NARF deserves scrutiny from CSKT membership
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
This is an open letter to CSKT members. You will find on page 2 of the Dec. 20, 2012, Tribal Council meeting minutes the following statement: “Vern Clairmont and Ruth Swaney, financial management, presented for approval a resolution approving a budget for the fund established for the Nez Perce v. Salazar funds. The tribes committed to a $4 million contribution to the Native American Rights Fund to be paid in three annual installments.”
You will see further down that all nine members voted to approve this resolution.
As I was not very knowledgeable about the Native American Rights Fund, I did some Internet research. The NARF site states that NARF is a nonprofit organization of lawyers, etc., who fight for Indian peoples’ rights.
Then I went on to the “Indian Country Today” online publication. I came across this headline, “Cobell and NARF lawyers battle over money,” on the website ICTMN.com. This is a must-read. The information on this organization, NARF, will shock you. And remember, this information was put out by a Native American publication on Aug. 8, 2012, written by Rob Gabriccioso.
The article states that the lawyers for the Cobell case do not want the NARF lawyers to receive contingency fees for NARF’s role in Indian trust legal proceedings related to the lawsuit. A notice the Cobell lawyers filed in federal court on July 30 says that the NARF lawyers have already received a substantial amount of money through their representation of tribes in a separate tribal trust case, and that the NARF lawyers left the Cobell case in 2006 without the consent of the Cobell case representatives. (By the way, how can you receive contingency fees and still be a nonprofit organization?)
NARF initially began working on the case in 1996 (but again, left the Cobell suit in 2006), which is the primary reason the Cobell plaintiffs felt that NARF failed to fulfill its obligations as attorneys for the plaintiffs. Reportedly, NARF began representing several tribes in actions against the United States that were similar to this case, dropping the Cobell plaintiffs at a critical juncture in this litigation in order to represent these tribes.
There is much more information about the conduct of NARF in this article. Please visit this site and read the entire article and draw your own conclusions as to whether, as tribal members, you want to be donating $4 million of your settlement money to this organization.
Joelene Frey
Polson
