Siletz news /, November 01, 1998, Page 16, Image 16

Keynote Address - Forrest J. Gerard, Continued:.
I am particularly honored to share the
program with Senator Mark Hatfield, who was
so instrumental in securing the passage of the
legislation that restored federal recognition to the
Siletz Tribe.
I believe that the purpose of a keynote
address is not only to present and discuss the
issues which are of primary interest to the
audience - but to do so in a manner that will
arouse unity and enthusiasm. I shall endeavor to
meet this test.
While pondering on a theme for my remarks,
an episode occurred recently that gave rise to
the title of this address: “The Journey From the
A-Frame to the Website.” Before describing
this episode, allow me to provide some historical
perspective to my remarks by briefly tracing my
long and rewarding relationship with the tribe and
its leaders.
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
My first encounter with the tribe occurred in
the mid-1970’s, while attending a National
Congress of American Indians convention in
Portland as a professional staff representative of
the Senate Committee on Interior & Insular
Affairs. During this meeting, Charles Wilkinson,
your competent (and persistent) advocate,
convinced me to attend a meeting of the
Restoration Council at Siletz. Accompanied by
the late Joe Lane and his wife, we immediately
left the NCAI convention, along with a legal
counsel from the House Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.
Two things immediately impressed me at that
meeting of the Restoration Council. First, the
earnest and strong commitment of that council
to achieve its goal of restoration as a federally-
recognized Indian tribe. And second, the stark
reality that the council had virtually no physical
or financial resources at their disposal to achieve
this goal. This was evidenced by the fact that
the meeting place took place in an old, renovated
“A-Frame” building.
Nonetheless, the Council made a compelling
case and motivated me to make a personal
commitment to exercise whatever influence I
possessed on the Committee staff to help the
tribal council achieve its restoration goal.
Incidentally, before we move on, it is
important that we pay tribute to the vision,
determination and sacrifices made by the pre­
restoration councils. Now let’s fast-forward to
the episode I alluded to earlier.
As a part-time consultant to the tribal council,
I recently attended a meeting in the casino
boardroom. Several reports were presented by
staff, and when the chairman of the tribal gaming
commission completed a briefing on draft rules
and regulations, he requested their comments with
a fast turnaround.
-16-
At this stage, I found myself comparing this
modem-day, functional meeting space with the
modest “A-Frame” space that was used 20
years ago. At this same moment, one of the
council members, who was perusing the draft
document, raised her head and asked the
commission chairman: “Do you have a
‘Website’”?
Her question abruptly shook me from my
reverie and brought me back to the present
reality: The Siletz Tribal Council has not only
made the transition from the old A-Frame meeting
space but it has also made the transition to a
working tribal council ready and able to handle
the new issues using new technology.
It was this episode that prompted me to label
my address: ‘ ‘ The Journey From the A -Frame
to the Website. ”
*****
But to fully understand the underlying
meaning of the tribal journey from restoration to
the current time, we must begin by establishing
that the aboriginal homeland of the Siletz Tribe -
consisting of 30 bands and tribes - was made up
of a vast land base stretching from the Columbia
River to the Klamath River and from the Cascade
Range to the Pacific Ocean. The bountiful
products from the rivers and streams, the forests
and the ocean provided the tribe with a secure
existence.
However, the lust for land to accommodate
early settlement triggered governmental actions
that eventually decimated the tribe’s once rich
homeland.
Subsequently, a Presidential Executive Order
in 1855 established a 19 million acre coastal
reservation as a “permanent” home for the tribe.
Yet, once again, the federal government found
the ways and means to alienate virtually all of
this newly-created reservation to satisfy
settlement demands for even more land.
We must now look back on this tribal history
- distressing as it may be - and recall that the
aboriginal confederated tribes, despite the loss
of their homelands, managed to hold on to the
thread of an enduring spirit and determination.
This thread is the constant throughout this journey
that has held the tribe together as a cohesive
entity. This thread is a stimulus for us to redouble
our efforts to help the contemporary confederated
tribes to continue to improve their collective
quality of life.
Given the chronic conditions of poverty to
be found on most Indian reservations today, the
history of the federal government’s dealings with
the tribes of this nation can hardly be characterized
as “fair and honorable dealings.” I do not believe,
therefore, that it would be melodramatic to
suggest that the Siletz Tribe, historical and
contemporary, paid a heavier price than most
other tribes in their dealings with the federal
government.
First, the historical tribes endured the loss
of its aboriginal homelands and cultural attributes.
Second, the contemporary tribes paid the
ultimate price - termination of their relationship
with the Federal Government — which resulted
in the loss of services and benefits, trust
protections, sovereignty, self-governance, etc.
These sweeping events collectively
contributed to displacement of families, excessive
morbidity and mortality rates and the disruption
of traditional cultural and governmental practices.
Fortunately, though, the destructive and
failed federal termination policies of the 1950’s
gave way to a more enlightened Indian policy in
the 1970’s. These policies embodied the concept
of “self-determination without termination,” and
were characterized by
* repudiation of termination as a national
Indian policy,
* adoption of self-determination without
termination as the new national Indian policy, and
♦ concession that sovereign Indian tribes
have the right to assume management and control
over the program and funds of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service.
Further, Congress gave substance and
tangible meaning to this more constructive Indian
policy by restoring federal recognition to two
tribes’ whose federal relations were terminated
in the 1950’s. First, Public Law 93-197 restored
federal recognition to the Menominee Tribe of
Wisconsin in 1973; and second, Public Law 95-
195 restored federal recognition to the Siletz
Tribe of Oregon on November 18,1977. Other
so-called “terminated” tribes enjoyed restoration
in successive years, as well.
Congress also enacted various laws in the
1970’s to give meaning and substance to this new
and positive Indian policy; notably the Indian
Self-Determination & Education Assistance Act
of 1975.
This convergence of the restoration of the
Siletz tribe with the self-determination policy
proved to be a fortuitous circumstance that
provided the tribe with the opportunity to exert
maximum “self-determination” by assuming
control and management of its own programs
with minimal federal intrusion from the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service. The
Council manages approximately $8 million
dollars annually from these two agencies.
The tribe adeptly snatched this opportunity
while managing to hold the federal government
to its self-imposed trust responsibilities.
It is worth noting that the succession of post-
restoration Siletz Tribal Councils have
systematically crafted an orderly process which