man for the Shoalwater Bay Tribe. Mr. Bojorcas is currently working with CETA as title III coordinator. He has been very active in the affairs of both the terminated Klamath Tribe-serving as a tribal council member-and of Northwestern Indian organizations. He has attended college and is a graduate of the Indian Manpower Training Center in Phoenix. Mr. Bojorcas is married and has two children.

TASK FORCE 11: ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Chairman: Reuben Snake

REUBEN SNAKE is a member of the Winnebago Tribe. He is currently the education project director of the Sioux City American Indian Center. Prior to this, he was a national field trainer for Indian education training in which position he made 80 field trips to 27 States. He has also been educational director for the Nebraska Inter-Tribal Development Corp. Mr. Snake has organized a number of conferences and workshops on alcohol and drug abuse; he has helped in developing projects to deal with these problems and has also helped in establishing an alcohol recovery house in Winnebago, Nebr. Mr. Snake is active in the Native American Church, is married and has six children.

Member: George Hawkins

GEORGE HAWKINS is a Southern Cheyenne from Oklahoma. After years of intermittent work due to drinking problems, Mr. Hawkins entered a rehabilitation program in 1966. Soon hired as a janitor, he left that job to become director of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center. He is now executive director of the United Indian Recovery Association, which he organized. Mr. Hawkins has been involved in several other State and national organizations relating to alcoholism and has been active in Oklahoma Indian Affairs.

IV. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION

HOW THE WORK WAS ACCOMPLISHED

Between the Commission meetings in March 5 and May 2, 1975, the staff concentrated primarily on the legislative interpretation of Public Law 93-580, drafting proper policy and procedural and administrative guidelines for the preliminary study review.

The principal subject discussed by the Commission at its May 2 meeting was related to the functional duties and delegated authorities of the organizational components of the AIPRC: The Commissioners, the task forces, and the staff.

The Commission members decided to meet periodically to establish review and approve policies and procedures for focusing and refining the objectives of the act which created the Commission.

The Commission, at the May 2 meeting, determined that the Director, General Counsel, and staff assistant would conduct the adminis

trative, operational, and task forces coordination duties on a day-today basis under the general supervision of the Director. The functions that were necessary for the staff to perform were to: Secure services, facilities, and necessary equipment; secure qualified and adequate staff to perform necessary studies; review and process task force quarterly reports and forward them for study and comment by the Commissioners; develop initial research, bibliography and historical materials as a reference tool for each task force subject area; develop adequate administrative, financial, procurement, budgetary, and equipment controls to assure compliance with rules and regulations of the Congress; plan, coordinate, arrange and conduct meetings, hearings, and research, arrange communication contacts with Indian tribes, organizations and individuals as necessary to achieve maximum input from the national Indian community; plan, coordinate, and arrange meetings with governmental units of the executive and legislative branches to provide access for interrelated elements to be considered by Commission staff and appropriate task forces.

"The task force members as provided in the act shall consist of three members, a majority of whom are of Indian descent." The act required such task forces to make preliminary investigations and studies in various areas of Indian affairs, including but not limited to nine listed general subjects. Sec. 4(d) required the Commission to provide adequate staff support in addition to the regular Commission staff which is charged with the supervisory and task force coordination responsibilities. The Commission determined that the task force groups would operate within the administrative policies and procedures provided by the Commission and would perform the following functions: Plan and devise the manner in which such investigative work would be carried out to fulfill the scope of work; utilize the services of task force specialists, technical consultants, clerical personnel and such other personnel which may be required to provide a professionally and technically adequate support group for presentation of conclusions and recommendations on the subject matter before the task force; review the scope and anticipated problem areas of each subject, and evaluate the elements in such a manner as to determine whether current activities are adequate. Review such problems on a national basis to determine whether changes in national policy are needed and what specific changes should be recommended; report to the Director to assure coordination and adequate supervision of the task force by the Director and the staff of the Commission; devote the amount of time required to perform the duties for which the individual task force members have been selected. When task force members are unable to perform their duties for health or personal reasons, they shall be replaced with interested and qualified candidates; attend and review Indian meetings which pertain and contribute knowledge and information to support the conclusions and recommendations of their task force.

The following is a graphic illustration of the inter-relationship of the various components of the American Indian Policy Review Commission:

V. THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION: ITS OBJECTIVES, FUNCTIONS, AND OPERATIONS

Within the scope of the Commission's approved direction, the administration, operation, and planning processes necessary to implement Public Law 93-580 (the American Indian Policy Review Commission), were necessarily complex. In order that no misunderstandings arise related to the purposes, goals, and objectives of the AIPRC mission, the Commission established specific guidelines which were extracted from the legislation and from other adopted procedures in order to summarize the planned implementation of the law. This was distributed to all Commission members, staff, consultants and task force personnel.

1. PLANNING PHILOSOPHY

The philosophy of the planning approach was extracted from the joint resolution itself in which the Commission's organization and purposes were rather explicitly defined. In its initial findings, the Congress, in its joint resolution, said that:

(a) Administrative policy has traditionally shifted and changed without rational design and consistent goals to achieve Indian self-sufficiency;

(b) There has been no comprehensive review on the conduct of Indian affairs since the 1928 Meriam report; and

(c) To carry out its responsibilities and plenary powers, the Congress considered the review as imperative.

2. PLANNING APPROACH

The planning approach was deemed necessary after review of previous reports, investigations, various task force studies, and oversight reports on Indian affairs. In reviewing these, particularly the Meriam

Report, the professional staff determined that there were two elements substantively missing from all previous reviews:

Indian participation and options, and
Documented proof of conclusions.

There had been cosmetic attempts at soliciting Indian opinion before but never in a meaningful manner. It was determined that these two missing elements would represent the hallmark of AIPRC's review and investigations.

Indian participation and opinion was to be in the form of documented and verified records. Indian opinion recorded previously meant historical records were to be officially reviewed and included. These were in the form of previous hearings, complaints, resolutions, studies, et cetera. Current studies being made must be documented in these same forms, that is: testimony, hearings, complaints, resolutions, tribal studies, and other documented Indian input. These supportable facts through Indian participation were intended to provide these two missing elements.

3. ORGANIZATION

The act prescribed the general organization with support staff and duties to perform. An organizational relationship plan between the Commission, professional staff, core staff, consultants and the task forces and their specialists was approved at the Commission meeting of May 2, 1975. In essence, it provided that:

The staff director would coordinate the task forces.

The three-member task force would supervise the activities of the specialists.

The task force central core and administrative staff would relate to the task force but would be supervised by professional staff. Technical core staff would supply assistance in legal research, technical writing, program and budget analysis, and clerical research.

A mix of consultants, task force personnel, support staff, interns, and professional staff would accomplish the work. Subsequently, the above was restated in the original budget request and supplementary appropriations request. In addition to the duties of the staff director, other supervision was delegated to the staff director by the Chairman of the Commission by motion, and procedures were adopted. The Commissioners voted to become ex officio members of all task forces.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION

The unique nature and mix of the Commission created several operational and administrative problems since it was literally the first joint-congressional citizen commission in the history of the country. Early logistical problems in the administration of the Commission. were resolved by the staff after consultation with the Senate Financial Clerk, Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the staff of the Senate Rules Committee and House Administration Committee.

The professional staff decided that a minimum amount of funds should be expended on early organization and administration in order to make a maximum of funds available for the very important task force work. With the approval of the AIPRC, the staff, with the assistance of one management specialist and an intern, completed the entire logistical and administrative support preparation by June 1. Although time was of the essence, it was thought that more careful preparation would, in the end, better serve the intents of the Commission.

It was initially established that:

(a) The Commission staff was to avail itself of office space in the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers while office space was being prepared in House Annex No. 2.

(b) It was necessary for the staff to submit budget requests to the legislative Appropriations Subcommittees in the House and the Senate for fiscal year 1975, fiscal year 1976 and fiscal year 1977. The budget request for this period was in the amount of $2.6 million. This budget was reviewed and discussed and approved by the Commission at its meeting on May 2.

(c) Administrative operations: Procedures were necessary to satisfy the rules of the Senate under whose funding the Commission operated. Meetings with the Disbursement Office personnel were held and a pamphlet was prepared on employment, travel, expenses, and supplies for the use of the Commission members and employees.

(d) A manual of operations including functional statements, delegations of authority, administrative policies on employment, and accounting was produced which complied with Senate rules. Additional details were necessary to provide for the peculiar organization of the Commission.

(e) A separate double entry accounting system was established within the Commission to provide for a separate chart of accounts for each section including each task force. This provided the staff with the capability to closely monitor expenditures in a timely

fashion.

A manual which included functional statements, delegations of authority, administrative policies on employment, and accounting was produced which complied with the Senate rules and legislative requirements. Additional details consisted of provisions which were necessary for the administration of a joint congressional citizen's commission participation. The following charts illustrate the flow and organization of the AIPRC activity.