One Foot Forward

Early today, we had a work session on the "Tilixam Wawa". I requested the meeting myself, because over much of the last month we've talked about reviving the publication, and constantly ask staff to put such-and-such in the Wawa.  But as is often the case, we don't always follow up, and in this instance that is what happened.

So I requested the meeting today in order to start putting together a plan for how the publication will be produced. We talked about deadlines, how often, who would contribute, what would be written, etc. all the normal things those producing a publication talk about. Nobody appeared to have a problem with Council members submitting articles, or expressing opinions, provided they don't go completely beyond the present editorial policy. I think people like hearing from their Tribal leaders.

But the publication cannot be completely Council driven, a point I raised in my attempt at a staff report. I think people will start to view it as grandstanding and campaigning.  In the event that only a few Council members submit anything, stretching that out to an 8-page issue might be difficult. It can't all be Tribal Council meeting minutes because then it becomes too dry to read. So we talked about staff producing articles, and some issues being themed, where we might cover certain topics that members would like to know about, like off-reservation gaming, like culture and history.  And oh yes, enrollment.

At the same time we have formed an informal working group whose main purpose is to stay on top of the Tribal website.  I love the "Tilixam Wawa". Don't get me wrong.  But print media is starting to fade away.  Not that it will completely die out, and for many of our Tribal members who don't get their news by the internet, getting the Wawa and "Smoke Signals" will continue to be how they stay updated on Tribal affairs.  But our website has flexibility and potential that can't be beat.  "The Seattle Times", for example, has gone completely digital.  The instant nature of e-news is hard to resist.

What are our plans?  For starters, we are looking at e-newsletters, press releases, and electronic versions of Tribal publications all accessible by Tribal members who provide us with their email addresses.  We've also discussed the idea of feeds.  In the brainstorming phase is a possible blogging section, one for not only Council but different departments.  Eventually, what I hope for is that any letter, publication, brochure, etc. mailed out or available to the membership can be found as a PDF file on the members-only website.  

I suppose this qualifies as a tangent. That's alright.  A lot of members have complained about keeping them in the dark, and in a lot of ways they are right.  But now, we can't be faulted for not trying.  Not anymore.  A lot remains to be done, for sure, but we've put one foot forward.  

Lean Times

Earlier this week, we sat down with Spirit Mountain's CEO and went over their budget. Despite some predictions of an economic turnaround, we are being more cautious in our projections. That is probably for the best.
I was surprised at last week's General Council meeting, not with the Canoe Family issue, but that more members seem to be indicating they understand that times are tight. In general I think locals have a much different take on the financial situation, probably because they can access more services than non-locals, who usually get the core services of per capita, health care, timber, and Elders security, and not too much else. I look forward to seeing what kinds of comments we get from the General membership during the budget period. We always get some, a few dozen at least, sometimes near a hundred or so.
The two that stick out most from last year were contradictory. One member asked that we eliminate the "Elders only per capita" while another proposed we double the payment. A Tribal member from Portland has come to multiple meetings so far this year to ask that we incorporate a COLA to the Elders Security payment. One Council member last week told us last week this same member was down at the Elders' mealsite urging some of our Tribal Elders to picket. That seems kind of overboard but I suspect we'll hear more about it.
It is strange having to deal with this budget. In years past the casino always improved year after year, thought the annual increase in business got smaller. I personally expected some kind of plateau after 2007 but nothing like this. Economics is an odd science.
Plenty of other gaming tribes are dealing with the same kind of budget setbacks, which is some relief. While we are experiencing clear declines in revenue, it is hardly a cataclysm. Gaming, and vices in general, never suffer that much in recessions. Thus far, alcohol sales are higher than ever at Spirit Mountain, I'm sure because of the new sports bar and nightclub. Our long-delayed decision of serving alcohol on the floor might need to be dusted off.
The casino will be asked to make more cuts. Some of my co-workers say that needs to be in the marketing department but I'm not sure I agree. This is what I feared most about tough times, areas to be cut start getting singled out, and there are debates about what is more deserving. You caught a glimpse of it at the Eugene General Council meeting. At least one member asked why employees, and not Tribal Elders, were getting a COLA/merit increase. Those kinds of discussions, given enough time to go on, could get really ugly.
The two biggest increases on the governance side have been in the Tribal health plan and the Elders Security/SSI, more than $4 million between them. We are having to pick and choose. I knew that eventually our health plan would amount to more than per capita. I just didn't know it would happen so soon.
Warren Buffett, who I remember last year said the downturn in the economy would be worse than expected, is predicting a recovery. I hope he's right.

Primary Problems

It was the second such meeting since the election. We know what we want to do. What we don't know is how to do it.

I am talking of course about a primary election, or run-off, or whatever. Watching 18 people vie for three Tribal Council seats during the 2009 elections, one of the highest totals ever, split the votes. Our voter turnout to start is embarrassing. But watching elections go on without any candidates ever able to obtain a majority vote is more so, especially considering we are a democracy.

What we talked about Monday November 2 was how to conduct an election where candidates are elected with respectable vote totals.  It's quite possible that we may never get a Council member to win and be elected with a majority of votes.  The question is though, what is the solution.

A run-off election seems to be the most logical answer, as primaries are really when political parties endorse candidates.  The follow-up question is how would the run-off work?  To what kind of number would we reduce the candidate field?  Our election administrator threw out the idea of reducing the candidate field to six, or double the number of at-large spots.  I've some reservations about that, because it would seem to be encouraging a two-party system, which right now is being questioned even on a national level.  Plus it might disenfranchise voters who cast their ballots for candidates not making the cut, though that problem will exist in a run-off system regardless.

This is a good case of where there appears to be consensus that a problem exists, but arriving at a solution is harder when you roll up your sleeves and get to work.  Personally, I like the idea of narrowing the field down to nine.  But I'm sure even that would be problematic.  What if only 10 people run?  Seems kind of funny to hold a run-off to eliminate one candidate.

One Council member likes the notion of elections being held per Council seat, almost like running for a district position.  The problem I see with that is some seats might be more hotly contested or have a bigger vote turnout than others, meaning that second place in one election could be more than first place in others, kind of like how in sports the team with the second-best record in the league could fail to make the playoffs because they play in the same division as the first-place team.  Of course, such a system would be perfect if one's intent is to unseat a Council member.  Simply stack the ballot with tons of candidates and you can dilute the vote.  

We plan to survey the membership on what they might like to see, specifically if there is an overall desire to change how elections are run.  Guess that buys us some time, which is good because I sure don't have the answer...yet.

Sonny & Cher

A Sense of Humor

As you can see above, Steve Bobb and Val Sheker (Sonny and Cher) were in Halloween mode today, the only Council members to do so. Both have in fact done this multiple times, for which I give them credit. They even wore these costumes during tonight's Council meeting, for which I give them additional credit.
We couldn't help but discuss the last time a member of Tribal Council decided to bring such a sense of levity to a public meeting. I am quite familiar with it because the Council member was me. While Chair I donned an Elvis wig at the November 2006 General Council meeting, and did my best vocal impersonation to kick off the session. People laughed.
At the December 2006 General Council meeting, I was accused of disrespecting the position and not taking it seriously. There was even a picture in the "Smoke Signals", one I have on my wall. It was only one person who raised the issue, but they laid into me, generating applause on other points. In hindsight, it is one of my least favorite memories as a Council member.
Val and I have a bet as to whether somebody will complain. I don't personally see it happening. the political climate has changed since then. It never hurts to have a sense of humor in this job, I might add.

The Gap

Yesterday I drove down to Eugene in order to give a presentation at the Osher Lifelong Learning Center, which appears to be somehow linked to the University of Oregon. This presentation had been a year in the making, as they contacted me last October, but due to some miscommunication and inability to concur on dates, it never materialized until yesterday though even then I was booked months in advance.
Most of those who attended were retirees and, I assume, older alumni. When they contacted me I tried to press them for more specifics as to what sort of topic to lecture on. Gaming? Enrollment? Sovereignty? There weren't any. They just wanted to know about the tribe, period. Evidently one of the center's volunteers had read about me in the UO Alumni magazine and that was good enough.
The lack of specifics meant a certain amount of flexibility in developing a powerpoint, and in the end I just provided a rough guide of...everything. Because we were scheduled to have a Q & A session afterwards my assumption was that something would spur interest and thus spawn questions. There were plenty of questions.
Steve Bobb joined me, which helped. I've gotten used to speaking publicly, just not for an hour. In the end I went past that, even with Steve stepping in to speak about life in Grand Ronde during termination.
We were scheduled for two hours, and after that many of the attendees came up and told me they had learned a lot. I learned quite a bit too, namely that if this crowd, many of them well-read, know so little about Grand Ronde and tribes in general, what must the general public know? I got asked questions like whether our benefits were taxed, or if we were also US citizens as well. What is basic knowledge as a Tribal member is news to many outside. There is a noticeable gap.
To this day I still wonder why many members are so paranoid about letting tribal information slip to the outside. I can think of some worst-case scenarios that justify the thinking. But when people can live for so long in Oregon, especially in our ceded lands, yet know so little about who we are, there has to be some sort of halfway point. It's like not knowing your neighbors' first names.

Tribal McCarthyism

Early in September, we had a meeting to discuss the amount of the 3^rd 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.