Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Siletz news / (Siletz, OR) 199?-current | View Entire Issue (July 1, 2000)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR To the editor: Tribal members, vote No on the constitutional amendments that the Tribal Council is putting to ballot. One of the proposed amendments, Article V, Section 2(D), states: A majority of seated members of the Tribal Council plus one shall constitute a quorum. The language in the Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, states: There shall be a General Council which shall exercise the powers set forth in the Constitution.. .the Tribal Council shall consist of nine members elected by the General Council to terms of three years... The Constitution clearly states elected, not seated. The seated (not elected) Council could be two members plus one, which would make it possible for three Council people to run the government. The Constitution in Article V, Section 2, clearly states that five members of the Tribal Council shall constitute a quorum. Article II, Section 2, states: The General Council shall have the power to (A) elect Tribal Council members. Article IV, Section 1, states: The Tribal Council shall consist of nine members elected by the General Council. The General Council does not have much power in the Constitution, but it does have the power of election. The Council is asking the members to vote to take that one right away of electing a Council. The Council has voted to take the amendments to the vote of the people, but they chose not to change the whole Constitution to coincide with the articles for elected Council members and quorum. The Constitution in Article IV, Section 1, states: The Tribal Council shall consist of nine members elected by General Council. The proposed amendment to Article IV, Section 2 (d), states a majority of the seated members of Tribal Council. The Tribal Council chose to leave elected in one section of the Constitution and then put seated in another section. The words elected and seated are in conflict. Why does the Council want to take the right to vote away from the General Council? And to diminish the power of separation of the court, which is included as one of the amendments. The Tribal Council voted 8 yes and 1 no to these amendments on ballot. Reggie Butler voted no. Members, vote against the amendments. If the Council wanted to give the members any power, they would have given the members the right to have their own General Council chairman. Delores Pigsley, Bonnie Petersen, and John Roe took the right away of electing a Tribal Council in 1998 by seating Council members. Do not let them take the members’ rights away again by voting to replace the Constitution with the amendment of seated Council. Vote against this amendment and keep our right to elect a Council. Lillie Butler To the editor: My name is John L. Roe Jr., son of John L. Roe Sr. I say this so that you know I am not our recently retired chief tribal judge. I am 52 years of age. I was a tugboat captain for 16 years before becoming a Columbia River pilot in 1988. I am married to Sharon Roe and own a small farm in Washington where we raise alpacas. During my career working on the tugs, I was shop steward and a member of the contract negotiation team for the union. I was elected branch agent for the pilots nine times and this year declined to take office so that I could devote more time to learning more about our tribe. Over the past several years, I have attended many of the Tribal and General Council meetings. I have watched, listened, and on occasion, have contributed to the discussion on issues. I have tried to learn as much as possible about the recent past by requesting, obtaining, and reading all of the tribal newsletters, dating back to 1984.1 have watched the various political factions struggle and fight for what they believe is right. I have tried to be polite, and non-partisan, even though I knew it would be difficult to do so and remain on friendly terms with each side. I understand that a position of leadership To the editor: The 1999 Tribal Council budgets (funds from timber, indirect, investments, gaming, and the revenue distribution plan) totaled, at a minimum, $2,043,000, which doesn’t include additions to the budget throughout the year in their secret, almost monthly, budget modifications. This amount pays for nine Tribal Council members’ salaries, secretarial support, and travel expenses (per diem, mileage, lodging, etc.). Divided equally among the nine members, it costs our Tribe over $227,000 per Tribal Council member to run our government, quite costly considering the members worked an average of 30 hours per week in 1999. Compare the total cost of these nine people to the total gaming revenues distributed in 1999 ($2,680,404). For almost every dollar spent to benefit our tribe as a whole, a dollar went to the Tribal Council! Compare that amount to declining services to the membership. Our General Assistance Fund has been reduced. Our Housing Improvement Program funds have been reduced. Most significantly, our health benefits have been drastically reduced to the point of curtailing services and laying off at least 10 staff. You might remember when this “renegade” council overthrew our government; they terminated at least 11 (eight tribal members) staff. What’s next on their agenda, denying our children the opportunity to get an education? Our priority has always been health, education, and elders. Since this “renegade” council took over, the priority has shifted dramatically. Rather than increasing benefits to the membership, they have decreased services and significantly increased their personal gain. I had stated at a General Council meeting that the appointees had no allegiance to the membership, only to those who had unconstitutionally appointed them, and it has been proven to be true. Since the appointees’ subsequent elections have been highly questionable, the membership had requested electronic voting to assure fair elections. Why are they denying the membership the right to fair and honest elections? Their actions give you the answer. By pushing through the constitutional amendment that basically changes election to appointment of Tribal Council members and deleting the quorum requirement, they are assuring their continued personal gain. If the eight members who voted for the constitutional election (Reggie Butler voted NO!) had the membership as their priority, rather than themselves individually, they would not have proposed these amendments that strip us of our rights. They purposely ignored the General Council-recommended amendments that make the Tribal Council more accountable to the membership. I can only say, we have no rights unless we defend them when they are violated. Sincerely, Pat Duncan always has its detractors. With that being said, I have a full, busy life and I am not running for tribal office nor am I seeking a position within the tribe. I recently attended the Fifth National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management at our casino and convention center. I witnessed and heard tribal leaders from around the country praise our tribal leadership and the staff. Within the last few months, I have become aware of many accusations about our current tribal chair. If those detractors of our tribal chair have proof of truth, please bring it forth. Is Delores Pigsley an alcoholic? Is she a convicted felon? Has she acted publicly in a way that brings dishonor to our tribe? I honor the diversity of views expressed, but not when they turn into unfounded personal attacks. I encourage each tribal member to look at each issue that confronts the tribe and tribal individuals working for the tribe. Look at who has been an effective leader or participant in tribal issues. Realize that those members who seek to lead need to be judged only on their actions. Look at what was, what is, and what can be. Thank you, John Roe Jr. 5
