"a year to get put on the notification list"

Ramona Reece commented at the last Commission meeting (17 January 2009 - Memphis) that "It took me over a year to get put on the notification list."

in the 1990s the Commission had an office in a state-owned building in downtown Nashville, a salaried executive director, a photocopier, a paper-envelope-USPSmail notification list, and a several thousand-dollar budget for items like paper, envelopes and stamps. they mailed meeting notices to organizations, not individuals.

in the 2000s the Commission has no budget. it has no office. no executive director. no photocopier. no paper. no envelopes. no stamps. anything and everything it has exists in cyberspace. since the Commission was refounded no Commission secretary sent out meeting notices by mail or email. all notices were provided on the Commission website and folks spread the word around by email. actual agendas with an accurate description of the peoposals to be discussed were unheard of. a Commission-directed email list was discussed in 2008, but no such capability was offered by the state.

in december 2008 the secretary of the Commission took it upon himself to create his own - not the Commission's - email notification list of Commission meetings.

Ms Reece's public comment that "It took me over a year to get put on the notification list" is not a complaint about the Commission's meeting notice not being available publicly online along with other state 'sunshine' notices but a whine that Ms Reece was not being properly serviced with direct email by the Commission. advance meeting notice can be and is distributed publicly and freely by any number of private service providers. Mr kunesh, acting without Commission authorization, took it upon himself to create an email notification list which includes Commission meetings.
personal interest in the Commission meets personal responsibility at www.state.tn.us/environment/tcia/ and www.state.tn.us/environment/news/ppo/sunshine.shtml#tcia. public notice can be automated by Google Alerts which alert subscribers by email to new information on the web (www.google.com/alerts). that any person feels entitled to personalized notification when s/he could be doing it him/herself and making a contribution to an unfunded state agency is a comment on the entitlement beliefs of a spoiled generation.

when form matters more than substance, when mode of communication is more important than content, when being catered to matters more than community service, substance and content become superfluous.
when substance and content become superfluous, so does the agency that is dedicated to their form and mode of communication.

it's been a while

... with the state as well as the national political landscape now in transition but in opposite directions (Chattanooga Times Free Press: "A Deeper Shade of Red" and "General Assembly landscape changes as GOP takes over" front page, 6nov08).

talked with several legislators who counseled ‘no action’ on the recognition issue if we wanted the Commission to survive, even if we came up with something most people could agree with because, even then, the controversy surrounding it -- as happened last year at the Commission's sunset review hearing -- would be enough to not only halt the recognition effort but also potentially derail the Commission. i'll heed their advice and back off the issue, while resting assured that any attempts by others to circumvent the Commission's recognition responsibilities will be met with advice to first obtain the Commission's support.

on that note, i think the Commission and the state should follow the recent recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians on at least two issues which could be easily amended to apply to the state commission, ie:

• The Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs (TNCIA) should strongly support the recognition of all historic tribes, and should acknowledge the fact that it has neither the academic qualifications nor the staff to properly investigate and make determinations on historical and genealogical questions; and that any plans to do so in the future will lead to organizational, intratribal and intertribal conflict.
In order to avoid those conflicts, TNCIA should support state recognition for tribes that are co-sponsored by an existing legislatively state-recognized or federally-recognized tribe, and present their request as a resolution to the TNCIA.

and

• TNCIA should call for qualified tribal citizens and descendants who are interested in serving in state positions from Commission of Indian Affairs to the State Textbook Commission to send their résumés to TNCIA for review.

Rule 0785-1, again

Today I am re-submitting Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs' Rule 0785-1 Recognition Criteria for Native American Indian Nations, Tribes or Communities in Tennessee as an agenda item for review and passage, once again, by the state Commission of Indian Affairs. In 2005 the Commission submitted the proposed Rule for community review, received its approval, and in March 2006 the Commission gave the Rule its final approval. In the summer of 2006 the Commission was advised that the Rule would not pass legislative committee review, and in hopes of extending the Commission's sunset date, the Commission voted to repeal the rule. Now, less than a year later, the Commission has its summer meeting in Knoxville where I hope the Commission will once again initiate the state rulemaking process for state tribal recognition criteria.

Actual Native American Indian communities that survived the racial cleansing of the 1800s should be recognized as this land's indigenous people. At the same time, the state needs objective and rigorous criteria by which to determine the validity of groups claiming to indigenous tribes. In the Rule's absence, opportunistic groups submitted their own self-serving legislative proposal which never made it out of committee. In their defense, it is the legal Power and Duty of the state Commission of Indian Affairs to "Establish appropriate procedures to provide for legal recognition by the state of presently unrecognized tribes, nations, groups, communities or individuals, and to provide for official state recognition by the commission of such" (TCA 4-34-103.6). If and when the state Commission of Indian Affairs fails to exercise its legal responsibility, however, it becomes the power and duty of the public to promote its own "recognition" agenda. Both the Commission and the groups seeking state tribal recognition failed to obtain rule or law. We need to keep trying with the same near-unanimous support with which we all approved Rule 0785 the first time.

The term of the state Commission of Indian Affairs has been extended another year. In this short time the Commission needs to educate the legislature and the public about the need and benefits of objective tribal recognition criteria based on accurate historical data and existing federal procedures for establishing that an American Indian group exists as an Indian tribe (25 CFR 83), approve the Rule 0785 again, and oversee its implementation. We did it before. We can do it again, smarter, better. I hope we'll again have your support.


RULES OF THE TENNESSEE COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Chapter 0785-1 - Recognition Criteria for Native American Indians
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0785-1-.01 General
0785-1-.02 Recognition Criteria For Native American Indian Nations, Tribes or Communities
0785-1-.03 Procedures For Petitioning For Recognition
0785-1-.04 Changes In Membership
Administrative History

-----------------------------------------------
tom kunesh
member, Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs
11 june 2008 20:46

on tribal recognition status

Six groups - four of which were created in the 21st century - asked the non-Native-American-Indian Tennessee legislature earlier this year (2008) for the state's official validation as "recognized" Native American Indian tribes in Tennessee (HB3299/SB3123).

To date, none of these six groups - "Remnant Yuchi Nation", "Upper Cumberland Cherokee", "Chikamaka-Cherokee Band of the South Cumberland Plateau", "Central Band of Cherokee", "Cherokee Wolf Clan", "Tanasi Council of the Far Away Cherokee" - have provided even the slightest bit of public documentation of their group's history prior to the year 2000 (muchless since 1900), and none have provided records of their families' affiliation to their supposed historic tribes (five claim Cherokee affiliation). Without even the minimum prima facie evidence to support their claims of tribal status and affiliation, these claims must be summarily rejected.

There has been little public comment for or against state recognition of these groups, and the bill died quietly in legislative committee before coming up for general legislative discussion. No doubt the "Confederation of Tennessee Native Tribes" - as they currently style themselves - will resubmit their bid for recognition by non-indians in the next legislative session in january 2009. Recognition of historic indigenous communities is a positive goal for every state, and every real surviving tribe in Tennessee should be recognized by the State of Tennessee as such. At the same time, groups claiming historic status without providing public information are acting recklessly and irresponsibly. In the public interest, groups making false claims should be exposed as frauds. Before this year ends, this issue needs public disclosure of the historic record of these six groups, and of any other group seeking "recognition" as a surviving community of indigenous peoples in Tennessee.

It is the right of the Tennessee Native American Indian community to determine and recognize the existence of its own surviving historic Native American Indian communities. And it is the responsibility of the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs to "Establish appropriate procedures to provide for legal recognition by the state of presently unrecognized tribes, nations, groups, communities or individuals, and to provide for official state recognition by the commission of such" (TCA 4-34-103.(6)). To this end the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs needs to reevaluate its Rule 0785-1 on "Recognition Criteria For Native American Indian Nations, Tribes or Communities" (that it passed in 2006 and then repealed at legislative request in 2007), and work with the legislature in 2008 to reestablish it as a state Rule in 2009. Conversely, if the Commission does not resubmit Rule 0785-1 for implementation in 2008-2009, it should be understood as de facto abdication of its authority in the state tribal recognition issue, and clear the path for organizations to directly petition the state legislature in the future as some of these groups have been doing since 2004.

It is also the right and responsibility of every existing recognized Native American Indian tribe/nation/community to determine and recognize the existence of its own surviving historically-affiliated and family-related communities. The Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs should ask the Eastern Band of Cherokee, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, the Yuchi Tribe of Oklahoma, and the several neighboring state-recognized Cherokee tribes in Alabama and Georgia, to consider the six Tennessee groups that currently claim cultural and genetic identification with them, and as relatives, provide the groups and the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs, and the state legislature, with some guidance on the validity of the groups' claims.

individual entitlement to indian identity

like Ron Paul i was listening to Coast to Coast on the radio this morning and heard this reading from the 1997 book, the Fourth Turning:

Not long ago, America was more than the sum of its parts. Now, it is less. Around World War II, we were proud as a people but modest as individuals. Fewer than two people in ten said yes when asked “Are you a very important person?” Today, more than six in ten say yes. Where we once thought ourselves collectively strong, we now regard ourselves as individually entitled.

... which got me thinking about this translation for persons interested in Tennessee indian affairs ...

not long ago, a tribe was more than the sum of its parts. Now, it is less. now descendants long removed from their ancestors' culture want to be recognized as tribes themselves. Around World War II, we were proud as different peoples but modest as individuals. Fewer than one person in a hundred said yes when asked "Are you Indian?" Today, more than three in ten in Tennessee say yes. Where we once thought ourselves collectively strong as part of a tribe, we now regard ourselves as individually entitled to indian identity cards. where once a person was recognized by his/her fellow tribal members by their language, beliefs and family, now many in Tennessee believe themselves to be individually entitled to recognition as indian, with no tribal affiliation apart from probate records and dna.

this is not being indian. this is conflating genealogy, culture clubs and mutual ego-stroking to the point of fantasy.

False assumptions

• Names of historical tribes are free for the taking.
• Native American Indian cultural club should be recognized as tribes in Tennessee.
• Persons who are members of federally- or state-recognized tribes are not "Tennessee Indians".
• Claimed relatives in related tribes should have no say in whether or not the relational claim is true or not.
• The citizens of Tennessee should believe that every group that calls itself a "tribe" or "nation" in Tennessee is real.
• "Tennessee Indians" are only those Native American Indian descendants whose 19th-century ancestors were born in Tennessee.
• The claims of cultural affiliation to historic tribes made by culture clubs wanting to be recognized as tribes do not need to be proven.
• Being a descendant of a 19th-century Native American Indian born in Tennessee qualifies a person as a 21st century "Tennessee Indian".
• A group of Tennessee-born 21st-century Native American Indian descendants qualifies as an affiliate of a 21st century Tennessee Native American Indian tribe whose ancestors were 'removed' from Tennessee in the early 19th century.

- based on the rationale of the "Confederation of Tennessee Native Tribes" created in 2008 to advocate for the State of Tennessee's official recognition of 6 member culture clubs as tribes to the state legislature in the form of bills HB3299/SB3123 sponsored by Rep. Vaughn (D-Kingsport).

culture clubs ≠ tribes

When cultural clubs refer to themselves as "tribes", few people take exception, seeing it as a kind of harmless exaggeration or idealism like the way the Boy Scouts do it. When newspapers refer to cultural clubs as tribes, however, the line between objective journalism and regional self-promotion has been crossed.

Readers have an expectation that the newspaper, engaged in the business of serious journalism, has checked the facts. In this case, the Kingsport Times-News has not checked the facts, leading to continued validation of false claims to tribal status of a local cultural club, the "Remnant Yuchi Nation". Lee Vest, founder of the organization just last year, acknowledges that he himself is not Yuchi, has never claimed to be Yuchi, and that the purpose of seeking tribal status is financial support for a 'living Indian village' which could become a major tourist attraction for Kingsport.

Taking the Yuchi name from the Yuchi tribe, currently living in forced exile in Oklahoma as part of the Muscogee/Creek Nation, without their permission is identity theft. Planning to re-create a Yuchi village with a stolen identity and misappropriated culture is cultural identity theft. Calling your local group of descendants a Native American Indian tribe is not only a bastardization of the meaning of the term but also an attack on the historical identity of the real Yuchi people.

The Commission of Indian Affairs created Tribal Recognition Criteria (Rule 0785-1) in 2006, and was then directed by legislators to repeal it in 2007, which it did. It is time for the Commission to re-assert its definition and process for state tribal recognition in order to make sure this vacuum of definitional responsibility is properly addressed by Native American Indian people now and for the future.

a new year

• i live by the adage "Cui bono?" - who benefits? it helps me remember to look for the underlying purpose of things.

• i'd like to say 'yes' to everybody's proposals. and will try to say 'yes' to each person's proposal as long as it applies to him- or herself exclusively, ie, that the proposer will take responsibility for implementing her/his proposal, and that the rest of us are not burdened by it. so please, keep More Improved New Rules To Live By off of and away from this Old Republican.

• any oath required of one commissioner in the appointment process should be required of all commissioners. currently only one oath - from the governor's office - is required. adding another oath on top of that is paperwork and show. imo, nothing substantial. - why should we want to add more paperwork for us, for the state?

• i'm concerned that reviewing new internal texts for the commission, like oaths, ethics, standing rules, procedures, etc., is all so much internal furniture re-arranging that has little or nothing to do with the commission actually doing something for the state and indian people.

• i need to be reminded that some of my proposals fall into this category. not that i like to be reminded of it, but that i too - especially in the spring - like to engage in a little house-cleaning and just plain re-arranging for change simply because it is different. and that can be good sometimes too.

• i don't know how i'll vote on any specific proposal, but we will be judged in one year on what we do, not what we write or re-write or say we believe in. there may be some rules that could help us operate better, like oil in an engine, but if we focus on this internal stuff for more than hour, i will be concerned and impatient that we are losing sight of our purpose: DOING.

• the time for commissioners sitting on the commission like bumps on a log is over. imo, each of us needs to come to the table at this next meeting with a specific project that will benefit the state and the indian community in general. or find someone else's project that we can help move and/or transcend. with monthly benchmarks that we can use to measure each project's progress.

• if you think this opinion exceeds the state Sunshine law (formation of public policy & decisions is public business and shall not be conducted in secret. TCA 8-44-101), i'll be happy to discuss it publicly. just wanted you to know my feelings up front & personal like before we get together so folks wouldn't feel bushwhacked by my lack of sympathy with more paper-pushing and window-dressing. i hope i have not offended anybody by these comments.

;>

state recognition vs. tribal reconnection

some descendants of indians in Tennessee want to be "recognized" by the state as politically-valid generic indians, competent and able to speak for the in-state interests of Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee, Yuchi and other nations. the idea that biological descendancy creates national identity - that one drop of indian blood makes a person indian - is as false as any principle of racial determinism.

before a non-indian political entity like the State of Tennessee is used as the means of identifying the generic indian, two questions need to be competently answered:
1. what is the need for state-approved generic indians in Tennessee? and
2. what efforts have been made to reconnect descendants with their tribal relatives?

if there is no demonstrable need for an alternative authority on indian identity in the state, then we shouldn't be wasting our time trying to make a state agency act like a tribe.
and if no efforts have been made to re-establish contact and affiliation between descendants and existing tribes, we need to question the political intent of the descendants and apply ourselves to reconnecting the tribal-Tennessee relationship.

candidates: get real

in this election the two most important qualifications in evaluating the candidates, imo, are:

1. what has the candidate actually done for the TN indian community over the past 4 years?
   
2. what does the candidate propose to accomplish - with actual projects - for the TN indian community in the next 4 years?

history repeats itself. people who haven't done anything in the past will more than likely continue to do the same in the future. people who talk ideas but have no record of action to show how they implement their ideas are like Paul's clanging cymbal warning of 1 Cor. 13.

talk is cheap. action costs. we need people on the Commission who do things, who get things done, who will get us out of this morass of 'recognition' into projects that will physically benefit the indian community and the state.

get real. tell us precisely what you want to accomplish in the next year.
then maybe we'll vote for you.

responses to Questions

responses to Questions about organizational & individual recognition
at www.tncia.org/recognitionqueries.html

Questions about organizational & individual recognition

The following are some questions about the past and future Native American Indian Organizational and Individual Recognition in Tennessee that need to be answered before the state Commission of Indian Affairs considers writing new rules for Native American Indian organizational and individual recognition. We all should know and be satisfied with the complete answers to these questions before we go any further toward developing state rules about indianness in Tennessee.

1. Purpose of recognition
   
   
   
   1. What is the purpose of 'recognizing' Native American Indian organizations and individuals by the state of Tennessee? Is there a goal to 'recognition'?
      
   2. To what degree do the tribes, the state, the public, the organizations and the individuals benefit from state recognition of Native American Indian organizations and/or individuals?
      
   3. What are the material benefits of Native American Indian organizational and individual recognition? Will recognized individuals or members of recognized organizations qualify for K-12 federal funding, college scholarships, artisan status under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, Small Business Administration 8(a) minority contract set-asides, Administration for Native Americans grants?
      
   4. What was the political situation that initiated discussion and desire for recognition criteria?
      
   5. How have organizations and individuals recognized in the past (1990-2000) as Native American Indian by the State of Tennessee benefitted from their changed recognition status?
      
   6. What are the problems associated with Native American Indian organizational and individual recognition?
      
   7. What are the traditional Native American Indian cultural values that are being promoted by state recognition of Native American Indian organizations and individuals?
      
   8. Is state-based 'recognition' of a person or group as Native American Indian a valid racial or ethnic entitlement, ie, a rectification of past injustice?
   
   
2. Authority
   
   
   
   1. Who recognizes indians as indians? Indians or non-indians? Tribes or non-indian governmental agencies?
      
   2. Why should the state be interested in 'recognizing' organizations or individuals as Native American Indian?
      
   3. Given the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution, does the state define, determine and officially 'recognize' organizations and individual members of other racial/ethnic/minority groups?
      
   4. How is the principle of Tribal Sovereignty advanced through the development of Native American Indian organizational and individual recognition controlled and provided by a non-tribal public governmental agency?
   
   
3. Comparative recognition
   
   
   
   1. Which states have or had or are considering state tribal recognition and what are their regulations?
      
   2. Which states have or had or are considering state organizational recognition and what are their regulations?
      
   3. Which states have or had or are considering state individual recognition and what are their regulations?
      
   4. Given that other states have such types of recognition, what are the opinions of their Indian Affairs Commissions regarding the benefits and problems associated with each type of recognition?
   
   
4. Alternatives
   
   Tribes can charter affiliate organizations directly or or recognize an associated organization by resolution in the same manner as states.
   
   1. Which tribes have affiliate or associate organizational recognition?
      
   2. How are these affiliate or associate organizations chartered by the tribe?
      
   3. Native American Indian organizations and individuals in this state and in others have survived without recognition for years. How are they coping without recognition?
   
   
5. Elder relatives' opinions
   
   Being indian means that an organization or an individual is related by family to a larger and much older social group of a tribe or nation. As older relatives, their opinions should be requested and acknowledged. To deny them a voice is to deny relationship.
   
   1. Why did the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs amend the rules to severely restrict individual recognition in 1991, less than one year after implementation?
      
   2. Why did the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs call a meeting on 22 december 1997 to dismantle the recognition criteria seven years after implementation? Was that meeting ever held?
      
   3. What do tribes say about state recognition of Native American Indian organizations and individuals?
      
   4. What do other non-tribal indian organizations (eg, National Congress of American Indians, Governors Interstate Indian Council, Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes) say about state recognition of Native American Indian organizations and individuals?

   
   

on agendas

when we recreated the Commission, we wanted to be sure that the public was informed about the Commission's agenda items so we, the public, could know and follow what was being discussed, and to be able to have the opportunity for input into Commission decision-making before the Commission meeting. we've been disappointed several times by false, misleading and sometimes hidden agendas. some commissioners - past and present - have learned how to avoid public review of agenda items before the Commission meetings by either obscuring or simply not explaining the true nature of their agenda proposals (like 'caption bills' in the state legislature), or by adding new agenda items that nobody is prepared for at the meeting itself, or by bringing up a general topic during Commission meetings and turning it towards a motion that nobody else is prepared for - the old bait-and-switch.

these are dirty political tactics designed to blindside other commissioners as well as the public in hopes that surprise and lack of background information will improve the chances of their motion passing by the uninformed commissioner.

i hope you'll all take some time when this coming meeting's agenda comes out to review it - to make sure you know what's being proposed and the potential avenues for resolution. if you don't understand the agenda item, i hope you'll press the commissioner who proposed it to explain it, fully. additionally, i hope you'll ask whether the proposed agenda items move the Commission towards doing more, better projects or if it's discussion that will just stall the Commission for a couple more months, or even do it more damage.

an alternative TN NAI license plate proposal

dummy plate for demonstration purposes only not a suggested design ceremonial blade from Duck River cache, outline of Pinson mound, antique spelling of TN

eagle design proposed as NA design in 1997 already taken:

Creating a Tennessee state Native American license plate

---

revising SB1307/HB0570: Special License Plates - Authorizes issuance of Native American cultural license plates.

Recommended changes to current proposed legislation: 1. Change definition to a "specialty earmarked plate" (TCA 55-4-202.c.6). was "cultural" - by definition all proceeds are allocated to non-indian state agencies. 2. Allocate all net proceeds to the Commission of Indian Affairs. was 80% Arts Commission, 20% Highway Fund per TCA 55-4-216 "cultural". 3. Set effective date at 1 January 2008. was 1 July 2007; provides 6 more months for planning/selling. 4. Set minimum number of plates at 500. was 1,000 (failed to sell 500 in 1997). AMEND Senate Bill 1307 / HOUSE BILL 570 to read accordingly: AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 4, to authorize the issuance of specialty earmarked Native American license plates. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-4-202(c)(6), is amended by adding the following as a new, appropriately designated subdivision: (_) Native American; SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 4, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section thereto: Section 55-4-2__. An owner or lessee of a motor vehicle who is a resident of this state, upon complying with state motor vehicle laws relating to registration and licensing of motor vehicles and paying the regular fee applicable to the motor vehicle and the fee provided for in § 55-4-203, shall be issued a Native American specialty earmarked license plate for a motor vehicle authorized by §55-4-210(c), with all net proceeds from the sale of such plates allocated to the commission of Indian affairs. The specialty earmarked plates provided for in this section shall be designed in consultation with the commission of Indian affairs. The initial minimum order shall be five hundred (500) license plates. SECTION 3. This act shall take effect January 1, 2008, the public welfare requiring it. March 2007 SUMMARY OF REVISED BILL: Creates a Native American specialty earmarked license plate. ESTIMATED REVISED FISCAL IMPACT: Increase State Revenues - $4,380 General Fund $13,120 Dedicated Funds Increase State Expenditures - $4,380 One-Time REVISED Assumptions: Revenues (500 plates @ $35.00 each) Expenditures (Production cost ­ 500 plates @ $3.76 each = $1,880 one-time; computer system changes = $2,500 one-time; total $4,380) Five hundred new plates will be purchased by individuals that currently do not have a specialty license plate. Net proceeds from the sale of such plates will be allocated as follows: 100% to the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs ($13,120). $30.75 of the $35.00 additional fee is appropriated to the Commission of Indian Affairs. $30.75 x 500 = 15,375 tpk/march2007

an alternative agenda proposal for this coming saturday ...

Committee Reports

---

(- what good are committees if they don't meet or report? let's use them.)
1. Agenda - need rules to control agenda-development process
2. Rules & Procedures
   1. Bylaws
   2. Standing Rules
      1. agenda development issues - how do items get on the agenda? - who controls agenda development?
         1. standardized blank format
         2. procedure for submitting agenda item proposals
         3. procedure for submitting resolutions
      2. discussion rules - rules for in-meeting discussion with second-party proposals
      3. minutes' DRAFT circulated electronically (email/internet) to the public as well as to the Commissioners in advance of the Commission meeting.
3. Education
   1. Basic (3 half-hour units, grades 5-12) school curriculum on Mississippian culture and the Three Sisters; approval of grant-writing.
   2. TN NAI music CD of TN indian musicians for school distribution; approval of grant-writing.
   3. TN NAI tourism map; approval of grant-writing.
4. Health Care
   1. Research Initiative/Health & Education Community Assessment
   2. Promoting diabetes screening and blood-donation in coordination with local healthcare institutions at all in-state pow-wows.
5. Funding - revised license plate proposal
   - Commission as unfunded mandate
6. Website - needs update, better integration, more references
7. Repatriation - Development of TN repatriation iniative of 11,150 "culturally-unaffiliated" NA remains using the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs' model, support for working with the TN Archaeological Advisory Council and Division of Archaeology.
8. Housing - ?
9. Indian Memorial Project - TN AmInd Day? m, 24 sep 2007 TN AmInd Month? october 2007?
10. Legislative Committee - appointment for 2008 session

Old Business

---

1. Tribal recognition criteria
   1. Hearing comments & responses
   2. Proposed tribal recognition rules: action
   3. Tribal recognition application: action
2. Mascot discontinuation: status
3. Recognition of the Historic Tribes of Tennessee: status
4. NA representation into the state parks' planning: action

New Business

---

1. Review and comment on proposed or pending state legislation (TCA 4-34-103.9)
   1. SJR0002 Urges the TNCIA and the BIA to recognize the Cherokee Wolf Clan as Native American Indians.
   2. SB0162 Prohibits state agencies from prohibiting use of American Indian symbols, names, and mascots.
   3. SB1307 Authorizes issuance of Native American cultural license plates.
      • revised license plate proposal
   4. SB1371 Exempts bona fide Indian organizations from payment of $50 charitable solicitations registration fee.
   5. SB1681 Authorizes TDEC to issue recognition to certain Indian tribes; grants recognition to Cherokee Wolf Clan.
   6. SB2121 extends TNCIA to 2011.
2. Letter of commendation to Tommy Veal.
3. Next quarterly meeting date - proposed: saturday, 16 june, Chattanooga

;>

Chattanooga Commissioner Meet&Greet

- interested in talking about Tennessee Native American Indian politics,
locally or statewide, the current TNNAC elections for Grand Division
commissioners, or the current proposals before the Commission of
Indian Affairs, including the upcoming vote on tribal recognition criteria?

if so, you're invited to an hour-long Meet&Greet with Chattanooga
Commissioner of Indian Affairs tom kunesh at 6pm at Audubon Acres
next friday evening.

Meet&Greet
with Chattanooga Commissioner of Indian Affairs tom kunesh
6-7pm next friday evening, 16 march 2007
Audubon Acres, 600 Sanctuary Road Chattanooga TN

followed by
Native American Fireside Chat, Friday, 7:00 pm
info: Cleata Townsend at Audubon Acres
Chattanooga Audubon Society
a Trail of Tears National Historic Trail site
900 North Sanctuary Road
Chattanooga TN 37421
423. 892.1499

next TN Commission of Indian Affairs meeting
March 17, 10am - 4pm - Nashville
tentative Agenda

;>

____________________________________________________________________________

If there is a vegetative soul, an animating power that all things
share, there must be great rejoicing out there on windy days, ecstasy,
for trees move so slowly on calm days. At least it seems that way to us.
On days of high wind they move so freely it must give them
a cellular pleasure close to terror.

- Louise Erdrich, the Blue Jay's dance

nothing better to do

i am one of those people "who have nothing better to do" than to reflect on the Commission's most recent meeting and their passage of the 1990 recognition criteria and submission of the criteria to the state. i wish more people would have "nothing better to do" than to consider these actions because, in fact, it is one of the Best things to do: to actually read the 1990 recognition criteria and reflect on the State's reaction to adopting them as State rules.


the point of criticism regarding the Commission's vote to propose the 1990 Recognition Criteria to the State for adoption as state rules is
(1) to show the inherent defects in the 1990 Recognition Criteria,
(2) to account for the Commission's actions these past two years that led to the Commission ignoring public comments and a good rules proposal, then submitting a known defective rules proposal to the state, and
(3) to advocate action on an effective solution - the alternative proposal that has been proposed to the Commission for seven months now.

there is nothing "unfair" about criticizing a governmental agency's lack of forward movement on an old issue, or an agency's failure to recognize the inherent defective nature of an out-dated proposal. government is the political arena, the recognition criteria are a political issue, and commissioners are political appointees. when proper action is not taken in a timely manner, and when bad action is taken whenever, criticism should not only be anticipated, it should be welcomed. in fact, it's only through criticism that we learn of our own weaknesses, and only through criticism that we learn what needs to be fixed and made strong.

yes, the 1990 recognition criteria was approved by the Commission a year ago - 12 march 2005, but it was not submitted to the state Attorney General because of the controversy surrounding various elements in it, and because it was not corrected to fix the numerous problems that it contains.

yes, the Advisory Council on TN Indian Affairs (ACTIA) used the 1990 recognition criteria as its starting document. and ACTIA also used the two (2) public hearings (23 october 2004 & 30 april 2005) that the Commission itself held on the 1990 recognition criteria, resulting in a much-improved document submitted to the Commission for review seven months ago (8 october 2005). to date this document, and the hearings that generated it, have been effectively ignored by the Commission.

TDEC attorney Ed Harris advised the Commission in december 2005, "Don't waste the State's time if you're going to keep making changes to the criteria after it's been reviewed." - what did the Commission do? it submitted an inherently defective recognition criteria to the State that is in desparate need for a complete overhaul.

repeated hearings on the issue (20 may 2006 plus one more this summer after the Commission decides what changes to make and re-submits a revised criteria to the State for public comment) - with many past requests for changes (23 october 2004 & 30 april 2005) but no changes made, and repeatedly passing the defective 1990 recognition criteria (12 march 2005, 6 march 2006) - calls into question the competence of the Commission, not just among members of the indian community but also among legislative observers. this isn't criticism, it's political fact.

the ACTIA proposal contains the date "1900" in relation to "A history of the petitioning group from [year]", the same as federal recognition criteria, as approved by ACTIA in august 2005 and again in february 2006. the inclusion of the date "1796" (the year of Tennessee's creation as a US state) was an oversight carried over from using the Commission's own amendment and passage of the 1990 recognition criteria in march 2005.

another public hearing - the third, on a still-unchanged 1990 recognition criteria - is two steps backwards, to the same point we were two years ago, before the first two hearings. after this coming hearing in may, the Commission will have to decide, again, what to submit to the state, and then hold yet _another_ (fourth) public hearing to review the next proposal.

what would be truly beneficial is for the Commission to pay attention to the indian community's previous contributions at past hearings (including posting the testimony/minutes of those two hearings) and review the submissions by the indian community rather than shutting their ears, eyes and minds and going backwards to a defective recognition criteria. nobody is making the Commission look incompetent other than itself when it submitted defective rules to the state for review. the "us and we" gave our input to the Commission over the past two years, and it has been ignored. - should we expect anything different from more hearings?

this criticism is intended to be instructional and constructive. we are in the same position as we were two years ago: a defective 1990 recognition criteria on the table. the -only- difference is that one organization has taken the time to respond to the indian community's critique of the 1990 recognition criteria, drafted the major corrections, and submitted it to the Commission for review. and it was summarily rejected. ask yourself: - what does the Commission's rejection of public input at the past hearings and rejection of the only valid recognition-criteria proposal teach us? easy - it teaches us that the Commission is on a different path than the statewide indian community.

what is the resistance to the ACTIA proposal? that it's "too wordy"? that a version of it contained a typo? that the Commission didn't want to make its own amendments to it? that third-party genealogical certification of genealogies submitted to non-genealogists costs too much?

• the ACTIA Recognition Criteria is a rewrite of old problematic rules. it has slightly more words in it (142 or 6.1%) than the legislation that created the Commission. if a public servant, a political appointee, has a problem reading and understanding the 2223 words of the law that governs their state agency, or a problem reading and understanding 142 more words that better define who and what will be recognized as indian in the state of Tennessee, that person should not be a state commissioner representing indian people.
  
  
• 1189 words - 1990 Recognition Criteria
  2365 words - 2005 ACTIA Recognition Criteria proposal
  2223 words - 2003 TNCIA authorizing legislation
  [legal references ("Authority", "Original rule filed ...") removed]
  
  
• typos can and should be fixed. they shouldn't prevent passage of a good proposal, nor should they be used as an excuse for not passing a good proposal.
  
  
• the Commission exists to improve things, and showed that it could amend the 1990 recognition criteria by adding a $20 fee. the Commissioners were completely capable of amending the ACTIA recognition proposal accordingly, but chose not to. - why? they don't say.
  
  
• the Commission is not composed of genealogical and historical experts, yet they are putting themselves in the position of determining genealogical and historical fact from fancy through the creation of recognition criteria. - should the indian community and the State accept neophytes and amateurs making determinations about genealogical and historical fact for which they have had little or no training? no. third-party certification of genealogical materials is the only way that i know of for the Commission, the people they represent and the State (all second parties) to trust that the Commission's decisions about tribes, organizations and individuals petitioning for recognition (the first party) are credible. yes, professional certification costs the petitioner, but it's either make the petitioners pay the financial costs up front, or kill the Commission in a year with a total lack of credibility. personally, i prefer keeping a credible Commission.
  

bottom line: we all should be working on improving the ACTIA-proposed recognition criteria, not the 1990 recognition criteria that the Commission submitted to the State that will never pass.


±1300 words.

;>

Not learning from the past

Issues decided at the 4 march 2006 TN Commission of Indian Affairs meeting in Nashville:

1. approved the original 1990 recognition criteria,
   with an amendment adding a $20 processing fee,
   to be submitted to the state for review and public hearings.

This takes us right back to where we started in 2004, as if the Commission never held its two public hearings, didn't learn anything from the public input, had no use for the study and research the Advisory Council did on the issue, and likes to pretend there's nothing wrong with the old criteria. Now instead of proposing the solution to all the issues previously addressed, we have to re-visit all the problems and fight for the solutions in more public forums.

I can understand ignorance as an excuse at the first meeting of the new commissioners (december 2005 in Memphis), but now it's either stupidity or plain old reactionism that just prevented the Commission from adopting the solutions to the problems inherent in the old recognition critieria. Either way, the stupids and the reactionaries either need to get smart and with it fast, or get recalled for incompetence. I suggest smartening up fast.

TN Indian Affairs

TN Indian Affairs
Vicky Garland's Unofficial Notes
TNNAC Regular Board Meeting
January 21, 2006
Call to OrderPrayer- Doug Kirby
Roll Call
Cleata Townsend-Chair Chattanooga
tom kunesh- Vice Chair Chattanooga (Secretary)
Wally Leary- Alternate Chattanooga
Lynn Clayton- Chair Jackson
Jo Nicholson- Vice Chair Jackson
Norm Clayton- Alternate Jackson
Sandi Perry- Chair Nashville
Dale Mitchell- Vice Chair Nashville
Annette Lawson- Alternate Nashville
Doug Kirby- Chair Manchester
Vicky Garland- Vice Chair Manchester (Vice-Chair)
Charles Lawson- At-Large
Guests
Deborah Rodriquez- Delegate Nashville
Mark Tolley- Delegate Nashville
Absent
John Smith- At-Large- (Chair) Having tests run on his back
Helen Wagner Vinson- Chair Memphis- Sick
Ed Vinson- Vice Chair Memphis-Down in his back
Cecilia Tolley- Alternate Nashville- out of State

Agenda Review/ Approval.Approved with a few additions2. Reports
Will approve the August 28, 2005 minutes online excluding: the executive session parts will be omitted from the web page minutes APPROVED
October 22, 2005 minutes read. APPROVED
Bylaws say post minutes 21 days after the meeting. Clarification: post 21 days after the meeting at which they were approved

Filing State papers leave it at Lynn's Address for now and save $20.00
Treasurer's report
Chairman- AbsentVice Chair- Commission nominationsAll number one selections were seated on the commission by the State. They had their first meeting in December.
Referendum statusI have taken care of that myself. It is in the process as we speak.
Committee Reports
Web Page- tom kunesh gave an update of what was included.He was asked to include AG's opinion on the three organizations relationship to each other
ATTENDANCE Committee- Vicky& DougRequest from the secretary's of both TCIA and ACTIA for their membership attendance records after each meeting, with ours being furnished on www.tnnac.org will supply them with a copy of ours if requested
TNCIA Report-No one was there from the group to supply a report tom mentioned some things that went on at their last meeting and about the Feb 11th meeting on recognition, legislative review, amendment to the Law to change from 2 nominees to just one (1)
ACTIA- Sandi Perry New SecretaryNext meeting is February 4,

2006Review of the election cycle and adoption of new permanent time line.
Application period opens on the First of March
Closes the end of April
aucuses will be held the 4th Saturday in June in election years
Convention will be held the 3rd Saturday of September in election years.
Appointments of Committees
Chairperson's job: TABLED
Appointment of Alternates (2 instead of just 1)Vicky proposed and asked Charles Lawson if he would be interested in being an At Large member of TNNAC. He spoke briefly and agreed.
Then we appointed Annette Lawson as the 2nd Alternate for NashvilleBoard voted and APPROVED
Wally Leary was made Alternate forChattanoogaAPPROVED

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS-Split Secretary and Treasurer- 3rd and final reading FAILED
Amend Quorum- PASSEDHave a First Vice-Chair and a 2nd Vice Chair- this was the 2nd reading and voteAPPROVED

Wording for phone-in meeting Approval- TABLED

Write letter to Commissioners and concerned parties about Legislative review questionnaire needing input of the Indian community - APPROVED
Write letter to commissioners and concerned parties about amendments without the input of the Indian Community- APPROVED

One or two day convention
Decided to have the convention one day, but to have socializing on the Friday night before the convention and have the nominees politic the morning of the convention with question sessions of nominees, then hold the convention in the afternoon after lunch, with continued socializing Saturday night. APPROVED
How to improve Greeneville and Knoxville's participation
Meeting with the organizations, fliers, press, meet and greets.Vicky is suppose to call the Commissioners in the East and Knoxville about meet and greets in their areas

tom is suppose to update our tri-fold brochure

Updating TNNAC's standing rules and posting to the net
Minor word changes- APPROVED
Time limit for public comments- 3 minutes- APPROVED

Mark Tolley addressed the board about Penson Mounds

Next meeting Sunday April 23, 2006 at 9:30 central time at the Honors building
Agenda items for next meeting
Old businessPhone-in votes
Dale's proposal on delegates
Committee appointments
Doug's proposal on redistricting caucus areas
Nominees for Vice Chair- Lynn Clayton, Jo Nicholson, Cleata Townsend
Motion to adjourn 2:30 APPROVED

doc 1: original 1990 TNCIA recognition criteria

this is the original recognition criteria on which all other versions are based. these rules expired on June 30, 2002, and have never been in effect during the lifetime of this Commission.

http://www.tncia.org/1990TCIArecognitioncriteri.html

---

August, 1990 (Revised) 1
RULES OF THE TENNESSEE COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
701 Broadway
Suite 130 Customs House
Nashville, TN 37243-0435
Chapters Title
0785-1 Recognition Criteria for Native American Indians

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY
Original chapter 0785-1 filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


August, 1990 (Revised) 1
RULES OF THE TENNESSEE COMMISSION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

CHAPTER 0785-1
RECOGNITION CRITERIA FOR NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
0785-1-.01 Definitions
0785-1-.02 Purpose
0785-1-.03 Recognition Criteria for Native American Indian Nations, Tribes, or Bands
0785-1-.04 Recognition Criteria for Native American Indian Organizations
0785-1-.05 Recognition Criteria for Native American Indian Individuals
0785-1-.06 Procedures for Petitioning for Recognition
0785-1-.07 Changes in Membership Rolls
0785-1-.08 Appeals


0785-1-.01 DEFINITIONS.

The following definitions shall apply to these regulations:

(1) "Commission" means the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs.

(2) "State" means the state of Tennessee.

(3) "Enrollment" means being recognized as a Native American Indian by the state of Tennessee.

(4) "Roll" means the official list of recognized Native American individuals in Tennessee.

(5) "Disabled person" means any person determined to be in need of partial or full supervision, protection, and assistance by reason of mental illness, physical illness or injury, advanced age, developmental disability or other mental or physical incapacity.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


0785-1-.02 PURPOSE.

To establish criteria and procedures to provide for legal recognition by the state of Tennessee of Native American Indians presently existing in Tennessee.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


0785-1-.03 RECOGNITION CRITERIA FOR NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN NATIONS, TRIBES, OR BANDS.

(1) The petitioning group has been identified on a substantially continuous basis as Native American Indians throughout the history of their race; and

(2) A substantial portion of the petitioning group inhabits a particular geographic area or lives in a community viewed as Native American Indian and distinct from all other populations in the geographic area, and that its members are descendants of an Indian tribe which has historically inhabited the same geographic area; and

(3) The petitioning group has maintained tribal political influence or other authority over its members, or is able to demonstrate their existence as a continuous, distinct cultural entity capable of self-regulation, throughout their history until the present; and

(4) A copy of the group's present governing document is provided and/or a statement describing in full the membership criteria and the procedures through which the group governs its affairs and members; and

(5) A list of all known current members of the group and a copy of any available list of former members, based on the tribe's own defined criteria, shall be submitted. The membership must consist of individuals who have established descendency from a tribe that existed historically; and

(6) The membership of the group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any other North American Indian tribe.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


0785-1-.04 RECOGNITION CRITERIA FOR NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS.

(1) The petitioning group shall have as its primary purpose the promotion of education, economic, or social advancement or self-sufficiency of Native American Indians, and as a secondary purpose the promotion and preservation of Native American Indian culture. The charter and by-laws of the organization must clearly document such purposes; and

(2) The petitioning group shall be legally established, with appropriate charter, articles of incorporation, by-laws, and/or constitution, in accordance with state laws, and copies of the above-mentioned documents shall be provided; and

(3) The petitioning group shall provide a statement describing membership criteria and a list of all known current members, including identification of Native American Indian members, based on the group's own defined criteria of ancestry recognition. A membership ratio must be maintained consisting of a majority of Native American Indians to non-Indian members; and

(4) The petitioning group shall be controlled by a governing board and officers, the majority of which are Native American Indians.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


0785-1-.05 RECOGNITION CRITERIA FOR NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN INDIVIDUALS IN TENNESSEE.

(1) All applicants must have maintained a permanent residence in Tennessee for at least six (6) months prior to their date of application.

(2) Individuals may be enrolled with the state by satisfying any of the following means of documentation:

(a) The applicant has a roll number or certificate of Indian blood from a federally-recognized tribe; or

(b) the applicant's birth certificate shows the applicant or applicant's parent(s) to be Native American Indian; or

(c) The applicant has a family tree which shows a direct ancestor of the applicant to appear on a roll of a federally recognized Native American Indian tribe. All family trees will be subject to verification by professional genealogists at the applicant's expense; or

(d) The applicant signs an affidavit stating he/she is a Native American Indian. If the applicant has a living relative at least ten years older than the applicant, the relative must also sign the affidavit. In addition to the affidavit, the applicant shall provide at least one of the following:

1. A family Bible or hymnal showing that the applicant and/or the
applicant's direct ancestors were Native American Indian.
2. Death records of the applicant's direct ancestor(s) showing the
ancestor(s) to be Native American Indian.
3. Records of direct ancestor(s) from the Indian Court of Claims.
4. School, church or health records, or other compelling documentation
which shows the applicant to be Native American Indian.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


0785-1-.06 PROCEDURES FOR PETITIONING FOR RECOGNITION.

(1) Applications for recognition are available on request from the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs.

(2) Applications for minors and disabled individuals may be filed by the parent, next of kin, recognized guardian, or other person responsible for the care of the minor or incompetent individual.

(3) Complete applications and supporting documentation are to be sent to:
Director
Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs
Department of Environment and Conservation
701 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37243-0435

(4) The Director of the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs shall review all applications and supporting documentation.

(5) If the application and required documentation are complete, the Director will present the information to the Commission for the Commission to review. The applicant(s) will be notified in writing of the Commission meeting when the application will be reviewed.

(6) The Commission will either approve or deny the application. The Commission may request additional information from the applicant if necessary.

(7) The Commission will notify each applicant in writing of the Commission's decision.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


0785-1-.07 CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP ROLLS.

(1) Nations, tribes, or bands recognized pursuant to the rules herein contained shall notify the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs of any changes in enrollment criteria and subsequent additions or deletions of members.

(2) Organizations recognized pursuant to the rules herein contained shall submit updated membership rolls on a biennial basis for renewal of recognition certification.

(3) Upon receipt of a death certificate or other evidence of death acceptable to the Commission, the name of the deceased person shall be removed from the roll.

(4) Any recognized individual may terminate his or her enrollment by submitting written notice to the Director of the Commission.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.


0785-1-.08 APPEALS.

(1) Any group or individual whose application for recognition has been denied may file an appeal to the Commission.

(2) The appeal shall be made in writing and shall be received by the Commission with thirty (30) days of the date of the Commission meeting when the application was denied.

Authority: T.C.A. §4-34-103. Administrative History:
Original rule filed July 3, 1990; effective August 17, 1990.

___________________________________________________________
TN Indian Affairs mailing list (tn-ind@tnind.net)
http://www.tnind.net/list/