Early in September, we had a meeting to discuss the amount of the 3rd quarter per capita distribution. Our Finance Officer brought us a preliminary number ($504) that was laughable. So we set about to doing what we could to boost that number. That led of course to a discussion about fears of backlash from the membership if the distribution number was too low. I and another Council member remarked that we thought the membership would understand that in the present economy expectations couldn't be too high.
I didn't think too much of that conversation until several days later when a Tribal member, one with whom I've had a mostly adversarial relationship, decided to distort our talk that day and repeat it during Other Business, in a way not made to make me look good. Last night at our Wednesday night Council meeting another Tribal member raised the same issue, though not mentioning me by name, but still maintaining that there might be Council members who didn't exactly support per capita. A similar letter to the editor appears in this month's "Smoke Signals". All three of these Tribal members are cousins, which I think explains a lot.
During my first year on Council I, along with Angie Blackwell and Buddy West, had to deal a lot with rumor control, specifically that we were part of some conspiracy to lower and/or eliminate per capita. I can remember two Tribal members confronting me at the casino, telling me a former Council member had informed them I supported cutting per capita. One individual went so far as to mail out an anonymous flyer in September 2005 about how the Tribal Council would be "capping" per capita at $4000, in addition to scaling back other benefits. Supposedly we were just mean people.
As a Tribal member I can't deny liking per capita. I don't turn away those checks. But it saddens me that there are a number of Tribal members for whom this issue will decide how they vote. And it frustrates me that spreading rumors about Council members and potential candidates not supporting per capita has become the equivalent of McCarthy-era Communist accusations. It reminds me of those trying to paint Obama as a closet muslim or how mainstream candidates try to paint opponents as anti-American and unpatriotic. Except the per capita rumor theories are solely about money.
Last I checked one in four gaming tribes engages in per capita distributions, a number that I found initially surprising. When you grapple with how to equitably serve your membership, per capita is a no-brainer. But then again I've met leaders who've sworn to never do per capita, and those who said if they could go back in time…Of course, not all per capita plans are the same. At a recent training in Las Vegas an instructor informed how some tribes' distributions aren't equal for all members. Younger members get less. And then again there are those rare tribes where the per capita is so high the members probably don't even need to work, in fact they are millionaires. I have a hard time imagining that.
I can't help but wonder if the "per capita killer" rumors run rampant in their elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment