Sergeant at Arms...Protect our Freedom of Speech

Personally, I don't see the position of Sargeant at Arms as law enforcement. The purpose of a Sergeant at Arms is to protect our Freedom of Speech from those who try to take it away.

As early as middle school, students were appointed to Sergeant at Arms to preside over class meetings. Their duties were to simply remind the rabblerousers to keep their actions under control.

I have been to enough tribal meetings to see a need. For instance, without naming names, one well known for her ignorant and disruptive childish behavior sits in the front row and verbally harasses everyone, including members, who have an opinion....except her own buddies of course. Try to address the board and the membership with someone like that trying to shut you up and yelling over top your every word....Sergeant at Arms, do your duty.

It is not the job of the tribal police to remove someone for having a big nasty mouth but it was always the job of the Sergeant at Arms to tell such people to quiet down and ALLOW others to speak. If the audience applauded or called out their approval or disapproval after a presentation was made then that is always acceptable, as it should be. It was not acceptable for one or more persons to attempt to stop someone from presenting their point of view while at the podium or when another was called upon to ask questions or to speak.

Freedom of Speech is not prevented ( and should not be) by the presence of a Sergeant at Arms. It is not their purpose to violate anyone's Freedom of Speech. It should be their purpose to encourage and allow those freedoms. It is certain audience members and even some board members who are notorious for violating the Freedom of Speech of many who wish to express themselves.

But, the reality of this situation is that several of the Board of Directors will use the Sergeant at Arms to violate our Freedom of Speech when the speech is a criticism of their ability to properly represent the tribe and its members. The directors will have to take a class on what a Sergeant at Arms purpose is as well as being able to recite the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which is Freedom of Speech. They should at least have a clear understanding of what it means and that a Sergeant at Arms is not there to protect them but to require order while another is speaking.

Many of us mumble and grumble or show approval of what a speaker is saying but our final acceptance or revolt of the subject matter should be held for the completion of the presentation through applause, verbal or otherwise. It is about respect and giving your fellow citizen the right to their opinion. It is about having the self control required to keep your emotions at a civil level until such time as it is acceptable to applaud, whoop and holler and that, to me, is always acceptable as your voice of approval or disapproval at the completion of a speech or presentation. If no one were allowed to do so, there would be no point in attending meetings and no point in even holding elections.

So it will be up to the tribal members to also review the purpose of a Sergeant at Arms and the meaning of the First Amendment...Freedom of Speech.. in order to prevent the board from using the Sergeant at Arms for their purposes only.

Lynne Weaver


Charles Forgrave wrote:
Date: Sunday, January 27, 2008, 8:25 PM
Sault Ste. Marie, Mi...The board of directors of the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians will be studying a Sargeant-At-Arms proposal in the coming weeks. Since the January 15Th meeting a few directors feel a Sargeant-At-Arms is necessary to maintain order.

There is emerging support for the resolution and tribal members may have to live with it..in one form or another. While some observers feel the proposal is yet another effort by the rougue board to curb citizen expression; others feel the additon of a Sargeant-At-Arms is necessary to maintain order and civility at meetings.

Though opposed to law enforcement involvement and board officials choosing the Sargeant-At-Arms... some directors feel the resolution is timely. Others directors see it as a pre-election effort by the rougue board to assert additional control, along with curbing citizen expression...and see the free and vigorous expression of ordinary citizens as a last stopgape to a board determined to assert illegal control over tribal affairs.

The Sargeant-At-Arms resolution will be discussed and fine turned in a workshop in the weeks ahead, before being brought before the board of directors for a decision.

Thank you, Charles Forgrave