LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the editor:
There are some issues that have
been raised about tribal employees
serving on our Tribal Council that I
think need to be addressed.
First, it should not be argued that
any member of the council, regardless
of whom they work for, are free from
conflicts. Every council member has
friends and relatives who work for the
tribe or who benefit from, or are harmed
by, council decisions. Every council
member faces ethical decisions on a
regular basis. The Constitution does not
need to be changed to deal with these
conflicts, however, because it already
does so.
Article V, Section 2 (I), states that,
“No Tribal Council member shall vote
on any matter wherein he or she or
a member of his or her immediate
family has a direct personal interest...”
Furthermore, our tribe already has
many laws and regulations that prohibit
council members from exploiting their
positions. The council also has
authority to legislate against future
problems related to conflicts.
It is an insult to all tribal employees
to suggest that, as a class, tribal
employees are so prone to abusing their
office that they must be prohibited from
participating in government. The
potential for abuse exists with every
council member. Banning a whole
segment of our membership from the
council does not eliminate conflicts. It
discriminates against tribal employees.
Second, full-time employment
should not be a justification for banning
anyone from sitting on our council.
Over the years, many of our best council
members were, and are, full-time employ
ees. If our Constitution is amended to
prohibit one class of employees from
serving on the council, the door will be
open for the council to ban all fully
employed members from the council.
Do we want to be governed by individuals
who must be unemploy-ed to serve?
Membership on the council is an
important and difficult position;
unemployment should not be the most
important qualification for service.
Kelly Lane
4
□
Siletz News
□
To the editor:
On March 6, I testified before the
Tribal Court against allowing tribal
employees to serve on the Tribal
Council at the same time.
I believe to change that policy,
which has served us well for over 20
years, will be a grave mistake.
The Tribal Council as the tribe’s
executive body should be separate from
tribal administration, under the general
manager. To allow tribal employees to
be on council would be contrary to the
principle of the separation of powers.
If the policy is changed, key man
agement positions could be filled by
tribal members, i.e., the chief financial
officer, staff attorney, general manager
of Chinook Winds, even the tribal
judge. Nothing could prevent them
from running for, and being elected to,
council. It’s even possible that several
tribal employees could end up being on
council, a situation ripe for serious
conflicts of interest and abuse of power.
Also, what can supervisors do when
their employees claim they can’t fulfill
critical program responsibilities
because they have essential council
duties to attend to.
During the hearing, the judge said
that the tribe needs to allow more edu
cated, capable young tribal members to
serve on council. I agree. But by allowing
tribal employees to be on council, we
would be shutting out hundreds of
educated, capable young tribal members
who aren’t employed by the tribe who
can’t afford to be on council.
Furthermore, tribal employees on
council would not only be paid their full
salaries as employees, they will also be
compensated for their work on council,
receiving pay from two sources at the
same time. This is “double dipping” that
should not be allowed.
During the hearing, the judge said,
“I think it’s really a shame (the tribal
members) don’t recognize the number
of hours you council people are putting
in. I know just from my knowledge being
down here, they don’t give you anywhere
near what you are worth. They voted
you down twice, both what I consider
to be very reasonable proposals.”
I’m confident that the general mem
bership will come to understand that the
solution to whether tribal employees
should be on council lies not in doing
away with the present policy, but by
adopting an adequate salary for council
members. Simply changing the policy
and allowing tribal employees to be on
council will only make matters worse.
Finally, I would like to clarify why
the BIA has been requested to conduct
a constitutional election on this issue.
It is because the council considers this
issue of such importance that it should
be decided by a vote of the people and
not by a tribal judge or the Tribal Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane John
To the editor:
I want to make a quick observation
regarding the recent letters to the editor
about employees of the tribe serving on
the council.
I think actions to throw these laws out
were long overdue. More choice for the
membership in elections is always better.
If you look at the last few elections,
we keep regurgitating the same candi
dates year after year. I think the ability of
tribal employees to serve on the council
will bring into the process some new
candidates with fresh ideas, new attitudes,
and maybe a different view of things.
I noticed that all of the letters in
last month’s newsletter appear to be
within or near the 450-word limit, with
the exception of Jessie Davis’ letter. Is
she above the rules for submission of
letters to the editor and opinion pieces?
I wonder if her article was submitted
by the deadline applied to all tribal
members? I wonder why her letter was
not edited to fit the required limit that
is applied to the rest of the membership?
I think every tribal member’s opinion
is just as important as hers.
Jessie, in her article, talks about
conflicts of interest and council mem
bers potentially using their positions
improperly. I think that Jessie’s ability
to get over a full-page letter to the editor
expressing her own personal views,
while other tribal members are held to
the rules, is the exact kind of conflict
she is writing about. To me it is an exam
ple of exactly what she talks about in
her articles, how things get “muddled
up,” between some members of council’s
actions and tribal administration.
Sincerely,
Nancy L. Simmons
To the editor:
I would like to respond to the letter
in the May edition of the newsletter
submitted by Bud Lane.
There was a petition submitted in
2002, which had my name on it. But I
cannot take the credit for creating it.
Ray Blacketer wrote it. It was dropped
and was not heard in court.
In the year 2002,1 was working in
Central Office. At that time, I was not
working directly with Tribal Council. I am
now the Enrollment clerk and I realize
what a conflict it can be if an employee
works directly with Tribal Council.
The Enrollment Department is
responsible to do the posting, which
Tribal Council votes on each month.
This consists of recommendations for
enrollment, relinquishments, blood
degree changes, members removed from
the rolls, and a number of other things.
If I were on the Tribal Council, I feel it
would be a conflict for me to present
the materials and then vote on them.
After the Siletz candidate’s fair, I was
talking with Bud. He asked if I would
appeal the right to work for the tribe and
be on Tribal Council if I was elected. I
said no. Being on Tribal Council is a full-
time job. I said the Enrollment Depart
ment was much too busy to try and do both.
It was brought out in the conversa
tion that if elected to Tribal Council, I
could use my position to make them
hire me an assistant. I said that would
go against everything that I have been
campaigning for.
During the candidate’s fair. Bud
Lane said that the Tribal Council should
be a totally separate entity from the
tribe. I agree.
Bud has a job that does not directly
conflict with his seat on council. But
we are talking about the whole tribe,
not just one employee.
The rules have been working for 20
years. I feel in fairness to all tribal member
employees, they should stay the same.
Thank you,
Loraine Y. Butler
June 2004