Unity Through Elimination

Earlier this week, a decision was being made that went against just about everything I believe in regarding democracy. It hasn’t really been finalized yet, but unless there is a serious surprise or unspoken divergence in philosophy, I expect the discussions from our Council retreat on Monday to basically be ratified come next week. I can’t really claim to disagree with a couple of our decisions, but one in particular, if formally made, will just be wrong on numerous levels.
Okay, now I know that this will seem like teasing. I prefer to call it drama. But before I get into detail, I would like to say that I’ve always considered myself a fairly open-minded person. That is what spurred me to travel, to visit foreign countries, eat their food, read up on their religions, marvel at their cultural differences, and see that despite everything, people generally tend to be very similar across national boundaries. What is odd for us is everyday for others. Common sense to us might be considered madness elsewhere, and vice versa.
What I am saying is that elections are done and more than anything it would go against my nature to not give the new leadership a chance, to cautiously accept their plans and hope that maybe, just maybe, what they’ve in store might be better for the Tribe. Better than anything I’d have thought of. Even under the circumstances, aside from this singular issue, I intend to try and approach whatever new ideas they generate with hope, and once again, an open mind.
Here’s my beef. Earlier this week I wrote about my skepticism regarding potential proposed changes to the “Tilixam Wawa”. I was unaware that any Council members had serious issues with the publication. But they did. So in order to promote unity, to show that Council members are working together, and to uphold the Tribal Constitution—keep in mind this isn’t me talking, these comments are from my notes—the “Tilixam Wawa” will now reflect “one Council voice”.
That probably sounds vague, unrefined, and problematic to anybody reading. It certainly was to me, thus my half-dozen follow-up questions for clarification. According to one or two Council members, and for the record there were only five of us at the retreat, Tribal members have become disenchanted and turned off by the Wawa. Far too often, I was told, “most members” don’t even read the publication because it is nothing but a bunch of opinion pieces by individual Council members (Members think it is a waste of money, I was told, they are tired of the “us vs. them” mentality). The antidote to this previously unknown feeling of the Tribal membership is to have stories that reflect the belief of the Tribal Council as a group, team, single voice, whatever you want to call it. Those particular words were defined, upon further discussion, to mean at least five Council members.
Provided returning Council members agree to the decision, Wawa will also start to run a “RumorBusters” column, in addition to different reports on areas the Tribal Council is working on. I am sure other changes are also looming. One Council member wanted the publication to go to six issues per year, I wanted it twice monthly. Our compromise was to keep it at the present rate of one issue per month. We also discussed the possibility of guest writers.
I admit fully that my assumptions here are more toward the worst-case scenario end of the spectrum, but with something like this it’s hard to assume good intentions. Why on Earth would anybody want to suppress information? Telling somebody that to promote unity they will not be allowed to express their opinion is somewhat self-contradicting. Limiting any right, particularly freedom of expression, is also one of the roots of oppression.
There is the possibility that this new policy, if approved, will pertain solely to opinion pieces. But that opens the door to interpreting whether an opinion is expressed in a piece, in which case Council will become an editorial board, voting. And the decision, ultimately, to let a piece make the cut will hinge on interpretation of the word “opinion”, which I’ve always thought was clear but might become suddenly ambiguous.
Lastly though, this new approach, if used ruthlessly enough, could deal a serious blow to the Constitutional enrollment amendment, as nobody on Council would really be allowed to express support or opposition to it. Personally, I would guess that some members are very curious to know how Council members feel about this issue.
In hindsight, I guess we should have developed more formal policies and expectations of the Wawa when we first started. Mentally, I toyed with the idea of a “Publications Ordinance” just to keep such changes from being instituted on a whim. But I guess I never expected anything this blatant.
Who knows, maybe I am assuming the worst. Maybe I do need to give my fellow Council members the benefit of the doubt. When we meet again to review our retreat, perhaps others will have different conclusions about what we discussed. So until the decision is finalized, in writing, I shouldn’t really worry. But for many reasons, I am skeptical. The tone of discussion Monday was not very encouraging. We will know soon.