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/
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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...
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...
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
