Ringing It In

The very fact with a little more than three hours to go in 2008 and I am sitting here writing up a blog entry probably means that the partying days of my youth are nearly over.  Or not.  It could be that after passing age 30, there is a certain amount of comfort in knowing that I am no longer obligated to go out, drink, be loud and nurse a headache in the morning.  No, it doesn't mean I'm old.  I've just realized that celebrating doesn't always mean a crowd of friends and strangers.  Some of the better new years I've been a part of had no more than a few people around, and as I have gotten older, that kind of setting is sometimes preferable.
ESPN is blaring on the television in front of me, and the sports journalists and commentators of that network are calling 2008 the best year in sports...ever.  At this rate, having developed preferences for different sports than I had at a younger age, I am not really prepared to argue that.  But whether one follows sports, politics, music, or movies, some years tend to be more full of memorable moments than others, so I won't begrudge anybody who might want to say the outgoing year was the best year ever for some reason or other.
I will personally always look at 2008 through the lense of change.  I say that not just because Barack Obama got elected, but because if anything enough happened in 2008 that many of us can sit back and say "Yes, things will never be the same again".  Yes there was an economic recession that trickled down not just to auto-makers and huge corporations, but to our own Tribe, forcing us into the first major year of deficit spending.  We saw absolutely no change whatsoever during the Tribal Council elections, which in itself is change because that hasn't really happened before, at least not while I've followed the Tribe.
We saw a shoe get thrown at our president, a presidential election which revealed our country is incredibly divided, and in the Willamette Valley of Oregon saw a snow storm that happens once every decade, maybe.  We also saw China like we never have before during the summer Olympics.  And in those Olympics Michael Phelps won the most ever gold medals.
I could write this post forever, but have promised others I'd meet them for a drink.  I look forward to 2009.  Not sure why.  I just do.  History awaits.

Snow Days

Today, as Friday, and Monday of last week, the Tribal offices were closed.  In looking out the window, I'd say Grand Ronde has accumulated somewhere between 18 and 20 inches of snow.  I know that in some parts of this country, that might not seem like much.  But in Oregon, more specifically the Willamette Valley, it is a lot, and many residents are unprepared, as evidenced by the number of cars I've seen in ditches or trapped in snow banks.
From a governing standpoint, I realize now that the subject of administrative leave has long been a sore one, especially with casino employees who don't enjoy the multiple holidays, snow days, and other reasons for letting people off work while paying them.  To be honest, I am completely sympathetic to those who might view the administrative leave as excessive, because if we're going to be handing out days off left and right, it might be viewed as unfair.  If the roads were so icy and bad that governance employees, for their safety, didn't have to show up, then why wouldn't the same line of reasoning apply to casino employees?
I already know the answer(s) to that question, having heard them in defense of the differences during an informal Council roundtable discussion last week.  They are, simply:  Spirit Mountain Casino is meant to be a 24/7/365 operation, and the Tribal Governance Center is not.  In other words, employees need to be at the casino, and governance employees do not need to be.  They really can claim to be a 9-5 operation, and with all the other governments and businesses we work with also functioning on the 40-hour work week model, there really is a difference in the time demands.  I don't expect that to satisfy some people.
Two years ago we meant to cut back on administrative leave, but that idea fell victim to organizational forgetfulness.  We had planned on traded Presidents' Day for Martin Luther King Day, and in the end we made no trades and decided to take both days off, calling Presidents' Day "Chiefs' Day".  I guess when you preside over an organization that is used to doing something as popular with employees as taking days off, changing that is never easy.
In 2007 while serving as Tribal Chair, I flew to Washington, D.C. with staff and one other Council members to meet with different bigwigs, from Interior, on off-reservation gaming.  Only hours before our meeting the metro area started snowing, not heavily.  We got the call that our meeting was cancelled, despite there being less than two inches on the ground.  I was informed then that the Federal Government, in D.C. anyway, is known for shutting down like that, without much notice, and depending on who you ask, without good reason.
Maybe it's just a government thing.

100

I am not sure if anybody is counting, but this particular entry happens to be number 100, at least according to the administrator's side. In light of that, I've attached a story that appeared in Friday's Oregonian regarding anonymous posts on the internet. For those of you who might remember Grandrondereznews.com, there were a number of anonymous writers on that website who said just about whatever they pleased, at times I am convinced just flat out making stuff up, some of it about me and others. Message boards can be problematic, on the one hand the world wide web is the ultimate forum, and from a Council perspective, probably the easiest way to communicate with Tribal members, and for members to converse with one another. On the other hand, and this is really an international trend, the internet, blogs, and message boards have made it possible for anybody to be a faux journalist and whistle-blower. We all got the various emails about the presidential candidates this year that took creative liberty with facts, much of it not true. It would appear to be a full time job to combat falsehoods and myths parading as facts, and I would think voters can be particularly confused and reluctant to mine the avalanche of information for accuracy. Technology can be great, but for every advantage there seems to be a disadvantage, and more importantly, a way to exploit it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/anonymous_blog_commenters_shie.html

Situational Rights

Situational Rights

Yesterday's General Council Meeting featured what might be one of the oddest, or at the very least disorganized, actions I've seen for some time. A request came forth by a Tribal member to de-classify the results of the Leno letter investigation. That request was made by a motion, which was then seconded, and then rescinded, and then seconded again to put forth the matter right then and there for an advisory vote of the General Council present. Multiple people sought clarification on the motion, and exactly was being decided and voted upon. Our chief attorney offered multiple words of caution, considering the range of legal repercussions. And then a vote was made, overwhelmingly, to guide the Council in their decision over whether to publicize the results of the investigation. At least, that is my interpretation of what happened.
The series of events that lead to the vote, and what exactly we are voting on, raised not just a number of legal questions, but issues regarding process, and what in my opinion is more important, fairness. You see, the motion was intended to be only for the investigation of the Leno letter, and presumably other audits in the future. What would remain cloaked in secrecy, for the general membership anyway, were audits from the past. None of which made a whole lot of sense to me.
Although the investigation has not yet concluded, we have were told some time ago back in mid-October who the suspect(s) were. So the Council members pushing for opening up the audit know fully well who is under suspicion. Furthermore the person who requested for the audit to be opened also seemed to know more than they let on. Sometimes a question, no matter how worded, gives away any pretenses.
There were a number of objections I raised to this request. First was one course the utter lack of clarity in what we were voting on. Second the issue of legality, since this was a personnel issue. Last was the sense of a larger policy, i.e. if we open up one audit for public scrutiny then we open up all. I also questioned the process of how the request was being handled. This was not an agenda item, there are well over 4000 Tribal members who aren't here to vote, and lastly we have more constructive means of dealing with this kind of think, especially from a policy standpoint. We could just as easily amend the public records ordinance, and open those changes for public comment.
None of my comments had any bearing on the outcome. In fact I voted with the vast majority of those present to open up audits, though my suspicions are despite how the motion ultimately ended up being worded, the interpretations will vary.
It should be interesting to see how things play out from here. I do believe that there are some who in a way believe they are accomplishing something good by blowing the lid off, but in the long run I see further complications, not just in the results of this one specific audit, but in others. I am very familiar now with how audits are conducted and how the people named wouldn't necessarily want their names being thrown out there.  It is bad enough to be caught doing something wrong, but public shaming has a way of making things worse.  The truth can be ugly, I guess.  And I've seen few audits that made anybody look good.

Defining Waste

Admittedly, I am one of the younger generation who, prior to Barack Obama, spent little energy following politics, even in college.  Sure I had an opinion, and even would do the occasional research to back up an argument.  But in general, I did not make a daily habit of reading columnists, editorials, and surfing the internet for political fixes.  But the historic Presidential election of 2000, mess that it was, got my attention.  Since then, politics has become one of the main topics I read about when perusing the world wide web.

In 2001 I read an article by a conservative columnist, myself being far from the right usually.  It was through this article I was introduced to a hazy concept that has been around for decades, and one that for whatever reason seems to have been largely associated with Ronald Reagan, and that is government waste.  Inefficient government, i.e. "big" government, seems to be a favorite complaint of conservatives and Republicans, and in my observation it always leads to the argument for lower taxes, promising voters money no doubt the oldest and often most effective campaign method in many elections.  But that doesn't mean on some levels the basic argument for efficient government does not carry weight.  It does.

I've seen some of the same rhetoric thrown around lately in our Tribal political arena, at Council meetings, General Council sessions, and often from the mouths of my peers.  I am not very sure that the root of this concept isn't also based on the same premise and belief as tax cuts, that is diverting the money spent on wasteful government into the pockets of members who vote, or voters, is always popular, and to do the opposite is equally unpopular.  But that can be discussed later...

As in national politics, for all the arguments I hear for non-"big" government and efficiency, the answers to what some perceive as a real problem are about as well-defined as the actual complaint. In other words, not very much.  When we talk about government efficiency, we are ultimately suggesting that there should be a quantifiable level of service(s) that citizens and in our case Tribal members are getting for their money.  It is the proverbial "bang for the buck".  Unfortunately, I've yet to find any sort of method by which to gauge whether or not the government is efficient.  I've never heard anybody say that with a population of nearly 300,000,000 people the United States government should be able to run on "x" amount of dollars, including in those services education, police, a war overseas, highway maintenance and all the other things government does.  In fact I don't see how the government of any population could be anything but "big", but then again "big" to me is probably not the same to those who would disagree with me.

On the Grand Ronde side, I've been told numerous times that the Tribal government is "too big" considering the services it provides.  And for all I know it is, but once again, nobody has ever brought me a model that gets into specifics.  Nobody has ever brought me the model of a Tribe that also has 5000 members, provides health care, per capita, disability, plays a role in local government, runs a community clinic, is developing local housing and community infrastructure, and said "Here Chris, see!  They run provide all the same services you guys do and do it with half the employees and budget."  I'd be thrilled if somebody did, as would some of my peers.

When I think back on the article from 2001, the writer had his version of waste.  Being openly conservative, he of course took aim at environmental programs, and welfare.  Had a liberal written the article, no doubt he would have focused on issues not rated very high by the left-leaning, like subsidies for oil companies.  Which just goes to show, one man's garbage is another man's gold.  What might be waste to one person is vital to another.  Both might be right.

We are looking to make cuts on the government side, and not just to keep per capita at a respectable level.  The revenues over the last 12 months have just not matched the previous two years.  The money is just not there to spend.  Somehow, we'll get it sorted out.  We always do.  We may not get the government efficiency part figured out though, but in my own opinion, I'm not sure anybody could.

"The Grand Ronde Story"

Yesterday I was interviewed, along with Greg Archuleta, Kathryn Harrison, and Margaret Provost, live on Oregon Public Broadcasting Radio's program "Thinking Out Loud". Click the link below to hear the hour-long broadcast. Plus, a former Council member has posted a comment on their website...

http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/posts/list/1900610.page

Government to Government

Thursday marked the 11th Annual Government-to-Government Summit in Oregon. The conference was started back in the 1990's under then-Governor John Kitzhaber, and Kulongoski has continued the tradition. I have attended the Summit each and every year while on Tribal Council. Like a many conferences, the value lies in the ability to network, for Tribal officials to see, meet and intereact with the assorted State agents who deal with issues pertinent to Indian tribes in Oregon. For state workers, I am sure the vice versa is very much the same.
For 2008 we all converged in Florence, where the Coos tribe just recently opened their own prestigious gaming center. Last year the conference was held in Warm Springs, in 2006 at Cow Creek, and the year before that in 2005 at Portland State University, when Vice-Chair Angie Blackwell staged a famous walk-out. All of us Grand Ronders left when it was our time to speak, and we did so in protest to the Governor leaving early. Our relationship with Kulongoski was not especially good back then, and that we've managed to mend it and been quite cooperative has benefitted both parties. Diplomacy, I believe, always matters.
What I remember from 2006 was that as Chair I was responsible for speaking on behalf of Grand Ronde. The lessons I took from that are numerous, but the two which stand out are first always be aware of where your mouth is in relation to the microphone. Multiple people explained to me that I strayed from the mic one too many times, making my speech inaudible during some stretches. Second I decided from that point forth whenever possible I would draft my own speeches. The one I read from that day was a mix of talking points and my own style, prompting a good friend to note that he could tell which parts of the speech were my own and those that were not. I didn't sound comfortable or natural reading off lines written by another person.
Last year there was a lot of buzz in Warm Springs over Jacobi Ellisbury, a young man born and raised in the nearby community of Madras who starred as a baseball player for the Oregon State University Beavers and the Boston Red Sox. He was already a local hero, in fact if I remember correctly there was a short speech made on his behalf during the opening ceremonies.
This year tribes did their usual updates for one another, as did the Governor and his staff. Of note are that times are tough all around, not just in Grand Ronde. One tribe, the Coos actually, are making the bold move of serving alcohol on the gaming floor, a precedent we in Grand Ronde have been waiting for, although the practice was taken up in Washington State years ago.
I did get a few minutes to chat with the Governor, he was returning to the Summit after a conference call with a number of other elected officials in regards to the water issue in southern Oregon, a call that included Arnold Schwarzenegger. We were both quite ecstatic about the recent presidential election. Of particular importance to us is the mystery over who will be named Secretary of the Interior. He had heard, like us, that John Kitzhaber was a possible candidate, which would be a great thing for Oregonians. I told him we had also heard Tom Daschle was a possibility, though not likely.
The Summit finished early, almost 90 minutes early. The day outside was stunning, and I took a few snapshots of the sanddunes for which Florence is famous. I also drove through Eugene, home to my alma mater the University of Oregon, and dropped some money at the local bookstore to brighten my abode with green and yellow. The biggest surprise of the Summit was that Burns-Paiute sent a representative. They, the most disadvantaged tribe in Oregon, will go long stretches without being heard from. In looking at the Summit Tribal directory, there was nobody listed as the Tribal Chair. It simply said "Chair" with a phone number.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

Okay, the name of the post is one of my favorite David Bowie songs. I was fortunate enough to get tickets to the Democratic Party's bash at the Portland Convention Center on Tuesday, November 4. These pictures don't even come close to doing the event any justice. This could be the most memorable and momentous Presidential election of my life. Tears were flowing, hope and optimism were in the air, and Obama gave an incredible acceptance speech, which I'm sure many people also listened to. For the first time in my life, I am genuinely excited about a President. I really believe that Barack Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate.
My only regret is that after meeting him twice and speaking to him both times, shouldn't I have been the Democrats' version of "Joe the Plummer"? I mean, we have the same hairdo and neither of us are licensed plummers, and we both make less than $250,000...

Barack, Bend and back

In May we hosted our annual Community meeting in Bend, Oregon. I was late for this, having opted for a VIP pass to see Barack Obama again. When I met him in September of 2007, Hillary Clinton was vastly ahead in the polls, and a VIP pass allowed a looser face-to-face interaction with Obama. In May he had surged ahead, and all I got was a series of handshakes and a brief conversation, in a tightly packed crowd. I was able to give him that necklace from our previous meeting, though my photos turned out rather poorly in those close quarters.
The drive to Bend, for those of you who don't know, is always a minor adventure, as you go through the high Cascades, and snow in the summer even is not uncommon.

The Hammer Falls

As I write this, it is 8:30 in the evening, and about 80 degrees outside. I am in Phoenix, Arizona, for the 65th National Congress of American Indians Annual Conference. Chances are I will not be posting this tonight, but rather sometime in the a.m. The high price that is being paid for my room, government rate notwithstanding, does not include internet service. For that I must pay an additional $13 per day, nearly one-tenth the cost of my room. This is a sore subject for me, enough that during most of my travels I research lodgings to find out if they charge for internet service. As a personal rule of thumb, if they charge, I don’t stay. I overlooked that this time. Actually I just forgot. It’s a matter of principle, like paying for the bottled water only a foot from my laptop. $5.25 will buy a couple gallons of milk back in Oregon. Likewise $40 gets me an entire month of internet service at home.
In the grand scheme of things these kinds of costs aren’t going to change lives or bust my wallet, but they do add up, and I am among a growing population of people who believe that it is actually quite possible to be nickeled-and-dimed to death. Plus the Hyatt Regency doesn’t need anymore of my money.
I find myself thinking of these kinds of things because tomorrow, or today, depending on when I get around to posting this (maybe I’ll head down to the lobby), an event that has been looming for almost my entire time of Council will finally unfold. During our Wednesday night Council meeting a few dozen Tribal members, providing there is no change on heart in the majority, will cease to be Grand Ronde Tribal members. They are to be dis-enrolled, wiped from our records. Maybe it is better that I am here in Arizona, away from an act I and others tried to prevent. I could call in, since teleconferencing is catching on, but other than being just another “yes” vote since there isn’t really any other way to interpret our Constitutional membership requirements, legally there is not a whole lot I can do. It has been a long time since I felt this helpless.
This has been overall very quiet, given the enormity of what is about to unfold. I suspect that was intentional. When the dis-enrollments were tabled again last spring, my understanding, and the reason that appeared to be given, was that because we were working on the Enrollment Ordinance regarding how to correct/amend the Restoration roll, this matter would wait until that work was concluded especially since this group of Tribal members could potentially be affected by new language. My suspicions then were that this was a simple stall tactic to avoid making an unpopular decision just before Tribal Council elections. That wouldn’t be illegal, but ethically questionable, though such a thing would be hard to prove. Given that we almost never discussed the Enrollment Ordinance between May and September, my suspicions appear to be correct. We had more discussion on the Leno letter than we did on this.
I am not sure what could have been done to prevent this, aside from upheaval through our Tribal elections. I say that because realistically the antidote to this situation , which would have been to successfully amend the Constitution last February, never had support on Council. Even though the majority of Tribal members who voted wanted to see the amendments pass, the power to ultimately fix this problem still came down to Council. Had they, or should I say we, advocated to right this wrong, there is little doubt in my mind we could have made that amendment pass. But not all of us did, and nobody can tell me there isn’t one or two of my peers who have secretly gotten exactly what they wanted.
What I am curious to know is if this will be the dying ember that reignites the proverbial blaze, or has the fire finally died out. I don’t really know. But I know that somewhere there are some Tribal families who must prepare themselves for major changes, and parents will have awkward explaining to do their children.

Campaign Theater

On Thursday in Oregon, at 7 p.m., local News Channel 8 ( or was it 2?) aired the debate between Gordon Smith, the Republican incumbent for US Senate, and his challenger Jeff Merkley. I can remember when Smith was first elected in 1996, because his election was a close one, he narrowly defeated Tom Brugerre, in fact I think that election came down to hundreds of votes. Brugerre has since then disappeared, while Smith has made somewhat of a name for himself, though this year he looks quite vulnerable, though I expect him to pull it out. Merkley just flat out does not have the appeal that it takes to unseat a fairly popular politician.
What stands out about his this particular race, as well as that of Kurt Schrader and Mike Erickson, is how nasty it has gotten, not unlike the presidential campaigns. You could really see that in the debates. Smith and Merkley went after each other, not quite as nastily as some have gone after Obama, but you could tell these two have very different ideas. Smith, and here is another parallel between this and the presidential election, belongs to the party of George W. Bush, and has to some degree quietly tried to distance himself from that, touting his reputation as an independent. His campaign signs are green and white, while the attack adds on him feature a very good photo of him and the president, Bush bearing that cocky smile that I think probably drives some Democrats wild. On a side note, seeing how he was scarcely mentioned during the Republican National Convention, has there ever been a sitting outgoing president so little regarded in the waning days of his administration? Even his press conferences seem dead, like nobody cares what he has to say anymore, and his own party is trying to campaign as if the last eight years never existed. Neither McCain or Palin seem to be seeking much support from him.
Anyway, back to the Smith/Merkley debate. One thing I really noticed was how poorly, at least in comparison to the Presidential debates, the whole thing went. I've met Smith on a couple of occasions, and he has that charisma that is undeniable, a strong confident voice, and is somewhat known for his suits. I've not met Merkley, but as the Democratic leader in Oregon, I would think he'd be well accomplished in public speaking. Neither came off as a particularly good debater, and both of them at different points looked to be uttering lines that were basically repetitive talking points. Both came off, as I mentioned to a fellow political junkie, as bad actors, using lines without really knowing how to say them, botching the delivery, which with some lines matters more than the line itself.
Watching the Vice-Presidential debates two weeks ago, as Sarah Palin's accent seemed to get thicker and all the g's at the ends of her sentences disappeared, and while Biden timed his "bridge to nowhere" reference for comedic effect, I wondered if at any point campaigns put acting coaches on the payroll. The presentations of the candidates, from their body language, to facial expressions, to pronunciation of specific words, when effective can seem like good theater. Appearances matter, how what is said is more important than what is actually said.
Obama and McCain are both at the top of their games respectively. They are comfortable with the microphones, know the range of topics and what their talking points are, and never make too many gaffes. Some might not agree with me, but then again try watching a debate with less accomplished folks, like the Smith/Merkley. Debating, at the Presidential level, really is an art form.

Up for Debate

In Portland, the presidential debates, and for that matter the sole vice-presidential debate, has been one hot ticket. Because I can only speak for this area, my assumption is purely that that debates are hot items just about everywhere, which is keeping in tune with the election. Although I have only lived through less than ten Presidential elections, and have been able to vote in only four, it is hard to remember there being this much buzz about the election. People really, really care, which is a good thing, I suppose.
Problem is, I can't help but feel like our country is deeply, and I mean deeply divided. So divided in fact, that I can't picture either of the candidates being able to bridge the gap. You have one side just dying for change, and another doing everything possible to retain control. I am wholly in the camp of the former as opposed to the latter, not being able to understand why anybody would think our country is not due a major change in direction. But then again, I suspect a lot of that has to do with what a person attributes the economic (and to some social) chaos to. For some people I know, it has almost nothing to do with politics, or who is in the White House or who controls the Senate and House. I don't personally buy that, and never have. I really believe that the powers that be have everything to do with the general health of a nation.
What I believe, however, is purely up for debate, the debate tonight proved that. The economic crisis in this country, the bailout, are attributed to one side by lack of regulation, while another says regulation is to blame. I know which theory I believe, but chances are when election time rolls around, nearly half the country will vote for the side that is opposite.
All of it is very interesting, because no matter what, you can tell the respective sides believe without doubt their own theories, and nothing will ever change that. This brings me to my ultimate point, which is that events can happen, and there will be millions of interpretations of why those events happened, and more importantly, what went wrong. Our own portfolio has begun to feel the effects of the national recession. That could be attributed to faulty leadership, as the portfolio is overseen by the investment committee, and the investment committee is Council, and we were more concerned with censorship, and derailing an enrollment election, and other things. Conversely, there might not have been anything we could have done. The situation is that complex, like the national economy, and there is no single factor or event, a committee sheet here, a vote there, that would have made that big of a difference. Or was there?
Whenever I look back on Strategic Wealth, I wonder those two words that writer Salman Rushdie calls paired together the most worthless words in the English language, "What if?" What if things had been done differently back then? We'll never know, but much like the national economy, it makes for some interesting debates.

Psychology of voting

I found the following article on Salon.com, not that this is a website or magazine I typically read. I found it fascinating enough to pass on, not only thinking of my own experiences in Tribal politics, but mainstream politics. Enjoy!


http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice/

For Some

Tomorrow, we the Council members who also reside in our seats as Board members for the Spirit Mountain Gaming, Inc. will be watching a presentation that basically focuses on a new sports bar. It is all part of the overall larger plan for our casino to remain competitive, what with Washington casinos already serving alcohol on the floor and such and our assumption, or maybe even fear, being that eventually a vast casino will be going up north of Portland essentially cutting into our market share. A few Council members have taken exception with the costs of the sports bar, though I don't see there being enough opposition to thwart it outright.
I was off in college during the late 1990's, and so I missed the protests which were supposedly lobbied against our casino's decision to serve alcohol in the first place. Evidently one of the most vocal opponents was a relative of mine. Given the history of Indians and alcohol, that there was fervent opposition to the initial decision is not all that surprising, and that is based on my own admittedly limited experience. A number of people whom I have spoken with that grew up in Grand Ronde can easily site stories of so-and-so being an alcoholic, of people passed out on the roadside in drunken stupors, and of "Wine Alley". I haven't experience what many of them did, but if half of what I've heard is accurate, then it would be hard to hold against anybody a reluctance to engage in a business that decades ago might have ruined families.
As somebody who supports the sports bar, and the decision years ago to begin serving alcohol at the casino, I often find myself in that rare position of actually seeming to understand completely where people are coming from, but still not agreeing with them from a policy standpoint. In other words, I agree in principle with what they have told me, but if given a choice to act upon my own convictions am still unmoved. Even after hearing what people would have to say, the bottom line, in this case my ability to make a policy decision, still remains unchanged. It must be one of the most difficult things about being a legislator, and proof positive that regardless of how much politicians claim to be uniters, some decisions really do have 50% support and 50% opposition, meaning that there is little hope of compromise as neither side will budge.
The big decision looming right now, and was brought up during Wednesday's Council meeting, is whether to amend our Gaming Ordinance to allow for those who are 18 years of age access to our Class II games. It would be a major policy shift for this Tribe, and nobody would be surprised that our Council is split on the decision. I am one of those Council members who would be more likely to support the change than others, but my conscience admittedly doesn't stop me from hesitating.
We refer to the business of tribal casinos as "Indian Gaming", the word "gaming" basically being a euphemism for gambling. But that is what it is. And gambling too is a vice, like alcoholism, one that wrecks families and ruins lives. For some. For some. I repeat those two words because they really are the operative words in this whole debate of selling vice, whether to a younger crowd and not. Some people can drink and gamble with minimal damage to their wallets and live. Others cannot. None of that changes that our cash cow, and generator of most of our Tribal services, is one of those vices that some cannot handle. So in essence, have we crossed the point of no return, and moving the age from 21 to 18 a minute detail, or is there really that big of a difference one that we should be mindful of in making this decision?
I don't know the answer. I do know that at 18 we can vote, we can enlist in the military and go off to war, we can access the state lottery, and when committing a crime we are charged as adults, the same as anybody 21 and beyond. That alone is nearly enough for me. But then again for every 18 year old I've met who is wise beyond their years and responsible, there is one who won't be at that level of responsibility if you gave them another 10 years. The real question is, who do we consider when making this kind of decision? Who is the "some" that we need to account for.
I have my own inklings. But I've been wrong before...

You Never Know

Confession time. I did not expect the outcome of Saturday's, and ultimately 2008's, Tribal Council election results. As every year, I reflected on what the possibilities might be, which for me realistically boiled down to any combination from a pool of six people who had legitimate shots at being elected, with only one being seen as a sure thing. The one combination I admittedly did not consider, at least not to my best memory, was that the three incumbents would be re-elected. Why didn't I think that? Because as far back as I can remember, and if anybody reading can help shed light, not at any time in recent history has an election year passed without seeing some change in seats. Which makes what just happened all the more hard to explain. But I will try anyway.
Looking back on the last two elections, it has been pretty clear that the Wisdom, Integrity, Family party, though they might deny they are a party, has been pretty darn successful. In 2006, their ticket of Cheryle Kennedy, Jack Giffen, and Val Sheker each garnered record votes. Last year, two of their other candidates, Steve Bobb and June Sell-Sherer, also won seats well ahead of most others. I was the sole survivor of those two elections. In many ways, all that they have really done is what we did, by "we" I mean those of the ABC/PPP camp who also in a two year span won five seats on the Council, in 2004 each of us getting what at the time was the most votes ever. In other words, over a four year span, the two perceived parties exhanged blows, with the WIF's getting the last laugh as they are still in control.
But 2008 looks a bit different. For one, those who consider our Tribal Vice-Chair to be the real leader of the WIF party, and to many the single most influential person in Grand Ronde, might be surprised to survey the Council and know that statistically, at 468 votes, of all nine Council members he was elected with the second least amount of votes. The 468 would not have been sufficient either of the last two elections to be elected. Secondly, that number is a very significant drop from 2005, when he was way ahead of the pack with 591 votes, at the time the third highest total ever. The dip in votes is not easily explained. One could point to the Leno letter, but I think that there is more to it than that. The other two members of this year's incarnation of the WIF ticket, Bob Haller and Patsy Pullin, also got a lot fewer votes than I expected, and certainly a lot less than the other five candidates who ran under the party's banner did the last two years. It would be hard to reason that they were affected by the Leno letter.
My own best guess is that members, most importantly members who vote, are approaching the elections with a greater degree of scrutiny these days. They want to know as much as possible about who they vote for. When I look at the top vote-getters the last two years, if my memory is correct, there is a direct correlation between to how many campaign letters a candidate mails out, activity on the internet, and just overall personal appeal, with the two former mattering a lot more than the latter. The 600 word "Smoke Signals" statement is just not enough. Signs are not enough. A simple campaign letter stapled to a sheet of sloppy endorsement signatures is just not enough. Looking at this years' top four vote-getters, Kathleen Tom, Reyn Leno, Wink Soderberg, and Andy Jenness, three of those people had websites. Information, what have you done for me lately--Voters want to know who they are voting for, and what they are getting with those votes.
For all I know this year was an aberration, a freak occurence if you will. But I don't think so. People expect reform when they vote in a change in leadership. I know that all too well. They have not seen that the last two years, despite the new faces. But then again, have they really seen new faces, or simply familiar faces repackaged under a new logo and slogan, and better organized than before? I don't know the answer. But I think the next two years we will find out.
What I learned with the 2008 Tribal Council elections is that despite experience, despite historical patterns, and despite organization, you never really know what's going to happen. The one thing you can master is not looking surprised.

A Lasting Bond

I went down to a football game last Saturday. The University of Oregon Ducks versus the hated University of Washington Huskies. Of all the football games I've been to of my alma mater, half of them have been the Huskies, and we've won all but one. I was there in 1994, my first game actually, for "the pick", a play that just about any semi-serious or above Duck fan could explain, and one that vaulted the team into the Rose Bowl and helped push the program into prominence. Two years ago ESPN reported that bowl games they televise involving the Ducks are consistently among the highest rated, even in lopsided games. We are a loyal bunch, I guess.
The intra-state rivalry between the Ducks and the Oregon State Beavers is cited often during Council meetings, not only work sessions but actual Council meetings. I am surprised that it never gets hold, to be honest. When Spirit Mountain Casino's marketing team brought the SMGI board their proposal for advertising during the Ducks and Beavers games, I proposed that in the interest of cost-cutting we should axe the Beaver portion of the package, as it would halve the overall costs. I also joke frequently about giving extra scholarship money to Tribal students goinng to UO, and constantly propose green and yellow colors for whatever projects are brought before us. While Chair and reading the announcements during Wednesday night meetings, any announcement involving UO I would precede with "Oregon's finest university and home of the state's brightest students" or something like that. A handful of vendors at the pow wow often pre-make necklaces or other crafts with green and yellow, knowing that I or Jack Giffen will probably buy it.
Saturday's game was interesting because by chance I was seated next to a fan who exemplified the concept of a person taking a game way too seriously. There were smatterings of Husky fans dotted throughout Autzen, and a couple of trios were in front of me and in back. It dawned on me throughout the game that this fellow and these fans did not know eachother, and what I thought was friendly ribbing quickly escalated into hostility, loud enough that people for other aisles were glancing over and smiling nervously. I am very surprised that a fight didn't break out. Come to think of it, I left early once the Ducks went up by 20-something. Who knows what might have transpired afterwards?
I am not desparate to write something here. Being a UO alumni is a bond, one that you see even within the Tribe. I never fail to get applause at our Eugene General Council meeting when reminding those present of just where I earned my degree, which these days seems like an eternity ago. The last potluck I attended at the Eugene satellite office during a saturday had the game on the radio, and not visit down there isn't complete without talking Ducks football with local members. Plus I realized last year just how much my job affects my thinking while watching a Duck game, a point where two different segments of my life actually intersected. I generally watch every televised game, whether locally or nationally, and last year what got my attention was the advertisements for Three Rivers Casino that were peppered throughout the stadium, notably above the passageways leading on to the field. My first thought of course was, "why aren't we doing that?" Evidently the marketing team at our casino thought the same thing. Eugene is not that far away.
It goes to show that you can form a bond with something abstract, like a school, and not only just Tribes. And when you've formed that bond it never goes away, and it bonds you to other people who've had a similar experience, like some sort of brotherhood. Call me crazy, but I think any Tribal members who also went to UO would agree, maybe even Beavers or Huskies.

"Charlie Wilson's War" (2007)

My Netflix queue is generally filled with a lot of old, lesser-known, forgotten, or foreign movies. That just tends to be my taste. I usually am attracted to stories, and can be intrigued by certain directors and actors. I've always liked Tom Hanks. In fact, that he has become one of the film industry's biggest and most bankable stars is something that I never expected years ago when he was doing stuff like "Splash" and "Bachelor Party". He is not a hearthrob by any means. Yet he makes good movies most of the time, and "Charlie Wilson's War" is one of those films, based on a book and presumably some degree of truth, that catches my attention. Why? Because honestly, it demonstrates how some of the bigger and most unusual decisions in government have beginnings that are suspicious and questionable, if not outright misguided. Tom Hanks plays a congressman from Texas who hasn't accomplished a whole lot in his career, makes embarrassing decisions, but tends to get re-elected on sheer likability and I assume lack of strong opposition. I probably don't need to elaborate on why that particular aspect of the story is near and dear to my heart. What also resonates for me is that Wilson basically starts a covert war purely by a situation grabbing his attention, and he wheels and deals support for his cause that snowballs from a $5 million budget appropriation to one-hundred times that. Somebody somewhere once said that people would be very disturbed by how their sausage and politics are made, and "Charlie Wilson's War" is a not-so-subtle reminder of that. Julie Roberts plays kind of an odd role- she really isn't in the movie that much, and Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the consummate behind-the-scenes mover. The film ends rather abruptly, but still made me chuckle because I believe there have been over the years some decisions made in Grand Ronde that also were personality driven.

Airport Ordeal

On Monday August 18, I was scheduled to fly to Las vegas for a seminar on Tribal Constitutions, hosted by that organization that seems to specialize in issues almost unique to Indian Country, the Falmouth Institute. It had been some time since I last traveled anywhere of note in the line of Tribal business, and given my experience in tribal government, this particular seminar was of high interest to me.
Problem is, I never made it. Generally, you have to board a plane flying to your destination in order to actually arrive at your destination. Makes sense.
I've learned over time, even long before the ridiculous security lines post 9/11, that when dealing with a non-refundable plane ticket, arrive early. There are few feelings as crappy as watching your own flight take off without you. I did arrive early, the standard two-hours as recommended, only to find the flight was delayed by nearly two hours anyway. Passing the time in an airport can be a real challenge, but I made do thanks in part to my iPod and the nearly 20GB's of music I've amassed thanks to CD burning technology and eMusic. I must say the Radiohead's new album, the one they posted on their website last year for fans to download and pay what they wish, is fantastic.
After boarding the plane, it became apparent that the flight was not destined to leave that day. While we taxied onto the runway, our pilot politely informed us that he did not feel right about taking off with doubts about some of the machinery, and after some time drove the plane back to dock, while mechanics scurried in and did what they do. A couple of updates indicating we'd be airborne in "a while" proved false, and after nearly three hours we the passengers were discharged after being told that the pilot and crew had timed out, and the airline would quickly search for a new crew. We could, if we chose to stick with the flight, be arriving early in Vegas the next morning. Seeing that I'd be destined to sleep through most of the first day of a two-day training, I took the same option that seemingly most of the rest of the passengers did, which was rebooking, and in my case, hoping that Falmouth would be lenient and allow me to transfer the seminar fee to some other time, which I believe they would. My bag would not be taken from the plane, meaning I'd be making a return trip to the airport within two days.
I am not trying to bore people with this posting. What I am trying to do is share how travel can be so unpredictable, and how a few hours can make a world of difference. All in all, I spent nearly eight hours at the airport on Monday, and went nowhere. I made a point to remind myself to write about the ordeal on this blog because my feelings at that time were very vivid. It dawned on me how some Tribal members must feel about Council at times. When things go wrong, almost instinctively we just want somebody to blame, even though in some circumstances there really is nobody to blame. Machinery fails, schedules collide, details get overlooked. But for a while, I was feeling no less frustrated than the portly fellow across from me who threw his carry-on into a chair and swore rather loudly, despite the presence of children, after speaking with an airline representative and my guess is realizing that it might be some time before he left this airport.
What surprised me most, though, and this might actually be somebody's fault, was the lack of foresight for these kinds of situations. For one, if a crew is due to be off work within a few hours, I don't quite understand why that wasn't thought of before loading passengers onto the plane. Obviously they couldn't time out mid-flight. Second, it never occured to me how in considering situations like this, at least one restaurant wouldn't be open for stranded passengers. Portland Airport was a ghosttown of food options, with only a candystand to make do for nearly 100 passangers, many of whom would have to wait for a replacement crew and flight for who knows how long?
It was hardly a traumatic experience, and I am sure to one day get another chance at that seminar. But I guess my ultimate point is that as a policy setter myself, I've come to look at these kinds of situations through the lense of policy-making, thinking almost instinctively about what rules I'd have made in order to ease the frustrations of a group of people who thought what would be a simple two-and-a-half hour flight would leave them stranded, hungry, and uncertain of when they'd be going anywhere. In other words, one of the worst feelings in an airport not involving terrorists.

A Question or two

I wrote a letter to the Smoke Signals recently. The subject was the "Leno Letter", which appeared to be a major topic in the last issue, as there were a handful of letters, just as there were a couple before. How to interpret people's responses I am not entirely sure. I feel the former Council member Leon "Chips" Tom made some good points. Conversely, it was hard to argue with the letter the Leno clan assembled in response to the anonymous mailing. There are some impressive resumes among them that make the letter seem outlandish, though not entirely.
The substance of my own letter addresses that somewhat, but really I chose to focus on the history of those kinds of letters and more importantly tactics. It is very possible that my letter will add fuel to the fire, or even stir some critical thinking on the issue. Naturally, it could do nothing. Maybe people have moved on. But I doubt it. That is definitely not the case with Tribal Council, looking at the latest Record of Instruction lying on the table in chambers.
If anybody wants to know my opinion, I am not sure what sort of outcome Council members who are pushing for the investigation are looking for. Since right around 2001 or 2002 there have been mailings to the members that were political in nature and not from candidates. In other words, it is hardly new. I have given up on questioning how and by what means the numerous individuals have gotten a hold of mailing lists. Every year there are numerous mailing lists handed out during elections, which creates a whole line-up of "suspects", and then there is the fact that some of Council and in the organization have close relatives and/or political allies who would have access to not only mailing addresses, but phone numbers. To speculate on where any single possible list would come from is not really worth the time. Whenever it is this oncoming investigation takes place, I hardly expect the findings to shed light on anything. I don't believe the author the Leno Letter to be so stupid as to use work resources, assuming they really are an employee, to facilitate that letter. It is a hunt that will probably not yield the desired results.
But still, the issue of a mailing list has weighed heavy on my mind for a couple of reasons. Okay, actually, just one. And that is I am dying to curiosity to know why it would be that the campaign literature mailed out this year appears to be diverging, at least when addressed to me, to two different addresses. Because I have switched addresses the last few months, I would be very interested to know why letters would go to my old address, while some find their way to my new one. Almost all other Tribal literature, like Smoke Signals, Tilixam Wawa, and other mailings all have no problem making their way to my new address. So why some candidates would get that address, and others the old one, is a little bit of a mystery to me. Not that I plan on putting out a committee sheet to conduct an investigation, but with the present one looming, a guy can't help but wonder, right?

Misguided Energy

Today we had multiple meetings about address labels, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The age-old concept of “I got a few calls from Tribal members about such-and-such, so we’d better do something about it” prevailed today. When I look back on some of the more important issues affecting us today, from losses in the portfolio, to the sustainability of the health plan, to the numerous Tribal families waiting on edge for some sort of enrollment news, it saddens me to see that this is the kind of stuff that we are choosing to focus on.
I haven’t actually gotten a copy of the most recent mailout, but from what I’ve been told it was a letter from the “Goods”, which might have more to do with the pseudo-fuss being kicked up about it than anything. But in the present context, on the heels of the now infamous “Leno letter”, I suppose non-Tribally sanctioned mailings are going to start becoming taboo. What I take from all this is a reminder that as a body Tribal Council has almost the final and ultimate say in just about whatever goes on. We can grossly mal-adjust our priorities and duties to the membership on a whim. Let’s not worry about the portfolio right now, even if that means potentially losing tens of thousands of dollars each and every day. No, let us seek the author behind this political letter, devote Tribal time and resources to it, and bring this derelict to justice. That matters most.
It probably sounds as if I am in a bad mood with this posting, and in all probability I am. But for whatever reason today the biggest and perhaps least likely to be solved anytime soon problem became painfully clear…again. When your Tribe is developing political parties, and some might say we have two major ones, then one of the worst situations to be in is to have an electoral system set up to where elections, and with it the authority of one-third of the governing body, are up for grabs each and every year. When non-incumbents are supporting incumbents and trying to retain their majority, then discussions like what happened today are the norm. Political tactics, strategies, and campaigns go year-round, and the preservation of power takes priority over the more vital decisions. There are no off-years in which to make the tough but necessary decisions.
All of this gets worsened by the fact that with a low voter turnout, a majority, and with it the authority of a governing majority, can be secured with no member of that group getting more than 20% of the vote. There is no wonder then that extremely large families, and the alliances thereof, have become so influential politically. Family reunions are chances to campaign.
I suppose what happens here in Grand Ronde is probably not vastly different than what occurs in other Tribes. That point has been made numerous times before. But the real challenge is can all of that change. I believe it can. It starts with term limits, and election reform, among other things.

Tribal Parallels

The following is a story from the North County Times in California. It still amazes me to this day how many stories in Tribes are eerily similar....

REGION: San Pasqual tribe could expel about 80 members

Questions of who belongs, who benefits from casino raised

By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer | Saturday, July 19, 2008 5:09 PM PDT ∞

About 80 members of the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, which owns Valley View Casino, will be expelled from the Valley Center tribe if an internal effort to "disenroll" them is successful.

It is the latest in a long-standing, bitter feud among factions of the 300-member tribe that calls into question what it means to be American Indian and who gets to benefit from the spoils of casino wealth.

A week ago, members of the tribe held separate meetings on the disenrollment matter. One was held at the reservation and another at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Escondido.

The group that met at San Pasqual voted to accept a consultant's report that concluded the 80 people whose tribal affiliations are in question do not belong and should not be listed as members of San Pasqual.

The other group contends that some of the information in the report is "unsubstantiated."

Ron Mast, a member of the San Pasqual tribe, filed a challenge in August saying the group does not belong in the tribe. He says the group is made up of descendants of Marcus R. Alto Sr., whom he contends was adopted by his aunt and uncle, Maria Duro Alto and Jose Alto, as a child, but was not their biological son.

"They are not my family," Mast said in a recent interview. "They have no blood of the band."

Ray Alto, one of the descendants of Marcus R. Alto Sr., declined to comment.

The term "blood of the band" refers to kinship among tribal members. It was a method of describing an individual's Indian heritage by U.S. census takers, beginning in the mid-1800s.

San Pasqual's constitution requires that people have at least one-eighth blood of the band to belong.

Mast says that because Marcus R. Alto Sr. was adopted, he does not meet the requirement and neither do his descendants. In his challenge, he submitted Alto's baptismal certificate as evidence. In it, Alto's mother is listed as Benedita Barrios, a non-tribal member.

Blood feuds

In recent years, questions of who legitimately belongs have plagued tribes across the country, including several local tribes.

In 2006, the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, which owns a large hotel and casino complex near Temecula, voted to disenroll 130 members of the tribe.

Factions within the Rincon Band of Mission Indians, which also own a casino in Valley Center, led a failed attempted to oust its former chairman, John Currier, and about 70 members of his extended family.

There are no precise statistics, but there are similar disputes across the state and the country involving thousands of tribal members whose heritage has come in to question, especially among tribes that own some of the largest and most profitable casinos.

There are about 50,000 people officially enrolled in California's 108 federally recognized tribes. But before tribes began building their casinos, most reservations were desolate, isolated places, with high unemployment, poverty and other social ills.

Many members began returning to their reservations when casinos began producing jobs, rekindling old bloodline feuds.

In 2007, the Indian gambling industry took in about $26 billion, up from $24.9 billion in 2006, according to the National Indian Gaming Commission, which oversees the tribal casinos. California's tribal gambling industry has grown into one of the largest in the world, generating an estimated $7.7 billion a year.

Payments suspended

The hundreds of people across the state who have lost their memberships in the tribes also have lost their share of the casino pie.

In Pechanga, those who were removed from tribal rolls are ineligible for monthly payments reported to be about $20,000.

In San Pasqual, about 50 of the people whose membership is in question also lost their jobs at the tribe's casino. Their casino payments were suspended, according to a letter dated July 7 from the tribe's enrollment committee to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The amount of the payments are not officially disclosed, but are said to be about $4,000 a month.

"The suspended payments are being held in escrow accounts until these matters have been finally resolved," according to the letter signed by three members of the tribe's five-member enrollment committee.

The two members of the enrollment committee who did not sign the letter, Joe Navarro and Robert Phelps, wrote a separate letter to the bureau questioning the authenticity of Alto's baptismal certificate because the names don't match.

The child's name on the certificate is listed as Roberto Marco Alto, according to the letter signed by the two members of the enrollment committee.

"There is no record that Marcus Alto Sr. ever used the name Roberto Marco, and we therefore cannot determine if Marcus Alto Sr. and the child listed in the baptismal record is the same individual," according to the letter.

Under the San Pasqual tribe's constitution, the bureau must review the evidence and make a final ruling on membership matters, said Jim Fletcher, superintendent of the agency's Southern California office.

Fletcher said he reported the tribe's actions to the National Indian Gaming Commission because it may have violated federal rules by suspending the payments before the members were officially removed.

"They are considered members until the bureau completes the review process," Fletcher said in a phone interview Wednesday.

Many other tribes, such as Pechanga, decide such matters themselves.

Members of San Pasqual's enrollment committee appear to disagree with Fletcher over who has authority to expel people from the tribe.

"Under federal law, the tribe has inherent sovereign authority to govern membership in accordance with the enrollment criteria and procedures provided for in its constitution and by laws," according to the letter.

San Pasqual Chairman Allen Lawson declined to comment.

Pushed to the rocks

At San Pasqual, the question of who belongs is nearly as old as the tribe.

The tribe's members are descendents of the original inhabitants of the San Pasqual Valley, east of Escondido. The ancestors of the San Pasqual were removed from the valley in the 1870s, when non-Indians staked claims on the land.

The San Pasqual tribe remained landless until the federal government established the current reservation, a rocky patchwork of parcels north of Lake Wohlford. The land was considered so inhospitable that only one family moved there. The rest remained scattered in the area until the 1950s.

In 1958, tribal members formed an enrollment committee and hired anthropologist Florence Shipek to help them research and document tribal membership. The work was completed in 1966, establishing a base count of 229 tribal members who were alive as of 1959.

The tribe's enrollment committee repeatedly declined to let Marcus Alto Sr., who died in 1988, and his family into the band, according to a report by a consultant hired by the tribe to investigate Mast's challenge. Alto's son, Marcus Alto Jr., carried an appeal after his father's death.

The report, written by anthropologist Christine Grabowski, concluded that the bureau relied on documentation that "contained grievous discrepancies" when the bureau finally admitted Marcus Alto Sr. and his descendants into the tribe in 1994.

"The totality of the available information and how the facts fit together corroborate the long-standing position of San Pasqual tribal elders that Marcus Alto Sr. had been adopted by Jose Alto and Maria Duro and raised by them but was not a San Pasqual Band member by descent," according to the report.

Fletcher, the bureau's superintendent, said the tribe has given members of the Alto family time to respond to the challenge. Once the case is forwarded to the bureau, it will be reviewed and the federal government will make the final decision on the enrollment of the family members.

Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.

West Valley Summer

For years I have been saying that I would be sure to take pictures of the wheat and other grains during the summer. The West Willamette Valley turns into fields of gold everywhere, and then sadly, at least for aesthetics, it is all harvested. But for a few weeks every year, the place is truly golden.

Political evolution, again

I got the first actual campaign letter today of the season. At least, it was the first for me. Even then, it wasn't really addressed to me, but to the person whose mail I am charged with taking care of. You get the picture.
Anyway, it wasn't really a letter, but a postcard. The card didn't really get into much depth, or issues, or really anything of substance, preferring to focus on the gold and purple logo and three-word slogan that have become nearly ubiquitous the last three years. I suspect that is mostly because the senders of the postcard, since the point was to ask you to vote for all three of the candidates whose names are listed, must be very confident that by now they have solid name-brand recognition, which isn't beyond reason as the Wisdom, Integrity, Family party have really dominated the last two Council elections. Indeed, by the end of the summer, I may end up being the only non-Wisdom, Integrity, Family party Tribal Council member left. I'm not going to lie, that is not a prospect which makes me optimistic, even giving the benefit of the doubt to some of this party's members alongside whom I work.
In looking on Grand Ronde On-Line I could see last night that my brother finally posted an introduction of his political action committee, the Grand Ronde for Open and Honest Leadership. Obviously, that was not news to me, having known about it for months, but for some reason the idea of a formal party I find on some levels encouraging, and even exciting. I really have no interest in being a political Last of the Mohicans, so seeing that help might be on the way, uncertain though it might be this year, is kind of a relief. But even more importantly, as the Tribe continues to grow financially, meaning the stakes in Council elections are higher, I am happy to see the first vestiges of a watchdog organization growing, because the more that we can make our electoral process based on issues and in the case of incumbents voting records, the better off our Tribe will be. I am genuinely hoping that others will agree.
I anticipate that there will probably be an attack or two lobbed against the PAC, though when or where that will come is not really certain, it seems that political attacks recently have usually come in public Council meetings, the infamous Leno letter notwithstanding. I could be wrong, maybe there won't be any attacks at all. But based upon the underground anti-ABC/PPP campaign that I've had to witness the last three years, it still might be safer to assume some sort of smear strategy will be waged. And why not? If a strategy works I would expect people to stick to it.
The real question is how effective will the PAC be? In reality we have kind of witnessed a similar occurrence before, in the Grand Ronde Voices Across America, the only other group I remember who would send out questionnaires to candidates and make those available to any interested parties. That was effective, as the three years I followed that process every year at least one of their endorsees was elected. Whether they regret endorsing some of the candidates they did might be another issue, but I do remember looking forward to reading the candidates' responses to questionnaires, as they were more informative than most campaign letters. There seemed to be a truly interested group of Tribal members back then and maybe, just maybe, this PAC is the kind of thing that will stir them.
I do know this. When I look at the Wisdom, Integrity, Family party letters of the last two years and many of their endorsers, a good deal of those people are not people who I see perusing Grand Ronde On-Line very often, much less this blog. Yet some, when I've spoken with them, seem pretty certain about why they are supporting those candidates that they do, which has made me immensely curious as to what gets discussed at their Sunday meetings in Sheridan, and what it is about me, as well as Angie Blackwell, Buddy West, Kathleen Tom, and Wink Soderberg, that incites such a strong desire to see the Council cleaned of our presence. I probably will never know, even though some of their supporters, or at least individuals who attended their meetings, clearly like me and one or two of them have even gone so far as to repeat what has been said about me and others at those meetings. The likely truth is that many of their supporters just know and like them on a personal level, and they just flat-out don't like me, Angie, Buddy, Wink, or Kathleen, and never will, which for many voters is reason enough to cast their ballots the way they do. I don't obsess over the idea, but more than anything it just makes eager to see more transparency in the selection process and political rallies of any perceived political groups in our Tribe. Republicans and Democrats both hold public conventions this summer, in fact they are televised. Voters get to see and hear what gets said and done at the rallies of both the party they support and the party they oppose. That's the way it should be.
The PAC, I think, is a step in that direction, one that was taken before but is happening all over again. I am glad.

Swiftcanoeing

Wednesday night meetings have become, I think, regular. Now I am perfectly aware that by our Tribal laws we are required to hold them twice per month, so to use the word “regular” in historical context is kind of redundant. Of course they’ve always been regular, duh!

But what I really mean is that Wednesday night meetings have come to mirror different American social institutions, like book clubs, bowling leagues, organized pick-up games down at the local parks, etc. They have come to feature the same cast of characters, many of whom show up early, converse, and at times even plot attacks. In our job because you are privvy to so much information that most people aren’t, when we convene the meetings a quick scan of faces in the crowd can often predict what will be brought up under Other Business and by who. There are a handful of people whose mere presence at the meeting immediately sets my mind racing, because while the reasons aren’t always obvious, I fully expect them to attack somebody, once in a while me. Sadly, that new instinct has been born of experience.

The July 2 meeting was close to being that kind of meeting, with the exception that there would not necessarily be people lining up to attack me, but they would be there to attack the anonymous person who had mailed out a letter that was basically an indictment of our Tribal Vice-Chair and his family. Who spoke, and what they said, I could have just about scripted out myself ahead of time. And it was hard to bite my tongue, because there is a certain word we have in English that is used to describe the act of doing the same things that we denounce, usually unawares, and if there were some magical way to convert this into oil, what happened Wednesday night could have solved our nation’s fuel crisis. I am exaggerating of course, but you get the point. In thinking of the names of those present that night, I could probably come up with half a dozen or so that had at one point been attached to some sort of negative political letter, which goes to show that many of us still rarely equate our actions with that which we despise. Even from my college days, I remember being taught the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance.

What I find most ironic about the whole situation is that Monday night I had watched a special news story on CNN about John McCain and his military service. Evidently General Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter, had made some remarks about how that McCain being shot down in a plane during Vietnam didn’t automatically qualify him to be president. I understand what Clark was trying to say, but he might have chosen his words more carefully. The McCain camp was outraged by the comments, and as would be expected sent an emissary to respond, a fellow Vietnam veteran who interviewed for the piece. To this day I will never understand why the McCain campaign, in this story, would send one of the leaders of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth to denounce perceived attacks on McCain’s military service, and the reporter covering th story obviously picked up on the same thing. Not surprisingly, the McCain rep felt there were sharp differences between this present debacle and what happened to John Kerry in 2004…

I spoke briefly and vaguely toward this Wednesday night, noting that when first elected I always believed that politics in Indian Country would and should be different than mainstream, especially presidential politics. But they aren’t, and I pointed out that there were people in the audience who had spat on the now-infamous Leno-family letter but who had applauded when attacks were made at me, or Angie Blackwell, or Kathleen Tom. If we are serious about changing the politics, I told people, the practice of turning a blind eye to attacks on those we don’t like or support politically and acting indignant when we or those in our group are on the receiving end needs to end. We need to make this kind of crap unacceptable regardless of who it happens to.

My improvised speech drew applause, though that did little to satisfy me. Only the future will show if all the grandstanding Wednesday night was legitimate and sincere, or just that, grandstanding. I have no choice but to wait and see.

Up for Grabs

First off, I must admit to being somewhat surprised at the number of candidates who chose to throw their respective hats into the Tribal Council election ring this year. There were 13 in all, including a couple of past Council members, a few long-time community members with some name recognition, and individuals who at one point were members of the handful of publicized coalitions but appear to be going it alone. Lastly, there were those whose aspirations are either very recent or very private, meaning the longshots.
After being in the community on and off for little more than a decade, there are very few people who have chosen to run that I haven't heard of. That has changed quite a bit. When I worked at the "Smoke Signals" there were tons of back issues at my fingertips, especially the annual Candidates' Statements issue. Over time I became familiar with the elections of the past, and they never really seemed to have reached the present level until about 2000 or so, when if memory serves correctly, a grand total of 23 people ran for Council. Most years, there were always a handful of people who I had never heard of, and one run once or twice before disappearing.
The number of people running has dwindled in recent years chiefly, I suspect, because of the precedents set with the ABC/PPP and WIF group efforts. Since 2004, I can't really say that anybody has gotten elected without drawing upon the constituencies of one of those two groups. This year there is even another group that is trying what is probably the most formalized effort to be attempted yet. All of which makes this year so darn interesting. There appear to be a number of "independents" in 2008, that is candidates who come in not having made any sort of public allegiance to any one camp, which makes me wonder if the whole group/slate concept is dying out or a number of would-be Council members are in for a rude awakening. As always, time gets to tell us.
What I am really curious to see if we will witness an issue-driven election season or a personality driven one. Will one group continue their trend of dominating the elections or are the membership really ready to open a new if unclear chapter in recent history, and in turn go not with the old guard? I can't wait to see. Personally, I'd rather see an uncertain but potentially positive direction rather than a definite negative one.

Head Start again

I realize that this has no real relevance to the issues of the annual National Indian Head Start Directors Association, in fact I probably mentioned this last year, but if you are a red-blooded American male, nowhere outside of a bachelorette party will you see a greater ratio of women to men. I suppose that would have its plusses and minuses, meaning it levels out. But I still can't help but let people know, because when you are one of the rare guys, it's kind of hard not to notice, or have pointed out to you.
If there is a greater ratio, then it is the ratio of non-Tribal leaders to Tribal leaders. Being one of only ten or so elected leaders amongst a conference of a couple hundred at least, one can't help but feel like a celebrity of sorts. Our name tags are decorated with a bold red ribbon stating "Tribal Leader" in gold lettering, equaling if not being more eye catching than the actual NIHSDA Board members themselves, who sport black ribbons with gold. During the opening proceedings, we are given special recognition, igniting the trend.
Unfortunately, I can only speculate on why we are treated so specially. My personal guess is that Indian Head Start programs have been lost in the shuffle of tribes, especially since the inception of Indian gaming, which has brought a whole slew of other issues that tend to interest the general public more. But Indian Head Start has been around a lot longer, before I was born even. Some might contend it touches lives much more than the benefits of Indian gaming, though such a contention would take decades to prove or disprove.
What I do know for certain is that those involved in Head Start take the job very seriously, almost singlemindedly. This could very well be the only conference I've attended regarding Tribes where the topic of Indian gaming was not even brought up in any of the workshops or speeches, ever. People here are very concerned with the welfare of future generations of Indian children. To them, it really is the future of Indian Country, and they might have a point.
In that regard I am often lost in some of the discussions, not having children nor any real background in early childhood education. I realize that needs to be remedied. At times it seems kind of odd that I am the Council member who has chosen to be involved with our Head Start when I am the only one without any children. According to one director from a Tribe in California, that is not entirely unusual; their Council liaison is also single and childless.
According to our last Federal review, Grand Ronde has a very well-run Head Start program, and that reputation seems to have preceeded us. As luck would have it our name gets peppered throughout the conference. We pay and host a feast at the Chinook Longhouse in Ridgefield, close to the conference at the Jantzen Beach Red Lion in northern Portland. Once again I am called upon to be acknowledged as the Grand Ronde messenger, though I say nothing. Really, our drummers and dancers steal the show, as well as the Ridgefield Wildlife Refugee, which I've known only in the winter, and is quite beautiful in summer.
Our veterans act as color guard during the opening ceremony, and our chinuk pre-school immersion students the closing song earlier today. I can't help but feel a little flush of pride for our tribe. Multiple people thank me for the dinner, and one director asks me if she could come over to see our immersion program. We've made an impression.
Twice I get called over to meetings reserved for Tribal leaders. They would like us to speak out at the upcoming consultations on the Head Start Reauthorization Act. They like having the directors and teachers speak and submit testimony, but once again, it seems to carry a lot more weight when coming from a Tribal leader. I suppose that opportunity will come.

Town Halls

I love debates, and for that matter, debating. That is not to say that there aren't times when debating wears me down. Nothing irks me more than a debate or argument where a person, deliberately or not, gets way off topic or chooses to confuse the issue, which I think sometimes happens more often in Grand Ronde than it should. But overall, if the participants in a debate know their stuff, are eager to win the debate based on the merits of their argument as opposed drawing applause from the audience (if there is one) or getting a rise out of the opposition, to see clear arguments laid out is for me kind of cool. I love seeing individuals making passionate arguments about what they believe in.
Watching the primary debates during this year's U.S. Presidential primaries was for me some of the most revealing episodes I've seen during any election. Admittedly, I only glanced at the Republican ones compared to how I followed the Democratic debates. But what I got from both is that these debates were a pretty good method of culling the wannabes from the real contenders. You could tell which individuals from both parties were really cut out to lead their devoted factions, and dare I say actually occupy the White House.
I must admit to being somewhat surprised by Barack Obama's refusal to meet John McCain for all those proposed Town Hall-style meetings. "Surprised" might not actually be the word, but rather "disappointed" because I've enjoyed what I have seen televised during this Presidential season. Plus I think you should never back down from a challenge put forth by your opponent, especially when the stakes are about as high as they get in this country. But, that's just me.
When I ran for Tribal Council in 2004, along with Buddy West and Angie Blackwell, we held a number of our own Town Hall meetings, in Eugene, Portland, Grand Ronde, Warm Springs, and even La Center. Sometimes the turnout was low, but other times we had some packed rooms, on one occasion almost nobody but complete strangers to me. They were however, concerned and gave up a couple of hours during a weekend to come and listen to our spiels. I am not sure how much of an impact those meetings had on the overall election, as we all were elected rather easily, but what I do know is that the following year in 2005 there must have been at least 12 or so of those meetings held. A number of them were part of the PPP campaign that helped elect Kathleen Tom and Wink Soderberg, the others were organized and attended by individuals who, quite honestly, seemed to be mimicking what we did in 2004.
What I can't quite understand is why those meetings died out after those two years. Did people just lose interest or did the brains behind the meetings hang up their hats? I can't really say. It might be both.
I write all this because today a Tribal Council Record of Instruction was brought forward to basically axe the Candidates' Forum this year in Grand Ronde. I am not entirely clear on the thinking behind this, but it just doesn't seem right. Granted, attendance at the annual Candidates Forum has hardly been encouraging, but I thought last year we had a pretty decent turnout, even though it was a Thursday night. And the fact that candidates were not actually allowed to debate each other seems to have been a common though legitimate gripe.
It could all be a ruse, just a one-year deal to get through what might be a tough election. If what I've been told is true, then there are definitely one or two people running for Council this year who the last thing they would want is to be asked questions, especially about the past. Sometimes the best way to avoid a situation is to eliminate it altogether. Truth is I don't know. I can only guess. The real issue though is, am I the only one who will miss it?

Fair Time

During our Public Affairs update last Wednesday, an interesting issue came up. I am not sure if anybody has noticed, but the "Tilixam Wawa", which used to come out monthly, is suddenly being published much less frequently. That issue we discussed was of course whether or not to have one last issue before the election, as between setting a deadline, laying out the actual issue, and sending it off to the printers we would be pushing close to the election period, and somewhere, it seems in some people's minds, it is written that anybody who is a candidate for election should not appear in any Tribal publication lest that present an unfair advantage.
It was pretty clear from the update that a couple of Council members at least remembered, and were upset by, the fact that I appeared on the front page of the "Smoke Signals" during the election. In their view, the supposed policy that prohibited appearance of candidates had "gone out the window" with my photo from the signing of our Hunting & Fishing Rights proclamation. Whether that meant incumbents are now free to use the publications for campaigning or they were just venting I don't know. What I do know is that is does raise a legitimate question about how Council members can use what is supposed to be a tool for communication to the membership.
At the January General Council meeting, Angie Blackwell raised the new (and oddly unwritten) policy of Council censorship of the "Wawa", and she, as well as myself and Buddy West, were basically accused by a sitting Council member of using the publication for campaigning. That accusation would be repeated at the February General Council meeting specifically targeting me. Now the person lobbing the accusation has pretty much made it known who on Council they are loyal to, and who they would work to help un-elect. But that does not take away from the legitimacy of the topic, and I write this in the context of observing that a fellow Council member who has been less than diligent about submitting articles to the "Wawa" is intent on getting one in during this final stretch. I suppose they must be given the benefit of the doubt, because I think we have to be fair and open-minded in all this. On one hand this Council member could be re-elected and suddenly realize that communication is important, and try to have an article of pertinence in every issue, a practice I've tried to make habit. Conversely, they could just make every article a lead-in to their campaign, in which case it really could be construed as abuse of resources. We'll just have to wait and see.
I wonder though, what would be a fair and equitable policy, and more importantly, who would be charged with enforcing it. Statistically, incumbents on average usually have a clear advantage, provided they aren't lame ducks. Getting excessive coverage and a free platform for their candidacy only adds to the advantage, in fact, if the governing body controls all avenues of communication, they could virtually drown out the hopes of any challengers; they could practically render any opposition invisible by omission. If you read about government-controlled press in foreign countries, particularly those who would have the outside world believe they are a democracy, that is often how regimes stay in power.
The Federal Communications Commission actually has laws regarding that kind of behavior, especially with radio and television. They are informally called "Fair Airtime" rules. A broadcasting station can get in trouble for refusing access to a candidate. Unfortunately, we don't have an FCC in Grand Ronde, and I don't see one being formed any time soon.
Supposedly we are to have a meeting to discuss developing a policy. I am not sure what we'll do. Complete control of anything is never readily relinquished.