Convincing the State: Funding Shortfalls
Five of the 13 interviewees who spoke about the factors that persuaded the state to
agree said that the funds that retrocession would free up for country law enforcement
were a major factor. Because state law enforcement received no additional money to
fund increased policing responsibilities and because reservations are not subject to many
state taxes, county sheriff’s departments took on extra responsibilities without extra
resources. Often, it was tribal representatives who focused on this point to get the backing
of county law enforcement.
(Interviewer) Did the money factor work in your favor with the county and
the state? Were they agreeable because it was going to save them money?
(
Respondent) We kind of pitched a little bit of that. Saying we’ll help you
reduce [costs].
451
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
One tribe used timing to its advantage — countywide budget shortfalls made retrocession
seem like an attractive option for the state to save money it would have otherwise spent
on reservation-based criminal justice issues:
What I heard was the county didn’t have enough officers, and, at that time,
they were cutting down on personnel because they didn’t have funds.
There was hardly any coverage, even in their area. If we could get our
own, the sheriffs were happy to have us take care of this area.
Convincing the State: Good Relationship
Another reason cited by several individuals was the relationship that the tribe had
with the state. One respondent said that developing this relationship was part of the
strategy for securing state acceptance of retrocession, and 2 others cited a relationship
that was fostered from a previous court decision mandating that the tribe and state work
together on hunting and fishing issues.
Because I think, the first year, it was kind of the strategy, developing the
relationship with the [state government], and actually that really helped us
with our relationship with the [state government] because we were
aligned with people, eventually, who were already to the point of having it
adopted by resolution, going to the various committees.
Several other reasons for state acceptance cited by individual interviewees
included: non-Indian community support; state confidence in the ability of the tribe to
police itself; state knowledge of retrocession from previous successful attempts by other
tribes; high quality of people involved in lobbying effort; and the fact that tribal people
themselves were doing the lobbying proved to help win over state support.
Success Generally
While it was not a formal question in the interview schedule, 5 respondents
commented more generally on what factors they think led to their petition for
retrocession being successful, while other tribes failed. These 5 respondents, who were
heavily involved in the retrocession itself, offered detailed responses involving a variety
of answers some of them overlapping with the reasons given for state acceptance. The
responses included the following:
· Great leadership cited from the Chairperson and tribal police chief;
· Friends in high places, such as the BIA and U.S. Attorney General’s Office;
452
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
· Support from non-Indian community;
· Experienced and competent tribal police;
· State funding savings that would result from retrocession;
· Stories of the sheriff’s mistreatment;
· Testimony from other tribes that had successfully retroceded;
· Public relations effort that included mass mailings to the surrounding non-Indian
community.
Success Generally: Leadership
Good leadership by a visionary tribal chair and an experienced tribal police chief
were the top reasons offered.
The whole process of what we did, really is a credit to [the Chairman] and
what he did. The managing of it, the bringing of the insight of what we’re
doing to the council and to the community. ... He managed, and he
orchestrated the majority of what happened and brought in the resources
and the people who were committed to doing this. ... I think because he
was a well-rounded individual — spiritually, mentally, physically ... he
had a real diverse kind of a background in the area of Indian communities,
knowing the issues that faced us. And I think, in knowing that, he was also
on the traditional part.