The BIA Process: A Regulatory Nightmare Fact Sheet

Item

Other Media

c042_020_011_002_tr.txt

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only

Extent (Dublin Core)

1 Page

File Name (Dublin Core)

c042_020_011_002

Title (Dublin Core)

The BIA Process: A Regulatory Nightmare Fact Sheet

Description (Dublin Core)

Fact sheet discussing the issues with the standing BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) process

Date (Dublin Core)

undated

Date Created (Dublin Core)

2003

Congress (Dublin Core)

108th (2003-2005)

Topics (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueFederally recognized Indian tribes

Creator (Dublin Core)

Dole, Elizabeth Hanford

Record Type (Dublin Core)

notes (documents)

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=343&q=

Physical Location (Dublin Core)

Collection 042, Box 20, Folder 11

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Elizabeth Hanford Dole Senate Papers, 1995-2022

Full Text (Extract Text)

The BIA Process: A Regulatory Nightmare

Everyone has acknowledged that the current BIA process is poorly funded, too protracted, and deficient in due process.

The GAO has faulted the lack of clear standards in the BIA process. In fact a General Accounting Office report in 2001 stated, "Because of the weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's tribal 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 - one of the key aspects of the criteria."

The inordinate amount of time it takes the BIA to process a request was also highlighted by the GAO: "Second, the regulatory process is not equipped to respond in a timely manner. While workload has increased with more detailed petitions ready for evaluation and increased interest from third parties, the number of staff assigned to evaluate the petitions has decreased by about 35% from its peak in 1993.The process does not impose effective timelines that create a sense of urgency and procedures for providing information to interested third parties are ineffective. As a result, a number of groups that have submitted completed petitions are still awaiting active consideration - some for over 5 years. It may take up to 15 years to resolve all the completed petitions, despite the fact that active consideration of a completed petition was designed to reach a final decision in about 2 years."

The Department acknowledged these problems enumerated in the report. The GAO noted: "The Department of Interior commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed with our findings and recommendations."

On the question of timeliness, the process is so bad that tribes going through the BIA process have sued the BIA to get the BIA to abide by its regulatory deadlines. One tribe in California and one in Massachusetts have sued the BIA and won. The judge set deadlines for the BIA to meet in processing those applications. The BIA has appealed in the Massachusetts case.

As the GAO noted, the BIA process is not an exclusive remedy: "Historically tribes have been granted federal recognition through treaties, by the Congress, or through administrative decisions within the executive branch - principally by BIA within the Department of Interior."

Regulation process was never intended to be the only way groups could receive federal recognition. In fact, after 1979 when the first BIA list of recognized tribes appeared, 47 tribes have been recognized by Congress or the BIA. Of these 47, Congress recognized 16 and BIA recognized 31.

The BIA Process: A Regulatory Nightmare

Everyone has acknowledged that the current BIA process is poorly funded, too protracted, and deficient in due process.

The GAO has faulted the lack of clear standards in the BIA process. In fact a General Accounting Office report in 2001 stated, "Because of the weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's tribal 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 - one of the key aspects of the criteria."

The inordinate amount of time it takes the BIA to process a request was also highlighted by the GAO: "Second, the regulatory process is not equipped to respond in a timely manner. While workload has increased with more detailed petitions ready for evaluation and increased interest from third parties, the number of staff assigned to evaluate the petitions has decreased by about 35% from its peak in 1993.The process does not impose effective timelines that create a sense of urgency and procedures for providing information to interested third parties are ineffective. As a result, a number of groups that have submitted completed petitions are still awaiting active consideration - some for over 5 years. It may take up to 15 years to resolve all the completed petitions, despite the fact that active consideration of a completed petition was designed to reach a final decision in about 2 years."

The Department acknowledged these problems enumerated in the report. The GAO noted: "The Department of Interior commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed with our findings and recommendations."

On the question of timeliness, the process is so bad that tribes going through the BIA process have sued the BIA to get the BIA to abide by its regulatory deadlines. One tribe in California and one in Massachusetts have sued the BIA and won. The judge set deadlines for the BIA to meet in processing those applications. The BIA has appealed in the Massachusetts case.

As the GAO noted, the BIA process is not an exclusive remedy: "Historically tribes have been granted federal recognition through treaties, by the Congress, or through administrative decisions within the executive branch - principally by BIA within the Department of Interior."

Regulation process was never intended to be the only way groups could receive federal recognition. In fact, after 1979 when the first BIA list of recognized tribes appeared, 47 tribes have been recognized by Congress or the BIA. Of these 47, Congress recognized 16 and BIA recognized 31.

The BIA Process: A Regulatory Nightmare

Everyone has acknowledged that the current BIA process is poorly funded, too protracted, and deficient in due process.

The GAO has faulted the lack of clear standards in the BIA process. In fact a General Accounting Office report in 2001 stated, "Because of the weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's tribal 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 - one of the key aspects of the criteria."

The inordinate amount of time it takes the BIA to process a request was also highlighted by the GAO: "Second, the regulatory process is not equipped to respond in a timely manner. While workload has increased with more detailed petitions ready for evaluation and increased interest from third parties, the number of staff assigned to evaluate the petitions has decreased by about 35% from its peak in 1993.The process does not impose effective timelines that create a sense of urgency and procedures for providing information to interested third parties are ineffective. As a result, a number of groups that have submitted completed petitions are still awaiting active consideration - some for over 5 years. It may take up to 15 years to resolve all the completed petitions, despite the fact that active consideration of a completed petition was designed to reach a final decision in about 2 years."

The Department acknowledged these problems enumerated in the report. The GAO noted: "The Department of Interior commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed with our findings and recommendations."

On the question of timeliness, the process is so bad that tribes going through the BIA process have sued the BIA to get the BIA to abide by its regulatory deadlines. One tribe in California and one in Massachusetts have sued the BIA and won. The judge set deadlines for the BIA to meet in processing those applications. The BIA has appealed in the Massachusetts case.

As the GAO noted, the BIA process is not an exclusive remedy: "Historically tribes have been granted federal recognition through treaties, by the Congress, or through administrative decisions within the executive branch - principally by BIA within the Department of Interior."

Regulation process was never intended to be the only way groups could receive federal recognition. In fact, after 1979 when the first BIA list of recognized tribes appeared, 47 tribes have been recognized by Congress or the BIA. Of these 47, Congress recognized 16 and BIA recognized 31.