| 1. note the lack of definition of "recognition". 2. note the lack of purpose of "recognition". 3. note the lack of definitions for "nation", "tribe", "band" or "organization". 5. note that there is no rule assuring that organizations are what they claim to be, and protecting against identity theft of the names of bona fide Native American Indian nations, tribes, bands or clans by organizations requesting recognition from the state. 6. note that organizations calling themselves 'tribe', 'nation', 'band' or 'clan' petitioning for recognition are not required to apply as tribes, nations, bands or clans. 7. note that organizations can create their own definition of Native American Indian individuals, thus being able to guarantee their own definition as a Native American Indian organization.
|
8. note that the current (2006) Commission has neither a Director to manage the petition process nor an office in which to store the petitions and supporting documentation. 9. note that there are no procedures for the commissioners' review process, and no timeline for review and response. 10. note that Commissioners are not required to have any professional education or experience in the fields of genealogy or Native American Indian history, yet are placing themselves in the position of making judgments on genealogical and historical fact based on unqualified material submitted to them. 11. note that there is a general lack of safeguarding the credibility of the process by making sure that genealogical and historical material submitted to the Commission are certified by experienced professionals. 12. note that there is no mention of record-keeping, and no mention of public access to the rolls or review of the records of the process.
|
Replies