Abenaki bands craft coalition against recognition amendment 

Posted: March 28, 2008

by: Gale Courey Toensing / Indian Country Today <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->

MONTPELIER, Vt. - A conflict over the authority to recognize the state's Abenaki Indians for the purpose of labeling Indian arts and crafts took an unexpected turn recently, bringing together normally fractious bands to resist a proposal they say could terminate their identity as indigenous people.

Three Abenaki bands - the St. Francis/Sokoki of Missisquoi, the Koasek, and the Nulhegan and a Nulhegan sub-band, the El-Nu Abenaki Tribe - have joined forces to oppose Senate Bill 369, which would grant them conditional state recognition through the Legislature for the purposes of labeling products under the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act.

The conditional recognition, however, imposes a short timeline ending next January in which the bands would have to submit extensive documentation and seek further approval from the attorney general and the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs.

If the bands miss the deadline, ''their Native identity is extinguished,'' representatives from the bands said in a statement announcing a press conference held March 20 at the Ndakinna Education Center, the Indian museum in East Montpelier, where the leaders voiced their grievances against the bill.

''These bands that spoke represent the vast majority of Vermont's Abenaki descendants and heretofore they were not together. Their opposition to this process has brought them together for the first time. It's really amazing. Some of these bands were actually testifying against each other as recently as three or four weeks ago. Now everyone realizes that unless they stand together, they're going to get rolled over by this thing,'' said Fred Wiseman. He is a member of and tribal historian for the St. Francis Sokoki Band, professor of Humanities and Native Studies, and author of ''The Voice of the Dawn: An Autohistory of the Abenaki Nation.''

S. 369 seeks to amend a flawed recognition bill passed in 2006, which recognized Vermont's Abenaki ''people'' and created the VCNAA. But the 2006 bill did not meet the criteria of the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which requires an Indian group to be federally recognized or state recognized by a legislature or a state commission.

The 2006 bill was changed at the last minute after the legislative council said it met the federal requirements, Wiseman said. Wiseman was a member of the governor's advisory committee on Indian affairs from 2001 until the commission was created in 2006.

''Somebody got to the bill and changed it in committee at the last minute. It was just a few words: the commission can 'assist' the tribes seeking recognition. Before that, the commission could 'recognize' the tribes to meet the Arts and Crafts [Act],'' Wiseman said.

When the VCNAA members began to establish recognition criteria in early 2007, the attorney general stepped in and said they didn't have the authority to do so.

''That's where the problem is. The attorney general, I believe, all along was set to do this,'' Wiseman said.

He has not been able to find out how or why the original bill was changed: ''That's all deep, 'smoky room' kind of stuff.'' But it's happening again with S. 369, he said.

At a March 13 hearing, the bands thought they had arrived at a compromise that would immediately have granted legislative recognition of the three major bands while allowing the commission to recognize smaller, unaffiliated bands and families.

''Between Thursday and Friday the attorney general was added, the timeline was added and the whole thing was changed,'' Wiseman said.

''It was my idea,'' said Sen. Vince Illuzzi, who supports the tribes and introduced the original amendment. ''I inserted the AG's office in exchange for the General Assembly granting, upon passage of the legislation, conditional state recognition. A number of individuals not represented by the three to be recognized felt the rules were being ignored with regard to the three bands. A subsequent review of the conditional state recognition by the General Assembly was my way of ensuring those not immediately recognized by the General Assembly that there would be meaningful review.''

The leaders said they have no confidence that they could receive a fair hearing ''on the highly political issue of tribal recognition. The fact that the amendment links a despised Attorney General's office with a detested commission is doubly disturbing.''

Like most attorneys general in Northeastern states, Vermont's attorney general spent years and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars successfully fighting the St. Francis/Sokoki's quest for federal recognition by stirring up fears of casinos and land claims. He also opposed the 2006 ''state recognition'' bill until just before it was passed, lending credence to Wiseman's suspicion that the attorney general, William H. Sorrell, might have initiated the last-minute change.

Sorrell could not be reached for comment.

Mark Mitchell, VCNAA chairman, shrugged off the Abenaki leaders' harsh criticism of the commission, saying he agrees with their objections to S. 369.

''I can certainly understand their frustration, but I think it's driven from not receiving state recognition. I don't lean left or right, but I do know the Legislature is responsible. They created this scenario two years ago,'' Mitchell said.

The commission got bogged down in trying to address the flawed 2006 bill. But, Mitchell said, ''I can look at [the day] when four Abenaki groups that generally haven't spoken or communicated got together to hold a united press conference. I think that alone is a huge success.''

The bill is still in flux, Illuzzi said.

''We are still open to suggestions, so the bill as introduced by my committee may be further changed,'' he said. The Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs had scheduled another hearing for March 27.  

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416920