LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
In My Opinion...
by Jessie Davis
As vice chairman, I’ve always tried
to be neutral in articles. However, since
I’ve received numerous phone calls
and talked in person to several tribal
members, I believe the membership
needs to know why the Tribal Council
was split in our support of whether a
tribal employee could serve on council
at the same time.
This is a very controversial issue
and although Bud Lane is the person
who challenged our laws, it is not
personal to just Bud. I believe we have
several hard-working, dedicated
employees who if they decided to run
for council, would do an excellent job
if they were elected. However, I would
hope they themselves would see the
conflict it presents.
For more than 20 years, the Siletz
Tribe has had a policy and ordinances
prohibiting tribal employees from serv
ing on Tribal Council at the same time.
As the chairman explains in her
report, this policy was challenged in
Tribal Court by Bud Lane, a tribal
employee who was recently elected to
the council. Bud argued that denying
his right to keep his tribal job while
serving on council was a violation of
his civil and constitutional rights.
On March 6, Judge Calvin Ganten-
bein ruled in Bud’s favor, declaring that
the policy and ordinances in support of
that policy were unlawful and uncon
stitutional. As Chairman Pigsley further
explains, the council requested the
Secretary of the Interior on Feb. 9 to
conduct a constitutional election so the
general membership can vote on this
issue. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), which will conduct this election,
has 180 days to do so. The Siletz Tribal
members’ vote will be the final decision
on this issue.
Tribal Councils that followed
adopted the prohibition in two other
tribal documents: the tribe’s Ethics
Ordinance and the Annual Plan of
Operations Manual.
All of these documents were
subjected to legal review. The minutes
of the February 1982 council meeting
reveal that Dolly Fisher, Tribal Council,
asked the tribal attorney, Bruce Bishop,
“whether they needed to change the
Constitution because they had just
adopted an employee could not serve
on council at the same time.” He assured
everyone that, “This just confirms what
the Constitution says.” Numerous
revisions have been made, but each
time, the policies were left in place.
Listed below are several concerns
for not allowing tribal members to be
an employee and a council member at
the same time.
1.
4
□
Siletz News
□
First and foremost, it violates a
basic principle - keeping executive
functions separate from admin
istrative functions.
The Tribal Council as the govern
ing body of the tribe sets policies,
while tribal administration, under
the general manager, is responsible
for implementing policies. Allow
ing tribal employees to be on council
muddles up those roles, a condition
ripe for favoritism, conflicts of
interest, and abuse.
2.
3.
May 2004
Tribal administrators of other tribes
that have allowed employees to be
on council cite numerous cases of
council member/tribal employees
who leave their jobs unattended and
unfinished while they take off for
council meetings and conferences.
What can supervisors do when a
Tribal Council member says he/she
has important council work to do?
Not much, according to admin
istrators of other tribes.
There could be serious problems if
certain key tribal employees run for
and are elected to council, i.e., the
chief financial officer of the tribe,
the general manager or deputy
general manager of Chinook
Winds, the tribal staff attorney, the
executive director of the gaming
majority of council members work
virtually full time.
According to the tribe’s Personnel
Manual, tribal employees are
required to work 40 hours a week.
Allowing council members to be
tribal employees could result in
council meetings without a
quorum, with no timely council
action taken on vital tribal issues.
Also, it’s important not only to be
present when council votes, but
also to be actively involved in
discussions and knowledgeable
about issues before action is taken.
If elected, these employees could
not be denied council seats. We
cannot pick and choose who can and
cannot be on council. Allowing such
tribal employees to be on council
would be fertile ground for abuse
of power, conflicts of interest, and
diminishment of internal admin
istrative checks and balances.
4.
Concerns/lssues
Historical Background
After the Siletz Tribe was restored
in 1977, it adopted the Tribal Constitu
tion in 1979. In the summer of 1982,
the council, recognizing the need to
keep government separate from
administration, had the wisdom to
adopt the prohibition in two documents:
the tribe’s Election Ordinance and the
Personnel Policies.
regulatory agency or an agent of the
agency, or other key employees of
the tribe.
5.
A special class of tribal employees
would be created who could afford
to be on council because of their
employment income while at the
same time other young, educated,
capable tribal members who are
not employed by the tribe would
be barred because they couldn’t
afford to be on council. Allowing
tribal employees to be on council
solves nothing; it only compounds
the problem.
It will establish two classes of
council members - those who are
paid council salary with no fringe
benefits while other council/
employee members who work for
the tribe will continue to be paid
their full salaries as well as full
fringe benefits.
Judge’s Decision
Several other points need to be
made regarding the hearing and the
judge’s decision. I have been asked by
several tribal members to explain why
the tribal attorney did not defend the
laws of the tribe.
•
•
Tribal attorney Craig Dorsay was
not authorized to represent the tribe’s
position until Thursday morning,
which is why he did not prepare
a brief in defense of the tribe’s
policy. The tribal position reflected
in the tribal ordinances was there
fore not adequately represented
during the hearing.
The judge held very little regard
for the commitment of council
members* time on tribal business.
A detailed account of the time each
council member spent on council
business in 2003 shows that the
We regret the judge failed to see
how impossible it would be for an
individual to fulfill both positions
and failed to see the potential nega
tive impact on Tribal Council opera
tions. Being an employee is a full-
time commitment. Tribal Council
also requires a full-time commitment.
•
By stating, “Several of the past and
present Tribal Council members
have worked full time for non-tribal
employers,” the judge told only half
the story. Two of those council mem
bers were managers who had worked
for their agencies for many years
and had accumulated many hours
of comp time, which gave them the
flexibility to devote considerable
time to tribal business. Plus, the
majority of the meetings were held
in the evenings and on weekends.
Furthermore, since their retirement,
the amount of council work has
multiplied and is now virtually full
time. In contrast, time was when it
was possible to meet occasionally
and on weekends and evenings. No
longer. The judge’s statement is
therefore a gross oversimplification
of the facts.
Those tribes that allow an employee
to be on council at the same time feel
they have created a political hot potato.
Currently, there is a 4-4 vote on the
Tribal Council as to whether our tribe
should allow our policies to be changed.
See Opinion on page 5.