I Love My Tribe. I Do. I Swear I Do

By Charles Forgrave

After reading the unit reports, you have to want to reach out, pinch the cute little dimpled cheeks of those representatives, snuggle them in, and reassure them that everything is going to be all right. They all seem to be trying so hard.

Four of the eleven that bothered with writing a report thought mentioning the Internet was worthwhile. Three of those four had nothing good to say about it, saying it provided only misinformation; but to chairperson McCoy’s credit, he did say it provided both accurate and inaccurate information, which is true of both it and the tribal newsletter.

What is most disturbing about the tribal newsletter is what it does not report. Of the eleven representatives reporting on January’s activities, only one thought the tribe’s problems was with the way it handles its business. That was director Malloy. You have to wonder after reading a unit report like Pine’s or Causley’s or Hallowell’s, or McCoy’s, what these representatives are thinking when blaming the tribe’s problems on individuals rather than on how it handles its business.

For example, the referendum held in the spring of 2010 needs implementing to separate the Chair and the CEO duties. Hey, the referendum passed. There is no higher law than it. The board does not have a choice as to whether to implement the results; it has a sworn constitutional duty to implement them.

Another example, is the vote on January 11 to settle the Boushour lawsuit, it was not legal. It did not meet the constitutional requirements of a vote to overturn a previous resolution. The board voted in 2004 to exhaust every possible legal remedy to recover all the money paid out to the Boushour key employees. That meant it had to appeal the case if it lost. Boushour and the seven key employees appealed their case several times, but the board failed to appeal its even once. A legal vote to overturn a previous resolution is seven directors of the thirteen…not six of them. The board voted six to four with two abstentions…clearly, not what parliamentarians refer to as the positive majority needed in this situation.

The point of these two examples is this: here we have two clear-cut cases of the board violating the constitution and getting away with it because they know they can… Who ever heard of a legislative body ruling on the constitutionality of its own legislation? The tribal judges will not rule on it because the board hires them. They are afraid for their jobs. The tribe needs independent elected judges and the board’s resolutions need to be ruled on by them.

Therefore, what is it with Pine, Causley, Hallowell, and McCoy…what is it with them? Do they think the Internet has to go away or everybody has to be supportive and cheer the board on for it to govern with success? After reading their unit reports, you get that impression. What these four directors need to do is wake up. Alternatively, if they are awake, they need to own up to it and do their work as if they are. Because the tribe needs to change how it does its business. Until they wake up and make the changes needed, and handle the membership’s business legally, members themselves are not going to have confidence in them or in their government. The stumbling and bumbling of the board will go on forever, as well as its internal struggles, which so completely exhaust many of its members.

The board did a better job this time of addressing tribal issues. Internet reporting deserves a great deal of the credit for it. This board often falls in line with Abramson, Boushour and Eitrem, who feel no obligation to answer to the membership…or to improve on the way in which the tribe does their business.

It is as if because the system is working for them, they could not care less.