The Annual Siletz Pow-Wow, initiated in the
early 1970’s, has grown to a popular and well-
attended cultural event, drawing hundreds of
Indian participants from the Pacific Northwest
and other areas of the country.
And finally, the tribe’s annual Cultural Camp
is characterized by the attendance of family
groups who attend workshops on tanning,
basketweaving and other everyday practices that
helped their ancestors to maintain a strong and
secure presence in their aboriginal homelands.
POLITICAL DYNAMICS
Ladies and gentlemen, I now want to address
the delicate issue of tribal political dynamics. It
is no secret among the membership that the tribal
council is emerging from an internal political
upheaval that has been costly in both money and
time of the council.
This political struggle needs to be examined
within a broader context so that it is understood
that these episodes occur under all representative
forms of government.
Let us explore a bit of history together and
recall that the so-called founding fathers of the
United States, who had fled a monarchy in
England, were determined to establish a
democracy in which the sovereignty resided in
the people rather than the crown. Under this
concept, “we the people,” so to speak, would
share their sovereignty with elected officials to
carry out governmental functions.
Moreover, the founding fathers envisioned a
tripartite form of government, consisting of a
legislative branch, judicial branch and an
executive branch to insure a system of “checks
and balances” to preclude domination of public
affairs by one branch or another. While this
radical experiment in democracy insured citizen
participation, it also invited controversy and
disputes within and between the three branches.
And if you don’t believe there are political
disputes and upheaval in, let’s say the legislative
branch, I invite you to watch the C-Span Channel
during a debate over a controversial issue or bill
in the House or Senate.
But the system most always leads to a
resolution based on compromise, and an
adherence to the ground rules in the legislative
body.
What does all of this have to do with tribal
governments? As federal Indian policy evolved
in the government’s dealings with tribes, a
legislative act in 1934 encouraged tribes to
abandon traditional practices of selecting leaders
for their governing systems in favor of the so-
called representative form of government.
Thus, the vast majority of federally-
recognized tribes today operate under elected
representative forms of government. And while
-18-
the electorate on reservations is not divided along
political party lines (Democratic and Republican),
political factionalism is clearly in play, often based
on familial and other coalition lines.
Tribal candidates seeking political offices do
so in an arena characterized by issues, ideology,
personalities, and other factors that affect political
campaigns.
Therefore, it is not unusual for tribal
governments, on occasion, to find themselves
faced with political crisis that must be resolved
by reasonable people and within the confines of
the tribe’s constitution.
Rarely does the federal trustee, the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, inject itself in such disputes
because these are internal tribal matters best
worked out by the members and elected officials,
but within its governing documents. I believe
this is sound public policy, given that self-
determination is the cornerstone of prevailing
federal Indian policy.
Majority and minority tribal political factions
are challenged to resolve these political
upheavals, and carry an obligation to do so to
protect tribal sovereignty, maintain governmental
credibility and protect the best interests of the
membership.
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I am
convinced that the Siletz Tribal Council has
successfully weathered the most recent political
struggle, that a resolution has been crafted in
keeping with the tribal constitution and that the
best interests of the membership have been
maintained.
RESTORATION LEGISLATION
We have moved quickly through the 21 -year
journey since the initial Restoration Day. But
the presence of Senator Hatfield here with us
reminds me that the enactment of his legislation
to restore federal recognition to the Siletz Tribe
was not a foregone conclusion. That legislation
was subjected to all of the intricacies and
dynamics of the legislative process.
You will recall that the prospect of the Siletz
tribal members exercising hunting and fishing
rights generated strong opposition from the State
of Oregon. This issue could have stalled, if not
completely derailed, the enactment of this critical
legislation. But the Siletz Tribe waived their
inherent rights - a painful decision that enabled
them to achieve their broader goal: restoration
as a federally-recognized tribe.
Although other issues emerged that impacted
the legislation, none were as prospectively
damaging as the hunting and fishing issue Time
will not permit a lengthy discourse on the entire
legislative process, but we all recognize, I am
certain, just how important Senator Hatfield’s
sponsorship was in this process.
Senator Hatfield’s leadership position on the
Senate Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs
put him in position to guide the movement of the
legislation. The Senate ultimately passed Senator
Hatfield’s legislation and it was referred to the
House of Representatives where that body
worked its will and passed the legislation. Finally,
it was referred to President Carter who signed it
on November 18,1977.
As a professional staff member on the Senate
Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, I cannot
emphasize too strongly how vital the Senator’s
unwavering support and commitment was to the
eventual enactment of Public Law 95-195, the
Siletz Indian Tribe Restoration Act.
CONCLUSION
An examination of the Siletz Tribe’s journey
from the “A-Frame” to the “website” is one
marked by tribal participation, hard work,
determination and a recognition that the best
interests of the membership must always remain
paramount.
It is also marked by the tribe’s philosophic
belief that it is possible for the members to
function and contribute in today’s complex
society by balancing the strength of cultural
attributes with the very real need for realistic
economic development to sustain the people’s
livelihood.
In summary I submit that following
restoration, the Siletz Tribe has functioned as a
credible sovereign; managed its governmental
grants and contracts legally and effectively;
maintained a “good neighbor” policy toward the
broader community; and based its decision
making always on the premise of what is in the
best interests of the Siletz Indian people.
There can be no doubt that the tribe has
indeed completed the journey from the A-Frame
to the website. We don’t know where the
website will lead us, but we know the journey
has just begun....
Forrest J. Gerard
ADDRESS CORRECTION
If your address has changed, please contact
the Newsletter Office by calling
1-800-922-1399, ext. 291
-or-
(541)444-8291
Please leave a message with the new
address, and whether you are a Siletz
Tribal Member or not.