Letters to the Editor -- March 1, 2015

Dear Smoke Signals:

At the powwow at the State Fairgrounds in Salem on Saturday, Jan. 24, (in the evening) an item of jewelry was lost. One of our teenagers found it and sought out the owner. The owner had not realized it was lost … it fell off.

It all happened very quickly and names were not exchanged. The owner is very thankful and would love to let this teenage woman know how much she appreciated her honesty. If she would contact the owner at 541-327-2949 it would be most appreciated.

It seems fitting to acknowledge a good deed for a change. I am not the person who lost the item, but am trying to help her locate the young woman.

Theresa Sawtell-Davie

Salem

Dear Smoke Signals:

I read the last issue of Smoke Signals and found it quite interesting, especially the part about the constitutional election going on. It’s true; we are lucky to be voting on such major issues.

I honestly don’t see where removing the Bureau of Indian Affairs will make a big difference in the Tribe. People will vote based upon how much trust they have in our Tribal government, especially the council. The BIA isn’t perfect; we all know that. But neither is our government.

What I found a little confusing, and based upon the letter of another Tribal member I was not alone, is this idea of “term limits.” According to Smoke Signals, the Tribal leadership is putting this forward because of a survey conducted back in 2010. That is five years ago now. Plus, this isn’t really what the members indicated they wanted. Members wanted council to serve two or three terms. This idea of three terms and a year off isn’t really term limits at all. To me, this looks like some toothless reform which pretends to do one thing but in reality does another.

My point is this: What is being voted on is not term limits; more like pseudo-term limits. If you are OK with this, then vote “yes.” But if you demand better, vote “no.”

Why replace what works with what sounds good. The BIA works. Let’s keep it. Vote “no.”

Adrainne Llaneza

Roll #1715

Dear Smoke Signals:

I would like to express my opinion on the upcoming constitutional election. As you would have noticed through Smoke Signals and the registration packet, we as voters are faced with two decisions. I am a little skeptical of both and I would like to tell you why.

Removal of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: The way our Constitution reads now it only takes five council members to propose an amendment. Meanwhile, it takes well over 1,000 of us Tribal members to petition for a change. It is obviously much easier to get five council members to agree on a proposed amendment, good idea or bad, than more than 1,000 members, so I would rather see an amendment which makes it easier for us, the general membership, to enact changes in our Constitution rather than making it easier for Tribal leaders. Regardless of who proposes an amendment, we still need two-thirds of the members voting to approve the change. To demonstrate my point …

Term limits: I am greatly disappointed in the so-called “term limits” the council is asking us to vote on. They sent us a survey five years ago and the vast majority of us indicated that we wanted term limits. What the council is proposing is not what we asked for and it is not term limits. Governments that go the way of term limits usually do so because voters want to see fresh ideas and leaders with an agenda to improve governance. Real term limits accomplish that. Taking a one-year vacation from council every decade is hardly term limits. I don’t know what it is, other than a weak attempt to address a very clear mandate sent from the membership five years ago.

In conclusion, I hope you will consider joining me in voting “no” on both of these proposed amendments.

Angie Blackwell

Roll #1089