Viewing page 26 of 71

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Please return to Ruth Kirk, Gallup, N.M. 

Recommendations for reform of the Indian Office, by Mr. Chas. DeY. Elkus 
September 30, 1947. 

No. 1. 

The organizations interested in Indian Affairs should resume a militant attitude, and not one of excessive cooperation with the Office of Indian Affairs. 

No. 2. 

There should be a Commission on Indian Affairs to make policies - rotating so that it will continue past one or two administrations. This is for the purpose of getting a continuity of policy. Whether or not it is the best policy, a good policy is far better than vacillating policies, when you are dealing with the lives of people. In lieu of this, there could be a congressionally authorized committee with representatives of the various interested groups, including Congress. 

No. 3. 

The Commissioner should, if practical, be subject to hiring and firing by the Commission. So again there may be continuity of policy, elimination of polities and not changing the Commissioner with every change of administration. However, he should not be Civil Service. 

No. 4. 
A reorganization of the Washington Office, so that matters will be determined in the field, except where general matters of policy are concerned. General matters of policy should be determined by the Commission, plus tribal [[wishes?]] with direct consultation of the Superintendent involved, who should be independent in his own area. 

Superintendents, especially of the larger jurisdictions, should be responsible only to the Commissioner, and not have Washington personnel exercising control over various services, or sending people into his jurisdiction to affect administration without his approval and request. If a Superintendent is not good enough, he should go out. Otherwise, he should not be thwarted. 

The regional system is unnecessary; it can be done directly through Superintendencies, which for the most part are plenty big enough to justify that procedure. 

There should be more cutting of the staff that heads out of Washington, instead of cutting in the field where it hurts - not the personnel, but hurts the Indians for whom the whole service exists. 


No. 5. 
If the new plan of a Commission is followed, or even if not, the Washington office, including budget, could be cut down to between fifty and a hundred people. This would mean that the Supt. would be responsible for his own budget and be present with the Commissioner and with a budgetary assistant from the Commission, at the Washington presentation. In this connection, it might be well to consider whether or not the jurisdictional budgets should not in some way be earmarked in the appropriations.