Indian Country Today recently interviewed Gary Gordon, executive director of the National American Indian Housing Council, at NAIHC’s Legal Symposium in Las Vegas. Gordon, a Mohawk, former chairman of the Housing Authority of the Oneida Nation of New York, answered questions about Indian housing funding levels, negotiated rulemaking with federal authorities, and a plan by Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to regionalize Alaska Native housing.

ICT: What’s going on in Alaska with the regionalization that Sen. Stevens wants? And how is that affecting funding for housing?

GORDON: Stevens is trying to regionalize funding for the Alaska tribes and have it go primarily to the regional housing associations that are already established up there. His argument is that there are too many Alaska Native villages, and he’s concerned, at least from his perspective, with their capability to efficiently operate housing programs. He’s not only talking about housing but tribal courts and everything else. There are arguments for and against the concept, not necessarily regionalization of funding but trying to optimize the distribution of housing services. We don’t believe that’s necessarily the best way to go. We certainly don’t think that any kind of change should be done without tribal involvement.

ICT: What are the implications for sovereignty here?

GORDON: That is one of our concerns because Stevens intends to put the decision making for housing operations for Alaska villages in the hands of the regional housing associations and take it away from the tribes. NAHASDA (the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act) says it is the tribes’ right to self-determine how to meet their housing needs. If Stevens is successful, then what he has done is taken the tribes out of that role that they’re now in.

ICT: There are Alaska regional housing groups that already have, say, 22 villages in them. Isn’t that regionalizing?

GORDON: It’s regionalizing it on the basis of the tribes’ desire to regionalize it as opposed to someone else. Those tribes that have joined umbrellas feel they can get more efficiency of services by being part of an umbrella rather than trying to operate their own housing programs themselves. We believe the importance is that they make this decision and it hasn’t been forced upon them by somebody else.

ICT: Under the Senator’s reorganization plan, would Alaska tribes get more housing money under NAHASDA funding? Or is it unclear as to how he would reorganize it?

GORDON: That’s unclear right now. He obviously does want to emphasize the state. Looking at the Census data I guess there was concern that some of the Alaska tribes would actually lose funding next year. He wanted to make sure that they were able to retain at least their current funding.

ICT: So you’ve gotten him to agree to freeze everybody’s funding, the lower 48 as well?

GORDON: No, there is no freeze on funding. The only thing that has been agreed to at this point is it restricts funding in Alaska to those who were recipients this year. Only those tribes in Alaska who were recipients of NAHASDA funding this year will be eligible for NAHASDA funding in 2004. It’s a one-year fix. We believe that any kind of funding distribution should use a negotiated rulemaking process as opposed to legislation.

ICT: There was a haircut on all the budget appropriations for next year, but this morning I heard that Indian housing actually got bumped up a few million dollars. How did that happen?

GORDON: We were able to show using NAIHC data, that Indian country has been successful and effective in utilizing the limited funds that have been available up to this point. At one point this year there was concern about the spend level of NAHASDA funds since its inception. We were able to survey our members and show that those funds are being expended in an acceptable way, they are being used for the purposes intended and OMB (The Office of Management and Budget) has also agreed that spend level and utilization of those funds has been up to expectation.

ICT: What do you think will happen in 2005? Do you think there will be another (funding) boost?

GORDON: We’re hoping.

ICT: Under the Clinton Administration, the money for the Indian housing block grants jumped dramatically from year to year. Since the current Administration has been in, it has been flatlined at about $650 million. Do you think there’s a different philosophy that’s why that trend line has flattened out, or is it due to other considerations?

GORDON: I think primarily it probably is due to differences between the last administration and this administration and their philosophies as to how funding should be allocated. We’re hopeful, though, we can change some of these perceptions.

ICT: What about the negotiated rulemaking that’s going on now? You’ve had six meetings and apparently there’s a seventh additional one that’s been planned. What has the success of that negotiation been, and what are the big roadblocks that are still there?

GORDON: I know at this morning’s meeting (Public and Indian Housing Deputy Secretary Michael) Liu thought that there hadn’t been as much success as he would have hoped. I think that perception is probably shared by a lot of people in Indian country.

ICT: How is this round different from the first one? I remember the first round of negotiated rulemaking over NAHASDA as a kind of landmark cooperation between a federal agency and tribal nations. How’s this one different from that? Doesn’t seem to be the same level of consensus or unanimity.

GORDON: I agree.

ICT: There was an excitement about it, too.

GORDON: There was, at that time.

ICT: This negotiated rulemaking is a lot narrower than the original one. It’s just on the formula, how money is distributed to the tribes. What about other issues? Is HUD agreeing to have a negotiated rulemaking process on other issues, or is it digging in its heels?

GORDON: HUD has agreed to use negotiated rulemaking on other issues as well.

ICT: It’s kind of a unique acknowledgement of sovereignty to do this kind of a process. The government hasn’t really been noteworthy for this, right? Just the fact of having one seems to be an acknowledgement of sovereignty, even if you don’t accomplish much.

GORDON: I think HUD and the people in the Office of Native American Programs seem to be much more promising on the issue of sovereignty and more willing to work with the tribes to recognize sovereignty and yet still accomplish the mission that the tribes have in housing their people.

(Continued in Part Two)