HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservator Program Summary
SUMMARY OF BOGERT’S CONSERVATORSHIP OF PETE SIVA
The Report misrepresents Bogert’s conservatorship of Pete Siva
The HRC embellished Bogert’s conservatorship of Pete Siva and his involvement in the Conservator program overall. The HRC truthfully describes the inequities and discriminatory nature
of the Indian Conservator program but untruthfully attempts to associate Bogert with these wrongdoings. In reality, Bogert was an ally of the Tribe and a defender of its sovereign
rights. Any reference to Bogert’s conservatorship in the Report needs to be contextualized, specifically with regards to the circumstances by which he reluctantly became a conservator.
Pete Siva’s wife, Bernadine Siva, set the record straight in June of 2020:
“I have been reading the comments about Frank Bogert and his Statue. I believe the statue should not be removed or destroyed. Frank Bogert was an Honorable and Honest man. I feel
I must share this with you.
When a few Judges, Attorneys and business men got together and decided that the Indians were uneducated and not capable of handling their lands and income, which was a potential gold
mine, they created the Guardian and Conservatorship Association. I am not sure but the Bureau of Indian Affairs must have known about this. There is no justification for this Association,
most of the Indians had very little income and had to have food on the table and retain a Tribal Attorney.
My late husband Edmund Peter Siva, a Tribal Member, told me his story. He said ‘The Attorneys and Business People with the help of the Superior Court were appointing Conservators like
someone in an orchard picking Indians for themselves like they were picking fruit from the trees.’ He did not want whomever picked to take his estate, which was by the way very small.
He had known Frank for a number of years and he asked him to do him a favor and take over as conservator to prevent this from happening to him. Frank said you don’t need a conservator,
you are smart and have your father and are capable of managing your own affairs. Finally, after much conversation pro and con Frank said as a favor to you I will be your conservator.
(He) really did not want to be associated with the group of Lawyers and business people in this Association, and he never was. The only Conservatorship Frank had was my husband.
My husband and the Tribal Elders did not like it but the papers were drawn up, taken to the Court and the Indian’s lives were taken over more or less until 1965. Frank was one of the
first to sign off as a conservator.”
Mrs. Siva’s statement reaffirms the following details about Bogert’s conservatorship of Pete Siva:
Bogert had no involvement whatsoever in the creation, implementation or management of the Conservator program. In fact, he didn’t want to be associated with the program or with other
conservators, as Mrs. Siva states.
Because Bogert was so well respected and admired by the Tribe, he was the only person Mr. Siva trusted to serve as his conservator.
Bogert knew the Conservator program was unjust and onerous to the Tribe, but as a favor to Mr. Siva and his family, he reluctantly agreed to be his conservator.
Bogert was the first conservator to voluntarily release an Indian “ward” from conservatorship. He did so against the wishes of other conservators and lawyers who were egregiously profiting
off Tribal members under conservatorship.
Bogert himself corroborated Mrs. Siva’s statement in an interview with the Desert Sun in 1991, saying:
“The judge would appoint a conservator, they’d charge the Indian for a lawyer, then lease the land. But they’d get the money, and the Indian wouldn’t get anything. There were a lot
of abuses…I was a conservator for (Pete Siva), and I was the first to turn someone loose. The judge (McCabe) was very angry.”
In an article written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Ringwald, Bogert was quoted as saying:
“I’ve always been for the Indian and I’ve been against the conservators because most of them haven’t done anything for the Indian.”
Ringwald claimed that this statement by Bogert was “the most critical comment made by anyone from within the conservator group.”
The HRC strongly implies that as a conservator, Bogert profited off of Section 14 evictions and the demolition of substandard dwellings. This is false. Bogert voluntarily signed off
as a conservator in July of 1963. City-coordinated evictions did not begin until one year later in 1964 and city-financed demolition did not begin until more than two years later,
in October 1965.
On May 5, 2021, Chairman deHarte claimed that Bogert was “found guilty” of fee splitting by the Department of Interior and that the task force “ordered all improperly gained fees held
in trusts for the landowner.” This is categorically false and indicative of the many untruthful and misleading statements made throughout the HRC’s Report and by Mr. deHarte himself.
The word “guilty” is never mentioned once in the Interior’s report with regards to Bogert and no corrective action was “ordered” against him.
Additionally, the daughters of Pete Siva submitted the following letter to the HRC and the City Council titled “Cease and Desist”:
“The family of Edmund Peter Siva (Deceased Cahuilla Elder) demand that you stop using his name in regards to his relationship with Frank Bogert. A relationship and life long friendship
which you do Not know anything about. Your attempts to slander these men and use the name of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians as a pawn in your game, is disgusting. Please
remove our Father Edmund Peter Siva’s name from the HRC Report, and from PS city councils agenda.”
Bogert and Mr. Siva were both lifelong, close friends of Bogert’s, making the HRC’s attempt to use them both to defame Bogert even that much more shameful. Mr. Siva and Bernadine Siva
held Bogert’s Mayoral victory party at their home in 1982. (See party photo.)
In 1966, Pete Siva sent a letter to the city council thanking them for their help in clearing Section 14. The letter read in part:
“The Tribal Council for the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians want you to know that they commend you for your recent Clean-Up campaign and they ask that you consider this letter
as a note of their appreciation.”
Edmund Peter Siva, Chairman of the Agua Caliente Council, April 25, 1966, in a letter to the City Council thanking them for their help cleaning up Section 14. Note that Edmund Peter
Siva went by “Pete Siva”, who Bogert voluntarily released from conservatorship in 1963
Given the facts above, all attempts by the HRC to tie Bogert to wrongdoings by other conservators, and the Conservator program overall, should be dismissed and discredited. (See Bogert
and Siva photo.)
The Department of Interior’s investigation was strongly refuted in Congressional testimony
The focus of this investigation was not on Section 14 itself or Bogert, but rather on the malfeasance by individual judges and lawyers in the Conservator program. Bogert’s name isn't
mentioned a single time after analyzing more than 165 pages of Congressional testimony from the hearing to review the Interior’s findings on the Conservator program. He was alluded
to once (not by name) in the hearing, but only in a positive light as being the first person to voluntarily end his conservatorship.
Many of the findings of the Department of Interior’s task force were thoroughly discredited and refuted by numerous individuals who testified under oath at the same Congressional hearing
in May of 1968. Due primarily to a conflict of interest with the head of the task force, the Interior’s findings were described under oath as “disgraceful,” the “grossest distortions
of facts ...in a governmental publication,” “erroneous,” “biased,” and that investigators “deliberately ignored facts known to them that demonstrate the falsity of the charges.” (See
conflict of interest in Appendix F.)
An exhaustive and earlier investigation of the conservator program in 1963 found no wrongdoing with regards to fees charged by conservators, including Bogert. The Department of the
Interior — which conducted this 1963 investigation and later launched another investigation on the same conservator program in 1968 — concluded “there may be a number of instances where
fees appear to be high, yet after a close analysis of the services in fact rendered, it cannot be said that they are unjustifiably so.”
How can two separate investigations on the same topic, conducted five years apart by the same federal department, come to such different conclusions? Simply put, “at the time the (conservator)
program commenced, there was no similar program anywhere in the United States. For that reason, among other practical reasons, there were no guidelines. There were no established
policies.” Additionally, the conservator program was plagued by “chaos and confusion” and it was a program “of trial and error.” Some conservators exploited the ill-conceived,
unstructured nature of the program for financial gain and at a great expense to their Tribal ”wards.” With no legal precedent or concrete laws by which to assess the actions of conservators,
the Department of the Interior was merely able to provide subjective commentary and analysis on conservator fees and on the program overall.
Accordingly, due to this lack of clarity surrounding conservator regulations, the head of the Interior’s task force was only able to offer an opinion that Bogert’s fee-splitting as a
conservator was improper. Indeed, the task force said in its report, “We are of the opinion that this fee splitting between a broker and conservator….is improper under California law.”
The task force leader’s opinion on the conservator program was strongly refuted in Congressional testimony for two primary reasons, 1) the aforementioned conflict of interest and 2)
the task force leader had limited experience assessing complex fiduciary/conservator fee structures (see issues with the Interior’s findings in Appendix F). Bogert was never
“found guilty” of fee splitting nor was any corrective action ordered against him as the HRC’s Chair, Ron deHarte, claims. Regardless of the Interior’s opinion on Bogert’s fees, Bogert
(as detailed earlier) only became a conservator in the first place as a favor to the Siva family. Again, any attempts by the HRC to tie Bogert to the wrongdoings of the Conservator
program and to individual conservators should be dismissed.
Finally, in a highly critical editorial titled “Indian Probe Incompetent” (see editorial clipping), the Desert Sun also pointed out the investigation’s flaws and questioned the objectivity
of the investigators, saying:
“As the Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to investigate the handling of local Indian estates by conservators and guardians, it becomes more clear that the bureau itself is not competent
to take over the job. In fact the bureau has shown it is not even competent to conduct the investigation. As more examples of carelessness and lack of objectivity in the investigation
come to light, one has to question the motives of the investigators.”
The editorial went on to identify and detail three major errors in the investigation and concluded by stating:
“We are not convinced that these errors are only a matter of carelessness and do not involve a certain amount of prejudice…In other words, is the bureau conducting a witch hunt or an
impartial investigation?”
The conflict of interest associated with the Department of Interior’s investigation
The findings of the Department of Interior’s Investigation were strongly refuted in Congressional testimony due primarily to a significant conflict of interest with the head of the investigation’s
task force, Mr. Robert Cox. This conflict of interest and its effect on the biased, incomplete findings of the investigation can be summarized as follows:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which the Department of Interior oversees, was responsible for implementing and overseeing the Conservator program. The Conservator program was the
main focal point of the investigation.
Prior to creating and overseeing the Conservator program, the BIA in conjunction with the Department of the Interior passed a series of laws (primarily restrictive leasing laws) which
were detrimental to the Agua Caliente Tribe and directly caused countless problems and inequities for its members. As detailed throughout this Rebuttal, these laws directly led to
the Section 14’s slum-like conditions.
As a result of these laws as well as the conservator program that the BIA was responsible for overseeing, numerous Indians filed complaints with the BIA.
The Department of the Interior, which oversaw the BIA, created a task force to investigate these complaints, and appointed Robert Cox (of the same Department of Interior) to head the
investigation.
This of course posed a massive conflict of interest. The task force leader was tasked with investigating accusations both he and the department he worked under (the Department of the
Interior) were responsible for. These accusations came as a result of ill-conceived policies and laws the Interior (through the BIA) had enacted.
As a result of this conflict of interest, “it was obvious that the investigation would not be an impartial one, but would attempt in some way to distort the facts and mislead Congress.”
In fact, furthering the impartiality of the investigation, Mr. Cox in 1965 was appointed “Resources Trust Officer” for the Palm Springs Office of the BIA, and worked with the court
in the administration of the very Conservator program he was now tasked with investigating. Essentially he would have to implicate himself (in addition to his own department) had
he conducted a fair, objective investigation.
Accordingly, Mr. Cox chose not to focus his investigation on himself or his own department, but on individuals associated with the conservative program that his department was charged
with overseeing. Focusing on the root cause of failed BIA policies undoubtedly would have brought much scrutiny and criticism to him and his superiors.
Therefore, the findings of the investigation were highly biased, inaccurate, and misleading in order to deflect blame from the BIA and the Department of the Interior, and instead to
condemn individual conservators. While some individual conservators were undeniably guilty of taking advantage of their Tribal wards, the investigation’s findings omit the complicity
of the BIA and Department of Interior in these injustices.
Accordingly, the following statements were made under oath at the Congressional hearing. These statements detail this conflict of interest and the overall problems with the investigation:
We resent having to explain erroneous statements made by investigators seeking to whitewash the agency by whom they are employed…This investigation should be made by an independent objective
agency…The charge of conflict of interest demonstrates that the task force is biased and unqualified to perform its function. The investigators have deliberately ignored facts known
to them that demonstrate the falsity of the charge.”
Robert A. Schlesinger, attorney, Congressional Testimony May 1968.
“In a Report of this nature it is apparently the intent of the authors to vilify individuals in order to protect the inadequacies, improprieties and lack of concern on behalf of the
Bureau.”
Henry V. Cleary, Attorney for the Association of Conservators, Guardians and Allottees of the Agua Caliente Indian Lands and Estates May, Congressional testimony May 1968.
“(The Bureau of Indian Affairs) always chose to look the other way until it was too late, then all of a sudden comes this big investigation. It happens time after time, only this time
it was conducted in a most disgraceful manner by the Bureau of Indian Affairs officials. People, Indian, and non - Indian alike, have been unfairly accused publicly and without a chance
to present any explanation or reason for action which they may have taken. The Bureau should know that nothing is resolved by making someone else look bad in an attempt to hide the
egg on your own face.”
Vyola Ortner, former Agua Caliente Chairman, Congressional testimony May 1968. Ortner is explaining the flaws in the Department of Interior’s Investigation.
The task force leader, “was quite frank in stating that he was serving in two capacities, one as an investigator and one as a trust officer, more or less, for the Bureau.”
Additional issues with the Interior’s findings:
In addition to the conflict of interest, Mr. Cox’s analysis and findings indicated he was unqualified to investigate the technicalities of conservatorships and guardianships.
Claims and statements made by Mr. Cox in the report “indicates that the authors of the report are wholly unconversant with the nature and value of professional and fiduciary services.”
“The Report mis-quotes applicable facts and law.”
“The conclusion reached by the Task Force in connection with one incident is based upon a newspaper article and the conclusion reached in the other instance is based upon false assumption
of California law.”
The report falsely assesses “excessive fees” by using income as a benchmark when in reality that is faulty and inconsistent with how Fiduciaries actually operate under Probate Code,
Sections 1500 and 1852, of the California Probate Code.
“It is apparent that the Task Force started out from the false premise that fees should be charged to income but not only that they should compute the costs of the total income to be
earned during the life of the leases so that the true costs of the development of the Ward’s property can be ascertained.”
Mr. Cox’s lack of knowledge relating to fee calculations and how fiduciaries operate overall, resulted in him grossly miscalculating the percentage of fees conservators were actually
receiving.
Mr. Cox asserted that conservators were collecting 44% in fees from their wards, when in reality that figure was closer to 5.2%.
“Mr. Cox doesn’t know what he is talking about.”
The inequities caused by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Department of the Interior
The quotes below demonstrate 1) the detriments that the BIA and Interior had on tribal members 2) the negative impact these Federal agencies had on tribal lands (Section 14). These
quotes also demonstrate why, presumably, the task force leader omitted these facts from its investigation. Any objective investigation would have highlighted these injustices and implicated
the very federal agency that was conducting the investigation. Therefore, the task force leader focused his findings on individual conservators instead of his own department (which
was responsible for the Conservator program).
“History has indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been a total failure in helping the members of the local Tribe.”
Attorney Henry Cleary, Congressional Testimony May 1968
“Unfortunately, the (BIA) at the time of the inception of our organization, was making
no efforts whatsoever to actually promote the lands of the Agua Caliente Indians. As a matter of fact, the few efforts that were made before and after the inception of our association
were inept in that the (BIA), through directives and policies in Washington, set such ridiculous standards for the leasing of Indian lands, that for a good period of time after the
inception of the conservatorship program and the establishing of our association, the Indian lands were unleasable because of the impractical conditions placed thereon by the Bureau
and the Secretary of the Interior.”
Attorney James Hollowell, Congressional Testimony May 1968
“The Bureau of Indian Affairs has operated in an unimaginative manner and has only nominally met its responsibilities. The object of the Bureau should be to best prepare the Indian to
become a responsible citizen. In this it has sadly failed.”
Vyola Ortner, Congressional Testimony May 1968
“I personally feel that the blame lies with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I feel if inequity and injustice are being practiced, they surely must be corrected…The Bureau of Indian Affairs
does not represent the best interests of the Indians any longer”
Vyola Ortner, Congressional Testimony May 1968
“This slum area (in Section 14) had been encouraged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs through their lack of foresight, in granting 30-day permits and only authorizing 5-year leases on
any Indian land.”
Mr. Hollowell, Congressional Testimony May 1968
“The Bureau of Indian Affairs had not developed Indian land or allowed the Indians to develop their land to such an extent that they could support themselves.”
Mr. Hollowell, Congressional Testimony May 1968
“In all frankness I must say that I am appalled that the state of affairs described in the report has not only existed under ostensible state and federal supervision; it has flourished…a
share of the responsibility for the present state of affairs in Palm Springs rests upon the shoulders of this Department.”
Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, essentially confirming his Department’s role in the inequities of the Conservator program and the slum-like conditions of Tribal lands.
“I want to say that I agree with one of your earlier conclusions very, very definitely, among others, when you speak about the lack of the Bureau of Indian Affairs initiative on the
subject of leasing programs for Indian lands.”
Congressman Ed Edmondson, Congressman from Oklahoma and Chairman of the Congressional Hearing (also a former lawyer, Navy Veteran, and FBI agent), May 1968
As a grand gesture to recover some prestige with its Indians and the public, the Interior Department in 1949 requested and received consent of Congress to lease land on a five (5) year
basis. What thoughtlessness and lack of planning went into this request is unknown…Yet the Interior Department proudly declared this is progress, but nevertheless continued its practice
of granting thirty (30) day permits thus encouraging and increasing the slum area theretofore developed by the Bureau on Section 14 in the heart of the City of Palm Springs.”
Mr. Cleary, May 1968
“Again, at a great cost for the individual Indian, it was necessary for the Courts in the case of the United States vs Pierce , 235 F 2d 885, to declare the Bureau had been unequitable….The
Interior Department could not explain it to them for had it done so it would have committed the unforgivable bureaucratic sin of confessing it did not know what to do or how to handle
the Indian land Problem in Palm Springs.”
Mr. Cleary, May 1968
“The Interior Department, not having studied matters and having always to learn the hard way, again had to acknowledge another grave error which again delayed the Indian from receiving
his just due from his allotted land.”
Mr. Cleary, May 1968
“After initiating the Conservatorship and Guardianship Program in the California Courts the Bureau has abandoned its responsibilities and has left the appointment of the Conservators
and Guardians to the Courts.”
Mr. Cleary, May 1968
“In the 1950's the Secretary was directed to get out of the Indian business. In order to enhance his opportunity of doing this the Equalization Act was adopted. The Bureau since that
time and until the present Task Force intrusion refused to take any active steps to carry out the mandate of Congress.”
Mr. Cleary, May 1968
/
PHOTO #5
Frank Bogert and Pete Siva at Bogert’s victory party after being reelected Mayor in 1982. Siva and his wife, Bernadine, held Bogert’s victory party at their home. Bogert reluctantly
served as Siva’s conservator from 1960-1963 as a favor to the Siva family. He was the first conservator to voluntarily release a Tribal member from conservatorship. Siva became Tribal
Chairman and in 1966 sent a letter thanking the City Council for assisting the Tribe with clearing Section 14. Doing so allowed the Tribe to begin developing its land and lifting Tribal
members out of dire financial conditions. Bogert and Siva would remain lifelong friends. Bernadine Siva, Pete Siva’s widow, stated “I believe the statue should not be removed or destroyed.
Frank Bogert was an Honorable and Honest man.” The daughters of Pete Siva called the HRC’s report “disgusting” and “slander(ous)” and demanded that the HRC stop using their father’s
name in regards to his relationship with Bogert.
/
PHOTO #21
Editorial by the Desert Sun on the Department of Interior’s (via the BIA) investigation on the Indian Conservator program. Titled “The Indian Probe Incompetent,” the editorial states,
“it becomes more clear that the (BIA) itself is not competent to take over the job. In fact the (BIA) has shown it is not even competent to conduct the investigation. As more examples
of carelessness and lack of objectivity in the investigation come to light, one has to question the motives of the investigators.”
(Go Back to Rebuttal)