New Mexico
Indian Affairs Department
January 2009
Welcome to the 2009 Legislative Session!
MESSAGE FROM CABINET
SECRETARY ALVIN WARREN
As we embark on the 2009 New Mexico Legislative Session we have chosen to use
this edition of I-News to reflect on the complex
history that has brought us to this point in statetribal relations as well as to look forward at the
opportunities to build on the progress that has
been made.
I - N ew s
The interview with former Cochiti Governor Regis Pecos, Chief of Staff to Speaker of
the House of Representatives Ben Lujan and the
article by Mr. Bernie Teba, Tribal Liaison at the
Children, Youth and Families Department, provide rare and valuable insights into the series of
legal and political milestones that have defined
the present relationship between the State of
New Mexico and the 22 sovereign Indian nations, tribes and pueblos. At each turn there
have been a number of visionary and courageous leaders who sought to move away from
conflict and create agreements and systems that
would foster greater collaboration between the
state and tribal governments.
Tribal sovereignty and self-determination
The inherent sovereignty of Indian
tribes is recognized in the U.S. Constitution and
further reinforced by numerous treaties, federal
legislation and court decisions. Particularly
since the 1970’s, with the shift in federal Indian
policy to one of tribal self-determination, tribal
governments have increasingly exercised their
powers of self-governance and developed institutions to protect and promote their interests.
For example, federal laws such as the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act reaffirmed tribal self-determination
and self-governance and resonated with the fundamental American belief that local problems
are best solved at the local level.
Cont. on p. 6
Left to right: Mark Holyan, Policy Analyst; Christina Stick,
Policy Analyst; Francine Hatch, Senior Policy Analyst; and
Cabinet Secretary for Indian Affairs Alvin Warren.
The Legislative Process at the
Indian Affairs Department Policy Unit
By Christina Stick, IAD Policy Analyst
The Indian Affairs Department’s Policy Unit is
now busily engaged with the 2009 Legislative Session. The sixty day Session, which started January
20, and runs through March 21, promises to be fastpaced and interesting.
The Legislature is introducing numerous
bills to create new laws and support programs and
services important to communities around the state.
Legislators, both representatives and senators, work
with their communities to identify priorities and
create legislation that will help communities fund
schools and libraries, build roads and infrastructure,
create shelters for families and adults, and other
important services to their everyday life. Once
these bills are written, a representative or a senator
will introduce them to the Legislature for consideration. Bills are then evaluated by different committees depending on the bill’s subject, and if a bill
passes the committee, it gets voted on by either the
House of Representatives or the Senate. After a bill
passes one house, it gets sent to the other, and the
process starts over again.
Cont. on p. 4
1
I - N ew s
The State-Tribal Collaboration Act
legislature. It is important to note that the bill does not
give tribes a right or review of agency action.
As the state and the tribes share a range of comThe proposed State-Tribal Collaboration Act
(“Act”) represents the shared interests and combined effort mon interests, the formalization of tribal collaboration poliof both state and tribal government in recognizing the im- cies by all cabinet-level state agencies will improve cooperation and communication between the state and tribal
portance of maintaining respectful and open communicagovernments to address these shared issues. This Act,
tion and cooperation on issues of mutual interest or concern. The Act builds on Governor Richardson’s Statement which will be introduced by Senator John Pinto, is among
Governor Richardson’s priority bills, has been endorsed by
of Policy and Process and Executive Order 2005-004,
which were the first steps in institutionalizing formal gov- the New Mexico Interim Indian Affairs Committee and has
the support of the All-Indian Pueblo Council, the Navajo
ernment-to-government relationships. Since then, tribal
Nation, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, several individual
consultation has proven effective in developing state
agency capacity and has led to increasing mutually benefi- Pueblos, the New Mexico Indian Affairs Commission, the
Albuquerque Indian Center and many others.
cial intergovernmental relationships. The purpose of the
Act is to provide for greater consistency across all cabinetlevel agencies and to ensure that effective government-toSenate Indian and Cultural Affairs Committee
government collaboration and communication continues in
future administrations.
Sen. John Pinto, Chairman (505-986-4835)
Sen. Eric G. Griego, Vice-Chairman (505-986-4862),
The Act also provides for an Annual Summit between the Governor and all twenty-two tribal leaders which egriego@yahoo.com
Timothy Z. Jennings (505-986-4733)
will promote true government-to-government dialogue on Sen.
Sen. Lynda M. Lovejoy (505-986-4310), lynda.lovejoy@nmlegis.gov
issues of mutual interest. In addition, the Act will ensure
Sen. Cisco McSorley (505-986-4485), cisco.mcsorley@nmlegis.gov
that all cabinet-level agencies create, with the Indian AfSen. William H. Payne (505-986-4703), william.payne@nmlegis.gov
fairs Department’s (“IAD”) assistance, policies for promot- Sen. Stuart Ingle (505-986-4702), stuart.ingle@nmlegis.gov
ing effective communication, collaboration and positive
government-to government relations between that state
agency and tribal governments. These agencies will also
2009 marks the 40th Anniversary of the American
be required to designate a tribal liaison who reports directly
Indian Graduate Center (AIGC). If you are an
to the office of the secretary and who will assist the agency
with complying with the Act. Currently, eighteen cabinet- AIGC alumna or alumnus or know one, please
visit www.aigcs.org and click on AIGC Alumni
level state agencies have adopted tribal consultation policies and sixty tribal liaisons or agency contacts have been Connection and update your information.
Information can also be updated by calling
designated in twenty-eight such agencies.
Additionally, the Act requires that all state agency (505) 881-4584.
managers and employees who have ongoing communication with tribes complete a training, provided by the State
Personnel Office in collaboration with IAD, on promoting
"40th Anniversary
effective communication and collaboration between the
Kick-Off Event"
state agencies and tribes, the development of positive stateSaturday, February 7, 2009,
tribal government-to-government relations, and cultural
5:30pm
competency in providing effective services to American
Albuquerque The Magazine
Indians or Alaska Natives.
Finally, each agency will be required to submit an
550 Merchantile Avenue, NE,
annual report to IAD on the agency’s implementation of
Top Floor
the Act and their programs and services that directly affect
Space is limited so please
American Indians and Alaska Natives. IAD will be reRSVP at www.aigcs.org
sponsible for compiling these into an annual report that
will be submitted to the Governor’s Office and the state
By Francine Hatch, IAD Senior Policy Analyst
2
I - N ew s
Historic “State-Tribal Collaboration Act” Introduced in New Mexico Senate on January 22
dorsed the bill and there is strong support from the AllIndian Pueblo Council, the Navajo Nation, the Mescalero
Apache Tribe, several individual Pueblos as well as the
New Mexico Commission on Indian Affairs, the Bernalillo
County Off-Reservation Indian Health Commission and the
Albuquerque Indian Center.
As stated by Isleta Pueblo Governor Robert
Benavides, “This Act will improve direct tribal communication with the Governor through an annual summit with
tribal leaders, and will further develop tribal communication and collaboration policies by state agencies. The State
Tribal Collaboration will enhance reporting on Native
American programs administered by the state, and will
support the continuation of state agency tribal liaisons in
their vital role.”
“Strengthening and expanding collaboration between the state and tribal governments through SB 196 will
result in better coordination of resources to address shared
priorities as well as higher quality services to our more
The State-Tribal Collaboration Act was introduced than 200,000 Native American citizens,” said Indian Affairs Secretary Alvin Warren. “The ‘State-Tribal CollaboJanuary 22, 2009, on the Senate floor by Senator John
Pinto. Senate Bill 196 would create a statute for effective ration Act’ promises to set another significant milestone in
government-to-government communication and collabora- our shared state and tribal endeavor to foster positive government-to-government relations that will benefit all New
tion between the state and tribal governments.
Mexicans.”
“Since taking office, I have made it a priority to
Contact: Rima Krisst, Indian Affairs PIO, 505-795-5049
strengthen the relationship between the State of New Mexico and our sovereign tribes,” said Governor Richardson.
“The State-Tribal Collaboration Act will further my commitment to Native Americans and provide greater consisSAVE THE DATE!
tency across all cabinet-level agencies in working with the
PLEASE JOIN US FOR
twenty-two tribes, nations, and pueblos in New Mexico,
and will ensure productive government-to-government relationships continue into the future.”
Senator John Pinto and New Mexico Cabinet Secretary for
Indian Affairs Alvin Warren at the State Capitol .
Barbara Smith.photo
INDIAN DAY
“SB 196 will require cabinet-level agencies to develop policies that promote communication and collaboration between the state and tribal governments. Training
would also be provided to state employees so they can
work effectively to address Native American issues,” said
Senator Pinto. “This is a very meaningful and exciting legislative proposal and something we’ve worked toward for a
long, long time. I am honored to sponsor this landmark
bill.”
FEBRUARY 6, 2009
8:30 A.M. TO 12 NOON
AT THE NEW MEXICO
STATE CAPITOL ROTUNDA
EVERYONE IS WELCOME!
The Interim Indian Affairs Committee has en3
I - N ew s
The Legislative Process at the Indian Affairs
Department Policy Unit
cont. from p.1
This process can sometimes be long and difficult to
navigate, so the IAD Policy Unit works to help make it all
more accessible and easier to understand for our Tribal and
off-reservation Native American communities. During the
session, IAD will provide regular updates on all Indianrelated bills through email and our website. These updates
will include information about the bill that will be helpful
for understanding what the bill does and where it is in the
process of becoming law. Check out the IAD website for
this and other important information related to the Legislative Session.
Check out the IAD website at
www.iad.state.nm.us
for Bill Summaries and other
important updates!
The IAD Policy Unit will also be busy in providing
analysis of all Indian-related legislation to the legislature.
During the session, IAD will receive requests from the
Legislative Finance Committee (“LFC”), an important
committee of the Legislature, requesting analysis of a particular bill. These analyses, called a Fiscal Impact Reports
(“FIR”), are the bulk of what the Policy Unit will do during
the session. It is the Policy Unit’s job to provide accurate
and detailed analyses of a bill in the FIR, describing how a
bill will benefit or not benefit tribes, Native Americans,
and Native American organizations in this state. The Policy Governor Bill Richardson gives his State-of-the-State address to a full
Unit tries to provide balanced and fair analyses while still House on January 20, kicking off the 2009 Session! Rima Krisst photo
helping legislators understand the important and great
needs for infrastructure and services in Tribal and offreservation communities.
2009 Legislative Session Important Dates:
The Policy Unit has 24 hours to complete an FIR
Jan. 30, 2009: Deadline for capital
for the LFC, after which the LFC will take our analysis and
outlay reauthorizations
combine it with other agencies’ to create a “Public
Feb. 6, 2009: Indian Day at the
FIR.” This Public FIR will be posted to the Legislative
Legislature!
website and it is free and available to the public. Check out
Feb. 19, 2009: Deadline for introduction of
the New Mexico Legislative Website to find the Public
bills and capital outlay requests
FIRs for all bills introduced during the session and other
March 21, 2009: Session Ends (noon)
important information about the Legislative Session.
Check out the NM Legislative
website at
www.nmlegis.gov/lcs!
April 10, 2009: Bills not acted upon by Governor are pocket vetoed
June 19, 2009: Effective date if bills not carrying an emergency clause or other specified
date
4
I - N ew s
The Amendments to the New Mexico Subdivisions Act Legislation
Often Indian tribes, nations and pueblos have information regarding these important public values, particularly when the proposed development is near tribal boundaries or in areas sensitive to them. In some instances, a tribe
may become aware of subdivision developments so late in
the planning and implementation process that they are left
to resort to litigation to ensure protection of public values
not identified earlier in the plat approval process. Because
subdivisions can similarly have a profound impact on tribal
communities regarding water quality and quantity, transportation, erosion, and cultural properties such as archeological sites and unmarked burials, it would further “open
government” for New Mexico tribes to receive adequate
and timely notice in the early stages of preliminary plat
approval.
Based on feedback from tribal leaders, boards of
county commissioners and other stakeholders, IAD recognized a need for all participants to continue to be proactive
participants in this process as well. HB 37 would further
this goal by requiring counties to notify tribes of newly
proposed or merged subdivision developments. The underlying purpose would be to prevent or mitigate delays or
conflicts for any newly proposed or merged subdivision
among tribes, counties, and developers.
It is important to note that the amendments proposed in HB 37 would not allow tribes to halt proposed
subdivisions nor would they change any requirements for
developers when providing documentation to support a
newly proposed or merged subdivision. They also would
not change any duties of the County when considering
whether to approve a subdivision’s preliminary plat. HB
37 would simply include tribes in that list of agencies that
would be called upon to provide an opinion on the human
and environmental impact of a newly proposed or merged
subdivision as part of the county’s decisionmaking process.
Indeed, some county regulations and/or practices
already include tribes as among those agencies from whom
a request may be made. The amendments in HB 37 are
therefore aligned with the existing trend for the regulatory
procedures of some counties. HB 37 will standardize this
practice by all Boards of County Commissioners. HB 37
has been endorsed by the New Mexico
House Health & Government Affairs Committee
Interim Indian Affairs Committee and
Rep. Mimi Stewart
Chair
986-4840 mstewart@osogrande.com
has the support of the All-Indian Pueblo
Rep. Jeff Steinborn
Vice Chair 986-4248 jeff.steinborn@nmlegis.gov
Council, the Mescalero Apache Tribe,
Rep. Eleanor Chavez
Member 986-4235 eleanorchavez@gmail.com
several individual Pueblos, the New
Rep. John A. Heaton
Member 986-4432 jheaton@caverns.com
Rep. Dennis J. Kintigh
Member 986-4453 askdennis@dennisknight.com
Mexico Indian Affairs Commission, the
Rep. Luciano "Lucky" Varela Member 986-4318
County of Santa Fe, the New Mexico
Rep. Gloria C. Vaughn
Member 986-4453
Association of Counties, and many
Rep. Jeannette O. Wallace Member 986-4452 wallwace@losalamos.com
others.
By Mark Holyan, Policy Analyst
The Indian Affairs Department (“IAD”) has been
working steadily over the past year to develop new legislation and legislative amendments for this year’s legislative
session. In addition to the new State-Tribal Collaboration
Act, IAD is proposing amendments to the New Mexico
Subdivision Act. The current Subdivision Act provides for
the regulation of county subdivision development, and governs the requirements for developers and counties for approving subdivision plans, or plats, as they are
known. These regulations provide for responsible development that protects human and environmental interests for
everyone as new subdivisions are planned and built.
During the tenure of Governor Richardson’s administration much progress has been made to further the
government-to-government relationship between the State
and the 22 tribes of New Mexico. Related to this process,
but at a separate level of government, is the Subdivision
Act Amendments (“Amendments”). HB 37, sponsored by
Representative Ray Begaye and endorsed by the Interim
Indian Affairs Committee, would amend the New Mexico
Subdivisions Act to include tribes in the list of agencies
notified by Boards of County Commissioners about proposed new or merged subdivisions.
Currently, county commissioners are required to
request opinions from the Office of the State Engineer, the
Department of the Environment, the Department of Transportation, the Soil and Water Conservation District and
such other public agencies as a county deems necessary,
when considering whether to approve a preliminary plat
design. The approval process is meant to ensure that a developer’s preliminary plats have reasonably demonstrated
that each subdivision will have:
• water of sufficient quantity and quality for the
• community,
• adequate solid and wastewater removal,
• satisfactory roads,
• soil conservation to prevent flooding and erosion,
and
• protection of cultural properties and antiquities such
as burials and unmarked graves.
5
I - N ew s
MESSAGE FROM CABINET SECRETARY ALVIN WARREN
Cont. from p. 1
New Mexico has 22 federally-recognized tribes,
nations and pueblos and over 205,000 Native American
citizens who comprise nearly 11% of our state’s population. As is true for many other states, state-tribal relations
in New Mexico were historically characterized by mutual
indifference or conflict over issues such as jurisdiction,
natural resources and access to funding. As described in
the interview with former Governor Pecos, the establishment of the Commission on Indian Affairs in 1953 and the
subsequent creation of the Office of Indian Affairs marked
the beginning of new approach to state-tribal relations.
This was further strengthened in the 1980’s and
1990’s. As tribes expanded their capacity to exercise selfgovernance and the visibility of tribal governments increased, the interactions between the state and the tribes
increasingly were seen as intergovernmental. This coincided with a trend toward “devolution” of certain federal
programs to the state level, which compelled state and
tribal governments to improve communication in order to
ensure funding and services met the needs of a shared Indian constituency. Farsighted tribal and state leaders came
to recognize that states and tribes have numerous shared
interests and responsibilities, including allocating public
resources effectively and efficiently; providing basic services such as health care, education, and law enforcement
to their shared citizens; and protecting the environment
while striving to develop strong and diversified economies
and sustaining a skilled workforce. New institutions were
needed to support greater cooperation between fellow governments.
A New Era in State-Tribal Relations
Governor Bill Richardson and Lt. Governor Diane
Denish recognized this need and were committed to building on the initial efforts of several previous governors, beginning with former Governor Toney Anaya. They knew
that it is vital to the well-being and prosperity of the State
of New Mexico to foster long-lasting and committed relationships with the tribes and to explore opportunities for all
parties to pursue collaborative programs and policies.
Accordingly, Governor Richardson moved quickly
in 2003 to elevate the Office of Indian Affairs to the only
Cabinet-level Indian Affairs Department in the United
States. Next, also in 2003, he signed an historic Statement
of Policy and Process with 21 tribes, nations and pueblos,
committing the Executive Branch to: recognize and re-
spect the sovereignty of each tribe; promote governmentgovernment relationships based on mutual respect; value
open communication and cooperation on issues of shared
interest or concern; and, encourage an open-door policy for
tribes to have their views seriously considered in the formulation and execution of state policy. To more fully implement the Statement of Policy and Process, Governor
Richardson issued Executive Order 2005-004 directing
statewide adoption of Pilot Tribal Consultation Plans by 17
state executive agencies. He also signed Executive Order
2005-003 that directed the creation of a statewide consultation policy on the protection of Native American sacred
places and repatriation.
From a holistic viewpoint, these interwoven policies have proven effective in developing state agency capacity and have led to increasingly beneficial relationships
between state and tribal governments. Direct outcomes of
Governor Richardson’s tribal policy initiatives include:
• 18 state agencies have adopted tribal consultation
protocols and policies;
• 60 tribal liaisons or agency contacts are currently
designated in 28 state agencies;
• 142 Native Americans have been appointed to influential state boards and commissions;
• State funding to tribes has increased significantly.
For instance, since 2003, approximately $124 million in capital outlay funding has been appropriated through IAD for tribal infrastructure projects,
with additional amounts flowing to tribes through
other agencies;
• The Department of Health has created an Office of
Native American Health and an American Indian
Health Advisory Council, which report on Indian
health disparities annually;
• A Native American Subcommittee and five Native
American Local Collaboratives emphasize tribal
needs as part of the state’s redesigned Behavioral
Health system;
• The state has entered into three water rights settlements with 7 tribes and created a fund to pay the
state's share of implementation costs; and,
• In economic development, the state has entered
into gross-receipts tax-sharing agreements with 9
tribes, and tribal governments and corporations
have begun to benefit from the state’s Certified
Communities Initiative and Job Training Incentive
Program.
6
I - N ew s
MESSAGE FROM CABINET SECRETARY ALVIN WARREN
It is important to also note that these achievements •
couldn’t have happened without the tireless advocacy and
support of tribal leadership, New Mexico legislators, and
the Indian Affairs Commission.
generating annual reports on each agency’s implementation of the Act as well as their programs and services that directly affect American Indians and Alaska
Natives.
In 2001 the State of Oregon found itself with an
opportunity similar to what is before us now in New
Mexico. Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, in 1996, had
adopted Executive Order 96-30 to foster positive statetribal relations, similar to Governor Richardson’s Executive Order 2005-004. Oregon’s state and tribal leadership
similarly recognized the value of the institutions, agreements and interactions that had been secured pursuant to
the Executive Order. Oregon’s Legislative Commission on
Indian Services and Governor Kitzhaber knew the time had
come to codify these structures so they could continue to
benefit Oregon’s citizens into the future. As a result, SB
770 was enacted by the Oregon Legislature on May 11,
2001, and signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber on May
24, 2001. The eight years since enactment of this law have
proven the benefit of creating a statutory structure for
Governor Richardson’s proposed landmark “State- strong state-tribal collaboration and communication.
Tribal Collaboration Act,” endorsed by the Legislature’s
Interim Indian Affairs Committee, seeks to accomplish
In reflecting on the efforts here in New Mexico of
this, by:
so many over the past decades to move past conflict to define a new state-tribal partnership, I am inspired by the op• Providing for an annual summit between the governor portunity that now stands within our grasp. Especially in
and the 22 tribal leaders to address issues of mutual con- these challenging economic times, strengthening and excern, similar to what currently occurs in Arizona, Colo- panding collaboration between the state and tribal governrado, Washington and other states with significant Indian ments will result in better coordination of resources to address shared priorities as well as higher quality services to
populations;
our more than 200,000 Native American citizens.
The State-Tribal Collaboration Act: An Enduring
Framework for State-Tribal Collaboration and
Communication
In the year I have served in this position, I have
spoken about state-tribal relations with Governor Richardson and Lt. Governor Denish, all 22 tribal governors and
presidents, numerous legislators and many of my fellow
cabinet secretaries. I have heard a consistent theme. Many
recognize the benefit of the government-to-government
structures that have been put in place that have led to more
effective dialogue and cooperation between state and tribal
agencies. It is now time to further strengthen and codify
these structures to provide for greater consistency across all
cabinet-level agencies and to ensure that this effective
structure continues in future administrations.
•
ensuring the remaining 16 cabinet level agencies adopt
The “State-Tribal Collaboration Act” promises to
tribal communication and collaboration policies that
set
another
significant milestone in our shared state and
have proven beneficial to the 18 such agencies that curtribal
endeavor
to foster positive government-torently possess them;
government relations that will benefit all New Mexicans. I
sincerely appreciate your support for this landmark bill.
• ensuring the continued assistance of tribal liaisons in
all the cabinet-level agencies, including the six that currently have not yet designated such individuals;
Respectfully,
•
guaranteeing long-overdue training to state agency
managers and key employees so they may have the greatest
chance for success in working with tribal governments and
addressing the needs of Indian constituents; and
Cabinet Secretary Alvin Warren
7
I - N ew s
A Conversation with Regis Pecos, Part 1:
The Emergence of Federal Self-Determination Policy and its Impact in Defining State-Tribal Relations
Regis Pecos is the Chief of
Staff for House Speaker
Ben Lujan, former Director of the Office of Indian
Affairs, and former Governor of Cochiti Pueblo.
We asked Mr. Pecos to reflect on the movement toward tribal selfdetermination, including
the impact of the hallmark
Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance
Act of 1975, the effect that
the federal policy of
Indian self-determination
ultimately has had on
Regis Pecos
tribal-state governmentto-government relationships, as well as examples of incentives that emerged for tribes and states to communicate,
collaborate, and cooperate in the era of Federal
“devolution.”
Rima Krisst
REGIS PECOS:
In order to fully appreciate this time that history
will define as the era of “self-determination,” it is necessary to reflect upon the past to appreciate the evolution of
the events and relationships that shaped and formed this
period. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in
1847, officially beginning the occupation of the United
States. An important part of the treaty which annexed territory formerly part of Mexico was the recognition of
Pueblo land grants as acknowledged by Spain and Mexico.
The treaty with the Jicarillas was signed in 1851, establishing their present homelands. Referred to as the “Longest
Walk,” the Navajo experienced the forced removal and
imprisonment in the Bosque Redondo in 1864. The U.S.
Cavalry captured and imprisoned Geronimo and his band
in 1886. Then New Mexico joined the union in 1912.
In this period of 160 plus years since the signing of
the Treaty before New Mexico became part of the United
States, our 22 Indian sovereign nations had suffered immensely as the a result of the early extermination policies
at the hands of the United States and were now confined to
our reservations. Boarding schools like the Santa Fe Indian
School had been established beginning in 1890, and children some as young as 5 years old were taken from their
parents to begin the forced assimilation process through
education. Policies to prohibit the speaking of our Mother
tongue were strictly enforced. The government had established the Religious Crimes Code to prohibit the practice of
our way of life that would continue through the 1920’s.
But through it all, the Indian people and their leaders epitomized a spirit of extraordinary and profound resiliency to
survive, with the last of their homelands, reservations as
known to us today, their languages, although in a very fragile state to this day, families and communities weakened
and traumatized but revitalized, their traditional governments modified with adaptations as a result of the impositions of various governments, and a way of life reflecting
their core values since the time of creation.
I use that short history as a back-drop because it
sets the context within which our leaders would work from.
The many challenges that we face today; protecting our
only remaining homelands, our languages now in a fragile
state, our culture, our places of worship, our governance
systems and our sovereignty are the result of all of these
past intersections and impositions that define our values
and attitudes that are many times not so well understood.
The following is a classic example. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo recognized Pueblo land grants and important
water rights connected to those lands. Yet, in 1920, eight
years after New Mexico became part of the United States,
there was an effort to continue to reduce Indian land holdings in the name of resolving some long-standing disputes
over land and water rights ownership. It was an effort to
accommodate the railroad and those who wanted additional
lands. In this typical governmental approach, there would
continue the dual strategy of overpowering the Pueblos
specifically in the “famous or infamous” legislation
launched to accomplish this, known as the Bursum Bill. At
that time, the leaders of the All Indian Pueblo Council, in
their congressional testimony, referred to the threat of the
loss of lands as a threat to their very way of life. The Bureau of Indian Affairs joined the effort against the Pueblos
with their forceful policies, prohibiting the Pueblos’ right
to practice their religions. They implemented some harsh
policies to persecute those who did. The government has
always understood the intricate connections between land
and religion. All of this caused an uproar. The artists from
Taos and Santa Fe and others joined the fight that gave
birth to the modern day organization of the Southwest Association of Indian Affairs, known then as the New Mexico
Association of Indian Affairs. The effort launched a new
way of fighting policies at the federal level utilizing a
broad network of alliances. This effort on the part of many
resulted in the defeat of the Bursum Bill, which was a major proposal backed heavily by major political figures of
8
the time.
I - N ew s
A Conversation with Regis Pecos, Part 1:
The Emergence of Federal Self-Determination Policy and its Impact in Defining State-Tribal Relations
In the 1930s, the federal government’s policy was
to force reorganization of traditional governments in an
effort to democratize them by imposing an electoral process, a three branch government, and a constitutional framework. This was known as the Indian Reorganization Act.
The 1930s was also a time of a short-lived policy of returning children to their communities when Day Schools were
built in our communities. There were efforts to implement
programs for community development and programs to
preserve the art and culture of Indian people. This was, in
some ways, a first attempt of the federal government moving toward rebuilding what their policies had consciously
destroyed.
All of this came to light in a report named the
Meriam Report, which exposed the dire conditions Indian
people had been reduced to as a result of federal policies.
It was in this period that the federal government also began
shifting its responsibility for the education of Indian children to the states. The John O’Malley Act was the means
to accomplish this. This was their version of integrating
Indian children into public schools after their segregation
of children in boarding schools to assimilate them failed.
The end result today is that 90 percent of all Indian children go to public schools. The impact of this forced integration would have lasting impacts. Children were harshly
discriminated against because of their lack of proficiency
in English. For many the experience would result in conscious decisions not to teach their children our Mother
tongue after such devastating experiences in public
schools.
With the depression and the World Wars in the
40s, the pendulum moved back in the other direction, and
Indians became a drain on the federal budget. The ensuing
diminished support would result in yet another swing in the
extreme. This would follow, ironically, after our Indian
men and women gave their lives serving this country in the
wars. In the 1940s, many Indian men and women joined
the military to come to the aid of our country, despite the
fact that the government had subjected them to the worst
policies. Many served with distinction, including my own
father. The now famous Navajo Code Talkers epitomize
our men and women who gave their lives. But then, when
they returned and attempted to exercise their right to vote,
they were denied. Miguel Trujillo, a Pueblo man who
served in the military, used the legal system to challenge
this discrimination. In 1948, he prevailed and, with that
victory, the battle for Indian suffrage was finally won. Not
that long ago, right? But wars cost money and much like
with the wars’ cost today, domestic programs suffer. So, it
was then that the federal government began to implement a
whole new set of policies to rid itself of Indians in the
1950s.
It was at this time that the federal policies probably
reached its lowest point. The policy was to “terminate”
entire tribes, and concurrently Public Law 280 was aggressively being advanced to extend state jurisdiction over reservations. Also in effect was the policy of “relocation,” an
outgrowth of the federal governments’ initial effort to support Indian war veterans in finding employment and reintegrating them into society. The relocation policy led to the
beginning of what some refer to as the period of Indian
“self-termination,” which would have devastating longterm consequences.
The full effect of these devastating federal policies
caused the destruction and undermining of Indian people
and their communities from, once thriving independent,
self-sufficient, and self-governing bodies to communities
similar to those devastated by the wars that many of our
veterans had just returned from.
With termination policies in effect, the hope of
relocation, which had originally held great promise for a
better future for their children, became yet one more source
of division, created by the federal government that would
further put the survival of Indian communities at risk. Relocation years later would create a dichotomy of Indian
communities that would become divisive not unlike previous policies separating full bloods and half bloods and
categorizing them as civilized or uncivilized. The haunting
issues of blood quantum and “who is an Indian” would be
the ultimate consequence born out of that time.
The marketing scheme went like this – the sooner
you leave your language and culture behind, the sooner you
leave your families and communities behind, the sooner
you leave the reservation where there is no hope, the better
chance there will be that your children might have a better
life somewhere else. And so, those personally experiencing and living through the devastation, made the difficult
choice to move on and many never came home.
The reality today is that there are more urban Indians than there are reservation Indians, which poses major
policy considerations for the fair and equitable treatment
for reservation and off-reservation Indian citizens. Aside
from these policy considerations, we should remember that
we come from the same roots and are one family. Whatever we do, and wherever we live, we must bear in mind
not to perpetuate today the divisiveness that was caused by
federal policies by our treatment of one another along these
lines. Many live in urban America through no fault of their
own but as a result of circumstances and tough choices.
We have to constantly ask ourselves, “What are we9
I - N ew s
A Conversation with Regis Pecos, Part 1:
The Emergence of Federal Self-Determination Policy and its Impact in Defining State-Tribal Relations
doing differently in these times of self-determination, when
we are in control, than in those times when we weren’t, and
when we were critical of the federal government? We cannot be the victimizers as the federal government has been
throughout history.
As I attempt to answer the broad question of the
evolution of tribal/state/federal relations and the impact of
the self-determination policies on the relations, it is important to understand the immediate past and how personal
experiences drive our behaviors in these relationships.
Without this education, many in this process do not understand why we are so emotional and why we insist that this
history of our treatment as well as an understanding of our
responsibilities be part of any discussion. It is an awesome
responsibility we have to protect the last of our remaining
homelands and resources, our way of life that is defined as
religion by others, our language and culture, our places of
worship no longer part of our jurisdiction, our governance,
our sovereignty, our families and children.
Throughout history, the conceptualization of Indian policies has been driven by others and usually not for
our benefit. As long as we were not directly involved, even
the most thoughtful and well-intended considerations often
had unintended consequences. What could go wrong many
times did go wrong and we suffered through those times.
Crisis often times creates opportunities, however. By the
end of the 1950s, many were concerned that with this history of assaults on tribal languages and cultures, there were
imminent threats of their survival. In response to this, advocates, primarily non-Indian people, organized to create
the New Mexico Commission on Indian Affairs, and the
Office of Indian Affairs. It would be a response to protect
and preserve the languages and cultures of New Mexico’s
Indian tribes and pueblos. The Office and the Commission
would not evolve fully and expand until much later in the
1970s as a vehicle for tribal leaders to advocate their interests and guide tribal/state relations.
At the national level, there were many important
people in the 60’s, 70s and 80s that gave birth to a new
renaissance and rebirth. They created the foundation and
framework for what would be known as the selfdetermination era. This was driven as a result of their personal experiences. It also was the beginning of the formation of a new group of traditional leaders, and formally
educated Indian people, with a new set of experiences, all
working together in a complementary way. The move
from termination to self-determination was a dramatic and
drastic shift. How did it happen? There were many culminating factors and influences. The Civil Rights Movement
helped to energize the Indian rights movement. It was, in
many ways a wake-up call to America’s consciousness and
conscience. There are many on- and off-reservation Indian
leaders who contributed to this radical movement. They
saw this as necessary if were going to survive. They rose
to challenge the status quo as our forefathers had done in
their time.
As we reflect upon the past, we are reminded that
each generation is challenged with different circumstances,
which calls for different responses. If we are going to be
successful, we have to be fully cognizant of that at all
times.
The American Indian Policy Review Commission
is not well known to many people and yet it had a significant impact articulating a new vision for our people. Senator James Abourezk and Senator Fred Harris were major
catalysts in having Congress reluctantly initiate and fund
this monumental undertaking of examining policies across
the board in education, natural resources protection, and
governance, among the most critical areas of policy development. It brought together a Who’s Who in Indian Country and brought together an unprecedented group of the
best thinkers and radical thinkers of the time. Their recommendations were far-reaching to this day. It was the planting of seeds for a new era. It was, for the first time, from
and through our lens. It helped to usher in what we know
today as the “self –determination era.”
After its implementation into law by President
Richard Nixon in 1975, self-determination policy didn’t
really take full form until the early mid-80s in two distinctively different ways. One was becoming fully conscious
of effectuating the intent of the law, and assuming the responsibility of managing and administering programs once
the responsibility of the federal government, predominantly
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The other would
happen much later, and would conceptually extend the experience, opportunities, and principles to state-tribal relations.
What would force the latter was the implementation of the state rights agenda that would ironically cause a
conflict, perhaps as an unintended consequence, between
the states and the tribes. This agenda would consciously
dismantle the community block grant framework that heretofore had resulted in a relationship between the federal
government and tribal governments as resources flowed
directly to the tribes.
Beginning with the Welfare Reform Act, the shift
was more pronounced. There was a very interesting question asked in this development and discourse in regard to
10
I - N ew s
A Conversation with Regis Pecos, Part 1:
The Emergence of Federal Self-Determination Policy and its Impact in Defining State-Tribal Relations
Indian people. In came at a time when Contract With
America was evolving and a conservative think-tank, The
Heritage Foundation, in this individual responsibility
agenda would ask, “Isn’t it about time we gave the American Indian his rightful place?” On the face of it, who
would object, right? So here we were in the midst of a new
policy of self-determination with contradicting policies at
play at the same time. What was implied, of course, like
with termination and relocation, was that we ought to be
totally assimilated and be responsible for ourselves, and
integrated into mainstream society. At the time here in
New Mexico, we recognized that a message needed to be
heard on Capitol Hill.
Senator Daniel Inouye, who had just become
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and
Alan Parker, an Indian himself, who was Chief Counsel at
the time, understood the underlying ramifications these
new ideas would cause. So, we traveled to Washington.
Tribal leaders, Representative Nick Salazar, would testify
that even in places like New Mexico, where relationships
were generally positive, unless there were explicit provisions guiding how states and tribes would work together to
implement and access resources for this newly defined program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), it would pose significant problems between states
and tribes. It was a state’s rights agenda and sure enough,
even to this day, matters are not fully resolved. It did cause
a major conflict.
We have to appreciate that, historically, states had
not yet been defined in this governmental framework. It
was a federal/state or federal/tribe system, not yet integrating federal, state, and tribal governments. In fact, many
would say at that time that states were the worst enemies of
tribal governments for the simple fact that tribes and states,
often in trying to carve out their respective places as sovereign governments, defined the relationship or nonrelationship litigiously in the courts as they over battled
who had the great power and/or authority as sovereign governments.
It was welfare reform that finally forced a relationship between states and tribes. Programatically, welfare
reform hit hard at the heart of our cultural organization and
our extended family structures. The next wave was health
care reform. In both cases, resources would flow through
the states. This was a bigger heartburn than anyone had yet
experienced. Indian Health is one of the longstanding pillars tribes define as part of a trust obligation on the part of
the federal government to Indian people. Tribal leaders
fought that fight but lost and the Health Care Reform Act
would force another relationship if Indian people, eligible
for these services, were going to get their fair share.
What would happen if we use this service through
the state? Will the federal government use this to dismantle Indian Health Service (IHS)? Others would say that we
have dual citizenship, and that we therefore ought to have
the benefit of services from both the IHS, and, where some
services are not possible with diminishing federal support,
we ought to also have the right, as citizens of New Mexico,
if we qualify, to enjoy the benefits provided by the state.
These issues and questions gave rise to a new appreciation
that tribal leaders would now be forced to focus their attention to defining our relationship with the state. Given the
history, we had a right to feel schizophrenic. These were
very important questions Indian people were asking their
leaders.
What motivated states and tribes to begin working
together collaboratively was appreciating that they had to
define a whole different approach to addressing competing
interests. With a state rights agenda forcing the state and
tribes into an undefined relationship and, as tribes were
flexing their muscle and their powers and authority under
self-determination laws, there were sharp conflicts but
there were also some extraordinary visionaries who
emerged and created a framework to guide the development of these relationships that deserve credit of their profound wisdom. While tribes were fighting at the federal
level, there were leaders here at the state level who were
heading major initiatives to develop a framework within
which tribal and state leaders would engage in a necessary
discourse over issues of mutual concern and interest. For
example, Governor Tony Anaya in the early 80’s was one
who began engaging tribal leaders formally on important
state-tribal issues on education. He and then Navajo Nation President Peterson Zah would sign the first State/
Tribal Protocol Agreement. Sam Deloria, the Director for
the American Indian Law Center, used the Center as a vehicle to create a national movement with the creation of the
Commission of State/Tribal Relations. The work that ensued through these kinds of initiatives gave guidance in the
early stages of the development and evolution of New
Mexico’s state-tribal relations and protocols.
Please see “A Conversation with Regis Pecos,
Part 2,” in the February issue of I-News.
Printed with permission from Regis Pecos.
©Copyright 2009, Regis Pecos. All rights reserved.
The views expressed in this interview do not
necessarily reflect the opinions or the official policy or
position held by the Indian Affairs Department or the
11
State of New Mexico.
I - N ew s
New
Mexico
Tribal
Liaison
Bulletin:
Secretary
Rhonda
Faught
Advanced
the
Role andon
Importance
State-Tribal
Reflecting
the Indianof
Child
Welfare Relations
Act of 1978
tutions. The decision to remove these children from their
natural families was often a lack of understanding of Indian
culture and child-rearing practices (U.S. House Report,
1978).
Recent news articles and reports have created a
The AAIA study found that Indian children were
misunderstanding of State child custody proceedings infive (Minnesota) to sixteen times (Montana) more likely to
volving Indian children. The following is a broad attempt
to highlight the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978. be placed in foster care compared to non-Indian children.
A survey of 16 states in 1969 also revealed that
Because Indian children are treated uniquely in the
legal system, and because there is an increasing number of approximately 85% of Indian children in foster homes and
90% of non-relative Indian adoptees were living with noncourt proceedings involving Indian children, the need to
understand the ICWA is fast becoming imperative. (Since Indian families (U.S. House Report, 1978). The result of
this survey troubled tribes for a variety of reasons. First,
the ICWA was enacted, more than 250 state and federal
the placement of so many Indian children in non-Indian
court decisions have been rendered.)
homes threatened the extinction of the tribe. In short, tribes
were losing the most basic necessity for survival – a next
Historical Development of ICWA
generation.
In 1974 Congress initiated its first hearing on the
As early as 1860, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) used boarding schools as federal policy to “civilize” state of Indian children in substitute care. Testimony in
1974 provided the first official acknowledgement by the
Indian children by separating them from their tribal comUnited States government that the unwarranted removal of
munities and forcing them to learn English and to adopt
Indian children from their families represented a systematic
European-American practices and customs. Further, in
attempt to destroy Native tribes and cultures that resulted in
1958, the BIA and the Child Welfare League of America
negative outcomes for both tribes and tribal children.
(CWLA) established the Indian Adoption Project to
On November 8, 1978 Congress passed the Indian
“provide adoptive placements for Indian children whose
parents were deemed unable to provide a “suitable” home Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in response to the “rising concern … over the consequences to Indian children, Indian
for them. States were paid by the BIA to remove Indian
families, and Indian tribes of abusive child welfare pracchildren from their homes under the charge of neglect.
Most of the children removed from their “unsuitable” envi- tices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes through adopronment were placed in non-Indian homes.
tion or foster care placement.” By limiting states’ powers
In 1968, members of Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe of
over American Indian children, ICWA aims to support InNorth Dakota were concerned with the treatment of their
children by their local state child welfare officials. Due to dian families, specifically by maintaining Indian children
with Indian caregivers in order to honor a rich cultural trawhat the tribe perceived as the state’s ignorance of tribal
dition and tribal sovereignty.
welfare practices, tribal children were routinely uprooted
from their Indian families and placed in non-Indian foster
or adoptive homes, a situation exacerbated by the fact that What ICWA Requires of States
many of the actions taken by state child welfare agents
were carried out without tribal consultation.
As mentioned in the Act, Congress designed
From 1969 through 1974, the Association on
ICWA to restrain the authority of state agencies and courts
American Indian Affairs (AAIA) acting at the request of
in removing and placing Indian children, based on states ”
the Spirit Lake Tribe, conducted nationwide studies on the historical inability to fairly adjudicate child custody proimpact of state child welfare practices toward Indian chil- ceedings” (25 U.S.C. 1901(5); Native Village of Venetie
dren. AAIA research indicated that in certain states, 25%- I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 1991). ICWA accomplishes this
45% of all Indian children were removed from their natural task through both procedural and substantive provisions
homes and placed in foster homes, adoptive homes or insti- that advance Congress’ purpose of protecting Indian chilBy Bernie Teba, Tribal Liaison,
Children, Youth, and Families Department
12
I - N ew s
New Mexico Tribal Liaison Bulletin:
Reflecting on the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, cont.
dren and tribes by “ the establishment of minimum federal
standards for the removal of Indian children from their
homes and families and the placement of such children in
… homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian
culture” (25 U.S.C. 1902).
ICWA is unique in that it involves not only the
relationship between American Indian tribes and the federal government but also the relationship of state government to both the United States government and tribes.
In its broadest application, ICWA applies only to
child custody proceedings in state court systems. Under
ICWA, a child custody proceeding includes foster care
placement, termination of parental rights, pre-adoptive
placement and adoptive placement (25 U.S.C. 1903[1]).
The Act further specifies that the child involved in
a custody proceeding must be “Indian” (25 U.S.C. 1903[4])
and requires that the child in question be an unmarried minor who is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe, or, (b)
eligible for membership in a tribe, AND a biological child
of a tribal member. If a child is a member of, or eligible for
membership in, more than one tribe, the court must decide
the child’s tribe for ICWA purposes by determining the
tribe with which the child has “the most significant contacts” (25 U.S.C. 1903[5]).
To protect the interests of tribes, ICWA requires
states to provide notification to the tribe at least 10 days in
advance of pending “involuntary” child custody proceedings (25 U.S.C 1912[a]). This requirement is consistent
with the fundamental underpinning of ICWA that recognizes that tribes have a unique interest separate from that of
the child’s parent or Indian custodian.
ICWA also requires states to document the placement history of Indian children within their respective child
welfare systems. In cases of adoption, ICWA authorizes
Indian children, once they reach 18 years of age, the right
to obtain information on their tribal heritage (25 U.S.C.
1915 [e], 1917 and 1951)
Consequently, 25 U.S.C 1911 of ICWA grants tribes exclusive jurisdiction in all child custody matters involving Indian children who are wards of tribal courts or who reside
or domiciled on Indian reservations. Also, if an Indian
child is the subject of a foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding in state court, the state
must transfer the proceeding to the tribe, absent objection
by either parent, upon petition by either parent, Indian custodian or tribe (25U.S.C 1911 [b]). This transfer should
occur absent “good cause to the contrary”. The Supreme
Court has ruled that the jurisdiction of the tribal court in
such cases is “presumptive” meaning that good cause to the
contrary should be a heavy burden for the state to carry.
ICWA also strengthens the legitimacy of tribal
courts in conducting child welfare proceedings involving
Indian children. ICWA provision 25 U.S.C 1911[d] requires that both state and federal courts give “full faith and
credit” to tribal acts, records and judicial proceedings in the
same manner afforded to non-Indian entities (such as
courts of other states).
Although ICWA protects the legal interests of
tribes and provides for the “best interests” of Indian children in state custody - without Indian families to serve as
foster care and adoptive families - history will repeat itself.
Joint Tribal- State collaborative efforts are necessary for
the successful implementation of the ICWA of 1978.
As one result of the 1995 U.S. General Accounting
Office survey of States’ Compliance with ICWA, CYFD
revised the ICWA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) by
and between the Navajo Nation and CYFD. Both Navajo
Nation and CYFD agreed that the revision was a historic
occasion since it had been over 20 years since the last
ICWA IGA had been revised. The revised ICWA IGA
more clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the
Navajo Nation and CYFD. The process involved in revising the ICWA IGA included key elements in Governor
Richard’s executive order 2005-004 and the 2003 Statement of Tribal-State Government-to-Government Policy.
Jurisdiction and Requests for Transfer
In Mississippi Band of Choctaws v. Holyfield
(1989), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the jurisdictional mandates of ICWA are at the very heart of the Act.
The jurisdictional provisions of ICWA are designed to
maximize the opportunity for tribal courts to determine the Bernie Teba is the CYFD Tribal Liaison and ICWA contact
fate of their children because such courts are the more
and can be reached at 505-827-7612 or by e-mail at
knowledgeable about child-rearing traditions and customs. Bernie.Teba@state.nm.us
13
I - N ew s
Behavioral Health Collaborative Approves
Expansion of Local Collaboratives
Governor Bill Richardson Announces Expanded
Education Initiatives for 2009 Legislative Session
The Behavioral Health Collaborative has approved
a proposal for the expansion of Native American Local
Collaboratives by three, which will increase the number of
Native American Local Collaboratives to five, and the total
number of Local Collaboratives to 18 across the state.
Governor Bill Richardson outlined
his expanded education agenda for the upcoming legislative session during visits to Clovis and Tucumcari. While
speaking with lawmakers, community leaders, education
officials and students, the Governor reiterated his support
for changing the current education funding formula and
announced his proposals to increase college opportunities
for New Mexico students.
“We have no higher priority than ensuring all New
Mexico students receive a quality education and are given
the tools and opportunities for success,” Governor Richardson said. “I look forward to working with the legislature to
make sure we are adequately funding our classrooms, but
ultimately I believe the voters of New Mexico must have a
say on this major investment.”
Two years ago, Governor Richardson signed legislation to fund a task force to study the funding formula that
New Mexico has used for more than 30 years. It found the
funding formula is outdated and underfunds schools, particularly smaller and rural schools, by $350 million. The
Governor will work with lawmakers to find a way so that
voters decide how changes to the formula will be funded.
Other educational initiatives the Governor will be
pushing for this year include:
• Requiring students to be in the classroom 180 days and
moving teacher professional development outside of
the instruction day.
• Increasing math requirements for K-8 teachers by three
credit hours.
• Strengthening the Public Education Department’s ability to sanction school districts that do not adhere to
audit requirements.
• Expanding the College Affordability Fund Scholarship
to increase the number of students who can receive
assistance.
• Put all of the state’s 3% Scholarships into need-based
aid.
• Creating a division within the Higher Education Department to coordinate all major initiatives targeted
towards Native American Students.
• Expand dual credit opportunities so that Native American high school students can take advanced classes and
earn credit toward graduation at Tribal and other colleges.
Using proposals, assessment of readiness, and geography as the criteria, the Collaborative selected the following three proposals for the Local Collaborative expansion.
1.
Rain Cloud, an off reservation group,
2.
Sandoval County Consortium (Santa Ana, Santo
Domingo, Zia, Cochiti, Jemez, Sandia, and San Felipe
Pueblos as well as urban tribal populations in Sandoval
County), and
3.
Eight Northern Pueblos - with the stipulation they
must provide a list of members (Nambe, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Ohkay Owingeh, Santa Clara,
Taos and Tesuque Pueblos).
The Jicarilla Apache Nation, who also submitted a
proposal for a Local Collaborative, will be given the option
to join one of the three expansion collaboratives, or remain
a part of Local Collaborative 14. Any Local Collaborative
must accept Jicarilla Apache Nation and all Local Collaboratives must affirm their willingness to be inclusive and not
refuse anyone’s participation.
This expansion leaves Local Collaborative 14 with
more geographic integrity with Mescalero Apache Tribe
and the southernmost Pueblos (Isleta, Acoma, Laguna and
Zuni Pueblos) and Navajo Chapters (Ramah, Alamo and
To’Hajiilee.) The Mescalero Apache Tribe proposal that
was submitted was very strong and this expansion plan is
intended to recognize their strength and maintain geographic integrity.
About the Collaborative
The Collaborative was created in 2004 by the Governor and the Legislature to allow most state agencies and
resources involved in behavioral health treatment and recovery to work as one in an effort to improve mental health
and substance abuse services in New Mexico. This cabinetlevel group represents 15 agencies and Governor Bill
Richardson’s office.
Contact: Betina Gonzales McCracken (505) 476-6205
Alarie Ray-Garcia, Office of Governor Bill Richardson
14
I - N ew s
Governor Bill Richardson Announces Public Safety Priorities for Legislative Session
Governor Bill Richardson traveled around the state
on January 14 to announce his public safety priorities for
the legislative session. The Governor stopped in Farmington, Las Cruces and Roswell where he detailed his plans
for tougher DWI, Liquor Control, gangs and domestic violence reforms.
“Today I outlined my ambitious plan to improve
public safety in New Mexico, including increasing penalties for drunk driving, domestic violence and gang violence
and new this year – we are proposing legislation to combat
drugged driving,” Governor Richardson.
DWI
Governor Richardson today proposed a number of
new DWI initiatives to be presented to the Legislature later
this month. The Governor announced his proposal to combat “drugged drivers” – including a bill that would establish a limit for drivers under the influence of illegal drugs.
The Governor is also proposing a bill that would
allow law enforcement officers to appear by phone or
video conference in order to participate in DWI license
revocation hearings. This would allow officers to stay on
in communities looking for drunk drivers instead of spending valuable time in court.
Liquor Control Act
The Governor along with DWI Czar Rachel
O’Connor unveiled plans for more comprehensive liquor
control reform in Farmington this morning.
“This year we're bringing forward a bill that provides for comprehensive liquor reform for the Liquor Control Act in the State of New Mexico,” said Governor
Richardson. “This bill will have provisions that substantively impact public safety and liquor licensing.”
The proposed changes would bring an increase in
financial penalties to bars that over serve and sell to minors; both are violations under the Three Strikes rule. The
legislation also would allow the state to revoke the liquor
licenses of establishments that are considered a public nuisance.
Additional changes to the Liquor Control Act
would give local law enforcement the authority to enforce
certain provisions of act and would require alcohol servers
to renew their server permits every three years instead of
every five.
Gangs
The Governor has proposed two pieces of legislation aimed at fighting back against gangs in New Mexico. The first will make gang recruitment a crime. We
want to make recruiting an adult into a gang a 4th degree
felony and recruiting a child a 3rd degree felony.
Secondly, the Governor has proposed a bill that
would provide sentence enhancements for crimes committed during gang activity. Under this bill gang activity penalties will be increased from a one year enhancement for a
fourth degree felony to an additional eight years for a first
degree felony. This will give police and prosecutors better
tools to prosecute those individuals who have not gotten
the message, “We don’t want gang violence here.”
Domestic Violence
The Governor announced a number of new domestic violence initiatives during his stops around the state
today. The first is to add domestic violence to a list of
crimes that would limit an individual’s ability to obtain
certification as a law enforcement officer or to retain their
certification.
Secondly, the Governor wants to close a major gap
in the current law and make damage to community or
jointly owned property a crime the Governor wants take
power away from batterers. This bill would create a new
offense under the Crimes Against Household Members Act
making criminal damage to property against a household
member a 4th degree felony if the damage is more than
$1000.
The Governor also unveiled his plan to prohibit
employers from discriminating against victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault and stalking. Under the Governor’s
proposed bill, employers must grant employees unpaid
leave to obtain an order of protection or other judicial relief
from abuse, to meet with law enforcement, consult with
attorneys or victim advocates and attend court proceedings
related to the abuse.
Finally, with one in twelve New Mexicans being
victimized by stalkers and only 5.5% of these cases resulting in an arrest, the Governor is looking to streamline and
broaden the language in our stalking law so that stalkers
will no longer be able to threaten or cause fear to their victims.
Alarie Ray-Garcia, Office of Governor Bill Richardson
15
I - N ew s
Welcome New and Continuing 2009 Tribal Officials!
2009 TRIBAL OFFICIALS
Tribes, Pueblos, and Nations in
New Mexico:
(in alphabetical order)
JICARILLA APACHE NATION
PRESIDENT LEVI PESATA
P.O. Box 507
Dulce, NM 87528
Phone (575) 759-3242
Fax (575) 759-3005
Vice President Ty Vicenti
MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE
PRESIDENT CARLETON NAICHEPALMER
P.O. Box 227
Mescalero, NM 88340
Phone (575) 464-4494
Fax (575) 464-9191
Vice President Jackie D. Blaylock, Sr.
NAVAJO NATION
PRESIDENT JOE SHIRLEY, JR.
P.O. Box 9000
Window Rock , AZ 86515
Ph on e (928) 871-6352/6357
Fax (928) 871-4025
Vice President Ben Shelly
NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
Speaker Lawrence T. Morgan
P.O. Box 3390
Window Rock , AZ 86515
Phone (928) 871-7160
Fax (928) 871-7255
OHKAY OWINGEH
GOVERNOR MARCELINO AGUINO
P.O. Box 1099
San Juan Pueblo, NM 87566
Phone (505) 852-4400/4210
Fax (505) 852-4820
1st Lt. Gov. Virgil Cata
2nd Lt. Gov. Joseph Martinez
PUEBLO OF ACOMA
GOVERNOR CHANDLER SANCHEZ
P.O. Box 309
Acoma, NM 87034
Phone (505) 552-6604/6605
Fax (505) 552-7204
1st Lt. Gov. Mark Thompson
2nd Lt. Gov. Ron Charlie
PUEBLO OF COCHITI
GOVERNOR JOHN F. PECOS
P.O. Box 70
Cochiti Pueblo, NM 87072
Phone (505) 465-2244
Fax (505) 465-1135
Lt. Gov. Peter Trujillo
PUEBLO OF ISLETA
GOVERNOR ROBERT BENAVIDES
P.O. Box 1270
Isleta Pueblo, NM 87022
Phone (505) 869-3111/6333
Fax (505) 869-4236
1st Lt. Gov. Max Zuni
2d Lt. Gov. Frank Lujan
PUEBLO OF JEMEZ
GOVERNOR DAVID TOLEDO
P.O. Box 100
Jemez Pueblo, NM 87024
Phone (575) 834-7359
Fax (575) 834-7331
1st Lt. Gov. Benny Shendo, Jr.
2nd Lt. Gov. Stanley Loretto
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
GOVERNOR JOHN ANTONIO, SR.
P.O. Box 194
Laguna Pueblo, NM 87026
Phone (505) 552-6654/6655/6598
Fax (505) 552-6941
1st Lt. Gov. Robert Mooney, Sr.
2nd Lt. Gov. Marvin Trujillo, Jr.
PUEBLO OF NAMBE
GOVERNOR ERNEST MIRABAL
Route 1, Box 117-BB
Santa Fe, NM 87506
Phone (505) 455-2036
Fax (505) 455-2038
Lt. Gov. Arnold Garcia
PUEBLO OF PICURIS
GOVERNOR RICHARD MERMEJO
P.O. Box 127
Penasco, NM 87553
Phone (575) 587-2519
Fax (575) 587-1071
Lt. Gov. Matthew Pacheco
PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE
GOVERNOR GEORGE RIVERA
Pueblo of Pojoaque
78 Cities of Gold Road
Santa Fe, NM 87506
Phone (505) 455-3334
Fax (505) 455-0174
Lt. Gov. Linda Diaz
PUEBLO OF SANDIA
GOVERNOR JOE M. LUJAN
481 Sandia Loop
Bernalillo, NM 87004
Phone (505) 867-3317
Fax (505) 867-9235
Lt. Gov. Scott Paisano
PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA
GOVERNOR BRUCE SANCHEZ
2 Dove Road
Santa Ana Pueblo, NM 87004
Phone (505) 867-3301
Fax (505) 867-3395
Lt. Gov. Myron Armijo
PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA
GOVERNOR WALTER DASHENO
P.O. Box 580
Espanola, NM 87532
Phone (505) 753-7330/7326
Fax (505) 753-8988
Lt. Gov. Bruce Tafoya
PUEBLO OF SAN FELIPE
GOVERNOR ANTHONY ORTIZ
P.O. Box 4339
San Felipe Pueblo, NM 87001
Phone (505) 867-3381/3382
Fax (505) 867-3383
Lt. Gov. James Candelario
PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO
GOVERNOR LEON T. ROYBAL
Route 5, Box 315-A
Santa Fe, NM 87506
Phone (505) 455-2273
Fax (505) 455-7351
1st Lt. Gov. Paul Rainbird
2nd Lt. Gov. Terrence K. Garcia
PUEBLO OF SANTO DOMINGO
GOVERNOR EVERETT F. CHAVEZ
P.O. Box 99
Santo Domingo Pueblo, NM 87052
Phone (505) 465-2214
Fax (505) 465-2688 /-2215
Lt. Gov. Paul Rosetta
Pueblo Organizations:
ALL INDIAN PUEBLO COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN JOE GARCIA
2401 12th Street, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Phone (505) 881-1992
Fax (505) 883-7682
Vice Chairman Gregory T. Ortiz
EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MICHAEL MILLER
P.O. Box 969
San Juan Pueblo, NM 87566
Phone (505) 747-1593
Fax (505) 747-1599
FIVE SANDOVAL INDIAN PUEBLOS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
JAMES ROGER MADALENA
1043 Highway 313
Bernalillo, NM
Phone (505) 867-3351
Fax (505) 867-3514
PUEBLO OF TAOS
GOVERNOR RUBEN A. ROMERO
P.O. Box 1846
Taos, NM 87571
Phone (575) 758-9593
Fax (575) 758-4604
Lt. Gov. Tony R. Mirabal
PUEBLO OF TESUQUE
GOVERNOR MARK MITCHELL
Route 42, Box 360-T
Santa Fe, NM 87506
Phone (505) 955-7732
Fax (505) 982-2331
Lt. Gov. Earl Samuel
PUEBLO OF ZIA
GOVERNOR IVAN PINO
135 Capitol Square Dr.
Zia Pueblo, NM 87053-6013
Phone (505) 867-3304
Fax (505) 867-3308
Lt. Gov. Fred Medina
PUEBLO OF ZUNI
GOVERNOR NORMAN COOEYATE
P.O. Box 339
Zuni, NM 87327
Phone (505) 782-7022
Fax (505) 782-7202
Lt. Gov. Dancy Simplicio
16
I - N ew s
The Interim Indian Affairs Committee
(IIAC)
2009 Legislative Shuttle
The goals of the Interim Indian Affairs Committee are FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE…
to: provide a direct interface between the legislature
and tribal governments and officials in New Mexico;
The New Mexico
identify issues of concern to American Indian people
Department of Transportation
and tribal communities and provide information to
is operating the
legislators regarding those issues; provide legislators
with first-hand information regarding the status of
2009 LEGISLATIVE SHUTTLE
tribal communities in New Mexico; provide the peothrough March 20, 2009
ple living in tribal communities with an understanding
NO FARE
of and access to state government; identify and work
to resolve areas of state-tribal misunderstanding, conFREE at all times
flict and dispute, and; identify areas where state government can be made more responsive to the needs of
There are three shuttle routes:
tribal communities in New Mexico.
Members
Rep. James Roger Madalena, Co-chair
Sen. John Pinto, Co-chair
Sen. Rod Adair
Rep. Ray Begaye
Sen. Dianna J. Duran
Rep. Justine Fox-Young
Sen. Lynda M. Lovejoy
Rep. Patricia A. Lundstrom
Rep. John Pena
Sen. Lidio G. Rainaldi
Sen. Nancy Rodriguez
Sen. John C. Ryan
Rep. Gloria C. Vaughn
Rep. W. C. "Dub" Williams
IIAC Advisory Members
Sen. Joseph J. Carraro
Rep. Ernest H. Chavez
Sen. Timothy Z. Jennings
Rep. Ben Lujan
Sen. Richard C. Martinez
Rep. Debbie A. Rodella
Rep. Nick L. Salazar
Sen. William E. Sharer
Sen. David Ulibarri
Route #1 between the NMDOT General Office and the State Capitol
Route #2 between the Toney Anaya Building
and the State Capitol
Route #3 between St. John’s United Methodist Church, the State Capitol and the De Vargas Mall
Service for persons with disabilities is
available from Santa Fe Trails. Call 505-4734444, 24 hours in advance.
For More Information and
Complete Shuttle Schedules
Contact:
505-827-0775
legishuttle@state.nm.us
Or visit:
www.dot.state.nm.us
17
I - N ew s
A River Apart: Tour and Close-up Study of Santo Domingo and Cochiti Pottery
The Indian Arts Research Center (IARC) at the
School for Advanced Research and Museum of Indian Arts
& Culture (MIAC) unite to present a joint educational program focusing on Santo Domingo and Cochiti pottery.
Based on the exhibit at MIAC, A River Apart: The Pottery
of Cochiti and Santo Domingo Pueblos, this program not
only creates a learning experience about these unique ceramics from a curated point of view, but also encourages
the visitor’s own self-discovery and research skills to gain
further insight on this topic.
Due to limited space, this program is available for
small groups of 30 or less and is available through the duration of the exhibition, through June 6, 2010.
SCHEDULE
10:30-12:00
Tour of A River Apart at MIAC
12:30-1:30
Lunch on your own
2:00-3:30
Close-up research study of Cochiti and
Santo Domingo pottery at IARC
PROGRAM
Tour of A River Apart
This tour includes a specially guided tour by a
MIAC staff or docent of the ‘A River Apart’ exhibit. The
tour focuses on an introduction to Cochiti and Santo Domingo pottery, overview of the Museum of Indian Arts &
Culture collection, and the historical formation of the collection.
Research Visit
Visitors are guided through the sizeable Santo Domingo and Cochiti pottery collections ranging in age from
the 1800s to the present. A limited number of ceramics of
your choosing will also be brought out onto tables for close
examination without the barrier of acrylic and walls.
This is a FREE program available for educational
groups. This includes adult, college, senior citizen, and
tribal groups.
TO MAKE A RESERVATION
Please call (505) 954-7279 or email
poon@sarsf.org. Reservations MUST be made at least two
weeks in advance. No exceptions.
TRANSPORTATION
Visitors are responsible for their own transportation. The Museum of Indian Arts & Culture (MIAC) is
located at 708 Camino Lejo on Museum Hill in Santa Fe.
The Indian Arts Research Center is located at 660 Garcia at
the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe, less than
one mile from MIAC.
ABOUT THE EXHIBIT
Located along the central Rio Grande Valley in
New Mexico and separated by that great river, Cochiti and
Santo Domingo Pueblos shared a ceramic tradition for cen-
turies until increasing contact with outsiders ushered in
tumultuous changes that set the pueblos on divergent paths.
Cochiti Pueblo more freely modified its traditional forms
of painted pottery to appeal to new markets created when
the railroads started bringing in tourists from the East in
1898, while the Santo Domingo Pueblo shunned the influences of the tourist trade and art market, continuing an artistic tradition that was conservative and insular.
A River Apart: The Pottery of Cochiti and Santo
Domingo Pueblos, examines the pottery traditions of the
two Pueblos through the medium of the museum’s collections. To decipher what discoveries can be made and identities established through the nearly 250 pieces in the exhibition, visitors are provided with a choice of viewpoints.
This multi-vocal approach reveals that the pottery represents more than anthropological artifacts or art for the marketplace. From A River Apart: The Pottery of Cochiti and
Santo Domingo Pueblos we learn much about the Pueblos’
history, communities, and the various artists’ responses to
influences from the outside world.
ABOUT THE INDIAN ARTS RESEARCH CENTER
AND MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARTS & CULTURE
The Indian Arts Research Center at the School for
Advanced Research houses a research collection of over
12,000 items of Native Southwest art and culture. Its goal
is to bridge the divide between art/creativity and research/
scholarship by supporting initiatives and projects that illuminate the intersections of the social sciences, humanities,
and arts. IARC accomplishes this by providing opportunities for artists to engage in uninterrupted creativity through
artist fellowships; fostering dialogue among artists, researchers, scholars, and community members through special seminars and programs; nurturing future arts and museums professionals through experiential training; and promoting study and exploration of the IARC collection.
The Museum of Indian Arts & Culture is a premier repository of Native art and material culture and tells the stories
of the people of the Southwest from pre-history through
contemporary art. The museum serves a diverse, multicultural audience through changing exhibitions, public lectures, field trips, artist residencies, and other educational
programs. It is MIAC's mission to provide cross-cultural
education to the many visitors to Santa Fe who take part in
our programs and to New Mexican residents throughout the
state. It is especially important that MIAC serve the Indian
communities in our state and throughout the Southwest
whose contemporary and ancestral cultures are represented
in the museum's collections. Elysia Poon, Program Coordinator, School For Advanced Research, Indian Arts Research Center, (505) 954-7279.
18
I - N ew s
Santa Clara Pueblo Reopens Puye Cliffs National Historic Landmark
The Pueblo of Santa Clara is pleased to announce
that the Puye Cliffs Dwellings National Historic Landmark
is now open for group tours following an eight-year closure. The expansive archaeological site opens to individual
visitors in May of 2009.
This ancestral home of Santa Clara Pueblo supported 1,500 people from 1100 to 1580 A.D. An original
Fred Harvey House built on site in the early 1900s to accommodate guests exploring the American Southwest will
once again accommodate guests with a museum and cultural center. It is the only Harvey House on a Native
American reservation.
“Puye Cliffs was closed as a result of the Cerro
Grande fire that impacted access to the area,” said Lucretia
Jenkins-Williams, Puye Operations Manager for the Santa
Clara Development Corporation. “We have created a destination where people can experience the beautiful panoramic scenery of northern New Mexico, while learning of
the ancient Pueblo people who called Puye Cliffs home.”
Carved into the volcanic tuff of the panoramic
Puye Cliffs, alcoves were fronted with natural rock to create hundreds of homes and storage rooms for the population. Above the cliffs are the remains of many more rooms
and circular, underground religious structures called kivas.
Puye Cliffs will offer enchantment and education
in one location, giving visitors a unique insight into the
significance of the Pueblo’s ancestral home while celebrating one of the tribe’s modern successes. Tours of Puye
Cliffs are managed by the Pueblo’s own Santa Clara Development Corporation.
“Tours of the Puye Cliffs will give New Mexicans
and their visitors a genuine cultural experience,” said Michael Cerletti, Secretary of the New Mexico Tourism Department. “There is no better way to discover the beauty,
enthusiasm and tradition of the pueblos than through the
people that have inhabited those lands for generations.”
Tour admission
is $25 per person in a
group of 10 or more. The
tour lasts approximately
2 and 1/2 hours. Pottery
making, dancing, and
other culturally educational
demonstrations
may be arranged as well
for additional fees.
For more information or to schedule a
tour contact Lucretia
Jenkins-Williams, Puye
Operations
Manager,
505-747-2455 or visit
www.puyecliffs.com.
Former Santa Clara Governor Michael Chavarria is interviewed at Puye Cliff Dwellings by
NewsHour Correspondent Ray Suarez last November.
Rima Krisst photo
19
I - N ew s
ARTS, CULTURE, & ENTERTAINMENT SECTION
IAIA • Disney • ABC Summer Television and Film “Where The Catcher in the Rye Meets Bury My
Workshop Offers Exceptional Learning Opportu- Heart at Wounded Knee” — Announcing the
nity for American Indians Interested in Film
Release of Robert Mirabal’s First Novel
A contemporary tale juxtaposed with historiSanta Fe, NM – If you are: a) Native Ameri- cal, first-hand accounts of Indian life found only in
can b) passionate about film and c) wondering how to memory — and snapshots — Running Alone in Phoget a leg-up in Hollywood, the Institute of American tographs is the coming-of-age story of a young Native
Indian Arts (IAIA) in Santa Fe, New Mexico, wants
American musician who travels the world before reyou! IAIA, in collaboration with the Disney • ABC
turning to her ancestral home.
Television group, is now accepting applications for
“Reyes Wind has faith in the power of memthe 2009 Summer Television and Film Workshop hap- ory… and in her journey of self-discovery,” says
pening June 14 – July 24. Now in its sixth year, the
Robert Mirabal.
workshop promises to be one of the most demanding
This love story of
and most rewarding yet! The deadline for applications an individual’s struggle
is March 27, 2009.
between her tribal role
and the modern world,
The summer workshop is structured to assist
and the courage and grace
both experienced and novice Native American screen- required to live fully in
writers, filmmakers, directors and actors alike. The
each, is the most intimate
six-week intensive is divided into two separate tracks, glimpse of contemporary
a writer’s workshop and a production workshop, pro- American Indian life you
viding cross-collaboration between both. Writers will will find today.
create short scripts for the production students in addiRobert Mirabal
tion to developing and writing “spec” scripts. Produc- has storytelling in his
tion students will focus on production techniques in- DNA… The two-time
cluding camera, sound, lighting and all aspects of
GRAMMY Award winpost-production. Acclaimed executives, producers,
ner lives a traditional life with his family at the foot of
screenwriters, directors and actors (both Native and
sacred Taos Mountain in Northern New Mexico. Denon-Native) visit from the film and television industry scribed as a Native American Renaissance man —
to share their expertise in individual and group setmaster flute player, composer, painter, craftsman,
tings, as well! All students who complete the six-week poet, actor, horseman and farmer — Robert travels
program receive academic credit upon completion.
extensively and plays his music all over the world.
His breakthrough PBS special, Music From a Painted
Shawna L. Begay, New Media Arts faculty at Cave, remains a benchmark of Native American theatIAIA and program director says, “It's been exciting to rical expression. His first book of poetry and prose,
see students go on to work in the industry or bring
Skeleton of a Bridge, was published in 1994. Runskills back to their own communities to teach others
ning Alone in Photographs marks Mirabal’s debut as
after completing the workshop. It has really provided a novelist. Most recently, Mirabal was cast as Tony
a way for many to jump-start their careers in film pro- Lujan in the Lifetime television movie “Georgia
duction and get noticed.”
O’Keefe,” starring Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons.
For more information please call Shawna L. Begay at
505.424.5716 or email sbegay@iaia.edu. To find out more
about the program, and to apply, please visit
www.iaia.edu/newmedia
For more information on how to obtain a copy of for
Running Alone in Photographs, visit www.mirabal.com
or contact Andrew Flack at 575-758-8900 or
flack@buzzinc.net
20
I - N ew s
TRIBAL FEAST DAYS AND EVENTS
To connect to the New Mexico Department of Tourism's "New Mexico Native America" link, go to:
http://www.newmexico.org/native_america/
February 2
Picuris Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo: Candelaria Day Celebration.
1st weekend of February
Old Acoma Pueblo: Governor's Feast Day, various dances.
2nd week of February
Ohkay Owingeh/San Juan Pueblo: Deer dances.
February 6
Indian Day at the New Mexico State Legislature (through the NM Indian Affairs
Department). Held in the beginning of the Winter Session of the Legislature.
Various tribal dances, music, speakers, trade show & recognition of New
Mexico statewide tribal leadership.
Pojoaque Governor George Rivera with his family on Kings Day, January 6, 2009, at their
home at Pojoaque Pueblo.
Left to right: Daughter Poqueen, Governor George Rivera, Mrs. Felicia Rivera, baby
Valentino, and son PaaWee.
21
I - N ew s
.
Indian Affairs Department
The American Indian Law Center, Inc.
invites you to attend the 2nd Annual Tribal
Leaders Conference, February 22-24,
2009 at the Isleta Hotel and
Convention Center.
“TRANSITIONS:
Building Stronger Tribal Governance”
This conference is specially designed for
tribal leaders, judges, administrators, law enforcement, and other key personnel to learn
about federal Indian law and other processes
useful to tribal governments. The goal is to
give a “jump start” to tribal administrations
to be even more successful in leading their
tribal communities in the next year.
Registration deadline: January 30.
Please visit www.ailc-inc.org for more information and to
register for the conference.
Thank You!
IAD Vision Statement:
New Mexico’s Native American citizens will have the resources necessary to improve their quality of life and maintain their
cultures and languages through collaborative, productive and lasting
government-to-government relationships between the State of New
Mexico and Indian tribes, nations and pueblos as well as through effective participation of Native Americans in all aspects of state government.
I-News Managing Editor:
IAD Mission Statement:
As a cabinet-level department, the Indian Affairs Department
(IAD) is the lead coordinating agency in New Mexico state government for ensuring effective interagency and state-tribal government-togovernment relations. IAD reinforces tribal governmental efforts to
ensure that Native American concerns and needs are addressed in state
policymaking decisions; effectively manages, and facilitates ways to
increase and leverage, state resources to benefit Native Americans; and
successfully collaborates with national, tribal, state and local agencies,
entities, and organizations.
Rima.Krisst@state.nm.us
“Consultation is not a catch-phrase. Consultation is a
commitment." Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Secretary of
State, in her Senate confirmation remarks.
Rima Krisst, Public Relations & Communications Director for the Indian Affairs
Department.
We welcome your feedback... Please send
comments, suggestions, article contributions, and Native Horizons photos to:
You can also reach us at:
The New Mexico Indian Affairs Dept.
Wendell Chino Building
2nd Floor
1220 S. St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Phone: (505) 476-1600
FAX: (505) 476-1601
Visit our website at:
www.iad.state.nm.us
22