By ROBERT JUMPER
Tutiyi (Snowbird) and Clyde, N.C.
The word “but” typically negates most of the statement before it. For years, I have listened for that word to be in every spoken or written sentence. Oxford defines but as a word “used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned. When discussing absolutes, a “but” in its presentation completely undoes what say.
Sovereignty: “a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control: autonomy c: controlling influence” (Merriam-Webster).
Transparency: “…a situation in which business and financial activities are done in an open way without secrets so that people can trust that they are fair and honest” (Cambridge Dictionary).
Sovereignty and transparency are “all in” words. Being “kinda” sovereign or “kinda” transparent is like being “kinda” pregnant. Either you are transparent, or you are not. Either you are sovereign, or you are not.
As we think of ourselves or call ourselves sovereign as a federally recognized tribe, we need to think about the term “recognized” and see if there is a “but” in that term. The word “recognize” means “to acknowledge formally: such as a: to admit as being lord or sovereign b: to admit as being a particular status c: to admit as being one entitled to be heard: give the floor to d: to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of” (Merriam Webster).
There has been a huge discussion among federally recognized tribes and between tribes, groups, and the federal government concerning what it means to be Indian in the United States.
Back in the day, when there was a question of sovereignty among tribes, there wasn’t a “sovereign…but” clause in the world. When a group challenged the rights of a tribe, the tribe either used its might to assert its sovereignty or succumbed to the challenging group. Part of being sovereign is being able to defend the right to freedom through the assertion of supreme power. Also back in the day, the federal government and the indigenous tribes of what is now the United States parlayed to coexist through things called treaties. The term “treaty” means “a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by a representative duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state” (Merriam-Webster). A treaty is only as good as your ability to enforce it and is typically full of “buts”.
I read several commentaries that say federally recognized tribes are sovereign, but we cannot, in most instances, prosecute people who violate our laws who are not native. But we can’t make laws in our tribal government that contradict those of the federal government. We are permitted (permitted is another “but” word) by federal law to pursue adult gaming operations. But we had to negotiate a compact (another word for treaty) with the state of North Carolina to set guidelines for operation. The federal government granted (side asking for a friend-if you are sovereign, why would you need to be granted or given permission for anything?) permission to grow, produce, and sell cannabis products, but according to the same federal government that “approved” tribes to do business in cannabis, also noted that cannabis is still a controlled substance and illegal to possess in certain quantities, for consumption and sale.
As to transparency, it seems that being “open without secrets” is a long-gone concept. Using the premise that “they are all out to get us” has long been the justification for keeping critical decision-making information from public view. Things are further complicated by a gradation of who the public is, and which public may view what information. There are few absolutes in modern society, and we try to blend concrete concepts with imaginary gray areas by using rhetoric. I think we have a communication culture based on fear. The government is afraid to release information because they fear the information will get into malicious hands. A former sitting government official once said that certain information was too complicated for the community to understand and that trying to explain it to us would waste valuable time. They feared that putting the community’s information into our own hands might lead to leaks that could potentially harm us. So, for our own good, it was felt that much of the information that belongs to us would be hidden from us, because of the malicious “they” out there who might do us harm.
Due to the Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) instituting a ban on any public release of any financial information, it is very challenging for the public and media to know project costs, overruns, and basically any income and expenditure information about our financial dealings as a tribe. For some reason, there was a pause or waiver of the no-disclosure policy during the February session of Dinilawigi.
The was a resolution brought forth by a tribal member to purchase property under the “$500 per acre for undeveloped property for home sites” law that is on the books. This discussion was held in open session. There were personal reasons that prompted the submission of the resolution, a situation that presumably has been going on since last year. At issue was that the land in question had recently previously been purchased by the tribe as a larger parcel to the tune of a quarter-million dollars ($250,000) per acre. As I watched the discussion, it looked to be a very emotional challenge for Dinilawigi. They were trying to balance the needs of the one against the needs of the many. Surely, if an individual tribal member is in distress, the leadership wants to bring them relief. On the flip side, the Dinilawigi are accountable for making land purchases that benefit all tribal members. At least one representative stated that the purchase had at least been discussed as a commercial-use property, meaning that it was intended to generate income for all tribal members. Alternative solutions were discussed but ultimately the vote went in favor of the individual tribal member.
A motion and second was recognized by Chairman Parker and the resolution was put to a vote. Keep in mind that our governing documents use a prescribed weighted vote for each Dinilawigi seat, based on a tribal census (although our tribe has not had the prescribed tribal census to determine that weight of the vote since the early 2000s-a “census” was conducted in 2023 by resolution, the publicly released version of this document makes no mention of the total respondence to the census, which is critical for understanding the percentages represented in it and it was never used for updating community weights for Dinilawigi votes, as was implied when the resolution to do the 2023 census was approved on December 8, 2022).
According to the video of the Feb. 6, 2025 meeting of the Dinilawigi on the land issue, the “raised-hand” vote was as follows: In-favor- Chairman Michael Parker, Wahohi (Wolftown) 12 percent, Tom Wahnetah, Elawodi (Yellowhill) 7 percent, Bo Crowe Wahohi (Wolftown) 12 percent, Jim Owle Tsisqwohi (Birdtown) 12 percent, and Richard French, Kolanvyi (Big Cove) 7 percent; Opposed-Dike Sneed, Aniwodhi (Painttown) 6 percent, Michael Stamper, Aniwodhi 6 percent, Vice Chairman David Wolfe, Elawodi 7 percent, Bucky Brown Tsisqwohi/Tutiyi (Cherokee County/Snowbird) 6 percent, Boyd Owle Tsisqwohi 12 percent, and Adam Wachacha Tsisqwohi/Tutiyi 6 percent. There was one abstention, Perry Shell, Kolanvyi 7 percent. Checking the percentages, that’s 50 in-favor, 43 opposed, and 7 in abstention. Of course, the legislation now goes to the Ugvwiyuhi (Chief) as the next step to ratification.
If this interaction is indicative of other financial issues that we are dealing with that the community doesn’t get to see because of the gag order on financials, shouldn’t the community be concerned about that lack of transparency? Let me be clear, I know there are negotiations for contractual obligations that should remain confidential until we close deals and execute contracts, but I think it is dangerous in a democratic, representative government for the community to be shielded from its own information. This is not a knock on our leadership. I am just acknowledging a long-held fact of life: What you don’t know can harm you.
What we have been calling a challenge to tribal sovereignty is really a battle to protect the indigenous identity. What is on the line is federal recognition itself. When anyone dilutes what it means to be Indigenous, as is currently being suggested by a group intent on bypassing the federal recognition process, it erodes one of the most influential tools of native tribes in America, and that is the federal recognition itself. While it matters little to an Indian what the federal government thinks of who we are, this recognition has typically been predicated by meeting criteria so that the historical and genealogical standards within tribes may be arbitrarily verified. Once you throw away the criteria and let tribal recognition become a political football, every tribe’s identity is endangered.
True sovereignty and transparency are surely things worth fighting for, both within the tribe and outside. Whether we achieve either will depend on how willing we are to effect change in the way we are governed and how passionate we are to hold on to our identity.
