In question is the 1990 Aroostook Band of Micmacs Settlement Act, which was supposed to adopt the provisions of the earlier Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. However, the tribe learned recently that its governing board never formally received or approved the act in 1990, when by law it had 60 days after the Legislature’s adjournment to do so.
According to Craig Sanborn, an in-house attorney for the Micmacs, there is no record that the state ever presented the document to the tribe for ratification. Sanborn discovered the problem last year as he was working on establishing a court system for the tribe. The Settlement Act, which outlines tribal sovereignty rights, needs to be in place if the tribe is to have the authority to operate its own civil courts addressing everything from divorces to bankruptcies.
On Feb. 17, the Micmac Tribal Council voted unanimously not to ratify the document and since then, according to Sanborn, has met with Gov. Paul LePage to request a renegotiation of the act.
Sanborn said Monday that Feb. 17 was the first time the document had ever been presented to the tribe for consideration.
LePage’s office did not immediately respond to questions about the request to reopen negotiations with the Micmacs.
“We can’t move forward with nation-building in initiatives until we actually have a valid act we can deal with,” said Sanborn. “I would imagine that [the tribe and state government] are going to have to sit down together and come to an agreement. That’s what the federal framework calls for.”
The federal government has control over the affairs of Native American tribes, except in states such as Maine, where the Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1980 established a tribal-state agreement for the Penobscot Indian Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Houlton Band of Maliseets.
The Micmacs were not included in the original agreement. An attempt to give the tribe the same rights as the Penobscots and Passamaquoddies in 1989-90 is what is at issue.
A 2007 court case essentially gave the state full jurisdiction over Micmac tribal matters, according to Sanborn.
“We think anyone would see that that is patently unjust,” he said. “The impetus is wholly on the tribe if they want to be treated the same as the other tribes. … It’s a matter of being able to govern your own affairs. And it’s a matter of due process.”
Timothy Feeley, spokesman for the Maine attorney general’s office, said Monday in an email that the tribe is not raising any new issues. The attorney general in 1989 supported the Micmacs recognition under the state settlement act, he said.
“The band has operated under the privileges extended by the act since it was enacted and approved by Congress,” Feeley said in the email. “When the band was advocating to Congress for federal recognition, the president of the band at the time, Mary Philbrook, testified to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs that the state legislation had taken effect. This was an important factor in the federal government granting them recognition and approving a $900,000 appropriation to the band.
“The [1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] held that regardless of whether the state act took effect, the band is fully subject to Maine law,” Feeley said. “So, even if the band’s theory were correct, the only result would be that the band would lose the privileges granted to them by that act.”
The level of sovereignty Maine tribes claim has long been a source of controversy. Asked whether the Micmacs would attempt to gain rights beyond those of the other tribes, Sanborn said he doesn’t know.
“We’re keeping an open mind,” said Sanborn. “We’re not saying it has to be this or it has to be that. We’re simply awaiting a response from the state of Maine.”
BDN staff writer Judy Harrison contributed to this report.
