Abysmal relations between Maine’s Indian tribes and state government need an injection of optimism. As it now stands, the sides remain “at loggerheads,” the same sad way they were described a decade ago.

And maybe centuries ago, long before the current jagged landscape was forged under severe tension caused by the landmark 1980 Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement Act.

Process is central to the tribal-state impasse. Mutual respect exists for each side’s authority and sovereignty, though the extent is debated. Breakdowns come in protocol, procedure and parliamentary rules.

Here, the field is seen as unlevel. Tribes feel inferior – justifiably so – in the state’s legislative framework they must navigate, just like everybody else. Except as indigenous people, they’re really not like everybody else, though not blameless.

Many think the tribes snared defeat from victory with aggressive lobbying. The Penobscot Indian Nation has since ceased communicating with the state entirely. Goodwill is absent.

These conflicts were rooted in process. How do entities that expect and arguably deserve sovereign treatment lobby another government like a supplicant? How can the state legislate matters in which their cultural experience and intelligence is considered weak by the tribes?

Then there are the unique legal intricacies of the Settlement Act. This begs for expertise and continuity in Maine’s complex tribal-state relationship that the current legislative system doesn’t always maintain.

So, it’s time to change it.

Today, tribal affairs fall under the jurisdiction of the Legislature’s busy Judiciary Committee. A select committee on tribal affairs should be created instead; its members should have the legal skills, cultural knowledge and geographic constituencies to deal with tribal matters effectively.

This smaller group would give tribes the one-on-one audience they seek, the chance to develop relationships with certain legislators and educate them about the Settlement Act, of which institutional knowledge is fading.

Most important, this change would signal a new way of doing things, to convince even the most reluctant members of the tribes and the Legislature to give rebuilding the tribal-state relationship a chance.

The U.S. Senate has a model. Its Indian Affairs Committee has 15 members, all from states with strong tribal ties. Its history is interesting, from its 19th-century origins to its mid-20th-century dormancy to its restoration in 1983. Former U.S. Sen. William Cohen of Maine was its chairman in the early 1980s.

The committee exists because, according to its official history, “it became increasingly evident that if the Congress was to continue to meet its constitutional, legal, and historical responsibilities in the area of Indian affairs, an ongoing legislative committee with adequate expertise and resources should be re-established …”

This rationale sounds familiar, which should make a similar Maine committee a viable, progressive option.

Rarely would we suggest a committee to solve tricky policy problems; we abide by the saying that the best way to kill an idea is sending it to a committee. But given chronic problems of process between the tribes and the state, creating a committee could be the right remedy, right now.