Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek at the State Library of Oregon in Salem on Aug. 14, 2024. (Deborah Bloom/Underscore Native News)
This story originally appeared on Underscore Native News.
This spring, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek promised to visit all nine federally recognized Native nations across the state. So far, she has visited eight and attended the annual Tribal-State Government-to-Government Summit in July. That time marked a span of months when Kotek heard from Native leadership across the state.
In an interview on Aug. 14, Underscore Native News + ICT followed up on those conversations, asking Kotek to clarify her commitments to Native nations and Indigenous community members in Oregon.
She expressed a commitment to strengthening sovereign-to-sovereign consultation, pointing to the new state task force on tribal consultation and acknowledged that the structure of the legislative session makes proper consultation difficult. Consultation is better when it happens before potential policies are even introduced in the legislature, she said.
Kotek also talked about her trip to the Klamath Tribes, where the community is reeling from the recent murder of two teenage sisters. The tragedy comes as Indigenous community members across the state continue decades of advocacy, and continue to call on Oregon to address the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP).
Underscore and ICT’s recent reporting shows how limited transparency, persistent data gaps and secret law enforcement guidelines from the federal coordinator in Oregon hinders progress in addressing an MMIP crisis that impacts Native communities across the state.
Kotek acknowledged Oregon’s lack of data collection as a critical issue and said she is open to the possibility of a statewide MMIP task force. Washington state has established an MMIP task force, administered by the state attorney general’s office – a move some MMIP activists have said Oregon should replicate.
Kotek also signaled openness around another important issue: Land Back. When asked if she sees a possibility of transferring some state lands back to Native nations, or creating more co-management opportunities on state land, Gov. Kotek answered favorably.
“I absolutely think that’s a possibility on the horizon,” Kotek said. “Really understanding lands that are in state possession, whether they’re park lands or other things – we’ve had conversations about hatcheries that are really important. Wherever we can be co-managing and working together, I’m definitely open to that.”
The interview below has been lightly edited for clarity.
Nika Bartoo-Smith (Underscore Native News + ICT): You’re currently wrapping up your tour of the nine federally recognized Native nations in Oregon, you just completed your eighth. How were your visits so far? What were some of the most interesting moments?
Gov. Tina Kotek: I think the visits have been absolutely amazing. When I made this commitment to visit all nine tribes, to me, it was getting to different parts of our state, meeting with tribal citizens and speaking with them, speaking with their governments.
I think the relationships that I’m building is the highlight. For example, the chairs usually drive in my car, so we get to chat when we move from spot to spot. Those relationships and friendships I think are going to be so valuable over the course of my administration.
I think it’s just hearing directly about the history, about what’s going on, the excitement about projects. I mean, all of it has just been wonderful. And they’re all different, right? Because every tribal nation is different, and so they’re unique, but the warmth and generosity of every visit has been just really wonderful.
Nika Bartoo-Smith: Tell us a little bit about how what you are learning on these visits might inform state policy moving forward.
Gov. Tina Kotek: I think in terms of state policy, it comes down to why I’m doing this. I really believe in government-to-government conversations. I approach these visits kind of like a diplomatic mission. These are sovereign nations within the borders of Oregon. So as a sovereign, being the sovereign, that’s why these are visits from the first family. The first lady comes with me. I feel like that is a sign of respect. So you build that foundation of friendship and relationship.
I think where it’s going to affect state policy is really that commitment to consultation. Making sure that the state government has a consistent policy, that we understand how to work with our tribal governments, our tribal nations, in a way that’s respectful to the degree that we can co create policy. I think that’s always a goal.
We’ve been doing a lot at the state trying to increase the number of tribal set asides, but making sure that those are what’s needed and what can work. So I think there’s just, we’re doing a lot of good work together, but there’s always room for improvement. And I want to find out what those areas of improvement can be so we can all be successful together.
Missing and murdered indigenous people
Karina Brown (Underscore Native News): Most recently, you visited the Klamath Tribes. I understand there was a lot of discussion about Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, specifically the tragic murder of two young, teenage sisters that devastated the community. What did you hear from their family and from the larger community about what justice would look like and what they want the state of Oregon to do to address this issue?
Kotek: It was a really powerful meeting with families. And they weren’t only families or friends of the two young women who were killed, but Klamath citizens who had, over the years, lost family members and have not had their questions answered by local law enforcement.
What I took away from it was, there’s a real opportunity here to get questions answered so there can be healing within the community. The broader issue of MMIP, which I’ve been hearing from all the tribes, by the way, came home in a really personal way, in visiting the Klamath Tribes.
We had a lunch meeting together, where there were posters outside the room where we were meeting, of the individual tribal members who had been lost. Just to see the number of them, the pain that the Klamath Tribes has experienced because of that, was real eye opening for me to say: What more can we do as a state to make sure families can find justice, that they can get answers? Because sometimes that’s all you’re going to get, is answers, but at least you should get them. So it was really powerful.
Bartoo-Smith: In a proclamation declaring May 5 as MMIP Awareness Day you said: “Oregon is committed to addressing the root causes and systemic obstacles contributing to this persistent crisis, aiming to mitigate violence against Indigenous Peoples.” Can you tell us about the specific actions you plan to take in order to follow through on this commitment?
Kotek: I really appreciate the question. The proclamation was important because I think our first goal is to raise awareness for the broader population to understand the impact of what’s been happening in our tribal communities, for Missing and Murdered Indigenous People.
We have a commitment here from my office of making sure that we build on what we’ve already been doing, right? So there was legislation to move forward on this. We have legislators that are interested in this, making sure that the state police is involved from a data collection standpoint. We’re involved with the U.S. Attorney’s General’s office, who also has a task force.
But I think it’s more than just having conversations. Now, the question is, what more can we do? Raising awareness is important. I’m looking to other states to see what they’re doing, to see what is that next step for Oregon? Unfortunately, a lot of the work that was started by the legislation got delayed because of the pandemic. The focus groups with tribal communities, we need to get back to that conversation. Because the more we understand, the better we can define solutions with the tribes.
You know, we have intergenerational trauma that is a foundation of some of what’s been happening in these families. But then it’s just perpetuated [without] answers and when things happen and law enforcement is not able to react in the way they need to be.
So I look forward to working with the tribes and other states and internally here at the state to see what we can do differently. It’s tragic, it’s uncomfortable, it’s unacceptable, and it’ll require a complex set of solutions, I think, to make progress. But we have to make progress.
Brown: In January, you were very honest with InvestigateWest reporter Melanie Henshaw about having not yet read the Oregon State Police report from 2020 that proposed ways to address MMIP issues in Oregon. I know you’ve been touring Native nations around the state and as you said, you’re hearing a lot about this. There are so many different tactics that different places are taking. I’m especially thinking about things happening in Washington state as far as their data collection system. And I know there’s a lot that the federal task force in Alaska, for example, has been doing that the federal task force here in Oregon hasn’t yet taken up. Since January, I’m curious if there are other ways you’ve been educating yourself on different proactive steps that have been taken and what might be appropriate for Oregon to do?
Kotek: I appreciate the question. I have reviewed the report, and I do think the starting point for me has been these conversations with the tribes. But it’s not just our tribes, right? It’s our urban Native American population. These aren’t incidents that just happen on trust or reservation land. This is a statewide issue and we need to address it that way.
I think, for me, trying to understand how the data collection is helpful. For example, what I’m hearing and what I’m learning is not even being able to identify the individual is being connected to a particular tribe is a real challenge. Just that – being able to track, so you can have the connection and the communication with the different law enforcement, depending on the area or whether the tribe itself has a law enforcement agency. So I think it’s getting into that nitty gritty and being like, ‘Okay, we got to do this piece.’ It’s not just saying, ‘Hey, here are some high level numbers.’ We’ve got to get more into the details, because I don’t think we can have the solutions unless we have that level of data.
Bartoo-Smith: This is really just kind of an expansion of that question. One of the things that we’re seeing is that lack of data, of accurate data, both at the state and the federal level. Washington has a data tracking system. Oregon doesn’t have one yet. And we’ve had a lot of conversations with activists in the region that have talked about different solutions. Some of them could be including listing tribal affiliation on state driver’s licenses or establishing a state task force. Are these things you’re open to, and what other plans do you have to address the problems identified in the report?
Kotek: Well I do think tracking tribal affiliation – this has come up in other contexts, not just MMIP. For example, in healthcare data. So I think that’s something we have to explore and understand the pros and cons of that, because not everyone’s going to want to be sharing that information. That is always something we have to keep in mind, is people’s willingness to share that information. There are trust issues, understandably, about sharing any kind of level of data.
One of the things I think that’s inherent in the issue of MMIP is, where we aren’t actually state of the art on what local law enforcement tracks, how criminal or any kind of investigative information is actually tracked. I think we’re starting from a spot, unlike other systems, where we track all these things. A lot of this is very localized. So how do you make sure you can put an investment there that actually lifts up that local information to have a statewide impact?
And this is where I think we really need the help from the federal agencies, because they have that ability, especially if these issues are crossing state lines, which is not unusual. I think the task force idea is an interesting one, and that’s what I’m trying to figure out. We’re doing the training at our state academy, which I think is very helpful for current and future law enforcement to actually understand the issue. Awareness. Education. But then what is the next step?
And I think a task force is a possibility, because I think it gives you that, like, “Okay, we have to go to the next step.” And sometimes that’s what you do. You bring some people together and be like, “Okay, now what?” So that might be something we have to look at, because I feel like we’ve done some very fundamental things, but we have to do more.
Brown: Specifically at OSP, Oregon State Police, Glendon Smith is the tribal liaison there. He is tasked with really a huge issue of focusing on MMIP issues at the state level. I’m curious how you’re directing OSP to address MMIP issues specifically and particularly around this urgent need to gather more accurate data? And also how you’re ensuring that Glendon is supported in his role as just one person with this huge job?
Kotek: Well, I always believe in being upfront. I don’t have that level of detail to respond to that, if I’m being really honest about it. And I do believe we are transmitting to all the partners at the state level that are involved that this is an important issue, that it’s an urgent issue. But I do need to go back and check and see how the superintendent is feeling and understanding what else do you need to be successful here? So it’s a question I need to ask.
Bartoo-Smith: Your appointment of Tribal Affairs Director (for the governor’s office) Shana McConville Radford was a historic step, one that many leaders of Native nations have long called for. At the same time, this puts one person in the position of advocating for nine diverse nations, plus urban Indigenous communities on a wide variety of issues — from MMIP issues to tribal consultation and so much more. How do you plan to ensure that this role has the support needed to accomplish all of those varied tasks? And also, are there talks or plans of expanding the office in the future?
Kotek: I love that question. Well, I think the way I’m approaching this, having a tribal affairs director, as you’ve noted, is a brand new thing. In the past, it was part of the portfolio of our legal counsel in the governor’s office, which, when I came in, I was like, that’s not an appropriate spot to put this significant set of issues. So having a tribal affairs director is our first step.
I also don’t think of it as that position handling all the issues across state government or for the entire state. That’s why it’s really important for me, particularly with the consultation task force, to make sure the individual agencies – particularly our very large agencies – have tribal liaisons within the agencies, they have point people for consultation. I kind of see it as the tribal affairs director making sure there’s continuity across all of state enterprise, so everybody can be doing their job within their agency directives, in addition to the kind of overarching work that the tribal affairs director is doing and will do.
I see that person as kind of like that chief ambassador to each of the tribes. And there’s certainly a lot to do. I mean, that’s something that’s become very clear from all the business with the tribes. We have government-to-government quarterly meetings on a set of issues. Those are very important opportunities. So how are we supporting those? How much is that support on my office? How much is that support of agencies? So really understanding the whole ecosystem to support our tribes in the government-to-government consultation work with state government.
So Shana is doing a great job. I don’t think she should do everything, because, one, that’s not fair. And two, I don’t think that’s how we as a government should function. If we just leave it up to the governor’s office, I don’t believe that agencies are doing their job if they’re leaving it up to us. So we’re really working on every agency having capacity to do the work that they need to do.
Government-to-government consultation
Brown: Talking a little more about consultation, the state just launched its task force on overhauling the consultation process. I’m curious, specifically in the legislative process, one of the problems with improving consultation is just simply the compressed time of the legislative session, and it doesn’t necessarily allow for proper government-to-government consultation.
We really saw this play out in the most recent session with House Bill 4002 where there was really no, at least high level formal consultation process with Native nations, despite the significant effect of the opioid epidemic on Indigenous communities. With that bill in particular, with one small exception in terms of some funding for services at the Warm Springs Jail, there really wasn’t any specific direct funding to Native communities. I know there’s other funding coming from the opioid settlement around this, but you know, just zeroing in on the legislative process and consultation, I’m curious if you have ideas for improving that?
Kotek: Well, I think it’s a good question for our legislative leaders. I mean, when I was in the legislature, we really looked to the Legislative Commission on Indian Services as that place that is the conduit and focal point for conversations with the tribes during the legislative process.
For me, consultation is related directly government-to-government, which in this case is the executives of the state of Oregon to the executives of the nine tribal governments individually. You know, the legislative process is – it is what it is. And frankly, I don’t think consultation necessarily aligns with the legislative process. But I think where you get more success is taking the time, before policies are even put into a legislative process, to really understand what’s the best way to craft them. And again, I go back to those quarterly meetings that we have for government-to-government, where issues are being raised that we can be informing legislators like, ‘This came up, you might need to consider this.’
House Bill 4002 was on a very fast timeline. However, there have been tribal set asides – as you’ve mentioned, in the opioid settlement, which I think is really important. There’s been a lot of conversation in the Measure 110 money, in the marijuana revenue. Also making sure that tribes are part of the resource networks that are connected to that funding. We’ve been working on tribal set asides on housing.
So I think one of my goals is to make sure we understand these different funding streams and coordinate them as much as possible. One thing, when state money is moving to our tribes — which I think as a state we do much more than I think other states do, because federal resources, as we know, don’t tend to cover things in certain communities — but making sure that we’re clear that here are the legal obligations. Because once the money moves to a sovereign nation, we have different obligations than if that money were going to a local nonprofit.
And so my commitment to the tribes is, are these processes clear? Do we understand the ramifications when money moves to the tribal governments? Do you understand the reporting or what reporting should happen? Because I want to make sure that we’re not overwhelming folks with a lot of additional administrative burden, because that’s a respect issue. When money moves to a sovereign nation, it’s a lot different, and we want to make sure we handle it well.
Bartoo-Smith: You kind of touched on this, but I really want to clarify. So it sounds like there’s either ideas or even plans already in place for expanding the consultation process across all state agencies, right? So whether that’s having a tribal affairs director in each agency, I would be just curious for you to expand on what that looks like.
Kotek: Well, I think we’re still assessing that, because under the law, there should be consultation. So that is a baseline expectation I have for our agencies. But in taking on this role, I’ve noticed that some agencies – they’re staffed, they have experienced people, and other agencies are still trying to decide who their person is.
We had the Tribal-State Summit earlier this year – here in law in Oregon, there is an annual Tribal Summit. I actually met some folks from agencies that were like, ‘I just was assigned this. This is my first time. This is really helpful.’ So just even understanding who at each agency is in charge is where we’re starting. Because again, some of our large agencies are very well staffed, and the smaller ones are like, ‘I know I need to be doing this, but I need some guidance.’
So that is what we want to be able to provide for them, and that is a big part of the consultation task force. Because I think it’s going to provide clear guidance of what that actually should look like, which is really important. And the task force will be driven by conversations with the tribes. What does it mean to you? What are you expecting from us? This is a government-to-government conversation.
Housing challenges
Brown: Speaking of the Tribal Summit, housing was a big topic there, and obviously it’s a huge priority for your administration. You set an ambitious goal of building 36,000 new homes per year, and you mentioned at the Tribal Summit that the state has set aside $10 million from the biennial budget for the nine federally recognized Native nations for homeless services. I’m wondering how else you’re including consultation and collaboration with Native nations regarding your push for housing?
Kotek: That $10 million is definitely a start, and that was related to my emergency order last year focusing on unsheltered homelessness. And we still are under an emergency order, because it’s affecting every part of our state.
As I’ve met with each of the tribes and literally seeing the land they’re using and what they’re trying to build, my first question was: what resources were you using? And what are the challenges? One of the things I learned from the summit is the challenges of being on trust land and reservation land, and what that means for regulation, and having to create regulations to build and whether or not you can get loans. I mean, let’s add another level of complexity to do housing, that was really eye-opening for me.
So what I would like us to do at the state is continue to have those dedicated funding streams where the tribes can have flexibility with some dollars to do whatever they need to do. For some of them it’s: ‘We need to figure out how to do the regulations to actually build.’ Others are like, ‘We’re ready to go, but we need some help with people getting down payment assistance.’ It is all over the map, and that’s not surprising, right? Each tribal community is very different in what they need and where they’re located, but every single one of them has a housing challenge.
Water is life
Bartoo-Smith: At that same Tribal Summit, you talked a lot about your commitment to supporting tribal sovereignty and consultation. One of the largest statewide initiatives right now is the effort to address problems with state water policy. What have you learned about priorities from Native nations on water from your visits?
Kotek: To hear directly from tribal leaders about the spiritual and just historic importance to water – as we heard in the panel at the summit, water is life – really understanding that perspective of, what the approach the tribes are taking to their natural resource policy is really helpful.
I’ve come into this job knowing, and watching over the years, that our water here is a finite resource and we all need to figure out how to work together to use it appropriately so everyone can be successful. And what’s great about our tribal leaders here in Oregon is they’re bringing Indigenous knowledge and expertise to this conversation that is going to be really helpful.
We’re all in this together.
Water has created conflict over the years. We need to set that aside and really work together, because with climate change and all these other things, if we’re going to continue to do what we need to do in terms of agriculture and just basic understanding and protection of our water systems, we’re going to have to figure this out together.
That’s why that panel at the summit was really important to hear from our tribal leaders. They have a lot of expertise, and how do we integrate that with what we’re trying to do at the state?
Bartoo-Smith: Following up on that, Native nations across the country are wanting to be both co-managers and co-designers of our water and land policy. So I’m curious how you think about Native nations leading this work in our state?
Kotek: Even today, I know there’s a tribal summit about water. I think the leadership that the tribes are bringing into this conversation is very important. I’ll be honest, I don’t think we know what that path to chart is. I think we all know what we have isn’t completely working, and that there are a lot of concerns that we are allocating water that we don’t even know we have for not only municipal uses or commercial uses.
When I was out in Klamath, and obviously the Klamath Basin has had long standing issues, but we were out at the wetland there, and the restoration projects. How important those restoration projects are to better water quality, reducing the temperature of the water, if you do it right, so we can have the fish come back.
Water is so important when it comes to other issues around endangered species like our salmon and our steelhead and our lamprey. So one of the things we can bring to this conversation is not just about water, it’s about the entire ecosystem that’s affected if we don’t figure this out.
Treaty rights
Brown: I’m curious about treaty rights. Treaties, obviously, are with the federal government and tribes. But as a state policy matter, does the state recognize off-reservation treaty-reserved rights, for example fishing at usual and accustomed places?
Kotek: I think we’re seeing some great success between the state of Oregon and our individual tribes about these memorandum of understanding that have been coming forth around traditional hunting and fishing, not just for ceremonial purposes, but for the ability to actually go out on ancestral lands and be able to to manage that for tribal citizens. I think we’re, we’re showing a lot of success there, so we’re definitely open to that.
I think that is something I inherited with the previous administration, something I’m very interested in continuing. You know, all our tribes are a little different, right? We have one that doesn’t have a treaty, But I want to be advocating with our tribes, particularly to our federal partners.
So getting some of those lands back and being able to be there and do the hunting and the fishing and the gathering of first foods – super important. So I just want to be a partner with that. I am certainly no expert on it, but I feel like we are trying to create those relationships, particularly around hunting and fishing on ancestral lands. I think those are going quite well, because it doesn’t say ‘this is mine.’ It’s like it could be multiple tribes in certain areas, but at least people understand what tribal citizens can take advantage of to meet their traditional needs.
Land back
Bartoo-Smith: During your recent visits, you saw and experienced the varying sizes of different nations’ land bases. I understand that you learned a lot about the history of how that came to be. Knowing all of that, do you see an opportunity to identify state lands that could be transferred back to Native nations, and additional opportunities for co-management and co-stewardship?
Kotek: I absolutely think that’s a possibility on the horizon. Really understanding lands that are in state possession, whether they’re park lands or other things – we’ve had conversations about hatcheries that are really important. Wherever we can be co-managing and working together, I’m definitely open to that. We do have some policies now where it allows us some flexibility to do some of those things, and I think it’ll be a situation-by-situation exploration with the individual tribes. But I’m definitely open to it.
Bartoo-Smith: Is there anything else that we didn’t ask that we should have asked?
Brown: Anything you would like to add?
Kotek: I have one more tribal visit because we had to reschedule one. But of all the ones, what has been just inspiring and exciting – First Lady and I talk about this when we’re on our way home – is how the youth leaders are lifted up by their elders.
If you walk into the tribal chamber at the Umatilla Reservation, they actually have these wonderful studio photographs and portraits of all the youth council members on the one side and on the other side are the tribal council members. It really says, ‘You matter. You are our future.’
And I met some of those young people, and they’re just amazing. We sat down with young people. We made necklaces across the table with young leaders in Coquille and talked about our lives together. It was amazing. I think we’ve met youth leaders in all the tribes. And I think that commitment is amazing.
And the other piece that came up in some of those conversations is the state’s commitment on higher education scholarships – the tribal education scholarships that we have now. And how that is transforming lives when people know, ‘I have a pathway to college if I want it because it’s going to get paid.’
Every single one of the tribes was like, ‘This is so important for our young people. They can see a future because of this. It’s really making a difference, we’re so excited about it.’ We have left every visit going, ‘There is a bright future because of the young people coming up.’ And I know that the elders are very, very excited about all the young people.
Underscore Native News is a nonprofit investigative newsroom committed to Indigenous-centered reporting in the Pacific Northwest. We are supported by foundations and donor contributions. Follow Underscore on Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok.