Budget Time

Tomorrow, after Legislative Action Committee, we begin a three day series of meetings to "go over" the budgets for the Tribal governance. Although we have put aside several days to do this, it would not surprise me at all if the whole thing goes beyond that. We've been lucky to pass a final budget before the last week of December. Come to think, I'm not sure if we ever have, least not in my time on Council.

Because this is the only position I've ever worked in where part of my job was to deal with budgets and line-items, our practices never seemed that unusual. Grueling and tedious and distracting? Yes. Odd? No. That is until working with the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments provided a comparison, and I was embarrassed to learn that many of the local governments complete their operating budgets for the following year before the summer. So it is unusual.

Our system consists of large binders several inches thick, with budgets getting so detailed I could tell you what the Gaming Commission spends on magazine subscriptions, and managers and staff sitting in to answer whatever questions arise from nine people going over the complete governance operation. As someone constantly hungry for knowledge, in a weird sort of way I like knowing that kind of stuff, just for the hell of out. What I don't like is the sheer amount of time committed to going over these budgets. My first year in 2004 it went weeks.

In 2006 we tried a different approach, mandating an organizational message of "hold the line", that meant no major increases, and committing a minimal amount of time to the budget. Managers got that. Over the last two years, we've gotten back to the more time-consuming, and in my opinion nitpicky, budget process, one that to me seems geared for those who like to micromanage. That might be the real issue.

I've been reading a lot about how tribes deal with trying to create a free press for their news reporting. They can pass all the resolutions and make all the public statements. When a disagreement happens between the tribal governing body and the tribal media, even though there might be laws or ordinances preventing the councils from interfering with the publication, a loophole exists for passive-aggressive "revenge" if you will through funding. In other words, they suspend, revoke, eliminate, whatever, the budget for the media, citing all sorts of reasons, but the real one being the media somehow offended them, usually through reporting on something they didn't want reported.

I've seen that kind of behavior manifest itself through our budget process too. Whoever went afoul of certain Council members would suddenly find their budgets gutted, new positions they needed disproved, or something like that. You could never get those Council members to admit it, but sometimes ulterior motives are way too obvious to be denied. So I guess this budget period is a chance to see who is mad or dissatisfied with whom.

The additional factor this year is that some of my co-workers are angry about per capita being too low, and thus blaming managers, the casino, etc. I don't think we'll see layoffs, but we'll see cuts for sure. And we'll hear complaints about those cuts too. Because no matter how loud people holler for cuts, in the end you'll get those comments which amount to "we need cuts, but don't cut that".

Worst Case Scenarios

• Once again, another Tribe provides a good example of how bad things can get. Check out this story on the Snoqualmie, who show a tribal government virtually disintegrating.
• Also from the American Indian Report blog, here is an interesting story on the Mashantucket Pequots, a tribe with more money than some countries because they own the Foxwoods Casino.
• Lastly, on a local level, here is an update on Lisa Brown, formerly of the Siletz Tribal Council, who was removed from her position earlier this year right after being elected.
  

Knowing

I guess there was a movie released earlier this year called “Knowing”, which had Nicolas Cage.  This film involved a time capsule  with predictions and beyond that, I am not really sure what it is about.  But I liked the title as a blog post because after spending some time today sorting through the years of paperwork that has piled up around my office, it was eerily appropriate.  I’ve put aside a plastic portfolio in one of my drawers, one that can be locked.  In it is five years of work from our Audit Director that I’ve managed to save.

Today I found an old report that was probably talked about but for whatever reason I never really got around to reading.  Before I get accused of “teaser journalism” anybody reading this right now can be forewarned that the contents of the report will never be known to readers unless they somehow get elected to Tribal Council.  It was that kind of report.  Though years old, there were names mentioned of people I knew, some not in a way anybody would consider flattering.  Of course, that is the case with many audit reports.

Earlier in summer, July 8 to be exact, at a Council meeting a number of the attendees demanded we let them know the contents of the report on the so-called “Leno Letter” from last year.  What I find interesting, and probably sad, is that some of those demanding the report seem to have little if any interest in any other, which is a sure reason to question their motives.  One person pointed out that by then just about everybody in the audience had gotten some idea of whose name was mentioned, so that people were adamant about knowing didn’t make perfect sense.  The point was a valid one, but lost on the ones who needed to get it.  Public shaming, and maybe worse, is what they really cared about.

Anyway, the point I made at that Council meeting, and being made now is simple:  while I’ve always stood for openness and transparency, there has got to be some standard, one that takes into account the potential embarrassment and humiliation which could come with releasing some of our reports indiscriminately.  I say that mindful of the fact in many of the reports we get there are records of people being bad, breaking rules, and doing stuff they shouldn’t.  In other words, they shouldn’t be completely let off the hook.  But we should leave that to the appropriate staff.  Leaving the “punishment”, if you will, up to Council is something we shouldn’t do, because then dispensing justice becomes political.  And that’s not really justice.

There is more than just the reports we get from our Audit Director.  We have access to just about any record in the tribe.  While I don’t seek some of this information, inevitably a lot of it comes to us anyway, usually instigated by a Tribal member with some sort of beef.  We end up learning about a “situation” that we would not normally be apprised of in the course of our everyday work.  Much of this knowledge is eye-opening to say the least, and on many occasions will give you cause to look at some of our fellow Tribal members differently.  Funny thing is, do those members know we know?

I’ve learned over time who owes the Tribe money, who isn’t paying their utilities, who didn’t follow through on a Tribal scholarship.  I know why somebody didn’t get a job they thought was theirs, and worst of all, I know why somebody’s prescription wasn’t refilled because they came to Council seeking help.  I know sometimes too much about what goes on around me, and many times too little.

It might qualify as a paradox.  I know this most of all.  When somebody stands up in a Council meeting and says something untrue, misleading, and inaccurate, the hardest thing of all is to say nothing because to say anything will only make it worse. 

What Went Wrong

The General Council meeting following our Tribal elections is traditionally unpredictable. I’ve seen meetings, like 2002 and 2006, where the tone for the oncoming election was laid out unmistakably, if even only by a few individuals. Other times, like 2005 and 2007, it seemed people either didn’t care or weren’t sure how to act. Today, 2009, was more like the latter than the former, but just barely.

I won’t pretend to be surprised, because the 2009 Tribal Council elections were, for all the tension and ugliness that occasionally manifested itself, deflating. I can’t say that the partisan politics we’ve dealt with for the last few years have died out. That will never happen, and I use the word “never” sparingly. But something seems to have happened over the last three years to change the nature of Grand Ronde politics. When the three Council members who scored record votes in 2006 are three years later registering record losses in votes (690, 630, 608 in 2006 to 337, 324, 338 in 2009), one can’t help but wonder what, for them, went wrong.

We’ve seen this before. One Council member in 1999 would drop close to 150 votes in 2002. Likewise two of the ABC’s went from 604 and 462 respectively, to 400 and 291. Our Vice Chair, who many see as the most influential Council member of the last ten years, went from 591 in 2005 to 468 in 2008, the first time in any of his re-elections where he lost votes. Personally, I myself can’t help but wonder how the numbers will turn out for me next year. Will I see similar drops?

When you think about it, the concept is hard to digest because you don’t see that kind of extreme fickleness expressed that often in other elections. Can anybody imagine a President, Senator, or Congressman getting less than half their original votes during a re-election bid? Even Ted Stevens, the Alaskan politician who was on his way to prison as an incumbent, was barely beaten. So even an extremely negative and embarrassing incident doesn’t equate to loss of votes, not always anyway. But there has to be some explanation.

Which brings me to the the original question of what went wrong. Why was it that 18 people decided to throw their hats into the election this year, with many of them campaigning on “change”? How did incumbents who looked absolutely unstoppable three years ago come to be such lame ducks yesterday, each of them garnering less votes than a first-time runner?

I don’t really know the answer, but have some theories, because really 2009 wasn’t all that different from 2007, the year I survived. For one, political loyalties, meaning votes, can easily shift elsewhere based on feuds and disagreements among voting group leaders, often family heads. I think that made a huge difference this year. Two, people expect revolutionary changes following electoral sweeps. Democrats are dealing with that right now. Anything less than major changes will turn supporters sour, which is a double-edged sword because too much change will galvanize and unify opposition. So it has to be done carefully. Lastly, eventually, supporters look elsewhere for candidates who embody or uphold what they would like to see, which might explain why this year was the most number of candidates we’ve had since 2000, when 23 Tribal members decided to vie for three positions. This year 15 people aside from the incumbents sense, correctly I might add, that voters would be wanting some sort of change. The election results don't argue.

That year, like 2003 when 17 people ran, 350 votes was the magic number, which is interesting because anytime over the last five elections such figures would have made you a runner-up. Not so in 2009, not that I’m complaining about the results. I think Grand Ronde needs somebody like Toby McClary right now.

Tribes

Yesterday morning, I went into Salem to attend the Oregon State Fair. It was work related, because the Western Oregon Tribes were giving a presentation, a demonstration if you will, of our cultures. So you had all the Tribal Chairs, and even a few others, like Council members, Vice-Chairs, etc. For whatever reason, the exhibit was held at 10:00 a.m. which meant it was not as well-attended had it been say, an evening affair.
I number of people attending, in response to a question from Cheryle Kennedy, were members of the respective tribes, with a small minority being Fair-goers who happened by. We tried best we could to do a mini-grand entry, which wasn't very easy given that we had about 50 feet in which to do it. Our march was slow lest because the amount of time it would take to two-step to the stage and the length of a drum song were not congruent. Overall, it didn't seem like we were given a whole lot of space in which to present any sort of exhibit on a tribe, much less five. As a rule of thumb though, we always jump at the opportunity to educate the general public on who we are.
Different Oregon tribes have their respective beefs with eachother. I was told recently by a Coos Tribal member who worked on their restoration effort that the Coquilles opposed them way back when. Why that is didn't seem clear to me, but it was hardly surprising. There appears to be conflicting views of traditional territory amongst many Tribes, much pre-dating the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a policy shift that added a new edge to these disputes. Suddenly, this was about money, lots of it. Indian gaming has made Tribes into business competitors. I am not sure we can ever go back.
Right now, we have issues with the Siletz tribe. At the eleventh hour last year they sent a representative before the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Commission to request our new ceremonial hunting rule be postponed until they could work out their own. It didn't make much sense because those kinds of issues would be dealt with individually with Tribes. Maybe they knew that and were just trying to get our goat. They were kind of mean to us too during the hearings of Cascade Locks last year, their Vice-Chair calling us "unreasonable" during his testimony. I can't remember what their Chair said, but I don't remember it being kind. Though I didn't hear the remark, multiple people informed me that during Tribal Information Day at the Oregon State Capitol in May the Siletz Chair referred to Salem and the Willamette Valley as their historic lands. It gets kind of petty, I suppose.
This is funny to me because as being part of the Oregon Tribal Gaming Alliance, we all get along just fine. They are nice to me anyway, at least to my face. For all I know, they are laughing behind my back. I doubt it, but still wonder.
Our issues with Warm Springs are well-known. And Cowlitz. We are cautiously supporting the Chinooks in their recognition effort. I bring all this up because years ago, this idea was put out there of a casino run by all the nine Oregon Tribes. A mega-casino, the first steps of which would be tribes agreeing on a slot-machine leasing model. A tribe like the Burns-Pauite, who are located in the middle of nowhere, could benefit greatly from such a proposal. At one point we were even talking with them, their Chair making the long drive to Grand Ronde to discuss the concept with us. But they have political turmoil as well. We rarely hear from them anymore. Whatever has gone on has paralyzed their ability to work with other tribes. Maybe that will change.
It will be interesting to see if tribes can ever buck their feuds and start working together productively, kind of like we do through the OTGA. But even that might fall apart because some of my co-workers do not see the value, which I take to mean they dislike the ability to completely steer the alliance, lack of authority to completely control something new outside of the Grand Ronde Council bubble.
I will say this for Siletz though. At events like the State Fair, their Council goes all out with the regalia. The Vice-Chair and Secretary led the cultural presentation in traditional garb, namely leather pants and bone and antler chest-pieces. You won't see any of our Tribal Council going shirtless in public.