[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40820-40832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15033]
[[Page 40819]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust Reform Task Force--Report; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 /
Notices
[[Page 40820]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Trust Reform Task Force--Report
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Tribal Leaders/ Department of the Interior Trust Reform
Task Force (Task Force), composed of Tribal Leaders and representatives
of the Department of the Interior (Department), has developed a number
of proposed alternatives to the Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management
(BITAM) proposed by the Department in November, 2001. The elements of
the various proposals are not necessarily exclusive of each other and
are designed to be flexible concepts for discussion among Tribal
Leadership. The Task Force believes that, with sound implementation,
the options the Task Force recommends for further consultation could
serve as the basis for determining the appropriate organizational
structure for the Department to make progress in fulfilling its trust
responsibilities toward American Indians and Alaska Natives. During the
next two months, the Department will engage in a series of regional and
national consultation sessions with tribal leaders on these proposals.
At the recent Task Force meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Task
Force agreed to initiate consultation in early June, hold regional
meetings throughout June and early July, and hold a national
consultation meeting in Bismarck, North Dakota on June 19, 2002. Tribal
leaders are urged to provide their comments on the proposed
alternatives. The Task Force believes that there is a need for reform,
and that the status quo is not acceptable. The Task Force notes that
significant progress has been made in the spirt and success of self-
determination and self-governance policies. To date, the Task Force has
largely focused on consideration of high-level reorganization options.
However, the Task Force intends to address the regional and field-level
organizational structure in full detail in the future, after receiving
input regarding the upper-level structure. The Report the Task Force
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior contains some illustrations
of regional- and agency-level organizational structures, these are
purely descriptive illustrations, they are not proposed options, which
are included in the supplemental information section.
DATES: Comments on the Trust Reform Task Force Report are due on July
12, 2002, and/or may be submitted personally at any of the meetings as
identified in the listing in this Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aurene M. Martin, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, at 202-208-7163.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following paragraphs contain the Task
Force's Report submitted to Secretary Norton on June 4, 2002, except
for the summary information contained at the front of the Report.
I. Background
Pursuant to treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial
decisions and in the course of dealing with the Indian Nations, the
United States government has acquired a broad trust relationship with
Indian tribes. That trust relationship obligates the Federal government
to protect tribal self-government, to provide services to Indian
communities, and to exercise the highest degree of fiduciary
responsibility with tribal and Indian lands and resources.
The Federal government has held funds in trust for American Indian
tribes since 1820. In 1887, the enactment of the General Allotment Act
extended the Federal government's fiduciary duties to individual
Indians. The Allotment Act allocated parcels of reservation lands to
Indian heads of households and opened ``surplus'' lands to non-Indian
settlement. The allotted lands were to be held in trust by the United
States for a designated period. Individual trust accounts were to be
set up for each Indian with a stake in those lands.
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (``IRA'') ended the allotment
of tribal lands, provided for the return of ``surplus'' Indian lands to
tribal ownership, and extended indefinitely the period for holding
allotted lands in trust. Trust fund accounts primarily consist of money
received through the sale or lease of trust lands, including such
transactions as timber sales, agricultural fees, and oil and gas
leases. Tribal trust accounts may also include funds awarded from
judgments against the United States.
More recently, reports filed by the General Accounting Office and
Congressional committees and lawsuits filed by Indian tribes have
pointed out serious problems with the government's long-standing
management of funds and resources entrusted to its care.
Congress sought to correct some of these problems through the
American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. That Act set
out the Secretary of the Interior's responsibilities for the accounting
and management of Indian trust funds and provided the opportunity for
Indian tribes to directly manage their trust funds. Additionally, the
Act established a Special Trustee for American Indian trust funds to
prepare a comprehensive, strategic plan for management reform and to
ensure that the reforms take place throughout the Department of the
Interior.
The purpose of the Trust Reform Task Force as defined in the
protocol agreement is as follows:
develop and evaluate organizational options to improve the
integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Departmental * * *
Indian Trust Operations consistent with Indian treaty rights, Indian
trust law, and the government-to-government relationship.
Although the Task Force mission is to develop options for an
organizational structure, the Task Force has engaged in discussions
addressing the underlying problems that the reorganization must
address. The purpose of the trust reform reorganization is to improve
various aspects of trust responsibilities including trust accounting
and trust resources management, while complementing and protecting
tribal self-government and trust services, However, the Task Force only
desires to expand its scope of work as authorized by the tribal
leadership which they represent from their respective regions.
The Task Force has approached the development of its options in a
manner that affirms tribal authority over the management of tribal
lands and natural resources. Statutes such as the Indian Reorganization
Act, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, and
specific resource management statutes, such as the Indian Forest
Resources Management Act, confirm the tribes' rights to be primary
managers of their tribal lands and natural resources. Additionally, the
Task Force recognizes that under Titles I and IV of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, tribes have assumed trust
management responsibilities and have a proven record of effectiveness
in performing those functions.
The Task Force has concluded that trust reform must be driven by
the beneficiaries and must assure that the government-to-government
relationship between Indian tribes and the United States is improved
and strengthened, not diminished or weakened.
The Task Force was formed after Tribal Leaders throughout the
country expressed serious concerns regarding
[[Page 40821]]
Secretary Norton's November 2001, establishment of a new Assistant
Secretary position and the creation of a new agency, the Bureau of
Indian Trust Asset Management (BITAM). The Secretary's plan reorganized
and consolidated all Indian trust asset management functions into a new
and separate organizational unit headed by a new Assistant Secretary,
BITAM. This proposal provided for important additional senior
management attention to this high-priority program to be retained
within the Department. The Secretary believed this newly established
Assistant Secretary would have the needed authority and responsibility
for improved trust reform efforts and Indian trust asset management.
However, through several public meetings, it became clear that the
Tribal Leaders were opposed to BITAM.
At the meeting held on December 16, 2001, in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, Tribal Leader Tex Hall proposed the formation of a Task Force
charged with providing concrete advice to the Department to guide its
trust reform efforts. The purpose of the Task Force was to evaluate all
available options and to submit to the Department one or more
alternatives to BITAM. To further develop an improved reorganization
plan and achieve broader consensus, Secretary Norton agreed to the
creation of a Task Force.
II. Task Force Members
The composition of the Tribal Membership of the Task Force was
determined by the tribes and represents a broad cross-section of tribal
interests. The Task Force consists of two elected tribal leaders from
each region, with a third tribal leader, from each region, acting as an
alternate. Tex Hall, Chairman/President of the Three Affiliated Tribes,
and Susan Masten, Chairwoman of the Yurok Tribe serve as the Tribal Co-
chairs. Senior Department officials also serve on the Task Force,
including Deputy Secretary Griles, and Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs Neal McCaleb, who serve as the Department's Co-chairs.\1\
Tribal Representatives are the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other Departmental representatives to the Task Force
included: the Associate Deputy Secretary, the Special Trustee, the
Director of the Office of Trust Transition, the Associate Solicitor
for Indian Affairs, the Director of Congressional and Legislative
Affairs, the Director of Communications and the Counselor to the
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Region: Ed Thomas, President, Central Council of Tlingit
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska; Mike Williams, Aniak Village; Alternate
Joe Williams, President, Organized Village of Saxman.
Eastern Oklahoma Region: Bill Anoatubby, Governor, Chickasaw
Nation; Charles O. Tillman, Jr., Principal Chief Osage Nation;
Alternate Grace Bunner, Mekko, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.
Eastern Region: Keller George, President, United South and Eastern
Tribes, Inc. (USET); Tim Martin, Executive Director, United South and
Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET); Alternate Peter Schultz, Vice-Chair,
Mohegan Tribe.
Great Plains Region: Mike Jandreau, Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux
Tribal Council; Richard Monette, Chairman, Turtle Mountain Band of
Chippewa Indians; Alternate Tex Hall, Chairman/President, Three
Affiliated Tribes/NCAI.
Midwest Region: Melanie Benjamin, Chief Executive, Mille Lacs Band
Reservation Business Committee; Paul Ninham, Oneida Tribe of Indians of
Wisconsin; Alternate Troy Swallow, President, Ho-Chunk Nation.
Navajo Region: Ervin Keeswood, Navajo Council Delegation; George
Arthur, Navajo Council Delegation; Alternate Alfred Yazzie, Navajo
Nation.
Northwest Region: Ernie Stensgar, Chairman, Coeur d'Alene Tribe; W.
Ron Allen, Chairman, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe; Alternate Colleen
Cawston, Chairperson, Colville Confederated Tribes.
Pacific Region: Susan Masten, Chairwoman, Yurok Tribe; Rachel
Joseph, Chairperson, Lone Pine Reservation; Alternate Mary Belardo,
Chairperson, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
Rocky Mountain Region: Alvin Windy Boy, Chairman, Chippewa Cree
Business Council; Ivan Posey, Chairman, Shoshone Business Committee;
Alternate Geri Small, President, Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council.
Southern Plains Region: Gary McAdams, President, Wichita &
Affiliated Tribes; James Potter, Treasurer, Prairie Band Potawatomi
Tribe of Kansas; Alternates Alonzo Chalepah, Vice Chairman, Apache
Tribe of Oklahoma, and Russell Ellis, Treasurer, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe
of Oklahoma.
Southwest Region: Joe A. Garcia, San Juan Pueblo; Harry E. Early,
Governor, Pueblo of Laguna; Alternates Clement Frost, Vice Chairman,
Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Gregory Ortiz, Lt. Governor, Acoma
Pueblo.
Western Region: Edward Manuel, Chairman, Tohono O'odham Nation;
Alvin Moyle, Chairman, Fallon Paiute Shoshone; Alternate Dennis Smith,
Sr., Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley, Rose Taveapont, Vice-chair,
Northern Ute Indian Tribe.
To date, the Task Force has held several multi-day meetings. These
meetings have been held in Shepherdstown, West Virginia (February
2002); Phoenix, Arizona (March 2002); San Diego, California (April
2002); and Minneapolis, Minnesota (May 2002). Additionally, monthly
meetings have been scheduled for the next six months to continue the
activities and tasks identified by the Task Force.
From the very first joint meeting, which was held in Shepherdstown,
the Task Force and the Department have earnestly attempted to achieve
progress on trust reform. At the February meeting in Shepherdstown,
presentations highlighted the scope of the Federal trust responsibility
and the important differences from private or commercial fiduciary
trust management. Subcommittees were created with specific goals.
III. Task Force Sub-Committees
The Task Force established several subcommittees as follows:
1. Protocol Sub-Committee: This subcommittee was charged with the
development of protocols for the Task Force's activities. The Tribal
Leaders serving on the Protocols Subcommittee were Tim Martin-Chair,
Ervin Keeswood, Joe Williams, Ron Allen, Joe Garcia, and Rachel Joseph.
This subcommittee developed the ground rules for the Task Force actions
which have been followed throughout the task force process.
2. EDS Sub-Committee: Another subcommittee was directed to examine
the scope of work for the Electronic Data Systems' (EDS) proposal. The
Tribal Leaders serving on this subcommittee were Tim Martin--Chair,
Alvin Moyle, Charles Tillman, George Arthur, Geri Small, Ed Thomas, Ed
Manuel, and Joe Garcia. This subcommittee reviewed the EDS proposal and
is also involved in reviewing and commenting on the development of the
Department's Strategic Plan for Trust Reform.
3. Legislative Sub-Committee: The Task Force recognized that there
was significant interest in trust reform legislation in the Legislative
Branch of the Federal government. This year, both the House Committee
on Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs have held
hearings regarding trust reform. The Task Force also recognized the
need to develop a consensus among the various parties--the tribes, the
allottees, the Department and the Congress-- if any legislation is to
be passed and effectively implemented.
[[Page 40822]]
Therefore, in Phoenix, Arizona, the Task Force decided to establish the
Legislative Subcommittee as its forum for that discussion. The members
of the Legislative Subcommittee are Governor Anoatubby-Chair, Ervin
Keeswood, Alvin Windy Boy, Grace Bunner, Joe Williams, and Colleen
Cawston. The Legislative Subcommittee will continue to review options
for trust reform legislation and work with the Task Force and Congress
in the development of any trust reform legislation. The Chairman of
this Subcommittee, Governor Anoatubby, has kept key Congressional Staff
apprised of the Task Force's activities, invited staff to attend Task
Force Meetings, and worked with key committees regarding hearings
related to Task Force activity.
4. Alternative Proposal Sub-Committee: Another subcommittee was
formed to review the alternative proposals to BITAM that had been
submitted. The Subcommittee's Tribal Leaders were, Alvin Windy Boy--
Chair, Mike Jandreau, Tim Martin, Ed Thomas, Ervin Keeswood, Ernie
Stensgar, Ervin Carlson, Governor Anoatubby, Grace Brunner, Ron Allen,
Alvin Moyle, Rachel Joseph and Joe Garcia.
IV. Creating a Better Alternative Than BITAM
By the end of April, a total of twenty-nine separate alternative
proposals (or submissions with observations) had been received. These
alternative proposals provide a wide variety of options for
consideration; the options ranged from the status quo to a new
Department of Indian Affairs. The alternative proposals or comments
were from the following:
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Agua Caliente
BIA Regional Directors
Cherokee Nation (OK)
Cheyenne River Sioux
Chippewa Cree
Cobell Plaintiffs Receiver
Confederated Salish & Kootenai
Forest J. Gerard
Fort Peck Business Council
Hoopa Valley
Hualapai and Yavapai
Intertribal Timber Council
Lower Brule
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Native American Mutual
Navajo Nation
Nixon Peabody
Northwest Region
OST Advisory Board
Oglala Sioux
Raven-Pack Central
Resolution Trust Corporation
Salt River Pima--Maricopa Indian Community
Bureau of Indian Trust Assets Management
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)
Van Ness Feldman P.C.
Senate Bill 2212
The Task Force charged its Alternative Proposals Subcommittee to
evaluate each of the proposals. Each proposal was reviewed for key
features and relevant nuances. The proposals contain unique features
intended to address a variety of concerns, but reflect many common
perspectives. Most of the proposals state opposition to the BITAM
proposal. Some proposals state a preference to place the Department's
trust responsibilities outside of the Department. Some proposals
address preferences for higher levels of authority within the
Department for officials charged with handling Indian Affairs. Others
feature organizational attributes such as the need for performance
standards, improved computer systems, or a focus on ``breach''@ issues
identified by the District Court in the Cobell case.
To facilitate consultation with the broader tribal community, the
Subcommittee chose to create several generic composite options that
reflected the best features and major elements presented by the entire
body of the alternative proposals. These options focus on high level
positions responsible for providing policy direction for American
Indian and Alaska Natives programs. Following consultation, the Task
Force will provide the Secretary of the Interior with comments and
analyses of the options regarding the configuration of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and its subordinate line management positions.
The paragraphs that follow describe the alternative options
identified by the Subcommittee for consideration by the Task Force.
These descriptions also briefly describe some of the advantages and
disadvantages associated with the selection of a particular option.
However, the paragraphs that follow are highlights and do not fully
reflect the totality of the discussion, study and consideration the
Subcommittee and Task Force gave each generic option prior to
determining whether it merited further consideration.
V. Cross-Cutting Principles
In addition to the organizational options stated below, the Task
Force recommended that certain cross-cutting principles be incorporated
into any organizational option receiving further consideration. Each
option meriting further consideration would include these principles.
These cross-cutting principles include:
Support for the role of Tribal self-determination/self-
governance (direct service, Title I-638, and Title IV).
Recognition that Tribal and individual Indian interests
are closely related.
Creation of an independent oversight entity that would
have responsibility for trust administration.
Phasing out of the Office of Special Trustee.
Regrouping of operations-related functions currently under
control of the Special Trustee with other Bureau of Indian Affairs'
functions.
Departmental auditing and internal and external controls
capability.
A clear definition of the Department's ``fiduciary
responsibility'' to manage Indian trust assets.
VI. Options/Advantages/Disadvantages
Option 1(a): Create A New Department of Indian Affairs--
This alternative envisioned a new Cabinet position and organization.
All of the American Indian and Alaska Natives related functions within
the Department would be moved to this new organization.
Advantages:
Higher profile within the Executive Branch.
Consolidates American Indian and Alaska Natives functions
into one Department.
Improves coordination between American Indian and Alaska
Native programs.
Disadvantages:
Politically difficult to achieve.
Executive Branch implementation would be difficult.
Small Department, with inadequate clout.
While this alternative has attractive features, it was determined
there was no need for further consultation by the Task Force. This
option was viewed as being too difficult to pursue--it would take
substantial effort and political capital to seek ``Departmental''
status and the likelihood of success is not high. [See Figure 1]
Option 1(b): Create A New Independent Agency Within The
Executive Branch of Government--This alternative envisioned a new
independent agency, possibly temporary, outside of the Department, that
would be dedicated to managing all of the American Indian and Alaska
Native-related trust functions within the Department.
Advantages:
[[Page 40823]]
Outside entity with line authority to make changes.
Improved ability to foster organizational change.
Disadvantages:
Tribal involvement may be constrained.
Executive branch implementation would be difficult.
Small organization with limited clout.
While this alternative had attractive features, it was determined
there was no need for further consultation by the Task Force for
reasons similar to the reservations stated in 1(a). [See Figure 1]
Option 2: Create A New Deputy Secretary for Indian
Affairs--This alternative envisioned the creation of a new top-level
Interior official who would be responsible for all of the Indian-
related functions within the Department.
Advantages:
Raises profile of American Indian and Alaska Native
programs within the Department.
Makes span of control more manageable.
Provides clear lines of authority over all trust
functions.
Improves coordination with other Departmental Bureaus.
Ensures consistent policy of American Indian and Alaska
Native Affairs.
Disadvantages:
Inconsistent with Reorganization Act (one Deputy Secretary
per Department).
Difficult to obtain sufficient support.
Recruitment & confirmation of a Deputy Secretary.
The Task Force determined this option merited further consultation.
[See Figure 2]
Option 3: Create An Organizational Structure With Two
Assistant Secretaries--This alternative envisioned the creation of a
new Assistant Secretary's position to manage portions of the
Department's Indian trust responsibilities.
Advantages:
Higher profile within the Department.
Improved span of control.
Improved ability to focus on key program areas.
Disadvantages:
Too similar to the BITAM proposal
May undermine BIA's historical trust obligations.
May result in confused chain of command
Although this option was not patterned after the BITAM proposal, the
similarity was sufficient for the Task Force to determine this option
did not merit further consultation. [See Figure 3]
Option 4: Create An Organizational Subdivision At the
Bureau Level--This alternative envisioned the subdivision of the BIA
into two or more subordinate organizations. The Subcommittee identified
three logical groupings of current BIA functions--Education, Trust
Funds and Trust Resources, and Trust Services. The functional grouping
facilitates reasonable ``span of control'' considerations and permits
the agency to increase management attention to key trust
responsibilities.
Advantages:
Flexible organizational structure--contains several
options.
Improves program focus and accountability.
Ability to direct and coordinate Trust activities with
other Bureaus of the Department of the Interior including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Minerals
Management Service.
Disadvantages:
May be perceived as fragmenting Indian services.
The Task Force determined this option merited further consultation.
[See Figure 4]
Option 5: Create A New Leadership Position of Under
Secretary and Group BIA Functions--This option envisions the creation
of an Under Secretary of Indian Affairs and the grouping of BIA
functions into logical units. In large part, it is a composite option
reflecting the key features of Option 2 and Option 4.
Advantages:
New Under Secretary as single executive sponsor.
Ability to direct and coordinate Trust activities with
other Bureaus of the Department of the Interior including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Minerals
Management Service.
Under Secretary position more likely to be approved
(versus a new Deputy Secretary position).
Coordinates all American Indian and Alaska Native
functions within the Department.
High-profile position elevates American Indian and Alaska
Native Affairs.
Disadvantages:
Recruitment & confirmation of an Under Secretary.
The Task Force determined this option merited further consideration.
[See Figure 5]
VII. Further Consideration of the Acceptable Options
The Task Force recommended option 2, which would create a New
Deputy Secretary for Indian Affairs, option 4 which would create an
organizational subdivision at the Bureau Level, and option 5, which
would create a new leadership position of Under Secretary and group BIA
functions, for consultation, consideration and input from Tribal
Leaders. The principal focus of further consultation involves the
configuration of line management officials, from top to bottom, in each
alternative as well as the grouping of staff support functions.
VIII. Line Management
Most duties and responsibilities within the Department, including
Indian Affairs, are assigned by the President, Congress, or the Courts
to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary groups these functions
into compatible groups and delegates most of them to subordinate
Assistant Secretaries. The Assistant Secretaries further delegate most
responsibilities to subordinate Bureau Directors. The process goes on
to successively lower layers of the organization until the delegation
rests with the individuals responsible for implementing program
responsibilities. In most cases, the delegation process moves from
high-level policy related decision making, through strategic/priority/
budget decision making, to field implementation.
The Task Force supports the continuation of a line management
structure that would facilitate tribal self-determination through
direct services as well as contracting/compacting pursuant to self-
determination agreements. Within the Department, the line management
structure for Indian Affairs involves five levels--see Figure 7 for
further illustration. The options selected for further consideration
include possible changes to the status quo.
IX. Changes Needed at Successive Levels of Authority
Level 1: Secretary of the Interior--Because the Task Force
determined there was no need for further consultation regarding the new
Department of Indian Affairs and Independent Agency options, no changes
have been recommended at this level. The creation of a separate Deputy
Secretary or Under Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs would
elevate the visibility of Indian Affairs within the Department. These
positions would have direct line authority over all
[[Page 40824]]
aspects of Indian Affairs within the Department, including the
coordination of trust reform efforts across all relevant agencies and
programs, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Option 4 would
involve the Department making formal changes to the Departmental Manual
to clearly designate the current (or incumbent) Deputy Secretary as the
single accountable executive in charge of Indian Trust responsibilities
within the Department on an ongoing basis. Currently, the Secretary has
tasked the Deputy Secretary with these responsibilities, in addition to
being the Chief Operating Officer for the entire Department. Option 2
would require the creation of a separate Deputy Secretary for Indian
Affairs position. A similar provision, sponsored by Senators Daschle
and McCain, has been included in Senate Bill 2212. As mentioned
earlier, this position may be difficult to obtain.
Option 5 would not alter the duties of the Deputy Secretary, but
would accomplish the same objective of elevating Indian Affairs with
the creation of an Under Secretary for Indian Affairs. This new Under
Secretary would be responsible for coordinating and directing all
Indian Affairs programs within the Department including the various
bureaus, and would be positioned above the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs. The Task Force recognized that the creation of a new
Under Secretary may be more readily achievable than creating a second
Deputy Secretary position within a cabinet agency.
Level 2: Assistant Secretary--The Task Force determined
there was no need for further consultation on the bifurcation of
Indian-related functions at the Assistant Secretary level. The Task
Force and Indian Country broadly rejected the subdivision of Indian
trust responsibilities under two (or more) Assistant Secretaries as was
suggested by the BITAM proposal. Therefore, all options for further
consideration envision the continuation of just one Assistant Secretary
for Indian Affairs.
Level 3: Bureau Director--Currently, the Bureau Director
level is titled Commissioner (which has been vacant) and Deputy
Commissioner. The Task Force has discussed a number of options at this
level of the line organization (see Figure 4 for more details).
Depending upon the results of further consultation, the Bureau Director
level could involve the BIA (with Office Directors), separate
organizations with Bureau Directors or the use of Deputy Assistant
Secretaries in lieu of Bureau Directors.
Level 4: Regional Directors--Currently, the BIA hosts
several line management structures for various purposes. Education
Services has five regions. Law Enforcement also has five regions. Most
trust programs are subdivided into twelve (12) different regions, each
under the supervision of a Regional Director.
Each trust program's regional office is responsible for most Bureau
activities within a geographical area. Within the regional boundaries,
Regional Directors are responsible for representing the BIA in its
interaction with Tribal, State and local governments, other Federal
agencies, and the public; and directing and assisting in the
application and implementation of overall policies and programs by
agency and field offices, along with a number of other coordinating
roles. Regional offices are supported by agency offices and, in some
cases, by discrete field offices.
Level 5: Agency Offices--Currently, there are
approximately eighty-five agency offices throughout the BIA. These
offices, under the supervision of a Superintendent, represent
geographical subdivisions within each Region. Agency offices represent
the BIA in interactions with local tribal governing bodies, municipal
and county governments, other Federal agencies, and with the general
public. The Agency Superintendent, assisted by one or more specialists,
directs and supervises the operation of programs administered by the
BIA and monitors, supports and provides technical assistance to the
tribal governments when an agency program is administered under a self-
determination award. Agency offices may be further supported by sub-
agency offices.
The Task Force supports the continuation of a line-management
structure that would facilitate direct services to tribes as well as
activities pursuant to self-determination agreements. As Figure 4
demonstrates, there are several approaches for providing management
direction at the Bureau Director level. There are distinct advantages
and disadvantages to each approach. Comments received during the
consultation process will help the Task Force define more clearly the
most beneficial way to organize the Bureau Director level and below.
Following consultation, the Task Force will provide the Secretary of
the Interior with additional comments and analysis of the options
regarding the configuration of the BIA in its regional and agency
positions.
X. Key Program Staff Positions
Each layer of line management may be supported by one or more staff
positions; these staff support positions may range from Senior
Executive Service (SES) individuals to lower-graded positions (General
Schedule (GS) grades 5-15) depending upon the program and location.
Indian Education programs report directly to the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, and the Task Force did not discuss any
change in this reporting relationship. Other key support functions,
currently reporting to the Deputy Commissioner, are grouped into the
following program areas: Administration, Facilities Management and
Construction, Tribal Services, Trust Responsibilities, Law Enforcement,
Indian Gaming Management, Economic Development, Planning, Budget and
Management Support, Information and Technology Support.
Depending upon the results of the consultation process, these staff
functions may be grouped in other ways at the Bureau level. An
assessment of the BIA suggests that there are significant commonalities
in the program staff offices (and functions) located in the Regional
Offices and Agency Office levels. For example, the Bureau Level
``Information and Technology Support'' function may have subordinate
staff attention at the Regional and Agency organizational levels.
Pending decisions on the Bureau level functions and higher, the
Task Force has not yet addressed the lower-level staff organizations in
detail. Once the higher-level organizational decisions are made, it is
the intent of the Department to compile the detailed information needed
to facilitate organizational realignment at these subordinate levels
and to discuss the results with the Task Force. To the extent
practicable, efforts will be made to streamline decision making and to
align program functions between organizational layers. [See Figure 7
for an illustrative example.]
XI. Evaluation Criteria
The Task Force also discussed a set of criteria, and is planning to
use these criteria, to evaluate various organizational options. A
summary of the key criteria is presented below to facilitate further
consultation:
Does the option ensure that the United States faithfully discharges
its trust duties to tribal governments as set forth in treaties,
statutes, Executive Orders and case law?
Does the option support tribal self-determination and self-
government?
[[Page 40825]]
Does the option ensure full and continuing accountability for
management of Indian trust assets?
Does the option address the various costs of implementation?
Does the option ensure that individuals responsible for Indian
trust asset management are adequately trained?
Does the option deal with potential conflicts of interest?
Does the option address the key issues identified in the Cobell
litigation?
Does the option allow for sufficient flexibility to accommodate
tribal needs, special laws or treaties?
This summary of the criteria is not exhaustive and does not include
all of the questions designed to evaluate various organizational
proposals. However, the criteria list does indicate a rigorous process
to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the current organization
and the potential to improve program performance through organizational
change.
XII. Conclusion
This report is intended to facilitate consultation with the broader
Indian community. The package presents several high-level options for
organizing Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior. Upon
making decisions on the higher-level functional areas, the Department
and the Task Force can proceed to make lower-level decisions at the
Regional and Agency level of the organization. Many questions remain.
However, it is useful to make some decisions along the way. The views
of Indian Country are valuable to ensure well-informed organizational
decisions are made, which will enhance the long-term success of the
Department's trust reform efforts.
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
[[Page 40826]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN02.006
[[Page 40827]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN02.007
[[Page 40828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN02.008
[[Page 40829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN02.009
[[Page 40830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN02.010
[[Page 40831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN02.011
[[Page 40832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JN02.012
Dated: June 10, 2002.
Neal A. McCaleb,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 02-15033 Filed 6-11-02; 9:04 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-C