Friday, February 25, 2011

OH THE DRAMA!

A late night conversation with Catherine Hollowell yielded some peculiar observations. An earlier discussion with a Sault Tribe member spurred a string of comments on Facebook in response to a remark made by Aaron Payment.

Several points in the string were related to constitutional violations as well as a private message to me that Hollowell had made a motion to ignore the last referendum calling for an election. Someone asked the Tribe’s attorney if that action was a removable offense and he replied that it was, and as a result, Hollowell rescinded her motion. Hollowell responded by writing that “someone told you wrong” and asked that I call her, which I did.

After a very lengthy conversation it came down to the fact that once she knew it was a violation of the Constitution, she rescinded her motion. So it was true with one omission; that because it was a Constitution violation she rescinded her motion. Okay, but that sounds very similar to what I wrote in the first place but perhaps the Sault Tribe member who was there saw it differently than Hollowell’s actual intentions.

Hollowell also said that the two motions in question were the motions to pay off the imprisoned former police chief, Fred Paquin, for his sick time and to appeal the 7+2 case, that it was a waste of money since it was already a done deal and that there was not enough time to discuss it with the members. She did state that Bernard voted against the last one. I questioned why was he allowed to vote and why would it even count but the conversation was redirected to misinformation caused by the internet writings of tribal members....who me?

Cue the drama. Hollowell scolded me numerous times for the content on this blog, even suggesting that I hold some responsibility for the 30 plus death threats she has received. Huh? She suggested that I was trying to incite a violent revolt by reminding readers of what has occurred in the Middle East lately. Since I didn’t recall writing anything of the sort, I referred to this site for a quick check and found nothing where I had made such a suggestion. She then recanted by saying it wasn’t me but someone who posted a comment. Unlike the Sault Tribe paper, I allow freedom of speech provided they are legitimate concerns. Take a clue from what members are saying. If some are suggesting that we have to overturn our government than it’s time to wake up directors and stop blaming the members for our opinions.

Our discussion continued regarding the lack of communication between the actions of the board and the members of the tribe as well as our happy little tribal newspaper that only presents the sunny side of the tribe rather than the reality. Between trying to get a word in, I attempted to suggest that directors should utilize the internet more frequently so that their constituents would not feel left out but Cathy thought that would lead to a lot more miscommunication. That logic eludes me since the internet is the most common means of communication today.

Hollowell also backed Debra Pine in her response to Charles Forgraves eluding to the opinion that ‘why should Pine respond to him when he has been so insulting to her since the beginning of the election.’ I see it differently. If you own a business and a customer complains about the service, do you tell them to shove their opinion or do you enter into a discussion in an attempt to come to a favorable conclusion?

If not for those who hold the elected to higher standards, there would be no point in holding an election and we could just shut up and settle for a dictatorship. All I can say is, we don’t want the drama. What we want is for the directors and chairman of the Sault Tribe to listen to what the members have to say and take the time to explain the actions of the board or expect to be disrespected.

UPDATE: I was just informed that it was Director Malloy who questioned the unconstitutionality of ignoring the recent referendums as well as why it was even up for discussion. Thank you, Director Malloy, for standing up for the rights of Sault Tribe members. As soon as this semester is over, I plan on attending the meetings to support you and I encourage others to join me.

6 comments:

Juli Pionk said...

I sometimes wonder if any of the BOD has actually read our constitution, bylaws, tribal ordinances and resolutions.

Article VI-VACANCIES AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

Section 3. Removal of the tribal chairperson or any member of the board of directors may be initiated by means of filing charges against such person with the board of directors in the form of a petition signed by at least one hundred (100) eligible voters which alleges specific facts which, if shown to be true, would establish that the official has engaged in conduct which constitutes a violation of this CONSTITUTION and BYLAWS or ANY DULY ENACTED TRIBAL ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION.

If any action is in question I certainly would refer to this document in its entirety if our tribal attorney is not available for consultation because more so now than ever Tribal members are watching, listening and communicating and the reason for this is the proven level of corruption that exists within the leadership. I personally could site several violations that are just being ignored.

It is very difficult to come away from a conversation with a BOD member with any positive thoughts when you know that the director was so busy talking that not a word of what you said was heard.

Nathan Wright said...

Catherine Howell you are a disappointment to those of us who supported you. There is still time for you to change. I heard what happened, you were about to violate our constitution. Clearly. There is no question.

Lynne Weaver said...

I think it's high time we made use of Section 3. That would take 2 out of the equation immediately.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I do believe that the reason many of the Board do not want open dialogue of public review of their actions is because they are so incompetent, they know they are incompetent, and they are afraid the members will see it. Face it, what background do anything of them have to be directors ? A jewerly making certificate? A sandwhich maker ? An insurance agent ? Come on, these are a bunch of phonies who do not have a clue.
Oh, by the way, will someone please get Deb Pine a dictionary, or at the least ask her to go back to school to learn the writing process. She is an embarassment.

Anonymous said...

Glad to hear I wasnt the only one she didnt want to hear from cause i thought it was just me that might have said something wrong.She was rude, loud and wouldnt even let me ask what I wanted. All she wanted to do was hear herself.

Anonymous said...

Howellwell is a major disappointment. She did not turn out at all as she presented herself. Since it does not appear that she has the integrity or intelligence to be on the Board perhaps she would do the members a favor and resign. Oh, and she could take Pine with her on her way out the door !

Our right to make changes through referendum is the one voice we have left....use it.