Editorial: Tribal-state progress
By BDN Staff BDN Staff
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
A group set up to foster discussion of tribal issues has done a lot to
improve relations between lawmakers and the state’s Indian tribes. The
Tribal-State Working Group should be continued so it can get to
difficult issues that have resulted in litigation in the past. Lawmakers
should support LD 1263, which will continue the group’s work for another
year.
Tribal-state relations reached a low ebb a few years ago after a lengthy
legal battle over water-quality regulation and opposition to tribal
proposals to build casinos. In 2003, representatives of the
Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation, the state’s largest tribes,
left the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission to protest the state’s
role in the referendum defeat of a tribal casino in southern Maine and
the lack of progress on deciding issues of sovereignty.
Although MITSC
is now functional again, disagreements over the effects of the 1980
Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the accompanying Maine
Implementing Act remain.
After meeting with tribal governors and chiefs last spring, Gov. John
Baldacci agreed a new forum was needed to discuss, and hopefully settle,
these disagreements. So, he created the Tribal-State Working Group to
Study Issues Associated with the Maine Implementing Act. The group
includes lawmakers, representatives of the state’s five tribes, a
gubernatorial representative and the chair of MITSC.
LD 1263, which is the subject of a work session slated for this
afternoon before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, would extend the
group’s term until January 2008 at a cost of $15,000.
MITSC members have suggested four areas of focus. The first is the venue
for resolving disputes. Although MITSC was created by the settlement act
as a forum for this, most disputes involving the tribes have been taken
to court.
The second is the definition of "internal tribal matters." The tribes
see a shrinking of their internal affairs as courts rule that many
functions are not internal and can be subject to review, and sometime,
regulation, by the state and local governments.
A third area of disagreement is the meaning of language in the
implementing act that says the tribes have the power of
"municipalities." Tribal officials say this means they have access to
the same funding opportunities as municipalities, but state officials
view it as meaning that tribal government is akin to municipal
government.
A fourth area is the role of the Maliseet and Micmac tribes, which were
not party to the 1980 agreement.
These issues are complex and some of the disagreements are large.
However, working together to solve problems and improve relations
between the state’s Indian tribes and state government is a better
approach than going to court.
Link to Report
Contents
April 2007 Reports
Last updated on April 16, 2007