Some info on the general council meeting

Here is some info from a tribal member on the general council meeting that was held yesterday:

"The REAL word on the rez, is that at the General Council Meeting today, Tribal Council added an item to the agenda without going through the proper channels.  The TC wanted tribal members to vote on two options for a "revenue allocation plan".  This plan, as explained to us would be irreversible when approved and we were given no notice, handouts or written info about what we were actually voting on.  The Plan changes how we spend and budget our revenue, it was not explained which programs would be cut or how many jobs would be lost by choosing either plan, one thing for sure one plan called for the elimination of charitable contributions.  Many tribal members were concerned to say the least that we were being asked to vote on something that is so important yet given so little information about.  Most thought it was also unfair that off-rez people were not being given the chance to give their input on this plan.  According to the TC the plan is necessary due to the over-whelming passage of the per capita increase.  There was a motion to include this matter on the next referendum vote going out later this month, it was seconded and it passed.  TC promised to send information out to tribal members so we could make an educated vote on this very important matter."

This blog will have a full article on the general council meeting on Monday...!

Comments

[Angie Wahweotten]

I see misinformation here. G.C. members are always welcome (on rez and off) at the G.C. meetings, so I don't think the plug for on/off rez division is correct. People didn't want to make the decision without knowing the consequences, but that is different than what is being presented.

Increasing our Per Cap is what changes which programs will continue to operate and which employees will continue to have a job, or not, and we (all tribal members) knew that change was coming with an increase. T.C. is trying to fulfill their duty - MO.

Angie W.

[Rob]

Keep an eye on your tribal council. Remember, they represent you, not rule you.
I wish you all the best and hope that should your council cut services, the increase in your per-cap will allow you to take more control of your own lives.
Hopefully any cuts to programs will not cause hardship to the elders or youth.

[Joe]

Angie, I think you mis-understood what the writer was trying to say. It was the opinion of some general council members that they shouldn't make such a big decision without hearing first from those who live off the rez or those couldn't make it to the meeting. Everyone has a right to their opinion whether we like it or not. This revenue allocation plan was not on the agenda and everyone was taken by surprise. Everyone agrees there should be more time and thought put into it before taking any vote. No one was hinting that it had anything to do with who was welcome/not welcome at the G.C. meeting.

[name withheld]

I heard Tracy was at the meeting on Saturday- what did she say?

Name witheld

[Name withheld, too]

She never made any sense when she was on the council so don't expect her to make any sense now.

[Angie Wahweotten]

I appreciate the discussion on this post because I guess I can be feisty(I don't think I am, but Tony say so), BUT that is not my intent.

When something like opinions about the G.C. meeting are posted on the blog, I will publicly disagree with things I don't think are being presented in a genuine manner because this is the only way some member have of trying to keep up with what is going on here on our land base.

There is the issue of this being a public forum, so I hope to see that recognition when issues are posted to the blog.

For members that still have their adenda, they can look at 5. Old Buiness: (b) Financial Presentation. Or one could check that boring ole, "Big Boy" blog, pbpnews.blogspot.com. The recommended motion is spoken about there before the meeting (anyone may check the date). It was shocking, but not an ambush.

And, everyone does have a right to their wrong opinion - jk.

We have quarterly meetings so that interested parties can be involved. Do you think the writer is suggesting that everything should be mailed out - at cost to the Nation - for the benefit of off reservation members? When we changed the per cap payments to quarterly (increasing the cost of administrating the disbursements) it was so members would have money to make the meetings. The guy that made the motion, with that being his reasoning (off reservation member), hasn't been seen at general discussion since. I'm not making a point here, just relaying history.

I think this is another issue of how can we operate reasonably, ethically, successfully and as fairly as possible with members spread out to the far reaches of turtle island and beyond? What needs to go out and what are members expecting our elected officials to handle? AND, how do we, as a Nation, decide that? Constitutionally it say we decide matters with a General Council consisting of a quorum that has 65 enrolled members over the age of 18.

Lord knows I don't have any answers (and I say that with sincerity because most of the rest of this reply has been kinda tongue in cheek). !!!I do think AMENDMENT A is a step in the right direction!!! And that's an honest plug! I am, however, always open to suggestions.

Angie Wahweotten

[name withheld]

One thing we can agree on Angie is that the Ethics Committee Amendment should be passed. This is the only way we will get our tribal council to be accountable and that is what so many of our members said on Sat. they want tc to be accountable and it what a number of the candidates ran on.