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.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, June 16, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
