8
Jul

Ask Elouise – Barrasso likely to take another shot at Cobell v. Salazar settlement

   Posted by: admin   in Cobell vs. Salazar, Elouise Cobell, Indian trust funds, Interior Department

Add Comment

Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff in the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, uses this week’s Ask Elouise letter to discuss Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso’s continued attempts to amend the historic $3.4 billion settlement announced last year. (See previous post, here.)

    Elouise Cobell (AP photo)

    Elouise Cobell (AP photo)

    In your last letter, you mentioned that Senator Barrasso (R – WY), Vice-Chairman, Senator Committee on Indian Affairs introduced an amendment that he says would “improve” the settlement agreement even though it would terminate the settlement, what is the status of his amendment?

    Thanks to your overwhelming support, Senator Barrasso was unable to bring his amendment to the floor for a vote. Your letters and calls to members of Congress had a significant impact on the outcome. Unfortunately, Senator Barrasso still doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care, that Indian Country overwhelmingly supports this settlement. According to statements reported in the press, he is more determined than ever to rob you of your victory in this case and it is likely that he again will attempt to introduce an amendment to terminate the settlement at some time in the future. We remain on guard against his efforts to further harm individual Indians.

To read all of the Ask Elouise columns about the settlement, click here.

Gwen Florio

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 8th, 2010 at 11:27 am and is filed under Cobell vs. Salazar, Elouise Cobell, Indian trust funds, Interior Department. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 comments so far

Kimberly Craven
 1 

One of the leading voices in the U.S. on the subject of Journalistic Standards and Ethics is the Society of Professional Journalists. The Preamble to its Code of Ethics states:

…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.

July 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
question
 2 

I always felt there was a one-sided view that leaned towards corrupt leadership in what was reported in Indian Country, never a fair and comprehensive account of events or issues. Has anyone else felt this way?

July 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
admin
 3 

Here are some of the stories featured recently in Buffalo Post that detail objections to the Cobell settlement, including an extensive piece written by Missoulian reporter Vince Devlin. If you scroll through the blog and look for those dates, or type ‘Cobell’ into the search field, you can find them pretty quickly:

June 30, 2010 Wyoming senator defends amendment that could kill $3.4 billion settlement in Cobell case

June 22, 2010 Native American group mulls Cobell settlement changes

May 26, 2010 More doubt cast on Congressional approval of Cobell settlement

April 28, 2010 – Sen. recounts ‘very strong concerns’ about Cobell settlement

March 23, 2010 As good as it gets? Or ‘junk change?’ Cobell explains settlement in sometimes-contentious Montana session

Hope this helps. One possible point of confusion: This blog is Buffalo Post. Buffalo’s Fire is a different blog.

Gwen Florio

July 9th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Striking Bear Hunkpapa Lakota
 4 

In response to the misguided voices above. This is not about a one-sided view nor any objections to the settlement.

This is about Justice under God, To remedy a violation of the Law perpetrated in the Past!.

The Historic $3.4 Billion Settlement should be just that, a JUST Historic Settlement!.

October 18th, 2010 at 3:16 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

 
Back to top