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.