FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 12, 2001
www.indiantrust.com


TRUST OFFICIAL BACKS COURT MONITOR'S FINDINGS
THAT INTERIOR SKIRTED JUDGE'S ORDER ON IIM ACCOUNTS

"Six Years to Start the Process Is a Difficult Delay to Defend"

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A senior trust official repeatedly agreed today with the 
accuracy of findings by a court-appointed investigator who had concluded that 
the Interior Department purposely evaded a judge's order to reform the 
troubled Individual Indian Monies (IIM) trust and provide Indians with an 
accounting of their money.

Thomas M. Thompson, the principal deputy in an office overseeing trust 
reform at Interior, described in detail how top Interior aides sought to 
avoid the expense and complexity of providing the accounting to individual 
Indian trust beneficiaries, despite a Dec. 21, 1999 order by U.S. District 
Judge Royce C. Lamberth to do so.

Thompson's testimony undercuts claims by government lawyers, who are 
challenging the findings of Court Monitor Joseph S. Kieffer III. Kieffer's 
findings form the basis for four of five contempt charges against Interior 
Secretary Gale Norton and Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Neal 
McCaleb. Neither Norton nor McCaleb was in court today.

Both Congress in 1994 and Lamberth in 1999 required Interior to clean up its 
mismanagement of the IIM trust. Asked by lead plaintiffs' lawyer Dennis M. 
Gingold if Interior's failure to comply by the year 2000 amounted to 
"unreasonable delay," Thompson said, "Six years to start the process is 
probably a difficult delay to defend."

Interior officials were dragging their feet, Thompson said, in part because 
they hoped Lamberth's ruling would be overturned by a federal appeals court. 
"They were clearly betting on that," he said.

"They were wrong," said Lamberth, who was upheld unanimously by the 
appellate court in February of this year.

"Yes, sir," said Thompson.

"They put all their eggs in one basket," the judge added, smiling.

"Yup," Thompson said.

Thompson also agreed with Kieffer's description of "internecine warfare" and 
"hostility" inside Interior as officials feuded over basic definitions of 
what was being required by Congress and the court. "Cooperation could have 
been a lot better," Thompson said. "We didn't agree on what a 'trust' was. 
We disagreed on a definition of an 'accounting.'"

While the Office of the Special Trustee, where Thompson works, tried to act 
in the best interests of individual Indian trust beneficiaries, he said, the 
job of the Solicitor's Office at Interior was "to take care of the department 
and the Secretary." Thompson said his office fought often with both 
Solicitor's Office and Justice Department lawyers over what Interior was 
required to do and how much to report to Judge Lamberth about their lack of 
progress. "I thought we were close to the edge of trust law," he said.

"It was a pretty contentious relationship," Thompson added. "It was not hard 
to hear" what each side was arguing because voices often were raised.

Thompson's testimony continues on Thursday, December 13.

#####