|The Drafting and Enactment of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act: Report on Research Findings|
|This report presents archival research on and analysis of the drafting of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), a federal law enacted in October 1980 to settle land claims brought by the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Indian Nation.||February 28, 2017
|Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission Annual Report 2014-2015|
|In FY 2015, the MITSC attended to internal development and implementation processes. Significant Commission publications produced during FY 2015 included the Assessment of the Intergovernmental Saltwater Fisheries Conflict between Passamaquoddy and the State of Maine published in July 2014 and the MITSC Annual Report 2013-2014 completed in January 2015.
During the Commission’s October 2014 retreat, the MITSC initiated a strategic planning process to assess the Commission’s work and to develop a vision statement, guiding principles for its work, and a FY 2016 work plan. The strategic planning process was completed in the spring of 2015.
As a result of the strategic plan, the MITSC developed an implementation plan for the dissemination of the Saltwater Fisheries Report’s findings and recommendations. Before the legislature convened, the MITSC met with the leaders of the Passamaquoddy Tribal Governments at Motahkmikuk and Sipayik and the Penobscot Nation, attended a joint gathering of all five Wabanaki Tribal Governments, and sent every member of the 127th Maine Legislature the Saltwater Fisheries Report’s executive summary, findings and recommendations. During the first quarter of 2015, the MITSC met with Governor Paul LePage, Senate President Michael Thibodeau, House Speaker Mark Eves, the committee chairs of five joint standing committees and briefed the entire Judiciary, Marine Resources, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Environment and Natural Resources Committees. In June, Chair Jamie Bissonette Lewey and Commissioner Gail Dana-Sacco presented the Saltwater Fisheries Report at the annual meeting of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association.
The Commission adopted a new approach to the legislative session comprehensively analyzing all bills sponsored by the three Tribal Representatives– Penobscot Tribal Representative Wayne Mitchell; Passamaquoddy Tribal Representative Matt Dana; and Maliseet Tribal Representative Henry Bear, in addition to other bills that could affect the Maine Indian Claims Settlement, tribal-state relations, and/or one or more Tribes. We formed a Legislative Subcommittee charged with initially screening bills of interest and making recommendations to the full Commission on how the MITSC should approach particular bills. It met 14 times. The Commission testified on 11 different bills during the course of the legislative session.
This legislative session was fraught with conflict in tribal-state relations. At the close of this fiscal year, both the Passamaquoddy and the Penobscot Tribal Representatives had left the Maine Legislature. At the present time, all of the Tribes are participating in the MITSC and we close this fiscal year with a renewed commitment to the development of mutually beneficial solutions for all of the people who live within the State of Maine.||October 20, 2015
|Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission Annual Report 2013-2014|
|The MITSC began and ended fiscal year 2013-2014 with significant inquiries examining the effectiveness of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement.||December 29, 2014
|Assessment of the Intergovernmental Saltwater Fisheries Conflict Between Passamaquoddy & State of ME|
|The MITSC examination of the saltwater fisheries conflict between Passamaquoddy and the State of Maine.||July 11, 2014
|A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission(July 1, 2012 –June 30, 2013)|
|Throughout fiscal year 2012/13, the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) focused on a series of issues at the request of one or more of the member governments. Among these issues were the return of sea-run alewives to the St. Croix watershed, the taking of land into trust by the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the seating of the Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the ongoing review and interpretation of the Settlement Acts.
While the LePage Executive Order 21 FY 11/12 on Tribal Consultation offers the framework for a strong, constructive relationship between the Tribes and the State, its potential for strengthening Wabanaki-Maine relations has been largely unrealized due to the lack of implementation policies. During the time period covered by this report, the MITSC worked with Tribal and State representatives to write a consultation policy for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to guide its work with Tribal Health Services. There is hope that this policy will become a model for other departments to resolve issues between the State and the Tribes before they develop into conflicts.
The MITSC investigated health, economic and social disparities extant in Tribal communities. Even though the available research data was limited, the MITSC was able to present alarming statistical evidence of a humanitarian crisis in Wabanaki Communities. The MITSC reported these findings to Governor LePage, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In its analysis of the causes of this crisis, the MITSC found that the socio-economic legacy constructed by the Settlement Acts themselves have significantly hampered the Tribes’ ability to implement self-determined solutions to these problems. Given that the Settlement Acts have failed in creating acceptable living conditions for Wabanaki people, the MITSC has recommended a serious review of these Acts with a commitment to amend the sections that are causing harm.
In order to develop a more nuanced public understanding of the Settlement Acts within the context both of Federal Indian Law and the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Maine Legislature officially expressed support for the human rights document 4/15/08), the MITSC collaborated with the Wabanaki Center based at the University of Maine to invite prominent Indigenous scholar and lawyer Walter Echo-Hawk to address how the Declaration can infuse human rights principles into both the Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement Act and Maine Implementing Act. Over 300 people attended the two days of lectures and workshops offered by Mr. Echo-Hawk.
After a thorough review of the MITSC's evidence of a humanitarian crisis in Wabanaki communities within the State of Maine, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, listed the following finding in his August 30, 2012 report detailing his official visit to the US:
[The] Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and Maine Implementing Act create structural inequalities that limit the self-determination of Maine tribes; structural inequalities contribute to Maine tribal members experiencing extreme poverty, high unemployment, short life expectancy, poor health, limited educational opportunities and diminished economic development.
Mr. Anaya has asked the MITSC for additional information on specific areas of our report. This development is encouraging. The MITSC hopes that Maine State Government will also examine our findings and then work with the Tribes to address the humanitarian crisis existing in Wabanaki communities within the State of Maine.
We offer this report with a sense of urgency and in the spirit of problem solving to advance tribal-state relations.||February 4, 2014
|A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (July 1, 2009–June 30, 2012)|
|The Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) principally exists “to continually review the effectiveness of this Act and the social, economic and legal relationship between the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation and the State and shall make such reports and recommendations to the Legislature, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation as it determines appropriate.” MITSC has recently intensely focused on its principal responsibility to assess the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Agreement and its effects on the parties to the Agreement. Though the Houlton Band of Maliseets, Passamaquoddy Tribe, and Penobscot Indian Nation have achieved some marginal improvements in select areas of community health since the adoption of the Agreement, in many others conditions have markedly deteriorated. In May 2012, MITSC concluded, “The Acts have created structural inequities that have resulted in conditions that have risen to the level of human rights violations (bolded in original text).”
As someone has remarked about the living conditions and political situation endured by the Wabanaki, “No Indigenous Peoples negotiate for perpetual poverty.” The Wabanaki Tribes of Maine, including the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, live in a state of humanitarian crisis. MITSC wrote in a May 16, 2012 letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya:
Life expectancy for the four Maine Wabanaki Tribes averages approximately 25 years less than that of the Maine population as a whole. Only one percent of the Houlton Band of Maliseets’ population exceeds 55 years of age. Unemployment rates within Wabanaki communities range up to 70%, many times higher than the surrounding Maine communities. Many traditional Wabanaki food sources are no longer safe to eat due to toxic contamination by the paper mills that discharge pollutants into Wabanaki waters. At this time, the incarceration rate of Passamaquoddy people in state prisons is six times that of the general population.
In response to the MITSC letter, UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya concluded:
Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and Maine Implementing Act create structural inequalities that limit the self-determination of Maine tribes; structural inequalities contribute to Maine tribal members experiencing extreme poverty, high unemployment, short life expectancy, poor health, limited educational opportunities and diminished economic development.
Given the finding by the UN Special Rapporteur that the provisions of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and Maine Implementing Act impose limitations on the Wabanaki Tribes of Maine self-determination and contribute to the harsh living conditions experienced by Wabanaki Peoples definitive action must be taken to amend the Agreement to remove the legal limitations stifling the Tribes. MITSC has committed itself to promoting changes to the Agreement that remove the legal limitations contributing to the Wabanaki Tribes of Maine extreme poverty. The Commission will also continue to explain that action on this humanitarian crisis not only benefits the Wabanaki Tribes of Maine but also the State of Maine. While already some of the largest employers in their region, more economically vibrant Wabanaki communities can function as powerful engines of economic prosperity benefitting all people.||August 9, 2013
|Report UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya on his official country visit to the US|
|The official report of UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya on his official country visit to the US in 2012.||August 30, 2012
|An Analysis of the Status of Wabanaki-State Relations along with a Summary of the Activities of the |
|Tribal-State relations remained deeply strained at the conclusion of June 2009 though some positive steps by the new chairs of the Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee helped to relieve some of the tension in the relationship. Incremental progress was made, especially for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, who gained some new powers and obtained the right to conduct high stakes bingo. Yet at the end of the reporting period the Penobscot Nation had maintained its withdrawal from MITSC making the Commission’s ability to hold official meetings more difficult. More importantly, the political forum that MITSC provides for the Tribes and the State to discuss and to resolve issues was weakened due to the Penobscot Nation’s absence, and political momentum for resolving the more difficult problems largely dissipated.
The State of Maine continued to demonstrate a willingness to address cultural and historical concerns of the Tribes by instituting a day to honor Native American veterans, strengthening the offensive geographic place names law by prohibiting a variant usage of squa, and dropping the History of Maine section from the Senate and House Register which contained inaccurate information concerning the Wabanaki. Wabanaki leaders and citizens told MITSC that they appreciated these State actions. However, these positive actions have also prompted questioning by the Tribes concerning the State’s willingness to address deep-seated differences between the parties concerning sovereignty, jurisdiction, and differing interpretations of the Maine Implementing Act (MIA).
The Tribal-State Work Group (TSWG) was conceived as a small but certain step to address some of the fundamental differences between the Tribes and the State concerning MIA. The TSWG recommendation concerning the applicability of the Freedom of Access Act to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation is especially important to the Wabanaki as positive action on that recommendation through amending MIA would have boosted Tribal confidence that the State was willing to address the most deeply held differences between the parties. MITSC believes the State underestimated the impact failing to act on the Freedom of Access Act applicability and the other TSWG recommendations would have on overall Wabanaki-Maine relations.
Though thirty years have passed since the signing of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, the signatories are still adjusting to their new relationship after a nearly 160 year period of State dominance and control. Maine’s failure to address tribal understandings and expectations produced by MIA result in conflict. MITSC continues to argue that the State does not need to fear greater Wabanaki autonomy and independence. Changing the Wabanaki-Maine relationship to one focused more on collaboration instead of conflict will yield significant benefits for both the State and the Tribes. MITSC contends its recommendations made in its last Annual Report remain valid as steps likely to produce better tribal-state relations. Those four recommendations include adoption of a new process for determining the MITSC budget, acting on the remaining TSWG recommendations, instituting a permanent process for orienting new legislators, and ensuring the effective implementation of LD 291, An Act to Require Teaching of Maine Native American History and Culture in Maine’s Schools.
||August 24, 2011
|Analysis of the MIA’s (30 MRSA §6201 et. seq.) Conformance with the UNDRIP|
|This report analyzes each section of the Maine Implementing Act (30 MRSA §6201 et. seq.) for its conformance with the 46 articles delineated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly 9/13/07.||March 30, 2011
|A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008)|
|This report covers fiscal year 2008, July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008.
Tribal-state relations, after experiencing a positive two-year trend of improvement, precipitously plummeted in April 2008. Though specific individuals and their actions caused a rupture in tribal-state relations in the early spring of 2008, these developments occurred in the context of a negative longer term trend of unilateralism. Both the State of Maine and the Tribes too often act unilaterally though the State does so from a position of political, legal, and economic advantage while the Tribes revert to unilateral action from exasperation that they cannot resolve their disputes with the State in what they believe to be a just manner.
One of the most important achievements of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement was the establishment of a government-to-government relationship between equals. Former Maine Attorney General Richard Cohen testified to the US Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs in the summer of 1980, “I cannot promise you that the adoption of this settlement will usher in a period of uninterrupted harmony between Indians and non-Indians in Maine. But I can tell you, however, that because we sat down at a conference table as equals and jointly determined our future relationship, in my view there exists between the State and the tribes a far greater mutual respect and understanding than has ever existed in the past in the State of Maine.” Tom Tureen, the lawyer who represented the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation in the negotiations with the State, said at the same hearing, “I would agree with what Dick Cohen said earlier – that the negotiations in this case all around were characterized by a mutual respect and were carried on in a commendable atmosphere.”
Perhaps the greatest casualty in the decades-long deterioration in tribal-state relations is the withering of the deep-seated mutual respect between the parties that Richard Cohen and Tom Tureen describe at the conclusion of the Settlement Act negotiations. Tribal leaders view the current Wabanaki-State relationship as broken. Maine political leaders claim for the most part that they don’t truly understand why the events of the late winter/early spring of 2008 caused such an abrupt rupture in tribal-state relations.
In order to fix the broken relationship, the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) believes that the signatories must return to jointly determining their future. At the same Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs referenced earlier, Attorney General Cohen warned, “I can also tell you that if this matter is litigated over a period of years, the atmosphere in Maine certainly will be quite different.” Though he was referring to the land claim itself, Richard Cohen’s words accurately describe the current situation. The litigation that has ensued since the adoption of the agreement involving its interpretation and application has degraded the relationship into one of suspicion and distrust.
MITSC recommends four specific actions to restoring a sense of trust and mutual recognition for each signatory’s sovereignty. Our recommendations include:
1. Adopt a new budget process for determining the signatories’ financial support for MITSC. Maine originally agreed to fund 100% of MITSC operations. Maine escaped its legal obligation to fund MITSC operations when the parties agreed the amount specified in MIA, $3,000, was insufficient and the specific amount was dropped from the Act. An initial Tribal offer in 1984 to contribute toward MITSC operations has become a State expectation of Tribal cost sharing. Yet the Tribes, equals with the State under the Settlement Act, have had no real input into MITSC’s funding as the Maine Legislature has determined what MITSC will receive for State funding. The Tribes have picked up the shortfall of what the State has determined it is willing to give. The parties should adopt a process that determines the amount of funding MITSC will receive based on what the parties mutually agree MITSC should do in the coming years. Ideally, this would occur at the Annual Assembly of Governors and Chiefs. In order for this new process to work, the discussion of the MITSC work plan, its overall funding, and how much each signatory would pay needs to occur at a predictable date which respects the different budget processes for the respective governments.
2. Enact in the 1st session of the 124th Legislature (2009) the Tribal-State Work Group (TSWG) recommendations that reinforce consultation and joint problem solving. Three of the eight unanimously endorsed TSWG recommendations especially address decision making. The second recommendation suggests adding the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians to MITSC.
Twice, attempts to add the Maliseets to MITSC have failed though all the signatories have recognized the Maliseets as members of MITSC since September 2007. Governor Baldacci and legislative leaders must resolve concerns expressed by the Attorney General’s staff about the TSWG third recommendation to institute mandatory mediation before the State or the Tribes could initiate litigation against one another concerning disputes involving the Settlement Act. All the parties assembled at the 2006 Assembly of Governors and Chiefs bemoaned the many costs of litigation. MITSC sees no reason that legislative language acceptable to all of the parties can’t be drafted. Finally, passage of the fourth TSWG recommendation, to require mandatory meaningful consultation with the Tribes prior to any legislative, policy, or rule change, should occur. A model for such a policy is Executive Order 13175 adopted by President Clinton governing Federal Government actions. The idea is for Maine to do something similar.
3. Develop a permanent process for orienting new and returning legislators about the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), MIA, the Wabanaki, and tribal-state relations. A component of the envisioned legislator orientation should include visits to one or more Wabanaki communities.
4. Accelerate implementation of LD 291. Maine Public Law 2001, Chapter 403 (LD 291, An Act to Require Teaching of Maine Native American History and Culture in Maine’s Schools) requires teaching in Maine public schools grades K-12 about Maine Wabanaki governments; Maine Wabanaki cultural systems; Maine Wabanaki territories; and Maine Wabanaki economic systems. Though successful implementation of this law will not immediately impact the government-to-government policy discussions of the signatories, over time it can greatly enhance the non-Indian population’s knowledge and understanding of the Wabanaki. Implementation of LD 291 has suffered because of the lack of a specific point person within the Department of Education (DOE) to oversee the law’s implementation. Commissioner Gendron has assigned the DOE Social Studies Specialist with responsibility for LD 291 implementation. Maine State Government must avoid cutting that position as it considers budget reductions for this fiscal year and in the upcoming biennium.
||October 30, 2008
|Final Report of the Tribal-State Work Group|
|This report represents the final product of the Tribal-State Work Group created by Resolve 2007, Chapter 142, 123rd Maine Legislature, Resolve, To Continue the Tribal-State Work Group||January 20, 2008
|A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007)|
|MITSC is an inter-governmental entity created by An Act to Implement the Maine Indian Claims Settlement (known hereafter as the Maine Implementing Act (30 MRSA §6201 - §6214)). The Maine Implementing Act (MIA) directs MITSC to “continually review the effectiveness of this Act and the social, economic and legal relationship between the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation and the State….”
Tribal-State relations continue to improve since the last MITSC annual report published in October 2006. Perhaps the single most important continuing factor contributing to this improved political atmosphere is Governor John Baldacci’s engagement in tribal-state issues, especially his willingness to discuss possible changes to the Maine Implementing Act. Another decisive factor helping to enhance tribal-state relations is the executive and legislative branches of State Government reclaiming primary roles as the developers of policy with respect to the Tribes. Legislative leaders’ enthusiastic support to include information about the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), MIA, MITSC, Wabanaki Tribes, and tribal-state relations in this year’s legislative orientation program for the 123rd Legislature offers more evidence of increasing State consciousness of tribal-state relations.
Tribal Leaders also deserve credit for their diplomatic and statesmanlike words taking a long-term view of their relationship with the State during political controversies. The Tribes’ consent to creating the Tribal-State Work Group (TSWG) and their continuing active involvement in the process reflects greater faith in MITSC to help the parties resolve difference and a hope that differences will be genuinely addressed. The Maliseets’ decision to join MITSC serves as another example of growing Tribal confidence in MITSC.
During much of its history, MITSC has made many well thought-out recommendations, some the product of many months or even years of deliberation and work, only to have them ignored by the signatories to the Settlement Act. Many individuals and signatories to the Settlement Act have cited this ineffectiveness at implementation as a fundamental MITSC weakness. MITSC has consciously focused during the last one and a half years on ensuring the implementation of its recommendations. MITSC Chair Paul Bisulca has repeatedly said MITSC had to regain its customers. Beyond making and supporting recommendations, MITSC had to demonstrate success in implementing them.
Successfully implementing MITSC and signatory recommendations required two fundamental things: increased contractor man-hours and MITSC’s direct assistance to state and tribal staff efforts.
MITSC fully achieved its goal for increased State funding with the Legislature and Governor eventually supporting its original budget request for a $38,000 increase in both FYs 2008 and 2009. We also averted a mid-year funding crisis by persuading Governor Baldacci to provide $25,000 in emergency funding to MITSC in January 2007 to apply to FY 07. MITSC is now funded at a level that more adequately supports MITSC’s increased workload and need for greater contractor man-hours to apply to its own initiatives, which are described in the annual report.
Because of increased funding MITSC is also better able to monitor and actively assist in the implementation of agreements reached by both the State and Tribes. The MITSC Chair views past staff failures on both sides as having contributed to a perception that “leadership on the other side” does not always live up to the terms of agreements. This perception interfered with MITSC’s goal to build trust among the parties with which it works. MITSC’s direct assistance to state and tribal staffs and the results that have been achieved have increased trust and a sense of accomplishment by the signatories.
FY 2007 was a year that saw growth in MITSC’s visibility and operational effectiveness. MITSC successfully achieved eight of its nine work plan objectives for FY 2007. Some of the more notable work plan achievements include its success at obtaining increased and/or new State, Federal, and private funding, resolving a difference regarding Federal Trust Responsibility that blocked renewal of the Atlantic Salmon Cooperative Agreement, and implementation of all phase one Tribal-State Work Group recommendations. Beyond the FY 2007 work plan, MITSC played a key role in the appointment of Wayne Newell to the University of Maine System Board of Trustees (and August 28 appointment of Denise Altvater to the Maine State Prison Board of Visitors), facilitating resolution of concerns raised by the Sipayik Criminal Justice Commission with the State, county, and local criminal justice system, and helping to nurture the strengthening relationship between the Wabanaki and Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby Colleges.
MITSC stands prepared to undertake perhaps its more important mission during its 27 year history, helping Tribal and State parties to the Maine Implementing Act resolve their differences about its intent, interpretation, and application. MITSC already considers the process a success by the fact that all signatories mutually agreed to create the Tribal-State Work Group and by them collectively designing the process for considering changes to MIA. However, the new MITSC will also continue to judge its effectiveness by the ultimate results of the Tribal-State Work Group process. MITSC also expects the Tribal-State Work Group to review MITSC’s powers and consider to what extent those powers should be changed or expanded to equip MITSC to better serve the signatories and tribal-state relations in the 21st century.
||August 31, 2007
|REPORT of the TRIBAL-STATE WORK GROUP TO STUDY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAINE IMPLEMENTING ACT|
|Governor Baldacci’s Executive Order 19 FY 06/07 directs the Tribal-State Work Group to “study differences in the interpretation and understanding of the Settlement Acts.” It tasks the Work Group with developing “recommendations for how the 123rd Legislature might reconcile the issues in a manner that benefits both the Tribes and the State.” The 13 members of the Tribal-State Work Group to Study Issues Associated with the Maine Implementing Act unanimously recommend continuation of the group. Accomplishments of the Tribal-State Work Group include acting as a catalyst for including in-house and external briefing sessions on the Wabanaki, the Maine Implementing Act, and tribal-state relations in the official legislative orientation for the 123rd Maine Legislature, forging a consensus to recommend including seats for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians on the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission, and drafting legislation to add the Maliseets to MITSC (see appendix seven). ||December 6, 2006
|A Summary of the Activities of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (4/19/03 – 6/30/06)|
|This report summarizes MITSC’s work from April 19, 2003 to June 30, 2006. ||October 1, 2006
|Final Report - Wabanaki Studies Commission|
|This is the final report of the Wabanaki Studies Commission published October 2003.||October 1, 2003
|Preliminary Report of the Wabanaki Studies Commission|
|This is the preliminary report of the Wabanaki Studies Commission. Their final report is due September 2003.||June 1, 2002
|2001: Year in Review|
|The 2001 Annual Report of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission to the Governor of Maine and the Governors and Chiefs of the Tribes in Maine.||March 1, 2002
|Final Status of Bills Relating to Maine Tribes: 120th Legislature|
|A list of the status of bills relevant to Maine Tribes at the end of the 120th Legislature.||June 30, 2001
|Impact of Maine Civil Laws on the Wabanaki: 1997-2000|
|A review, pursuant to a Legislative Resolve, of how the civil laws of Maine affect the ability of Indian Tribes to regulate their members, lands, schools, cultural institutions, and communities in ways that honor tribal traditions.||December 15, 2000
|2000: Year in Review|
|This report reviews the activities, accomplishments, and disappointments of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) during the year 2000. After introductory information in Section 1, the report’s next five sections describe what happened during the year 2000. Section 2 provides an overview of MITSC’s members, meetings, and process; Section 3 reviews key pieces of legislation; Section 4 describes MITSC’s education activities; Section 5 summarizes the major natural resources and environmental issues before MITSC; and Section 6 analyses the tribal-state relations process. Based on what has happened during the year 2000, Section 7 identifies proposed areas of focus for the year 2001.||November 22, 2000
|Proposal to Drop "Squaw" from Place Names in Maine|
|An analysis of the reasons for the introduction of LD 2418 to the 119th Maine Legislature, including reactions from Native Americans and others in Maine to the prohibition of "sq---" in place names. ||January 1, 2000
|1999: Year in Review|
|MITSC's Annual Report to the Governor of Maine and the Governors and Chiefs of the Tribes in Maine. ||November 23, 1999
|Final Status of Bills Relating to Maine Tribes:119th Legislature|
|A list of the status of bills relating to Maine's Tribes at the conclusion of the 119th Legislature.||July 1, 1999
|Impact of Maine Civil Laws on the Wabanaki: 1998|
|Pursuant to Resolves 1997, Chapter 45, the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC)is authorized and directed to undertake a systematic review of the civil laws of the State of Maine over a period of four years. The purpose of the review is to determine the manner and extent to which these laws, as enforced, constrict or impinge upon the best interests of children with respect to the:
- Traditional culture and way of life as practiced in tribal communities;
- Ability of the Tribes to regulate their members, lands, schools, and other cultural institutions and communities in a manner that honors tribal traditions; and
- Respect and dignity appropriately given to all individual citizems in the State and members of the Tribes.||December 15, 1998
|Impact of Maine Civil Laws on the Wabanaki|
|Pursuant to Resolves 1997, Chapter 45, the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) is authorized and directed to undertake a systematic review of the civil laws of the State of Maine over a period of four years. The purpose of the review is to determine the manner and extent to which these laws, as enforced, constrict or impinge upon the best interests of children with respect to the:
- Traditional culture and way of life as practiced in tribal communities;
- Ability of the Tribes to regulate their members, lands, schools, and other cultural institutions and communities in a manner that honors tribal traditions; and
- Respect and dignity appropriately given to all individual citizens in the State and members of the Tribes.||December 15, 1997
|At Loggerheads - The State of Maine and the Wabanaki|
|At Loggerheads - The State of Maine and the Wabanaki is the final report of the Task Force on Tribal-State Relations. The Task Force on Tribal-State Relations was created by the 117th Maine Legislature. It worked from June 1996 through early January 1997 to explore ways of improving the tribal-state relationship and the effectiveness of MITSC.||January 15, 1997
|Maine Indian Claims Settlement: Concepts, Context, and Perspectives|
|To do.||February 5, 1995
|Federal and State Services and the Maine Indian|
|A report of the Maine Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights prepared for the information and consideration of the Commission.||December 1, 1974
|A Compilation of Laws Pertaining to Indians. State of Maine.|
|A compilation of the laws pertaining to the American Indians in the State of Maine compiled from the Maine Revised Statutes of 1964 and amendments through 1972, the Constitution of Maine, and current resolves and private and special laws.||January 1, 1973
|Governor's Task Force on Human Rights|
|The report of the Task Force on Human Rights created by Governor Ken Curtis on July 10, 1968.||December 1, 1968