LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Legal, Ethical Objections Given on Fort de Buade Purchase
To the Editor:

A proposal receiving considerable attention lately is the one by Keith Massaway of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. The proposal seeks to divert approximately $760,000 of socalled two percent tribal gaming money for the purchase, by the Michilimackinac Historical Society, of the private enterprise known as Fort de Buade. The money for the purchase is to be funneled through the City of St. Ignace. I am reasonably certain that you are aware that this proposal has been objected to not only by numerous members of the Sault Tribe but also by a significant number of Sault Tribe board members. The objections, both legal and ethical, include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

1. Typically and traditionally, two percent monies are allocated on the basis of proposals submitted by local governments and/or governmental agencies, the most deserving of which may be funded as those monies are available. In this particular case, Keith Massaway, the author of the proposal (Sault Tribe Resolution 2007-01), presented it in a backhanded way, offering the resolution in the name of the City of St. Ignace before even telling the City that a resolution had been submitted and exactly what it was for. This was a clear violation of protocol.

2. In 1993, the Sault Tribe entered into an agreement known as the Consent Judgment, with the Governor of Michigan to distribute two percent of casino slot machine winnings to local governments in the vicinity of tribal casinos. This money must be distributed to local governments and cannot be applied directly to support tribally funded activities. This agreement or Compact reads in part:

"Each tribe shall determine which local unit or units of governments shall receive payments and the amounts thereof; provided however, the guidelines governing the tribes in making said determinations shall be based upon compensating said local units of government for governmental services provided to the tribes and for impacts associated with the existence and location of the tribal casino in its vicinity."

From a legal standpoint, neither the Michilimackinac Historical Society nor the owner of Fort de Buade is a local unit of government. In fact, the Michilimackinac Historical Society is a 501c3 and 509a2 nonprofit corporation. Payments of two percent money to either of those entities thus might be construed as a misappropriation of funds and therefore illegal. Since neither are units of government but rather are private entities, one an individual and the other a corporation, they provide no governmental services to anyone, including the tribe.

3. The contents of Fort de Buade consist of artifacts of varying backgrounds with only a small percentage of them representing Anishinaabe culture. According to Cheryl Schlehuber, Michilimackinac Historical Society member, and Mr. Massaway, Michilimackinac Historical Society former president, some of the objects, though valuable, would not belong in a museum with a Mackinac Straits historical focus, but add to the eclectic charm. Dr. Lynn Evans, a curator of archaeology, characterizes the museum "stuff" as "a big eclectic mix." The museum is "a hodgepodge of eras and groups," Mr. Massaway noted. Rather than being a museum that accurately portrays Straits area Native American culture, it could more accurately be characterized as a museum of eclectic charm.

4. The provenance and authenticity of any of the small number of reputed Native American items in Fort de Buade have yet to be verified in any objective or conclusive way. While some assert that the Fort's artifacts are included in an appraised inventory list 45 pages long, such a list has never been provided for general viewing. Indeed, Dr. Evans, the curator of archaeology, also noted that it is desirable that "the historical society has a full inventory of the items to get a good analysis of the pieces by professionals." The comments by Dr. Evans suggest that there is relatively little known about the few artifacts that may be genuinely Native American.

5. A stipulation of the agreement between the tribe and the City of St. Ignace "is that the artifacts be turned over to the tribe in the event the City is no longer willing or able to display them." Thus, if the City were to find itself unable or unwilling to display the artifacts, they would become the property of the tribe and the two percent money used to purchase them would have been used to benefit the tribe directly. This clearly would violate the provisions of the Consent Judgment.

6. The City of St. Ignace has the option of abrogating the agreement at their will. This appears to be a win-lose situation, i.e., abrogate or not, the City of St. Ignace wins and the Sault tribe loses. If the City, for one reason or another, chooses to abrogate the agreement, the tribe will receive perhaps a few genuine Native American artifacts that, in the first analysis, are probably theirs anyway and could be claimed by them under Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. They also will have several hundred thousand dollars worth of, for want of a better term, junk, that will need to be disposed of.

The foregoing shows quite clearly that the proposed funding of Fort de Buade with Sault Tribe two percent money is misguided at best. A survey of needs in the greater St. Ignace area would reveal other more worthy projects that provide at least some benefit to the Sault Tribe. I would respectfully encourage members of the St. Ignace governing body to examine some of those possibilities and to consider using the money that otherwise would be allocated to Fort de Buade for their funding.

As you are aware, the monies for the Fort de Buade project are to be distributed over a six-year period with equal payments made annually. Thus, the project has both short and long term significance. In the short term, one to two years say, the Sault Tribe may indeed approve the allocation and distribute the necessary initial funds to the City of St. Ignace. In the long term, which extends beyond one to two years, however, continued distribution of two percent monies is much less certain. The uncertainty is a consequence of at least two factors: (1) the upcoming tribal election which may bring about the election of new board members who may look unfavorably on the Fort de Buade purchase; one or two additional board members inclined against the purchase could cause it to be reversed, and (2) the efforts of many Sault Tribe brothers and sisters who, like me, consider the purchase of Fort de Buade an improper and misguided use of tribal two percent monies and who intend to expend considerable resources to elect board members who are sympathetic to our cause and who will provide the necessary votes to reverse any decision of the current board of directors that we consider to be improper and misguided.
Charles E. Adams, Jr.
    Laughlin, Nevada