Reviewing the Governing Document

Legislation has been submitted once again on the issue of the tribe's governing document. Currently the tribe operates under a sham of a constitution introduced and passed by a Tribal Council resolution in 1986, in violation of federal law. Robert Youngdeer, then chief, rightfully vetoed the legislation, but an overwhelming majority of council members' support easily overrode the veto. In 1993, Tribal Council itself concluded that the 1986 Charter is invalid, but other than a 1999 constitution vote, legally organized with an overwhelming rejection of voters, no action was taken to reject the '86 Charter.
Efforts to address this issue with the last council were met with hostility, particularly from Big Cove Rep. Perry Shell. I don't expect a whole lot of support with this council, but I wish Big Y resident Nancy Long and Painttown Rep. Terri Henry luck.

Political Influence and the Courts

Teresa McCoy, Big Cove Tribal Council Representative, has introduced legislation that would make it a crime for elected officials to use intimidation, bribery or deception to influence decisions of the tribal court. This issue has come up time and time again, and both tribal court leaders and tribal elected officials have claimed that no such influence occurs.
While there is nothing to document such influence, here are a couple of major concerns.
All tribal employees' paychecks are signed by the principal chief and the vice chief. This is particular concern with such entities that should be free of political influence, particularly the courts.
While there's much talk about how chummy some elected officials are with judges and justices, this is verifiable. Supreme Court Justice Brenda Toineeta-Pipestem is married to a Washington lobbyist, whose contract with the tribe is something of which the principal chief has direct authority.
Bribery, intimidation, obstruction of justice in the justice system is something that should already be considered felony charges, but waiting for the feds, who have jurisdiction, would cause one to lose all hope. There's no harm in addressing this issue on the local level.

My Lawsuit

I still get questions about my lawsuit against the tribe for wrongful termination. While I can't at this time discuss specifics, I can say that efforts to mediate a settlement were fruitless, especially since any settlement would've required me to remain silent on my situation.
My case is about first amendment rights on reservation land more than it is wrongful termination to me. Both federal and tribal law protect everyone's right to free expression. Nothing makes me angrier than non native attorneys, who have no stake in anything with the tribe, who can't be held criminally liable in tribal court, helping tribal government officials repress the rights of tribal members (often times under the guise of "tribal sovereignty").
I'm aware that there are plenty of tribal members who hate me, hate what I have to say and hate my politics. That's o.k. with me, but understand this, the situation can just as easily be reversed and you could be on the receiving end of actions to punish expression of opinions those with power don't like. This case has important implications for you as well.