ATTEMPTS TO RELEGATE THE CHAIR A MERE FIGURE HEAD CONTINUE At the June 3rd, Sault Tribe Board Meeting, Director Jennifer McLeod introduced her unnecessary resolution to strip the Chair of all Authority except serving as a “Ceremonial Figure Head”. Fortunately, a majority saw this as unnecessary or as a mere habitual re-litigation of the 2012 Tribal Chair election in which nearly a landslide of the Members voted for me as Chairperson. Every single day, I am reminded of the expectation by the Members that the Chair IS THE LEAD ADMINISTRATOR. Regardless of the confusing amendment passed in 2010 when someone else was Chair, the Members expect the Chair to lead the administration. Director McLeod’s resolution is not respectful of the 2012 Election outcome. She or her mentor Bernard Bouschor do not have to like that I am Chair, but isn’t it time to move on? REFERENDUM If for some reason, the Board chooses to act on the dilatory and nonsensical resolution of Director McLeod’s to relegate the Chair to a mere, “Ceremonial Figure Head”, We The People of this Tribe will overturn this decision via our Tribal Constitutional Right of Referendum. The results will be final and binding and take this authority away from the Board once and for all. Whether I am Chair or someone else is Chair, the Chair should not be a token Indian simply chairing a meeting. There are tax exemption implications for our federal treaty work that may impact dozens of employment team members. This reckless approach with their livelihoods is unacceptable. INSTABILITY IN OUR GOVERNMENT? The impression submitted to the state and nation with this kind of lingering infighting and trying to overturn the election decision of the Chairmanship is one of instability. Why would the BIA grant our ability to operate gaming in the down state market if we have this kind of instability driven by politics? Why would investors take the risk of putting up millions of dollars with an organization that may just strip authority from someone simply because they do not like them? DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER! I realize some are uncomfortable with this kind of open communication. However, given the gravity of what Director McLeod purports to want to do, I feel it is necessary. If I were not openly reporting on these and other things, you would never know. Today, it is undermining the authority of the Chair, tomorrow it could be disenrolling you. You deserve to know everything we are doing so you can decide if you agree. Below is a chronology of attempts to ascertain what has changed in the draft resolution to strip the chair of all authority from the previous attempt Director McLeod launched and failed. She only responded once and as you can see, she skirted the question of what was different. Instead, she makes it clear she feel holds no responsibility to inform the Members in advance of what her secret is to strip the authority of Chair. I do not know if other Board Members are a part of this sneaky attempt. We shall see Tuesday night when Director McLeod again introduces her habitual and repeated resolution which is wasting everyone’s time and attention on more important and pressing matters. 1ST REQUEST [Jun 12, 2014, at 3:43 PM] Jennifer: Sorry we missed you at the Mid West Caucus during the NCAI Mid year session on Tuesday. Members from several Michigan tribes were present. I Chaired this session video conference. In preparation for the Boards consideration of the attached, can you explain what is substantively different from your last attempt which failed to garner sufficient support to get second? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2ND REQUEST [June 13, 2014 at 11:29:29 AM] Second request. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3RD REQUEST [June 13, 2014 at 7:15:08 PM] Third request. 4TH REQUEST [Jun 13, 2014, at 7:37 PM] In order for us to succeed in attaining our approvals for our Gaming Expansion, the stars have to align perfectly. Habitually and without explanation submitting these attack resolutions to make the Chair a ceremonial figure head only and assigning my duties to [the Internal Services Executive Director] when she made it clear she does not appreciate being pulled into a political argument shows a great deal of instability to those who would approve our gaming plans and those who would invest. I have put the Tribes interests ahead of the public embarrassment this nonsensical resolution represents. If this continues, I will have no choice but to explain the political nature of these attacks to a much larger audience via media releases. I dont know how else to show these are the marginal, political, and desperate actions of a faction of our Board and not that of our Nation. Having said all of this, I am asking yet again, what substantive changes does Director McLeods latest resolution embody that make it different that the last one the Board failed to support or even second. This is not an unreasonable request. We have not workshopped any changes and certainly the legislature deserves to know both substantively the changes and intent of the author. To fail to answer is irresponsible and quite frankly more thinly disguised political fodder. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5TH REQUEST [Jun 15, 2014, at 6:22 AM] Fifth request. What substantive changes were made to the previous resolution to limit the delegated authority of the Chairperson to a mere ceremonial figure head? Also, where we have never created an executive staff position in the Constitution, a serious question exists when that staff person has expressed no interest in being used as a political football. The author of the resolution previously protest voted on the Boards vote to consolidate and hire the CFO and Assistant Executive Director based on her insistence that all positions be posted. Thus if the resolution is passed to create a new position in the Constitution, and apply the same logic that the author applied in her protest vote, the Internal Services Executive Director will have to be posted. This gets messy as it will be obvious that the position with the newly delegated authority will have been set up for one individual. It is unreasonable to ignore the simple request to know what substantive changes exist in the new draft from the previous one. For the record, this question has gone unanswered five times and counting and has been sent externally for recording keeping and to show the issue has gone unanswered by the author. In the absence of a response, what is left by way if an explanation is a mere personal reason for relegating the Chairs authority to a mere ceremonial figure head. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ONLY RESPONSE FROM DIRECTOR McLEOD: NON- SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE [Jun 15, 2014, at 9:50 AM] Chairman Payment, Changes are still being worked on, and Board Members will have the opportunity to make additional changes at the workshop on Tuesday. Enjoy your Sunday, and I will see you at the workshop. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAIR’S RESPONSE: [Jun 15, 2014, at 10:14 AM]: & 6TH REQUEST Who is working on these changes? Is it you as an individual or a minority faction of the Board? Are these changes a secret? Is there a reason why it took five requests to respond in an non-substantive manner of what is different in what you placed on the agenda and what failed as a lack of support the last time? Please note there are Board enacted rules that must be followed in considering legislation. We paid a considerable amount to have a national trainer come in and train the Board on these rules. You attended and [were] provided with a copy of our meeting code then and I assume understood the training. It would be appreciated if you were to reveal what changes you intend on making and not spring these changes on the Board which would clearly fail to meet the five day notice requirement. Something this important deserves careful and deliberate consideration. Regardless of your intent or changes you are making, I am still submitting a request to know what substantive changes you have or intend to make. This is not unreasonable. In fact, sound policy and legislation should not only vett such changes for their practicability, they should allow for the Membership to consider what legislation is being presented that will alter the role and authority of their highest elected official. Whether it be me or anyone else who may subsequently be Chair, purposely locking out our people in the decision making is simply wrong. I believe as most (majority) of our voting members feel reducing the Chair to a mere, figure head is patently offensive. This message serves as my sixth request to know what substantive changes you have or intend to make. Later today I will share this entire thread to the Membership and ask their input based on what I have at that point. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and anticipated respect and inclusion of our people in such significant legislation.
Posted on: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:39:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015