MN American Indians, Indian
Tribes and Health Disparities 101
Presenter
Jackie Dionne
MDH Director of American Indian Health
Tribal and Community Liaison
Minnesota Indian Reservations and Indian Communities
Enrolled
Pop.
1.White Earth 19,400 9,562
2.Leech Lake 9,372 10,660
3.Red Lake 11,422 5,896
4.Bois Forte 3,443 874
5.Grand Portage 1,100 565
6.Fond du Lac 4,044 4,250
7.Mille Lacs 4,414 4,907
8.Upper Sioux 493 493
9.Lower Sioux 1,115 1,115
10.Shakopee 568 568
11.Prairie Island 800
400
Overview of Indian Tribes in MN
•
There are seven (7) Anishinaabe (Chippewa, Ojibwe) reservations and four (4) Dakota (Sioux) communities. • These are the lands retained by tribes after ceding large portions of the original homelands. • Reservations were created through treaties, up to 1871. • After 1871, they were created by Executive Order of the President of the United States or by other agreements. They were then called communities and not reservations. • There are 567 federally recognized Tribes in the United States and over 40 state recognized Tribes. History of American Indians
 Fur Trading is the earliest European/Indian relationship beginning in the early 1600s, until about 1840, the fur market collapsed, then land was instead sought for
minerals, timber and farming.
 Marshall Trilogy (1823‐1832); three Supreme Court ruling by John Marshall played a significant role in the development of federal Indian law. Three cases formed the basic framework of federal Indian law in the U.S.
 Johnson v. M’intosh (1823)
 Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia (1831)
 Worchester v. Georgia (1832)
History of American Indians
 The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant unsettled lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders. A few tribes went peacefully, but many resisted the relocation policy. During the fall and winter of 1838 and 1839, the Cherokees were forcibly moved west by the United States government. Approximately 4,000 Cherokees died on this forced march, which became known as the "Trail of Tears.”  In MN in 1850 there was the Sandy Lake Tragedy where over 400 Ojibwe died from forced relocation to the White Earth Reservation.
History of American Indians
 From 1805 to 1867 there were 41 treaties with the U.S. involving indigenous people/land within MN Territory. Treaties were the European concept of title to land.  “Why Treaties Matter” a display developed as a partnership between the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and MN Humanities Center. http://treatiesmatter.org/treaties/timeline This website had good information on treaty making in MN. The good and the bad. Brief History of American Indians
 Assimilation policies and boarding schools were devastating to Indians. In 1869, religious groups were given responsibility for running reservations.  Allotments were also devastating and individuals lost their land through swindle and corruption. The General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) was passed in 1887. The allotment process ended with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. Minnesota Ojibwe
(Chippewa) Reservations
Bois Forte
Fond du Lac
Grand Portage
Leech Lake
Mille Lacs
White Earth
Red Lake
Date of treaty establishing reservation
Original reservation acreage
April 7, 1866
103,863
Sept. 30, 1854 97,800
Sept. 30, 1854 40,422
Feb. 22, 1855
Feb. 22, 1855
Mar. 19, 1867
Oct. 2, 1863
Minnesota Dakota (Sioux) Community
549,163
61,014
709,467
543,528
Acres allotted to individual Indians in 1935
56,471
40,903
24,975
75,575
1,920
673,257
Reservation not allotted
1996 Reservation area
105,284
100,000
47,000
602,880
61,000
837,120
Date community was established
Acres of tribally owned land (2002 BIA numbers)
31,620
23,077
39,938
15,762
4,047
75,696
564,426
Acres of individual trust lands (2002)
% of original reservation now tribally owned
11,506
16,823
6,695
30%
23.6%
98.8%
11,626
140
1,952.83
2.9%
6.6%
10.7%
100%
Original Acreage
Current Acreage
Shakopee Mdewakanton
~1889
258
661
Prairie Island
1889
120
1,807
Lower Sioux
1887 ~ 1893
623
1,785
Upper Sioux
1938
746
1,218
Brief History of American Indians
 Indian did not become citizens until 1924 by an act of Congress. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 marked a major change in federal policy. It became the “New Deal” program for Indians.  By the 1950’s, there was a sharp reversal in Indian Policy. Termination was seen as the final solution to the “Indian problem”, the way to get government out of the “Indian business”. Over 100 known tribes were terminated. Many more tribes were terminated that were not recorded, we don’t know the exact number.
Brief History of American Indians
 Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed in 1978. It was enacted to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights and cultural practices of American Indians.
 BIA Relocation Program of 1951, was another attempt at assimilation of American Indians, and was the main policy that lead to large number of American Indian moving into urban area across the country.  In 1953, Congress enacted a law, commonly referred to as PL 280, which created criminal and adjudicatory civil jurisdiction in certain states over acts committed in Indian Country. Those states are Wisconsin, Oregon, California, Minnesota and Nebraska.  Reclaiming Sovereignty in the 1960’s. The 1970’s Self‐Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Brief History of American Indians
 Moving towards Self‐Governance in the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Taking on managing and control of their own programs and businesses.
 Establishment of Tribal run Casinos that has brought revenue to the Tribe that wasn’t possible before gaming.  Tribes have been able to provide “general revenue” funding for programs and services that was not available before gaming. Brief History of American Indians
 For American Indians, between 1950 and 1980, the urban population had risen to 64% (of the total American Indian population) from only 8% in the 1940’s. Urban American Indian communities in Minnesota
 The largest urban communities in Minnesota are Bemidji, Duluth and the Twin Cities
 Urban communities are inter‐tribal
 American Indians living in urban communities can often feel isolated
MN American Indian Demographics
 The total American Indian population in the state is 101,900.  Hennepin County’s American Indian population is 21,206  Ramsey County it’s 9,276.
 60% of all American Indian live off the reservation in the U.S.
MN Indian & Poverty  39.5% of all American Indians live in poverty, a rate 4.4 times higher than Whites (2010)
 Poverty rate for White is 10.6%
MN Indian & Social Determinates  17.8 % of American Indians have less than a high school education, compared to 6.8% for White.  That means that American Indians are 2.6 times more likely to have less than a high school education compared to Whites (2010)
MN Indian & Social Determinates  18.8% of American Indians are uninsured (2009) 2.4 times the White rate.
 The American Indian male unemployment rate was 26.9%, 3 times higher than the White male rate (2010) American Indian Health Disparities in MN  American Indians have the highest rate (73%)of being overweight or obese, of any single population group in Minnesota.  American Indians have the highest rate (23%) of five or more ACES than any other single population in Minnesota. American Indian Health Disparities in MN  The Infant Mortality Rate for American Indians is the second highest in the state at 9.4 compared to white at 4.5
 American Indians have the highest rates of smoking in the state at 60%
 American Indians have the highest rate of diabetes at 18.6%.
American Indian Health Disparities in MN  Overall, American Indians (18.3) in MN have a suicide rate that is 1.7 times the rate of Whites (10.9)
 American Indian male and female mortality rates are 1.5 times higher than White mortality rates.
Federal Indian Policy and it’s impact on the health of Tohono O’odham & Pima Indians in the Southwest
 Federal and local water rights policies directly impacted Tohono O’odham and Pima Indians in the Southwest U.S. and was a major contributing factor in the rise of diabetes in their community.
 Nearly half of the adult population have Type 2 Diabetes (show video – Bad Sugar: Unnatural Causes produced by California Newsreel)
Policies that impact the health of Tribes throughout the county
 Treaties between the Federal Government and American Indian Tribes ‐ most of the land that is now Minnesota was ceded to the U.S by Ojibwe and Dakota people over a 30‐year period (1837‐
1867).  Many policies were made to terminate or assimilate American Indian, one that impacted the well‐being of families the most, was the forced the removal of Indian children into boarding schools. Promises of the Treaties
 American Indians were starving on reservations, due to the lack of ability to hunt, fish and gather in the ceded territory.  Treaties included promise (guarantee) of certain provisions, one of the major provisions was food.  War Department supplied rations and later commodities ‐
high in fat and sodium; low in nutritional value  American Indians had to make due
 Rise in diabetes and other chronic conditions related to commodities
Health care for American Indian is grossly underfunded. Tribes and Indian Health Services
 Indian Health Service is the Federal entity responsible for health care on
reservations.
 CHSDA – Contracted Health Services Delivery Areas
http://www.ihs.gov/chs/index.cfm?module=c
hs_requirements_chsda
Tribes and Indian Health Services
 Three Ojibwe Tribes; Leech Lake, White Earth and Red Lake have an IHS run clinic/hospital and a contract for services.
 Eight Tribes only have a 638 contract for service. Four of the eight have a tribally run clinic. Three Dakota communities do not have a Tribal clinic. Only one Dakota Tribe, the Shakopee Tribe, has a Tribally run clinic.
Indian Self‐Determination and Education Act of 1975
 The Indian Self‐Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (Public Law 93‐638) authorized the Secretaries of the Department of Interior, Health, Education and Welfare and some other government agencies to enter into contracts with, and make grants directly to, federally recognized Indian tribes. The tribes would have authority for how they administered the funds, which gave them greater control over their welfare. The ISDEAA is codified at Title 25, United States Code, beginning at section 450
Sovereignty • American Indians have a unique relationship with the US Government
• Nation to Nation Relationship
• No other cultural group has this relationship
• American Indian Tribes have the inherent right of self‐
government. From the earliest years of the Republic the Indian Tribes have been recognized as “distinct, independent, political communities” by reason of their original tribal sovereignty.
• Entitlement vs. “Special Treatment” myth Tribal Sovereignty and Self Governance
 Features of Tribal Governments
 Elected officials, voted into office by the Tribes
membership, and their own constitution
 Civil and regulatory jurisdiction over their own lands and individuals who reside on tribally owned lands
 Operate and regulate on their gaming and businesses on their reservations without state regulation

Example: The White Earth Nation is the process of under taking all the county human services for their population. Current state policies that uphold the Government to Government relationship • Governor Dayton’s Executive Order 13‐10
• Tribal‐State Relations Training coming in 2014
• The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council
• The Tribal Liaison/Tribal Affairs principle point of contact for 12 state agencies.
Protocols for Working with Tribes
Protocols for working with Tribes
MN Indian Tribes State webpage
 This link has a link to all 11 Tribes in MN with more information on each specific tribe.  https://mn.gov/portal/government/tribal/mn‐indian‐
tribes/
 American Indians, Indian Tribes and State Government February 2014– Research Department MN House of Representatives www.house.mn/hrd/. Copies can be requested by calling (651) 296‐6753
Discussion and Questions
Contact information
Jackie Dionne
Director of American Indian Health MDH
[email protected]
American Indian Historical Timeline
In The Rights of Indians and Tribes by Stephen L. Pevar, it is suggested that Federal Indian
policy can best be understood when placed in historical perspective. The brief summary below
attempts to highlight changes in the way that the federal government has dealt with American
Indians and Alaska Natives and some of the resulting trauma.
1492-1787: Tribal Independence
• Peaceful relations when it suited the interests of Europeans
• Violence between Indians and settlers increased over time
• Disease, introduced by Europeans, decimated Indian population
• European population increased at a great rate
• There began a pattern of invading Indian territory and_taking possession
• After Revolutionary War, Americans began the quest for land
1787-1828: Agreements Between Equals
• Indian tribes were viewed as separate nations and negotiations were done by treaty
• Indian tribes were strong militarily and still a threat
• Law were passed to protect against the taking of Indian land
• Few of the laws were actively enforced and expansion was encouraged
1828-1887: Relocation of the Indians
• "Removal of the eastern Indian tribes to the West" became dominant policy
• US is stronger and does not need to avoid hostility with Indian tribes
• Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to treaties that forced most eastern Indian tribes to the
west
• Discovery of gold led to further expansion and sfaughter of food source- bison
• By 1887, 200 boarding schools were established with 14,000 Indian forcibly enrolled
• Federal courts were authorized to prosecute Indians who committed certain crimes or:,
the reservation
• 1871 Congress passed law that stopped additional treaties with Indian tribes
• Indian tribes no longer seen as independent nati_ons
1887-1934: Allotment and Assimilation
• Assimilation into white society became the new federal policy
• 1887 General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) sought to extinguish tribal sovereignty, erase
reservation boundaries, and force assimilation .
• Surplus lands sold to non-Indians
• Tribal culture was completely disrupted: communal life destroyed, land taken away
again, and outsiders allowed to live on Indian reservations
• Congress allowed Indian land to be leased to non-Indians, controlled funds that resulted from the leases, and determined when to distribute the funds 1934-1953: Indian Reorganization
• 1935 Indian Reorganization Act {IRA)- Federal Indian policy changed as this law was
enacted to protect the remaining Indian land base, encourage Indian tribes to adopt
constitutions, and engage in self-government The IRA has been criticized as
paternalistic, ethnocentric, and insufficient
1953-1968: Termination
• The IRA goals were abandoned and federal policy changed again
• Termination of the federal government's trust relationship with Indian tribes became
the new policy with the goal of assimilation {again)
• Federal benefits and support services were eliminated.
• 1953 Public Law 280 gave six states criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations
• 1956 Relocation program offered job training and housing assistance to Indians who
would leave the reservation for urban areas
• Many tribal governments were disbanded and reservations abolished
1968-Present: Tribal Self-Determination
• Federal Indian policy changed to one which promotes tribal s_overeignty and self­
determination.
• Since 1968, the legislative and executive branches have attempted to provide
measures which improve would improve the social and economic life of tribes and
their people
• However, since the 1970s, Indian interests have lost more than 80% of the cases
decided by the Supreme Court
This summary was compiled from The Rights of Indians & Tribes by Stephen L. Pevar,
Fourth Edition (2012), Oxford University Press, New York, NY
MDH Tribal Consultation Policy
Policy Statement
Recognizing the unique legal relationship between the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota
Tribal Nations, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) requires that the principles
outlined in this document are to be considered in all matters that further the MDH mission of
protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans. This policy applies to all
programs and divisions within MOH and shall guide meaningful consultation between
Minnesota Tribal Nations and MDH in policy development as set forth in this policy.
A unique government-to-government relationship exists between federally recognized
Minnesota Tribal Nations, the state of Minnesota and the United States federal government.
The U.S. Constitution, numerous treaties, statutes, Federal case law, regulations and executive
orders, as well as political, legal, moral, and ethical principles have recognized the right of Tribal
Nations to self-governance and self-determination. Tribal Nations exercise inherent sovereigt;t
powers over their members and territory.
Minnesota Executive Order 13-10 entitled "Affirming the Government-to-Government
Relationship between the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Tribal Nations: Providing for
Consultation, Coordination, and Cooperation" was signed by Governor Mar~ Dayton on August
8, 2013 and reaffirms the government-to-government relationship between the State of
Minnesota and Minnesota Tribal Nations. Implementation of the MDH Tribal Consultation
policy underscores the importance of this government-to-government relationship.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose ofthis policy is to encourage and ensure meaningful involvement of Tribal Nations
in decision-making through consultation in public health matters that affect Tribal Nations and
Indian people.
The involvement of Minnesota Tribal Nations in the development of public health policy allows·
for locally relevant and culturally appropriate approaches to public health issues impacting the
Tribal Nations and promotes recognition of the tribal/state role in the health of tribal
communities and supports approaches that are rooted in the culture ancl experience of Tribal
Nations that will result in improved program performance and positive health outcomes for
tribal communities.
This policy does not waive or diminish any tribal governmental rights, including treaty rights,
sovereign immunities, or jurisdiction. This policy does not waive or diminish any rights or
protections afforded American Indian persons under federal, state, or Tribal law.
This policy does not waive or diminish MDH's responsibility to uphold laws, rules, directives, or
other legal requirements or obligations imposed by state or federal law, or set forth in
agreements or compacts between one or more of the Minnesota Tribal Nations or any other
Tribal Nation and the State or its agencies.
This policy is not intended and does not create any right to administrative or judicial review, or
any other right or benefit or responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable against the
MDH, its officers or employees, or its subdivisions or any other persons. Nothing in this policy
prohibits or limits MDH from asserting any rights or pursuing any administrative or judicial
action under state or federal law to effectuate the interests ofthe State of Minnesota.
Consultation
Consultation for purposes ofthis policy is defined as an enhanced form of communication that
emphasizes trust, respect, and shared responsibility. It is an open and free exchange of
information and opinions among parties, which should lead to mutual understanding and
comprehension. Consultation is integral to a deliberative process that results in effective
collaboration and informed decision-making with the ultimate goal of reaching consensus on
issues. MDH will consult, as defined in this document and as practicable and permitted by law,
with Minnesota Tribal Nations before taking action that will significantly affect one or more of
the eleven Federally recognized Tribal Nations in Minnesota. The MDH Tribal Consultation
Policy will be reviewed with the Minnesota Tribal Nations no less than once every two years to
assure that it is successfully meeting the needs of MDH, Minnesota Tribal Nations and the state.
It will be MDH policy to conduct timely communication and meaningful consultation as outlined
within this policy with Tribal Nations where elected officials and other authorrzed
representatives of the Tribal Governments have an opportunity to provide meaningful and
timely input to legislative proposals or fiscal notes, new rule adoption or other policy changes
that may significantly affect Tribal Nations, or where one or more Tribal Nations has
communicated to MDH that such action will significantly affect them.
An action is considered to significantly affect a Minnesota Tribal Nation if there is a reasonable
presumption that the action has or may have substantial direct effects on
• Indian people or one or more Minnesota Tribal Nations,
• The amount or duration of MDH program funding or delivery of services for one or more
Tribal Nations,
• The relationship between MDH and one or more Tribal Nations, or
• The distribution of power and responsibilities between the MDH and Tribal Nations
A consultation is initiated when either MDH or one or more Tribal nations makes a written
request to the other for a consultation. The consultation request should:
• Identify the subject issue(s) for attention
• Include the applicable program(s), policy, rule, regulation and/or statute
• Include impact or potential impact to Indian people or Tribal Nation(s)
• Identify the affected and potentially affected Tribal Nation(s)
Principal Point of Contact
• The MDH Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Director of American Indian Health
at the Minnesota Department of Health, and
• Tribal President, Tribal Chair or Chief Executive Officer, or an elected or appointed Tribal
Leader, or their authorized representative.
Each party will identify a Principal Point of Contact and will notify the other parties involved of
the designated primary point of contact for consultation requests.
Consultation Process
Annually, MDH will consult with each Minnesota Tribal Nation to identify any priority issues for
consultation for the year. During the course of the year one or more Tribal Nation(s) or MDH
may request additional consultation by contacting the Tribal or MDH point of contact.
MDH will acknowledge receipt of a tribal consultation written request within 14 calendar days
after r-eceipt of the request, will negotiate the particular consultation process within 21 days,
will inform all Tribal Nations of the consultation process and provide them with access to the
consultation process, will accurately record a narrative summary of the ideas exchanged during
the consultation process including any actual or possible outcomes ofthe consultation, and will
complete and send within 30 days of the conclusion of the consultation process a written
report for review and comment. Tribal Nations involved in the process will have 30 to
comment, request amendment, or provide additional information to MDH. A final Consultation
Report will be provided to all Tribal Nations.
Consultation will occur through a combination of one or more methods agreed upon by both
MDH and the Minnesota Tribal Nation(s) and could include meetings face-to-face, by
teleconference or other technological formats, or by letter or e-mail correspon<;lence.
MDH will initiate review of the MDH Tribal Consultation Policy with Tribal Nations.no less than
every two years to assure the policy continues to meet the principles contained in Minnesota
Executive Order 13-10.
The MDH identified principal point of contact will be responsible for assuring that all program
areas within MDH are aware of and incorporate the MDH Tribal Consultation Policy into their
work and that the process is coordinated within the Department of Health.
This policy is effective on the date of signature by the Commissioner of Health and shall apply
to all MDH programs.
Agency Signature:
t::L~ .~./.(~
,. ~ ~ ·- -~~·
Edward P. Ehlinger, MD, MSPH
Commissioner
Date ofSignature: February 26, 2014
American· Indians in Minnesota:
PROTOCOLS FOR WORKING WITH TRIBES The follozdng list ofsuggestions is prot'idedto help st,ue agency
st.if!develop soundrelationships with their trib,dcotmterp,u-;.
V1,mk you tu the /l,fim1esot,i I11di,w Ajfoir, Council and rhe·
Tribes for this i1ifi;nnatio11. Upd,ued 111/99.
•
Meetings with tribal council officials and staff
sho1,1ld, ifpossible, be conducred between the
same level ofofficials.
•
Respecr Tribal council officials as officials of
government.
•
Tribal council officials expect to be treated in
the highest piofessional manner when
conducting business.
•
Like all business relationships, honescy and
im:egriry are highJy valued. A sense qfh~or
is appreci;i~ed bur generally, serious, business­
li~e behavior is appmpriat~.
·· .
Iii Personal interest in tribal palirical and
cultural history is appreciated but don't let
yo~ personal interest interfere with your
mission oi: t¥k. Whe~ possible, do your
homework ahead of time to help you
und,ersrsind ~ siwaripn or issue.
•
U ndemand thar there are different '\.vays of
. commµnicating.
•
During negotiations, prepare ro discuss all
aspects of an issue at hand simultaneousk
rather than sequentially.
·
•
Und~rscand that there are different ways of
communication. Seemingly exrra;eous
da1:q. may be reviewed and re-revievved.
•
Always shake hands when. imroduced,
meeting someone and departing.
It is
customarv IO shake hands wirh even-one in
the room~ ,
•
For business meetings dress formallv.
•
Traditional authorities ofi:en do nor rdare
well to written communication and may find
face-co-face consultation more approp;iare.
a
Like most people, American Indians object to
being "consulted" by people who hav~ little
intention of doing anything in response to
their concerns. Be prepared to negoriare -- to
the extent you have authoritv -- ro find ways
to accommodate the group'~ concerns. A~d
be prepared to respond with reasons why the
advice may or may not be followed.
•
Do not rely solely on letters or other written
materials to nociry· ' tribal goven'unents of
proposed plans or actions or 'to seek
consultarion. Many groups lack the funding
or administrative support to receive and
respond efficiently ro ieti:ers. Letters may not
reach the people who are most concerned.
Follm.v up written communications with
telephone calls or in-person contacts.
• Tribal Governments usuallv are not \veal rhv.
It may be difficult for tribal officials to con;e
to ~neerings or exchange· corr~spondence. In
addition, traditional leaders are busy people
with responsibilities in the social and cul­
tural life of the commi.miry. Be c.1l"eful how
you use their time and a,·oid causing undue
Page 1 of 2
expense. In addition. tribal governments
generally do not have large stall, to assign ro
meetings, follow-up, etc.
• Remember thar American Indians may
pen:eive themselves as having a long history
of uneven relationships with the U.S.
government. They may be suspicious of
your proposals. Do nor expect a
sympa,d;1.etic atrirude to be aurnmatic.
• Be flexible about deadlines, if possible. To
be effec;rive,, rry. ro follow the most narural
~~ule. If the mission requires that
particular d.e~cl.lines must be sec, .be sure to
exp!~- what they are and why they must
exist. Expect to n~o-otiare about them.
i
you
"Success is not so closely rdated to ·whac type of
state organization, office, or committee has been
ser up to deal wirh tribal issues as it is a function
of (l) how invoked (American Indians) are in
the polidcal structure; (2) how good die com­
munication is between different bmnches of
government dealing with Indian affairs; (3) how
good the comnmnication is benveen state:
government offices and (American Indian)
communities; and (4) how much rhe employees
ofthose offices understand and care about stace­
rribal relations:"
Finally, remember what the NCSL's State and
Tribes.'. B£iikl~ni New Traditions publication says:
"Coo~tive state-tribal government relation­
ships are difficult: establish. Wich slim guid­
ance from'the U.S. Constitution and inconsis­
tent foundations in case law, states and tribes are
forging thefr ·ways in legal wilderness.
to
Those
consult with might not be able to
answer quesr;ons imrnediardy. They
have to r.~i,n.k about it and consult with
or.l;iers. As a result, it may be necessary w
pose.a.q;u~tion
and then
go away. while tl;iey
'
I. .
•
..
consider and debate the matter.
mar
~
• Do -~ht,a,.~~~0e om: Amer~can Indian speaks,
for all A.mei:ican Indians qi tribal
gover11me~rs. Take advantage oforganiza­
tions like the. Urban Indian Advisory
"The primary governmem--to government
relationship fcir most tribes is at the federal level.
Because of ill-defined relationships and imprecise
qefinitioiis of regularory authority, state and
Indian tribal goven1ments are ~ften on their own
to work out one-to--one arrangements."
Co~cit'~or pi;oad inpu~..
Accordii;ig.to a ~µryey
9y the National Confer­
ence o(Sri~e ~gfsl~rures " ...;;.r~Fe ?Jf? r~ibal .
govemmeri~ t~at yv<,)rk togethe~ (}n. l~ conrro­
Yersial issues learn about each other in rhe
process.. c:;ollal::,oration requires a willingness ro
ovei:look \Vhat mighr seem to be glaring differ­
encesir;i.,ord~r (0 search. for common ground.
Increased und~rstanding and communication
that results from cooperation on less demanding
t·wove~.,
is.st~~· £6s~ers. ~:..
together m the..fdnrtl!-,
ability t()?vor~
· ·•. ·
Page 2 of2