Indian Health Service’s wasted money
By Independent Record - 07/23/08
It is hardly unusual to read of shoddy or inadequate services provided Native Americans in Montana and elsewhere.
Too often it seems as though Indians are the last priority.
Still, Tuesday’s story about the federal Indian Health Service was an eye opener. At a time when the agency often runs out of money necessary to provide adequate health care to the Native Americans it serves, it turns out that the IHS can barely run itself.
According to the Government Accounting Office, the Congress’ watchdog agency, the IHS has lost at least $15.8 million worth of equipment over the past few years. The lost or stolen property usually is just written off, with no one held accountable.
How does an agency simply lose some 5,000 items ranging from computers to trucks? (Because the investigation was just a sampling of IHS operations, the total number of missing items and their value probably is much higher.)
Worse, according to the GAO, the agency “made a concerted effort” to obstruct GAO investigators’ work, including misrepresentations of data and fabricated documents. “It’s disgusting what’s happening at the Indian Health Service,” said North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. “We can’t continue to allow this. We have people dying because they can’t get health care, and then we get a report like this.”
Coming on the heels of last year’s revelations that despite the high rate of crime against Native Americans, the Bureau of Indian Affairs receives only about 30 percent of the funding it needs for law enforcement, the new IHS report is just another example of the not-so-benign neglect with which this country ignores its obligations toward Indian Country.
Too often it seems as though Indians are the last priority.
Still, Tuesday’s story about the federal Indian Health Service was an eye opener. At a time when the agency often runs out of money necessary to provide adequate health care to the Native Americans it serves, it turns out that the IHS can barely run itself.
According to the Government Accounting Office, the Congress’ watchdog agency, the IHS has lost at least $15.8 million worth of equipment over the past few years. The lost or stolen property usually is just written off, with no one held accountable.
How does an agency simply lose some 5,000 items ranging from computers to trucks? (Because the investigation was just a sampling of IHS operations, the total number of missing items and their value probably is much higher.)
Worse, according to the GAO, the agency “made a concerted effort” to obstruct GAO investigators’ work, including misrepresentations of data and fabricated documents. “It’s disgusting what’s happening at the Indian Health Service,” said North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. “We can’t continue to allow this. We have people dying because they can’t get health care, and then we get a report like this.”
Coming on the heels of last year’s revelations that despite the high rate of crime against Native Americans, the Bureau of Indian Affairs receives only about 30 percent of the funding it needs for law enforcement, the new IHS report is just another example of the not-so-benign neglect with which this country ignores its obligations toward Indian Country.
Current rating: 3.3 with 9 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
iimaccountholder wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:07 PM:
" July 22, 2008
This is my second response to this article to include 2 recent reports concerning Indian Health Services.
In July 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submitted another report to the long list of Indian reports called A Quiet Crisis federal funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country.
Also, in September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submitted another report to the long list of Indian reports called Broken Promises Evaluating the Native American Health Care System.
Both of these reports were presented to the President, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Once again, these reports give notice to our elected leaders the failures of federal programs under treaty and federal contractual agreements for services.
The Commission made 11 Recommendations and Recommendation 1 said this about accountability.
Recommendations
1. The Native American crisis should be addressed with the urgency it demands. The administration should establish a bipartisan, action-oriented initiative at the highest level of accountability in the government, with representatives including elected officials, members of Congress, officials from each federal agency that funds programs in Indian Country, tribes, and Native American advocacy organizations. The action group should be charged with analyzing the current system, developing solutions, and implementing positive change.
Why is it still being reported to Congress that mismanagement prevails in federal agencies administering Indian services? Decade after decade and century after century.
Thomas M. Wabnum
IIMAccountholder@comcast.net
Prairie Band Potawatomi
IIM Accountholder
Former Federal Programs Relocation survivor
Former Indian Boarding School survivor
Former Tribal Councilperson
U.S. Navy Viet Nam Veteran
BIA/OST retired "
This is my second response to this article to include 2 recent reports concerning Indian Health Services.
In July 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submitted another report to the long list of Indian reports called A Quiet Crisis federal funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country.
Also, in September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submitted another report to the long list of Indian reports called Broken Promises Evaluating the Native American Health Care System.
Both of these reports were presented to the President, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Once again, these reports give notice to our elected leaders the failures of federal programs under treaty and federal contractual agreements for services.
The Commission made 11 Recommendations and Recommendation 1 said this about accountability.
Recommendations
1. The Native American crisis should be addressed with the urgency it demands. The administration should establish a bipartisan, action-oriented initiative at the highest level of accountability in the government, with representatives including elected officials, members of Congress, officials from each federal agency that funds programs in Indian Country, tribes, and Native American advocacy organizations. The action group should be charged with analyzing the current system, developing solutions, and implementing positive change.
Why is it still being reported to Congress that mismanagement prevails in federal agencies administering Indian services? Decade after decade and century after century.
Thomas M. Wabnum
IIMAccountholder@comcast.net
Prairie Band Potawatomi
IIM Accountholder
Former Federal Programs Relocation survivor
Former Indian Boarding School survivor
Former Tribal Councilperson
U.S. Navy Viet Nam Veteran
BIA/OST retired "
iimaccountholder wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:04 PM:
" July 23, 2008
For decades and centuries, Tribes have testified to Congress about federal services to Indians under federal trust responsibilities that stems from treaties.
In my responses to your articles of July 10 concerning OIGs investigations into OST questionable contractual services cover up IHS is no different. Contemporary termination efforts exist by special federal employee appointments, under Indian preference, designed by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This actually extended the historical corrupt Indian agent syndrome into the present government Indian manager. Its intent was to get Indian people from the field with real experience into management positions to develop and improve services to Indians. This intent started from the Dawes Allotment Act of 1887, its failure that caused permanent damage to Indians found in the Miriam Report of 1928 or The Problems of Indian Administration. Termination by federal employees.
The American Indian Policy Review Commission of 1977 reported to Congress in 12 volumes of books about conditions of Tribes from failed federal programs. Once again, the lack of an Indian Trust policy, the appointment of specific federal employees, Indian and non-Indian, and the ever decreasing federal budget of Indian services point to termination efforts but federal lip service that federal services are successful and resolving problems for tribes. Untrue. Its termination by mismanagement. We need to protect the courageous IHS whistleblower because they place themselves in harms way and become targets for dismissal. Most importantly, why are the Tribes and NCAI not getting involved and letting a few whistleblower Indian employees take all the heat?
GAO, OIG, U.S. Court cases, Senate Panel Investigations, Congressional appointed Indian Commissions and many, non-government investigative reports all confirm failed federal trust services to Indians at the expense of the American taxpayers, the loss of Indians own money and natural resources and the general painting of Indians as a dysfunctional race.
Now the media is alerting this Country in the way our political powers systems; federal government (the President), Congress and the Courts, are consisting playing hot potato to escape federal and congressional responsibility, financial liability and the undeniable and perpetual mismanagement of federal trust services to Indian people. Its an expensive appearance of Trust totaling billions to destroy a culture of people, American Indian, the original caretakers of this land. Why?
Thomas M. Wabnum
IIMAccountholder@comcast.net
Prairie Band Potawatomi
IIM Accountholder
Former Federal Programs Relocation survivor
Former Indian Boarding School survivor
Former Tribal Councilperson
U.S. Navy Viet Nam Veteran
BIA/OST retired "
For decades and centuries, Tribes have testified to Congress about federal services to Indians under federal trust responsibilities that stems from treaties.
In my responses to your articles of July 10 concerning OIGs investigations into OST questionable contractual services cover up IHS is no different. Contemporary termination efforts exist by special federal employee appointments, under Indian preference, designed by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This actually extended the historical corrupt Indian agent syndrome into the present government Indian manager. Its intent was to get Indian people from the field with real experience into management positions to develop and improve services to Indians. This intent started from the Dawes Allotment Act of 1887, its failure that caused permanent damage to Indians found in the Miriam Report of 1928 or The Problems of Indian Administration. Termination by federal employees.
The American Indian Policy Review Commission of 1977 reported to Congress in 12 volumes of books about conditions of Tribes from failed federal programs. Once again, the lack of an Indian Trust policy, the appointment of specific federal employees, Indian and non-Indian, and the ever decreasing federal budget of Indian services point to termination efforts but federal lip service that federal services are successful and resolving problems for tribes. Untrue. Its termination by mismanagement. We need to protect the courageous IHS whistleblower because they place themselves in harms way and become targets for dismissal. Most importantly, why are the Tribes and NCAI not getting involved and letting a few whistleblower Indian employees take all the heat?
GAO, OIG, U.S. Court cases, Senate Panel Investigations, Congressional appointed Indian Commissions and many, non-government investigative reports all confirm failed federal trust services to Indians at the expense of the American taxpayers, the loss of Indians own money and natural resources and the general painting of Indians as a dysfunctional race.
Now the media is alerting this Country in the way our political powers systems; federal government (the President), Congress and the Courts, are consisting playing hot potato to escape federal and congressional responsibility, financial liability and the undeniable and perpetual mismanagement of federal trust services to Indian people. Its an expensive appearance of Trust totaling billions to destroy a culture of people, American Indian, the original caretakers of this land. Why?
Thomas M. Wabnum
IIMAccountholder@comcast.net
Prairie Band Potawatomi
IIM Accountholder
Former Federal Programs Relocation survivor
Former Indian Boarding School survivor
Former Tribal Councilperson
U.S. Navy Viet Nam Veteran
BIA/OST retired "
iimaccountholder wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:03 PM:
" Corruption and mismanagement embedded in Indian Affairs business is historical and consistent. Corrupt Indian Agent syndrome began when federal Indian Affairs was first established and then became a termination business instead of an inherent federal service.
In 1828: "The arrangements in the fiscal affairs of the Indian Department are in the extreme. One would think that appropriations had been handled with a pitch fork. ... There is a screw loose in the public machinery somewhere."
-- H.R. Schoolcraft "
In 1834: "If the Indians are exposed to any danger, there is none greater than the residence among them of unprincipled white men." H. R. Rep. No. 474, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., 98 (1834) (letter dated Feb. 10, 1834, from Indian Commissioners to the Secretary of War).
In 1868: The Report to the President by the Indian Peace Commission of 1868 offered their recommendation to the President of the United States: [p103] 3. That Congress pass an act fixing a day (not later than the 1st of February, 1869) when the offices of all superintendents, agents, and special agents shall be vacated. Such persons as have proved themselves competent and faithful may be reappointed. Those who have proved unfit will find themselves removed without an opportunity to divert attention from their own unworthiness by provisions of party zeal.
Recommendation No. 4. We, therefore, recommend that Indian Affairs be committed to an independent bureau or department.
In 1912: H.R. 25242. Right of Indians to Nominate Their Agent. June 21, 1912.
In 1916: S.5335. A bill conferring upon Tribes the Right to Recall their Agents or Superintendents. May 2, 1916.
In 1928: THE PROBLEM WITH INDIAN ADMINISTRATION (MERIAM REPORT OF 1928)
Since the Indians were ignorant of money and its use, had little or no sense of values, and fell an easy victim to any white man who wanted to take away their property, the government, through its Indian Service employees, often took the easiest course of managing all the Indians' property for them. The government kept the Indians' money for them at the agency. When the Indians wanted something they would go to the government agent, as a child would go to his parents, and ask for it. The government agent would make all the decisions, and in many instances would either buy the thing requested or give the Indians a store order for it. Although money was sometimes given the Indians, the general belief was that the Indians could not be trusted to spend the money for the purpose agreed upon with the agent, and therefore they must not be given opportunity to misapply it. At some agencies this practice still exists, although it gives the Indians no education in the use of money, is irritating to them, and tends to decrease responsibility and increase the pauper attitude.
The Work of the Government in Behalf of the Indians. The work of the government directed toward the education and advancement of the Indian himself, as distinguished from the control and conservation of his property, is largely ineffective. The chief explanation of the deficiency in this work lies in the fact that the government has not appropriated enough funds to permit the Indian Service to employ an adequate personnel properly qualified for the task before it.
In 2002: By the mid-1980s there was uniform disapproval of the manner in which Interior was administering the IIM trust. In 1988, Congress began to hold oversight hearings related to the handling of government trust accounts. On April 22, 1992, the House Committee on Government Operations issued a report entitled Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs Mismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund, H.R. No. 102-499 (1992) (Pls. Ex. 1). This thoroughly documented report concluded that Interior had made no credible effort to address the problems in trust administration in a wide range of areas and that Interior had disobeyed many congressional directives aimed at forcing Interior to correct trust management practices and reconcile the Indian trust accounts.
In 2002, Judge Lamberth said in Contempt II:
In February of 1999, at the end of the first contempt trial in this matter, I stated that I have
never seen more egregious misconduct by the federal government. Cobell II, 37 F.Supp.2d at 38.
Now, at the conclusion of the second contempt trial in this action, I stand corrected. The Department of Interior has truly outdone itself this time. The agency has indisputably proven to the Court, Congress, and the individual Indian beneficiaries that it is either unwilling or unable to administer competently the IIM trust. Worse yet, the Department has now undeniably shown that it can no longer be trusted to state accurately the status of its trust reform efforts. In short, there is no longer any doubt that the Secretary of Interior has been and continues to be an unfit trustee-delegate for the United States.
In 2003: Page 57 Paul Homan testimony, First Special Trustee, May 2003
Q. Was your experience as special trustee relative to
19 the management of the individual Indian trust unique
20 compared to your 30 previous years?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Why?
23 A. Well, the systems themselves are not unique. I never
24 saw anything there that couldn't have been accomplished in
25 most of the small commercial banks in the United States.
Page 58
1 The unique part was the lack of control, the lack of
2 management, the lack of appropriate policies and procedures
3 over recordkeeping and bookkeeping. Those are the two
4 aspects that I featured in my strategic plan.
5 The only issue I ever had with the Secretary of 6 the Interior was management, that I felt that no plan could 7 be implemented with the management they had there, and I'm
8 speaking from the top down. And in my experience, even 9 though the external reports I was reading and the internal 10 reports were that the management system and managers
11 themselves were the worst in government -- I certainly felt 12 that they were based upon my direct observation, but on the 13 other hand, with the government's rating systems, each of
14 those people were normally rated fully satisfactory or 15 better and essentially could not have been removed under any 16 circumstances without a four- or five-year drawn-out 17 process, and that is not only true of the Bureau of Indian 18 Affairs, it's true of government.
This is only a small chronological notice but there are many investigations in between these times.
In conclusion, stealing the Indians land was the start. Getting rid of the Indian landowner was next. Then, the federal government mismanaged our money, destroying Indian trust records, tried to manipulate the Courts and its investigators, and after centuries of broken Indian systems and treaties, are still perpetuating the corrupt Indian Agent as a trust reform management style.
OIG and others can beg for corrective action but the offenders will be defended. They will be defended by the entire federal budget and that is what the citizens of Indian country and America should be entirely upset about. There should be more outside investigations on all federal Indian services, their management and policies. Why, for all the reasons above? to steal Indian land and money and cover it up by puppetry. Otherwise, this may never end.
We are not terrorists or insurgents but the people that know the truth about the federal government its inherent federal trust responsibility to us and to protect us. We need protection from our own federal protector.
If America perceives us as a lazy, drunken Indians that is because it is legislated and administered to us by the federal government (executive) and congress (legislative). The President provides lip service and agrees with either if its in favor of them. The Courts may interpret in favor of Indians but how can they enforce it.
The entire legal history can be found on the Indiantrust.com website or you can help me edit and publish my draft called an An Appearance of Trust (Reform) and Historical Timeline.
Thomas M. Wabnum
IIMAccountholder@comcast.net
Prairie Band Potawatomi
IIM Accountholder
Former Federal Programs Relocation survivor
Former Indian Boarding School survivor
Former Tribal Councilperson
U.S. Navy Viet Nam Veteran
BIA/OST retired "
In 1828: "The arrangements in the fiscal affairs of the Indian Department are in the extreme. One would think that appropriations had been handled with a pitch fork. ... There is a screw loose in the public machinery somewhere."
-- H.R. Schoolcraft "
In 1834: "If the Indians are exposed to any danger, there is none greater than the residence among them of unprincipled white men." H. R. Rep. No. 474, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., 98 (1834) (letter dated Feb. 10, 1834, from Indian Commissioners to the Secretary of War).
In 1868: The Report to the President by the Indian Peace Commission of 1868 offered their recommendation to the President of the United States: [p103] 3. That Congress pass an act fixing a day (not later than the 1st of February, 1869) when the offices of all superintendents, agents, and special agents shall be vacated. Such persons as have proved themselves competent and faithful may be reappointed. Those who have proved unfit will find themselves removed without an opportunity to divert attention from their own unworthiness by provisions of party zeal.
Recommendation No. 4. We, therefore, recommend that Indian Affairs be committed to an independent bureau or department.
In 1912: H.R. 25242. Right of Indians to Nominate Their Agent. June 21, 1912.
In 1916: S.5335. A bill conferring upon Tribes the Right to Recall their Agents or Superintendents. May 2, 1916.
In 1928: THE PROBLEM WITH INDIAN ADMINISTRATION (MERIAM REPORT OF 1928)
Since the Indians were ignorant of money and its use, had little or no sense of values, and fell an easy victim to any white man who wanted to take away their property, the government, through its Indian Service employees, often took the easiest course of managing all the Indians' property for them. The government kept the Indians' money for them at the agency. When the Indians wanted something they would go to the government agent, as a child would go to his parents, and ask for it. The government agent would make all the decisions, and in many instances would either buy the thing requested or give the Indians a store order for it. Although money was sometimes given the Indians, the general belief was that the Indians could not be trusted to spend the money for the purpose agreed upon with the agent, and therefore they must not be given opportunity to misapply it. At some agencies this practice still exists, although it gives the Indians no education in the use of money, is irritating to them, and tends to decrease responsibility and increase the pauper attitude.
The Work of the Government in Behalf of the Indians. The work of the government directed toward the education and advancement of the Indian himself, as distinguished from the control and conservation of his property, is largely ineffective. The chief explanation of the deficiency in this work lies in the fact that the government has not appropriated enough funds to permit the Indian Service to employ an adequate personnel properly qualified for the task before it.
In 2002: By the mid-1980s there was uniform disapproval of the manner in which Interior was administering the IIM trust. In 1988, Congress began to hold oversight hearings related to the handling of government trust accounts. On April 22, 1992, the House Committee on Government Operations issued a report entitled Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs Mismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund, H.R. No. 102-499 (1992) (Pls. Ex. 1). This thoroughly documented report concluded that Interior had made no credible effort to address the problems in trust administration in a wide range of areas and that Interior had disobeyed many congressional directives aimed at forcing Interior to correct trust management practices and reconcile the Indian trust accounts.
In 2002, Judge Lamberth said in Contempt II:
In February of 1999, at the end of the first contempt trial in this matter, I stated that I have
never seen more egregious misconduct by the federal government. Cobell II, 37 F.Supp.2d at 38.
Now, at the conclusion of the second contempt trial in this action, I stand corrected. The Department of Interior has truly outdone itself this time. The agency has indisputably proven to the Court, Congress, and the individual Indian beneficiaries that it is either unwilling or unable to administer competently the IIM trust. Worse yet, the Department has now undeniably shown that it can no longer be trusted to state accurately the status of its trust reform efforts. In short, there is no longer any doubt that the Secretary of Interior has been and continues to be an unfit trustee-delegate for the United States.
In 2003: Page 57 Paul Homan testimony, First Special Trustee, May 2003
Q. Was your experience as special trustee relative to
19 the management of the individual Indian trust unique
20 compared to your 30 previous years?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Why?
23 A. Well, the systems themselves are not unique. I never
24 saw anything there that couldn't have been accomplished in
25 most of the small commercial banks in the United States.
Page 58
1 The unique part was the lack of control, the lack of
2 management, the lack of appropriate policies and procedures
3 over recordkeeping and bookkeeping. Those are the two
4 aspects that I featured in my strategic plan.
5 The only issue I ever had with the Secretary of 6 the Interior was management, that I felt that no plan could 7 be implemented with the management they had there, and I'm
8 speaking from the top down. And in my experience, even 9 though the external reports I was reading and the internal 10 reports were that the management system and managers
11 themselves were the worst in government -- I certainly felt 12 that they were based upon my direct observation, but on the 13 other hand, with the government's rating systems, each of
14 those people were normally rated fully satisfactory or 15 better and essentially could not have been removed under any 16 circumstances without a four- or five-year drawn-out 17 process, and that is not only true of the Bureau of Indian 18 Affairs, it's true of government.
This is only a small chronological notice but there are many investigations in between these times.
In conclusion, stealing the Indians land was the start. Getting rid of the Indian landowner was next. Then, the federal government mismanaged our money, destroying Indian trust records, tried to manipulate the Courts and its investigators, and after centuries of broken Indian systems and treaties, are still perpetuating the corrupt Indian Agent as a trust reform management style.
OIG and others can beg for corrective action but the offenders will be defended. They will be defended by the entire federal budget and that is what the citizens of Indian country and America should be entirely upset about. There should be more outside investigations on all federal Indian services, their management and policies. Why, for all the reasons above? to steal Indian land and money and cover it up by puppetry. Otherwise, this may never end.
We are not terrorists or insurgents but the people that know the truth about the federal government its inherent federal trust responsibility to us and to protect us. We need protection from our own federal protector.
If America perceives us as a lazy, drunken Indians that is because it is legislated and administered to us by the federal government (executive) and congress (legislative). The President provides lip service and agrees with either if its in favor of them. The Courts may interpret in favor of Indians but how can they enforce it.
The entire legal history can be found on the Indiantrust.com website or you can help me edit and publish my draft called an An Appearance of Trust (Reform) and Historical Timeline.
Thomas M. Wabnum
IIMAccountholder@comcast.net
Prairie Band Potawatomi
IIM Accountholder
Former Federal Programs Relocation survivor
Former Indian Boarding School survivor
Former Tribal Councilperson
U.S. Navy Viet Nam Veteran
BIA/OST retired "
Share Article
mykids wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:52 AM: