From Councilor Julia Coates: The Narrowing of the Cherokee Nation Hello, everyone – Summary: The October Rules Committee meeting on October 30 was a doozy. Besides the rudeness and flagrant breaches of conduct that occurred, we also had some great examples of conflicts of interest and the contrast between principles that had previously been employed and present methods of appointments to Cherokee Nation boards and commissions. Interested? Read on… To watch/listen to this update, please go to youtu.be/gHqE4Crj9wg In the last update to you, I directed you to an interesting article on another website, cherokeevoice/, that examined nepotism in the Cherokee Nation. Nepotism is generally understood by most people to be undesirable as it opens the door for conflicts of interest. At the October Rules committee meeting, we had a slew of examples of exactly what the issues are. Most of the agenda items dealt with re-confirmations of Cherokee Nation Housing Authority commissioners and the board of Cherokee Nation Businesses (CNB). The CNB board member appointments were especially revealing. Of the eight who were up for reappointment, one has a daughter who works for CNB, two were related to tribal councilors, another has a nephew who works at one of our casinos, and another has a son who directs the Housing Authority. Yet another is a member of a family trust from which the Cherokee Nation purchased 300 acres, paying over $8 million which went into the pockets of this particular board member and others of his family. (He feels that because he abstained from the vote and because his was a “minority share” there was no conflict of interest. I strenuously disagree). Of the eight, only two had no relatives in positions of employment, trust, or profit with or from the Cherokee Nation and its entities. The argument made by the majority on the tribal council when they rolled back the Sunshine Act in 2012 was that in such a small region, it was difficult to find professional people who weren’t related to those in high levels of administration or elected officials of the Cherokee Nation. But we didn’t have a problem with it previously, and, I submit to you, would not have a problem with it now, if only a different principle was being applied. We are the largest tribe in the country, with over 325,000 citizens at this time. While smaller tribes sometimes have difficulty finding qualified tribal citizens to fill vacancies in employment and on boards and commissions, that’s never been our particular problem. There is a wealth of expertise that exists within our particular citizenry, both among the local people and the At Large citizens. The previous administration employed a principle that sought expertise appropriate to the position from anywhere, soliciting resumes and recommendations of anyone who might be well-suited to the post, whether the Chief or councilors personally knew the nominee or not. The circle of nominees has narrowed significantly under this administration. To my knowledge, resumes are no longer solicited and the Chief doesnt appear to look outside the circle of his own business and civic relationships in Cherokee County where Tahlequah is located. Sometimes a nominee is presented from another area, usually someone who is known and recommended by a councilor or advisor in the Chief’s majority bloc. Sometimes expertise in the area addressed by the particular board or commission isn’t required either. We recently had a member appointed to the Cherokee Nation Community Association board that works with the 22 At Large satellite groups who had virtually no experience with those organizations and no particular skills of the sort needed by this board. Last week at the committee meetings, we were presented with a nominee to the Cherokee Phoenix editorial board who had no journalism experience, but who was a county commissioner in Cherokee County. While such individuals may be people of integrity and may have other valuable skills, they are not good fits for the positions for which they are nominated. When this happens repeatedly, the appointments certainly have the appearance of being primarily political. Last week at the November committee meetings, we were presented with a nominee for the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court. The nominee presently serves on the Employee Appeals Board (EAB) which hears complaints by employees of wrongful treatment and/or termination. Under the present administration, it shouldn’t surprise anyone, I guess, that not only did the nominee serve on this three-person board, his brother does as well. So one family is dominating the board that reviews employee complaints and firings. I have many concerns about this, particularly when the position is for a justice of the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of all legal disputes in our Nation and a position that the nominee will hold for at least ten years. Many of the cases of wrongful employee terminations have been appealed to the CN district court and then the CN Supreme Court. Some of those cases are still pending, and so the nominee will potentially be ruling on cases he has already ruled on at a lower level. With a brother still serving on the EAB, the nominee will be ruling on cases that may have already gone before his brother. Under questioning, I was assured by the CN Secretary of State that the nominee stated his brother will resign upon his confirmation and that he would recuse himself from anything he has already ruled on at a lower court. But under questioning, it was revealed that the nominee also has a daughter who serves on the Cherokee Nation Foundation board of directors, as well as her husband (the nominee’s son-in-law) who serves on the Cherokee Nation Businesses board (and who was being re-confirmed that night). I sought assurance that the nominee would also recuse himself from any cases involving CNB (since I have litigation pending against them) and CNF (where there appear to also be some serious irregularities under the present director). The Secretary was more vague on these points, stating only that the nominee would abide by the judicial rules of conduct. At best this pattern looks like cronyism and a good ol’ boy “principle” (if it can be called such a thing). I’m sure many of the people involved do not see it that way. They simply see it as people from a small rural area who know each other and are accustomed to being the local movers and shakers. And, oh yeah, they just happen to be related. But the issue goes beyond that of conflicts of interest. The Cherokee Nation is bigger than these rural cabals, and at worst, this trend represents the closing of the doors of the Cherokee Nation to those outside the small area around Tahlequah. Even Councilor Dick Lay, who usually votes with the Chief’s majority, but who represents Bartlesville and surrounding areas in the northwestern part of the jurisdiction, indicated his displeasure with the continuing appointments only of people from a small area and a small circle of friends and acquaintances primarily from only a few of the 14 counties of the Cherokee Nation (not to mention the 2/3 who reside at large). The Cherokee Nation is narrowing under the Bill John Baker administration, and anyone who is outside the circle of influential small town families in Tahlequah and the immediately surrounding areas recognizes that. Even many within the favored districts but who are not part of the “inner circle” recognize it. And certainly those in the northern and western parts of the Nation, as well as the At Large people who had been serving on boards and commissions but who recently have been replaced by friends and family of the Chief and councilors in the majority bloc, feel their increasing marginalization as the Nation that had been opening up to them under the Mankiller and Smith administrations is once again constricting to exclude them. Julia
Posted on: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:53:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015