To summarize, we are the Tribal governing body for all Tlingits and Haidas. The tribal officials are legitimately elected in a democratic manner. We have had continuous congressional recognition as the legitimate representative of all Tlingits and Haidas. In this appeal, we only ask that that continuous recognition of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska be reconfirmed by the Commissioner. We the Executive Committee of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska request your timely consideration and action on this matter. Sincerely, RAYMOND E. PADDOCK, Jr. President. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, RAYMOND E. PADDOCK, Jr., DEAR RAY: This is in response to Juanita Corwin's recent request of how the Juneau Area views the Tlingit and Haida Central Council as it relates to the definitions of Public Law 93-638. Specifically, she asked if we consider the Central Council of Tlingit-Haida Indians of Alaska as a "Tribe" or a "Tribal Organization." We acknowledge that the CCTHIA was authorized and established pursuant to Public Law 152 of the 74th Congress of June 19, 1935 and Public Law 89-130 of August 19, 1965. For the purposes of those Acts, the United States Government (through the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs) has officially recognized the CCTHIA as the Tribal Governing Body in all matters relating to the judgment funds which the United States holds in trust for the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska. This recognition and trust relationship includes Secretarial (or his Designee's) approval of tribal budgets and attorney contracts. Based on this historic recognition and relationship, we recognize the Tlingit and Haida Central Council as the tribal governing body of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska for the purposes of Public Law 93-638. Also included in the definition of "Indian Tribe" in Public Law 93-638 is including any Alaska Native Village (italics added) or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat 688) which is Federally recognized as eeligible by the United States Government through the Secretary for the special programs and services provided by the Secretary to Indians because of their status as Indians." We have difficulty in understanding the rationale and properiety of including regional profit making corporations and village profit making corporations in the definition of "Indian Tribe", however, that is not the major issue at this particular time. What is at issue, however, is the inclusion of “any Alaska Native Village" in the definition. We do feel the inclusion of "any Alaska Native Village" in the definition is appropriate. Similar to our recognition of the Central Council, the Bureau has also historically recognized villages as "tribes" eligible for many of the “. special programs and services provided by the Secretary to Indians because of their status as Indians." Villages have been eligible and received grants under the Bureau's Tribal Government Development Program, Federal Revenue Sharing program, Law Enforcement Assistance Act and other programs. More importantly, however, is the fact that villages have historically performed substantial governmental functions through their village councils. Inasmuch as "any Alaska Native Village" is included in the current definition of "Indian Tribe" and nothing in the Act qualifies or limits their status, our interpretation is that villages are also tribes equal in status to the tribal status of the Central Council. Based on this interpretation, we have concluded that, for the purposes of Public Law 93-638, if the Central Council wishes to contract to provide services to villages within Southeast Alaska, the provisions of Subpart 271.2(q) applies, especially the portion that reads ". . . provided, that a request for a contract must be made by the Tribe that will receive services under the contract; provided further, that in any case where a contract is let to an organization to perform services benefiting more than one Indian Tribe, the approval of each such tribe shall be a prerequisite to the letting of such contract." We recognize that under the current definition, individual Alaska Natives could conceivably be members of four or more tribes, for instance in Southeast Alaska, (1) Central Council of Tlingit and Haidas of Alaska; (2) Sealaska Corporation; (3) A village corporation organized pursuant to Section 8A of ANCSA (85 Stat 68a); (4) An IRA organization created pursuant to Section 16 of Alaska Reorganization Act (49 Stat 1250). We doubt seriously that the drafters of Public Law 93-638 contemplated this as a potential problem. Regardless, the definition is in the statute and regulations and therefore until the statute is amended (which we firmly believe should be) we do not feel we have administrative discretion to amend the definition by eliminating any entity currently defined and therefore must abide by it. We hope this letter clarifies how we view the CCTHIA as it relates to Public Law 93-638. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE ANTIQUIA, Area Director. APPENDIX III Assessing the Implications of the Present Definition of Tribe(s) Contained in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act |