Opposed to divisive recall election
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
In reference to the election on the recall amendment to the tribal constitution, I wish to state that I am in complete agreement with esteemed tribal elder, Pat Pierre, in expressing my opposition to this proposed amendment.
There is a place for a carefully crafted objective amendment, and the subject proposal is certainly not this one. Petitioners or governing bodies should limit recalls to instances involving criminal actions and/or serious ethical failures.
The point must be made that elections matter in a representative system, and policy differences should not be impeachable or recallable offenses. If voters are disappointed with, or angry about a politician, or policies, or even a single policy vote, they need to wait until the next election to take out their frustrations, and deal with the consequences of how the entire electorate voted. In other words, elections have to have consequences.
In the transcription of the minutes of the April general council meeting, printed twice in the Char-Koosta, I did not say that recall elections are decisive. I did state that such amendments and recall elections are almost always divisive.
I have worked on reservations where disputes on recall actions tear families and factions apart for generations, sometimes never to be reconciled. Those factions who are elected in one cycle may be recalled in the next, and the divisiveness goes on and on.
I also think that the 1,400 tribal members, self-identified as the Voice of the People, are not the voice of the entire electorate. I believe that distinction goes to the tribal governing body.
By the way, the last I heard is that the basic concept of freedom of speech extends not only to the voice of the people, but also to the tribal council and tribal lawyers.
Wyman J. McDonald
Ronan
