Letters -- Feb. 15, 2012

Dear Tribal members:

I am writing regarding the Constitutional Amendment Primary Election resolution that was approved by six members of Tribal Council at the Jan. 25, 2012, Tribal Council meeting.

The actions of the six members of Tribal Council in approving a resolution that calls for a Constitutional Amendment to add Primary Election wording to our Constitution was disheartening to say the least as those members of the Tribal Council only seem to be willing to address one of the two main questions asked in the 2010 Tribal Council Election Survey.

Those two main survey questions received more affirmative votes than the highest vote getter (541) in the Tribal Council Election that year where 1,095 Tribal members cast votes for the various Tribal Council candidates.

A total of 948 Tribal voters responded either "yes" (582) or "no" (366) to Question 1, which was: "I support a primary election to reduce the number of candidates that go on to the general election held in September of every year."

A total of 928 Tribal voters responded either "yes" (701) or "no" (227) to Question 2, which was: "I support limiting the number of three-year terms a council member may consecutively hold office."

Based on the results of the 2010 Tribal Council Election Survey, there is no doubt that some type of "open discussion" needed to take place regarding our Tribal Council Election Process.

However, I believe it was wrong for the Tribal Council to decide to move forward with a BIA-conducted Constitutional Amendment Election to propose changes to our Tribal Council Election Process that only addressed one aspect of the process. It is especially wrong since more Tribal members who marked the 2010 survey supported "limiting the number of three-year terms a council member may consecutively hold office" than those who wanted some type of a primary election "to reduce the number of candidates that go on to the general election held in September of every year."

For those who follow the Tribal Council election results each year, it should be easy to see that a primary election would favor incumbents even more than a regular election already does, and that term limits would stop incumbents from making a career out of being elected to Tribal Council.

It just so happens that the six members of the Tribal Council who approved moving forward with a Constitutional Amendment Primary Election, without addressing the term limits issue, are all members of the Tribal Council who have already served more than one term on the Tribal Council.

I encourage each of you to write to all nine members of the Tribal Council and give your opinion about this issue.

Thank you for your time.

Leroy Good

Roll #892

Dear Smoke Signals:

I am not in favor of a primary election without having term limits in place with it.

1. It would be adding the cost of another election to our Tribal budget.

2. Speaking for myself, when I pick which six candidates I want, I already know which three I am going to vote for so it is unnecessary to lower the field of candidates to six.

3. Because there is not very much time between the candidates declaring that they want to run for Tribal Council and the time of the primary vote, the new candidates would not have very much time to build up a following and get their message out to the voters.

4. I think the primary would favor the incumbents.

5. I would hate to have us spend Tribal dollars on this election and then turn around and do it all again next year to consider the term limits. Why not just wait and do both elections for the price of one?

6. I am not in favor, as Tribal Council member Toby McClary said, of spending Tribal money on this one issue when the membership said on the survey that they really wanted term limits to be added to our Tribal Constitution. So thank you, Toby, for your stance. I think you speak for many of the members.

Rosemary Jameson

Roll #883