tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post4703806168980261089..comments2024-01-11T22:45:53.276-08:00Comments on Tom King's CRM Plus: A Tribal ResolutionThomas F Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-17070972984871211222010-05-19T09:48:39.221-07:002010-05-19T09:48:39.221-07:00I'm saying that there is a need for mutual res...I'm saying that there is a need for mutual respect within the context of the Section 106 process, and that this has a better chance of being achieved if each side is willing to recognize the legitimacy and needs of the other. Where the tribes propose to remind the agencies through a resolution of their expectations and demands, they can also use that as an opportunity to assure the agencies of their intent to participate in the Federal decision-making process in a manner that accomodates the needs of the agencies. Simple assurances, like meeting deadlines and providing needed information and a point of contact could go far in establishing better working relations, which is really the point, right?<br /><br />I'm also saying that there's a difference between an agency recognizing that something is culturally valuable to a tribe, and an agency assuming that everything culturally valuable to a tribe automatically qualifies for the National Register. Nothing prevents the agency from doing the former (and acting on that under other EO's and statutory requirements), but for purposes of Section 106, like it or not, the latter is a decision that remains squarely with the agency, and is reached through the application of appropriate NR standards and guidance in consultation with others. If an agency chooses to ignore those standards and blindly assume that everything a tribe (or any other party)ascribes cultural value to is eligible, the agency's decision about eligibility and all subsequent decisions in the 106 process are vulnerable to challenges. <br /><br />So if tribes want to issue a resolution calling on agencies to respect their interests in the Section 106 process, it only makes sense that the tribes express a willingness to respect the legal roles of the agencies, and the process itself, with their commitment to cooperate in a manner that allows the agencies to fulfill their roles and complete the process. They certainly don't have to do this, but I think a resolution that sets this tone would be more effective than one that amounts to a slap in the face and kick in the groin.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04643878057095071202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-51221918853845224532010-05-15T03:13:12.251-07:002010-05-15T03:13:12.251-07:00I don't see why a tribe would want to make suc...I don't see why a tribe would want to make such commitments, or what justification the U.S. government could have for expecting them. You're saying the U.S. government should respect tribal sovereignty only if the tribes pre-emptively give assurance that they'll play nice? Don't you think that's a tad arrogant? And while federal agencies do in practice "insist" on tribal adherence to BS documentation (and other) requirements, I don't think they have a shred of authority to do so, and I can't imagine why a tribe would resolve to accommodate agencies in this way. <br /><br />You suggest that agency accountability for decisions justifies an agency in demanding the "information that will allow them (the agency) to make informed and defensible decisions." It seems to me that if a tribe says (for instance) that a place is culturally important to its people, that's all the agency needs to know. The tribe has asserted it; the agency should report this fact and respect it. Now, making an "informed and defensible decision" about, say, whether and how to carry out an action that affects that place may require further consultation, including getting more information about what is and isn't offensive to the cultural value the tribe ascribes to the place, but the agency has no more business questioning the tribe's ascription of value to the place than it would have questioning Jewish, Muslim, or Christian attachments to Jerusalem.Thomas F Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-13749620991669199532010-04-30T14:22:28.623-07:002010-04-30T14:22:28.623-07:00I like the resolution, but shouldn't it includ...I like the resolution, but shouldn't it include commitments from the tribe about what they'll do in response for respectful consideration? Commitments like responding to requests in a timely manner, providing adequate information about places of tribal importance to allow consideration and conslutation to proceed, and providing a point of contact with whom the agency can coordinate the consultation effort could provide a more reciprocal tone. <br /><br />But I'm concerned that if the agencies retain legal responsibility and accountability for their decisions (like National Register eligibility determinations), shouldn't agencies insist that tribes provide the kinds of information that will allow them to make informed and defensible decisions, rather than accept a blind presumption that a property is eligible "because we say so?"Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04643878057095071202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-9873878347145593692010-04-26T13:38:41.282-07:002010-04-26T13:38:41.282-07:00Sure, an agency can ignore a tribe's insistenc...Sure, an agency can ignore a tribe's insistence, but insistence seems to me like the first step; one can't very well blame the agency for not paying attention to what one hasn't said. I'm not sure I understand what sort of "co-option" you're proposing as an alternative. Or how it would be established without the tribe first making its wishes known.Thomas F Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-27362238907418404842010-04-26T12:25:44.952-07:002010-04-26T12:25:44.952-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Max Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413817576293908677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-30651654079335525032010-04-26T12:25:44.950-07:002010-04-26T12:25:44.950-07:00I think a tribe could probably "insist" ...I think a tribe could probably "insist" all they like, and an agency could continue to neglect consultation or neglect the input that they get. Making a tribal resolution wouldn't necessarily change that. The recent push in the federal agencies for better consultation doesn't mean that a project manager can't still neglect the process, at least as far as I know. <br /><br />Rather than fighting the system, might it be better to co-opt it? 36 CFR 800 and the National Register evaluation process are pretty well entrenched. Instead might it be better, given that we can agree that Native American groups have important professional input on NR evaluations and project reviews in the same way that a SHPO would, that THPOs, given a definition of some geographic area of interest, would have the ability to concur/not concur during the 36 CFR 800 process? That sort of thing is much more work, but might get more to the heart of the problem.Max Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413817576293908677noreply@blogger.com