On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, the web sites of the United States Department of Interior, including all related bureaus, agencies, and organizations, were removed from the World Wide Web, without notice or any information on when would-be-users could expect restored service. The shutdown was a result of that day’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in connection
with a long-running civil lawsuit between members of various American Indian tribes and the Department of the Interior. The lawsuit deals with the mismanagement of Indian Trust Monies for over a hundred years by the Department of the Interior, but was brought to the attention of the wider public audience when it caused this widespread interruption of Internet service

Smedberg, Heather

IUPUIScholarWorks

Indiana Libraries, Vol. 22, Number 1 29DEPARTMENT OF INTERIORAND THE INDIAN TRUSTby Heather Smedberg,The Newberry Library,Chicago, Illinoisn Wednesday, December 5, 2001, theweb sites of the United States Depart-ment of Interior, including all relatedbureaus, agencies, and organizations,were removed from the World WideWeb, without notice or any information on whenwould-be-users could expect restored service. Theshutdown was a result of that day’s ruling by U.S.District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in connectionwith a long-running civil lawsuit between members ofvarious American Indian tribes and the Department ofthe Interior. The lawsuit deals with the mismanagementof Indian Trust Monies for over a hundred years by theDepartment of the Interior, but was brought to theattention of the wider public audience when it causedthis widespread interruption of Internet service.As a part of the investigation into the lawsuit, ateam of hackers successfully established a new trustaccount and cut a check to demonstrate the ineptitudeof the department’s online security system. JudgeLambert saw the danger of this weakness in onlinesecurity a serious enough risk to the financial accountsof thousands of American Indians and warranted acomplete shutdown of the Department of Interior’sInternet connections until improved security measuresapproved by the court could be demonstrated.1 Thisshutdown brought about confusion and complaints bygovernment documents librarians and other usersseeking access to the wealth of information maintainedon many Department of Interior web sites. While themajority of the web sites are back in service, many weredown for months, and some agencies, including theBureau of Indian Affairs (B.I.A.) are still offline or allowonly limited access.The case behind the massive blockage of Internettransmission of government information is an ongoingcivil action case headed by Eloise Pepion Cobell againstthe Department of the Interior. According to the NativeAmerican Rights Fund’s (N.A.R.F.), the story of this casebegins in 1887 with the General Allotment Act (com-monly known as the Dawes Act). This legislation soughtto “civilize” the American Indians, meanwhile openingaccess to their lands, by breaking up their collectiveland holdings into smaller parcels. Under the act, theprofits from mining, timber sales, and grazing on theselands were to be managed by the Department of theInterior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, who saw the Ameri-can Indians as incapable of properly managing thefunds. The money held in trust under this system is thesubject of the current case.2Awareness of the problems with the Interior’shandling of Indian Trust monies broke onto thegovernmental and public sphere with the 1992 reportby the House Committee on Government Operationsentitled, ‘Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairsmismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund.’ Then in1994, Congress passed the Indian Trust Fund Manage-ment Reform Act (103 P.L. 412, 25 U.S.C. 4001) andappointed veteran bank reformer Paul Homan astrustee. Frustrated with the Interior Department’sSecretary Bruce Babbitt’s refusal to support the changesnecessary to accomplish the daunting task of cleaningup the accounting mess, Homan resigned, and progresson the Act stalled.3Continual failure of the Department of the Interiorto adhere to the 1994 Act, and a seeming overalldepartmental indifference to reform finally stirred theN.A.R.F. and Eloise Pepion Cobell, treasurer for theBlackfoot Nation, to file a civil lawsuit on behalf ofapproximately 500,000 Indian Trust beneficiariesagainst then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt,Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers, andAssistant Secretary of the Interior Kevin Gover. Theintent of the lawsuit was to force the Interior andTreasury Departments to fix the system, complete anaccurate historical accounting, and correct the accountsof beneficiaries accordingly. On November 17, 1996,both parties signed an order to this effect, an orderwhich N.A.R.F. and the plaintiffs assert the governmenthas not followed.4Although they signed the order, the governmentalagencies demonstrated from early on in the case theirinability to produce the necessary documents to fulfillthe historical accounting stage of the lawsuit. Becausethe correction of the inherent problems and of indi-vidual beneficiaries’ accounts depends upon successfulIndiana Libraries, Vol. 22, Number 130completion of this historical accounting, the case hasbecome mired in the courts, with the governmentalagencies attempting to reorganize and establish a newaccounting system without producing the historicalaccounts, and the plaintiffs charging the agencies andtheir secretaries with contempt of court for failing toproduce the ordered documents.Part of the problem is the long-running disorganiza-tion of the Indian Trust system. For over a hundredyears the accounts have been mismanaged, but themistakes of past generations should not be seen as thefault of current administrators, the government argues.The current Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton hasthus worked to create a new system of management ofthe funds and on November 20, 2001, established theOffice of Indian Trust Transition.5 The plaintiffs andsome members of Congress do not see this action aspursuant to the court’s order to produce historicalaccounting. Rather, Norton has been charged withcontempt for failing to produce required documents,and some members of Congress and the public arejoining the plaintiffs in a call for the government tostop postponing the case with reorganization attempts,seen merely as stalling tactics costing the governmenteven more time and money. The plaintiffs would like tosee the government stick to the case and correctproblems with the current system, rather than furthermuddling the process by reorganization.6One of the recent problems found with the currentsystem and the subject of particular concern to govern-ment documents librarians, is the major security gapsfound in the security of the Departments of the Interiorand Treasury’s computer system, which did not ad-equately protect the accounts of 500,000 beneficiaries.The discovery of the problem led to immediate shut-down of the entire computer network of the Depart-ment of the Interior, which affected much more thanthe Indian Trust accounts. While many sites wereallowed to come back online when they demonstratedthat their sites were either unrelated to the trust data orsufficiently secure, several sites were down for weeks ormonths. Citizens logging on to check information onNational Parks, or archaeologists and scholars studyingthe Kennewick Man or other archeological sites withinthe National Park System were denied access. Otheraffected sites included the Fish and Wildlife Service, theMinerals Management Service, which came back onlineonly to be shut down again in May, the Office of SurfaceMining, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.7 The B.I.A.remains offline at the time of this writing.Not only were scholars and members of the publicconcerned about the lack of access, governmentdocuments librarians raised concerns among them-selves of the implications of this restricted access. AsJohn Koch, librarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, stated in a posting to the GOVDOC-L listserv,“This is another issue of concern for the future. If acourt order can shut down a federal web [sic] site forlong periods of time, accessibility is in real danger.”8Public access to government information is an essentialaspect of a successful democracy, and limiting orrestricting access to this information is something thatoccurs more often than many in the general public mayrealize. Government documents librarians and othersinterested in keeping pathways to this informationopen and easily accessible do a great service by stayingalert when restrictions of this sort occur. However, thelarger injustice of over a hundred years of mismanage-ment of thousands of American Indians’ trust fundsoutweighs this temporary shutdown. Further, theseriousness of this situation, the adverse reactions tothe loss of information, and the overall inconvenienceof the loss of Internet access could be seen as a blessingfor the future security of access to government informa-tion.The lessons learned from the loss of historical dataare timely as well. Perhaps now governmental agencieswill realize both the penetrability of and the need forinformation on their computer systems. Additionally,they must realize the importance of maintainingaccurate and complete records of government informa-tion. With this realization we can hope that the govern-ment will be dedicated to ensuring secure systems thatthoroughly archive documents for future historicalresearch. The lessons to be learned from this case onsocial, political, and technological levels are great. Letus work to ensure that the government learns fromthese lessons for the future of our democracy.WORKS CITEDCobell v. Babbitt. November 27, 1996. “First Order forthe Production of Information,” Civil Action no.1:96CV01285, United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia, Judge Lamberth. Retrieved July23, 2002, from http://www.indiantrust.com/rulings/First_Order_FP.PDFFriel, B. (2002, March 18). Many interior employees stillstuck offline. Government Executive Magazine(online). Retrieved July 7, 2002, from http://www.govexec.com/news index.cfm?mode=report&article=2253.htmKennedy, M.J. (2002, July 16). Truth and consequenceson the reservation. Los Angeles Times (online), re-trieved July 22, 2002, from http://www.indiantrust.com/print/clips.cfm?news_id=233Koch, J. (2001, December 12). Message posted toGOVDOC-L listserv. Retrieved June 30, 2002, fromGOVDOC-L archives, http://www.lib.duke.edu/cgi-bin/texis/searchdb/govdoc-l/searchIndiana Libraries, Vol. 22, Number 1 31Lamberth, R.C. (Dec. 5, 2001) Temporary RestrainingOrder. Cobell v. Norton, Civil No. 96-1285. UnitedStates District Court for the District of Columbia.Retrieved July 16, 2002, from http://www.indiantrust.com/rulings/2001.12.05_TRO.pdfNative American Trust Fund. Historical Timeline:Indian Trust Funds Management. From the NativeAmerican Trust Fund Home Page, retrieved July 7,2002, from http://www.narf.org/cases/iimtimeline.htmlOffice of the Secretary. Department of the Interior.(2002, November 20). Secretarial Order no. 3235,“Establishment of the Office of Indian Trust Transition.”Retrieved June 30, 2002, from http://elips.doi.gov/elips/sec_orders/html_orders/3235.htmU.S. Representatives Dale E. Kildee and J.D. Hayworth,Co-Chairs of the Congressional Native American Cau-cus. (2002, July 18). Press Release. Retrieved July 23,2002 from http://www.indiantrust.com/releases.cfm?press_id=73BIBLIOGRAPHYBlackfeet Reservation Development Fund. Indian Trustweb site. Retrieved July 22, 2002 at http://www.indiantrust.com/Cobell v. Babbitt. 96 CV 1285, United States DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia, 1999. Decided June7, 1999. Retrieved July 21, 2002, from Lexis-NexisAcademic Universe.Cobell v. Norton.  96 CV 1285. United States DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia, 2001. DecidedDecember 6, 2001. Retrieved July 21, 2002, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe.Federal Computer Week. Retrieved July 7, 2002, fromhttp://www.fcw.com/fcw/articlesGODORT website, information on the Department ofthe interior website, Retrieved July 22, 2002 at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/GODORT/legislation/GOVDOC-L Listserv archives, Retrieved July 22, 2002 athttp://docs.lib.duke.edu/federal/govdoc-l/search.htmlGovernment Computer News. Retrieved July 22, 2002,from http://www.gcn.comGovernment Executive Magazine (online). RetrievedJuly 22, 2002 from http://govexec.comNative American Rights Fund Home Page. Retrieved July7, 2002, from http://www.narf.orgOffice of Historical Trust Accounting. (2002, July 2).Report to Congress on Historical Accounting of Indi-vidual Indian Money Accounts. United States Depart-ment of the Interior. Retrieved July 22, 2002, fromhttp://www.doi.gov/phta/revreport.pdfPeople, Land and Water. Magazine of the Departmentof the Interior. SuDocs No I 1.116—. (May/June 2002). Review of the National ParkService web site. Archaeology, 55(3), 60.United States. Department of the Interior.  (2002,February 27). Fiscal Year 2001 Annual DepartmentalReport on Accountability. Retrieved July 20, 2002 fromhttp://www.doi.gov/pfm/acctrpt2001/United States Department of the Interior web page,retrieved July 8, 2002, from http://www.doi.govENDNOTES1 Lamberth, R.C. (Dec. 5, 2001) Temporary RestrainingOrder.  Cobell v. Norton, Civil No. 96-1285. UnitedStates District Court for the District of Columbia.Retrieved July 16, 2002, from http://www.indiantrust.com/rulings/2001.12.05_TRO.pdf2 Native American Trust Fund. Historical Timeline:Indian Trust Funds Management. From the NativeAmerican Trust Fund Home Page, retrieved July 7,2002, from http://www.narf.org/cases/iimtimeline.html3 Kennedy, M.J. (2002, July 16). Truth and conse-quences on the reservation.  Los Angeles Times(online), retrieved July 22, 2002, from http://www.indiantrust.com/print/clips.cfm?news_id=2334 Cobell v. Babbitt. November 27, 1996. “First Orderfor the Production of Information,” Civil Action no.1:96CV01285, United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia, Judge Lamberth. Retrieved July23, 2002, from http://www.indiantrust.com/rulings/First_Order_FP.PDF5 Office of the Secretary. Department of the Interior.(2002, November 20). Secretarial Order no. 3235,“Establishment of the Office of Indian Trust Transition.”Retrieved June 30, 2002, from http://elips.doi.gov/elips/sec_orders/html_orders/3235.htm6 U.S. Representatives Dale E. Kildee and J.D.Hayworth, Co-Chairs of the Congressional NativeAmerican Caucus. (2002, July 18). Press Release.Retrieved July 23, 2002 from http://www.indiantrust.com/releases.cfm?press_id=737 Friel, B. (2002, March 18). Many interior employeesstill stuck offline. Government Executive Magazine(online). Retrieved July 7, 2002, from http://www.govexec.com/news/index.cfm?mode=report&article=2253.htm8 Koch, J. (2001, December 12). Message posted toGOVDOC-L listserv. Retrieved June 30, 2002,fromGOVDOC-L archives, http://www.lib.duke.edu/cgi-bin/texis/searchdb/govdoc-l/search

Department of Interior and the Indian Trust

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/1275/Department%20of%20Interior%20and%20the%20Indian%20Trust.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Department of Interior and the Indian Trust

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IUPUIScholarWorks