Treaty Rights Forecast
|
Cold°F
Cloudy Outlook
|
|
|
Interior Had Many Reform Alternatives
Termination Among Options, Documents Show 
Secretary of Interior Gale Norton shown here in this January 27, 2002, file photo at a press conference in Copan, Honduras. (AP)
|
|
By Tom Wanabettergig
Tomorrow Staff Writer
Monday, February 18, 2002 Through Department of Interior moles, Indian Country Tomorrow has obtained internal documents which show Secretary Gale Norton considered a number of trust reform solutions before settling on her widely opposed Bureau of Indian Trust Assets Management (BITAM). From termination of every Indian nation to hiring people who actually know what they are doing, the alternatives were developed with much thought between last October 19, when the plaintiffs in the Cobell class action asked a federal judge to take the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust into receivership, and November 14, when Norton instead chose EDS Corporation's recommendation to create a new entity because she paid the company $3 million to tell her what she couldn't figure out herself. Trust Reform Alternative #1
Proposed by Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles, this option creates clear lines of authority between trust and non-trust activities. It also streamlines the entire Department of Interior, highlighting the most important functions. Trust Reform Alternative #2
Proposed by Ross Swimmer, director of the Office of Indian Trust Transition, this aggressive model implements the plan the former Reagan administration official proposed more than a decade ago but which was halted by Congress and tribes. Trust Reform Alternative #3
Proposed by Donna Erwin, an employee within the Office of the Special Trustee, this model addresses the department's most immediate and pressing needs. Trust Reform Alternative #4
Proposed by Assistant Secretary Neal McCaleb, this option gives insight into his thinking. Tough Choices
Department officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, noted the difficult task Norton faced when choosing an option. "It was either accept what people who have no clue about Indian trust proposed, or take what we paid someone for," said one senior official. "People keep saying we don't pay attention to experts, so we believed this would satisfy the critics," the official added. The entity Norton eventually chose, of course, was BITAM, as shown by this organizational chart. |
© 2001-2002 Indian Country Tomorrow
|
