HomeMy WebLinkAboutHRCFinalRebuttal_20210913
Setting the Record Straight
The True Story of Section 14 and a Rebuttal to
the Human Rights Commission’s Defamatory
“Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report”
September 13, 2021
Presented by Friends of Frank Bogert
www.friendsoffrankbogert.org
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
The HRC’s Report is Deeply Flawed and Ideologically Biased 3-5
- Falsehoods, plagiarism, intentional omission of refuting evidence, and questionable
sources 3-5
- The Report’s ideological roots and motivations 5-6
Setting the Record Straight: The True Story of Section 14 6-28
- The Report misrepresents Bogert’s conservatorship of Pete Siva 7-9
- The HRC’s Report ignores the human rights of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians and takes quotes from Tribal Elders out of context 9-13
- Both the Deputy AG’s and Department of Interior’s investigations were strongly refuted
and their findings were incomplete and biased 13-16
- Section 14 evictions were the inevitable consequence of ill -conceived federal laws that
predated Bogert’s Mayoral term 16-22
- Bogert worked “tirelessly” to minimize the effects of Section 14 evictions and to seek
low-cost housing for its residents 22-26
- Additional findings and commentary on Section 14 and the HRC’s Report 26-28
Frank Bogert: Quotes, Facts, and History of Supporting Minority Interests 28-32
- Quotes about Bogert from minority members of the community 28
- Frank Bogert’s extensive history of supporting various minority groups 28-32
Conclusion 32-34
- Speaking “The” Truth instead of Speaking “Our” Truth 32-34
APPENDIX 35-89
Appendix A 36-56
Photos of Frank Bogert and of relevant topics from the Rebuttal
- Photo #1: Bogert and the all-female Agua Caliente Tribal council 36
- Photo #2: Bogert and Reverend Jeff Rollins in Washington DC 37
- Photo #3: Bogert displaying housing certificate for Section 14 residents 38
- Photo #4: City Council and Tribal Council meeting 39
- Photo #5: Bogert and Pete Siva 40
- Photo #6: Bogert and Vyola Ortner in Washington DC 41
- Photo #7: Richard Milanovich speaking at Bogert’s funeral 42
- Photo #8: The Palm Springs “Checkerboar d” 43
- Photo #9: Bogert, Reverend Rollins, and the First Baptist Church 44
- Photo #10: Bogert and Rollins at Bishop opening 45
- Photo #11: Bogert and Mayor Ron Oden 46
- Photo #12: Charles Jordan 47
- Photo #13: Bogert seeking low-cost housing in 1967 48
- Photo #14: Bogert delays evictions for six months 49
2
- Photo #15: Bogert and Eileen Miguel 50
- Photo #16: $2.5M housing project for Section 14 residents 51
- Photo #17: Editorial Board critique of the Deputy AG’s report 52
- Photo #18: Bogert and the Mexican community 53
- Photo #19: Bogert in “Charro” attire 54
- Photo #20: Eisenhower signing Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts 55
- Photo #21: Editorial Board Critique of the Dept. of Interior’s investigation 56
Appendix B 57-64
Bogert worked relentlessly to find housing for Section 14 residents and to minimize the effects
of the legal evictions
Appendix C 64-69
Examples of the 100+ problematic issues in the HRC’s Report
Appendix D ` 70-71
Examples of Plagiarism
Appendix E 71-73
Timeline of ill-conceived Federal laws
Appendix F 73-81
Additional details on the Deputy AG’s and The Department of the Interior’s Investigations
- The Deputy AG’s report was deeply flawed and incomplete 73-76
- The conflict of interest associated with the Department of Interior’s investigation 76-78
- Additional issues with the Interior’s findings 78-79
- The inequities caused by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Departmen t of the
Interior 79-81
Appendix G 82-86
Select quotes and passages
- Tribal member related quotes and passages 82-83
- Passages from “You Can’t Eat Dirt” 83-85
- Other quotes and passages 85-86
Appendix H 87-89
Select Exhibits
- Letter from HRC Commissioner Terrie Andrade 87
- Email from HRC Commissioner Terrie Andrade 88
- Letter from Tribal Chair Edmund Peter Siva to City Council 89
Disclaimer and Notes
- For sake of brevity and clarity, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is referred to
throughout the Rebuttal as the “Tribe.”
- For a summary of the Rebuttal’s findings, click here to read the conclusion.
3
The following document is a rebuttal (the “Rebuttal”) to the Human Rights Commission’s (the
“HRC”) ‘Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report’ (the “Report”) on Frank Bogert and Section
14. Contributed to and prepared by Friends and Family of Frank Bogert, i ncluding Norm King,
Carrie Allan, Negie Bogert, Doug Evans, David Christian, the Higueras Family, Doni Ellison
Hubbard (former Section 14 resident), Amado Salinas, Michael Hill, the Russell Family, John
Stiles, Stacey Johnson, and Paul D’Amico.
Introduction
The Human Rights Commission’s Resolution to remove Frank Bogert’s statue is based on false
allegations and an untruthful, ideologically driven critique of Section 14. The HRC’s Report fails
in four critical areas:
1. It fails to provide a true, objective review of history.
2. It fails to accurately educate the community about Section 14.
3. It fails to bring people together to factually discuss human rights.
4. Lastly, and most flagrantly, it fails to recognize the human right s of the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians (the “Tribe”). The entire Report is insulting to the difficult
journey the Tribe endured throughout Section 14’s history.
As this Rebuttal will demonstrate, the HRC’s Report does not provide any credible or
substantive arguments to remove the statue and to defame Bogert. As such, and prior to any
further debate or action regarding the Bogert statue, the HRC and the City Council have the
obligation to review the true historical facts of Section 14 and to a mend the Report accordingly.
After a comprehensive review of the HRC’s Report and after conducting extensive research on
the events in question, below is a summary of the Rebuttal’s findings on Section 14, Frank
Bogert, and the HRC’s Report itself.
The HRC’s Report is Deeply Flawed and Ideologically Biased
Falsehoods, plagiarism, intentional omission of refuting evidence, and questionable sources
● The Human Rights Commission’s Report' is dishonest, defamatory, and factually inaccurate.
The Report isn’t an impartial, fact-finding review of Section 14. Instead, the HRC began with
a false narrative about Frank Bogert and then proceeded to craft a misleading, error -filled,
and incomplete Report to support that narrative.
● The HRC fails to provide any credible evidence that Bogert’s role in Section 14’s
redevelopment was driven by racism or by any discriminatory motivations whatsoever.
● The Rebuttal fact-checked the entire Report and identified over 100 problematic issues.
These issues include false claims, misleading statements, intentional omission of refuting
4
evidence, quotes taken out of context, and attempts to untruthfully associate Bogert with the
wrongdoings of other individuals and/or institutions. (See Appendix C.)
● The HRC concludes that the statue should be removed from City Hall under the premise
that Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by (Section 14) evictions.”
Not only is this premise completely false, but the HRC intentionally omitted evidence that
would have directly refuted its very premise to remove the statue (see Appendix B).
Indeed, the very sources the HRC cites in its own Report provide more than ample evidence
to invalidate many of the HRC’s false accusations. For example, the HRC cherry -picks
information from a Nov. 15, 1968, article in the Desert Sun to support its biased narrative
about Section 14 — however, below are quotes from the same exact article that the HRC
left out of its Report. These quotes, among many others, directly discredit the Report’s
premise to remove the statue. Thus, the HRC purposely excluded this rebutting information
and crafted a one-sided, disingenuous Report:
“Mayor Frank Bogert, long active in trying to solve the housing problems of the
minority groups in Section 14 said he thought the Gould-Crossley project would be a
good thing. ‘I think we ought to stretch a point and let them have the zoning they want,’
he said. ‘Due to the housing emergency at the present time, we have to lean over
backwards.’ Nevertheless, Mayor Bogert emphasized, he wanted to be sure any
dwellings built for rentals would be good housing. ‘I don’t want to see another slum
area. If someone is going to build a place for these people, it should be good.’…
A $2.5 million housing development which will be used for families displaced from
Section 14… was the upshot of a previous request, of several months standing, by
Mayor Bogert of (the developer) to seek a solution to the problem of homes for the
residents of Section 14.”1
● The Report is plagiarized (see Appendix D). Of the 48 pages in the body of the HRC’s
Report, examples of plagiarism were found on 17 pages.
● Significant portions of the Report are copied and pasted (in some cases without any citation)
from an essay written in 2004 by a graduate student at the University of California, Irvine .
This graduate student’s essay (“The Path to Paradise”) is cited 19 times, by far the most
of any source in the Report. The essay uses sensationalized language and is written in a
persuasive and, in many instances, opinionated prose. The HRC injects subjective,
sensationalized sections of the essay verbatim into its own Report, and attempts to pass
these sections off as objective, irrefutable facts.
● As far as the Rebuttal could tell, the HRC failed to conduct any pri mary research when
drafting the Report. The HRC certainly never reached out to any members of the Agua
Caliente Tribe, the Bogert family, the Palm Springs Historical Society, or anyone for that
matter who could provide an accurate account of Section 14 or refute the Report’s claims.
1 Desert Sun, “The Section 14 Story III, Elation Over Housing Okay Fades as Recession Comes,”
November 15, 1968
5
The Report does not contain a single direct citation of “You Can’t Eat Dirt,” arguably the
definitive piece of written, first-hand experience on Section 14 and on the events that led to
the necessary evictions.
○ As detailed later in the Rebuttal, the HRC relies primarily on sources with second -hand,
incomplete knowledge of Section 14’s history in order to support its criticism of Bogert.
These sources/critics ignore or fail to grasp the complex series of events that led to the
evictions. Alternatively, this Rebuttal relies mostly on community members and local
journalists with intimate knowledge of Section 14, who provide first -hand, reputable
accounts of the city’s history and of Bogert’s character.
● The Report was even strongly criticized by one of the HRC’s own commissioners. In a letter
written to the city on April 27, 2021 HRC commissioner Terrie Andrade stated the followin g:
“The matter of removing Mayor Bogert’s statue has, for me, been overshadowed by the
means being used to justify it. The accusatory language in the resolution, the
presentation of anecdotal information as fact, and the weak sources of opinion used as
reference…were unfair at best and at worst, gave the appearance of character
assassination tactics to achieve a political goal. The substantiating report….is, in
my opinion, an embarrassing account of trial by media in spite of legal documentation
to the contrary.”2 (See letter in Appendix H, pg 87.)
In an email sent two days later to HRC Chairman Ron deHarte, Ms. Andrade writes that she
finds the sources and “other cherry-picked references” used in the Report to be “anecdotal
and highly opinionated.” She concludes her email by saying:
“Terms such as ‘dehumanization and devaluation of lives’ persecution, terrorizing and
the like...found in the report and the proposed resolution, are not corroborated nor can
they be solely attributable to Frank Bogert…I would have hoped that our Commission
would have used the opportunity to bridge differences with education and understanding
instead of indicting one individual to appease another group .”3 (See email in
Appendix H, pg 88.)
The Report’s ideological roots and motivations
● The Report does not make a legal, factual, or even an ethical argument to remove the
statue. Thus, it is reduced to justifying the statue’s removal on the basis of ideology alone.
Indeed, efforts to remove the statue are politically and ideologically motivated as confirme d
by Ron deHarte, the HRC’s Chairman:
“Some may feel that the recommendation to move the monument is a political
effort made to appease one other group. Well, they are indeed correct.”4
- Ron deHarte, HRC Chairman, May 5, 2021
2 Letter from HRC Commissioner Terrie Andrade, April 27, 2021
3 Email from HRC Commissioner Terrie Andrade to Chairman deHarte, April 29, 2021
4 HRC Special Meeting, May 5, 2021
6
● The Report is rampant with ideological rhetoric such as “whiteness,” “white privilege,”
“unconscious manifestations of racial bias,” and “anti -racist values.” The point of
highlighting this language is not to critique the Report’s ideology, but rather to reinforce the
fact that this retroactive assessment of Bogert is being conducted through the lens of a
present-day, polarizing ideology. The Report is neither an impartial nor apolitical review of
Bogert or Section 14. Instead, the HRC uses a set of ideo logical standards by which to
critique Bogert — standards that a significant portion of the community and nation at large
find divisive, inflammatory and controversial.
● Further proof of the Report’s ideological roots is exemplified through the very sources the
HRC cites to justify its critique of Bogert. One such ideological source cited in the Report is
the Journal of Critical Sociology. This Journal publishes “articles from all perspectives
broadly defined as falling within the boundaries of critical or radical social science,”5
including publications on Critical Race Theory. Again, the Report’s ideological slant is
highlighted merely to identify the frameworks and system of beliefs by which the HRC vilifies
Bogert and justifies its Resolution to rem ove his statue in front of City Hall.
Setting the Record Straight: The True Story of Section 14
Instead of objectively analyzing historical events to arrive at a n evidence-based conclusion, the
HRC worked backward and began with an unsubstantiated, biased conclusion that the city’s
motivations to evict Section 14 residents were discriminatory in nature. It then cherry-picked
information from various sources to support that concl usion. This agenda-driven approach led
to a Report that was inaccurate, one-sided, incomplete, and purposely misleading. The HRC
goes into great detail about the harms caused by the evictions (which the Rebuttal
acknowledges), but the Report is devoid of details on the root causes and the historical events
that necessitated these relocations and evictions. These root causes are critical in order to
assess the city’s and Bogert’s actions and to understand the Section 14 story as a whole.
Additionally, the HRC omitted the importance of Section 14 to advancing the human rights of the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The Report ignores the decades -long fight the Tribe
endured to obtain the right to develop Tribal lands on Section 14 in order to impro ve the
economic future for its marginalized, poverty -stricken community.
The Rebuttal acknowledges the pain and hurt caused by Section 14’s redevelopment and
sympathizes with those affected by the evictions. However, an overwhelming amount of
evidence supports that the following two statements are simultaneously true:
1. Section 14 was a challenging period in the city’s history, and many residents, minorities
included, were legally relocated and, in some cases, evicted from their homes. And yet;
2. Relocations and evictions were necessary and inevitable due to decades of
shortsighted, discriminatory, and neglectful federal laws affecting the Agua Caliente
5 https://journals.sagepub.com/aims-scope/CRS
7
People and its lands — laws that 1) Bogert had no involvement in enacting and 2)
predated his Mayoral term. Bogert and the city inherited an unprecedented municipal
crisis and were tasked with rectifying a housing quagmire. Knowing the redevelopment
of Section 14 was inevitable, Bogert went to great lengths to ameliorate the effects of
the evictions, specifically by seeking low-cost housing over a 10 -year span, and showed
no discriminatory motivations whatsoever throughout the process. In fact, he went
above and beyond his obligations as Mayor by partnering with leaders of the Black
community to find low-co st housing for relocated residents the year after his Mayoral
term had ended. His efforts and support of minority interests directly contributed to the
city’s first federally funded housing project in 1968 — this housing project was
prioritized for Section 14 residents.
● Despite the HRC claiming otherwise, Bogert was never found guilty, let alone ever
formally charged, of any wrongdoing in connection with Section 14 or his
conservatorship of Pete Siva.
● On May 5, 2021, Chairman deHarte claimed that Boger t 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.”6 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.
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 Guard ian and Conservatorship
Association. I am not sure but the Bureau of Indian Affairs must have known about
6 HRC Special Meeting, May 5, 2021
8
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 ha ppening 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 d id 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.”7
○ 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.8
○ 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.”9
○ In an article written by Pulitzer Prize -winning journalist George Ringwald, Bo gert was
quoted as saying:
7 Bernadine Siva post on Facebook, June 30, 2020
8 Desert Sun, “Lawrence Crossley and the fight against conservatorships for Indians,” July 19, 2020
9 Desert Sun, “Checkerboard, Greed, Lies and a Modern Fable,” October 13, 1991
9
“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 .”10
○ 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.
○ 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 HRC’s Report ignores the human rights of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and
takes quotes from Tribal Elders out of context
● The HRC has angered prominent members of the Agua Caliente Band by taking quotes
from deceased relatives out of con text in order to support its false claims against Bogert.
The families of Richard Milanovich and Pete Siva (both former Tribal Chairs) formally
requested that the HRC remove any mention of their families’ names in the Report and in
efforts to defame Bogert. As of September 13, 2021, the HRC has ignored these
requests. Below are statements made by members of Tribal families:
○ Trista Milanovich, daughter of Richard Milanovich, at an HRC Special Meeting:
“I am speaking today on behalf of the Richard Milano vich family, and the family only. I
previously wrote a letter to the PS city council explaining our disapproval of the
removal and relocation of Mayor Frank Bogert’s statue. My father had nothing but
respect and admiration for Frank. Their years-long friendship, both professionally and
personally, is a testament to that fact. My father did not believe Frank to be a racist
man. He wouldn’t have spoken at his funeral if he believed him to be so. He would
be absolutely appalled to know that his name is being used in this effort to
remove the statute. We are absolutely appalled by it. It is disgusting that you
would use his words, but even more so out of context , especially considering we
feel you are certainly unaware of what his feelings were on the ma tter and what his
feelings were on the man at the heart of this issue.
This is our formal request that you remove any quotes as well as any mention of
my father Richard Milanovich in the Human Rights Commission Report …We do
10 Daily Enterprise. “Some fee splitting acknowledged in Indian cases,” December 7, 1967
10
not agree with any mention of him and it is our firm belief that he would feel the same.
And again we believe that my father would not believe in the removal or
relocation of this statue.”11
○ 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.”12
○ Mr. Milanovich 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.
Milanovich spoke at Bogert’s funeral in 200913 (see funeral photo) and Mr. Siva held
Bogert’s Mayoral victory party at his home in 1982.14 (See party photo.)
● Ironically, but not surprisingly, the Human Rights Commission ignored the human rights of
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in its Report. The Tribe’s decades -long struggle
for self-determinism, sovereignty, and for the right to develop Tribal lands is a core element
of the Section 14 story — the HRC willfully ignored this crucial point.
○ Before and during Section 14 clearing, Tribal members were rich in land but lived in
poverty due to discriminatory, shortsighted federal laws which prevented the Tribe from
developing its allotted land. Former Tribal Chair Vyola Ortner’s memoir was titled “You
Can’t Eat Dirt” for this very reason — the Tribe owned valuable land (specifically in
Section 14), but without long-term leases the Tribe could not properly develop this land,
generate income, and lift its members out of dire financial conditions. Knowing this,
Ortner and an all-female Tribal Council lobbied extensively with Bogert’s help (see
Bogert and Ortner photo) for long-term leases and were ultimately successful in getting
Congress to pass the Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts in 1959. These laws
provided the Tribe with the long-desired 99-year leases required to attract developers
and investors to its land. The combination of long-term leases and equalized allotments
in the Acts were heralded as the “two most important pieces of legislation ever affecting
Palm Springs”15 (see 1959 Acts photo). Upon the passing of these laws, the Tribal
Council turned to the city for help with clearing Section 14 so that Tribal members could
develop their allotments and begin improving the impoverished conditions of their
community. Nothing better describes the Section 14 story, and specifically as it relates
11 HRC Special Meeting, May 5, 2021
12 Letter submitted to the City Council and HRC, May 10, 2021
13 Desert Sun, pg B4, March 28, 2009
14 Desert Sun, “Frank Bogert wins PS mayoral bid,” April 14, 1982
15 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts, pg 35
11
to race, better than this passage in “You Can’t Eat Dirt” (see additional passages in
Appendix F):
“For (Ortner), the clearing of Section 14 was not about race or class . After all, she
had lived on Section 14 during her childhood, among the diverse population of
working-class blacks, Latinos, whites, and Indians, and understood from where she
came. She also understood that, even though many Indians had moved away from the
area by this time, some remained and she realized that they would be subject to the
same trauma of displacement and relocation. She didn't want them or anyone else to
suffer as a result of the tribe's development plans for Section 14. Over the years, she
had watched her ancestral homeland (Section 14) degrade due to onerous laws
and government neglect. As a tribal leader, her aim was to turn this around.
She addressed the current inhabitants and subpar living standards on Section 14 from
the subjective perspective of Indians as minorities seeking the freedom to exercise
their rights and create economic opportunities for themselves and their children by
preparing for a development project on Indian land that was conceived and executed
by Indians. For her, that was the only racial dimension. She has said, "It didn't matter
what color skin the residents had; they could have all been purple! The issue
was, this was our land and we had a right to develop it."16
● Knowing the vital need to develop Section 14 in order to improve the impoverished
conditions of its members, the Tribal Council began making pl ans to develop the area as
early as 1952 (6 years before Bogert became Mayor). That year the Tribal Council “laid the
groundwork for a master plan of the reservation, generally, and for Section 14, specifically,
which had never been done before to this de tailed and professional an extent.”17 According
to the Tribe’s 1952 progress report, working with the city to develop Section 14 was “vital to
modernizing life in Palm Springs, for Indians and non -Indians alike. Beyond increasing the
value of Indian land, the most important aspect of this new way of collegial thinking
and operating was the aim of making the local Indians equal and valued citizens in
Palm Springs.”18 Tribal Chair Vyola Ortner stated that “close cooperation” with the city
would reflect “a steadily increasing standard of living, better homes, better education,
better healthcare and other things that go to make up what we like to call ‘the
American Way of Life.”19
In June of 1956, the Tribal Council hired a Beverly Hills based development firm to “make a
study and submit plans and recommendations for the most beneficial use and development
of the Agua Caliente Reservation land resources... (the developer’s) mandate encompa ssed
the entire reservation but focused particularly on the valuable Indian land comprising
Section 14 in downtown Palm Springs…(because) It was the most prized Indian parcel -
located near the central business district, capable of producing a high return on investment
16 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts, pg 42
17 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts, pg 25
18 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts, pg 26
19 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts, pg 26
12
(for the Tribe), and now, at long last, poised to reap the fruits of the new federal leasing
law.”20
○ The HRC purposely omits the importance clearing Section 14 had on the advancement
of Tribal human rights. Instead of giving a truthful accoun t of how an indigenous,
poverty-stricken group came to the city for help in order to improve its quality of life by
developing Section 14, the HRC ignored these important facts as they directly refute the
Report’s claims that evictions/clearings were drive n by “privilege,” “whiteness,” and
racism. As it does throughout the Report, the HRC chose not to include these factual,
refuting details and instead manipulated the retelling of historical events to support its
false narrative and scapegoat Bogert.
○ The Tribe’s decades-long struggle to become more self-sufficient by developing its lands
consisted of multiple lawsuits against the federal government (one that reached the
Supreme Court), extensive lobbying efforts, and numerous trips to Sacramento and
Washington, D.C., to meet with government officials (see timeline in Appendix E). It’s an
illogical and implausible position for the HRC to both 1) support the Tribe’s rights to
develop its land and improve its financial conditions and to 2) condemn the lawful
relocations/evictions. Why? Because legal relocations/evictions were a necessary first
step in prelude to developing income producing land for the Tribe. Nearly a century of
ill-conceived federal laws created a dilemma in which advancing the rights of one
marginalized group (the Tribe) came at the expense of another marginalized group
(Section 14 residents). Opposing the legal relocations and evictions inherently meant
opposing the Tribe’s right to improve its dire financial situation. This critical point is
missed by the HRC and other critics who claim to support the human rights of all
minority and marginalized groups, and yet who criticize the city’s actions. Wedged
between the competing interests of two marginalized groups created a predicament for
Bogert and the city. As detailed later, he worked “tirelessly” to both support the Tribe’s
newfound right to develop Section 14 and to minimize the effects of the evictions.
○ The HRC reveals its complete miscomprehension of the Section 14 dilemma as well as
its disregard for Tribal human rights by posing the following myopic, rhetorical question:
“Facing a human rights crisis, why didn’t the Desert Sun or city leaders move to upgrade
the shacks to improve dangerous or unhealthy living conditions for tax paying
residents?”21 A lengthy rebuttal could be written on this rhetorical question alone but, in
short, the HRC’s “solution” wouldn’t have generated sufficient income to materially
improve the financial wellbeing of the Tribe and would have still necessitated the
relocation of Section 14 residents. (Further explanation can be found in Appendix C .)
● Frank Bogert was an ally of the Tribe. He stepped up along with fellow city council members
and responded to the Tribe’s request for assistance in dealing with Section 14 when
countless government agencies refused to do so (see Bogert and Tribal Council meeting
photo). By taking a Richard Milanovich quote out of context in its Report, the HRC
20 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts, pg 37-38
21 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report, pg 24
13
erroneously claims that Bogert was part of a “scheme” to dispossess the Tribe of its lands
and insinuates that clearing of Section 14 was done against the Tribe’s will. The Rebuttal
strongly refutes these false accusations and provides the following quotes from Tribal Chairs
publicly thanking Bogert and the city council for their help with Section 14:
“Our appreciation goes to...Mayor Frank Bogert of Palm Springs who has
consistently demonstrated that he had both the interests of the Indian people and the
City of Palm Springs at heart, and who has time and time again expended
commendable effort in helping find a solution for some of our problems.”
- Eileen Miguel, Agua Caliente Tribal Chair in 1962 (See Bogert and Miguel
photo)
“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.”22
- 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. (See letter in Appendix H, pg 89)
○ The quotes above demonstrates that the HRC has chosen to disregard the historical
record — the impetus for the Section 14 “Clean-Up” was not driven solely by Frank
Bogert, the city council, city “elites,” or “power brokers.”
● Not only did Bogert assist the Tribe with Section 14, but he was also instrumental in working
with the aforementioned all-female Tribal Council in lobbying efforts to pass the Equalization
and Long-Term Leasing Acts in 1959 (see Bogert and all-female council photo ). As former
Tribal Chairman Richard Milanovich explained:
“(Milanovich) said Bogert’s contribution to regional Tribes is significant …Hotels
eventually developed major properties on the Tribe’s land, Milanovich said. ‘You
couldn’t get long-term commercial leasing from the (Bureau of Indian Affairs) before
Bogert added his lobbying muscle. This was very important.’”23
Both the Deputy AG’s and Department of Interior’s investigations were strongly refu ted, and
their findings were incomplete and biased
● The two investigations the HRC references throughout the Report were both found to be
problematic for various reasons and their findings were strongly and publicly rebutted:
1. The Deputy Attorney General’s Investigation:
22 Edmund Siva letter to City Council, April 25, 1966
23 Desert Sun, “Cowboy to some, legend to Valley,” March 4, 2005
14
○ First off, the Deputy AG said, “There is no evidence that any crimes were committed
in the removal of the residents from Section 14 and the destruction of their homes.”24
○ After finding no legal wrongdoing with Section 14, the Deputy AG inserted his opinion in
his report, and that opinion was influenced by his activist background and ties. The
Deputy AG came from a family of well -known political and housing activists25. The
Deputy AG’s background provides context to the sensationalized language he uses in
his report (such as “city-engineered Holocaust”), which reads as if it was written by a
political activist with an agenda as opposed to an objective law enforcement official.
○ The Deputy AG’s report was heavily criticized an d refuted in a series of articles by the
Managing Editor of the Desert Sun in November of 1968. The Editor said the Deputy
AG’s report was “as biased and nonsensical a report as has come across our desk
— ever. The facts on the cleanup of Section 14 were on the record, easy to find —
and almost completely ignored.”26
○ Additionally, there were numerous other issues with the Deputy AG’s report, including
the fact that he failed to interview many of the city’s top officials, spent only a few days at
most in Palm Springs to investigate an extremely complex matter, and didn't have the
resources to conduct a thorough investigation. These issues, which the Desert Sun’s
Managing Editor details, led to the report’s incomplete, inaccurate, and biased findings.
○ The Deputy AG’s following claims, among others, were proven to be false and/or
strongly refuted (see further detail in Appendix F):
▪ The City kept no records of the evictions27
▪ Residents weren’t provided adequate eviction notices28
▪ The City showed no concern for evictees once homes were destroyed (see Appendix
B)
○ In response to the AG saying that Section 14 was a “classic study in civic disregard for
the rights and feelings of minority citizens,” the Desert Sun Editorial Board in 196 8 said,
“We suggest instead that Miller showed a classic disregard for the facts in the
case and an ‘end justifies-the-means approach.”29 (See Editorial clipping.)
2. The Department of Interior’s Investigation:
○ 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
24 California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, May 31, 1968, Palm Springs Section
14 Demolition, Loren Miller, Jr.
25 https://la.curbed.com/2018/4/18/17202950/loren-miller-attorney-black-history-housing-covenants
26 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 62, June 5, 1968
27 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 98, November 26, 1968
28 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 621, June 5, 1968
29 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 621, June 5, 1968
15
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.30
○ 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 19 68. 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.”31 (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.”32
○ How can two separate investigations on the same topic, conducted five years apa rt 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.”33 Additionally, the conservator
program was plagued by “chaos and confusion”34 and it was a program “of trial and
error.”35 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
30 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 90-258
31 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 90-258
32 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 208
33 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior an d Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 221
34 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 219
35 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 172
16
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.”36 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, sa ying:
“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 investig ation?”37
Section 14 evictions were the inevitable consequence of ill -conceived federal laws that predated
Bogert’s Mayoral term
● The HRC provides an overly simplistic, inaccurate depiction of the circumstances
surrounding Section 14’s relocations and e victions. Bogert and the city inherited an
unprecedented and complex municipal housing crisis when he became Mayor in 1958. This
municipal housing crisis was the inevitable consequence of nearly a century of ill -conceived
and discriminatory laws enacted by the federal government with regards to Tribal -owned
lands in Palm Springs. These federal laws directly led to the city’s de facto segregation
and the slum-like, substandard living conditions of Section 14 (see Appendix E). The
HRC’s Report would lead one to believe that it was Bogert himself that contributed to or
36 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 65
37 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 134, January 9, 1968
17
caused Section 14’s segregated and dire conditions — this is false. Below are select quotes
from Congressional testimony in 1968 and from “You Can’t Eat Dirt” affirming the federal
government’s role in Section 14’s living conditions and de facto segregation (see additional
quotes from testimony in Appendix F):
“I think the Congress of the United States has to share with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs a great deal of responsibility for that, for their failure to recognize this problem
in the leasing regulations that we have set as a guide . We in the Congress, cannot
escape our farsighted responsibility for waiting until the late 1950's to get adequate long
term leasing authority into the law.”38
- Congressman Ed Edmondson (a lawyer, Navy veteran, and former FBI
agent) from Oklahoma who led the May 1968 Congressional hearing,
speaking about the federal government’s role in restricting long-term leases
on Indian lands. These restrictions directly led to the dire conditions and de
facto segregation in Section 14, which Bogert inherited in 1958.
“Recognizing the value of Indian land in Palm Springs, the federal government, in turn,
dragged its feet in order to prolong whatever control it had over these valuable assets
and to maneuver them to its advantage.”39
- “You Can’t Eat Dirt”
“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-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 day permits thus encouraging and
increasing the slum area theretofore developed by the Bureau (of Indian Affairs)
on Section 14 in the heart of the City of Palm Springs.”40
- Testimony under oath by attorney Henry V Cleary at a May 1968
Congressional hearing. Note that the Interior Department (a federal agency)
oversees the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Five-year leasing laws made it
impossible for the Tribe to develop its land, thereby leading to Section 14’s
substandard conditions.
● Upon Bogert taking office in 1958, a confluence of events outside of the city’s control (and to
no fault of Bogert’s) had culminated to a point where cle aring Section 14 was necessary,
vital, and inevitable. Three driving factors, all resulting from shortsighted federal laws, led to
the evictions:
1. The Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts in 1959
38 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 172
39 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 35
40 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 205
18
The passing of the Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts in 1959 (the year after
Bogert took office) enabled Tribal members to finally attract developers and investors to
their Section 14 allotments. While the Acts themselves weren’t problematic, the fact that
they took so long to enact led to further deterioration of Tribal lands. After fighting for
decades for these leases, the Tribe was rightfully eager to begin clearing and
redeveloping Section 14 the year after Bogert became Mayor. Doing so was vital to the
Tribe’s economic future and overall well-being. As the excerpt below explains:
“Both long term leasing and equalization were remarkable legislative victories, and
despite how they were amended and distorted at times, they were critical legal and
business steps in building a strong foundation for th e tribe's future growth and
prosperity.”41
2. The dire and hazardous living conditions in Section 14
Living conditions in Section 14 had become dire, untenable, and dangerous (47% of the
city’s crime occurred in the area42). These conditions stemmed primarily from 1) federal
leasing restrictions of Tribal lands and 2) the sovereignty of Section 14 land. As Renee
Brown, Curator for the Palm Springs Historical Society, explained:
“Because Section 14 was on sovereign land and generated no property taxes , the
city would not provide services to the area. There were no paved roads and no city
services like water or sewage. Residents had to burn their trash, dig septic tanks, run
waterlines as well as connect to existing electrical lies from outside the area…A legal
restriction imposed by the federal government limited leases on Indian land to only
5 years; this made home mortgages or loans for construction impossible to
secure…Eventually the lack of basic services and inability to secure financing
for improvements on existing structures led to the decay of many parts of the
community. As time went on, many of the homes that had been constructed without
foundations began to fall apart.”43
The ramifications of federal policies were devastating to Sectio n 14 residents, to the
Agua Caliente People, and to the city at large. Below are first-hand accounts of living
conditions in Section 14, which explain the urgent and vital need to address and clean
up the area:
"It is an area without recognized public streets…where, indeed, street names have
been applied to what are no more than rutted dirt lanes, leading nowhere. Homes are
death traps of tinder-dry wood where families crowd in on one another in unsanitary
profusion. Garbage and trash litter backyards and vacant lots. Beer cans are strewn
along roadways. It is a breeding place for crime and vice…In any community, the
area would be a disgrace."44
- Pulitzer Prize winning journalist George Ringwald
41 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 35
42 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 159, February 2, 1961
43 Desert Sun, “Section 14 holds a bittersweet place in history,” December 27, 2015
44 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 42
19
“Within 100 feet, a slum condition existed, with several hundred persons, including the
Indian landlords, occupying substandard dwellings, shacks made of sheet metal, tin,
and cardboard. There were no paved streets and, in some cases, lanes were rambling,
dusty, and unnamed, and undedicated. Indigent occupancy was commonplace and
the area served as a refuge for drunks, vagrants, prostitutes, and floating crap games.
It constituted a serious criminal problem for the community. In 1950, a study
revealed that 48 percent of the arrests and criminal complaints occurred on one-
quarter of Section 14, although it represented only one-thirtieth of the
incorporated area of the city. Purse snatching and assaults on women were
commonplace after dark…conditions on section 14 were chao tic and sanitation was
nonexistent. In this slum section, venereal rates were high, and the Agua Calientes
were truly an impoverished and deprived people.”45
- Congressional testimony by the Palm Springs Chief of Police in May 1968
3. The city’s “checkerboard” layout
The city of Palm Springs was experiencing explosive growth at the time — both
residential and commercial. However, it was unable to accommodate this growth due to
the federal government’s implementation of a “checkerboard” layout in 1876, whereby
the city was divided up into squares with allotments for the railroad (and ultimately in the
city’s jurisdiction) and for the Agua Caliente Tribe. Roughly half of the squares though,
those of the Agua Caliente Tribe, were not conducive to development due to the
aforementioned leasing restrictions of Tribal lands (see checkerboard layout). Quotes
below demonstrate the negative impact “checkerboarding” had on the community and
how it created a bottleneck in terms of expansion and municipal development:
“It is generally agreed, and most times conceded on all sides, that this
‘checkerboarding’ poses a multitude of civic and governmental problems for
both the community and the Tribe and Section 14 is not the least of the problems.
Records show both sectors have often sought avenues for resolving the issue of
Section 14, but the critics of the city have seemingly studiously avoided presenting an
objective suggestion or recommendation whereby an equitable solution may be
derived. They can find faults, but they can’t help find constructive answers”46
"The (Tribe’s) master plan report, issued in 1958 explained: ‘Everybody was playing on
the black squares of the checkerboard — nobody was playing on the red. This was
all very well for a game of skill, but not at all proper for the development of a
city. Indian lands — nearly half of the city — were plagued by myriad (of ) problems
and lay dormant. A trickle of income — from rents or a fee patent and sale here and
there — was not enough to deny the fact that land intended as an Indian birthright was
45 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 129
46 Desert Sun Volume 42, Number 87, November 13, 1968
20
instead, in the main, a burden and a delusion’...That plan never came to fruition, but
its goal was clear: Get people onto the ‘red squares’ of the checkerboard."47
- (Note that the “red squares” refer to Tribal lands, including Section 14. The
black squares refer to lands under city jurisdiction. The “red squares” were
plagued with slum-like conditions due to federal leasing restrictions.)
“Of all the Indian land within the city of Palm Springs, (the Tribe’s Master Planner)
said, Section 14 was the most desirable place to begin. It was the most prized Indian
parcel-located near the central business district, capable of producing a high return on
investment, and now, at long last, poised to reap the fruits of the new federal
leasing law…Section 14 would bring the most good to the local Cahuilla and would
revitalize Palm Springs. The city had nowhere else to grow (due to the
checkerboard).”48
● The HRC overlooked these three crucial drivers above and failed to grasp the complexity of
the circumstances that led to Section 14 evictions. The Report is abundant in
sensationalized language about the evictions themselves but limited on detailing the
underlying causes that necessitated those evictions. These underlying causes are crucial to
understanding the Section 14 story, to explain why evictions and clearing were necessary
and unavoidable, and to provide context to the decisions made by the city and Bogert.
○ The HRC ignores the predicament Bogert and the city were facing and attempts to
falsely portray that evictions were purely driven by discrimination or for financial
purposes. This quagmire created a zero -sum situation that involved simultaneously
trying to address numerous competing interests. Any decision made by the city council
would come at the direct expense of another vested party. These competing interests
were:
1. Supporting the Tribe’s long-sought right to improve its quality of life by clearing
and developing Section 14
2. Rectifying the dire, hazardous and dangerous conditions in Section 14 caused by
restrictive federal leasing laws
3. Finding housing for displaced residents without funds, land, or resources to do so
4. Navigating the restrictive nature of the city’s checkerboard layout in order to
facilitate further municipal expansion for residents and commercial interests
5. Responding to local tax paying residents and businesses who had complained
for years about the conditions in Section 14 and its negative impact on the city
○ This was an unprecedented quagmire, one in which there was no precedent to follow, no
playbook to adhere to, and no historical comparable situations to learn from. Never
before did a city have to manage numerous competing interests such as those the
council faced in the 1960s nor did any city inherit a combination of the three
47 Desert Sun, “It was beautiful for the white people: 1960s still cast a shadow of distrust over Palm
Springs,” September 22, 2016
48 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 38
21
aforementioned drivers that necessitated the relocations and evictions. Pulitzer prize
winning journalist George Ringwald said at the time:
"The problem of what to do with Section 14 - and at times it must seem
insurmountable to even the most ardent optimists- is not that of the Indians
alone"49
○ Reducing Section 14 merely to racism is not only false, but also disingenuous and
does a great disservice to educating the community. To this day, Section 14
remains one of the most complex land use cases in US history. The Managing Editor of
the Desert Sun summed up the city’s predicament in 1968:
“The City of Palm Springs has been damned for something it did - namely, conducting
a cleanup of a cancerous slum area - but without a doubt it would have been equally
damned if it hadn’t!”50
○ “But without a doubt it would have been equally damned if it hadn’t!” — the last part of
the quote above is important to consider. Belo w are likely consequences had the city
not addressed the Section 14 problem:
1. The city would have likely violated the recently passed Equalization and Long -
Term Leasing Acts and could have faced legal action from the Tribe and possibly
the federal government.
2. The city would have been accused of oppressing a marginalized group, the
Tribe, by not enabling it to develop its land and improve its financial condition.
3. The Tribe would have continued to live in poverty with no means by which to
monetize its most valuable asset — Section 14 land.
4. Conditions in Section 14 would have continued to deteriorate. Crime would likely
have increased. Sanitation and living conditions would have become
increasingly dire. Hazardous and substandard dwellings would have continued
to exist or even increased in number.
5. Complaints and demands from local residents and local businesses to address
Section 14 likely would have escalated and could have even culminated in a
class action suit.
6. The city’s tax base could have destabilized. Fiscally, it wasn’t sustainable for
tribal lands (which consisted of 40% of the city’s tax base51) to continue
generating limited to no tax revenue.
7. Tourism, a significant component of the city’s economic future, could have
diminished.
8. The city’s growth, both residential and commercial, would have been constrained
or even halted altogether due to the city’s checkerboard layout.
49 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 42
50 Desert Sun Volume 42, Number 87, November 13, 1968
51 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 92, November 19, 1968
22
○ The HRC’s critique of Section 14 falls short where others, both past and present, have
as well. Over the years numerous individuals and media outlets have criticized the city’s
actions. But these critics often come with an outsider’s perspective and with a limited,
incomplete understanding of the complex history of Section 14. These critics all make
the same mistake of taking a myopic, surface -level view of the effects of the evictions,
without grasping the root causes that led to the evictions in the first place — these root
causes (primarily federal leasing laws) are imperative in order to understand and assess
the city’s actions at the time. The impossible predicament the city faced is further
exemplified by the fact that virtually no critic (including the HRC) of the city’s actions
was, or is, able to offer a solution to the Section 14 dilemma, even with the b enefit of
hindsight. The reason for that is simple: The city and Bogert inherited a crisis for which
there were no solutions that would have satisfied all the aforementioned competing
interests. Again, the Managing Editor of the Desert Sun encapsulated t his point in 1968.
While he is speaking about critics in general in 1968, his words are an appropriate
characterization of the HRC’s Report as well:
“Those uttering the most vociferous damnations (of the city’s actions with Section 14)
can point to no record, even of their own, of any individual or collective positive
contribution for resolving the problems and the issues -neither at the time, or before, let
alone since! Instead, the critics of the city have chosen to remain negative…The
damning finger-pointing has and is being done from the sanctuary of long distance.
And after a long interval. They have elected to bask in a piety from having “blown the
whistle" even though, after having summoned the arbiter, have produced no more than
an incomplete summary of the facts. Distorted? Perhaps. Slanted? Decidedly so.”52
Bogert worked “tirelessly” to minimize the effects of Section 14 evictions and to seek low -cost
housing for its residents
● Knowing that evictions and clearing were necessary and unavoidable due to the three
drivers mentioned earlier, Bogert worked relentlessly to alleviate the harms associated with
these evictions and to make the best out of an untenable housing crisis (see timeline of
Bogert’s actions in Appendix B). While Bogert took office in 1958, city-coordinated
evictions did not take place until six years later, in 1964, and city -sponsored demolition
began seven years later, in October 1965. Although there were evictions prior to 1964,
these evictions were executed by private citizens and without city coordination or
assistance53. Within that six-year period when he became Mayor and when the city worked
with conservators and the Tribal Council to relocate and evict residents in 1964, the record
shows that Bogert was resolute on finding solutions to the Section 14 crisis .
Specifically, Bogert took the following actions to alleviate the effects of the inevitable clean -
up campaign:
52 Desert Sun Volume 42, Number 87, November 13, 1968
53 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
23
○ Held off city-coordinated relocations and evictions until 1964 (6 years after becoming
Mayor), despite pressure to do so sooner from tax paying residents, Tribal landowners,
local businesses, and conservators.
○ Worked “tirelessly” to seek low-cost housing for displaced residents.54
○ Secured housing certificates from the FHA which pro vided relocation grants with 100%
financing to displaced residents.55 (See Bogert and housing certificate photo .)
○ Pursued numerous public assistance programs to fund low -cost housing.
○ Pushed for and supported several privately funded low-cost housing projects (see
clipping for one such project), including that of Lawrence Crossley, a Black pioneer of
the community and a close friend of Bogert’s.56
○ Launched an administrative investigation into Superior Court ordered burnings after
numerous residents had made complaints.57
○ Delayed evictions for six months in 1961 to allow 430 families to find housing.58 (See
eviction delay photo.)
○ Created multiracial citizens committees, consisting of members from the Black
community, to assist with relocation efforts and to communicate the city and Tribe’s
eviction plans with Section 14 residents.59
○ Enacted a bond program in 1961 to purchase land that would partially be used for low -
cost housing for evicted residents.60
○ Ensured that the city complied with all local, state, and federal regulations throughout a
complex eviction and demolition process.
● Additional Eviction Facts:
○ Evictions began as far back as 1951, seven years prior to Bogert becoming Mayor. In
April of that year, the “City of Palm Springs, was instructed by the California Housing
Authority and the county Department of Health that the dwelling units in Section 14 were
sub-standard and should be abated.”61
○ On several occasions in the 1950s before Bogert became Mayor, city officials declared
moratoriums on evictions to allow residents time to find alternative housing.62
○ A significant amount of the demolition and clearing took place after Bogert left office in
January 1966.
○ Despite reports to the contrary, the city kept substantial records of th e evictions and was
never once found to have evicted any residents illegally or without proper notice.63
○ “In all cases…Indian owners either had no leases at all with the residents, or bad leases
that contained a 30-day cancellation clause.”64
54 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
55 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 298, July 14, 1961
56 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, November 15, 1968
57 Desert Sun, “Section 14 Probe Set,” August 14, 1962
58 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, June 27, 1961
59 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 98, November 26, 1968
60 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 161, February 4, 1961
61 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 98, November 26, 1968
62 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 98, November 26, 1968
63 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
64 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
24
● The Desert Sun described Bogert as working “tirelessly” over the span of 10 years to
seek low-cost housing for evicted Section 14 residents.65 These efforts included him
continuously pushing for numerous publicly and privately funded housing projects. As
detailed in Appendix B, the HRC purposely omitted these facts from its Report and falsely
claimed that Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by these
evictions.” Select quotes from Appendix B:
“The Mayor, working tirelessly for a low-cost housing project, had asked
(developers) some months ago if (they) couldn't come up with a solution to the ever-
increasing problem of homes for the scores of people who are residing in Section 14”66
“Mayor Frank Bogert...has sought to promote a minority housing development in
the Palm Springs area”67
“Since Bogert was elected to the council almost three years ago, (he) has been
working steadily to get private money to build a low-cost rental unit project for
(Section 14 residents)”68
● Bogert even continued seeking housing for displaced residents after his Mayoral term
ended. In 1967 — the year after he left office and with his wife battling breast cancer
— he partnered with his close friend the Rev. Jeff Rollins, a leader in the Black
community, and the First Baptist Church to develop a 250-unit housing complex
adjacent to Gateway Estates69 (see Desert Sun clipping ). He traveled to Washington,
D.C., with Rev. Rollins to lobby the FHA to secure federal funds for minority housing (see
Bogert and Rollins photo).
● Bogert cared deeply for the welfare of Section 14 residents and was extremely vocal in
public forums about the need of low-cost housing for Section 14 residents. The HRC falsely
claims in its Report that “city decision makers focused their energy clearing Secti on 14 for
development instead of addressing the core issue of housing for those displaced.” In
addition to the timeline in Appendix B, which provides significant evidence to discredit this
claim, below are quotes from Bogert himself demonstrating that he indeed was focused
on “the core issue of housing for those displaced”:
“There is a great demand for low-cost housing for the working force in the city.
Something must be done for them…There were a lot of fine people moved out of
Section 14.”70
65 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
66 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
67 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 136, January 6, 1961
68 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 136, January 6, 1961
69 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
70 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
25
“We do need enough (low-cost housing) to take care of our labor force. There is a
terrific demand for housing for the working people”71
“The biggest scandal is that (Section 14 residents) are forced to live in these
conditions, because we haven’t done anything about it”72
“I don’t want to see another slum area. If someone is going to build a place for these
people, it should be good”73
“I think we ought to stretch a point and let them have the zoning they want...Due to the
housing emergency at the present time, we have to lean over backwards (to allow for
zoning for low-cost housing)”74
● As Mayor in 1961, Bogert directly hired Charles Jordan, the city’s first Black employee and a
resident of Section 14. Through this hire, and by advocating for minority interests in
general, Bogert directly contributed to the city’s first completed housing project for Section
14 residents. Indeed, Jordan was instrumental in the development of Seminole Gardens in
1968, the city’s first federally funded, medium -cost housing project which was prioritized for
Section 14 residents. Bogert made this unprecedented hire when it was unpopular to do so.
When Jordan returned to Palm Springs after graduating from Gonzaga University, Los
Angeles Times reporter Ken Reich explained:
“It was then Mayor Frank Bogert who gave him a job as a recreation supervisor.
Jordan said he had suggested to Bogert at the time, 1961, that he might not be
accepted by whites in that position. Bogert had been adamant about going
ahead with the job offer, and it was the beginning of a brilliant career for
Jordan.”75
○ Indeed, Bogert’s championing of Jordan, at a time when no Black resident w as
employed by the city, was the catalyst to a brilliant career. After working as a city official
in Palm Springs, Jordan ran the Parks Departments in both Austin, Texas and Portland,
Oregon. He was the first ever Black city councilmember in Portland and the first to serve
as city commissioner. After leaving public office he ran the Conversation Fund, an
environmental non-profit, where he established a land trust for Black farmers. President
Ronald Reagan appointed both Jordan and Bogert to the Presiden t's Commission on
Americans Outdoors, where they worked together to promote nationwide recreational
opportunities for citizens.76 Jordan served as an ex-officio member of a multiracial
housing committee Bogert created to work with and help Section 14 resid ents during
71 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
72 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan M. Kray.pg 108
73 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, November 15,1968
74 Desert Sun, “The Section 14 Story III, Elation Over Housing Okay Fades as Recession Comes,”
November 15, 1968
75 http://takebackthetimes.blogspot.com/2006/10/memorable-50th-high-school -class.html
76 The Oregonian, “Charles Johnson remembered: Portland’s first African American commissioner and
long time parks director was “a giant in this city,” April 4, 2014
26
relocations. As the Desert Sun said, “Jordan made tremendous strides toward greater
understanding and respect between all races in Palm Springs and worked toward
greater involvement of blacks in community affairs, helping to bring City Hall cl oser to
the (Black) community than ever before.”77
○ After being promoted to assistant to the City Manager, Jordan was instrumental in
securing funding for and developing the aforementioned Seminole Gardens
housing project.78 Serving on the Palm Springs Housing Committee and active in
community relations, Jordan worked to understand the needs of the Black community
and other minorities and to develop a housing plan for Section 14 residents.
○ In June of 1987 while giving the commencement speech at Palm Springs High School,
Jordan thanked Bogert for taking a chance on him and giving him a job with the
city after college.79
○ To recap: Bogert hired the city’s first Black employee, Charles Jordan, when he was
unable to find another job after college. Jordan, who was a former Section 14 resident,
was instrumental in completing the city’s first federally financed housing project,
Seminole Gardens. This housing project was prioritized for Section 14 residents and is
even referenced in the HRC’s Report. Jordan went on to have a brilliant political career
and positively impacted the lives of many Black citizens, due in part to the chance
Bogert took on him in 1961 when others didn’t. (See Jordan photo.)
Additional findings and commentary on Section 14 and the HRC’s Report
● The Rebuttal reviewed all public comments made regarding the statue removal. This
included reviewing comments at two Public Arts Commission Meetings in 2017, four City
Council Meetings in 2020, and two HRC meetings in 2021. This review of all public
comments found that:
○ 81% opposed moving the statue
○ 19% supported moving the statue
● Members of the Black community as well as former residents of Section 14 supported
Bogert in his bid for Mayor in 1982. Among members of the Black community who
supported Bogert in 1982 were Will Pittman, Mary Pittman, Roy Crawford, and Cora
Crawford. Cora Crawford was a prominent leader in the Black community and the
Director of the Palm Springs Development Center.80 Mrs. Crawford is quoted in the HRC’s
77 Desert Sun, Volume 43, Number 282, July 2, 1970
78 CVRA Community Working Group — Report to Palm Springs City Council, September 27, 2018
79 Desert Sun, “Commencement speaker: You can go home again,” June 12, 1987
80 Desert Sun, Campaign Ad, pg A22, April 12, 1982
27
Report on several occasions and was a resident of Section 14. Records show, however,
that she moved from the area in 1955, three years prior to Bogert becoming Mayor.81
○ It’s revealing and a significant repudiation of the HRC’s Report that the very people (Mr.
Milanovich, Mr. Siva, Mrs. Crawford, etc) who the HRC alleges Bogert wronged, in one
form or another directly refute the HRC’s demonization of Bogert. Indeed, whether it be
through the words of living family members (in the case of Mr. Siva and Mr. Milanovich)
or through a public endorsement of Bogert for Mayor (in the case of Mrs. Crawford),
minority residents who knew Bogert and lived through Section 14 paint a much different
picture of him than the HRC does in its uninformed Report.
● As of 1961, there were almost three times as many white families (including Latinos) than
Black families who lived on Section 14.82 The HRC, however, focuses its Report almost
exclusively on the experiences of Black families.
● The HRC attempts to falsely connect Bogert to instances of institutionalized segregation and
systemic racism. In similar fashion to associating Bogert with t he wrongdoings of the
conservator program, the Report time after time deceptively associates Bogert with
inequities of which he had no part or over which he had no control. Essentially, the HRC
blames and scapegoats Bogert as an individual for decades of federal discrimination that
predated his Mayoral term. An example of this is the title of the Report itself, “Frank Bogert:
Palm Springs Civic Leadership, Institutionalized Segregation, and Racial Bias 1958 -1966.”
The Report’s title would lead one to believe that Bogert was responsible for institutionalized
segregation and racial bias in the city — this is unequivocally false. The HRC provides no
credible evidence to support the claim made in the title of its own Report.
● Finally, it is important to no te the credibility of the sources cited in this Rebuttal versus those
cited in the HRC’s Report. This Rebuttal leans heavily on community members with first -
hand, direct knowledge of Section 14 and the events that necessitated the evictions. These
reputable sources provide a complete, nuanced, and factual story of Section 14 and
Bogert’s actions. The words of several Tribal Chairs, numerous local journalists, the Desert
Sun’s Managing Editor in 1968, and the Desert Sun’s Editorial Board in 1966 all directl y
refute the false allegations made in the HRC’s Report. The HRC’s sources, on the other
hand, consist primarily of community “outsiders” with limited knowledge of the events that
led to Section 14’s clearing and who, as the Desert Sun’s Managing Editor says, criticize the
city’s actions “from the sanctuary of long distance. And after a long interval.” They, like the
HRC, merely criticize the evictions themselves without considering the preceding events that
necessitated the evictions and clean-up campaign. The HRC relies on questionable
sources — a deputy AG with activist ties, a deeply flawed Department of Interior
investigation that was discredited under oath in Congressional testimony, a sensationalized
essay written by a college graduate student nearly 40 years after Section 14’s clearing, and
ideological publications such as the Journal of Critical Sociology — to craft an incomplete,
biased, myopic, and untruthful account of Section 14 and Frank Bogert.
81 Desert Sun, History: “Cora Crawford and her new home helped nurture a new community,” April 18,
2021
82 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 7 -8
28
○ The HRC does provide numerous first-hand quotes from residents of Section 14. These
quotes are undeniably stirring and poignant. However, attempts to tie these quotes
directly to Bogert are misguided and unfair for two primary reasons:
▪ Several of the quotes provided were from residents who were eith er legally evicted
or who moved from Section 14 prior to Bogert becoming Mayor in 1958.
▪ The quotes reinforce the detrimental effects of federal leasing restrictions, as
detailed extensively throughout the Rebuttal. These quotes are further proof of the
HRC focusing on the visceral effects of the evictions, while ignoring their root
causes.
Frank Bogert: Quotes, Facts, and History of Supporting Minority Interests
Quotes about Bogert from minority members of the community
● “He was my friend”...Bogert warned him that ’some rednecks’ had made threats
against (Oden). He let the men know he had Oden’s back. ‘What he was saying was
‘I’m looking out for you....And he did.”83
- Ron Oden in 2009 (Palm Springs’ first Black and Gay Mayor as well as
the first ever Chairman of the city’s Human Rights Commission84)
- (See photo of Oden and Bogert.)
● “For me, he was a white man, but he understood my culture”85
- Manuel Gonzales, Mexican National at Bogert’s funeral in 2009
● “What Frank was doing was making everyone understand you don’t have to be putting on
airs about your station in life or the color of your skin. What matters is what’s in our
hearts"86
- Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Tribal Chairman in 2009
● “Frank Bogert did a lot for Mexican people”87
- Pasqual Quiroz, the first Mexican American born in Palm Springs
Frank Bogert’s extensive history of supporting and fighting for various minority groups
Allegations that Bogert was racist or that he discriminated against minorities are categorically
baseless, untrue, defamatory, or misguided at best. While Bogert’s contributions to the city are
83 Desert Sun, “Bogert Understood Mexican Culture,” March 28, 2009
84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYsQXScIUI4&t=36s
85 Desert Sun, “Bogert Understood Mexican Culture,” March 28, 2009
86 Desert Sun, “Unique Personality Recounted,” March 28, 2009
87 Desert Sun, “Palm Springs History Marked By Early Segregation,” August 21, 2011
29
well known, those who have ignorantly and disingenuously label ed him a racist should note the
following:
● Bogert’s first wife, Janice, was Jewish. Upon her death in 1974, he married Negie Romero,
a Mexican citizen from San Miguel De Allende. His daughter married a Spaniard, and his
grandson married an El Salvadorian. He has Hispanic grandchildren who he loved deeply.
● He loved and unconditionally supported a gay relative, and, later on in his life, counted
members of the LGBTQ community as some of his closest friends. Some of these friends
submitted letters to the city council last year in support of Bogert. One such letter:
“As a Gay man living in PS for 30 years, my husband and I knew this man very well.
His heart was full of fun, laughter and love for Palm Springs citizens. Before, you
misguided people take to the streets, know your facts. This city is better because of
Frank, and so am I. Your posts were inaccurate and show you really do not know
Palm Spring history...This man was my friend. He was NOT Racist and NOT
Homophobic. All of you posting on social media, and also those who like these posts
are so uneducated about this man. I am all for the fair treatment of ALL America, and
if Frank was a Racist, I would be the first to help to remove his statue. But for some of
who have posted, you should be ashamed of yourselves, and should research the
history of section 14. I loved this man and cannot understand the hatred that is being
spewed about him….I stand with Frank Bogert.”88 — Michael Hill
● As Mayor in 1984, Bogert declared December as “AIDS Awareness Month”, and was quoted
as saying, “I think there is a need for everyone to be aware of it…I want to help those
(victims of the disease) guys all I can.”89
● As a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy, he served courageously and with distinction in
WWII, fighting the very ideology of prejudice and racism of whi ch he is now being falsely
accused.
● He called Mexico his second home and was loved immensely by its citizens (see photo). He
was given the Golden Spur award by the Mexican Charro Association, the first non -
Hispanic, Caucasian to ever receive the honor.90 Almost 200 Mexican Charros attended
Bogert’s 76th birthday in Mexico City in 1986 (see Charro photo).91 Quotes and anecdotes
from a 1987 Desert Sun article on Bogert:92
○ “People in Mexico think the world of Frank, not because he has money, because he
doesn't.”
○ “They relate to him like a brother. He knows the history of Mexico bett er than they do.
He has always tried to make them proud of what they are, proud of their culture.”
88 Michael Hill, Letter to City Council, July 2020
89 Desert Sun, “PS Mayor Designates AIDS Month,” November 20, 1984
90 Desert Sun, “Lesson in history from an original,” February 21, 2007
91 Desert Sun, “Mayor Bogert to celebrate birthday with Mexico pals,” December 31, 1985
92 Desert Sun, “Bogerts’ Share Pride in History of Mexico,” March 31, 1987
30
● He was close with several of the city’s Black leaders including Lawrence Crossley and the
Rev. Jeff Rollins, the latter of whom was among the first people to console Bogert at his
home after the death of his first wife, Janice (see Bogert and Rollins photo breaking ground
on the First Baptist Church ).93
● He relentlessly championed for the equal rights and sovereignt y of various Native American
Tribes. He assisted the Agua Caliente Tribe in Section 14’s redevelopment and lobbied on
its behalf several times to advance Tribal interests. He counted numerous Tribal members
among his closest friends, including Richard Milanovich, Pete Siva, and Bernie Siva.
● Bogert chose to live a rather ordinary, middle-class life. He lived in the same modest house
for more than 50 years and valued public service above all else. On multiple occasions he
sacrificed financial wealth in the private sector in order to serve and promote his true love in
life, the City of Palm Springs. Attempts to label him as part of some elite, wealthy, or
privileged class couldn’t be further from the truth. On the contrary, he was loved and
respected by so many residents of the community because he was viewed as a common
man — authentic and a straight-shooter. Simply put: He was the antithesis of an elite
politician. As Fred Hoover, President of the Continental Can Co., explained to the Desert
Sun:
○ “You’d go out to lunch with him and he spends as much time talking with the Mexican
help as he does talking with other people at the table”94
● Over 800 people of numerous races, sexual orientations, economic classes, and political
parties attended his funeral in 2009. The funeral was held in a Jewish synagogue. This
melting pot of funeral goers was a microcosm of the diverse, eclectic, and inclusionary
community that Bogert helped build. He was a uniter of people from vastly different
backgrounds, and because of that was loved by folks from all walks of life. Among the
speakers at his funeral were:
○ Richard Milanovich, Chairman of the Agua Caliente Tribe
○ Mary Bono, the wife of Sonny Bono, a former political opponent
○ Steve Pougnet, a gay former Mayor of Palm Springs
○ Rabbi Joe Hurwitz, one of Bogert’s best friends and a contributor to his statue
● Bogert was a constant defender of minorities, a proponent of social justice, and a promoter
of minority interests. Among countless documented instances in which he sought to assist
minorities when it was unpopular to do so:
○ Bogert pushed for Jewish residents to be accepted into country clubs and wrote letters
on their behalf. At the time, Jewish residents were barred from joining such clubs.95
○ As detailed earlier, Bogert hired Charles Jordan as the city’s first Black employee.
● In 1962, Bogert spoke in front of 500 people at an event at Temple Isaiah called “Patterns of
Prejudice.” As the Desert Sun stated, “Mayor Frank Bogert opened the discussion with a
93 Desert Sun, “History column: Mexican heritage deeply ingrained in the story of Palm Springs,” July 20,
2020
94 Desert Sun, “Cowboy to some, legend to Valley,” March 4, 2005
95 Desert Sun, “Bogert Oversaw Palm Springs Early Expansion,” March 24, 2009
31
brief talk on prejudice, pointing up the fact that many of us are guilty of ‘unconscious
prejudice’ in all walks of life. He cited the discrimination shown by people in one profession
or kind of work against that of another discrimination against people of othe r regions; and
suggested that each of us search ourselves to eliminate unwarranted feelings of
prejudice against any other human being.”96
● In 1966 Bogert was honored as “Man of the Year” by the Palm Springs Chapter of B’nai
B’rith, a Jewish service organization that is committed to the security and continuity of the
Jewish people and combating anti -Semitism and bigotry. He was given the award at the
Orchid Ball which was “scheduled to climax National Brotherhood Week , which is devoted
to promoting a better life for all people, regardless of race, color, or creed.”97
● In 1983, at a B’nai B’rith event to recognize those who had fought against bigotry and
racism, Bogert presented his good friend Rabbi Joseph Hurwitz with an award. Rabbi
Hurwitz, the Rev. Jeff Rollins, and other leaders protested a planned KKK rally in Palm
Springs. Because of the protests, the Klan cancelled its rally. Bogert spoke at the event,
supporting those who protested and explained to the crowd how he personally used
humor as a means to combat bigotry.98
● As Mayor in the 1980s, he supported the following Black causes and programs:
○ He was a public proponent and supporter of the “Negro Academic S cholarship Fund”99
○ He worked with the City Council on plans to improve and redevelop Desert Highland
Estates, a predominantly Black residential area. The redevelopment plans included:
■ “$2.2 million in building and housing improvements, $1 million in storm drainage
construction and $1.1 million in street improvements.”100
■ The Rev. Jeff Rollins supported this plan, and Bogert was quoted as saying “We are
a new council that wants to do something” about improving the conditions in
the Highland area.101
○ He was instrumental in creating and helping start the Palm Springs Center for
Employment Training, (GET) which primarily benefited Black residents.102
■ “The Palm Springs center had its roots in a conversation Mayor Frank Bogert had
with a Desert Highland residen t about a jobs program...The Rev. T.C. Wilder and
The Rev. Jeff Rollins, two ministers active in the economically disadvantaged,
predominately black Desert Highland area, were instrumental in drumming up
students. “I got out and beat the bushes. I think it is an excellent program,”
Rollins said.
○ In 1987, Bogert proclaimed: “February as Black History Month in Palm Springs because
the citizens have ‘developed an outstanding month -long program to commemorate Black
96 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 170, February 20, 1962
97 Desert Sun, Volume 39, Number 161, February 9, 1966
98 Desert Sun, “Sunrise Chapter B’nai B’rith Honors Fight Against Bigotry,” March 30, 1983
99 Desert Sun, Number 231, May 1, 1986
100 Desert Sun, Number 82, November 8, 1984
101 Desert Sun, Number 82, November 8, 1984
102 Desert Sun, Number 149, January 24, 1987
32
history’ which ‘affords the people an opportunity to become better acquainted with the
names and lives of great Black Americans.’”103
○ In 1987 as Mayor, Bogert rode in the city’s first Black History parade since the mid -
1960s, when Bogert was also Mayor. He was quoted at the parade saying, “I am glad
to see them reviving (the parade) ... I think anything you can do like this is a great
idea. Whatever you are, you ought to be proud of being it.” Under his leadership,
the city provided funds to the Black community to hold the parade.104
○ In 1985, Bogert supported his friend the Rev. Jeff Rollins in the opening of the Bishop
College Extension Center, which was located in the predominantly Black neighborhood
of Highland-Gateway.105 (See photo of Bogert and Rollins at Bishop opening.)
○ In 1986, Bogert participated in a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. commemoration at the United
Methodist Church. Bogert also made proclamations relating to MLK at the event, which
was attended by the Rev. Dr. William Hobbes, the Rev. T.C. Wil der, the Rev. Jeff
Rollins, Rabbi Joseph Hurwitz, the Rev. Kenneth Whitney, and the Rev. Malachy
McGinn.106
Conclusion
Speaking “The” Truth instead of Speaking “Our” Truth
The HRC concludes its Report by stating that it is “Speaking Our Truth.” Unfortu nately, the
HRC’s “Truth” is nothing more than a compilation of distorted facts and half -truths
manipulatively crafted to fit a preconceived, false narrative about Bogert. The HRC’s “Truth” is
not an objective, factual depiction of Section 14 or of Bogert ’s character. Instead of Speaking
Our Truth, the Rebuttal Speaks The Truth. And here is The Truth about the HRC’s Report,
Frank Bogert and Section 14:
● The HRC’s Report is ideologically and politically motivated, as confirmed by the HRC’s
Chairman himself, and is not an impartial assessment of Section 14 or Frank Bogert.
● The HRC fails to provide any evidence that Bogert’s motivations for clearing Section 14
were racially motivated.
● The HRC’s Report is a manipulative retelling of history that contains over 100 problematic
issues including false claims, misleading statements, and quotes taken out of context.
● The HRC intentionally left out a voluminous amount of information and evidence that would
have directly refuted its premise to remove the statue.
● The Report contains ideological language such as “white privilege,” “unconscious
manifestations of racial bias,” and “anti-racist values.” The HRC uses a set of ideological,
polarizing standards by which to critique Bogert. Additionally, the HRC cites numerous
political and ideological sources, such as the Journal for Critical Sociology.
103 Desert Sun, Number 156, February 2, 1987
104 Desert Sun, “Local blacks parade their spirit,” March 2, 1987
105 Desert Sun, “Dallas college opens extension in north PS,” June 1, 1985
106 Desert Sun, Number 137, January 11, 1986
33
● A significant portion of the HRC’s Report is copied and pasted from a graduate student’s
essay. This essay, written as an opinion piece, is by far the most -cited source in the Report
and was written nearly 40 years after Section 14 evictions took place.
● The Report is plagiarized. Examples of plagiarism are found on 17 of the Report’s 48
pages.
● The Report was criticized by an HRC commissioner, who said that it “gave the appearance
of character assassination tactics to achieve a political goal .”
● Bogert was never charged, tried, or found guilty of any wrongdoing in conne ction with
Section 14 or his conservatorship. Relocations and evictions were done legally and
complied with all city, state, and federal regulations.
● Investigations by the state’s Deputy AG and the Department of the Interior were both found
to be highly problematic and were both strongly criticized and rebutted by numerous
individuals with direct knowledge of Section 14 and the Conservator program.
● The HRC ignored the human rights of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in the
Report. The Report is highly disrespectful to the Tribe’s struggle for self-determinism and
sovereignty throughout the events in question. The Tribe’s decades-long fight to develop
and monetize its lands in order to lift its members out of poverty is a core element o f Section
14’s history. The HRC purposely omitted this critical fact in its Report, as including it would
negate its claim that evictions were motivated by “whiteness,” “privilege,” “unconscious
bias,” and racism.
● The HRC has angered prominent members of the Agua Caliente Tribe by taking quotes
from deceased relatives out of context to support its false accusations against Bogert. The
disingenuous use of Mr. Milanovich and Mr. Siva’s names prompted the families of each to
call the Report “disgusting, appalling, and slander(ous).” Both the Milanovich and Siva
families publicly demanded that the HRC remove references to their respective family
names from the Report. As of the submission of this Rebuttal, the HRC has ignored these
demands.
● The HRC misrepresented Bogert’s conservatorship of Pete Siva. Mr . Siva’s wife, Bernadine
Siva, provided the true story of this conservatorship and the circumstances by which Bogert
found himself involved in the program. Bogert and Siva would remain lifelong friends aft er
Bogert became the first conservator to voluntarily relinquish his conservatorship duties.
● Upon being elected Mayor, Bogert and the city inherited an unprecedented municipal crisis
created by nearly a century of ill-conceived, discriminatory federal laws. Section 14 clearing
was unavoidable and necessary when he took office.
● Knowing Section 14 clearing was inevitable, Bogert went to great lengths to mitigate the
effects of the relocations and evictions. This included delaying evictions, creating multi racial
citizens committees to assist with relocations, securing housing certificates for the displaced,
and applying for numerous federal aid programs, just to name a few.
● Over the span of 10 years, Bogert worked “tirelessly” to secure low-cost housing for
displaced residents and pushed for countless private and publicly funded projects.
34
● Bogert continued seeking low-cost housing after his mayoral term ended, even though he
was under no obligation to do so. He partnered with the Rev. Jeff Rollins and the First
Baptist Church, and lobbied in Washington, D.C., with Rollins to secure low -cost housing
funds for Section 14 residents.
● Bogert cared deeply about the welfare of Section 14 residents and was made numerous
public statements about the need to find low-cost housing in conjunction with relocations.
● Bogert directly hired the city’s first Black employee, Charles Jordan. Jordan went on to
become instrumental in the development of the city’s first federally funded housing project.
This project was prioritized for Section 14 residents.
● Bogert was an ally of the Tribe. He responded to the Tribe’s requests to address Section 14
and lobbied in Washington, D.C., on its behalf on multiple occasions.
● As mayor, Bogert supported numerous Black causes and worked with leaders to advance
the well-being of the Black community.
● Bogert was close with or was supported by the city’s Black community leaders, including
Lawrence Crossley, the Rev. Jeff Rollins, and Cora Crawford.
● Black members of the community and residents of Section 14, including Cora Crawford,
supported Bogert in his bid for Mayor in 1982.
● Bogert has an extensive documented history of fighting for and supporting the human rights
and equal treatment of numerous minority groups. Quotes in this Rebuttal alone from
individuals of the Black, gay, Latino, and Native American communities are a
testament to the fact that Bogert was loved and respected by all minority groups and
why allegations that he was racist are ludicrous, unfounded, and defamatory. The
diversity of the 800 people who attended his funeral speaks volumes about his character
and his equal treatment of all minority and marginalized groups.
● To support its criticisms of Bogert, the HRC relies primarily on sources with second-hand
knowledge of Section 14’s history and who fail to grasp the complex series of events that led
to the evictions. Alternatively, the Rebuttal relies mostly on community members with
intimate knowledge of Section 14, who provide first-hand, reputable accounts of the city’s
history and of Bogert’s character.
● The Report was strongly criticized by an HRC commissioner who said that the Report “gave
the appearance of character assassination tactics to achieve a political goal”
● The HRC has done a great disservice to the community through its biased, factually
inaccurate, and ideologically driven Report. It has violated its own stated goals by failing to
educate the public with a factual account of Section 14 and has failed to pos itively bring
community members together to discuss human rights.
The Truth is the HRC and the city officials have not made a substantive argument to justify the
removal of the Bogert statue. Efforts to defame Bogert and remove the statue are based sole ly
on politics, ideology, and an untruthful account of Section 14. The HRC’s Report cannot be
allowed to stand in the public record, nor can its contents serve as the basis for any decisions
related to the Bogert statue.
35
APPENDIX
36
Appendix A
Photos of Frank Bogert and of relevant topics from the Rebuttal
PHOTO #1107
Bogert with the all-female Agua Caliente Tribal Council in the late 1950s. Throughout
his time as Mayor, Bogert would work with the Council on a variety of projects, including
Section 14, purchasing Airport land, and the development of the Spa Hotel. Bogert
traveled to Washington, D.C., with the Tribal Council to lobby Congress to pass the
Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts of 1959. From left to right: Eileen Miguel,
Elizabeth Pete Monk, LaVerne Saubel, Palm Springs Mayor Frank Bogert, Dora Joyce
Prieto, and Priscilla Gonzales.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
107 Palm Springs Life Magazine, The Self -Determined Sixties, July 8, 2020
37
PHOTO #2108
Bogert with the Rev. Jeff Rollins in Washington, D.C., in 1967. Bogert and Rollins went
to Washington the year after Bogert left office to seek funds and approval from the
Federal Housing Authority (FHA) to build low -cost housing for Section 14 residents.
From the Desert Sun: Bogert “said the local delegation made the FHA officials aware of
the Section 14 cleanup in which a large number of residents were forced to leave Palm
Springs for Banning and Garnet and other nearby areas. ‘These residents,’ Bogert said,
‘still work in Palm Springs and would prefer to live here.’”
(Go back to Rebuttal)
108 Desert Sun, pg 1, May 23, 1967
38
PHOTO #3109
Bogert displaying a housing certification to city officials that he and the city were able to
secure for Section 14 residents. This certificate would provide Section 14 residents with
100% financing for relocation with only $200 down. The “Housing and Home Finance
administrator proclaim(ed) that Palm Springs has qualified for Federal Aid in its
Workable Program for community improvement.”
(Go back to Rebuttal)
109 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 30, September 8, 1961
39
PHOTO #4110
Bogert, city officials and the Agua Caliente Tribal Council at a meeting in 1962 to
discuss long-range zoning guidelines for Section 14. 1958-1966 was a period of
tremendous cooperation and collaboration between the Tri be and the city. Eileen
Miguel stated in 1986, “As Frank Bogert said, ‘We are two governments in this town.’”111
Given the city’s checkerboard layout and the significant amount of land the Tribe owned
in Palm Springs, it was (and is) vital for the council and Tribe to work together for the
good of the city.
From left are Robson Chambers, city planning commission member; Vice Mayor Ted
McKinney, committee chairman; Dick Coleman, planning director; Mrs. Vyola Olinger
(Ortner), former Agua Caliente tribal council chairman; Ray Simpson, tribal attorney;
Mayor Frank Bogert; Mrs. Dora Prieto, tribal secretary; Mrs. Eileen Miguel, tribal
chairman; and Councilman Harry Paisley.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
110 Desert Sun, Vol. 35, No. 287, July 6, 1962
111 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-3TNYCxY0
40
PHOTO #5112
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.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
112 Private collection
41
PHOTO #6113
Bogert with Tribal Chairman Vyola Ortner and Congressman D.S Saund in Washington,
D.C., in the late 1950s. Bogert and Ortner worked with Congressman Saund to lobby
Congress to pass the Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts in 1959.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
113 www.youcanteatdirt.com/gallery
42
PHOTO #7114
Agua Caliente Tribal Chairman Richard Milanovich speaking at Bogert’s funeral (top
right) in March 2009. “At Bogert’s funeral in 2009, Milanovich said the cowboy mayor
had been an inspiration to him growing up.”115 Bogert and Milanovich were close,
lifelong friends and worked together on various projects while Bogert was Mayor and
Milanovich was Tribal Chairman in the 1980s. Milanovich’s daughter, Trista, said that
the HRC’s Report was “disgusting” and that the family was “appalled” that they would
take her father’s words out of context in order to defame Bogert.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
114 Desert Sun, pg. B4, March 28, 2009
115 Desert Sun, “A lifetime of leadership,” March 12, 2012
43
PHOTO #8116
A diagram of the city’s checkerboard layout enacted in the late 19th century. This ill -
conceived layout created numerous problems for the city, the Tribe, and especially for
Section 14 residents. Because the red squares were not conducive to development due
to federal restrictions on long term leases, 1) the Tribe was unable to develop its land
and generate income for its members, 2) the city’s residential and commercial growth
was constrained, and 3) Section 14 became a slum, at no fault of its residents.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
116 www.youcanteatdirt.com/gallery
44
PHOTO #9117
Bogert with the Rev. Jeff Rollins (holding shovel in middle) in 1963 when development
of the First Baptist Church broke ground. Bogert would later partner with Rollins and
the Church in 1967 to develop low-cost housing for Section 14 residents.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
117 Desert Sun, “First Baptist’s Church Dedication to the Community,” February 7, 2021
45
PHOTO #10118
Bogert (seated far right) with the Rev. Jeff Rollins (speaking) at the unveiling of the
Bishop College Extension Center in Highland-Gateway. Bogert and Rollins would work
together on numerous projects between the 1960s and 1980s, including 1) a sking the
Human Relations Committee to provide assistance to Section 14 residents, 2) lobbying
in Washington, D.C., in 1967 for low-cost housing for Section 14 residents, 3) opening
the Bishop Center, and 4) the creation of the Palm Springs Center for Empl oyment Training,
(GET). Rollins and Bogert were close friends and Rollins was one of the first to visit
Bogert at his house to offer his condolences after the death of his first wife Janice in
1974.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
118 Desert Sun, “Dallas college opens extension in north PS,” June 1, 1985
46
PHOTO #11119
Bogert with Mayor Ron Oden at a tribute to Bogert in 2005 at the Agua Caliente Casino.
Oden was the city’s first Black and openly gay Mayor and also was the first Chairman of
the Human Rights Commission, the same commission that a uthored the defamatory
Report on Bogert. In 2009, Oden was quoted as saying:
“He was my friend”...Bogert warned him that ’some rednecks’ had made threats against
(Oden). He let the men know he had Oden’s back. ‘What he was saying was ‘I’m
looking out for you...And he did.”
(Go back to Rebuttal)
119 Desert Sun, “Cowboy to some, legend to Valley,” May 4, 2005
47
PHOTO #12
Charles Jordan in 1976.120 Jordan, a former Section 14 resident, was hired by Bogert
as the city’s first Black employee. Jordan was instrumental in the development of
Seminole Gardens, the first federally funded housing project that was prioritized for
Section 14 residents. From Palm Springs, he went on to have an illustrious political
career, serving as Portland’s first Black city councilmember and city commissioner,
running the Conservation Fund, and working with Bogert on Ronald Reagan’s
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. He gave the commencement speech
at Palm Springs High School in 1987 and thanked Bogert for taking a chance on him by
giving him a job in 1961.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
121
120 The Astorian, “Former Portland City Commissioner Charles Jordan Dies At Age 77,” April 2, 2004
121 www.portlandpf.com
48
PHOTO #13122.
A Desert Sun article from May 18,1967. Bogert continued seeking low-cost housing for
Section 14 residents the year after leaving office in 1966.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
122 Desert Sun, “Low-cost Housing Prospects Good,” May 18, 1967
49
PHOTO #14123
Article from the Desert Sun on June 27, 1961. Bogert and the city issued a six-month
moratorium on legal evictions to allow residents time to seek housing alternatives and to
provide time for the city to explore both private and publicly funded low -cost housing
projects.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
123 Desert Sun, “Time-out Called on Section 14,” June 27, 1961
50
PHOTO #15124
Bogert (seated far right) with Tribal Chair Eileen Miguel (seated middle) in 1960 looking
over an appraisal of land on Section 18 which would become the airport. To Miguel’s
right is Dora Joyce Prieto, who became Tribal Chair in mid -1966. Miguel and Bogert
worked closely together on many projects including zoning ordinances for Section 14.
In 1962 she said:
“Our appreciation goes to: ...Mayor Frank Bogert of Palm Springs who has consistently
demonstrated that he had both the interests of the Indian people and the City of Palm
Springs at heart, and who has time and time again expended commendable effort in
helping find a solution for some of our problems.”
(Go back to Rebuttal)
124 Desert Sun, “New Airport Land Appraisal Announced at $2,979,000,” July 27, 1960
51
PHOTO #16125
Desert Sun headline from August 18, 1961. The HRC claims this development was
proposed in 1968 after Bogert was Mayor, when in reality it was Bogert himself who
pushed for the development as Mayor in 1961. The article states, “The Mayor,
working tirelessly for a low -cost housing project, had asked (the developer) some
months ago if he couldn't come up with a solution to the ever increasing problem of
homes for the scores of people who are residing in Section 14.”
(Go back to Rebuttal)
125 Desert Sun, “$2.5M Apartment Complex Slated for Section 14 Families,” August 18, 1961
52
PHOTO #17126
Editorial by the Desert Sun in 1966 lambasting the AG’s report on Section 14. This was
one of several articles by the newspaper criticizing the AG’s findings.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
126 Desert Sun, “Example of ‘Classic Disregard,’” June 5, 1968
53
PHOTO #18127
Bogert with the Marmolejo family in the 1940s during “Mexican Night” at the Chi Chi.
Bogert was extremely fond of Mexico and its culture. He called the country his second
home and was beloved by its citizens and by residents of the city’s Latino community.
Several years after the death of his first wife, Janice, Bogert married Negie Romero, a
Mexican citizen from San Miguel de Allende. He would lead “Cabalgata” horseback
rides in Mexico to introduce Americans to the country and to Mexican culture. Pascal
Quiroz, the first Mexican-American child born in Palm Springs, said, “Frank Bogert did a
lot for Mexican people…When Mexicans had any kind of fiesta, he was always there.
They invited him and he was the main speaker.”128 Manuel Gonzales, a Mexican friend
of Bogert’s said, “He was a white man, but he understood my culture”129 Pictured from
left to right: Rafaela Marmolejo, Cydronia Valdez, Frank Bogert, Omar Valdez.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
127 Desert Sun, “History column: Mexican heritage deeply ingrained in the story of Palm Springs,” July 20,
2020
128 Desert Sun, “Palm Springs History Marked By Early Segregation,” August 21, 2011
129 Desert Sun, “Bogert Understood Mexican Culture,” March 28, 2009
54
PHOTO #19130
Frank Bogert riding in a Palm Springs parade and wearing a traditional Mexican Charro
outfit. “Charro” is a Spanish word used to describe a Mexican horseman. Bogert was
given the Golden Spur award by the Mexican Charro Association — he was the first
non-Mexican, Caucasian to ever receive the honor.131 In 1986, over 200 Charros
attended Bogert’s 76th birthday in Mexico City.132
(Go back to Rebuttal)
130 Palm Springs Life Archives, “The Hay Days of Palm Springs,” February 25, 2010
131 Desert Sun, “Lessons in history from and original,” February 21, 2007
132 Desert Sun, “Bogert to celebrate birthday with Mexico pals,” December 31, 1985
55
PHOTO #20133
Newspaper clipping from the Desert Sun on October 22, 1959, of President Dwight
Eisenhower signing the Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts. Vyola Ortner and
the all-female Tribal council (with Bogert’s help) lobbied extensively for these two bills to
be passed. These long-term leases allowed the Tribe to finally develop its valuable land
(specifically on Section 14) and to improve the dire financial conditions of its members.
These laws were heralded as the “two most important pieces of legislation ever
affecting Palm Springs.”134
(Go back to Rebuttal)
133 https://www.youcanteatdirt.com/gallery/
134 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts, pg 35
56
PHOTO #21135
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)
135 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 134, January 9, 1968
57
Appendix B
Bogert worked relentlessly to find housing for Section 14
residents and to minimize the effects of the legal evictions
The timeline below is just one example of many in which the HRC purposely provides a one -
sided, dishonest assessment of Bogert and Section 14. Inexplicably, the HRC falsely claims
that Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by these ev ictions”136 and
makes similar statements on at least 15 separate occasions in the Report. In reality however,
nothing could be further from the truth. Over a span of 10 years, both during and after his
Mayoral term, Bogert worked “tirelessly” to find hous ing for evicted Section 14 residents .
The timeline below confirms to what great lengths Bogert went to secure low-cost housing and
to address the harms caused by the relocations and evictions. It must be stressed that several
of these quotes came from the same articles and sources the HRC cited in its Report. In other
words, the HRC saw these same exact quotes and facts but intentionally omitted this
refuting information in order to support its false narrative that Bogert “demonstrated no
effort to address the harms caused by these evictions.”
● January 1961137
○ Bogert asks the city for an “Urban Redevelopment Program” on Section 14.
○ The Desert Sun notes: “Mayor Frank Bogert...has sought to promote a minority
housing development in the Palm Springs area”
○ Additionally, the Desert Sun claims, “since he was elected to the council almost
three years ago, (Bogert) has been working steadily to get private money to build
a low-cost rental unit project for (Section 14 residents), but the location of it has
been the big problem.”
○ ‘'If it is too far from downtown, they can't get into town, and there just isn't any place they
can go downtown,” said the Mayor.
● February 1961138
○ Bogert enacts a bond program for the purchase of land used for the airport.
○ Part of the justification for purchasing the land is not just for the airport itself, but for the
development of low-cost housing as well.
■ Indeed, “The Mayor also mentioned that the purchase of the airport by the people of
Palm Springs may solve many other problems which to date have plagued the resort
community. One of these is the initiation of a low -cost housing project eyed for
the north-east corner of the land. According to the Mayor, backers have
approached the city seeking such a project.”
136 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 46
137 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 136, January 6, 1961
138 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 161, February 4, 1961
58
● March 1961139
○ “Bogert, in his official capacity as Mayor, has served a request to the FHA and HHFA to
come to Palm Springs and discuss a federal housing program, especially in connection
with their project 221, the replacement of displaced persons...Mayor Bogert said that the
federal representatives have looked at a couple of parcels of land which could qualify
under the requirements of FHA and HHFA.”
● May 1961140
○ He later stated that, although the city was rushing the slum clearance of Section 14, the
city council was not interested in persecuting anyone, emphasizing that “The biggest
scandal is that people are forced to live in these conditions, because we haven’t
done anything about it.”
● June 1961
○ Bogert announces a six-month moratorium on evictions and demolitions in order to
buy time to find housing alternatives.141 The BIA had previously issued a June 1961
deadline for Section 14 evictions, but Bogert issued this six -month moratorium given
housing options weren’t yet in place for Section 14 reside nts.
■ Bogert enacted this moratorium after hearing directly from two residents in Section
14 who said they came back to find their homes in ashes.142
○ “A promise from Federal Housing Authority representatives to the City Council that
action would be speeded to certify city eligibility for financing guarantees for low -cost
housing, both private homes and rental property.”143
○ Additionally, the Desert Sun states:
■ “Councilmen and members of the Planning Commission had been working more
than a year in anticipation of a housing crisis in Section 14 when the June eviction
deadline arrived, ‘I'm pleased to learn this financing could be rushed through,’ said
Vice-Mayor Ken Kirk. ‘It’s shaping up into a definite program and it looks like no one
will be actually displaced without getting a better home’…Kirk went on to credit
Mayor Bogert and Councilman Ted McKinney with spearheading work on
obtaining housing for families evicted from Section 14. “They've worked very
hard on it.” he said. “It's good to see things moving along.”144
● July 1961145
○ Bogert creates a special committee, which he leads, to work on minority housing
problems related to Section 14.
■ Among those named to the committee is the Rev. Jeff Rollins, a Black
community leader and a friend of Bogert’s.
139 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 182, March 1, 1961
140 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan M. Kray.pg 108
141 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, 27 June 1961
142 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan M. Kray.pg 108
143 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, June 27, 1961
144 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, June 27, 1961
145 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 298, July 14 1961
59
○ This committee had four functions:
■ Inform the community of the substandard conditions in Section 14.
■ Inform the community and those being relocated about the assistance they were
eligible for under Section 221, which provided 100% financing for relocation with only
$200 down.
■ Assist relocated families in finding alternative housing within their price range.
■ Communicate important updates and details to all related parties of Section 14.
○ The city submits a program for community improvement “made in support of the city's
application for federal aid in relocation housing for persons to be moved from a portion of
Section 14 marked a major step toward solving the problems of displacement, caused by
area development”
○ The Desert Sun stated, “As Palm Springs builds for the future, it is working for
adequate housing for its citizens.”
● Mid-July 1961146
○ Bogert endorses and pushes for the low-cost housing development plans of Lawrence
Crossley, a Black city pioneer and close friend of Bogert’s. These plans included 150
low-cost, two-story units in Section 20.
○ “Mayor Frank Bogert, long active in trying to solve the housing problems of the
minority groups in Section 14 said he thought the Gould-Crossley project would
be a good thing,”
○ In fact, Bogert even pushed city council and officials to relax zoning ordinances to
enable the Crossley development to proceed as quickly as possible:
■ “I think we ought to stretch a point and let them have the zoning they want...Due to
the housing emergency at the present time, we have to lean over backwards.”
○ Regardless of which low-cost housing projects the city approved, Bogert de manded that
the new dwellings be suitable for the people of Section 14:
■ “Nevertheless, Mayor Bogert emphasized, he wanted to be sure any dwellings built
for rentals would be good housing. “I don’t want to see another slum area. If
someone is going to build a place for these people, it should be good.”
● August 1961147
○ Federal Housing Association approves a $2.5 million housing development for families
displaced by Section 14 evictions.
○ The development was spearheaded by N & W Development Corp., whom Bogert ha d
pushed to help find a solution to the housing crisis. Indeed:
■ “The Mayor, working tirelessly for a low-cost housing project, had asked (N & W
Development) some months ago if (they) couldn't come up with a solution to the ever
increasing problem of homes for the scores of people who are residing in Section 14
and who are presently on notice that they must move from their present homes to
make way for a full-scale Indian Section clearance program.”
146 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, Novembe r 15,1968
147 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
60
○ Upon hearing that the FHA and FHAA had approved this $2.5 million plan, Bogert “was
elated. It had brought to an end the months upon months of studying for a solution to a
problem which was only worsening with time.”
○ Unfortunately, the N & W project ultimately failed as the developers went through a
period of “tight money” brought upon by a recession that had hit the country. This
recession “set back many major housing and building development projects
everywhere,” not just in Palm Springs. Additionally, the recession “was particularly
harmful to the city’s plan s for the immediate solution to the problems of Section 14.”148
● September 1961149
○ The city and Frank Bogert secure a certification from the “Housing and Home Finance
administrator proclaiming that Palm Springs has qualified for Federal Aid in its Workable
Program for community improvement”
○ “U.S. Housing administrator Robert C. Weaver has determined that this community's
program meets Federal requirements….The certification means that Palm Springs can
proceed with its program, under federal assistance, to uti lize appropriate private and
public resources to eliminate and prevent the development or spread of slums and urban
blight: to encourage needed urban rehabilitation; to provide for the development of
blighted, deteriorated or slum areas, or to undertake other activities as may be suitable
employed to achieve the objective of such a program.”
● October 1961150
○ Bogert and the city council “rezoned five acres of Section 20 for 120 low -cost housing
units. Developer Robert Gould applied for a low-interest loan for the project and
subsequently announced the city had qualified for it.”
● December 1961151
○ Bogert and the city rezone seven and a half acres in Section 34 for 200 to 250 low -cost
housing units. The developer for this project unfortunately died before the project could
get underway and the development was cancelled.
● 1961152
○ As detailed earlier, Bogert hires Charle s Jordan as the city’s first Black employee.
Jordan would go on to serve on a special citizens’ committee created by Bogert to assist
Section 14 families with relocation . He was instrumental in securing the city’s first
federally financed housing project in 1968.
● Early 1962153
148 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, November 15, 1968
149 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 30, September 8, 1961
150 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
151 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
152 http://takebackthetimes.blogspot.com/2006/10/memorable-50th-high-school-class.html
153 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan Kray, pg 113
61
○ “Certificates of eligibility for the Section 221 loan plan were distributed by the city’s
building inspector.” These certificates were to provide financing for relocation for
Section 14 residents.
● August 1962154
○ “The Palm Springs City Council last night ordered an administrative investigation and
report on Section 14 burnings carried out under a Superior Court order last month. The
council took the action after emphasizing that the city was not involved in t he action, nor
could it legally make payments for personal goods lost in answer to a plea by 72 -year-
old Mrs. Florence Fatheree for city payment for her house and household goods.”
● September 1962155
○ City approves plans for low-cost homes in the southeast section of town.
● Mid-1963
○ “A judge struck down a proposed affordable housing project”156
● January 1965
○ When Indian agent Paul Hand stated that city sponsored public housing could be built on
Indian reservations, Bogert asked “Where could you put this public housing?” asked the
Mayor. There was no answer to his questions,” 157 demonstrating the difficulty in finding
land for relocated Section 14 residents.
○ The city council approves 20 acres to be rezoned in Section 20 for 300 low -cost housing
units.158
● September 1965159
○ When the city needed to enact a “workable program” in order to secure federal funds for
low-cost housing and when inspections to comply were lagging, Bogert pushed to
accelerate the completion of tasks needed to qualify for the federal program .
○ “Mayor Frank Bogert however, pointed out that this would delay the program about 4
months and asked Aleshire to proceed as rapidly as possible with the inspection using
present staff members...the proposed low-cost housing would be located in the lower
half of Section 34. The city has also met most of its workable program requirements,
including a master plan and zoning.”
● November 1965160
○ Under Bogert’s leadership, the city created a human relations commission. The
commission was recommended, “partially because it is needed to fulfill provisions of a
154 Desert Sun, “Section 14 Probe Set,” August 14, 1962
155 Desert Sun, Volume 36, Number 44, September 25, 1962
156 Desert Sun, “‘It was beautiful for the white people:' 1960s still cast a shadow of distrust over Palm
Springs,” September 22, 2016
157 Desert Sun, Volume 38, Number 143, January 19, 1965
158 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
159 Desert Sun, Volume 39, Number 44, September 24, 1965
160 Desert Sun, Volume 39, Number 97, November 25, 1965
62
“workable program" the city has submitted to the federal government for low-cost
housing aid”
○ Bogert, who was a member himself, appointed a multiracial committee, comprised of
members representing various minority groups, including Rev. Rollins of the First Baptist
Church, Eileen Miguel of the Agua Caliente Tribe, Rabbi Joe Hurwitz, and John
Quinonez.
● January 1966161
○ Even up until his last months in office, Bogert was working furiously to secure low -cost
housing:
○ Bogert helped create and conducted a meeting for the human relations commission to
“alleviate problems of minority groups in Palm Springs.”
○ Bogert “outlined some of the aims of the present committee. Among them, he said,
would be its relationship with economic opportunity programs and with the city’s
workable program which would pave the way for federal aid in low-cost housing
developments.
In addition to his constant efforts seeking low-cost housing during his Mayoral term, Bogert
even continued seeking affordable housing options after his term ended in early 1966 .
He did so by partnering with leaders of the Black community.
● May 5, 1967162
○ “Backed by city council support, former Mayor Frank Bogert today prepared to go to
Washington in an attempt to obtain federal aid in low -cost housing for Palm
Springs. Bogert, who has been working on a program for low -cost housing for 10
years, received a consensus of approval from the council yesterday at a stud y
session…. Bogert will seek a 250 -unit housing complex adjacent to the Gateway Estates
and will try to get federal subsidies for a ‘Model Neighborhood Program’ which would
include the housing project.”
○ “The former Mayor noted that the city has had a worka ble program for three years, an
FHA requirement for aiding private developers in construction of low -cost housing.
“There is a great demand for low-cost housing for the working force in the city,”
Bogert told the council. “Something must be done for them.”
○ “Bogert pointed out that as a result of the Indian -owned Section 14 cleanup campaign
many of the city’s hotel workers and domestics were forced to move to Banning and to
Beaumont. “There were a lot of fine people moved out of Section 14 ,” he told the
council.”
○ “(Bogert) said he had conferred with FHA officials in San Francisco on a 250 -unit
housing development. But, he said, they recommended only 60 units. This is far from
sufficient”, he added.
161 Desert Sun, Volume 39, Number 131, January 5, 1966
162 Desert Sun, Volu me 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
63
○ “We’re not trying to create a paradise to bring in people fro m Los Angeles,” (Bogert)
declared “but we do need enough to take care of our labor force. There is a terrific
demand for housing for the working people.”
● May 18, 1967163
○ The “possibility of getting 180 units of low-cost housing for Palm Springs was described
as good today by former Mayor, Frank Bogert, after conferring with Federal Housing
Administration officials.”
○ “Bogert and a group interested in obtaining low -cost housing for the city returned this
week from Washington where they met with officials.”
○ “With Bogert (on the trip to Washington) was…Rev. Jeff Rollins, pastor of the First
Baptist Church.”
○ “He said the local delegation made the FHA officials aware of the Section 14 cleanup in
which a large number of residents were forced to leave Palm Springs for Banning and
Garnet and other nearby areas.” These residents, Bogert said, still work in Palm
Springs and would prefer to live here.”
● August 1967164
○ Rev. Rollins speaks before the city council urging them to pass emergency zoning laws
in order to facilitate Bogert’s proposed development project.
○ The First Baptist Church and the Los Angeles Psychological -Social Center are co-
sponsors of Bogert’s low-cost housing project.
● September 1967165
○ Bogert meets with school trustees to push for low-cost housing plans for displaced
residents.
○ Bogert stresses to the trustees that “low-cost development is needed to house the
city’s hotel work force.”
○ Furthermore, “Bogert said he...covered Palm Springs thoroughly to locate economically
priced land for the low-cost development. The only place they could find, he said, was
the proposed location.”
● November 1967166
○ City Council all but kills Bogert’s low-cost housing plans.
○ A council member “indicated the federal rent supplement program on which the
development hinged, was untested “and there is no experience on which the city can
rely. Federal Housing Administration regulations call for approval by the city council
before funds will be allocated” but ultimately the city council disapproved of the rent
supplemental program.
○ “Former Mayor Frank Bogert, who said he had worked for 10 years or more on
getting low -cost housing for the area, said it was obvious the council wo uldn’t
listen to the proposal. Rev. Jeff Rollins, pastor of the First Baptist Church which
163 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 246, May 28, 1967
164 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 21, August 29, 1967
165 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 35, September 24, 1967
166 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 99, November 28, 1967
64
would have been sponsor of the development, termed the action short-sighted on
the part of the council.”
(Go back to Rebuttal)
Appendix C
Examples of the 100+ problematic issues in the HRC’s Report
● The Report untruthfully claimed, “A $56,182 real estate commission awarded by the
Superior Court at Indio to a broker in an Indian land lease deal, was later divided with the
Indian’s conservator, former Palm Springs Mayor Frank Bogert. It was one of many reported
cases of ‘fee-splitting.’”167
○ This statement by the HRC is untruthful on multiple accounts:
■ The $56,182 commission figure the HRC provides is grossly inaccurate. In fact, the
HRC overstates this commission figure by a factor of almost 10x. The newspaper
article that the Report cites provides the accurate commission figure ($6,182), and
yet the HRC didn’t get the figure right in its Report.
■ It was not “one of many reported cases of fee -splitting.” The Department of Interior
could only point to a single instance of fee-splitting, and even that instance needs to
be put into context given 1) the circumstances by which Bogert became a
conservator and 2) the problematic nature and inaccuracies of the Interior’s report.
● The HRC falsely states that “In 1968, a $2.5 million housing development by W & N
Development slated for families displaced from Se ction 14 received approval by the Federal
Housing Administration. Subject to certain government specifications the development
would soon be under construction within a few feet of Palm Springs.”168
○ This proposed development occurred in August 1961 while B ogert was Mayor, not in
1968 when he was out of office as the HRC claims.
○ Not only did the HRC get the dates wrong, but two paragraphs later in the same article
the HRC cites, it is stated that this housing project “was the upshot of a previous
request, of several months standing, by Mayor Bogert of (W&N Development) to
seek a solution to the problem of homes for the residents of Section 14.”169
○ To summarize, the HRC claims this housing project was proposed when Bogert was out
of office in 1968, when in reality it was Bogert himself who pushed for this development
when he was in office in 1961. This is one example of many in which the HRC 1)
purposely conceals to what great lengths Bogert went to find low -cost housing and 2)
cherry picks quotes to support their false claims, while intentionally omitting refuting
statements from the same article/source.
167 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
168 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
169 Desert Sun, “The Section 14 Story III, Elation Over Housing Okay Fades as Recession Comes,”
November 15, 1966
65
● The Report provides a timeline that shamefully insinuates that Bogert left office early in
January 1966 due to wrongdoing or to a potential investigation by the Attorney General.170
In reality, however, Bogert left office to take care of his wife, Janice, who had been
diagnosed with breast cancer. Bogert took a PR job in the private sector to support his
family and to pay for his wife’s mounting medical bi lls. The Mayor’s position at that time was
unpaid.
○ “Bogert gave up the Mayor’s office because he couldn't afford it”171
● Another falsehood in the Report: “Having a substantial financial interest as a conservator
created a conflict of interest for Bogert (while he was Mayor).”172
○ This is false. Bogert voluntarily ended his conservatorship in 1963. City -coordinated
evictions took place in 1964, and much of the city-sponsored clearing took place at the
end of 1965 and in early 1966. Thus, there was no conflict of interest since he was not a
conservator during city-coordinated evictions and clearing. Bogert did not profit off of
the evictions or clearing of Section 14.
○ In fact, in instances where his position as Mayor possibly conflicted with his role as a
conservator, Bogert recused himself from such votes and/or discussions.173
● The Report falsely claims that “While he was leading the Section 14 demolition, profiting as
a conservator, and championing development in Palm Springs, there is an appearance of
conflict of interest when as Mayor, he crafted a multi-million dollar real estate transaction
with another Tribe”174
○ As stated above, Bogert signed off as a conservator prior to city-funded demolition, thus
the first part of this claim is false. Also, the HRC fails to justify how this real estate deal
created a conflict of interest.
○ More importantly, the quote below explains that this real es tate deal was immensely
beneficial for the local Mojave tribe — this quote was pulled from the same article the
HRC cites to support its false claim that there was a conflict of interest:
“And this lease will mean a better life for some 800 Mojave Indians . It will mean an
end to their poverty, a creation of jobs and will turn their rich land from idleness to
productive use.”175
○ This is one of many examples in which the HRC prioritizes the character
assassination of Bogert over the human rights of various Indian Tribes. Instead of
celebrating the fact that Bogert was advancing the human rights of a marginalized,
poverty-stricken community, the Human Rights Commission chose instead to falsely
accuse him of a conflict of interest.
170 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 17
171 The San Bernardino County Sun, April 20, 1975
172 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
173 Desert Sun, “Council in 'No' Vote On Trailers,” March 13, 1962
174 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
175 The Needles Desert Star (Needles, California), “Mojaves Sign Land Lease,” November 15, 1962
66
● The Report deceptively asserts, “Court-appointed guardians and conservators, or their
attorney levied excessive fees against many Indian owners of 84 estates studied by the
Interior Department investigators. The report said Municipal Judge Eugene E. Therieau and
attorney James Hollowell collected a total of $485,000 in fees over a seven -year period.
Other persons including Mayor Frank Bogert also were criticized.”176
○ The HRC uses the deceptive tactic above throughout the Report, which works as
follows:
1. The Report makes a statement about accusations or wrongdoings of other
conservators, judges, and attorneys and then….
2. Places Bogert’s name in subsequent or nearby sentences to mislead the reader into
thinking that he was accused of the same thing, when the truth was, he was not.
● “While Frank Bogert was mayor of Palm Springs, he improperly benefited by serving as a
conservator for individual Tribal Members for land they owned on Section 14.”177
○ Bogert was only conservator for ONE tribal member, not multiple “Members.”
The circumstances by which he became a conservator and the flaws in the Interior’s
report are detailed throughout the Rebuttal.
● The HRC claimed: “They neglected to say that many living on Section 14 had leases and
their rights to due process protections were violated.”178
○ False. There would have been legal ramifications for the offender(s) had residents of
Section 14 had their due process rights violated. Two separate investigations, the
Deputy AG’s and the Department of the Interior’s, confirmed no due process rights wer e
violated.
● The HRC ignorantly asks the following rhetorical question; “Facing a human rights crisis,
why didn’t the Desert Sun or city leaders move to upgrade the shacks to improve dangerous
or unhealthy living conditions for tax paying residents?”179 This was not a viable “solution”
due to the following:
○ Merely “upgrading the shacks” would not have been the best use of Tribal lands, would
not have attracted much needed investment capital to develop Section 14 allotments,
and most importantly, would not have generated sufficient income to materially improve
the dire economic conditions of the Agua Caliente People.
○ Accordingly, due to the issues above, upgrading shacks would almost certainly not
have passed zoning guidelines with either the city or the Tribal Council. The 1960s
(specifically from 1962-1965) were a period of much debate and negotiation between
the Tribal and City Councils on zoning guidelines, rights and zoning authority.
○ The HRC doesn’t explain how these upgrades and improvements could have been
financed. At the time, Tribal members certainly didn’t have the resources to fund these
upgrades and this type of development wouldn’t have attracted much investment
interest. These upgrades weren’t within the scope nor budget of the city to finance and
176 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 35
177 Human Rights Commission Report Pending Adoption pg 7
178 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 24
179 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 24
67
the Report provides no supporting information that state or federal funds could have
been used for this purpose.
○ This solution would have still required relocations or evictions of Section 14 residents.
The section’s structures were in such bad shape and so haphazardly constructed that
most likely a mere “upgrade” wouldn’t have rectified the situation, nor would it have
complied with municipal codes. Therefore, a complete teardown of the shacks and
makeshift structures would have been needed, and residents would have still been
required to vacate the area to allow for a comprehensive redevelopment.
● In a desperate attempt to find some wrongdoing with Bogert’s actions, the HRC states that
the evictions were violations of the United Nations resolution on forced evictions, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and Title VIII.180 Two separate investigations found no illegal activity
had taken place during Section 14 evictions, thus the Civil Rights Act is not applicable to the
events in question. With regards to the United Nations resolution and Title VIII, both are
also not applicable to Section 14. Even if one were to grant that the evictions violated these
laws/acts (which they did not), both were drafted and/or enacted after Section 14 evictions
took place. The United Nations resolution was drafted in 1997 (from the Report’s own
citation) and Title VIII was passed in 1968 (two years after Bogert left office).181 Essentially,
the HRC critiques the evictions by retroactively applying laws an d Acts that weren’t even in
place when Bogert was Mayor.
Examples of the HRC falsely accusing Bogert of not seeking low -cost housing and not caring for
the welfare of Section 14 residents
The Report whitewashes the crucial fact that Bogert went to great lengths to minimize the
effects of the evictions (specifically by “tirelessly” working on low-cost housing) and also falsely
claims that Bogert, “did not take adequate measures to address th e needs of our most
vulnerable people.”182 Appendix B provides an overwhelming amount of evidence to refute all of
the false and/or misleading claims below made by the HRC in its Report.:
● “City decision makers focused their e nergy clearing Section 14 for development instead of
addressing the core issue of housing for those displaced.”183
● “During this time, civic and business leaders were focused on commercial development and
maintaining the resort image of Palm Springs without ensuring the residents they displaced
had access to affordable housing or were provided just compensation.”184
180 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 7
181 https://www.hud.gov/program offices/fair housing equal opp/fair housing and related law
182 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 25-26
183 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report Pg 6
184 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 6
68
● “Regrettably, no low-cost or affordable housing plan was realized to care for Black,
Indigenous, persons of color and other working class families displaced under city directed
forced evictions.”185
● “City decision makers focused their energy clearing Section 14 for development instead of
addressing the core issue of housing for those displaced.”186
● “No city plan for relocation, coupled with racial covenants preventing African Americans
from buying land in Palm Springs, displaced residents were forced to disperse to the north
part of town.”187
● “Prior administrations recognized access to housing for those evicted was a concern. The
plans developed during Frank Bogert’s term, for demolition and burning of homes, continued
in Palm Springs during and less than two years past Bogert’s mayoral term.”188
● “The fact remains that people of color were banished from city limits and city leaders didn’t
intervene”189
● “No replacement housing was ever constructed. Rather, the residents were simply expelled
through forced eviction and their homes destroyed.”190
● “Facing a human rights crisis, why didn’t the Desert Sun or city leaders move to upgrade
the shacks to improve dangerous or unhealthy living conditions for tax paying residents?”191
● “Our city leaders did not take adequate measures to address the needs of our most
vulnerable people.”192
● “Bogert’s Positive Traits and Attributes Did Not Surface to Aid Those Being Evicted.”193
● “History documents Bogert was more ofte n found to disregard the values of ethical and
moral principles. His decisions in planning and preparing the community for low -cost
housing and to plan for financial support of the families the city displaced is a demonstration
of behaviors opposite of the positive traits community members have shared at official city
meetings”194
185 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 6
186 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 6
187 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 8
188 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 17
189 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 15
190 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 23
191 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 24
192 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 25-26
193 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
194 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
69
● “In our opinion, the reality of Bogert’s decisions and judgement while serving his first term
as mayor was mismatched between his actual behaviour and actions and a community's
perception of the person he was.”195
● “A society based on norms and values expects one with entrenched values would have
acted in good faith and stepped up to stop the eviction process until low -cost housing
alternatives and financial support was made available to the impacted families.”196
● “Bogert demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by these evictions.”197
● “Low-Cost Housing Timeline”198
○ The most egregious example of the HRC concealing Bogert’s efforts to secure low-cost
housing occurs in a section titled “Low-Cost Housing Timeline,” whereby the HRC
provides a timeline relating to the city’s efforts to seek low -cost housing for Section 14
residents. This timeline is further proof of the disingenuous and biased nature of the
Report. Despite a voluminous amount of documentation (including in the same
articles the HRC cites) that Bogert worked constantly to secure low -cost housing,
never once is his name mentioned in the timeline. No mention of him pushing
private developers to build low -cost housing. No mention of him securing housing
certificates from the FHA for displaced residents. No mention of him pushing for and
supporting the low-cost development projects of Lawrence Crossley. No mention of the
multiracial citizen’s committee he put together to study potential solutions to the housing
crisis and to communicate with and hear the voices of minority residents. No mention of
the numerous quotes of Bogert saying the city needed to find housing for the displaced.
No mention of him partnering with his friend Reverend Rollins after he left office to
secure low-cost housing. No mention of him lobbying in Washington with Rollins for low -
cost housing funding. No mention of him searching for and applying for numerous
federal assistance programs. No mention of him hiring Charles Jordan, the city’s first
ever Black employee, who was instrumental in securing the city’s first federally funded
housing project which was prioritized for Section 14 residents.
(Go back to Rebuttal)
195 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
196 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
197 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 46
198 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 31-32
70
Appendix D
Examples of Plagiarism
The HRC plagiarizes parts of its Report. Below are examples in which the HRC copies and
pastes source material without any citation or quotation marks.
Example #1
Original Source — The Path to Paradise by Ryan Kray
“Ostensibly enacted to protect Indians from greedy developers, the Equalization Act
included a provision that authorized court appointed guardians and conservators legally to
represent and control Indian lands in business dealings. Drafted and pushed through
Congress by Palm Springs power brokers Floyd Odlum, Melvin Eaton, and Judge Hilton
McCabe, this provision became an instrument by which local businessmen, realtors, and
attorneys eventually dispossessed many Agua Calientes of their valuable land in Section 14
and much of their newfound wealth.”199
From the HRC’s Report
“Ostensibly enacted to protect Indians from greedy developers, the Equalization Act
included a provision that authorized court appointed guardians and conservators legally to
represent and control Indian lands in business dealings. Drafted and pushed through
Congress by Palm Springs power brokers Floyd Odlum, Melvin Eaton, and Judge Hilton
McCabe, this provision became an instrument by which local businessmen, realtors, and
attorneys eventually dispossessed many Agua Calientes of their valuable land in Section 14
and much of their newfound wealth.”200
Example #2
Original Source — The Path to Paradise by Ryan Kray
“Palm Springs boosters imagined an ideal community devoid of social conflict and political
dissension, a homogeneous constituency free of the burdens of the indigent, a city whitened
and brightened to illuminate its most worthy citizens. As city leaders circumscribed city
building as an exclusive project, race and class claimed center stage in city politics and
planning.”201
From the HRC’s Report
“Palm Springs boosters imagined an ideal community devoid of social conflict and political
dissension, a homogeneous constituency free of the burdens of the indigent, a city whitened
199 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, p. 106, Ryan M. Kray.
200 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 1
201 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, p. 86, Ryan M. Kray
71
and brightened to illuminate its most worthy c itizens. As city leaders visioned city building as
an exclusive project, race and class claimed center stage in city politics and planning.”202
Example #3
Original Source — The Path to Paradise by Ryan Kray
“By 1966 the ‘city beautiful’ clearance campaign was a triumphant success. Local elites
realized their dream by eliminating downtown residential decay, securing racial
homogeneity, and purging the city of its undesirables, thus voiding the city’s obligation to
construct low-cost housing. Although the city’s people of color protested their exclusion and
disenfranchisement, their voices were silenced by the city’s bulldozer that razed their homes
and broadcast their expulsion from the city.”203
From the HRC’s Report
“By 1966, with only a few months remaining in Mayor Bogert’s term, the ‘city beautiful’
clearance campaign was a triumphant success. Local elites realized their dream by
eliminating downtown residential decay, securing racial homogeneity, and purging the city of
its undesirables, thus voiding the city’s obligation to construct low-cost housing. Although
the city’s people of color protested their exclusion and disenfranchisement, their voices were
silenced by the city’s bulldozer that razed their homes and broadcast their expulsion from
the city.”204
- (Important to note that, in this example, the HRC merely inserts the bolded text
above in between plagiarized source material, in an attempt to tie these false
accusations to Bogert specifically)
(Go back to Rebuttal)
Appendix E
Timeline of ill-conceived Federal laws
The timeline below details 1) the federal policies that led to the substandard living conditions of
Section 14205 and 2) the Tribe’s decades-long struggle to pass the Equalization and Long-term
Leasing Acts. (Unless otherwise cited, timeline material is sourced from Desert Sun, October
13, 1991):
● 1876 — “President Ulysses Grant establishes the first Cahuilla reservation of Section 14
and part of Section 22. Land divisions are based on a checkerboard pattern of grants
202 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 11
203 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, p. 122, Ryan M. Kray
204 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 30
205 Desert Sun, “Indians Crafting a New Future,” October 1 3, 1991
72
promised to railroads.” This checkerboard pattern will lead to numerous development
problems and create a bottleneck for the city’s growth, as detailed earlier.
● 1877 — “President Hayes extends the Cahuilla reservation to include all even -numbered
sections in three townships, totaling 30,720 acres.”
● 1891 — “Mission Indian Relief Act gives further authorization for allotments to heads of
families of up to 20 acres of farmland and 160-240 acres of grazing land.”
● 1910 — The government changes the allotments. “Each Indian would get no more than 40
acres of irrigable land, 80 of agricultural land, 160 of grazing land.”
○ “‘Federal Indian Policy’ held that Indi an land was subject to five-year lease term limits for
commercial and residential property.” These five -year leases were the catalyst that led
to the substandard conditions of Section 14 since short lease lengths were not
conducive to developing income producing properties.
● 1917 — “Congress directs secretary of the Interior to make allotments”
● 1923 — “Bureau of Indian Affairs agent Harry Wadsworth proposes 50 allotments. Only
2350 of the 31,520 acres are claimed. Wadsworth submits a new allotment schedul e for 24
members who want allotments. Wadsworth tells these members that allotments will be
approved shortly. Some members begin building. The allotments are never made.”
● 1938 — “First lawsuit filed to compel Secretary of Interior to make allotments”
● 1940 — “Supreme Court refuses to hear one lawsuit because papers were filed one day
late. Second lawsuit filed.”
● Late-1940s — “First allotments made according to the 1927 schedule. Lawsuit filed to
require equalization.”
● 1948 — Secretary invalidates 1927 allotment schedule because of objections to
allotments.206
● 1950 — “Tribal members filed a lawsuit, petitioning the federal government, yet again, to
finalize their allotments, as well as to equalize them and sort out the myriad problems
generated by new allotments”207
● 1950s — The onerous five-year lease laws from 1910 “had, for the most part, reduced
Indian leaseholds to magnets for transient lessees, with no long -term vested interests and
little ability to produce sufficient monthly/yearly income. The resul t was property that yielded
nominal economic value.”208 This was especially true for Section 14.
● 1955 — General Leasing Act is passed. “In its final iteration, it transformed the draconian
five-year lease term for residential and commercial Indian propert y into a 25-year lease
term.”209 Still, these term lengths were not long enough to allow for the proper development
of Indian land.
● 1956 — Third lawsuit by the Tribe requires BIA to equalize allotments.
● 1958 — Vyola Ortner states “The Bureau of Indian Affairs has made a decision on
equalization of allotments on the Palm Springs reservation that will destroy tribal identity
completely.” Because of this, “Tribal Council members promised to wage an all -out fight
against the federal government's equalization program, claiming that it would ‘liquidate’ the
local band.” 210
206 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 29
207 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 27
208 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 27
209 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 27
210 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 33
73
● 1958 — Bogert becomes Mayor
● 1959 — Congress passes the Equalization Act wh ich equalizes allotments and the Long-
Term Leasing Act which establishes 99 -year leases for Tribal lands. “President
Eisenhower signed both bills into law in what was described as ‘two of the most
important pieces of legislation ever affecting Palm Springs’ Press coverage noted:
"Combined, the two laws will encourage development and integration of all Indian lands."211
(Go back to Rebuttal)
Appendix F
Additional details on the Deputy AG’s and The Department of the
Interior’s Investigations
The Deputy AG’s report was deeply flawed and incomplete
City officials, individuals with first-hand knowledge of Section 14 and even the media strongly
refuted the findings of the Deputy AG. In fact, the Deputy AG’s report was thoroughly criticized
and debunked in a series of articles by the Managing Editor of the Desert Sun in November of
1968. Those criticisms, among others, are as follows:
1. The breadth and depth of the AG’s investigation were questioned:
● The AG falsely claimed: “Perhaps the most conclusive evidence of the city’s attitude is the
fact that the City of Palm Springs kept no official records of the persons displaced and the
residences destroyed in Section 14 and could offer no evidence of any attempt at
determining that each homeowner and resident had been properly served with eviction
notices.”212
○ This statement was false and as the Desert Sun states, “It appears more that it was
Miller (the AG) who did not make the attempt.”213
○ “In cases where the residents were not moving out, the owners or their spokesmen went
to court, secured an eviction order which was served by deputies and eventually the
people moved out. ‘There are detailed records of these actions,’ the city manager
maintains.”214
● Why wasn’t the AG able to obtain official records and documentation relating to evictions
which would have surely altered his findings? By his own admission, he had limited
resources and time to conduct his investigation.
211 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 35
212 California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, May 31, 1968, Palm
Springs Section 14 Demolition, Loren Miller, Jr., pg 9
213 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 100, November 28, 1968
214 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
74
○ “The Miller Jr. report is dated May 31, 1968, which, by his own preamble, is nearly two
years after he initiated his investigation on July 25, 1966. He explains that the delay
resulted from extended unavaila bility of certain participants and workload problems
within his unit.215
● Because of limited resources and workload problems, the AG spent a limited amount of time
onsite investigating the matter and failed to interview key individuals with first -hand
involvement or knowledge of the evictions and clearing.
○ “The (city manager’s) best recollection credits Miller with only a one -day visit here.
Though, acknowledging the attorney general’s investigator the benefit of the doubt.
Miller could have spent three or four days here, but no city official can, in good faith,
credit him with as much as a week.”216
○ Palm Springs “Councilmen pointed out that they had never been contacted, either
personally or by telephone, by the deputy Attorney General.”
As the Desert Sun stated when the report was released, “it’s no wonder Miller’s findings do not
include some very pertinent public records in the city's files.”217 Accordingly, the fact that the
AG 1) only spent a few days at most onsite at most investigating the matter and 2) failed to
interview important figures and witnesses, speaks to the haphazard and incomplete nature of
his findings. For a history as complex and nuanced as that of Section 14, an incomprehensive
and expedient investigation would certainly not suffice to depict the true history of the events.
Additionally, it is clear from the abundance of documentation and supporting evidence provided
in the Congressional hearing of 1968 (the same year the AG issued his own report) that the
AG’s assertion that no records were kept is completely false. He didn’t find any records
primarily because he didn’t spend nearly enough time onsite looking for or requesting them, and
filed his report based on a limited understanding of the scope of the situation and the
circumstances that led to the evictions.
2. The report contained numerous false assertions about the evictions and clearing:
● The AG claimed that “The city paid little attention to the 30 -day requirements set forth in the
eviction notices and operated its own demoli tion plan solely based on receipt of the
destruction permits executed by the conservators.”218
○ But as the Desert Sun stated “those vacated initially were not only given adequate
notice, but the few pleas of hardship were met with complete compliance with th e
tenant’s time requirements. These ranged from as little as 10 days to as long as 18
months. City Manager Frank Aleshire and council members alike say not one of
the few requesting a moratorium was summarily evicted. But the report neglected
to state that no city at that time provided housing for its minorities and few do now. It
simply was not within the scope of municipal responsibility. From the Miller report you
get the idea that the city acted in total and callous disregard of the plight of the
underprivileged. Such words as “Classic study in civic disregard for the rights and
215 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 94, November 22, 1968
216 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 100, November 28, 1968
217 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 98, November 26, 1968
218 California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, May 31, 1968, Palm
Springs Section 14 Demolition, Loren Miller, Jr., pg 7
75
feelings of minority citizens,” are high -falutin and bound to provoke a prejudiced reaction.
“We suggest instead that Miller showed a classic disregard for the facts in the
case and an ‘end justifies-the-means approach.’”219
○ Additionally, the Desert Sun said, “Apart from the 30-day clauses in what few leases
there were, as well as the eviction notices, which Miller charges ‘the city paid little
attention to,’ what about the city’s actions which date from 1951? It appears that Miller
regards a decade and a half as short notice? That is, if he’s taken that long and detailed
process into consideration at all.”220
● The AG also asserted, “The Indians who own the land are also disill usioned, since the land
which once produced revenue for them now lies vacant,”221
○ This is misleading at best and lacks context. First, it fails to acknowledge the Tribe’s role
in collaborating with the city to plan and execute the clearing and the importa nce Section
14 was to the Tribe’s economic future. Second, the “revenue” the AG mentions as so
meager and below market rates that it led to poverty and substandard living conditions
for Tribal members. The “vacant” land was eventually developed and provi ded its
allotted owners with significant income, thereby advancing the human rights of the Tribe.
● Another false AG claim: “Homes were destroyed with no real concern on the part of the city
that the families were properly notified of the pending destruction .”222
○ There is ample evidence refuting the claim that families were not notified of pending
destruction.
○ Appendix B provides a timeline that directly refutes the AG’s claim.
○ The AG also doesn’t take into consideration that evictions took place 15 years earlier in
1951 and notifications and moratoriums were provided numerous times.
3. A June 4, 1968, article in the Desert Sun detailed additional issues with the AG’s Report:223
● The AG’s report “wantonly ignores the facts, city councilmen who served while the
program was being conducted said today…Both current Mayor Howard Wiefels and City
Manager Frank Aleshire characterized the report as ‘biased and without knowledge of the
facts.’”
● The clearing “program was evolved in cooperation with the Tribal Council. ‘The Indians
wanted help in cleaning their expensive land infested with shacks,’ he said.”
● “Councilman Edgar McCoubrey, mayor at the time of the cleanup program, said, ‘I do not
agree with the reasoning of the report or the report itself. I never received a single complaint
or phone call in connection with the program, and this all comes as a surprise to me.’ He
pointed out that the city’s Human Relations Commission held hearings following
completion of the program and received only general complaints, no specific ones,
although it promised to investigate any specific complaints.”
219 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 621, June 5, 1968
220 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 100, November 28, 1968
221 California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, May 31, 1968, Palm
Springs Section 14 Demolition, Loren Miller, Jr., pg 7
222 California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, May 31, 1968, Palm
Springs Section 14 Demolition, Loren Miller, Jr., pg 2
223 Desert Sun, “Report Biased, City Heads Say,” June 4, 1968
76
● “George Beebe Jr., a former councilman, said the report ‘incites me more than anything
else. Whoever wrote it doesn’t know what he is talking a bout.’ Beebe drew particular
attention to the filthy conditions in which many of the Section 14 residents lived — so
extreme, he pointed out, that they were the subject of a television expose. ‘I resent the
Attorney General, or anyone else, trying to tell us that this cleanup was not needed,’ he said.
‘It was necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the community.’ ‘We’re not just
talking about the economy,’ he said. ‘We’re talking about a blight, and the accord in this
community shows that Miller doesn't know what he is talking about.’”
● “Former Councilman Matt Dragicevich pointed out that he consistently opposed the cleanup
program, but he, too, was highly critical of the report and said he had expected a highly
biased one. He labeled as unfair the portion of the report that said conservators had urged
their Indians to evict tenants and clear the land to increase its value as commercial property,
then watch the land stand idle and return no income. He pointed out that the development
was caused directly by a number of unforeseeable factors, including tightening of the money
market and a halt to building in the area and a souring of developers on Indian land lease
deals.”
● “Wiefels and Aleshire pointed out that the report indicates that the City of Palm Springs has
shown no interest in providing adequate housing for minorities. They answer that with the
statement that while the criticism might at first appear justified, that at the time of the
cleanup program, no city in the state was involved in the provision of housing.”
(Go back to Rebuttal)
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:224
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. As a result of these laws as well as the conservator program that the BIA was
responsible for overseeing, numer ous Indians filed complaints with the BIA.
224 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pgs 90-258
77
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.”225 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.226 Essentially he would have to implicate himself (in
addition to his own department) had he conducted a fair, objective investigation.
7. 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.
8. 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.”227
- 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 Bure au.”228
225 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 172
226 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 209
227 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 133
228 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 213
78
- 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.”229
- 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.”230
(Go back to Rebuttal)
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.”231
● “The Report mis-quotes applicable facts and law.”232
● “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 b ased upon false
assumption of California law.”233
● 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.234
229 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 117
230 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 195
231 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 210
232 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 210
233 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 214
234 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 216
79
● “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.”235
● 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 we re 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%236.
○ “Mr. Cox doesn’t know what he is talking about.”237
(Go back to Rebuttal)
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 injust ices 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.”238
- Attorney Henry Cleary, Congressional Testimony May 1968
● “Unfortunately, the (BIA) at the time of the inception of our organizat ion, 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 pol icies 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.”239
- Attorney James Hollowell, Congressional Testimony May 1968
235 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 217
236 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 253
237 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 232
238 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 146
239 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 158
80
● “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.”240
- 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”241
- 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.”242
- 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.”243
- 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 Sprin gs rests upon the
shoulders of this Department.”244
- 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 .”245
- Congressman Ed Edmondson, Congressman from Oklahoma and Chairman of
the Congressional Hearing (also a former lawyer, Navy Veteran, and FBI agent),
May 1968
240 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 136
241 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 136
242 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 160
243 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 166
244 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 166
245 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 172
81
● 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.”246
- Mr. Cleary, May 1968
● “Again, at a great cost for the individual Indian, it was neces sary 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.”247
- 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 er ror which again delayed the Indian from
receiving his just due from his allotted land .”248
- 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.”249
- 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 acti ve steps
to carry out the mandate of Congress.”250
- Mr. Cleary, May 1968
(Go back to Rebuttal)
246 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 205
247 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 205
248 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 206
249 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 208
250 Hearing before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives, May 31, 1968, pg 215
82
Appendix G
Select quotes and passages
Tribal member related quotes and passages
● “Section 14 became a very bad slum because we didn’t have leases….It became very
congested and not a good sight.”251
- Vyola Ortner, 2011
● “We can see the day rapidly approaching when we're going to have to clear off this land to
make it available for long-term leasing. We would like to see something done now in
planning for housing for these people before they're faced with a crisis. We don't want to just
move these people out in the street, but if it comes to a choice, the Indians are just going to
have to be cold -hearted and take their property for better use.”252
- Ray Jackson, Head of Bureau of Indian Affairs
● “When city attorney Jerry Bunker brought up the issue of the NAACP when cleaning up
Section 14, Eileen Miguel responded, ‘Are you more worried about the NAACP, or cleaning
up the city?’”253
- Desert Sun, 1968
● “It also climaxed a petition by Tribal Council Chairman Mrs. Eileen Miguel who had urged
the City Council to take reasonable action to speed solution to the three -year problem (of
zoning for Section 14)”254
- Desert Sun, 1968
● “The city has helped us at different times when we needed help with their legislators in
Sacramento and Washington DC. So it became a good working relationship that continues
to this day”255
- Vyola Ortner in 2011
● “In a letter appearing in the 1962 progress report of the Agua Client Indian Tribal Council,
Frank Bogert, praised ‘the friendly negotiations’ better the Palm Springs City Council and the
Indian Tribal Council. ‘The continued cooperation between the India ns and the townspeople
is certain and will stimulate progress far beyond the dreams of most people,’….Vyola Ortner
confirmed, “We had a real good relationship between the two councils at that time.” 256
251 https://www.c-span.org/video/?313044-1/you-eat-dirt
252 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 42
253 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 91, November 18, 1968
254 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 91, Novembe r 18, 1968
255 https://www.c-span.org/video/?313044-1/you-eat-dirt
256 Desert Sun, “Ortner Talks on Role as New City Official,” April 28, 1980
83
● February 25th, 1963:257
○ The city and the tribe agree o n new zoning plans for Section 14. These plans were
“evolved by a special committee appointed last May by Bogert, comprising of three
Indians, two councilmen and two planning board members.”
○ The city council provides a welfare fund for Tribal members livi ng in poverty while their
land is unleased.
● “By the 1950s, these onerous restrictions had, for the most part, reduced Indian leaseholds
to magnets for transient lessees, with no long -term vested interests and little ability to
produce sufficient month/yearly income. The result was property that yielded nominal
economic value. With legal input from Simpson (a tribal attorney), Olinger and her fellow
Tribal Council members went straight to work with the singular focus of redressing this
untenable situation.”258
● “In July 1959, in one of my most memorable appearances before the U.S. Congress, I
testified at a House Interior Subcommittee Hearing requesting the legislature to consider
that ‘my tribe needs Vitamin M — Money.’ In other words, we needed to finalize the land
allotment process and implement long -term, ninety-nine-year leasing. Without long-term
leasing, I argued, tribal land would continue to yield only modest gains. The 99 -Year
Leasing Act would allow tribal members to make their land product ive by entering into stable
leasehold terms that would attract new business interests to our territories.”259
- Vyola Ortner
Passages from “You Can’t Eat Dirt”
● In 1952, “The Tribal Council laid the groundwork for a master plan of the reservation,
generally, and for Section 14, specifically, which had never been done before to this detailed
and professional an extent. An outright rejection of poor, haphazard building practices ,
this document was a paean to city planning. It also commemorated the growing
collaboration between the tribe and the city of Palm Springs, which was a marked difference
in tone from prior Tribal Committees, whose relationships with the city fathers had been
adversarial…The Tribe’s 1952 progress report “argued that the changes they had made
or were planning to make (with regards to Section 14) were vital to modernizing life in
Palm Springs, for Indians and non-Indians alike. Beyond increasing the value of
Indian land, the most important aspect of this new way of collegial thinking and
operating was the aim of making the local Indians equal and valued citizens in Palm
Springs.” 260
● “Carrying out the land allotment process on the Agua Caliente Reservation took over
seventy years, numerous lawsuits, and countless hours of congressional test imony before
the Department of the Interior finally authorized any allotments. This bureaucratic nightmare
257 The Los Angeles Times, February 25, 1963
258 Palm Springs Life, “The Woman Leads,” February 27, 2013
259 Palm Springs Life, “The Woman Leads,” February 27, 2013
260 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 25
84
began in 1891, when Congress passed the Mission Indian Relief Act, specifically calling for
individual allotments to be assigned on the reservation…Even though they were ordered,
these allotments on the Agua Caliente Reservation were never officially realized, thus
setting in motion a torturous pattern that would repeat itself well into the 1950’s. The tactics
of delay on the federal government's part grew from the widely acknowledged value of
Indian land in Palm Springs. By keeping the situation in limbo, the authorities could prolong
their control over these valuable assets and maneuver to their advantage”261
● “Having deteriorated over the years as a result, in part, of the distractions and uncertainties
resulting from legal battles over the allotments on the reservation and the outdated leasing
laws, (Section 14) was now generally characterized as a slum inhabited mostly by domestic
help and workers employed by local hotels and restaurants throughout the city . It was also
pointed out that "some are on the land as renters but many are squatters illegally
housed." Gruen (the Tribe’s master planner) understood that developing Section 14 would,
unfortunately, require removing these existing inhabitants, which would be a "major
dislocation" affecting several thousand people.” He informed Olinger and the Tribal
Council that this was not "technically, an Indian problem." He also noted that the
structures currently on Section 14 had been deemed "nonconforming" by the city, which, to
him, meant that the tribe was within its legal rights to evict the present occupants
without regard to their relocation.”262
● “What Gruen had learned through the planning process , though, was that Olinger and the
Tribal Council did not support any form of abandonment. "Such is not their intent," he wrote.
"They wish to work with others toward a solution." Sources of the period verify this intention,
saying of Olinger and the Tribal Council, they "fully realize that the Palm Springs economy
depends a great deal on the people who are currently living on the reservation, and though
they believe it is a problem that faces the entire city, they have promised complete
cooperation to help the city and the people all they can.” Acknowledging the central role
that these working citizens played in the daily life and functioning of Palm Springs, Gruen
maintained that "it must be remembered that the inhabitants of Section 14 are not charity
cases." However, he reminded his clients that, in its present form, this population on Section
14 was a hindrance to the growth of Palm Springs and to the economic development of the
tribe.”263
● “A keen observer of the Section 14 dilemma, (Pulitzer Prize win ning journalist George
Ringwald), like Gruen, felt that a solution was not the responsibility of the tribe alone. "The
problem of what to do with Section 14 - and at times it must seem insurmountable to
even the most ardent optimists- is not that of the Indians alone," he wrote. Because of
Section 14's critical role in the future growth of Palm Springs, and because, after having
been incorporated in 1938, the city had assumed certain limited jurisdiction over the Indian
lands within its borders, Ringwald believed that the local government should take the
261 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 28
262 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 41
263 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 41
85
lead. Olinger, too, was vocal in her effort to encourage the city to take action for the
interests of the Section 14 residents.”264
● In 1956, “Of all the Indian land within the city of Palm Springs, (the Tr ibe’s master planner)
said, Section 14 was the most desirable place to begin. It was the most prized Indian
parcel-located near the central business district, capable of producing a high return on
investment, and now, at long last, poised to reap the fruits of the new federal leasing
law.”265
● “Section 14 would bring the most good to the local Cahuilla and would revitalize Palm
Springs. The city had nowhere else to grow…Determined to coordinate their efforts with the
city, (Tribal Members) held meetings with authorities from the zoning and planning
departments. They also met with the city's planning consultant, Simon Eisner, who was
working in parallel, preparing a master plan for the city, the first of its kind…The resulting
master plan proposed a complete reinvention of Section 14, foreseeing the use of
nearly the entire 640-acre parcel.”266
(Go back to Rebuttal)
Other quotes and passages
● “The annals of Palm Springs’ unique “checkerboard” parceling of Agua Caliente Indian lands
and community properties are themselves brimful of controversy and litigations that date
back more than a century and are also marked with long distance negotiations and lengthy
delays brought into current focus through Congressional hearings here last May.”267
- Desert Sun, 1968
● “Bogert explained that 47 per cent of Palm Springs crime is traceable to this
quarter section (in Section 14) and most recently Palm Springs police officer Gale Eldridge
was shot and killed by a robbery suspect in the center of this district.”268
● City Officials and a “congressional delegation inspected Section 14 in 1949 and promised
that “the U.S. government will not forget those people - we have a moral obligation to them
and we’ll stand by them to improve conditions here.” Nevertheless, federal o fficials failed to
allocate funds to correct the slum conditions on the reservation.”269
● “Meanwhile Mayor Frank Bogert testified before the House Indian Affairs subcommittee in
support of the Indian -authored measure. Bogert pointed out to the subcommittee that ‘with
264 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 42
265 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 38
266 “You Can’t Eat Dirt” Excerpts pg 39-40
267 Desert Sun Volume 42, Number 87, November 13, 1968
268 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 159, February 2, 1961
269 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan M. Kray.pg 100
86
distribution of some unallotted tribal acreage as provided in the legislation, agreements
should be made possible for the development of Indian lands in the Palm Springs
area….“The future of Palm Springs depends largely on Indians lands”, said Bogert
who...went to the capitol to defend the equalization bill and testify on behalf of longer term
leases for Indians lands”270
● “Filipino, Indian, Mexican, black, they were all our classmates…It was so great in the little
village of Palm Springs. There was no discrimination, everybody was equal, and it’s just
however hard you worked is where you went…It was fun while it lasted…But everyone knew
— at least I would think they would know — that the land wasn’t theirs, and someday it was
going to be developed.”271
- Vicki McDermott, former Section 14 resident
270 Desert Sun, “Equalization Talks Smooth,” June 6, 1959
271 Desert Sun, “‘It was beautiful for the white people:’ 1960s still cast a shadow of distrust over Palm
Springs,” September 19, 2019
Appendix H