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