Barack, Bend and back

In May we hosted our annual Community meeting in Bend, Oregon. I was late for this, having opted for a VIP pass to see Barack Obama again. When I met him in September of 2007, Hillary Clinton was vastly ahead in the polls, and a VIP pass allowed a looser face-to-face interaction with Obama. In May he had surged ahead, and all I got was a series of handshakes and a brief conversation, in a tightly packed crowd. I was able to give him that necklace from our previous meeting, though my photos turned out rather poorly in those close quarters.
The drive to Bend, for those of you who don't know, is always a minor adventure, as you go through the high Cascades, and snow in the summer even is not uncommon.

The Hammer Falls

As I write this, it is 8:30 in the evening, and about 80 degrees outside. I am in Phoenix, Arizona, for the 65th National Congress of American Indians Annual Conference. Chances are I will not be posting this tonight, but rather sometime in the a.m. The high price that is being paid for my room, government rate notwithstanding, does not include internet service. For that I must pay an additional $13 per day, nearly one-tenth the cost of my room. This is a sore subject for me, enough that during most of my travels I research lodgings to find out if they charge for internet service. As a personal rule of thumb, if they charge, I don’t stay. I overlooked that this time. Actually I just forgot. It’s a matter of principle, like paying for the bottled water only a foot from my laptop. $5.25 will buy a couple gallons of milk back in Oregon. Likewise $40 gets me an entire month of internet service at home.
In the grand scheme of things these kinds of costs aren’t going to change lives or bust my wallet, but they do add up, and I am among a growing population of people who believe that it is actually quite possible to be nickeled-and-dimed to death. Plus the Hyatt Regency doesn’t need anymore of my money.
I find myself thinking of these kinds of things because tomorrow, or today, depending on when I get around to posting this (maybe I’ll head down to the lobby), an event that has been looming for almost my entire time of Council will finally unfold. During our Wednesday night Council meeting a few dozen Tribal members, providing there is no change on heart in the majority, will cease to be Grand Ronde Tribal members. They are to be dis-enrolled, wiped from our records. Maybe it is better that I am here in Arizona, away from an act I and others tried to prevent. I could call in, since teleconferencing is catching on, but other than being just another “yes” vote since there isn’t really any other way to interpret our Constitutional membership requirements, legally there is not a whole lot I can do. It has been a long time since I felt this helpless.
This has been overall very quiet, given the enormity of what is about to unfold. I suspect that was intentional. When the dis-enrollments were tabled again last spring, my understanding, and the reason that appeared to be given, was that because we were working on the Enrollment Ordinance regarding how to correct/amend the Restoration roll, this matter would wait until that work was concluded especially since this group of Tribal members could potentially be affected by new language. My suspicions then were that this was a simple stall tactic to avoid making an unpopular decision just before Tribal Council elections. That wouldn’t be illegal, but ethically questionable, though such a thing would be hard to prove. Given that we almost never discussed the Enrollment Ordinance between May and September, my suspicions appear to be correct. We had more discussion on the Leno letter than we did on this.
I am not sure what could have been done to prevent this, aside from upheaval through our Tribal elections. I say that because realistically the antidote to this situation , which would have been to successfully amend the Constitution last February, never had support on Council. Even though the majority of Tribal members who voted wanted to see the amendments pass, the power to ultimately fix this problem still came down to Council. Had they, or should I say we, advocated to right this wrong, there is little doubt in my mind we could have made that amendment pass. But not all of us did, and nobody can tell me there isn’t one or two of my peers who have secretly gotten exactly what they wanted.
What I am curious to know is if this will be the dying ember that reignites the proverbial blaze, or has the fire finally died out. I don’t really know. But I know that somewhere there are some Tribal families who must prepare themselves for major changes, and parents will have awkward explaining to do their children.

Campaign Theater

On Thursday in Oregon, at 7 p.m., local News Channel 8 ( or was it 2?) aired the debate between Gordon Smith, the Republican incumbent for US Senate, and his challenger Jeff Merkley. I can remember when Smith was first elected in 1996, because his election was a close one, he narrowly defeated Tom Brugerre, in fact I think that election came down to hundreds of votes. Brugerre has since then disappeared, while Smith has made somewhat of a name for himself, though this year he looks quite vulnerable, though I expect him to pull it out. Merkley just flat out does not have the appeal that it takes to unseat a fairly popular politician.
What stands out about his this particular race, as well as that of Kurt Schrader and Mike Erickson, is how nasty it has gotten, not unlike the presidential campaigns. You could really see that in the debates. Smith and Merkley went after each other, not quite as nastily as some have gone after Obama, but you could tell these two have very different ideas. Smith, and here is another parallel between this and the presidential election, belongs to the party of George W. Bush, and has to some degree quietly tried to distance himself from that, touting his reputation as an independent. His campaign signs are green and white, while the attack adds on him feature a very good photo of him and the president, Bush bearing that cocky smile that I think probably drives some Democrats wild. On a side note, seeing how he was scarcely mentioned during the Republican National Convention, has there ever been a sitting outgoing president so little regarded in the waning days of his administration? Even his press conferences seem dead, like nobody cares what he has to say anymore, and his own party is trying to campaign as if the last eight years never existed. Neither McCain or Palin seem to be seeking much support from him.
Anyway, back to the Smith/Merkley debate. One thing I really noticed was how poorly, at least in comparison to the Presidential debates, the whole thing went. I've met Smith on a couple of occasions, and he has that charisma that is undeniable, a strong confident voice, and is somewhat known for his suits. I've not met Merkley, but as the Democratic leader in Oregon, I would think he'd be well accomplished in public speaking. Neither came off as a particularly good debater, and both of them at different points looked to be uttering lines that were basically repetitive talking points. Both came off, as I mentioned to a fellow political junkie, as bad actors, using lines without really knowing how to say them, botching the delivery, which with some lines matters more than the line itself.
Watching the Vice-Presidential debates two weeks ago, as Sarah Palin's accent seemed to get thicker and all the g's at the ends of her sentences disappeared, and while Biden timed his "bridge to nowhere" reference for comedic effect, I wondered if at any point campaigns put acting coaches on the payroll. The presentations of the candidates, from their body language, to facial expressions, to pronunciation of specific words, when effective can seem like good theater. Appearances matter, how what is said is more important than what is actually said.
Obama and McCain are both at the top of their games respectively. They are comfortable with the microphones, know the range of topics and what their talking points are, and never make too many gaffes. Some might not agree with me, but then again try watching a debate with less accomplished folks, like the Smith/Merkley. Debating, at the Presidential level, really is an art form.

Up for Debate

In Portland, the presidential debates, and for that matter the sole vice-presidential debate, has been one hot ticket. Because I can only speak for this area, my assumption is purely that that debates are hot items just about everywhere, which is keeping in tune with the election. Although I have only lived through less than ten Presidential elections, and have been able to vote in only four, it is hard to remember there being this much buzz about the election. People really, really care, which is a good thing, I suppose.
Problem is, I can't help but feel like our country is deeply, and I mean deeply divided. So divided in fact, that I can't picture either of the candidates being able to bridge the gap. You have one side just dying for change, and another doing everything possible to retain control. I am wholly in the camp of the former as opposed to the latter, not being able to understand why anybody would think our country is not due a major change in direction. But then again, I suspect a lot of that has to do with what a person attributes the economic (and to some social) chaos to. For some people I know, it has almost nothing to do with politics, or who is in the White House or who controls the Senate and House. I don't personally buy that, and never have. I really believe that the powers that be have everything to do with the general health of a nation.
What I believe, however, is purely up for debate, the debate tonight proved that. The economic crisis in this country, the bailout, are attributed to one side by lack of regulation, while another says regulation is to blame. I know which theory I believe, but chances are when election time rolls around, nearly half the country will vote for the side that is opposite.
All of it is very interesting, because no matter what, you can tell the respective sides believe without doubt their own theories, and nothing will ever change that. This brings me to my ultimate point, which is that events can happen, and there will be millions of interpretations of why those events happened, and more importantly, what went wrong. Our own portfolio has begun to feel the effects of the national recession. That could be attributed to faulty leadership, as the portfolio is overseen by the investment committee, and the investment committee is Council, and we were more concerned with censorship, and derailing an enrollment election, and other things. Conversely, there might not have been anything we could have done. The situation is that complex, like the national economy, and there is no single factor or event, a committee sheet here, a vote there, that would have made that big of a difference. Or was there?
Whenever I look back on Strategic Wealth, I wonder those two words that writer Salman Rushdie calls paired together the most worthless words in the English language, "What if?" What if things had been done differently back then? We'll never know, but much like the national economy, it makes for some interesting debates.

Psychology of voting

I found the following article on Salon.com, not that this is a website or magazine I typically read. I found it fascinating enough to pass on, not only thinking of my own experiences in Tribal politics, but mainstream politics. Enjoy!


http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice/

For Some

Tomorrow, we the Council members who also reside in our seats as Board members for the Spirit Mountain Gaming, Inc. will be watching a presentation that basically focuses on a new sports bar. It is all part of the overall larger plan for our casino to remain competitive, what with Washington casinos already serving alcohol on the floor and such and our assumption, or maybe even fear, being that eventually a vast casino will be going up north of Portland essentially cutting into our market share. A few Council members have taken exception with the costs of the sports bar, though I don't see there being enough opposition to thwart it outright.
I was off in college during the late 1990's, and so I missed the protests which were supposedly lobbied against our casino's decision to serve alcohol in the first place. Evidently one of the most vocal opponents was a relative of mine. Given the history of Indians and alcohol, that there was fervent opposition to the initial decision is not all that surprising, and that is based on my own admittedly limited experience. A number of people whom I have spoken with that grew up in Grand Ronde can easily site stories of so-and-so being an alcoholic, of people passed out on the roadside in drunken stupors, and of "Wine Alley". I haven't experience what many of them did, but if half of what I've heard is accurate, then it would be hard to hold against anybody a reluctance to engage in a business that decades ago might have ruined families.
As somebody who supports the sports bar, and the decision years ago to begin serving alcohol at the casino, I often find myself in that rare position of actually seeming to understand completely where people are coming from, but still not agreeing with them from a policy standpoint. In other words, I agree in principle with what they have told me, but if given a choice to act upon my own convictions am still unmoved. Even after hearing what people would have to say, the bottom line, in this case my ability to make a policy decision, still remains unchanged. It must be one of the most difficult things about being a legislator, and proof positive that regardless of how much politicians claim to be uniters, some decisions really do have 50% support and 50% opposition, meaning that there is little hope of compromise as neither side will budge.
The big decision looming right now, and was brought up during Wednesday's Council meeting, is whether to amend our Gaming Ordinance to allow for those who are 18 years of age access to our Class II games. It would be a major policy shift for this Tribe, and nobody would be surprised that our Council is split on the decision. I am one of those Council members who would be more likely to support the change than others, but my conscience admittedly doesn't stop me from hesitating.
We refer to the business of tribal casinos as "Indian Gaming", the word "gaming" basically being a euphemism for gambling. But that is what it is. And gambling too is a vice, like alcoholism, one that wrecks families and ruins lives. For some. For some. I repeat those two words because they really are the operative words in this whole debate of selling vice, whether to a younger crowd and not. Some people can drink and gamble with minimal damage to their wallets and live. Others cannot. None of that changes that our cash cow, and generator of most of our Tribal services, is one of those vices that some cannot handle. So in essence, have we crossed the point of no return, and moving the age from 21 to 18 a minute detail, or is there really that big of a difference one that we should be mindful of in making this decision?
I don't know the answer. I do know that at 18 we can vote, we can enlist in the military and go off to war, we can access the state lottery, and when committing a crime we are charged as adults, the same as anybody 21 and beyond. That alone is nearly enough for me. But then again for every 18 year old I've met who is wise beyond their years and responsible, there is one who won't be at that level of responsibility if you gave them another 10 years. The real question is, who do we consider when making this kind of decision? Who is the "some" that we need to account for.
I have my own inklings. But I've been wrong before...

You Never Know

Confession time. I did not expect the outcome of Saturday's, and ultimately 2008's, Tribal Council election results. As every year, I reflected on what the possibilities might be, which for me realistically boiled down to any combination from a pool of six people who had legitimate shots at being elected, with only one being seen as a sure thing. The one combination I admittedly did not consider, at least not to my best memory, was that the three incumbents would be re-elected. Why didn't I think that? Because as far back as I can remember, and if anybody reading can help shed light, not at any time in recent history has an election year passed without seeing some change in seats. Which makes what just happened all the more hard to explain. But I will try anyway.
Looking back on the last two elections, it has been pretty clear that the Wisdom, Integrity, Family party, though they might deny they are a party, has been pretty darn successful. In 2006, their ticket of Cheryle Kennedy, Jack Giffen, and Val Sheker each garnered record votes. Last year, two of their other candidates, Steve Bobb and June Sell-Sherer, also won seats well ahead of most others. I was the sole survivor of those two elections. In many ways, all that they have really done is what we did, by "we" I mean those of the ABC/PPP camp who also in a two year span won five seats on the Council, in 2004 each of us getting what at the time was the most votes ever. In other words, over a four year span, the two perceived parties exhanged blows, with the WIF's getting the last laugh as they are still in control.
But 2008 looks a bit different. For one, those who consider our Tribal Vice-Chair to be the real leader of the WIF party, and to many the single most influential person in Grand Ronde, might be surprised to survey the Council and know that statistically, at 468 votes, of all nine Council members he was elected with the second least amount of votes. The 468 would not have been sufficient either of the last two elections to be elected. Secondly, that number is a very significant drop from 2005, when he was way ahead of the pack with 591 votes, at the time the third highest total ever. The dip in votes is not easily explained. One could point to the Leno letter, but I think that there is more to it than that. The other two members of this year's incarnation of the WIF ticket, Bob Haller and Patsy Pullin, also got a lot fewer votes than I expected, and certainly a lot less than the other five candidates who ran under the party's banner did the last two years. It would be hard to reason that they were affected by the Leno letter.
My own best guess is that members, most importantly members who vote, are approaching the elections with a greater degree of scrutiny these days. They want to know as much as possible about who they vote for. When I look at the top vote-getters the last two years, if my memory is correct, there is a direct correlation between to how many campaign letters a candidate mails out, activity on the internet, and just overall personal appeal, with the two former mattering a lot more than the latter. The 600 word "Smoke Signals" statement is just not enough. Signs are not enough. A simple campaign letter stapled to a sheet of sloppy endorsement signatures is just not enough. Looking at this years' top four vote-getters, Kathleen Tom, Reyn Leno, Wink Soderberg, and Andy Jenness, three of those people had websites. Information, what have you done for me lately--Voters want to know who they are voting for, and what they are getting with those votes.
For all I know this year was an aberration, a freak occurence if you will. But I don't think so. People expect reform when they vote in a change in leadership. I know that all too well. They have not seen that the last two years, despite the new faces. But then again, have they really seen new faces, or simply familiar faces repackaged under a new logo and slogan, and better organized than before? I don't know the answer. But I think the next two years we will find out.
What I learned with the 2008 Tribal Council elections is that despite experience, despite historical patterns, and despite organization, you never really know what's going to happen. The one thing you can master is not looking surprised.