One government shouldn’t dictate terms of tribal-state panel

I was shocked when the state unilaterally cut its financial support of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. Perhaps even more startling was the failure to consult with my tribe and other Wabanaki tribes that belong to the MITSC.

By unilaterally cutting its contribution to the commission, state government has effectively decided what level of services the MITSC can provide and constrained its operations. This action harms the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. The state does not have the right to do this under the Maine Implementing Act. The MITSC is composed of four sovereign governments. No individual member government should dictate to the other three how the commission will function.

I was under the impression that all five chief executive leaders of the four member sovereigns strongly supported the recent direction of the MITSC and its future agenda. I fear this budget cut will severely jeopardize the commission’s effectiveness.

My people took a leap of faith this fall when we paid our voluntary contribution to the MITSC of $10,000. I believe my tribe’s gesture has been poorly reciprocated by the state. Though I appreciate the budget challenges faced by the state, we are paying a far, far higher percentage of our annual budget toward supporting the commission’s operations compared with the state. Even more troubling is the state’s failure to fully support MITSC operations as originally agreed in the Maine Indian Claims Settlement.

Despite some positive initiatives to improve tribal-state relations, the last few months have involved substantially more setbacks to this relationship than progress. The extremely modest Tribal-State Work Group bill as passed by the Judiciary Committee, LD 2221, included only two of the seven unanimously endorsed work group recommendations. The Wabanaki tribes’ highest collective priority, clearly exempting the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation from the Freedom of Access Act, failed because the Judiciary Committee decided not to support inclusion of the exemption in the Maine Implementing Act. Including the exemption in the act is critical because it would represent an affirmation of the tribes’ inherent sovereignty and strengthen the protection afforded to tribal government under the act.

Gov. John Baldacci and his staff seemed to be the only people in state government willing to speak in support of this unanimous recommendation of the Tribal-State Work Group. I was troubled that not one legislative member of the group testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of this recommendation.

I appreciate that the state of Maine is far bigger than the Maliseet Nation and that it has three distinctive branches of government with an independent attorney general with specific powers.

However, the Wabanaki have the recurring experience of reaching agreement with one part of state government only to have another block such agreements. Though I understand and respect the division of powers within Maine government, I believe that actors in and outside government exploit this distribution of power at times to thwart tribal initiatives to the detriment of tribal-state relations. I see a lack of leadership and coordination between the distinctive branches of state government in the area of tribal-state relations. Maine needs to speak with one official voice on tribal-state relations.

This is the second time in my and Baldacci’s administration that the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians has entered into negotiations with the state in good faith while spending excessive amounts of time, energy and money for naught. The actions or better yet inactions of the legislators, especially those who sit on both the Judiciary Committee and the work group, speak volumes to the true intentions of the state in regards to tribal-state relations. It has become painfully clear that the best interests of the tribes and tribal people are not a priority or even an afterthought of the state. Not in 1980 and certainly not now in 2008.

Due to the work group failure and lack of an honest effort put forth by the state, I see no reason for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and state to prolong their strained relationship. Without honesty and respect on both sides, there is no need for continued dialogue.

However, I do want to have a positive relationship with the state. To begin rebuilding tribal-state relations, I believe that the state needs to demonstrate through concrete actions that this relationship is important. An initial step to rebuild my tribe’s confidence would involve the state restoring the funds it cut from the MITSC budget. That action would denote the state’s acceptance that all the parties to the commission enjoy equal authority, a prerequisite for healthy tribal-state relations.

The second confidence-building measure that I recommend is a summit of the top elected leaders of the five Wabanaki tribal governments, legislative leadership, and Attorney General Steven Rowe. Leaders need to share what they perceive led to this breakdown in tribal-state relations and jointly identify how we rebuild a productive relationship founded on respect and recognition of each other’s sovereignty.

None of us wants strained tribal-state relations. I believe that we can move this relationship forward with a genuine commitment on each leader’s part.

Brenda Commander is chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians.