Community Standards

I wasn’t present for yesterday’s Legislative Action Committee. What I’ve been told is that Executive Session was called, staff left, and Council went into a lengthy conversation about whether one of the questions boxes for the Candidates’ Forum on August 22 was “compromised”. A Record of Instruction was drafted and signed by six Council members to conduct an investigation into the allegations, as supposedly a Tribal Council member was the culprit and he now wants to clear his name.

I am in the hotel lobby of the Tuscany Casino & Suites in Las Vegas, Nevada, while typing this blog post. The training I attended here, Falmouth Institute’s “Tribal Constitutions & By-Laws” ended earlier than expected, leaving me a few hours of down time before catching my flight back to Portland. There are times I wonder what goes on back in the office, and when it is stuff like this, what more can a person do but wince and smile?

With smaller and more intimate meetings, I tend to favor conferences and trainings like this because it allows me some one-on-one time with other Tribal leaders. That means swapping “war stories”, which are basically anecdotes of our experiences doing what we do. Not all here are Tribal Council members, some are administrators and managers. One is a consultant. I am tempted to share this most recent story of the hand in the question box. It is on par with much of the story-telling we’ve engaged in here, the kind that seems right out of a movie or banana republic.

It will probably take me another posting to get into the specifics of this training. Informative it has been. But I will share one nugget of information, the kind most of us already know but never truly grasp until we see it laid out before us objectively, concisely, and almost academically. I learned about “community standards”, which relates to this most recent fiasco.

Some Tribes won’t allow their leaders to be or have been convicted felons. Others eliminate you from seeking re-election if you’ve been found guilty of misconduct while in office. They have constitutions with specific language for both. We are neither one of those types of tribes. Our standards, that you must be 18 years old and an enrolled member, are pretty basic. We’ve at least one convicted felon in office, and Council members have been re-elected right on the heels of being found guilty of violating our ethics ordinance. I am tempted right now to throw out some sort of opinion here, but am not sure if that’s necessary.

Two years ago, prior to the advisory vote on SMGI, one of our Wednesday night meetings went longer, and nastier than usual. Our consideration of removing board members started a fire. We explained the reasons, the Council/board member ordering buffalo meat be bought from his friend, the Council/board member ordering a staff give surveillance footage to a friend so they could file a lawsuit, notably. But the audience there were die-hard loyalists. Nothing would change their mind. We were the villains.

There are a handful of Tribal members who I remember from that night. I’ve never looked at them the same. They defended wrong-doing out of political allegiance. They indicated then and there that they would support their chosen leaders and political allies no matter what. It was, as I saw Jesse Ventura admonish FOX News’ Sean Hannity several weeks ago, politics at its worst.

I am not sure how much steam the question box scandal will generate. It might be very little, which would be sad, but hardly surprising. There could be some outrage. What there will definitely be is defense of the instigator, even if it had been caught on camera. That he has been suspended for unethical behavior before matters little. Grand Ronde has at times shown way too much tolerance for misconduct of its Tribal leaders, so much that this kind of stuff can be doubted, defended, blown off, and even forgotten. I am curious, and hopeful, to see if our voting membership favors raising the community standard.

Here’s one story that was swapped to me. A regional tribe hosted an election for its Chief. The position was voted on separately. Two well-known and respected Elders sought the position, as well as a younger man with a known drug problem. The two Elders siphoned enough votes from each other that the younger man won the election, the position which by the carried a ten-year term. He had attendance problems from the start, refused to remove his cap during invocation, and was in office for one-fourth his term before they were able to unseat him by means I am not clear on. His election was both an indictment of community standards and the present electoral system, both of which I presume have changed since.

Making a Difference

It would be a lie to say that I’ve become a video pro. I haven’t. But I’ve learned a lot over the past two months, due mainly to my new hobby of filming videos. In fact, I’ve already gone and added Corel Video Studio Pro x2 to the on-line shopping cart right before typing up this blog entry. It may be one of the biggest non-video game computer purchases I’ve made in a long time. After the election, I plan on possibly investing in an even bigger and better camera, one better than my $700 Sony Camcorder, a better microphone for sure, in order to improve what has been started.

Before doing all this I must ask myself if it is, as one person posted on my blog last month, making a difference. I believe it is, it’s just hard to say how much. YouTube thankfully allows a number of options that give you a sense of how often one’s videos are being viewed. A few have gone over 100 views, which in the YouTube world seems paltry, but given how little publicity these have been given, and that our Tribal community is so small compared to the general population, I have to take solace in the fact that somebody is watching them.

To date my brother and I have interviewed 10 of the 18 candidates for Tribal Council this year, including the Chair Cheryle Kennedy. One other incumbent gave me a verbal commitment more than a month ago, while the third has not so much as mentioned it to me. I am starting to wonder if that is deliberate, as in maybe they’ve been “advised” not to participate in this new campaign medium. I say that because at Pow Wow my brother and I spoke to a candidate while in one of the fry bread lines, and this is a candidate who has always been cool to me. But despite our pressuring, she clearly did not want to do an interview, even though all I needed was 30 minutes of her time. I might be reading into this the wrong way, but it just seems kind of odd to turn down what amounts to free campaign publicity with little time commitment. But truth has a way of being stranger than fiction. In the era of partisan politics, sitting down with me might be the equivalent of a Democrat going on Fox News, or a Republican on MSNBC.

Like many things, I look forward to the challenge of sustaining this new hobby after the fervor of the election has died down. Of course, things might get really interesting then.

Parking Lot Conversation

This morning we had a meeting, the same as every Tuesday. Two Tribal members, relations of mine, came in to speak before Council regarding an employment matter at Spirit Mountain Casino. In hindsight, we probably should have gone into Executive Session, as names were thrown out, a hiring decision discussed. On thinking, I'm glad we didn't.
Our Tribal Vice-Chair left just as this discussion ended (Normally I avoid mentioning names, but since he is also Chair of SMGI and that is one reason why this matter got brought before us). A fellow Council member seated next to me leaned over and passed me a note, saying that he would probably wait outside for the two members and tell them who knows what, probably something I don't want to hear. I walked out to my pick-up during the ten minute break, and sure enough, as she predicted, there he was, bending their ears. If only I had Superman hearing.
In the big picture, or from the 30,000 feet view as a consultant told me years ago, I don't like to fret over this kind of stuff. That doesn't stop me from doing so, as this kind of activity is rampant and contributes greatly to the rumor mill and community wide misconceptions. Today it irritated me not so much because these were cousins of mine, but because I've been in this position long enough to know that probably little if anything will be done about the employment matter. But matters like this are jumped on and people are told something is being done, all because there are votes to be gained, and in an unpredictable election like this, two votes are worth a little time on the side schmoozing. I personally think this has more to do with why Council is so attentive to casino employment matters; with between 160 to 200 Tribal member employees, the vast majority voting age, there may not be a more accessible contingent of voters than SMC workers. There are votes to be had there.
My first year we had an audit done on our Tribe's Legal department by an outside consultant. Everyone on Council was interviewed. After my own interview, I sat with one of the consultants and shot the breeze. We both chuckled because I'd only been at this job for two months, and his firm had been hired right before I got elected. The organization was new to both of us.
"There seems to be a lot of parking lot conversations around here," is what he told me. I remember the phrase vividly, and even knew what he meant. My appreciation for that concept has only deepened with time. What he was saying, really, is that information gets passed around not always by memorandum or email, but conversations on the side, in the hallways, in parking lots, always off the record, and hard to trace back. With so little vital information in print, Tribal members go directly to the source, Tribal Council, and whether what they get told is truth or fiction will remain a mystery forever, or a few years. There are some of my co-workers, I believe, who like this system. Unwitting allies can get made.
Late last year at a Wednesday night meeting, a Tribal member form Portland stood up and made comments about our salary. That is hardly new, but what was unusual was that this person was a staunch and vocal supporter of the Council majority party. Yet here she was being unabashedly vocal in her criticism of us. The meeting ended with two Council members puzzled and hurriedly walking after this Tribal member as she left chambers. I could hear their conversation as I shuffled by "What's up with that? I gotta go talk to her." And much like this morning, who knows what was said or passed on.
I got my first real taste of the parking lot conversation theory early, at a Wednesday night meeting. But the one anecdote that stands out the most was later into my first year. A well-known employee was making what I thought was a reasonable request of Council. I was okay granting it, but for whatever reason getting buy-in form others wasn't so easy. He confronted me in my office later that day after learning the news, hoping to know what happened, or so I thought. Evidently he had already been given one version of the story. We didn't always make decisions in writing then, and the meetings weren't recorded. I explained to him what happened, i.e. who didn't support his idea. Angrily, he looked at me, breathing heavily, and said without hesitation "Yeah. Well, I heard you and Angie were the ones who were shooting this down."
He has never really trusted me since, even though I told him the truth. Say what you will about parking lot conversations, but in Grand Ronde they can have a bigger impact than anything said on the record.

Spoiling

Years ago, back in 2003, I ran for Tribal Council. The 270 votes I received in 2002 were something to build on, or at least that's what many told me. More importantly, given the incredible unpopularity and maybe even infamy that surrounded one Council incumbent that year, one seat seemed up for grabs. There was no way he would be re-elected, because too many people disliked him.
Now there is an old Monty Python movie that came out in the early 1970's, called "The Life of Brian". It is about a young man born at the same time and within the same area as Jesus, leading to a lifetime of confusion. One part of that movie stands out more now than when I viewed it as a teenager, the fueding rebel movements in old Israel. The Judean People's Front and the Peoples' Front of Judea all have the same goal, to destroy the occupying Romans. The problem is they also hate each other, and both break into the Roman stronghold intent on assassinating the Emperor, only to run into one another, scuffle, and botch the dual efforts, while the Roman guards arrive at the end of the melee to stare confusedly at bodies everywhere. Of course it is all depicted in the usual zany Monty Python comical style, not to be taken too seriously, if at all.
Enough time has passed since 2003 that I can honestly see the parallels between that old film and what happened during the Tribal Council elections that year. So many people wanted to see a certain Council member gone. But his support was more united than the opposition, and he was re-elected with the lowest vote total in close to a decade. You see, 17 people decided to run that year. I was one of them, and fell short by 40 votes.
Ultimately, some good did come of that debacle of an election. We ran a much more unified and organized campaign the following year, sweeping all three seats, though ousting two Council members who, while many might argue were ineffective, were harmless compared to some of the sitting members not up for re-election. It has been a roller-coaster ride since then.
But what 2003 introduced for me was the concept of a spoiler in elections, a Ralph Nader or Ross Perot if you will. There are candidates who might make a decent showing, but in the end their biggest impact is siphoning votes away from people who have a better shot of being elected. In times when you need serious change, the spoiler does more harm than good. They aren't the villains who spark calls for sweeping change, but they are obstacles.
Which brings me to this year's election. This may be the most uncertain I've ever been about an outcome. I hear the calls for change, but like in 2003, way too many people are answering that call all at once. It seems unlikely the incumbents will earn the record votes they did three years ago. Having 18 candidates all but assures that. But with 18 people in the race, votes get split, and a person might be elected with maybe less than 400 votes, which has happened only once since 2003.
I respect whatever the members decide. But I do believe we need to a run-off election or something similar. I don't generally take much stock in rumors, but if this year we really do have people running just to dilute the vote, then we've got to change our present system. Sooner or later, we've got to realize that getting leaders elected with a majority vote is a good thing. I can't be the first to think so.