Clearly, somebody didn’t like some of the things tribal leaders said during past State of the Tribes addresses.
That has to be part but certainly not all of the reason we got to where we are today — which is, a state of confusion — on the address scheduled for next Thursday in the state Capitol.
It’s a hopeful state of confusion. Legislative leaders who got caught up in the fuss hope things will work out, and that long term the State of the Tribes address will endure as an essential part of each state legislative session.
I hope so, too. It’s important, even though it got snagged by a bit of a controversy.
Here’s what I think I know: After four annual addresses by tribal chairman or presidents, including Rosebud President Rodney Bordeaux last year, the State of the Tribes address this year looked, for a while, like it would be presented by Dave Flute, state Tribal Relations secretary in the cabinet of Gov. Kristi Noem.
At least, it looked that way to some, apparently including Flute, former chairman of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, and certainly someone with experience and standing on tribal issues.
Of course, being chairman of one tribe doesn’t mean speaking or understanding all the issues faced by others. There are many common issues, and some unique ones. And tribes are understandably sensitive about not being lumped into one homogenized collective.
So some push-back from elected tribal leaders to having Flute as speaker could have been expected. Even so, there was clearly some inclination among some legislative leaders and some members of the Noem administration to have Flute rather than a current tribal leader speak at the state Capitol this coming Thursday.
State Sen. Troy Heinert of Mission, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said he first heard about Flute being the speaker, from Flute, in November during a meeting of the State-Tribal Relations Committee.
“Secretary Flute stated that he had been asked to give the address,” Heinert says. “I knew that I’d be seeing him a couple of days later. And when I did, I said: “Just so you know, it’s not the governor’s choice. The invitation will come from us.’”
By “us,” Heinert meant legislative leaders, specifically the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Currently the speaker is Steve Haugaard, a lawyer from Sioux Falls. The president pro tem is businessman Brock Greenfield of Clark.
Neither issued an official invitation for Flute to speak, although there was some discussion about that, Haugaard says.
“David apparently got the impression that he was going to speak,” Haugaard says. “There was some confusion on what the protocol had been.”
The confusion magnified when word got out that Flute was going to be the speaker. And some tribal leaders decided to boycott the State of the Tribes address in the Capitol and hold a Great Sioux Nation address of their own on the same day across the Missouri River in Fort Pierre.
Which caused a flurry of news stories and speculation and consternation and led to the legislators issuing an invitation — the right protocol, Haugaard says — to Crow Creek Tribe Chairman Lester Thompson, Jr., to give the address.
“I think that’s all on track,” Haugaard says. “The intention is to have Mr. Thompson deliver the address to the Legislature and then there will be the opportunity for everybody to go across to Fort Pierre for additional meetings there.”
The main meetings seem to be the alternate address, which Haugaard plans to attend. He also plans to see that in the future the invitation protocol for the State of the Tribes address is clearer and more directly followed.
“After this, it’ll be understood in coming years,” he says.
Heinert says it was a “just some miscommunication. We’ll get it ironed out. I think it’s going to be a good event.”
And there’s the main story: It’s a good event. An important event. And an instructive event, if we allow it to be.
I know some who question whether a State of the Tribes address is appropriate. The governor’s State of the State address is an annual message from the executive branch to the legislative branch, just as in Washington, D.C., the president offers an annual State of the Union address to Congress.
In South Dakota, the State of the State address —which Noem will present this Tuesday — is followed the next day by the State of the Judiciary address, with the chief justice addressing the Legislature. And since the judiciary is the third branch of state government, it’s logical to have a presentation to the Legislature on that.
But the tribes? Well, they’re not part of the state-government structure. So why have a State of the Tribes address to the Legislature? One critic of the address I know argues that if we have a State of the Tribes address, why not a State of the Schools address? Isn’t education important?
Or why not simply include more tribal issues and thoughts in the governor’s State of the State address to the Legislature?
Those are fair questions. But they’re not the right question. The right question is how can state government expand its understanding of tribal issues and improve its relationship with tribal governments? And the State of the Tribes address is part of the answer.
No, the nine separate tribal governments in South Dakota are not part of the state government. They are sovereign nations with unique relationships to the federal government and to the state government.
Former state Rep. Don Haggar of Sioux Falls, who was instrumental in establishing the State of the Tribes address in South Dakota, puts our relationship as a state to the tribes in pretty good context:
“We have this unusual relationship with the tribes because of their sovereignty. They are married by treaty to the federal government, but we have a common-law relationship with them. They live with us. So, the address makes sense,” Haggar says. “And I felt at the time we were working on that issue that there were many policy makers, legislators, who just didn’t know much about the reservations and challenges there.”
Beyond relationships, there is a responsibility the state can’t avoid, Haggar says: “If there’s a black mark on our state, it’s the living conditions in Indian Country.”
There are some wonderful living conditions in Indian Country, where the landscapes inspire and inform, the culture enlightens, and the courageous perseverance of the people instructs. The black mark is from the horrid realities of high rates of suicide and drug and alcohol abuse, limited employment opportunities and health-care options that range from inadequate to life threatening.
And that isn’t something the state can or should turn its back on, Haggar says. To be effective in finding ways to cooperate and help, more state policymakers must also meet and greet and understand, he said.
They must also listen, which is where the address comes in. Fashioned after a similar address in North Dakota, the State of the Tribes here in South Dakota means that sometimes legislators might have to sit and listen to things they would rather not hear. Those things include reviews of how treaty rights have been denied and disrespected and criticisms about the way the Legislature and the state operate, especially in ways that affect Native American tribes.
“I knew going into this that some of the things tribal leaders would say might not be in alignment with a lot of the views of legislators,” Haggar says. “But I thought it would be helpful for folks to know about those kinds of things. I was on the Executive Board, and the Executive Board made the decision to do it.”
And there have indeed been some critical comments made by tribal leaders who presented the addresses. Bordeaux made it clear last year that the tribes and the state were at odds over issues like the Keystone XL pipeline and legislation tribes saw as an afront to their right to protest against pipelines.
Some legislators admit that there was unhappiness among some legislators about critical comments by tribal leaders in the past. Others felt someone like Flute could give a broader perspective of state-tribal issues than the leader of an individual tribe.
But it apparently won’t be enough to change the commitment of most legislators to hearing from tribal leaders in an official way each session.
“It’s just a good opportunity to build relationships,” Haugaard says. “This way all the tribes know there is a special day sed aside for them to give speeches and come and visit with legislators. I’m very optimistic about the way things will go from here on.”
A good thing isn’t always a serene thing, Haggar says.
“They’re not always going to say what the Legislature wants to hear, but that’s the whole point of the thing,” he says. “We’ve got to give everyone a voice. And if we can’t listen to different perspectives in a civil fashion, then we’re just like the rest of the nation.”
Haggar believes we can do better that. And I hope he’s right.
