STEALING FROM INDIANS by David L. Henry (Also known as Whistleblower) Inside the Bureau of Indian Affairs an Expose of Corruption, Massive Fraud and Justice Denied Advocating Freedom for American Indians and Federal Government Reform ----- Copyright 1994 by David L. Henry All Rights Reserved CONTENTS STEALING FROM INDIANS Preface Chapter 1 Moving to Montana SECTION I THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Chapter 2 Introduction to the Bureau Chapter 3 Billings Area Office Chapter 4 BIA Agencies and Reservations Chapter 5 BIA Summary SECTION 2 WHAT I FOUND AT BIA Chapter 6 General Discoveries Chapter 7 Individual Indian Money (Trust Funds) Chapter 8 Docket #184 (Trust Funds) Chapter 9 Irrigation Projects Chapter 10 Accounting and Auditing SECTION 3 BLOWING THE WHISTLE Chapter 11 Harbinger and Warning Chapter 12 Blowing the Whistle Chapter 13 BIA Cover-up SECTION 4 APPEALS BEGIN Chapter 14 Administrative Appeals Chapter 15 U.S. Senate Investigation Chapter 16 Professional and Personal Appeals SECTION 5 INDIAN PEOPLE AND ADVENTURES Chapter 17 The Julie Matt Story Chapter 18 With the Crow People Chapter 19 Stereotypes and Bigotry Chapter 20 The Sting Chapter 21 Maker of All Things Chapter 22 Crow Campfire Chapter 23 Small Nation SECTION 6 APPEALS CONTINUE Chapter 24 The Federal Courts Chapter 25 Summary Chapter 26 The Need for Change SECTION 7 YOU CAN JOIN THIS STORY Chapter 27 Personal Justice Chapter 28 Indian Recovery (In General) Chapter 29 Crow Nation Survival Chapter 30 Federal Reform Chapter 31 Freedom and Justice APPENDIX Appendix 1 IIM Trust Accounts Appendix 2 Audit Responses Appendix 3 Radio Talk Show Appendix 4 U.S. Supreme Court Case Appendix 5 Crow Recovery Bill Appendix 6 Hobbes-Henry Act Appendix 7 Suggested Reading List PREFACE The telephone call did not prepare me for what was coming. The call came to my basement apartment in Billings, Montana, from an Indian Tribal Chairman. Chairman is the title used by the elected head of an Indian Tribe. The call was from Richard Real Bird, Chairman of the Crow Tribe. I knew who he was, although we had never met. He said he'd heard about me, and invited me to "come out and talk to a few people, and have something to eat." When I kept that date a few days later, I found several hundred people gathered on the Crow Indian Reservation to hear me speak, and was told that I was the guest of honor of Crow Nation. I described my experiences as a former employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, what I had discovered there, and how this resulted in my being fired as a whistleblower. Following a feast for those many people, I was included in a "creation" ceremony, and then the meaning of that was explained by the senior Elder present. He said that they had linked my creation with the Crow, and from that day forward I was marked as one of their own. This book will explain how that all came about, but that particular meeting is not the end of the story. It was a demarcation point, where I realized that my actions as an employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs had a powerful effect on the lives of many thousands of people. I would widen my personal search for justice, to include them also. This search would result in personal hardships for me, and for Chairman Real Bird it would lead to a federal penitentiary. My employment with the Bureau of Indian Affairs lasted less than a year, but my struggle with that organization has continued, at last count, for some nine years. You can count on the fact that the Bureau sees me as a threat, that my words have brought strong reactions from them, and that they have done their best to discredit my testimony and keep me silent. As this story unfolds, you will find that it is not yet over, and you will be offered a role in it to determine the outcome. It's not a "virtual reality" game or entertainment, because the purpose is deadly serious, and it is a true story, not fiction. It's a first-person story about my experiences with the Bureau and with Indians, not a research project by a professional writer. I am one of the characters in this story that tells about the horror of justice denied, and the struggle of Indians for freedom and basic human rights. There is political scandal, billions of dollars are missing from Indian trust accounts, and there is a major Government cover-up. Taxpayers should be alarmed when our Government is corrupt and tax money disappears. Federal employees will cringe at another gag-rule that inhibits their honest behavior, and all citizens should be furious when the Bill of Rights is defeated by Government administrators with the assistance of our courts and federal judges, including the Supreme Court. Free speech simply doesn't exist for Federal employees, at least not where it conflicts with political greed for money and power. Your help is needed to insure simple justice, make it possible for Indians to survive, and to require the Federal Government to be responsible for its actions. That's a huge undertaking, but by working together it can be done. I will ask you to join me as an advocate for the human rights of America's Indians, and to help make the world a better place for our children. Together we can uplift humanity, and with compassion we can restore dignity to the lives of our long abused Indian brothers and sisters. After the events are described, and the facts and arguments presented, you will be invited to make your judgment known. Your decisions, along with those of other readers will be the court of last resort. You will decide the outcome of this story and the fate of the characters in it. The first chapter gives some background about myself to make it easy for you to see through my eyes. We have much to see together. My life was radically changed by this journey into Indian Country, and I believe your spirit will be touched by the story. CHAPTER 1 Moving to Montana After my wife Mary died of cancer in June, 1984 I moved to Kalispell, in a glorious valley in northwest Montana circled by high mountains, near Glacier National Park. I told friends that I selected this place out of desire to live in a beautiful, remote place near the mountains. Deep down, I was running away from death; I needed to start life over and hide my grief for a while alone, to recover strength far away from the spell of death. Mary was from the West, and we had smiled together at Montana on past vacation trips. Her spirit was there in the beauty of the mountains. If there was some lesson for me to learn from Mary's death, it was to help me know the misery that people go through, for I was to find later that Indians as a class often suffered great poverty and despair, and I was able to perhaps better comprehend their situation. Without Mary's death, maybe the story I am going to tell you would never have happened. Both of us had been lovers of horses, and the first time we met we were sharing the pleasant smells of a barn. I was a CPA in Columbus, Ohio who operated a boarding stable as a side line, and it was a second marriage for both of us. To a horseman, the Big Sky Country of Montana sounds like heaven on earth. It was the right place to go. Before leaving Ohio I had a verbal agreement to sell my home (a condominium), and contracted for the sale of my accounting practice. I hoped to live the life of an outdoorsman, and to have a horse or two to ride in the mountains with a fresh start and a new life. My children (from my first marriage) were grown and on their own. They seemed to have little need for me on a daily basis. We had become less intimate with each other through the alienation of divorce and my loss of custody (when they were children) in the days before joint custody was even thought of. There was no way to recover those lost years. Before leaving Ohio, I sold my Cadillac but kept the Jeep. Every man should have a Jeep sometime in his life. Jeep's haven't changed much in fifty years; the Army got it right the first time. I had a metal bracket made that would bolt onto the front bumper and hold the front of my canoe while the back rested on the Jeep's hardtop. With a Jeep and a canoe, I should fit right into Montana; I was already starting to look out of place in Ohio. CPA's in Ohio just don't call on their clients while driving a Jeep. I had no worries about earning a living. I had enough money coming in to live for about two years, and had brought some work to wrap-up for former clients which would take a month or two. I planned to continue with accounting, and design computer programs for CPA firms. I had vague thoughts of writing computer programming books or of work in the area of public service. It was time to question old values and make a fresh start, something that most of us do at various times of personal unrest. My financial situation looked good. Selling the house in Ohio allowed for buying another in Montana, and selling my accounting practice would provide the capital to start again as a self employed professional. Although the "Condo" had been in Mary's name, I provided the down payment, made all of the monthly payments and Mary's will left it to me with the furniture and contents. Her two daughters, Ann and Julie, were given cars, a mobile home, jewelry and other things of hers (and ours) before Mary died. Mary felt this was a fair division, I agreed with her and so did her daughters, who were present during these discussions. I would find out later that her daughters would have a change of ideas after Mary was dead, and they would not honor their mother's final wishes. In a previous trip to see my mother and brother in California soon after Mary died, I bought a cozy log home on three acres of woods in the Flathead Valley, across from forest lands with a dirt road leading into the mountains towards a remote place called Strawberry Lake. It was a dream come true, to cut my own firewood and keep a horse or two. Moving to Montana was a party. A friend of mine, Don Billman, my son Andy, and a former employee Brad Ewart were all sold on the idea. We ended up with two U-Haul trucks, one pulling a trailer and the other pulling the Jeep, plus Don driving his Volkswagen Van. This was our "adventure in moving,"and really great fun. I drove the large truck, Andy and Brad took turns driving the small one, and Don brought up the rear in his Van. We had portable C.B. radios so we could talk to each other on the road. I covered some of their out-of-pocket expenses, but these were volunteers who wanted to help me as well as be part of the adventure. They were contributing friends, not paid helpers. We traveled as cheaply as possible, sleeping at night in sleeping bags under the trucks. It was a game to see if we could get free showers at truck stops, and with Don's strong love for McDonald's, we looked for Golden Arches all the way from Ohio to Montana. A landmark stop was at the highly advertised Wall Drug Store in South Dakota, where we slept under the giant plastic model of a dinosaur. It was a good company, we had beautiful country to see, and each day was better than the previous one. We were surprised when we reached Yellowstone National Park in early October to find snow on the ground. Friends from Ohio, Donn and Gayle Griffith, have a cottage in West Yellowstone, on the edge of the park, and on impulse we phoned them back in Ohio. They guessed what we were after, and warmly offered the use of their cabin where we spent two nights. We took a break from McDonald's, and had real beds to sleep in. There was a roaring wood fire for warmth, and a place to park the trucks while we backtracked to explore Yellowstone Park. The bears were hiding, but we saw steaming geysers, elk, deer and lots of buffalo. When we pulled into Kalispell two days later, my real estate agent and good friend Jan Tow was waiting for us with a key to my new log cabin, where our crew spent about two days unloading and getting me settled. Old friends from the First Community Church "couples circle" in Ohio had sent a surprise gift, a ceiling fan for the cabin, which Don installed for me. The fan would circulate heat from the big steel wood stove. I call it a cabin, but it was a family size house with a cathedral ceiling, a sleeping loft and a porch across the front and one side. The lower floor was more than a basement because it had ten foot ceilings and most of it was finished. There were two bedrooms on the main floor, and with the loft and full basement enough room for a large family. The logs were huge, making the walls several feet thick so the sheer mass provided good insulation. There was enough roof overhang outside to shelter a winter's supply of firewood, and with my own woods there was no shortage of fuel for the stove. The crew made a side trip to see Glacier National Park, then there were farewells as they headed back for Ohio. I took son Andy to the airport in Kalispell, and Don and Brad left for Ohio in Don's Volkswagen Van. I was alone, starting my first Montana winter. It wasn't long before my financial life started to crumble; everything that could go wrong did. First, the proceeds from the sale of my home in Columbus were threatened. To make a long story short, my stepdaughters disagreed with their mother's will, and tried to take the house. I defended Mary's will but the cost of lawyers, the delay and the loss of my verbal sales contract ate away at the value of the property, and having Mary's children fighting over her final wishes was a sad experience. Mary had been generous with them, but it was "in their best interest" to try to get it all, as one of them said very coldly. I had a net loss on the Ohio property after attorney's fees, and Mary's wishes were destroyed by the greed of her daughters. The loss of a personal house, and the attorney's fees to defend it and my wife's will, are not allowed as a tax deduction which added bitterness to the pill. I should have learned a lesson about avarice (greed for money), but I did not. Later I would discover that the Indians have a special name for avarice. They call it the white man's sickness. The second catastrophe was the loss of the sales price from my accounting practice. I had received a down payment, with the final amount to be measured by the next year's revenues. The buyer had a heart attack and related surgery during tax season, so he was not able to provide services to my old clients. I was told this later (when the final payment was due) so there was nothing I could have done about it. The final payment did not amount to much. There was no evil intent in this, just misfortune. The sum total of these little disasters was that I had lost my wife, my home and my business all in the same year. This is not said to solicit your pity, but to explain the abrupt change in my circumstances. I was not really broke, but no longer "comfortable," and needed to get a job. There was no capital that I could use to start another CPA practice of my own. My past career in accounting had been relatively successful. After graduating from Ohio University, I had landed the one job I really wanted, with the international accounting firm, Arthur Andersen & Co., in Cleveland. With that basic training behind me, after about two years I moved to Columbus to become the Controller of a group of construction companies, and about six years later moved on to larger things with Volkswagen. At the time that Volkswagen was taking the country by storm as the first really large automobile importer, I was Comptroller (the German term) for the distributor that had the exclusive market for Ohio, Kentucky and parts of Indiana. I created a computerized accounting system that took the best features from U.S. automotive accounting, and combined them with the mandated German accounting structure, no mean feat in those days when computers were not so "friendly". Volkswagen sent its financial people from Germany to see what I'd done, and borrowed from my creation for all VW distributors, world-wide. That relatively "showy" job led me to a position with the Reader's Digest in New York, where I designed and implemented a new international accounting system, again using creative computer development work to accomplish that task. DeWitt Wallace, the founder of the Digest, liked my work and I was assured a good future. I liked living in the Westchester County area, but my first marriage was failing and my wife insisted that she could only be happy if we returned to Ohio, which I agreed to as a possible solution to our problems. She had become an alcoholic, and I was willing to try anything to solve that problem. Back in Columbus, I decided to start my own practice as a CPA, and continued with that for some eighteen years. The first marriage ended in divorce, and my second marriage was to Mary, who died about ten years later, which then resulted in my decision to head for Montana. The money I had counted on to get established in Kalispell was not coming in. I had no income and the capital from Ohio that I needed to get started in self-employment had disappeared. Instead of rebuilding a new life for myself in a relaxed way, I was in trouble. There was no choice but to abandon my dream of the mountains and head for the city to get a job immediately. I sold the cabin as fast as I could (again, a nondeductible loss) and headed for my Mother's apartment in California. I had to sell the furniture and large items in haste at an auction, and rent a trailer to move out of Montana to hunt for a job. Now everything I owned would fit in one large U-Haul trailer. It is strange when breaking up a household, to learn the things people keep and the things they let go. In one large waterproof box, I carried away a brand new saddle that had never seen the back of a horse. That working stock saddle, you know the kind I mean, was the best one I had ever owned. It had made the trip from Ohio with me, destined for the back of a western horse. You've seen the movies, where a cowboy loses his shirt and heads down the road, but you know there still is hope ahead and another horse somewhere, because he carries a prized saddle slung over his back. It's the one thing a cowboy won't part with. The auctioneer didn't see that fine Crites working saddle, kept safe in the box with Mary's braided reins, blue nylon halters and old leather things that carried the sweet smell of horses. In a small box I kept were two gold bands, engraved inside with initials and dates and carrying the promise of forever more. They were left from a time when the words "till death do us part" were just poetry, with little real meaning.There was my sheriff's badge, number M-16, with a horse on the star to show I could ride. When you're a mounted policeman, nothing less, you get to carry the flag in all the parades. And in that small box was Dad's gold watch, a gift from the hand of his own Dad the day that they sold the farm oxen. Dad was gone, but the watch that he had received on his 21st birthday was something of his you could see and hold. The tax effect was ruinous. The loss on the cabin was again not deductible, nor the moving expense, nor the loss on household goods. The tax system is not designed for the benefit of those who become poor. While in Montana, I had applied for several jobs, including one advertised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Billings. I also knew about an opening teaching at the Indian junior college on the Blackfeet Reservation in Northwestern Montana, and went there to see about the job just before leaving Montana. At Browning, Montana I met Conrad LaFromboise, Dean. I was strongly impressed by the quality of this man who wore his hair in Indian braids, and by the goals of the small college. Their facilities were pitiful, but the young Indian students I met were bright, inspired and really trying. Pay would be $9,000. annually, with no fringe benefits or insurance of any kind. I was impressed by the mission of the college. Inside the front cover of the booklet describing the college is this statement: "The Blackfeet Nation sleeps in the shadow of the Great Rocky Mountains. It is the last encampment of a proud and mighty people who once roamed the prairies of a vast land which was called the Big Sky. "Driven here by a force, we watched an endless flow of persons come and go -- persons sent as servants by the Great White Father in Washington, who came to serve, but only served themselves. "Suffering their diseases, enduring hunger and starvation, deprived of our precious freedom, still we survived, but the greatest loss of all was to our pride and dignity. "So, like the mighty grizzly bear who, when Fall approaches, goes into a winter sleep, we went into our sleep. Now, the winter of our suffering is over and we arise, refreshed with due strength, declaring to all men that we shall form a new government, a new way of life, recapturing our pride and dignity and fostering our culture and our heritage. "Then the last encampment of a proud and mighty people shall be the homeland for all Blackfeet Indians that shall endure for as long as the sun shall rise and these mountains cast their shadows, and the Blackfeet Nation will live in peace and harmony with our brothers and our neighbors forever." My emotions said "do it," but reason cringed at the miserable pay and living conditions. I would have to share a prefab shack with another middle-aged teacher, and there was no future in this dead-end job. The college library was almost nonexistent; the buildings were tired mobile homes that needed repairs. Browning is a rural ghetto of collapsing buildings, faded federal promises, broken glass and dust. When the school had been promised it was a bright hope. Congress had reduced the money needed to run the school, and then cut it again. The Indian's capital had been the buffalo, and they had been most wealthy. We took the buffalo, and never replaced it with anything else. The people hold their heads up, but they have little hope to escape a life lacking comfort and opportunity. The fall session was about to start, and the white teacher who had been hired backed out at the last minute. There really was a need for me, and I was offered the job even though I had never taught school in my life. It hurt to tell Conrad that I would not take the job, and I am still sorry about that. These people needed help through no fault of their own, and were doing their best to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I believe I could have done some good, but at the price of my own destruction. I was not willing to do it; I lacked commitment. This was a lesson to me. There is a huge difference between meaning well and doing well. The gap is immense, and most people never encounter it. To do well can not be done without great cost, and most of us are not willing to pay the price. Bleeding for others is at the loss of your own blood. I had never gone down that road before, and was not ready to take that on in Browning. Sure it would be a public service and would have social value, but I wasn't ready for the sacrifice. So, with this all behind me, and the U-Haul trailer behind the Jeep, I headed for California. In my middle fifties, how wonderful it is to have a mother who accepts me with skinned knees, no job or whatever. She does not always approve of what I do, but still I am accepted. Mom has an apartment in a pleasant group of apartments for the elderly, or as they say in California, "restricted as to age," in Thousand Oaks. The city is just beyond the outer limits of Los Angeles, and has warmth and beauty with no smog and not quite so many people. Attractive as it is, still to me it falls short of the beauty and wilderness that is Montana. Jobs were good in California, and after a month or so I was working for a local CPA firm. The pay was good with a bright future. The work was conventional, mostly tax work for the wealthy. Several of the clients I handled were political appointees who had ties to the Reagan administration. They owned horse farms or estates in the Santa Barbara area, and had been appointed to pleasant jobs in Washington. Money flowed in easily to them from all directions. They, like me, were good Republicans. The earlier application pending with BIA in Billings now resulted in a definite job offer. There would be a cut in pay to less that half of what I had earned in Ohio, but unlike the job in Browning, I could support myself. There was no hesitation, the decision was instant and came from my heart. I phoned my new supervisor, Bill Benjamin, and said I'd come after appropriate notice to the local CPA firm. After the Browning experience I wanted to do what I could to make life a little better for Indians, and Montana appealed to my sense of adventure. Back to U-Haul again. I loaded my boxes into one of their trailers one more time and started on the road from California to Montana. I reserved twenty dollars for the slots in Las Vegas, and planned to stop there for a subsidized dinner and to drop my quarters into the machines. Like most people I never win, but this time I managed to quit while I was ahead and actually pocketed well over a hundred dollars. Good fortune was smiling and the world looked good. There was a new life and adventure ahead. I'd done a lot of driving on the first stay in Montana, and managed to put over 40,000 miles on the Jeep in just one year, mostly on unpaved roads looking at the scenery. While on solitary trips I had developed the habit of driving with few stops the first day, and then sleeping along the road when I became tired, either on the ground near the Jeep or curled up inside, which isn't easy when you're over six feet tall. With that plan in mind, after leaving Las Vegas at dusk, I left the freeway in Nevada and turned onto U.S. Route 93, which heads directly north towards Montana. This is remote desert country, but there was no traffic and I could look forward to some beautiful scenery at dawn. And then, wham. One of the trailer tires had a blowout, and the trip came to a screeching halt, thirty miles from nowhere late at night. U-Haul provided no spare tire, and the rim was bent so there was nothing I could do, except drag the load off the edge of the road and wait. I could not raise any traffic on the CB radio, and after the first hour only one truck had passed, and it did not respond to my attempt to flag it down. The best I could do was to unhitch the trailer and head for the nearest mark of the map, the village of Alamo, Nevada. I found a motel with a pay phone, where I could call the U-Haul hotline. They told me a wrecker was on its way from a few miles north of Alamo, and I should stay at the motel where I could be located. The wrecker would bring the trailer to me with a new tire installed, and I could just check in at the motel. In the morning I would find the trailer ready to go, hitched to my Jeep which I was to leave at the front of the Motel parking lot so the wrecker could find it. The trailer had a secure padlock, and with no traffic on the road and the wrecker on its way, I wasn't worried about theft, so I went to bed around midnight. At three in the morning I was awakened by a phone call from a wrecker service in Los Vegas. Now the story was entirely different. A wrecker was just starting out from Vegas. Again I was advised to stay at the motel and wait for the wrecker to bring the trailer to me. At dawn the wrecker arrived, but the trailer had been abandoned too long. The lock had been cut off, and the trailer was now half empty. Most of the things I had owned were gone. I spent most of the day with a very considerate Sheriff's Deputy, Gary Davis, trying to inventory what was left and determine what was missing. I came up with a loss of well over twenty thousand dollars, which included all of my clothes (even the dirty laundry had been taken) and the personal effects of a lifetime. Gary was sympathetic, and from my own police experience as a volunteer Sheriff's Deputy back in Ohio years earlier, I could tell that his investigation was thorough and professional. Gary visited the scene of the crime, and found the padlock that had been removed with a bolt cutter. He found tracks that showed that a truck had backed up to the trailer, and apparently the thief just transferred the bulk of my load into his vehicle. Gary took several photographs, and checked for fingerprints on the lock and on the remaining goods in the trailer. The small box was gone. The rings would be melted, Dad's watch sold at some antique store, and my sheriff's badge would be trashed. If you go fishing, look around for a good 4 H.P. Evinrude outboard motor. If the serial number is 0317052 you have my permission to snatch it for me, because it belongs on the back of my canoe. If you go places where there are horses and see a fine Crites working saddle, look on the bottom to see if "Henry" is printed there. You let me know, and I'll get there if I have to walk. There will be blood in my eye and hell to pay, and that roping saddle will come back home with me. I felt pretty glum about the loss. If that thief had been caught, I would have gone for his throat. But there was no use in crying over spilt milk. Alamo has remote beauty, marred only by the purpose that the federal government has found for this wilderness. This lovely land is used for testing hydrogen bombs, designed to melt the flesh of men, women and children whose opinions about religion, government and economics may differ from yours and mine. It was time to go, so I told myself that at least I had a lighter load, and the things that people pack in boxes are not so important. I'm not sure I believed that myself, but it did no good to mourn the loss. If I had known what was up ahead, would I have turned back to California? No. Life is an adventure and there was more of that waiting for me than many people have in a lifetime. I got back into the Jeep and headed north for Montana. Footnote: Throughout this book the term "white man" is used as Indians use it, to mean "outsider". The term includes Caucasians, African Americans, and people of all "races," nationalities and ethnic origins who are not Indian. When used as a collective singular such as "the whiteman," it means, from the Indian perspective, those who oppress us. CHAPTER 2 Introducing the Bureau of Indian Affairs In writing this section of the book I have the advantage of roughly ten years of experience in dealing with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. You might find this first part of the book rough going, because you don't share that intimate knowledge, and the ideas and conclusions presented here won't all be supported "in place" with hard evidence. As you read further, the evidence will be presented and the basis for my conclusions will be made clear, and you will be able to fit the pieces together. If you get over loaded at this point, then skip ahead to later chapters that have more appeal to you, and later return to this section. Gradually it will make sense to you. as the bits and pieces come together in your own mind. To first give you some idea of how these ideas and conclusions developed, I'll provide you with two letters that appeared in an area newspaper, the Bighorn County News. This is a weekly rural newspaper that serves the Crow Reservation area. First, a letter I wrote that was printed in the July 29, 1992 edition of that newspaper: To the News: Recent newspaper stories describe financial problems found by U.S. Inspector General audits regarding slipshod accounting practices and misuse of travel funds under the control of financial manager Bill Benjamin and area director Richard Whitesell. This revelation is simply one more item in BIA's history of repeated fraud against both U.S. taxpayers and the Indian citizens they supposedly serve in a position of trust. This story begins in 1849, the year BIA took over its role from the U.S. Army, and since then BIA has continued as an exploiter of Indians, doing the bidding of corrupt federal politicians. As compensation for dirty tricks it keeps a bit of the loot for BIA supervisors, with the implied consent of the politicians. I know this from intimate personal experience. As the first CPA ever employed by BIA in Billings, my audit reports described millions of dollars in cash belonging to tribes and individual Indians [that are simply missing], and similar mischief in irrigation projects. There was fraud or missing money in each operation I was assigned to audit. Bill Benjamin used intimidation to get me to change my audit and "soften" the facts, but I refused to do so and with Whitesell's approval, I was fired for "insubordination" in 1986. I spent the next six years on whistleblower appeals through the specified government agencies, which was fruitless, and continued on (without legal help) up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. All of the agencies and courts sidestepped the Constitution (free speech, etc.,) by refusing to hear the case against the BIA. To do so would attack the political patronage system. Subsequent investigations and audits fully agreed with the facts reported in my audits, but being correct was not good enough. Although I have written thousands of letters, and the facts have been investigated repeatedly by the Inspector General, a Senate Special Investigative Committee, outside CPAs and the like, the American people just don't care enough about government corruption or the abuser heaped on Indians to insist on a just solution. While the taxpayers allow government corruption, BIA will continue to fleece Indians until the last one has nothing left worth stealing. If you gag at this, or object to the lack of free speech for a federal auditor, then write to Senator Daniel Inouye (Select Committee on Indian Affairs), Washington, DC 20510-6450. He personally investigated my case, and calls it an injustice. ack-ko-shish (Whistler) David L. Henry, CPA Billings Next, a response from another reader that appeared in that same newspaper on August 12, 1992: To the News: I particularly liked Mr. David L. Henry's letter to the News. The letter shows to what lengths the BIA and other agencies, as well as the courts, will go to cover up their unlawful, unconstitutional activities. Me thinks that Mr. Real Bird was caught up in this web of intrigue as well. And to add insult to injury, the BIA and courts kept Mr. Moran (former superintendent) hidden, supposedly, in Nevada so that he could not be made to testify to the efficacy of what Mr. Real Bird said. The result, of course, was a foregone conclusion; do not pass go, go directly to jail. Mr. Henry is lucky in one respect, and that is that they did not dream up some charge against him, and give his a railroad job too. In my opinion, the government and its agencies have become so corrupt in most cases, that the situation will soon reach the point of being totally intolerable. (some unrelated comments omitted). G.L. Clark, Roundup, Montana It was in early December, 1985 when I rolled into Billings, Montana. Billings is an attractive place, located in the Yellowstone River valley and bordered on the north by stone cliffs that lead to higher elevations. The local people call these cliffs the "rims" or "rimrock." The city and suburbs are home to about 100,000 people, not really a big-city, but with most of the conveniences you would expect in a larger place. It's the largest town for hundreds of miles, and serves as the shopping and cultural center for southcentral Montana, northern Wyoming and the western Dakotas. After a short stay at a motel in Billings, I found a two bedroom apartment through landlord Dave Selby, who occupied the remainder of the house. I had a few days before reporting to work, and the time was used to buy some clothing to replace what had been stolen, and to make a quick trip back to Kalispell. I had left my small Scotty camping trailer there when I headed for California, and now had a few days in which to retrieve it. After the warm climate in California, I was reminded that Montana can be a challenge in the winter. Driving back to Billings from Kalispell, with the Scotty trailer in tow, I hit some "black ice," as they call it here, and found myself sliding backwards down the highway with the trailer in the lead. When things stopped spinning, the trailer had turned onto it's side, and the Jeep was stuck in a snow bank, but fortunately right side up. A wrecker came along, and with some help I was back in Billings on the Saturday before reporting to work at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The name "Bureau of Indian Affairs," or BIA, doesn't mean much to most people. Those in the Western states have heard the name, but still this is an organization that keeps a very low profile, and for a very practical reason. The work that this Bureau does is nothing to brag about. The Bureau has a very important role in this story, and in the lives of Indians, so you'll need to know what it is and what it does. You'll begin to hear some negative things about BIA, because my knowledge is colored by later experience. I would uncover the largest fraud in Montana in this century, and one of the largest in the history of the United States. It is a fraud that has been kept concealed, and the concealment has allowed it to grow like a colony of termites hidden inside a wall. Like many frauds it is aimed at those with few defenses, in this case at American Indians. The fraud is so large that it spills over to touch the pocket of every taxpayer, including yours and mine. When I started to work, I was not aware of all that, and I just took for granted that the Bureau of Indian Affairs operated in a way that was supportive of Indians. I was terribly sorry to gradually find out that my assumption was completely wrong. People like to see the world through rose colored glasses, because reality can be tough to face each day. The fictions that BIA covers itself with have grown to the point of institutional madness. BIA tries to show a healthy face to the world, but the flesh under it's skin is rotten. BIA is skilled at creating a facade, and the people who make a living by exploiting Indians also cover their deeds with nice words. They, not Indians, are the beneficiaries of BIA, and this will be obvious before we are done. The word "they" does not represent some vague conspiracy and I'll describe who these people are as we go along. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is part of the U. S. Department of Interior. The head of BIA is an Assistant Secretary (for Indian Affairs), directly under the Secretary. Both are political appointees, replaced when a new president is elected. Just below the Assistant Secretary is BIA's chief career employee, the Director of Operations, who during this period was William Ragsdale. If this was the Navy, Ragsdale's job title would be "Chief of Naval Operations," and it would be filled by a four-star Admiral. BIA's career employees either go along with political influence, or else get another job. This is a pyramid shaped hierarchy, military style, which insists on political loyalty. BIA employees devote a lot of time and energy to basic survival in this atmosphere, trying to look good instead of trying to be good. A hierarchy is great for commanding armies, but not the most efficient way to deliver social services, which is a major part of the Bureau's assignment. In the past the Assistant Secretary was called a Commissioner, and BIA was (and sometimes is still called) the Indian Service or Indian Bureau. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs during my time of employment at BIA was Ross Swimmer. Swimmer was feared and distrusted by many Indians, although he was a Cherokee. The fact that large numbers of Indians called for Swimmer's removal from office had no effect on BIA. Turncoats are much in demand, every society has them, and BIA is a place where Indian turncoats control all of the higher jobs in supervision and administration. You'll see lots of examples of this as the story unfolds. It is a mistake to think that since roughly 80% of BIA's personnel are of Indian ancestry, it is a "pro" Indian organization. If you have read about the Jewish holocaust, you know that some of the most brutal treatment came from the "Capos," or petty officials. They were not Nazis, but were Jewish prisoners who would torment their fellow prisoners for a reduction in the torment and starvation that they in turn were subjected to. The psychology is no different here; Indians are suppressed by BIA Indian employees as well as by non-Indians. BIA employees become organization people, and most do what is required by the organization. It is nothing new for oppressed people to turn on their own; history is full of such activity. It is a common human failing, not something that just Indians do. Not all BIA employees are turncoats, but it's difficult to move very far up in BIA without selling out. Indians call these sell-out people "apples," red on the outside but white just under the skin. Norway had one named Quisling, and it's a synonym for traitor. Turncoats, sell-out, apple, Capo or traitor, they are all names that describe a universal human weakness and failing. In human social and political development, in particular in war, it has always been necessary to select leaders, and then to require the followers to be loyal to those leaders, and to who ever wields power. Serfs doffed their hats to the squire and the "gentry," and all bowed to the prince. To this day the military enforces a caste system, where officers are "gentlemen" and their wives are "ladies," while the ranks are referred to as enlisted men and their wives. Our present Indian reservations are not in the same league with concentration camps, but the principal is no different. BIA's Indian employees do what they are told, or else, like me, they are out of work. BIA serves as a colonial office to exploit Indian land. When Indians object, BIA looks for ways to make them shut up or to punish them. At many reservations, you either work for BIA or suffer extreme poverty. Indians have learned to live with this, and are forgiving of their own people in BIA who often oppress them. At least they bring home a paycheck, and some find work at BIA that does not do any direct damage to Indians. The fact that many BIA employees are Indian does not make BIA worthy of Indian trust. BIA is a "white man's" institution. Indians speak of their relationship with BIA as a "love - hate relationship." They enjoy being special Americans with their own federal agency, but at the same time resent what they see as heavy-handed and irresponsible treatment by BIA, which is a gentle way to describe theft and abuse. Many Indian people and BIA employees (in private conversation) would tell you that BIA continues the former Army role of suppression, intimidation, and exploitation of Indians and of Indian lands. From my own experience in working for BIA, and subsequent developments and investigations, I agree with them. By the time you get to the end of this book, I believe you will fully understand and accept the negative remarks that I am making here - they will be supported further on in this book. It's interesting to take a historical look at the federal administration of Indian affairs and of Indian lands. The history books, records of congressional hearings, BIA's own records, and my many conversations with well informed Indians, all lead me to this conclusion: The record of federal administration of Indian affairs and Indian lands is one of repeated fraud, corruption and exploitation, with the direct or implied involvement of federal politicians. Many Indian people say that those who gain from this exploitation are white land owners and operators, including mineral and timber interests, and the federal politicians who give favors (at Indian and taxpayer expense) as a matter of political patronage, and you will find much supporting evidence in this book. I will try to avoid the trap of saying it's all a giant conspiracy, because it is more than that. The actual thrust of BIA's actions are generally local in nature, involving the wishes of the local organized white landowners and those who lease or extract minerals from specific reservation lands. The larger conspiracy, although I'd like to avoid that word, is simply the mind-set or general pattern that exists in politics driven by money. Politicians will do what is wanted by those with the means to buy them, and this is a very profitable, self-serving business, which operates above and beyond the law. Congress has no direct administrative control over BIA's daily operations, but makes the laws that govern Indians, reservation lands, and BIA. Congress controls all federal money, which gives it indirect control over BIA, and tied to this is the motive of political patronage -- there is a pay-off. Back in 1911, Indian Commissioner Robert Valentine stated: "Indian affairs are ... a field for the grafter ... the land and the monies of the Indians offer a bait which even the most sated will not refuse." In 1969, Senator Edward Kennedy said: "The BIA is notorious for its resistance to reform, to innovation, and to discharging its responsibilities in a competent and sensitive fashion." Here are some of the things I learned about the Bureau that will help you as the story unfolds. The Bureau started out in 1849, taking over functions previously handled by the United States Army. That year, 1849, should ring some bells, because that's the year the "gold rush" started. Prospectors were flooding into the Indian lands to dig for gold, and the federal government was looking for new ways to prevent Indians from resisting this most recent invasion of their homelands. What does this Bureau do? It is the primary federal Government agency that has a responsibility for Indians. The words responsibility and trust always come up when referring to the Federal Government's relationship with American Indians. The term trustee implies a high degree of responsible care, and BIA is trustee for Indians, as our laws and courts have decided. We'll say more about what BIA does, but for a minute let's take a close look at this "trustee" business. The Supreme Court declared many years ago that the Federal government was exempt from all lawsuits by citizens, using a legal concept or "doctrine" called Sovereign Immunity. This came from the old days of kings in England, where the king was not willing to let "his" judges in "his" courts and on "his" payroll, give him a hard time or limit his authority. Serfs and peasants in England had very few rights, and using the king's courts to make the king behave was unthinkable. What applied to the king applied to the king's men, so the entire English administration was exempt from lawsuits by the people. No complaints about government administration could be taken to court. Although many Americans came to this country to escape government by kings, our Supreme Court imported this "common law" feature of feudal England into the United States, simply by edict, and it applies today. Since we don't have kings, it applies to the President and the President's men, the entire executive branch of government. It limits the rights of all United States citizens in relationship to government, and since Indians are under tight control by BIA, (part of the executive branch) this "doctrine" is something that they can't escape. Over the years the absurdity of the doctrine led to a few exceptions, one being a law called the "Federal Tort Claims Act," which lists some actions for which the federal government CAN be taken to court. Still, the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is alive and well, and is the general rule that shields federal agencies from lawsuits. You can see that although BIA holds the power and authority of a trustee, there is no way the beneficiaries (Indians) can hold it responsible for doing an adequate or trustworthy job. This might be news to you, but Indians are painfully aware of this limitation on their rights. It's a one way street. BIA has power OVER Indians, but can't be held accountable for what it does TO Indians. There is no federal law against fraud, if the fraud is done by a federal employee under "the color of his office." In their private lives, they are subject to state laws, so you're protected if a federal employee (in his private capacity) does some harm to you. But if that federal employee does something remotely connected to his job, he is fully protected by sovereign immunity, and the person (and his agency or bureau) are untouchable. Indians have no protection from fraud done by BIA, and as you will see further on, there is no shortage of fraud at BIA. The result is that the words "trust" and "responsibility" are deceptive. BIA has no liability and can not be taken to court. This produces pretty words and empty promises to cover irresponsible behavior. In Indian eyes, "the whiteman" can feel good about himself while denigrating and stealing from Indians; just one more example (in Indian eyes) of the whiteman's sickness, endless greed. This federal Bureau, BIA, performs functions defined by law, which means that Congress is where it all begins. Congress controls the budget that finances BIA, and what BIA does is set by that budget, with specific functions or operations called projects. The budget sets aside money for each project and for general BIA administration. In this way the budget for the Billings Area Office is produced. The Area Office budget includes the reservations within it's area, and the dollar amount for each "project" is known at the start of each year. A project can be something like road building, police protection, social services, and the like. BIA's responsibilities that are assigned by Congress consist of two types, trust and direct. These are defined by treaty agreements, by past and current federal laws and court cases, and by tradition and common usage. The laws relating to Indians are gathered into one book, and you'll find that volume in the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR-25. Every BIA employee has a well worn copy of those "rules and regulations," and Indians have copies of this "BIA Bible" in their tribal offices. Concerning Federal Government financial accountability, the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 7) requires: .".. and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." If you would like to see a copy of the financial statements for the Billings Area Office, or any of it's Indian reservations, you won't be able to find one. BIA claims that such reports don't exist. I can tell you that BIA does keep books, segregated by area office and reservation. I have seen the general ledger (BIA's "books"), and a copy is available in Billings. The general ledger indicates that BIA "keeps books," but if you want to understand financial transactions, you need a financial statement. Remember that I'm a CPA and I worked there. With today's computers, it is a simple matter to order a printout or financial statement by location, but BIA will tell you it can't produce the reports. Using the Freedom of Information Act, I tried to get a copy of BIA's financial statements later, after I had been fired. I had been talking to newspaper reporters (from the Arizona Republic) , a major Phoenix, Arizona, newspaper, who tried to get a copy of BIA's financial statements, but none of them had any luck. As an accountant I knew how to describe what I wanted, and I knew the names of BIA personnel and the offices in which the records were kept. It took months, and I wrote to many people at several BIA office. The process wears you down, and there were delays and referrals but not one honest answer. Months later I received a blurred copy of several pages of numbers. As a CPA I know how to read financial statements, but these figures shed no light on BIA's activities, so the request was defeated and the time was wasted, like that of the reporters before me. Score zero for the Constitution. I can tell you that each financial transaction by BIA carries a location code along with the entry, such as C50 for Billings. This is helpful to federal politicians who want to tell taxpayers in their districts how much federal money was spent there, and BIA can and does produce financial reports based on location codes. BIA spends a lot of time and effort to hide financial information from reporters and critics, and even from it's own employees. There are no financial statements for reservation employees or even for area office accountants, which is what I had been as a BIA employee. Does BIA defeat the Freedom of Information Act, that was designed to make government accountable? Does it ignore the Constitution? You have some facts about that and can reach your own conclusion. As a BIA accountant, early in my employment I thought it would be sensible for me to find out what the accounting rules were that BIA was required to follow. The law at that time directed all federal agencies to follow the accounting standards set by the General Accounting Office, known as GAO. These rules were listed in the "GAO Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies." I asked to see the Area Office's copy of the manual, which should be updated frequently with new changes reproduced and distributed by the Government Printing Office. Most of the accounting employees had never heard of the manual, but finally an older employee recalled that there was a file of GAO Manuals, and located it for me. This was in late December, 1985, and I was amazed to find that the latest update was dated December 24, 1959, twenty-six years obsolete. In time this made sense, because BIA accounting completely ignores GAO, and none of the accounting employees knew that there were any rules to follow. BIA's actual standard was to do whatever it was you did last year, right or wrong. The free subscription to the GAO Manual was allowed to lapse because nobody read it and it was one more useless thing that had to be filed away. Our historical perception of "Indian Problems" led to changing federal policies in the past, including conquest, mass destruction and relocation, and in recent years the announced federal policy is called "self-determination." The idea is that tribal government can and should contract (with BIA) to provide governmental services (as defined by Congress) to Indian people directly, rather than have BIA provide those services. Past treaties and long custom require the Federal Government to pay for tribal services with taxpayer money from the federal budget. When the tribe contracts with BIA to provide these services itself, a contract is entered into and the dollars are transferred from BIA to the tribe. This is not charity, and the few benefits that manage to filter through BIA's sticky fingers are part of the price for the Indian lands. I suppose you can call this "guilt money," since all U.S. citizens benefit from the land that was taken from Indian owners, either by force, coerced treaties or land swindles. Whenever I speak to a classroom or group about BIA or about Indian matters, Indian friends always ask me to please tell the audience that they don't receive a monthly check from BIA. There are no special federal checks for Indians, simply because they are Indian. Many live in poverty and receive welfare payments, but Indians are treated the same as all other citizens when it comes to welfare. When there is a check from the federal government, it comes from the individual's own money. Most often this is from land rents, grazing fees or a share in oil-well royalties, which are collected by BIA before being paid to the individual owner. In the past there was money for old land settlements, but there is NO allowance for simply being Indian. There can also be checks directly from the tribe, which are the equivalent of a corporation dividend. Often there is some tribal land held in common ownership, and rentals or profits are divided up and paid out from time to time to each tribal member. The self-determination policy is phony. When the elected government (the tribe) passes a law, it must be approved in writing by the BIA Superintendent before it counts. By this means, BIA keeps absolute veto power over self-government and self-determination. By law, any contracts for the hiring of tribal attorneys also require BIA approval. The result is that BIA can (and does) suppress any serious attempt by tribes to bring lawsuits that might embarrass the Federal Government. Congress knows which lawyers they can "trust," and which contribute to their campaign funds. Lawyers who might serve Indians honestly are never approved. This is great for BIA. Aggressive attorneys, who might take a strong stand for Indian rights, are not approved. Only politically friendly attorneys can be hired by Indians, so dissent is throttled at the source. This may be news to you, but not to Indians. They are painfully aware that their rights are suppressed from all directions, and that they are a class of people with fewer legal and human rights than any other American citizens. Self determination and tribal sovereignty will never be a reality while a federal employee, not elected by the tribe, can veto laws passed by Indian representative government. This is an abuse of federal power to suppress democracy; it is tyranny. Later in this book you will find BIA's official mission statement. The first item claims that BIA will: "...recognize and preserve the inherent rights of tribal self-government and to strengthen tribal capacity to govern." The third mission statement of BIA is to serve as an advocate of sovereignty and rights in dealing with "other government entities" and the private sector. The contrast between words and reality is obvious. BIA is not an advocate or defender of Indian rights, but was designed from the start to divest Indians of their property. Indians say "BIA is here to watch us because the federal government does not trust us." I have heard that said by several different tribal leaders and at more than one reservation. Sometimes a remark is added, "they're here to see if we are arming ourselves, or preparing to revolt." Tribal government is required to account (to BIA) for money received, and to provide an estimate or budget of what will be required during the next accounting period. This requires some accounting work from both parties, and a method to transfer funds from BIA's bank to the tribal bank account. Here again BIA has the veto to stop anything that Congress (and friends it favors) might not like. It can and does disapprove budgets and it can and does stop the flow of federal funds that were previously approved. You can't blame BIA for everything, since it must obey federal politicians. The politicians in turn wish to remain in office and respond to pressure from voters and in particular to the "vote" of money contributed to their campaign funds. Some examples will be described later in this book. BIA holds title to the reservation lands. It maintains records of Indian land holdings (like county offices do elsewhere), recording transfers, land left by deceased Indians to their heirs, etc. Since the land is held by the Federal Government as trustee, it is exempt from real estate taxes. Your first thought about this exemption from real estate tax may be that Indians have an unfair advantage. I will tell you that Indians are the poorest identifiable group of people in the United States, and among the poorest on earth. The trust-land is not available as security for mortgage loans, which makes it nearly impossible for Indians to borrow to construct buildings and improvements on the land. This feature has a negative effect on possible Indian farming and business ventures, but it does protect the land from foreclosures by banks and creditors. You already know more about BIA than most other Americans, and it will begin to make sense to you as we get deeper into the story. Before we are done I'll put my own activity into some logical time sequence for you, but the more background you have first, the more sense it will make to you. Next we'll see what's concealed behind the door at the Billings Area Office. CHAPTER 3 The Billings Area Office The Billings Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is located downtown in the Federal office building. The building is shared by BIA, the Federal District Court, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, FBI, and other Federal agencies. BIA occupies most of two floors in this five story office building. The building is an off-white color, and appears to be constructed from slabs of poured concrete, a cold and ominous looking place with narrow slits for windows. If you count the total number of BIA area offices, the total amount of Indian reservation land and the number of Indians living on each reservation, you find that Billings is representative of about one tenth of BIA's total Area Office operations. On a Monday morning in December, 1985, I first met the man I was to work for, Bill Benjamin. Previously there had been some letters back and forth, and a few telephone conversations, but now he was to become my supervisor. Bill is a Blackfeet Indian (the word is always plural, there is no such thing as "a Blackfoot"), he was pleased to have a CPA on his Financial Management staff, and he had a list of work he wanted me to take on. Any new job is a little difficult during the transition stage, and much of my time went into filling out personnel forms, meeting fellow workers and finding out where the various offices and files were located. A major task was to start learning about BIA. This is a different world. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is always referred to by Indians as BIA. As I learned later when studying the Crow Language, the word in that language for "BIA" is, you guessed it, BIA. All three letters are pronounced, just as you would say "CPA" in English, and similar to the way CPA is written, the periods after each of the three letters in "BIA" are omitted. The Billings Area Office is a regional office for the administration of the Indian reservations located in Montana and Wyoming, with the exception of the Flathead Reservation, which is handled by another area office. There are about forty five thousand Indians on seven reservations included within the Billings Area Office, organized as follows: Blackfeet Reservation, Montana. The U.S. part of the Blackfeet Nation. Others live in Canada. Rocky Boy Reservation, Montana: Certain bands of Chippewa and Cree. Fort Belknap Reservation, Montana: Certain bands of Assiniboine and Gros Ventres. Fort Peck Reservation, Montana: Certain bands of Assiniboine and Sioux. Northern Cheyenne Reservation, Montana: The entire Northern Cheyenne Nation. Crow Reservation, Montana: The entire Crow Nation. Wind River Reservation, Wyoming: Part of the Arapahoe. Part of the Shoshone. After my first brief field trip to a reservation (Northern Cheyenne) as a BIA employee, I was introduced to the Area office's Employee Handbook. Here is what BIA says about itself, as found in that "Employee Handbook" which is given to each new employee: "Welcome to the Billings Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to the challenge of providing services to the Indian People of Montana and Wyoming. "The Bureau's mission, as established by Congress, can be summarized in the following four key statements: "1. To recognize and preserve the inherent rights of tribal self-government and to strengthen tribal capacity to govern. "2. To provide resources for tribal government programs. "3. To serve as an advocate for the sovereignty and rights of American Indian Tribes in dealing with other governmental entities and the private sector. "4. To fulfill and execute the Federal Government's trust obligations to American Indian Tribes." It was a gradual process, over a period of time, for me to discover that BIA's handbook is self-serving and there is little truth in it. BIA does allocate money as appropriated by congress (item 2. above), but that's about where the truth ends. It does not do ANY of those other fine things that it so grandly speaks of, or else it does them so poorly that the mission statement is completely misleading. In most cases it does exactly the opposite of what is claimed. I will refer to many of BIA's claims further on and show how they are a facade that conceals injustice and fraud with phony words. All of the Agency Superintendents for the seven reservations in Montana and Wyoming (where there are BIA "Agencies" or branch offices) report to the Area Director in Billings. The Area Director also has some responsibility for Indians in his area who do not live on reservations. To complicate things, there are also Indian trust lands that are not located within reservation boundaries. Often Indians retain some element of ownership, such as rights to hunt and fish, cut firewood, or extract coal and minerals, on former reservation lands. Very often these rights, other than perhaps mineral rights, are not honored by our state or federal courts. The abbreviation IIM stands for Individual Indian Money, and in effect it is a banking system operated by BIA. Accounts are maintained by computer in each area office, and most of the entries into the accounts are made by computer terminals located remotely in the Agency offices at the reservations. Unlike other banks, which have internal auditors, outside auditors and systems of internal financial controls, BIA is very wary of good accounting. Hundreds of millions of dollars are simply "missing" from the trust accounts that belong to the Indians. You will hear more about that later on. The office atmosphere is one of fear, frustration and boredom. There is little incentive to do a good job, so the emphasis turns to trying to avoid complaints. The best way to avoid a complaint about what you do is to do nothing. Certainly there is no risk taking, no innovation, no serious attempt to correct basic problems or improve the system. BIA takes care of those who try to make improvements - it gets rid of them. It supports a hierarchy of loyal thieves - those are strong words, but we'll support them later on. On occasion a mistake is made - someone is hired who really cares. Most of them give up and leave in frustration. The few who take on the system are fired on one pretext or another. Those who go along with the system rise to become top management, which produces corrupt management and stagnation. The method of management is best termed "divide and conquer." Employees are assigned to perform routine tasks with little or no information about departmental goals and responsibilities. As a relic left over from the Army, BIA has a semi-military command structure. Supervisors don't suggest, they issue commands and directives and keep tight control over any initiative that might crop up from time to time. All thoughts must flow through the chain of command, which prevents innovation and creative thinking, and there is a careful watch to avoid dissent, which is called trouble making. All authority is in a very few hands, which includes the Area Director, two Assistant Area Directors, and a few department heads. If the Area Director is out of the office, even for an hour or two, this is all shuffled around and the remaining employees assume the title of "acting" Area Director, and the like, similar to the command structure of an Army. All letters and "directives" of any importance must be signed by the Area Director, and in a few cases by department heads. There are absolutely no exceptions, and no creativity or personal initiative is allowed. One of the many complaints about BIA from Indians is that so much of the Indian Budget is consumed by administration and overhead. With this in mind, BIA avoids the word "administration," and job titles are constructed to take credit for "operating" assigned programs and functions, rather than administering them, simply a play on words. This resulted in my job title of "Operating Accountant," even though I had absolutely nothing to do with accounting operations. Benjamin made it very clear to me from the start that I was in charge of absolutely nothing, and my job was "staff" rather than "line," meaning that I also was not in charge of any person. If this had been a business organization, as the only qualified accountant I would have been in charge of the accounting personnel, or at least in some way responsible for the accounting function. Not true at BIA. I was allowed to talk to the accounting people and ask them what they did, but I could not comment on their work, point out errors to them or recommend that they make improvements or corrections. I was to work for Benjamin only, accept only work assigned by him, and report directly to him. Over a period of time, I gradually discovered just what it was that he wanted. First, he wanted a better understanding of the accounting process in general, and of BIA accounting in particular. He had been exposed to some college courses in accounting, but had no related experience at all, and wanted to increase his knowledge. I found nothing objectionable about that, except that it was for his personal benefit rather than related to my job assignment. I did try to teach a bit as we went along, but accounting is really learned by doing, and by exposure to a variety of work experience found in the "real" world. He did not have enough basic experience on which to build. As a second matter, BIA was becoming more aware of auditing, and now and again there would be an audit by the General Accounting Office. Their findings and recommendations required answers, and a trained accountant could deal with such things, while Benjamin could not. I was to respond to these demands, drafting letters for his signature. Related to this, a new law had been passed (the Single Audit Act), requiring outside CPA audits of Indian contracts administered by tribal governments. The problems raised by these audits had to be handled or administered by someone, and I was to be the person who took care of that. No problem, that's well within my background and experience as a CPA. The remaining area Benjamin wanted me to cover was to review and report on the accounting records maintained by the Area Office. That is a useful function, although I feel Benjamin saw it as just another way for me to teach him accounting. To review, report and recommend (the three Rs) is auditing, and BIA was forbidden to employ auditors, since that function "belonged" to the General Accounting Office (GAO) and to the Inspector General. Government agencies protect their "turf" or territory, and the practical result was that since GAO performed audits, BIA could not do the same thing. For whatever reasons, the function was also assigned to me, and it would lead directly to big trouble. The problem, as you will later see, is that what Benjamin really appeared to want from me, was a clean bill of health, the very thing I was unable to produce. CHAPTER 4 Agencies and Reservations The local branch offices of the Bureau, located on Indian Reservations, are called Agencies, and are headed by a federal employee known as the Superintendent. The Agency is located in a central place on each reservation, usually in the main village or town. Often the name of the town reflects this, as in the case of the Crow, where the central town is named Crow Agency. Often traces remain of the old Army post, such as old brick or frame Army buildings or stables, and the remains of a military parade ground. Each Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Agency has from about twenty to a hundred federal employees. Due to Indian Preference laws ,(which give Indians first chance at BIA jobs), most BIA employees are of Indian blood, although not always from the same tribe where the agency is located. There is usually a medical clinic or small hospital in the area, operated by the Indian Health Service (IHS), a federal agency not part of BIA. After a very few days in Billings, I traveled with Bill Benjamin to the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, in South Central Montana. We did our work at a federal government office there, in an old remodeled school building, which the locals simply called "the Agency." The word nation where it relates to Indian tribes can be a little confusing, since nation is often misused to mean country or state. The definition of "nation" means a group of people who share common customs and history and who frequently have the same language, race or religion. The term correctly applies to American Indian tribes, and there is nothing negative about that. You should be aware that people who are anti- Indian use "Indian Nation" in a scathing manner, to imply that Indians are foreign or disloyal to the United States. The idea is that they should be eliminated, and the Indian Nation distinction should be abandoned. "State" refers to a self-governing political body, and since all of our tribes were fully self governing before there was a United States, and many remain at least partly self governing today, they are properly described as nation-states. Neither of these titles were somehow given to tribes by the United States. The are simply terms that correctly define the acknowledged status of Indian Tribes in the United States. "Country" means place or location, and in that fashion Indians speak of the reservation land as "Indian Country." There are many variations among tribes, at different locations, and within the structure of BIA itself. For instance, in some locations there are BIA schools, in others the State operates schools and receives funding from BIA, and churches also operate religious schools. Rather than list endless details, here is a typical situation for the Billings Area in Montana and Wyoming. Each reservation consists of several small villages and rural areas. There is a branch BIA office on each reservation (the Agency), usually located not far from the office of the Tribal government (which is elected by the members of the tribe). In the past BIA provided medical services. There were so many complaints about BIA corruption in health care that this resulted in public outrage. Congress transferred Indian health care to another federal agency. The historical record about this is clear and well documented, but Indian health care remains a disgrace even though BIA is no longer the federal bureau that provides the health care. Many local government functions are provided by BIA. BIA likely will handle police, fire, highway maintenance, and sometimes schools, public utilities, social services, parks and the like. Tribal government may contract with BIA to provide some of these services, and when this is done BIA reimburses the Tribe for its expenses (within federal limitations). This whole process leaves BIA with tight control over tribal government. In Montana, Indians have the right to attend public schools, which are reimbursed by BIA since the children live on land which is exempt from state taxation. This was set-up as a specific condition for the former Territory of Montana when it became a State, but that tax exempt situation is the same in most all states that have Indian reservations. The tribal police are supposed to support both federal and tribal laws. However they do not report to the elected tribal government, but instead (in most cases) report to the BIA Superintendent, which undermines tribal government and law enforcement. It is a routine matter for any government to control its own laws and police, but our Indian tribes are not allowed to do this, in violation of the basic international concepts of the "law of nations." Tribal courts exist, but are limited to minor crimes, the custody of children, handling of estates and wills, etc. White ranchers don't like the concept of tribal courts or laws, which would (and should) have jurisdiction over them. At the Crow Reservation, where the Court became "uppity" in the eyes of the powerful whites, BIA (through Area Director Richard Whitesell) immediately moved to cancel the tribal court budget, to put it out of business. You can assume there was a phone call to a congressman from the offended whites, then a verbal order to BIA to find a way to defeat the tribal court. That's how things are done; Indian sovereign rights are under constant attack from BIA. The elected tribal governments do not have full control of their courts, laws, or police. The Crow Tribe is not a "reorganized" tribe, as some are called. I won't go further to explain that legal term, except to say that tribes that were "reorganized" gave up their court jurisdiction over whites on the reservation. Because of this, the Crow Tribal Courts do have (in theory) their original (before there was a United States) complete civil jurisdiction within the reservation over such things as minor crimes, contracts, land titles, etc., which makes their courts feared by whites. Crow Courts can (in theory) settle disputes between Indians and whites as to land ownership and land leases. This is no different than if those white ranchers had elected to buy land in Canada, which would then have complete jurisdiction over their legal matters, and as non-Canadian citizens, they would have no right to vote in Canadian elections. You can bet the tribal courts fear to exercise their jurisdiction over white ranchers, and that the white ranchers do their best to undermine and sneer at the tribal courts, through their political influence with federal politicians and BIA. To date, the ranchers are winning and the Crow Tribe is failing in this struggle. Unlike other states, tribal governments do not fully have the power to regulate the behavior of all people within their borders. All tribes have lost their jurisdiction over major crimes, such as murder, rape, arson, etc. This was accomplished years ago with a federal law called the "major crimes act," which placed all such crimes under federal (rather than tribal) jurisdiction. That law (which also violates the nation-state concept) still stands. No other American citizens are deprived of their basic civil right to make and enforce their own laws on such intimate local matters - except for Indians. With no jurisdiction over major crimes, usually no jurisdiction over non-Indians even for minor crimes, and with BIA having a financial veto power over what's left (through the budget for tribal courts and police), you can see the haphazard mess we have made of Indian law and order. This is all to meet the demands of whites who live on or near Indian reservations, and is a form of racial and political discrimination that degrades Indian citizens. Tourists from the East and from Europe enter Indian Country with curiosity, eager to see an Indian reservation. There are seldom signs, and the land is not marked with gates and fences. I have been asked, "how do you know when you're on an Indian reservation?" The whites near Indian Country often give a bigoted answer to that question, such as "follow the trail of discarded trash, wine bottles and disposable diapers," but that's not an honest answer. I've been on many reservations many times, and I haven't noticed any difference in trash disposal compared to non-Indian lands. There is trash, but the cause is poverty, and you will see the same in any really poor area, white or Indian. The difference is poverty. Where there are no fine homes, but only poorly maintained prefab houses crowded with too many people, lacking paint and maintenance with no basements or garages, then you're on the reservation. Many of our Indians preferred round houses such as teepees, and in respect of their strong religious beliefs, the door always faced to the East, the direction that honors nature and greets the morning sun. The government houses are rectangles facing in random directions, which ignores the Maker of All Things. That simple matter, the shape of houses and the direction in which they are turned, is a slap in the face by an arrogant federal master. It is a daily reminder to Indians of the lack of respect given to their religion, culture and special status. Round houses are designed to keep family members in contact with one another, while square houses have boxes within (rooms) isolating the generations from each other. What's so terrible about a round house that honors the circle of life? Often the land is poor, and the place where you enter a reservation is marked by where the green grass ends and the desert or badlands start. The good land is almost always owned or controlled by the whiteman, leaving the brush, desert and mountain sides (rocks, sand and ice) for Tribal ownership. There are no fine cities, just poor villages on badly paved roads where even the dogs are thin. You won't find super-markets. Most stores are small convenience outlets that stock poor quality food, always owned by whites (licensed by BIA) who charge high prices. Recent model cars are rare; most are at least ten years old and Indians themselves speak of "Indian cars" with a certain wry amusement. For two or three hundred dollars you could take your pick of most of the cars you'll see on an Indian reservation. Certainly there are exceptions, and there are a few well off or wealthy Indians, but very few compared to the whites. The gas-stations are owned by whites, the public utilities are owned and staffed by whites, and the goods purchased by Indians in off-reservation white owned stores are delivered by white employees. The cattle owned by white ranchers are hauled to auction-yards owned by white investors, and the sugar beets and grain crops raised on white-controlled ranches (on Indian land irrigated with Indian water) are hauled away to non-Indian markets in white-owned trucks driven by white drivers. The money produced on Indian lands invariably goes into white pockets, while the Indians remain in deep poverty. The whites like it that way, and sneer at the Indians for being poor and "worthless." I've stayed at the motels near Indian country, where white men travel through in nice cars going who knows where. Soon after dark, the parade begins. Young Indian girls, with straight black hair walk from motel to motel. To me they look young, like they belong in high school, but some are old beyond their years. Poverty begets prostitution. They go in the back doors, and late at night they leave the motels and head for the all-night convenience store, where they buy food and other necessities before heading home. I think I know what's said, when they are met at home by waiting fathers or husbands. They're greeted with "Hi, I was worried about you so I waited up. Are you OK?" The answer must be something like, "I got a bottle of milk for the baby, and we'll have good food tomorrow for the whole family. There's gas in the car, I got some cold beer, here are your cigarettes, and I love you." The reservation area is similar to a federal "territory," as we understand that term from the days before the western states were admitted to the union. Land titles are held "in trust" by the federal government for the beneficial owners. The beneficial owners are individual Indians, and usually the tribal government owns a large amount of the less valuable land (the rocks and ice) which is held in common for all tribal members. Critics of Indians claim that tribal ownership of land is communistic. I will tell you now that that view is without merit. Indian tribes are unrelated to communism, and by definition part of the American Way. Communists may have copied some features from tribes, but tribes have copied nothing from communism. Indian traditional belief about land is neither communistic nor capitalistic. Except perhaps for small individual homesteads, their belief about land is that it is not something that can be owned by anyone. Land is of God and it is beyond price and individual ownership. Land is something to cherish rather than to exploit. Land, like the forest and streams, has it's own right to exist and to not be destroyed. This world view fits well into that of preserving the environment for future generations. A person may hunt, but not destroy all the wildlife, cut a tree but not destroy the forest, drink the water but not pollute the stream. The people of Holland hold their surface lands in private ownership, and yet the oil and underground resources are owned for the benefit of all, by their federal government. We don't call the Dutch communists because some of their property is held in common. The idea of land being owned by a tribe is simply a defense to protect it from the grasping hand of exclusive white ownership. The traditional non-Indian ethic has been to get what you can, now, with no concern that the land might be forever destroyed in the process. A logger will scream "jobs" while he cuts down the last tree, leaving only an eroded hill for his child's future. This is foreign to the Indian view of life. There has always been, and still is, white pressure to get this remaining land away from tribal ownership, destroying the tribe in the process. The whites are winning, and you'll soon understand why. It's a common mistake to assume that all the land on Indian reservations is owned by Indians. In many cases much - or even most - of the land is owned by whites, and usually it is the most valuable land, such as the river bottoms or land where irrigation water is available. Indians are often left with just the sides of mountains and bad-lands, and if these contain minerals or timber, the whites want to get their hands on that also to exploit it. Indians are simply "in the way," a nuisance keeping the capitalist away from some asset not yet fully exploited for a quick return of cash. At the Crow Reservation, 95% of the land is now either owned or controlled (leased) by non-Indians, and similar statistics are common to other reservations. That percentage is so well documented from so many reliable sources that I see no need to provide detailed support for the percentage. Just how the whites got the land is a long story. Historical records describe that most of it was taken through some form of fraud or deception. The federal government used law, force or threat of force to benefit non-Indian voters, friends or special interest groups. Often it was determined that the Indians had more land than they "should" have, and Congress either gave the land to whites or "sold" it to whites for bargain basement prices. Indian objections were ignored and overruled. Whites simply moved in and took the land, and the federal government then moved to make the actual displacement of Indians "legal" through coerced treaties or agreements. You've heard about homesteading and the Oklahoma land rush. Oklahoma was originally set aside as Indian country, a place of refuge for displaced tribes. Civil war debts were heavy, and the government needed cash. It collected cash by selling what it did not own, the land rights of the Indians. It did not ask Indian permission to do this; the land was taken by military force or intimidation. If you read the treaties, the promise was usually some cleaned-up version of "we won't kill you," but will allow you to live in peace under your existing tribal government, if you simply sign over the land and move away. After the Indians had moved, the process was repeated for the next plot of land where they had moved, and so on, chipping away at the Indian land base which grew smaller and smaller. Some bargain! Very often this was in violation of "the law of the land"; federal treaties agreed to ten or twenty years earlier that had promised "forever." The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts cooperated with the politicians in dishonoring treaties and the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to Indians, they still do. Some three hundred treaties (which in our legal system rank second only to the Constitution) have not been enforced (where benefits are due Indians) and are routinely violated by our federal courts. Where benefits are due whites, such as title to the land, the treaties are absolutely enforced to the full letter of the law. In many cases the various Christian churches urged that the land should be taken from the Indians "for their own good." It was difficult to win converts from people who were self-supporting and happy with their existing religion and way of life. Indians preferred existing tribal social, ethical and religious values to those offered by their invaders, and to a large extent this is still true. More on that later. When Indians were brought to the point of mass starvation after the buffalo were all killed, it was much easier to "convert" and "civilize" them. Starvation, and withholding promised rations, was a most effective weapon. Now the message was "you poor things, if you simply change your ways you can be just like us." The word is "ethnocentric," a fancy way of saying be like me or die. Now that we've taken away your land and capital, we'll give you charity, so we can feel good about ourselves. It's interesting that much of Glacier National Park was owned by the Blackfeet tribe. When that land was taken for a national park, the federal government agreed that the tribe could retain hunting rights and the right to cut timber on the land that was signed away. Every year or two, a tribal member shoots an elk or moose in the park as allowed under federal treaties. They are, of course, arrested and fined. The legal rational is that the current use (read popular white demands) of the land supersedes the formal laws, treaties and federal Constitution. Perhaps an attorney could explain it better, but you get the idea. Federal treaties and promises, and the United States Constitution do not mean what they say when Indian are involved. I suggest the obvious; your rights could be next if you allow the Federal Constitution and Indian treaties to be trashed. After treaty-making was ended, treaties were replaced with "agreements" to cede land. Herein lies a great problem. In the hurry to grab Indian land, many of the agreements simply specified that the land was to be sold or relinquished, and did not bother to remove the Indian legal jurisdiction that the tribe had over that land as part of it's original reservation. The agreement simply described the land that was sold. In theory, the tribal courts (of non-reorganized tribes, such as the Crow) retain their legal jurisdiction over both whites and Indians on that "ceded" land, which remains part of the reservation. Do Indians fear to exercise their legal jurisdiction over that white-owned land? You better believe it. In most cases BIA leases the land to whites, and when that is done BIA collects the rent (grazing fees, oil and gas royalties, etc.) in trust. Proceeds from land are then credited to the Indian's Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts and checks are issued to the beneficial Indian land owners. Much money disappears during this process. "Much" means millions, hundreds of millions. BIA supervisors have "sticky-fingers" and simply pocket what they think of as their share. This is described in other chapters, has been done for over a hundred years, and continues today. BIA sets the price to be charged for land usage, and prepares all contracts for rentals, grazing, oil drilling and the like. Historically BIA discourages or prevents Indians from operating their own land as ranchers or farmers - they are called incompetent. BIA rents the land to white land operators for a price well below what the land is worth. (No one at BIA disputes the bargain rental rates, which are well documented even by BIA.) These below market prices provide "patronage" or a systematic method of transferring (I call it looting) the value of Indian lands to whites, and has continued with little challenge for a hundred years. Where Indians have the right to lease their own land, still BIA insists upon dividing it among heirs when someone dies, rather than returning it to tribal ownership. By this process, the land is cut-up into ever smaller pieces, an ideal situation for white operators who use divide and conquer tactics. Where white ranchers deal directly with Indian land owners, the "good old boy" network enforces below market lease payments, the whites never, never bid against each other. I have heard many reports of this from Indian friends. Similar, as to irrigation water provided at the expense of the taxpayers. There are no accurately controlled records kept of billings and payments. In this way large non-Indian ranchers and farmers get water cheap or free, out of the federal budget for Indians. You'll find extensive third-party documentation about that subject in this book. CHAPTER 5 BIA Summary BIA controls Indians through the lack of accountability and the use of hierarchy to control BIA employees. It can and does veto the legislation of elected tribal officials, vetoes contracts, limits the use of attorneys to those approved by non-Indian politicians, and leases or otherwise controls land for the benefit of non-Indians. It withholds money and information about money (even tribal funds), limits sovereignty by tribal government and the authority of tribal courts, controls the police, undermines Indian self-government and democracy, steals from the poor, and hides behind phony words. The non-Indian land operators (ranchers, miners, loggers, etc.) are politically active, and their organizations give financial support (PAC money, etc.) to the western politicians. Aside from the PAC's, whose operations are open and legal, this can't be clearly traced, but if you try the pay-off idea as a theory, it explains why this outrageous system is never reformed. In the same way the non-Indian western public lands (or political lands) are looted. Like BIA, the Bureau of Land Management and U. S. Forest Service also rent land for grazing (at prices as low as one-tenth of market value) to white land operators. There are also subsidized timber sales, mining with no royalties, petroleum fraud, and the list goes on. The rules of capitalism and the market are trashed to produce a subsidy for politically favored classes, at the expense of all citizens. It's a tax kick-back that got started before any of us were born. The lack of improvements in federal accountability can be traced to this logic. If federal employees had to be responsible for their actions, they might refuse to do the "dirty work" for the politicians. Honest bookkeeping would make all of this traceable, so politicians don't want internal controls, effective audits, or honest financial reporting. BIA exploits and steals from Indians, and it manages to continue doing this because you and I let it happen. We have a collective responsibility to change this system, and this book will offer a specific way to get it done. CHAPTER 6 What I Found - General "The search for justice is the Christian message." Bishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa I was fired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in October, 1986, for the stated cause of "insubordination," but in truth for being a whistleblower. There is always a trumped-up cause, because firing a person for exercising the right of free speech (in an appropriate manner) wouldn't sound good. Nor would firing an auditor for issuing an honest report, while performing his assigned duties in an honest and forthright manner. The events leading up to my being fired will be described in more detail as we go along, but it's time to tell you about the underlying problems that led to the loss of my job a year after starting work at BIA. We're jumping forward in time to see what those problems are, and then later we'll back up and see how all this fits together, and organize the sequence of events for you. One of the problems that I found at BIA made the front page of the Arizona Republic, a major newspaper in Phoenix, Arizona, about a year after my being fired by BIA. The newspaper had been investigating BIA for some time, as a result of many complaints from both Indians and other citizens. In October, 1987, they began a series of articles and editorials that were eventually reprinted in booklet form, titled Fraud in Indian Country, a Billion Dollar Betrayal. Editorials described BIA as "the worst-managed agency in the whole U.S. Government," and both of Arizona's Senators (DeConcini and McCain) had scathing comments about BIA that were quoted by the newspaper. Congressman Mike Synar, of Oklahoma, stated that rather than making substantive changes, the Interior Department often finds it "easier to simply discredit the bearers of bad news about the BIA," exactly the position I found myself in. The newspaper articles, among other things, reported that: 1. Information fed into the agency's computer system is disorganized and erroneous. 2. An estimated $5.8 billion has not been collected (since 1979) from companies that pump oil and gas from reservation lands, thus robbing Indians. 3. In some cases, money that belonged to individual Indians and tribes was deposited in slush funds through accounts set up under phony names. 4. There are thirty recent incidents in which federal employees were allegedly involved in theft, embezzlement and fraud on Indian reservations, yet few are prosecuted. 5. Indian programs failed to improve the economies of reservations, and BIA failed to provide quality education for Indian children. 6. Housing programs are riddled with scandal, and housing in many areas is shockingly substandard. 7. Indian health remains poor, with diabetes reaching epidemic proportions on some reservations. 8. BIA cannot manage its own money, or account for millions in equipment and supplies. Arizona is an oil producing state, and many of the stories concentrated on that particular issue, but the newspaper series as a whole produced a terrible picture of BIA. My case was about to be noticed by the Arizona Republic. I had been struggling with BIA for about a year since being fired (in 1986), and there had recently been some local newspaper and TV news stories in the Billings area about my case. In early November, 1987, I had a call from Kennard Real Bird, a younger brother of Richard, Real Bird, then Chairman of the Crow Tribe. Ken had told Chuck Cook, an investigative reporter of the Arizona Republic about my case, and in turn Chuck Cook phoned me. Chuck wanted to come to Billings to interview me, and phoned to make an appointment for us to get together. I had dinner with Chuck on the evening of November 10, and the next day we met at his motel room, along with Julie Matt. Julie is another BIA whistleblower, and you'll find her story later in this book. This was the first time I had met Julie, and together we were questioned by Chuck Cook. On November 22, 1987, the Arizona Republic ran a story about me on the front page of the Sunday edition. The story continued on page 6, with my photograph, and with a related article about the Crow Tribe. My story was headlined "Accountant Challenging BIA Firing," and starts out with "The Bureau of Indian Affairs fired an accountant for insubordination and refusing to conform with government policy after he found a $7.5 million discrepancy in money the BIA handled for Indians." You've seen how the newspaper covered it, and now let's look at what was behind that story. The first item we will describe is the "$7.5 million dollar" issue. Be aware that although this is the name of this issue, it does not begin to measure the much greater dollar amount of the money missing from Indian Trust accounts. This book will support my findings with third-party evidence, analysis and audits. I'm providing that evidence because a favorite way to discredit whistleblowers is to label them as "crazies" who are lashing out in an unreasoned way with no hard evidence. There is clear and convincing evidence behind my claims; they are not vague slander. I found fraud in every one of the several BIA financial systems I examined, and what can only be seen as criminal neglect in BIA accounting and auditing in general. The loss to Indians from fraud, and the liability to taxpayers to replace missing money in BIA trust accounts is more than a billion dollars. That's the equivalent of a thousand successful bank robberies of a million dollars each. Sometimes when I'm asked to speak in public about this, I say that the center of organized crime in Montana is located in the federal office building in downtown Billings. That's a novel idea for the audience and usually brings some nervous laughter, but by the time I'm done talking, the idea is no longer absurd. It's a substantial fraud that can no longer be swept under the rug, and every taxpayer will feel the bite from increased taxes or a larger deficit. We, as well as our fellow citizens who are Indian, have been robbed. Most of BIA's services involve money. BIA collects money that belongs to Indians (Trust funds). It also controls federal funds (your taxes) that are budgeted and used for the legitimate needs of Indians. Where possible I'll avoid technical terms, and try to explain this in everyday language so you won't need a business or technical background to understand the issues. If you have that kind of background, you'll be able to skim lightly through some of the explanations. You will see here what BIA really does, and how it responds to criticism and complaints. First we'll take a look at the billions of dollars in trust funds maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. CHAPTER 7 What I Found Out About IIM Trust Accounts The first (of several) frauds that I discovered and reported has to do with Indian Trust accounts. In its position as trustee for Indians, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) collects rents, grazing fees and such on Indian personal and tribal land holdings. When this money is collected, it's deposited in a federal bank account and credited to the accounts of the Indian owners. This is close to being a banking system, and the accounts are similar to savings accounts that earn interest. BIA avoids the word "bank," but since some Indian reservations are located far from banking centers, money is often allowed to accumulate in these accounts for safekeeping and to earn interest. BIA calls this the IIM (Individual Indian Money) system. Indians who live on reservations all know what "IIM" stands for, so by learning about this you will increase your knowledge about the lives of today's Indians. IIM is not taxpayer money; it is the personal income of Indian people held in trust. Most of the accounts are for individuals, but there are also large accounts for tribes and tribal groups. The reason for IIM accounts dates back to when Indians were mislabeled as incompetent, thus enabling BIA to manage their money for them. Using this theory, BIA could control all personal and tribal income as one more way to control Indians, and BIA supervisors had the opportunity to pick the pockets of Indians. That should come as no surprise. Historical accounts are filled with stories about petty theft and grand larceny directed against Indians by those entrusted with their care. Traditional Indians believed in sharing with their greater family, the tribe. No individual should be too rich or too poor. It was a grand gesture (and to some extent still is) among Indians to have a "giveaway." If one tribal member managed to accumulate more wealth than others, he/she would have a public party and give the excess to tribal neighbors. Our transplanted European culture found this to be stupid, dirty and anti-capitalistic, and it was discouraged. In Canada, for instance, the potlatch was declared illegal. BIA disapproved of this. Part of "civilizing" Indians was to teach greed as a virtue. After all, it was a sign of capitalism. Indians were forced to conform to the white concept of values. Greed is good and sharing is stupid according to the whiteman's rules. The Indian ethic of sharing had no value. The trust funds provided a source for the embezzlement of funds by BIA officials. Autocratic control, little or no accountability and immunity from lawsuits makes for easy picking. Over the years, BIA reduced it's function of control over the use of these funds. The Agency Superintendent still serves as guardian in some cases (for minor children, adults in mental institutions, etc.) but in most cases money collected for an account holder (or what's left of it) is paid out to the account holder after a few days. There are computer terminals at each reservation in the Agency offices. BIA does the billing for land rents and similar transactions. Money is received at the Agency office by a federal cashier, and entries are made on the computer terminal to credit the accounts of the owners. A typical transaction would be grazing fees received from a non-Indian who leases Indian land. The computer terminals are connected by direct wire to the Area Office (in this case, Billings) where the IIM accounts are maintained. The money (mostly checks) is mailed to Billings, where work is done to deposit the money in a federal bank account. You might hope for a tight connection between the entries made by wire from the Agency offices, and the actual flow of money into the federal bank account. There is not, there is only a very fuzzy connection, which is a terribly serious problem. It's possible to make entries at the Agency without any cash reaching Billings. It's also possible for cash collections to arrive in Billings, without any entry to credit the individual accounts. I am the first CPA (other than the rare federal auditor) to examine this in detail, and I tell you that's what I found. There is a near complete lack of control and accountability. One of my first assignments with BIA was to study the IIM accounting system. My job description said I was to "review, report and then recommend" any improvements needed in the system. This is a very standard assignment for an accountant or auditor, and with thirty years experience in corporate and public accounting and auditing, I was qualified to do the work. You're going to keep hearing the word "reconciliation" when we talk about this, so it's important to understand what that means in this particular context. The term is very broad, so it must be defined to fit the situation at BIA. Let's assume you have a checking account. Each time you make a deposit or write a check, you add or subtract from your old balance to arrive at a new balance on your check stub or check register. Each month you receive a bank statement in the mail, and you compare your balance with what the bank shows. Often the amounts don't agree, so you look for bank service charges, checks outstanding, and so forth. This is what people think of as reconciling, and it's necessary for catching errors. For household checking accounts, the mysteries usually aren't difficult, so you can do the job yourself, or a trip to the bank solves any remaining problems. For a large commercial account with millions of dollars and thousands of transactions, the job is more difficult, but trained bookkeepers or accountants can solve the problems. For large accounts, reconciling is essential. For BIA IIM accounts, there are two things to be reconciled. One is the individual's account, which is maintained on the computer in Billings. That is the computer that the Agencies are connected to by wire. The accounts are totaled at the end of the month and that's the equivalent of your household checking account balance. The thing to match is the total shown on the bank statement. The Billings office does not see the bank statement since it's kept by another BIA office (in Albuquerque, New Mexico). Billings does get a copy of the Albuquerque bank records, which serves the purpose of a bank statement. (For the technical reader, it's a copy of the general ledger account showing cash in the bank). So far there's nothing evil in this. Billings has the information it needs to reconcile the IIM accounts. The problem is, I found that Billings does not reconcile the accounts, and had never even compared the two balances. At first thought that sounds more sloppy than evil. The problem is that it's somebody else's money, BIA is supposed to provide a high level of care for it, and there are hundreds of millions of dollars missing from the accounts of people who live in poverty. BIA has such sloppy records that there is no way to find out what happened. The money is gone. Where it went is unknown, since nobody at BIA is willing to look. Old records have conveniently been destroyed, making it impossible to reconstruct past transactions. It appears to me, after examining the situation in depth until I was stopped short, that this is the result of decades of unrestricted theft by BIA personnel. But what about our national concept of assuming innocence until guilt is proven? Pretend for a minute that you find yourself relying on a trustee to hold your money, and you have some idea about how much he is receiving each year. Year after year he pays out less than received, and he refuses to give you any reports about your balances. Authoritative experts report again and again that your trustee does sloppy work and refuses to make any improvements in his system. Years go by, always the same, and you are always missing money, lots of money. I suggest that at some point in time, based on these facts, the burden of proof shifts to discredit the person holding the cash. Your suspicions are based on reason, and it is the trustee who needs to prove his honesty. Billings is not the only BIA Area Office where this has happened, although that would be bad enough. The same thing has happened in EVERY BIA Area Office. The Indian's trust accounts have not been handled in a trustworthy fashion, and the taxpayers will have to foot the bill to replace the hundreds of millions of dollars that are missing. Let's not play games, to be correct about it, the only logical conclusion is that the money has been stolen. There might not be a legal obligation, but there is an ethical and moral obligation for BIA to return the missing money. That is where this reaches into your pocket. At Billings, my initial report was that the missing amount was $7.5 million dollars, which was the NET of shortages and excesses. The gross amount is much greater that that, and what happened to the money will never be known. It is a fact that the money is missing, and the only possible explanation is grand larceny. After the first hundred years or so of a continuing problem, I believe the burden of proof must shift to the party whose hands are in the cash box, and that party is BIA. To prepare for my audit assignment I looked for any earlier studies about the IIM system. I found the following: EARLIER REPORTS: The General Accounting Office (GAO), an auditing arm of Congress, had issued a report in 1982 titled REPORT TO THE CONGRESS, signed by the Comptroller General, dated September 8, 1982. Page 17 of that report stated that BIA's trust fund accounting was not reliable. Local offices did not complete required reconciliations, and the accounts were out of balance by millions of dollars. The situation had not improved since a previous study in 1968. (Note that they said "out of balance," not "missing money," as I would say later on.) On page 29, it strongly recommended that reconciliations should be done, and on page 33 BIA said it would "require that these reconciliations be done." During my work I discovered that BIA's response to the earlier audit was false. There had been no changes or improvements since 1968, a period of eighteen years. BIA's response was an empty promise. BIA knew the promise was empty when it made it. To "require that these reconciliations be done" means that BIA would issue a "directive" or instruction. There are several catches that make a directive like this deceptive. First, the system is so poorly designed that without improving it, reconciliations are impossible. Note that the directive does not even mention improving the system. BIA does not have the trained people on its staff who could perform the reconciliations, even if the system was improved. BIA's directives are not addressed to a particular person or office with the authority and responsibility to accomplish the task, and the directives are not enforced. BIA's promise was in 1982, and yet in 1994 the accounts still are not being reconciled. The accounts in Billings were not being reconciled, and in the memory of employees, they never had been. I learned that from my own audit work. In continuing my search for earlier studies, I found a report issued by the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General. INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT - SEPT. 1985: On page 13, their study of another area office showed the cash accounts at that office short by forty two million dollars. Later, an informant that I believe to be reliable told me that the other office had a fictitious account under the name of R.L. Larson. The Larson account was used to skim cash from Indians, for BIA expenses and for the personal pockets of BIA employees. I do not have personal knowledge of this but it seems most likely. Cash does not evaporate, and Larson is a cute name for larceny. That word "short" s mine, the previous audits are never that definite, and never speak of grand larceny. I was to be the first person to call it what it is, larceny of the poor. On page 14 of the report, OIG auditors made a grave error. They said: .".. all agency accounts for ... Billings ... had been reconciled. We concluded that these reconciliations were being accomplished timely and accurately ..." That quotation is very important, and I want you to remember it; I will refer to it again. In my reports about the IIM system I said the OIG audit was deceptive, which is a simple fact, and in a later letter to me (dated 12/15/87) OIG auditors admitted that in their earlier report (stating reconciliations were being accomplished) "we did not verify ...." In straight language, that means they did not bother to look. That letter from the Inspector General is in my files, copies have gone to Congress, etc., so it's a public record, not some unsupported claim. BIA referred to my report (that the OIG audit was wrong) as "frivolous and unwarranted," and in my boss, Bill Benjamin's, letter of dismissal my report about OIG's error was used as grounds for firing me. Benjamin knew at the time that the OIG audit was wrong. I told him about it several times, and gave him clear proof and written evidence to show that the accounts were not reconciled, which Benjamin fully understood. That's important. I spent hours discussing this with Benjamin, and he understood the accounts were not reconciled, and he knew this was important. He knew my report was correct but still used it as grounds to fire me for insubordination. Long after being fired, I received a letter from James R. Richards, Inspector General, dated April 19, 1988 in answer to repeated questions and letters from me and pressure from a congressional representative. Referring to the 1985 OIG audit, the Inspector General's letter states: "we have concluded that [the statement in] our prior audit was not factual." The final paragraph in Mr. Richards letter reads: .".. we agree that ... our prior audit ... was in error and ... may have misled the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We regret if this ... in any way contributed to your problems with the Bureau." What a joke!. Contributed to my problem? It was used as a false ground to fire me, and at the time I was fired Benjamin knew it was false. I was financially ruined over this "error," one hell of a price to pay for preparing an honest report. I spent several months reviewing IIM, so it's necessary to give you a summary. After researching earlier studies, I gathered all the information available on the computer system and programs, and learned to use the computer to inquire about accounts. I spoke to the programmers and computer operators to learn what they did, and I studied the information produced by the computers. Much time was spent with Donna Boyer, the head of Billings IIM clerical work. One of her main jobs was to prepare what was (in error) called a reconciliation. Whoever designed her job didn't understand what a reconciliation was, because what she produced was not a reconciliation at all. She was loyally and efficiently doing her assigned work, but it had no connection to reconciling, just unnecessary wheel spinning. The individual accounts are kept on a computer in Billings, controlled by that direct wire from the Agencies. The cash is deposited in a federal bank account in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This will start to make sense to you in a minute or two. It is obvious that the two things should agree. The total in the depositors accounts should be the same as the amount of cash in the bank. However, I soon discovered that more cash was coming in than was being credited to the depositors accounts. The idea of matching the two, or reconciling, is something that commercial banks, savings and loan institutions and credit unions do every day. At banks reconciling is sometimes just called balancing, or balancing the books. Banks hire accountants and auditors of their own. Each state employs auditors and so do the Federal agencies that inspect banks. At the Billings Area Office, there is one person with final authority over cash controls and bank reconciliations. It is a man we will get to know better, Bill Benjamin, my boss at BIA. The IIM account balances in Billings amount to around fifty million dollars, which makes BIA one of the largest "banks" in Billings. If you assume that BIA employs accountants and auditors, like the banks do to watch over their money, then you are wrong. I was the first accountant employed in Billings in anyone's memory, and they had never employed an auditor. In fact, BIA has very few accountants, and among it's thirty thousand employees, not a single auditor. If you take a course in accounting or in business law, you will find that when it comes to a trust fund or trust accounting, high standards are required. If you are paid to take care of somebody else's property, your work should be above suspicion. The words in Black's Law Dictionary that best describe the duties of a trustee are: fiduciary, obligation, confidence and faithfully. The rule handed down to us from English law is that a trustee is liable for providing a "high degree" of responsible care. If a (nongovernmental) trustee fails to do that, he or she is liable for the missing money, for fines and for a prison sentence. At the very least, BIA has an ethical and moral obligation to meet the standards that apply to trustees. In an earlier chapter, we quoted BIA's words that part of it's mission was to "fulfill and execute the Federal Government's trust obligations to American Indians." Now we see that BIA does not provide good trust services. BIA seldom tells the truth about itself or about Indians, and here you have a concrete example of that. So, what did I find? I had asked Donna to compare the two totals; the individual accounts with the balance in the bank. She found the individual accounts were short by more than six million dollars. She was close, and when I did my (more exacting) work I found that as of 2/28/86 the exact net difference was $7,584,313.82. There was more cash in the bank than had been credited to the accounts of the Indian owners. Most accountants would tell you - and I will tell you here - that if bank records are rife with errors, never balanced and out of control, it is wise to think about embezzlement and stealing. I did not find it, I was stopped; fired by Benjamin before I could look any further. Accountants also know that in a situation like this, there could be both positives and negatives (shortages and excesses) within some net balance. My report only described the NET difference in the balances. There is room to play with words here. From the viewpoint of the Indians the accounts are short. The money that was collected was not credited to their accounts, so there is no way they could draw it out. BIA will play with words if it is to their advantage. It took BIA several YEARS before they agreed that the facts I reported were correct,and they still imply that it is not a serious problem. All my reports on this give an exact date and amount with good reason. One way BIA handles problems is to generalize them, such as to respond that there may have been some minor inaccuracy at some point in time, but that generally there is no problem. My specific complaint about a specific problem at a specific date prevents BIA from doing an end run. Now, if you had a bank where the deposits were not added to your account, what would you call it? Most people would say they were robbed, most would call the police. You would certainly look at your bank statements carefully, but then BIA does not send statements out very often, and in some cases almost never. An OIG audit of the IIM accounts at the Fort Peck, Montana, BIA Agency office found in 1985 that "statements have not been distributed since 1979." (Audit W-IA-BIA-18-84). That's six years with no detailed accounting to the account holders. Would you like to have BIA take charge of your money and never give you a bank statement? After leaving BIA, a tribal government in another state phoned me. I will be vague about identities here to protect them from reprisal. A top administrator of that tribe told me: "BIA is robbing us, and won't let us have a record of our account. Without access to our own money to operate tribal government, our tribe is failing." Let me remind you - this is not Federal money, it is the tribe's earnings from property the tribe owns. BIA was holding back the tribe's own money. BIA's action did not match it's mission statement to "strengthen tribal capacity to govern." In reality, it was destroying the tribal government's capacity to operate by leaving it with no cash. This was not the Crow Tribe, but you will see elsewhere in this book that the same thing was done in a vindictive fashion to the Crow Government. I believed the person who phoned me, but there was nothing I could do, and I had no answer. BIA's trap is effective. There are no police to call, our legal system makes BIA exempt from lawsuits, and the FBI does not investigate when a federal agency harms American citizens, at least not if the citizens are Indian. In Billings, I reported my findings to Bill Benjamin including a copy of Donna Boyer's findings on April 17, 1986, and gave him a more detailed report on April 29. Nothing was done. After urging him verbally several times, and waiting over two months, I wrote directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior (for Indian Affairs) on July 9th. There was no response from Ross Swimmer. On July 23, I made a formal report at a committee meeting. There were several reasons to report this, in addition to a general suspicion of fraud and grand theft: 1). Job assignment, as described earlier. 2). Job description, to use professional judgment. 3). CPA professional ethics, and the basic requirement of full disclosure. 4). Federal laws about waste, fraud and abuse. 5). My Federal oath of office. 6). Past military service oath. 7). Congressional Code of Ethics for Government Service. Article 9 states "expose corruption wherever discovered." 8). Legal requirements of trusteeship. 9). Dictates of religion and conscience. During my follow-up after being fired, I wrote to Montana's Senator Max Baucus. He asked for a response from BIA. Here is what BIA's Director of Administration, Nancy Garrett, had to say about the problem in her letter of 5/29/87 responding to Senator Baucus: "In performing its trust responsibilities, the Bureau's intent is to achieve the highest degree of accuracy and quality possible. As with any large accounting system which carries data for a high volume of ... accounts, errors may occur. However, these errors are detected and corrected through the account reconciliation process which is required to be performed on a monthly basis." Garrett's letter is not just worthless hot-air, it is deceptive, and she had to know that when she wrote it. Her words "required to be performed" are unrelated to the factual situation; her response amounted to a lie. Garrett wrote a similar letter on 07/02/87 with almost identical wording to U. S. Representative Ron Marlenee. As of 1994, the reconciliations are still not done and the missing millions are not accounted for. In my follow-up after being fired by BIA, I was assisted by Montana's Senator Max Baucus who asked BIA to respond to written questions from me. The question about IIM was "do you agree with the factual situation." It took BIA five months to answer that, but here is the response of William Ragsdale (BIA's chief career employee) dated December 17, 1987. "Yes, we agree that there was a difference of $7,584,313. [at 2/28/86]." Ragsdale's letter said there would be a training program to "address the problem." OIG audit (No. 88-116), which resulted from my "allegations," as BIA always puts it, was finally issued in September, 1988. The audit, rounded to the nearest dollar, stated that the unaccounted for difference was $7,584,314. It went on to say: "...the Area Office did not know whether the 39,000 ... accounts valued at $51 million were correctly stated." In ordinary language that means the records are not right and the system is out of control. The $7.5 million I reported was a net difference. When the accounts (within that net) are segregated by type, the individuals accounts (just one part of IIM) are short by $27 million dollars, according to OIG's own figures. The gross differences that I add up from OIG' figures are over 60 million dollars. So, although the NAME of this issue at the Billings Area Office relates to $7.5 million, the measure of it is around $60 million at just this one location. The situation for America's Indians is a real mess. After my many complaints, the international accounting firm of Arthur Andersen & Co. was retained by BIA (after a shove from various Senators) to do certain audit work on these trust funds. Using the Freedom of Information Act, I obtained hundreds of pages of audit reports, some of which are referred to in this book. Here are some of the words from one of those pages, which I will enclose as Appendix 2. The date was February 20, 1989, but I believe it is typical of the continuing situation. It is a report about replies received from IIM account holders who were asked to respond if their IIM balances were in error: "The majority of the negative comments are from the Phoenix and Billings areas. ... The most common complaints are (in order of occurrence) .. 1.) Haven't received checks listed on statements. 2.)... in many instances, had never seen a statement prior to this mailing. 3.) Have no knowledge of even the existence of the accounts confirmed." All BIA Area offices have a similar situation. The total cost for BIA to straighten out this mess, replacing cash missing from the accounts of Indians, based on what I know, could easily reach a billion dollars (not counting interest). You can bet that BIA will say shortages are offset by overages, to make this issue of minor importance. I won't buy that for a minute, because it's dead wrong. The benefit of any doubt (remember the high level of care required by trustees) does not belong to the trustee, it belongs to the beneficiaries. That is the rule we get from our system of law, and here we are dealing with oppressed human beings, not just "accounts." The OIG reports lean in favor of BIA, not the holders of the Indian trust accounts. That is bias rather than independence on the part of the auditor. Let's see how the OIG report treats the discrepancies that I described while employed by BIA: "We found that this difference ... resulted primarily from computer system design and reconciliation procedure deficiencies that existed for several years. ... our adjustments tend to explain all but $374,000 of the $7.6 million net difference ... In theory, these adjustments should not have any effect on the underlying individual and tribal account balances ..." So, OIG makes it a relatively small matter, and "tends to explain" that the problem should have no effect on the accounts. Yet on the same page they make the other statement (quoted earlier) that BIA "did not know whether the 39,000 ... accounts were correctly stated." I tend to think they are lying through their teeth, and OIG has a forked tongue. Just who pocketed the roughly 60 million dollars that was skimmed off the Billings Area trust accounts over the years? According to OIG, apparently the computer did it. If I call it $60 million, and the Inspector General calls it $374,000, who is right? To me the OIG audit is a soft (kissing-up) report about a real and massive problem; a sad example of "no fault government" where nobody is responsible for problems and the problems are treated lightly. I suggest that the federal courts should decide the issue, and there should be a jury to determine the amount including interest and damages. OIG's people who do t