The Osage Shareholders Association believes the Osage Nation Executive Branch has overstepped its authority and possibly broken Osage law.
In a strongly worded letter, the OSA is opposing a lawsuit filed by the Nation against the U.S. Department of Interior over compacting the management of the Osage Minerals Estate and the closure of the Pawhuska Osage Agency. According to the letter, the Executive Branch did so without first seeking the approval of the Osage Minerals Council as is allegedly required by Osage law.
At their quarterly meeting on Aug. 18 in Grayhorse, shareholders voiced their concerns about the lawsuit and voted to send the letter to the DOI, the Osage Nation Congress, the BIA and the OMC.
“We believe that the Osage Nation Executive Branch does not have trust authority over the Osage Mineral Estate and we do not support any efforts to Compact the federal functions remaining at the Osage Agency, a usurp of authority, or overreach of any kind into our Mineral Estate, nor do we support the above-named lawsuit,” the letter stated. “We believe the action to compact the Branch of Minerals at the Osage Agency, and that this litigation set in motion by the Osage Nation Executive Branch is a diminishment of our rights to our assets and royalties of the Osage Mineral Estate.”
The lawsuit was filed by the Nation in March of this year after the DOI rejected the Nation’s “final offer” to compact the work performed by the BIA – including managing matters of trust, probate and real estate. The Nation requested $4.87 million to do this work and to close the Pawhuska Osage Agency. The ask also included $485,000 from costs associated with the regional office.
OSA Chairwoman Maria Whitehorn, who is also an Osage Nation Congresswoman, spoke out against the litigation at the Aug. 18 shareholder meeting, as did others.
“This is a position letter, there’s no ask in it,” Whitehorn said. She said that by adopting the letter, shareholders were using their voice to protect their asset.
Self-governance
Two years ago, Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear made a fiery pitch for self-governance during his inauguration speech. He argued for more control over land and resources the federal government has managed for more than 100 years. During those 100 years, he argued the Nation lost 90% of its land.
“We can govern our own mineral estate,” he said.
Standing Bear had some opinions about the OSA’s letter.
“They want to go back to the old system,” he said, referring to the Osage Tribal Council form of government.
He said he is promoting self-governance in contrast to the days when the federal government had to approve how Osages spent their money. Only two-thirds of Osage headrights remained in Osage hands and there is a history of mismanagement of the mineral estate.
“Some people like the federal government telling them what to do, I don’t,” he said.
Standing Bear also commented on the allegation that he violated Osage law by not consulting the Osage Minerals Council prior to compacting negotiations.
“Osage law says only that compacts pertaining to the Osage Mineral Estate shall be affirmed by resolution of the Osage Minerals Council. That is clear and the law does not require prior approval before negotiation or even entering into an agreement with the United States,” he said. “One could argue that the Osage Congress is under a mandatory duty to affirm a compact resolution because that is what the law says. The word ‘shall’ is a command. Otherwise, the law would say ‘may’, which it does not say. In any event, the affirmation comes after the compact is prepared and submitted to the Osage Congress.”
Separation of powers
The Executive Branch has the authority to negotiate compacts with the state and federal agencies, such as the gaming and tobacco compacts. However, they must bring those compacts before Congress for approval.
In 2014, Whitehorn sponsored ONCA 13-62, an amendment that states any compacts related to the mineral estate must be brought before the Osage Minerals Council for approval. Chief Standing Bear was also a member of the ON Congress at that time.
Around 50 people attended the Aug. 18 meeting in person, including Osage Minerals Councilmen Paul Revard and Myron Red Eagle. About 20 or so were on Zoom.
Revard said he was surprised to learn about the litigation.
“It’s one thing for the executive branch to have done this,” said Revard.
“But, our trustee didn’t come to us to tell us what was going on. Why did we hear about this through rumors?”
Revard said he contacted the Minerals Council’s attorney about the lawsuit, who said they were also unaware. He asked Whitehorn about filing an amicus brief, siding with the DOI. Whitehorn said she wished the Council would, according to a recording of the meeting.
Revard: “So, are they representing us or are they representing themselves?”
Whitehorn: “They’re representing themselves …”
Revard: “My next question is should we file an amicus brief, friend of the courts, with them [DOI]?”
Whitehorn: “That’s a topic we can talk about. I wish that the mineral’s council would do that. That’s probably what you guys should stand on …”
Revard: “I’m just putting it out there.”
Whitehorn: “Right. We don’t have a budget here. We survive on $25 memberships and door raffles. I mean, and I’m not trying to be rude. But I really do hope that the minerals council passes a resolution …”
Revard said he didn’t know about the litigation until reading about it in the Osage News. In July, Standing Bear was recorded speaking about the lawsuit at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.
Once they learned about the lawsuit, Whitehorn and other board members got together to draft the letter.
“I don’t love the BIA any more than the next Indian, but they serve a function. When they get an administrative function wrong, they are liable,” Whitehorn said, referring to the trust responsibility the Osage Agency and the Department of the Interior has to protect the assets of Osage citizens.
Whitehorn said she believes the Pawhuska Osage Agency is headed in a positive direction with Adam Trumbly, the first Osage tribal member to be Superintendent since the late Melissa Currey.
Trumbly was also in attendance at the Aug. 18 meeting. He said it might take an act of Congress to remove him from his post in Pawhuska.
Whitehorn said the OSA is not taking a position against the Osage Nation government and is not requesting a change in government.
“We demand only that the Federal and Osage governments follow the law and recognize and protect shareholder rights,” she said.
She said the letter is not about criticizing governmental reform but rather wanting to make known the position of shareholders.
“It is notable when a federally recognized, statutorily created, constitutionally classified group of Osage people existing as a minority within the ON membership, lawfully gather in their organized association and take action to make their voices heard in the form of an agreed upon correspondence as an appeal to their governments, is met with angst instead of understanding. It gives one pause,” Whitehorn said.
CLARIFICATION: This version of the article is different than the first version published on Aug. 23, 2024. OSA Chairwoman Maria Whitehorn asked for a correction after the first version was published. She said she never asked the Minerals Council to file an amicus brief, nor did she suggest it, and that it wasn’t OMC Councilman Paul Revard she was speaking with at the meeting. The Osage News listened to a recording of the meeting and heard the exchange between Whitehorn and Revard as she called upon him to speak. While Whitehorn didn’t suggest the amicus brief, that was Revard, she did say she wished the OMC would file an amicus brief.
With additional reporting by Freelancer Allison Herrera and Osage News Multimedia Specialist Echo Reed
