United Governmental Reform Movement

Yes, there is something we can do. We need the removal petitions ASAP. The authority given the board to uphold the Constitution has been returned to us by several members of the BOD. Therefore, removal petitions should be circulating everywhere, since there is no longer a constitution that these board members will adhere to.

They have chosen to ignore the Election code as well. Apparently, they intend to hold an election their way and without regard for the laws of this tribe. We aren't letting that happen though, are we? The Sault Tribe police should be called in to remove them for chronic lawlessness. No double standards...we will make up the laws as they suit the situation and this situation calls for immediate action.

7 or 8 directors about to be removed do not have the authority to do what they plan to do, it is really that simple. There are 37,000 members of this tribe up against a handful of corrupt individuals.

This new situation validates what I have been pushing for several years....term limits, not only for the Board of Directors, and Chair but the election committee, as well. The election committee is controlled, and has been for years, by Unit one. Why isn't the election moved from Unit to Unit with new committee members each time? It's pretty clear we need some major changes and we can work together to make them.

Be a part of the United Governmental Reform Movement.
Lynne Weaver

Aaron Payment wrote:
ALARMING ELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS - WILL THE BOARD ACTUALLY VOTE FOR THESE?Tribal Board will vote on Election Code Changes: Tuesday - January 15th at 5pm in Kinross Recreation Center.Members urged to attend to voice your opinionIn January 2006, the Tribal Board enacted the current Tribal electionlaw to say that there shall be no revisions to the Tribal election lawwithin six months of any given election. That means, any changes forthe 2008 election would have to have already happened by July of 2007. Nonetheless, the Board met (yesterday and today) to go over possiblechanges to the election code. Among the most alarming changes include:1. LIMITING MEMBER VOTING TO POLL SITES IN THE UP: This proposal would require Tribal Members who live outside of theservice area to travel to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to vote. ForDetroiters, that would be a 5 hour drive. For those who live on theEast Coast, a 20 hour drive one way. For those on the West Coast, 2days one way. We current have an absentee system that works wellenough (it would be better if an outside accounting firm handle andcount the ballots). The election committee proposal is offensive to the 62% of our Memberswho live outside of the UP of Michigan. It also disadvantages those who live in the rural areas of the UP. Forexample, if you live in Escanaba, you'd have to travel to Manistique (60miles) to vote. If you live in Marquette you'd have to travel toMunising (45 miles). If you live in Newberry or Naubinway, you'd haveto travel to Hessel (60 minutes). If you live on Mackinac Island, youwould have to pay the ferry costs ($18) to get to the main land and votein St. Ignace. It is discriminatory and would be step backward as wecurrently enjoy a voter turn out of about 70% of registered voters. Theoutcome will clearly cause us to drop to say 40% like presidentialelections (see attached).2. REJECTING 86% MEMBERS' VOTE TO AMEND OUR CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBITDOUBLE DIPPING? They have not included the language in the draft election laws from theConstitutional Amendment (Secretarial election) that prohibits doubledipping. This action would contradict 86% of our Membership in theirvote which amended our Constitution. Lana Causley, Cathy Abramson andothers voted against allowing the people to vote to amend ourConstitution to prohibit double dipping so it will be interesting to seeif they violate the will of the people. 3. OVERTURNING REFERENDUM TO QUALIFY BOUSCHOR AND SHAGEN TO RUN? During this meeting, select Board members advocated eliminating thereferendum outcome language in the Election code which current prohibitsBernard Bouschor and Paul Shagen to run for office. Now we know whyBouschor has been attending Tribal meetings and coalescing with Paquinand others. Recall that in January 2006, we held a referendum that hadover 70% of the people say these two were not eligible during the courtcase to recover the $2.66 million Bouschor, Shagen and others stole. This was done by referendum (again 70% of the people voted for it) andis final and binding per our Constitution. Those who voted againstholding the referendum in the first place, Cathy Abramson, DennisMcKelvie, Lana Causley, and Fred Paquin. It will be interesting to seeif they vote to lift this prohibition and violate the will of thepeople.