LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the editor:
Tribal members will soon be asked
to vote on the question whether the tribal
Constitution should be changed to
prohibit tribal employees from serving
on the Tribal Council. Before answering
that question, each tribal member should
ask whether any justification exists to
ban any segment of the tribal population
from participating in this important part
of tribal self-government.
Should our Constitution be amended
to say that some tribal members have
fewer rights than others? Should tribal
members, in order to bring their skills
and dedication to tribal employment, be
forced to forsake the privilege of seeking
the support of their fellow tribal members
in open elections to fill council seats?
Those who would force all tribal
employees to give up this right cite two
principal reasons for their position.
They maintain that tribal employees are
too conflicted to serve properly on
council. They also hold that tribal
employees do not have time to fill both
roles properly.
While these are valid concerns, an
amendment to the tribal Constitution is
a radical and unnecessary overreaction
to any problem that may exist. The
Constitution should not be modified to
establish blanket prohibitions to bar
participation in government when less
radical and equally efficient means
already exist or are available to remedy
any problem that may occur.
We, as tribal members, have the
ultimate means to determine whether
any member shall serve on the council
because we have the right to vote. No
situation exists at present that justifies
taking the right of choice in the voting
booth away from our membership. In
fact, if tribal voters have a broader base
of candidates to choose from, voting
rights will be more powerful.
If the Constitution is amended,
many of our best and brightest members
will be forced to give up their political
right in order to feed their families. That
is not fair and it is not in the best
interests of the tribe.
If our most capable members are
eligible to run for office, the incentive
for the incumbent council to perform
in the best interest of the tribe will be
increased. And, if any council member
fails to perform, the membership always
can vote them out.
Respectfully yours,
Bonnie Petersen
To the editor:
I’m writing to express my strong
opposition to allowing tribal employees
to be on Tribal Council.
Even though the judge ruled that
the ordinances prohibiting it are
unconstitutional, I believe the judge
didn’t make a good decision.
I believe the early councils knew
how important it was to keep Tribal
Council separate from tribal employees.
If employees are allowed at the same
time to serve on council, it will create
all sorts of headaches for supervisors
who are bound to have trouble super
vising employees who happen to be
council members. How can they tell a
councilperson they cannot attend a
council meeting when they need them
to be on the job as an employee.
Just from reading Siletz News, I
know how much time council members
must spend on official council business.
To the editor:
I have read with interest the recent
letters regarding employees now having
the legal right under Siletz law to serve
on the Tribal Council. I would like to
make a couple of comments.
One of the questions that is out there
is can a person who has a full-time job
effectively serve on the Tribal Council.
It’s being said that being a Tribal Council
member is almost a full-time job.
What is surprising to me is that the
Tribal Council does not seem to manage
their time very well. Why are two or three
or more of these meetings not consol
idated into a single day? Is it because
council members receive travel time,
mileage, and per diem for every meeting?
Why should the entire council attend
all local and national meetings? It used
to be that the tribe would send a dele
gate and alternate to represent the tribe
and these representatives would come
back and report to the council. I think
the Tribal Council could greatly reduce
the cost of conducting council business
by managing their time more efficiently.
The council could also delegate a
lot of the workload it reserves for itself
by not being “the board of everything.’’
It appears that some of the council want
to create the illusion of a full-time Tribal
Council, either to further argue that they
deserve a pay increase or to make it appear
It isn’t like it was in days gone by. As
for tribal employees, they must put in
40 hours a week on their jobs. I don’t
see how they can do both.
It’s something else if a tribal mem
ber is employed by a private employer
outside of the tribe. Then, it’s up to the
employer to allow as much time as
necessary to be away from his or her
job. I actually don’t believe any employer
would allow an employee to be away
from their job as much as is required
for a councilperson to do their job.
For over 20 years, our Tribal
Councils have accomplished a lot of
wonderful things for the tribe. The
evidence is everywhere. And they were
accomplished without tribal employees
sitting on council. At the same time,
our tribal employees have done a
wonderful job - by paying attention to
their own duties.
that anyone who is employed could not
effectively serve on the Tribal Council.
I think what is really going on here
is that some of the Tribal Council mem
bers are afraid, and I believe with good
reason, that now that tribal employees
can serve on the council, they will be fac
ing some tough, competent candidates
in future elections. I believe that tribal
employees will serve as effectively on
the council as other tribal members em
ployed elsewhere have and currently
are. I think that any tribal member who
is willing to spend their time serving on
the Tribal Council should be applauded.
Barring any segment of the member
ship from service only denies us a wider
range of candidates to choose from.
Time commitment is an important part
of serving on the council. But the notion
that tribal members cannot be employed
and serve effectively is a fabrication.
Read your council members’ time
sheets. Look at the hours the entire council
spends attending national or even re
gional meetings where one delegate and
an alternate could easily do the job. We need
to go back to the structure we once had,
where the Tribal Council oversees all
aspects of tribal government, instead of try
ing to function as the “board of everything.”
Sincerely,
Kristi Martin
It’s true it would be good if we can
get dedicated young tribal members on
council. But allowing tribal employees
to sit on council doesn’t solve a thing;
it just opens a whole can of dis
agreeable worms.
The Tribal Council has given us, the
general membership, the chance to
decide. I’m going to vote against allowing
tribal employees to be on council and I
hope, for the sake of the future of the
tribe, others will also vote against it.
The coming constitutional election
is very important. I have a concern
about the elections process that I hope
will be corrected before that election.
It has to do with the last election when
my mother was asked three times for
her registration card because they said
her signatures didn’t match. Her ballot
was finally accepted, but she was told
there were 31 others that weren’t
accepted, perhaps for the same reason.
I know the Election Board has a dif
ficult job and tries to be accurate and
fair. But when every vote counts, we can’t
afford any glitches that disqualify votes.
And her vote and every vote must count!
Sincerely,
Debbie Hanks
To the editor:
I was very surprised when the vote
for a raise for our council members was
defeated. What do you expect from them?
You don’t want to pay them a livable
wage, so I guess the only ones on council
will have to be on welfare, retired on
Social Security, or independently wealthy.
They don’t have 9-5, five-day work
schedules. I know some who are
answering calls at 9 or 10 p.m.
If we want to keep qualified
members on council, we better let them
or pay them a livable wage.
Sincerely,
Wanda Melton
Please see more
letters on pages
2,4, and 6.
June 2004 □
Siletz News
□
5