APPENDIX F Re Proposed Johnson-O'Malley Regulations. Mr. MORRIS THOMPSON, STATE OF NEW MEXICO. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, DEAR MR. THOMPSON: On January 14, 1974, you published proposed revisions to the Johnson-O'Malley regulations (33 C.F.R.). On February 28, 1974, a number of Indian organizations and other organizations concerned with Indian education problems proposed an alternative set of revised Johnson-O'Malley regulations, which I will hereafter refer to as the "Red Regs." I and my staff have studied the proposals and I feel that it is incumbent upon me, as the Superintendent of Public Instruction in a state with a large Indian student population, to indicate to you the position of the New Mexico State Department of Education on the proposals.. In my opinion, speaking for New Mexico, the regulations proposed on January 14 were wholly inadequate. The time for a definitive Federal policy concerning Johnson-O'Malley is long past due and the regulations as proposed on January 14 do little more than attempt to clarify the eligibility question. In actuality, the proposed rules tend to make many issues even more obscure than before, including the issue of eligibility. I have the following comments about the "Red Regs" which should receive your consideration: 1. I definitely feel that the JOM regulations should be a complete document and that essential information should not be hidden away in the BIA Manual. 2. I believe that Indians should establish eligibility and that services should be provided to Indian students from whomever can best do the job. When this is not the public school, the local Indian people should have the authority to deal with other educational agencies. 3. I firmly support the idea of the "parent contracting institution" and community authority and responsibility with regard to the use of Johnson-O'Malley funds. I have recognized that the major problem with regard to the state administering JOM funds is the distance that separates us from the local Indian communities. Therefore, we have encouraged the Bureau to contract with Indian groups when these groups have indicated their desire to contract. It should be noted that two BIA area offices are servicing Indians in the state of New Mexico and that policies widely differ between them. While the Albuquerque Area Office readily contracts with Indian groups, the Navajo Area Office continues to thwart the stated intention of the Navajo Tribe to contract. It is hoped that any new regulations will be backed by a strong policy of the central office with regards to Indian groups contracting JOM funds. 4. I agree that JOM funds should be used for supplemental purposes only and that the use of these funds for basic support purposes by public educational agencies should not be allowed except in the very limited and tightly circumscribed situations allowed in the "Red Regs". 5. I agree with the "Red Regs" that funds should only be spent on eligible Indian children; however, we would like to see a provision in Section 33.5 (c) which would allow non-Indians to participate if authorized by the Indian community education committees. This reflects the need for cultural awareness by non-Indians of Indian problems and in such circumstances would benefit Indian students. An earlier set of alternative regulations was developed and submitted to you by representatives of the New Mexico Indian Education Board of Regents, Navajo, Zuni, and Mescalero tribes. These regulations received the support of our director of our Indian Education. We feel that these regulations complement the "Red Regs," but are not as comprehensive. We, therefore, urge you to utilize the "Red Regs" as a point of departure for developing new regulations and hope that new regulations will not deviate from the basic principles stated therein. As you well know, the state of New Mexico has been the scene of several significant lawsuits involving violations of the present Johnson-O'Malley regulations. The thing that was most apparent from the lawsuits was that the present regulations are so vague as to be useless. The state and its school districts do not have sufficient guidance; such regulatory guidance is a necessity. The regulations you proposed on January 14 do not remedy that situation; the "Red Regs" do. The issue of self-determination should receive some attention also. The January 14 proposal does not provide any more self-determination for Indian groups than is currently provided. The "Red Regs," on the other hand, are specifically designed to provide a maximum of Indian self-determination. You are aware that the Nixon Administration unequivocally supports this concept. Promulgation of the January 14 proposal, or anything resembling them, would be a violation of the Administration's position. We stand ready to assist your efforts in developing viable regulations in every way possible. Sincerely, LEONARD J. DE LAYO, Superintendent of Public Instruction. APPENDIX G [From The Arizona Republic, Apr. 19, 1972] INDIAN SCHOOLS NEED MORE AID, STATE TELLS U.S. (By David Fitzpatrick) The State Department of Education said yesterday it needs $1.1 million from the federal government to help operate 15 public school districts on state Indian reservations for the rest of the fiscal year. If the extra money is not forthcoming, Deputy State School Superintendent Gus W. Harrell said, these districts will be forced into a dificit for 1971-72 and could be forced to drive up their tax rates, perhaps to as high as $30 to $50 per $100 in assessed valuation. Major reasons for the shortage, Harrell said, are estimates of financial need for these districts are placed with Washington officials 18 months to two years in advance and that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has never allocated enough money for public school support in the first place. Harrell, who met in Washington last week with BIA officials, said Sen. Paul Fannin and Rep. Sam Steiger, both R-Ariz., promised to do "everything they can" to seek emergency appropriations from Congress. The 15 school districts are on or near the Gila River, San Carlos Apache, White Mountain Apache, Navajo and Hopi reservations, Harrell said. They have a total average daily attendance of 12,763, which he said translates into between 14,000 and 15,000 pupils. According to a plan drawn up in 1969 by the State Department of Education, the BIA pays the state whatever money is needed to assure that public school districts with heavy Indian student enrollments are on an equal financial footing with other districts. The state needs this agreement because parents of Indian children, whether the children attend reservation schools or go to public schools, pay no taxes. Thus, the districts involved must levy a tax equal to the statewide average school district property tax on the few landowners who are eligible to pay-normally large utilities that have operating plants on or near reservations. To make up the difference between these taxes and what the districts require to operate, the BIA pays its money. BIA officials allocated $3.5 million to the state this year as its share of the cost, but Harrell said it wasn't enough and the $1.1 million is needed to continue operations without a deficit. If Congress refuses the appropriations, he said, the districts could be forced to shut down, although he said this wouldn't occur for about two years. If the same BIA funding policies remain in effect next fiscal year, the state will need another $1.4 million in government funds to keep the districts running. The BIA has budgeted $3.7 million for this purpose in Arizona next year and it isn't enough, Harrell said. "They (BIA) are thinking about redesigning the regulations," Harrell said, adding that there has been no indication of when a revision in policy might come about. The 15 districts, Harrell said, have been in similar straits in past years, but it has never been as serious before. He said he didn't know the amount of shortages in past years but the $1.1 million is "considerably higher" than previous amounts. Mr. MEEDS. Our next witnesses are Mr. Birgil Kills Straight and Abe Plummer, Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards-oh, I have just been advised that they will not be here. Your name is, sir? STATEMENT OF JIM RACINE ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF INDIAN CONTROLLED SCHOOL BOARDS Mr. RACINE. Mr. Chairman, I am Jim Racine and I am with the coalition. Mr. MEEDS. With the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards? Mr. RACINE. Yes, and I will be testifying on its behalf. Mr. MEEDS. Fine. Welcome, Mr. Racine. And please be seated and present your testimony. Mr. RACINE. I will not be going through the whole booklet. I will only read four pages. Mr. MEEDS. What is in the booklet? Mr. RACINE. It is made up of previous testimony that the coalition. has made on S. 1017 and included in this of course is the Red Regs which Mr. Jones has referred to and which we helped develop as well and support. Mr. MEEDS. It seems to me that this might very much aid the committee and unless there is objection, we will make your statement about S. 1017, the statement of the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards, dated February 27, 1974, a part of the file. Without objection, so ordered. [The statement of the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards can be found in the files of the subcommittee.] Mr. MEEDS. Please proceed, sir. Mr. RACINE. Honorable chairperson and members of the hearing committee. We of the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards, Inc. are deeply gratified to have this opportunity to add our input into this historic legislation S. 1017. Our previous testimonies which were given before Senate hearing committees on S. 1017 are added to this testimony as appendices. Permit me to introduce myself and my associates. I am Jim Racine, a Blackfeet Indian from Montana and I am proudly affiliated with the very fine grass roots organization of the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards, Inc. in the capacity of codirector. We, the staff and executive board members of the coalition support S. 1017 in philosophy and in general concept. However, we strongly recommend: (1) that the definition of "Indian" be rewritten to include urban Indian people and Indian people of the United States who are nontreaty Indians and landless; (2) that rules and regulations for the administration of S. 1017 be prepared by the Congress of the United States. The Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards constituency is made of urban Indian people, nontreaty and landless Indians. Nontreaty or landless U.S. Indians were and are continually denied any treaty status or tribal recognition because of their tribal size or their tribal traditional homes were in the wrong locations to be recognized. These people have suffered more enslavement, land usurping without due process, discrimination, lack of services and ill will than other groups of people in the United States at the hands of their EuroAnglo counterparts. Billions of dollars in resources have been gained from the lands illegally taken from Indian people throughout the United States. The U.S. citizens and elected officials have continued to deny any obligation of debt to these people. Which is not particularly astounding considering that debts owed to the treaty people are partially paid only after long tedious and expensive litigation. There are urban Indians who are receiving little or no services and if all decided to move home would swamp their reservations. For example, there are approximately 5,000 Blackfeet Indians living on the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana and another 5,000 living off the reservation. The reservation does not have the land and economic resources to support the Blackfeet Indians who are living in the urban areas if they should choose to return to the reservations. Most Indians in urban areas find themselves living in a bewildering frustrating world of alcoholism, welfare, cultural deprivation, prejudices and poverty. The fine arts of street living have to be learned and existence is just survival. Education is not a panacea for all of the aforementioned problems but certainly is a major factor in correcting them. Urban areas claim that their schools have better records for retaining Indian children in school. I would like to cite an example here if I may interject this. I was a probation officer with the San Diego County Probation Department in California and I had operating capacity of being a probation officer for approximately 2 years. We had this one Indian boy who was costing something like $33,000 to keep him in school. This was in the form of law enforcement officers, truant officers, and probation officers and welfare assistance and so on. They would get this boy in school and he would last perhaps a day or two before they would turn their back and away he would go again. They would put him in juvenile hall and turn their backs and over the fence he would go and he would disappear when they turned their backs. Well, the upshot of the thing is they asked me to find the boy and make an assessment of the situation as well as come back to the court with a recommendation. I found the boy and came back with the recommendation that they leave the boy alone because there was nothing that the school could offer this kid. He was totally self-supporting. But the reason I bring up this example is that the school systems themselves regardless of where they are at, whether they are in urban areas or on reservations and so on do not offer the programs that are needed by Indian students in order for them to capitalize on the opportunities that are being offered. Those records are not and cannot be attributed to the quality of education but are more directly related to the legal leverage that can be exerted against the parents. Physical presence in schools does not mean that the person has not dropped out. Truancy and delinquency amongst urban Indian children exceed the national average as well as the ethnic ratio of arrested and convicted Indian adults exceeds all others. 37-778-74- -8 |