Quinnehtukqut Legal News
| A publication of Pine Tree Legal Assistance |
Winter 2002
Federal Recognition Update
Table of Contents
Recognition Efforts
Deadlines Set For Recognition by Federal Courts
The Recognition Process
In 1980, the Nipmuc Tribal Council, Hassanamisco Reservation, in Grafton, Massachusetts submitted a Letter of Intent to Petition for Federal Acknowledgement. After the Petition had been placed on active consideration, a division occurred and a separate letter of intent was filed, in 1996, on behalf of the Webster/Dudley Band of Chaubunagungamaug Nipmuck Indians. In January of 2001, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs finally issued two preliminary factual findings regarding the two petitions. One was a preliminary finding that the Nipmuc Nation should be granted federal recognition. The second was a preliminary finding that the Chaubunagungamaug Band had not met all of the seven criteria necessary to prove the existence of a Tribe.
In September of that year, under a new administration, the new Assistant Secretary issued new proposed findings. These new findings reversed the proposed findings regarding the Nipmuc Nation, finding that the Tribe had not met all of the seven criteria, and approved the original recommendation regarding the Chaubunagungamaug Band. The Assistant Secretary noted that the original proposed findings had never been published in the Federal Register, as required, and stated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, therefore, viewed these cases as pending matters which had not been finally decided by the prior administration.
Briefly, the new proposed findings for the Nipmuc Nation note that the Nation failed to meet the first, second, third, and fifth criteria necessary to meet federal recognition standards. These criteria are: that the Tribe has been identified as an American Indian entity on a continuous basis since 1900; that most of the petitioning Tribe is a community that has existed from historical times until the present; that the Tribe has had political influence or authority over its members since historical times; and that the Tribe's membership must be made up of descendents from a historical Tribe.
With regard to the first criterion, the Assistant Secretary noted that there had been regular external identification of people associated with the Hassanamisco Reservation since 1900. However, there had been no identification of any continuing Chaubunagungamaug Band between 1900 and the late 1970's. Since the original petition included the Chaubunagungamaug Band, the findings regarding that Band appear to have hurt the petition of the Nipmuc Nation as a whole.
The Assistant Secretary also found problems with the second criterion and proposed finding that from the 1780's through 1869 there was not enough evidence of community among the members of the Hassanamisco Band. The proposed findings also found problems from the 1860's until the 1960's. The Assistant Secretary noted that most of the evidence related to the activities of only one extended family in that band. In addition, the Assistant Secretary found that there was no direct social interaction between the two Bands for nearly two centuries. Finally, the Assistant Secretary found that the current membership of the Nation was, to a large extent, the result of "a deliberate recruitment effort undertaken from 1989 through 1994."
Regarding the third criterion, the Assistant Secretary found that the only evidence of political authority related only to one extended family. The evidence did not show that it extended over any other family associated with the Hassanamisco Reservation. Finally, with respect to the fifth criterion, the Assistant Secretary stated that only 54% of the members of the Nipmuc Nation could document that they were descended from the historical Nipmuc Tribe.
With respect to the Petition filed for the Chaubunagungamaug Band, the Assistant Secretary repeated the findings made in the Nipmuc Petition regarding the first criterion. The documentation for the period from 1900 to 1978 provided no evidence of external identification of the group as an American Indian entity.
Regarding the second criterion, the Assistant Secretary found that the Band could prove that a community existed until 1870. From 1870 until 1891, the evidence became weaker, but was still adequate to meet the criterion. The Assistant Secretary concluded, however, that from1891 until the mid-1970's, the evidence does not show community between the core family of the Band and "any other Nipmucks of Dudley/Webster descent." The Assistant Secretary found the same problems over the same time period regarding the third criterion.
The parties have 180 days from the publication of these proposed findings in the Federal Register to challenge the proposed findings.
Deadlines Set For Recognition by Federal Courts
In December, a U.S. District Court judge set a June 4, 2002 deadline for the BIA to issue its final decision on the petitions for recognition filed by the Eastern Pequots and the Paucatuck Eastern Pequots. Both Tribes have received preliminary recognition for their petitions.
Also in December, the Golden Hill Paugussetts, reached an agreement requiring the BIA to rule on its petition by no later than 2003. That matter is in federal court. The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation has also turned to the courts to speed up the recognition process.
In November 0f 2001, the General Accounting Office issued a study of the process used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to grant federal recognition to Indian Tribes. The study concluded that:
Because of weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's recognition decisions is not always clear and the length of time involved can be substantial. First, while there are set criteria that petitioners must meet to be granted recognition, there is no clear guidance that explains how to interpret key aspects of the criteria. For example, it is not always clear what level of evidence is sufficient to demonstrate a tribe's continuous existence over a period of time....As a result, there is less certainty about the basis of recognition decisions. Second, the regulatory process is not equipped to respond in a timely manner.
The GAO study went on to note that BIA did not have enough staff to handle the increased workload in the recognition area. In addition, there were no effective timelines that imposed any sense of urgency in resolving petitions.
The Department of the Interior commented on the GAO study and generally agreed with its findings and recommendations.
.jpg){kind=small}