistic.On the contrary, I believe that all of the students,elders, and faculty involved over the years havefound the experience of studying Western andKiowa traditions in tandem to be bothworthwhile and greatly rewarding.

The CourseThe Kiowa Clemente course is a two-semestersequence offered by the University of Scienceand Arts of Oklahoma. It is cross-cultural in thatit represents a collaboration between facultyfrom the University of Science and Arts ofOklahoma and Kiowa elders. In a two semestersequence of courses students and faculty studyWestern and Kiowa traditions in a parallel courseof study where western readings are paired withstories from the Kiowa oral tradition.

The course switches back and forth as a dialoguebetween the two intellectual traditions.The course that Dr. Meredith envisioned evolvedorganically from a partnership between USAOfaculty and Kiowa elders.3 For the Kiowafaculty and students the course is a small part ofa larger Kiowa Renaissance. They see the courseas a means to help preserve and spreadunderstanding of traditional Kiowa culture andmodes of thought. For instance, my Kiowacolleagues have been adamant about includingelements of Kiowa language instruction in thecourse. The nature of the course, with itsWestern readings, Kiowa stories and longdiscussions, makes it an unlikely vehicle forproducing fluent Kiowa speakers at the end oftwo semesters.

It took several planning meetings for me tounderstand that for my colleagues, fluency wasnot the primary goal. They see a basicunderstanding of Kiowa language as necessary tounderstand what it means “to think like aKiowa.”

Cultural DifferencesSome of the things that separate Kiowa andWestern world views seem fundamental. Whilethe Western part of the courses revolves aroundtexts, some sections of which we examine ingreat detail, the Kiowa oral tradition is muchmore ambiguous and shifting. Many storiesbegin with explicit disclaimers that “your familymay tell this story differently, but this is the waythat I’ve heard it told.”

Often students are aware of these differingversions and we will discuss the differentvariations. The stories themselves seemfundamentally non-Western. I’ve alwaysenjoyed listening to Kiowa stories, but most


seem to possess a rhythm and course that defyWestern conventions. Often it seems to me as iftheir plots would be impossible to diagram.There may be no central conflict, rising tension,climax and resolution. Unlike western stories, Ioften have no sense of when they are going toend. Some seem as if they are about to end, butthen meander off in a new direction. Later, theymay end abruptly.The Kiowa tradition does not seem to include theidea of tragedy. I suspect that in the West wecling to the idea that man is made in the image ofthe creator and so we think it’s regrettable whenotherwise decent individuals overextendthemselves.

Another major goal of the course is to heightenrespect for both traditions. The humanitiesapproach of the curriculum is important in thisrespect. When I first moved to southwesternOklahoma, I was surprised to discover that“anthropologist” is almost a dirty word amongmany Oklahoma Indians. The explanation forthis is complex, but at its heart is a history ofregarding American Indian cultures as objects ofstudy to be treated as oddities, broken apart andanalyzed, and, in the minds of many Indians,treated disrespectfully.

One example of the benefits of a more respectfulhumanities approach occurred one fall when wewere discussing “The Iliad”. One student, amiddle aged woman explained that she had beenraised with out any traditional stories or songs inher house. Her parents had been told in churchthat anything that referred to pre-ChristianKiowa beliefs or mythology was pagan and hadto be shunned. She had received some exposureto this culture outside her home from otherrelatives and friends, but had taken our courseprimarily to learn about the Kiowa oral tradition.

“Now,” she said “I feel cheated. The preacherstold my parents that they had to give up all thatculture. Now I find out not only have the Whiteskept their own stories. They’ve told everybodythat they’re great literature and teach them in

universities.” By affirming the importance ofstory, myth, poetry, and music in the Westerntradition, I believe we can help to empower ourstudents to elevate and preserve what they’veinherited in the Kiowa oral tradition.

I’m convinced that students seem to emergefrom the experience with a more positive andopen minded attitude towards both Kiowa andWestern traditions . In 2002, as an experimentwe administered Noel-Levitz College StudentInventories to students in the Kiowa andChickasaw Clemente courses and were surprisedto find a marked increase in the indicator for“Opinion Tolerance” or the students’ ability totolerate or consider unfamiliar ideas orperspectives. The dramatic increase in theassessment reflected what I’d known intuitivelywas occurring in the class. Students left withbroader horizons, a greater appreciation for theKiowa tradition, an openness to the Westernclassics, and a greater ability to think criticallyabout the two. When used to enhance Indianstudents’ understanding of their own tradition,rather than to supplant it, the Western classicscan help to acquaint American Indian studentswith the power and importance of culture andthus empower them to take control of the futureof their own culture.

Sanders Huguenin is the Vice President forAcademic Affairs and an Associate Professor ofHistory at the University of Science and Arts ofOklahoma.

1 Saneday is a semi-divine trickster figure who is the focus of a series of Kiowastories.

2 Chapter XVIII of New American Blues is devoted to the first Clemente Course. EarlShorris . New American Blues: A Journey Through Poverty to Democracy (NewYork: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997), 353-385.

3 Over the years faculty of the Kiowa Clemente course have included Dr. Sara Webb,Atwater Onco, Dr. John Bruce, Jay Goombi, C.B. Bassity, Brett Wheat-Sims, andmyself. Most important, and worthy of separate mention is Alecia KeahboneGonzales, who has taught the course ever semester without fail and wrote theKiowa language text that we use. Presently cross cultural Clemente coursesdeveloped through the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma also exist withthe Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Wichita tribes.

4 The role and functions of a Kiowa war chief are detailed in Wilbur Sturtevant Nye.Bad Medicine and Good (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962), 15-19.An example of leadership shifting during a raid can be found in Ibid, 20-29.


Concentrations of Indian Populations


120 E. Sheridan, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73104-2427405.232.5828 (phone) 405.236.5268 (fax)

Email: [email protected]

The 2007 Town HallAn Official Oklahoma Centennial Conference

Quartz Mountain Resort Arts and Conference Center, Lone Wolf, OK, October 28-31

Building AlliancesOklahoma’s Second Century

Tribal Governments and Oklahoma’s Public and Private Sectors

STATE OF OKLAHOMA FOR THE 2007 OKLAHOMA ACADEMY TOWN HALL

WHITE BLACK HISPANIC

Under 5 years 7.1% 6.5% 7.8% 8.2% 13.0%5 to 17 years 17.6% 15.7% 23.8% 23.0% 23.7%18 to 24 years 9.9% 9.2% 12.1% 10.7% 13.8%25 to 34 years 13.4% 12.8% 14.2% 14.0% 19.8%35 to 44 years 13.8% 13.8% 13.4% 13.9% 13.8%45 to 54 years 14.5% 15.3% 11.4% 14.0% 8.9%55 to 64 years 10.8% 11.9% 8.6% 7.8% 3.8%65 to 74 years 7.3% 8.2% 5.6% 5.1% 2.4%75 years and over 5.5% 6.5% 3.0% 3.4% 0.9%

Median age (years) 36.5 39.6 29.2 30.7 24.8

18 years and over 75.3% 77.8% 68.3% 68.8% 63.3%21 years and over 71.2% 73.9% 63.2% 64.1% 57.8%62 years and over 15.6% 17.7% 10.7% 10.0% 4.0%65 years and over 12.9% 14.7% 8.6% 8.5% 3.3%

RELATIONSHIPHouseholder or spouse 63.0% 66.4% 53.5% 54.6% 48.0%Child 27.8% 25.7% 34.4% 33.3% 37.5%Other relatives 5.0% 4.1% 7.7% 7.4% 8.5%Nonrelatives 4.1% 3.9% 4.3% 4.6% 6.1%Unmarried partner 1.9% 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.0%

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPEHouseholds 1,380,595 1,074,495 138,510 100,416 67,802Family households 67.7% 67.6% 68.8% 61.8% 78.4%With own children under 18 years 31.1% 29.2% 35.2% 34.4% 55.3%Married-couple families 51.0% 53.7% 46.9% 28.1% 51.4%With own children under 18 years 21.0% 20.8% 22.4% 12.5% 37.0%Female householder, no husband present 12.2% 10.1% 16.5% 27.3% 16.8%With own children under 18 years 7.9% 6.4% 9.9% 18.7% 13.7%Nonfamily households 32.3% 32.4% 31.2% 38.2% 21.6%Male householder 15.2% 14.8% 16.1% 16.9% 14.5%Living alone 12.5% 12.4% 12.5% 15.0% 8.2%Not living alone 2.7% 2.5% 3.7% 1.8% 6.4%Female householder 17.2% 17.6% 15.1% 21.3% 7.1%Living alone 15.1% 15.5% 12.6% 19.5% 5.9%Not living alone 2.1% 2.1% 2.5% 1.8% 1.2%

Average household size 2.49 2.46 2.56 2.39 3.09Average family size 3.03 3 3.06 3.08 3.41

MARITAL STATUSPopulation 15 years and over 2,730,958 2,114,979 281,503 180,743 156,220Now married, except separated 56.1% 59.0% 48.1% 35.4% 55.1%Widowed 6.5% 6.7% 6.1% 7.0% 2.6%Divorced 12.2% 12.2% 14.0% 13.6% 7.4%Separated 1.9% 1.7% 2.1% 4.0% 3.2%Never married 23.2% 20.3% 29.7% 40.1% 31.7%

SCHOOL ENROLLMENTPopulation enrolled in school 870,176 594,535 122,165 81,606 66,385Nursery school, preschool 6.4% 6.5% 5.4% 6.7% 7.0%Kindergarten 5.5% 5.1% 6.0% 6.0% 8.2%Elementary school (grades 1-8) 42.0% 41.2% 46.6% 39.2% 51.8%High school (grades 9-12) 21.8% 22.0% 21.3% 24.6% 20.2%College or graduate school 24.3% 25.2% 20.7% 23.6% 12.7%

SUBJECT STATE INDIAN


WHITE BLACK HISPANICSUBJECT STATE INDIANMale 426,947 293,034 58,578 38,752 33,121Percent enrolled in kindergarten to grade 12 72.1% 71.0% 78.4% 73.7% 80.0%Percent enrolled in college or graduate school 21.3% 22.3% 15.9% 18.8% 13.4%Female 443,229 301,501 63,587 42,854 33,264Percent enrolled in kindergarten to grade 12 66.6% 65.7% 69.8% 66.3% 80.5%Percent enrolled in college or graduate school 27.3% 28.0% 25.2% 27.9% 12.0%

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTPopulation 25 years and over 2,244,755 1,775,140 214,536 141,352 112,881Less than high school diploma 15.7% 13.8% 19.2% 18.0% 45.3%High school graduate (includes equivalency) 32.1% 32.6% 33.0% 30.5% 27.8%Some college or associate's degree 29.8% 29.9% 30.2% 35.8% 17.4%Bachelor's degree 15.2% 16.2% 11.6% 11.8% 5.9%Graduate or professional degree 7.2% 7.6% 5.9% 4.0% 3.7%

High school graduate or higher 84.3% 86.2% 80.8% 82.0% 54.7%Male, high school graduate or higher 84.2% 86.3% 79.7% 81.8% 51.9%Female, high school graduate or higher 84.5% 86.1% 81.6% 82.2% 58.0%Bachelor's degree or higher 22.4% 23.7% 17.5% 15.7% 9.5%Male, bachelor's degree or higher 23.6% 25.5% 16.4% 14.9% 9.6%Female, bachelor's degree or higher 21.2% 22.2% 18.5% 16.4% 9.4%

FERTILITYWomen 15 to 50 years 872,183 640,507 103,445 69,079 60,021Women 15 to 50 years who had a birth in the past 12 months 55,123 36,584 8,798 4,478 6,127Unmarried women 15 to 50 years who had a birth in the past 12 months 17,594 9,057 3,799 3,255 1,770As a percent of all women with a birth in the past 12 months 31.9% 24.8% 43.2% 72.7% 28.9%

RESPONSIBILITY FOR GRANDCHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARSPopulation 30 years and over 2,005,895 1,603,595 186,860 124,025 87,398Living with grandchild(ren) in the household 3.6% 3.1% 5.6% 5.4% 5.2%Responsible for grandchild(ren) 61.8% 60.7% 68.3% 66.3% 50.7%

VETERAN STATUSCivilian population 18 years and over 2,572,747 2,004,621 260,169 165,500 143,622Civilian veteran 13.3% 14.1% 10.5% 13.5% 5.8%

DISABILITY STATUSCivilian population 5 years and over 3,176,142 2,411,612 351,095 221,386 197,605With any disability 19.0% 19.2% 21.1% 21.3% 9.3%Civilian population 5 to 15 years 507,093 338,505 77,687 47,840 46,604With any disability 7.0% 6.5% 9.2% 9.3% 5.0%Civilian population 16 to 64 years 2,227,286 1,692,624 240,693 152,886 143,594With any disability 16.2% 15.7% 20.0% 21.4% 9.1%No disability 83.8% 84.3% 80.0% 78.6% 90.9%Civilian population 65 years and over 441,763 380,483 32,715 20,660 7,407With any disability 47.0% 45.8% 57.5% 49.0% 39.8%

RESIDENCE 1 YEAR AGOPopulation 1 year and over 3,387,161 2,559,176 374,527 239,262 221,948Same house 81.1% 82.6% 80.4% 75.3% 71.5%Different house in the U.S. 18.5% 17.2% 19.5% 24.3% 26.2%Same county 11.2% 9.9% 12.2% 18.6% 15.8%Different county 7.4% 7.3% 7.3% 5.7% 10.4%Same state 4.2% 4.1% 5.0% 2.3% 4.5%Different state 3.2% 3.2% 2.3% 3.4% 5.9%Abroad 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 2.3%


WHITE BLACK HISPANICSUBJECT STATE INDIAN

PLACE OF BIRTH, CITIZENSHIP STATUS AND YEAR OF ENTRYTotal population 3,433,496 2,589,660 381,391 243,094 227,767Native 3,277,616 2,524,067 379,104 238,820 138,733Foreign born 155,880 65,593 2,287 4,274 89,034Naturalized U.S. citizen 47,242 16,372 702 1,733 14,344Not a U.S. citizen 108,638 49,221 1,585 2,541 74,690

LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME/ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISHPopulation 5 years and over 3,188,478 2,420,464 351,554 223,233 198,251English only 91.9% 95.6% 92.2% 95.9% 30.0%Language other than English 8.1% 4.4% 7.8% 4.1% 70.0%Speak English less than "very well" 3.5% 1.8% 2.0% 0.6% 38.9%

EMPLOYMENT STATUSPopulation 16 years and over 2,681,385 2,081,959 273,867 175,393 151,647In labor force 64.2% 63.6% 64.2% 67.0% 72.2%Civilian labor force 63.7% 63.2% 64.0% 65.9% 71.8%Employed 59.6% 59.7% 57.9% 57.0% 66.5%Unemployed 4.2% 3.4% 6.1% 8.9% 5.3%Percent of civilian labor force 6.6% 5.5% 9.5% 13.5% 7.4%Armed Forces 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 1.1% 0.4%Not in labor force 35.8% 36.4% 35.8% 33.0% 27.8%

Civilian employed population 16 years and over 1,596,817 1,243,910 158,596 100,030 100,835OCCUPATIONManagement, professional, and related occupations 30.6% 32.4% 26.0% 24.3% 12.2%Service occupations 17.2% 15.4% 20.3% 28.1% 27.0%Sales and office occupations 25.8% 26.7% 24.1% 25.3% 15.0%Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.9% 0.8% 1.1% 0.2% 3.3%Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations 11.3% 11.4% 12.3% 5.9% 21.7%Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 14.2% 13.4% 16.2% 16.1% 20.8%

Male civilian employed population 16 years and over 866,394 680,021 82,720 47,870 65,170Management, professional, and related occupations 26.9% 29.1% 20.4% 16.6% 8.3%Service occupations 12.8% 11.1% 14.6% 25.6% 20.3%Sales and office occupations 17.3% 18.0% 14.7% 19.5% 10.0%Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 1.3% 1.2% 1.9% 0.5% 4.1%Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations 20.1% 20.1% 22.6% 11.1% 32.9%Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 21.5% 20.4% 25.8% 26.7% 24.4%

Female civilian employed population 16 years and over 730,423 563,889 75,876 52,160 35,665Management, professional, and related occupations 35.0% 36.3% 32.0% 31.4% 19.4%Service occupations 22.4% 20.5% 26.5% 30.3% 39.3%Sales and office occupations 35.9% 37.1% 34.4% 30.7% 24.2%Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 1.8%Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 1.0%Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 5.6% 5.0% 5.7% 6.4% 14.4%

INDUSTRYAgriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 4.3% 4.6% 3.5% 0.6% 6.1%Construction 7.2% 7.2% 8.3% 2.2% 17.3%Manufacturing 10.9% 10.4% 11.3% 10.3% 16.0%Wholesale trade 3.3% 3.7% 2.1% 1.5% 3.3%Retail trade 11.5% 11.9% 11.0% 10.9% 6.3%Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 5.6% 5.8% 5.8% 5.4% 2.5%Information 2.4% 2.3% 2.0% 4.0% 1.4%Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 6.5% 6.8% 5.2% 5.7% 3.8%Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 7.6% 8.0% 6.3% 6.3% 6.1%Educational services, and health care and social assistance 21.2% 20.9% 22.0% 29.2% 11.4%Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 8.3% 7.2% 10.9% 9.8% 16.8%Other services (except public administration) 5.2% 5.4% 4.3% 4.7% 5.8%Public administration 6.1% 5.8% 7.3% 9.3% 3.3%


WHITE BLACK HISPANICSUBJECT STATE INDIAN

CLASS OF WORKERPrivate wage and salary workers 74.3% 73.9% 71.2% 75.2% 84.8%Government workers 17.2% 16.9% 21.0% 21.2% 9.2%Self-employed workers in own not incorporated business 8.1% 8.8% 7.6% 3.6% 5.5%Unpaid family workers 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%

INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2005 IAD)Households 1,380,595 1,074,495 138,510 100,416 67,802Median household income (dollars) 37,063 39,790 31,024 25,871 29,835

With earnings 78.5% 77.6% 79.5% 78.8% 93.0%Mean earnings (dollars) 50,210 53,541 41,320 35,767 38,201With Social Security income 27.9% 29.8% 25.7% 21.6% 9.2%Mean Social Security income (dollars) 12,684 13,038 11,347 10,454 9,074With Supplemental Security Income 3.9% 3.7% 4.8% 5.6% 2.3%Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) 6,711 6,921 6,226 5,796 6,041With cash public assistance income 3.7% 3.3% 5.1% 6.8% 2.9%Mean cash public assistance income (dollars) 1,389 1,436 1,710 1,057 1,392With retirement income 16.9% 18.4% 13.2% 13.5% 4.8%Mean retirement income (dollars) 16,000 16,295 14,512 14,709 12,428With Food Stamp benefits 11.0% 9.1% 14.5% 23.9% 15.2%

Families 934,124 726,200 95,284 62,088 53,148Median family income (dollars) 45,990 49,363 37,684 31,841 31,771Married-couple families 75.4% 79.4% 68.2% 45.4% 65.5%Median income (dollars) 54,039 55,897 48,728 56,928 35,629Male householder, no spouse present 6.6% 5.7% 7.9% 10.5% 13.0%Median income (dollars) 32,996 35,626 32,763 26,502 30,169Female householder, no spouse present 18.0% 14.9% 23.9% 44.1% 21.4%Median income (dollars) 21,553 22,812 19,755 17,713 20,920

Individuals 3,433,496 2,589,660 381,391 243,094 227,767Per capita income (dollars) 20,709 22,805 14,721 14,551 12,622

POVERTY RATESAll families 13.1% 10.3% 19.4% 28.4% 25.0%Married-couple families 6.6% 5.5% 10.6% 8.2% 18.9%Families with female householder, no husband present 38.2% 34.5% 42.6% 48.9% 44.0%With related children under 18 years 46.4% 43.1% 49.2% 56.3% 49.9%With related children under 5 years only 62.7% 59.2% 55.5% 83.3% 61.8%

All people 16.5% 13.6% 22.4% 31.8% 26.8%Under 18 years 23.0% 18.6% 26.0% 46.6% 35.9%18 years and over 14.4% 12.2% 20.8% 25.2% 21.5%18 to 64 years 15.1% 12.8% 21.1% 25.5% 21.8%65 years and over 11.2% 9.6% 19.0% 23.5% 16.4%People in families 13.8% 10.8% 19.3% 31.4% 25.9%

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICSNo telephone service available 6.9% 5.8% 11.1% 10.0% 12.2%

Owner-occupied housing units 937,051 771,384 87,452 41,281 33,720

MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PCT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Less than 30 percent 79.6% 80.8% 78.2% 69.5% 70.7%30 percent or more 20.4% 19.2% 21.8% 30.5% 29.3%

OWNER CHARACTERISTICSMedian value (dollars) 89,100 92,500 76,700 74,600 65,400Median selected monthly owner costs with a mortgage (dollars) 913 927 820 894 758Median selected monthly owner costs without a mortgage (dollars) 288 292 253 264 258

Documents

Oklahoma’s Second Century Building Alliances · existed for so long between tribes and government / private sector parties will continue to prevent large scale, mutually beneficial