I'm sure somebody will correct me if wrong. But thirteen days has to be the longest I've gone without making a blog post. No, it is not because I no longer care, or because the Council drama has consumed me. Pure and simple, I've started another blog: the Grand Ronde Post.
It is not live right now, though I've made some posts. Right now I am just getting comfortable with the hosting company, Wordpress. I like Blogger, but Wordpress has impressed me enough to give it a go. I like many of the features, and my research has indicated it to be one of the better if not best blog-hosting sites. I plan to make it live this weekend, if not sooner.
I will not be eliminating this blog. If anything, I plan on keeping it around. Kind of like an archive. Not sure how many bother to read this blog anymore, it has tapered off somewhat, and maybe a change over is what we need. I hope to add other authors to the Grand Ronde Post, but it will all depend on who is willing.
Anyway, after three years plus year, we can all agree a little change will hurt nobody.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Details, Details
It seems like forever ago that we hired ECONorthwest to advise us on how better we might conduct our business. In actuality, that was only four years ago. But in Council years it might was well have been a lifetime.
In the very end, we did not accept all of ECO's recommendations. I might more accurately say we didn't accept even a majority of their advice. But what we did accept, and have since then molded and fashioned according to our tastes and preferences, is the Tribal Council Operating Procedures.
We had a very constructive, if scattered, meeting on those guidelines again today. The last time we tackled the operating procedures was back in autumn, but enough has transpired recently to merit another look, in particular how we make decisions.
The still infamous Polk County Sheriff's Report/Leno Letter sparked a series of Records of Instructions. The first was to mail the PCSR to the General membership. The second was to somehow include the entire report in an issue of Tilixam Wawa. The third was to allow those named in the report the chance to include a response in original mailout. The fourth was to send out the original audit that was turned over the the police. Only the first one passed.
This is not the first time multiple committee sheets have been circulated regarding the same issue. In 2007 while trying to manifest some sort of decision on a Constitutional amendment on enrollment we ended up doing at least four, maybe even five different ROI's on the exact language. We ended up going with the one with five signatures. What was different this time around was only one got five signatures, as there was a noticeable lack on nine signatures on most of them. One ROI disappeared briefly, for what seemed like a couple of days. I am still not sure what happened.
Numerous questions abound. Can one ROI supersede the other? Do Council comments affect the intent of the ROI? Can a Council member remove the ROI from consideration? What if a ROI, like the one calling for the release of the audit, fractures a Tribal law? Should the requestor be required to list their name as the requestor, instead of just generically Tribal Council?
It was an interesting discussion, to say the least. In the past we adjusted the language so that committee sheets could only be introduced during a formal meeting, eliminating the practice of Council members drafting and ROI and collecting signatures in private. There still appeared to be flaws in our system. Ultimately, we decided to reserve nearly all votes, including ROI's, for Tuesday mornings, where they could be vetted and discussed openly. There will be exceptions in the case of emergencies, which I'm sure at one point will be tested. Tuesdays, already with Legislative Action Committee, have become legislative holy days. Right now, I am okay with it.
It's true, that whole thing about the devil being in the details.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Law Enforcement
Laws, no matter how intelligently written and how much they account for unforseen circumstances will inevitably fail if they overlook one fundamental, and that is the enforcement of those laws. I've been thinking about this a lot lately for several reasons, one being the inconsistency of how we've dealt with the now infamous 2008 anonymous letter (aka the Leno letter) and others, the other being having to deal with an agreement for police services in Grand Ronde through the Polk County Sheriff's Office. As of this morning there is now a third reason: the resurrection of an Exclusion Ordinance that little did I know was written years ago only to languish up until now.
The Leno letter debacle and subsequent involvement of our auditor and police have rightly raised questions about fairness, e.g. why weren't past letters where somebody had clearly used a mailing list to which they shouldn't have had access also turned over to legal authorities? For reasons that shouldn't be vague, I think you are reaching an ethical black hole when the decision to turn over the knowledge of probable illegal activity to police comes down to a vote of Tribal Council. If there are laws and ordinances that clearly define illegal activity, do they do any good if there is going to be picking-and-choosing when to enforce those laws?
There is right and wrong, and then there is legal and illegal, with some overlapping of the two, but not always. Right becomes wrong, and possibly illegal, when it is selective. A state highway patrol officer is right to pull over drivers who are going 75 in a 55 mph zone, because then there are laws clearly being broken. That same action becomes wrong, though not necessarily illegal (however I'm sure a case could be made), when the same officer decides that he will only pull over and ticket speeders that are either strangers or enemies, or he doesn't like the color of their skin, or age, or that they are women, etc. My real point: Tribal Council is not the best body to be making that kind of decision, because we don't have to justify our selectivity. The reasons could be purely political and purely personal for deciding on whether to subject somebody to the hammer of justice.
Now my second point: Our dealings with the Polk County Sheriff's Office have revived the idea of starting our own Tribal police force, because then we would have more control of the policing on Tribal lands, and the officers could even be Tribal members. Frankly, this would be the ultimate excercise of our Tribal sovereignty, and in theory it is a not a bad idea. But I think it's rife with pitfalls. The first thing that occurs to me is what does a Tribal police officer think as he receives a phone call about a crime in which a distant or close relative is implicated? What about when he must arrest a Tribal Council member, knowing full well this person will decide whether to continue to approve the police department budget? Will "Other Business" on Wednesday night meetings become the venue where Tribal members talk about how police are corrupt, or present one-sided stories of their innocence and how Council must interceded on their behalf? I've read of Tribal police, and judges for that matter, getting caught up in the storm of Tribal politics and crises.
This morning's meeting on an Exclusion Ordinance raised similar red flags, especially when the rough draft read that Tribal Council would make the decision on whether to move forward with banishing somebody from Tribal property. I understand the need for staff to have a means to enforce ordinances, and the fact that people have been caught dealing drugs or promoting gang activity on our lands and are allowed back into housing and near our children has to be a cause for concern. But I don't think that kind of decision needs to come before us. Law enforcement needs to be independent.
Years ago, we appointed several former Council members to form an ethics task force and rewrite our ethical standards. In the end, their recommendations, which included establishing an ethics commission, were not accepted, being viewed as just an additional layer of government. In sitting on SMGI and getting to witness how the gaming commission polices Spirit Mountain Casino, with the ability to sanction anybody from frontline employees to the CEO, I understand now more than ever the need for that extra layer. Run correctly and free of political influence, it works.
The Leno letter debacle and subsequent involvement of our auditor and police have rightly raised questions about fairness, e.g. why weren't past letters where somebody had clearly used a mailing list to which they shouldn't have had access also turned over to legal authorities? For reasons that shouldn't be vague, I think you are reaching an ethical black hole when the decision to turn over the knowledge of probable illegal activity to police comes down to a vote of Tribal Council. If there are laws and ordinances that clearly define illegal activity, do they do any good if there is going to be picking-and-choosing when to enforce those laws?
There is right and wrong, and then there is legal and illegal, with some overlapping of the two, but not always. Right becomes wrong, and possibly illegal, when it is selective. A state highway patrol officer is right to pull over drivers who are going 75 in a 55 mph zone, because then there are laws clearly being broken. That same action becomes wrong, though not necessarily illegal (however I'm sure a case could be made), when the same officer decides that he will only pull over and ticket speeders that are either strangers or enemies, or he doesn't like the color of their skin, or age, or that they are women, etc. My real point: Tribal Council is not the best body to be making that kind of decision, because we don't have to justify our selectivity. The reasons could be purely political and purely personal for deciding on whether to subject somebody to the hammer of justice.
Now my second point: Our dealings with the Polk County Sheriff's Office have revived the idea of starting our own Tribal police force, because then we would have more control of the policing on Tribal lands, and the officers could even be Tribal members. Frankly, this would be the ultimate excercise of our Tribal sovereignty, and in theory it is a not a bad idea. But I think it's rife with pitfalls. The first thing that occurs to me is what does a Tribal police officer think as he receives a phone call about a crime in which a distant or close relative is implicated? What about when he must arrest a Tribal Council member, knowing full well this person will decide whether to continue to approve the police department budget? Will "Other Business" on Wednesday night meetings become the venue where Tribal members talk about how police are corrupt, or present one-sided stories of their innocence and how Council must interceded on their behalf? I've read of Tribal police, and judges for that matter, getting caught up in the storm of Tribal politics and crises.
This morning's meeting on an Exclusion Ordinance raised similar red flags, especially when the rough draft read that Tribal Council would make the decision on whether to move forward with banishing somebody from Tribal property. I understand the need for staff to have a means to enforce ordinances, and the fact that people have been caught dealing drugs or promoting gang activity on our lands and are allowed back into housing and near our children has to be a cause for concern. But I don't think that kind of decision needs to come before us. Law enforcement needs to be independent.
Years ago, we appointed several former Council members to form an ethics task force and rewrite our ethical standards. In the end, their recommendations, which included establishing an ethics commission, were not accepted, being viewed as just an additional layer of government. In sitting on SMGI and getting to witness how the gaming commission polices Spirit Mountain Casino, with the ability to sanction anybody from frontline employees to the CEO, I understand now more than ever the need for that extra layer. Run correctly and free of political influence, it works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
