By ROBERT JUMPER
One Feather Editor
During the February session of Tribal Council, the Council decided that the language of the resolution proposed to ask the people to decide on extended terms, term limits and staggered terms was tabled, after being voted in, once in October (with unanimous approval and ratification by the Principal Chief) and then again in the February session (although not unanimously, but in majority), because it was just too difficult for us to understand. A member of the Attorney General’s office, as counsel for the Election Board, helped to redraft the original language of my questions to help clarify the language, but apparently not enough.
When some Council members expressed concern that their constituency would not be able to understand the questions, the Attorney General stepped to the podium and stated that I had not brought my resolution questions to the Attorney General for their take on my first submitted resolution to Council. This is true. I believed the system was designed so that any member of the Tribe could bring questions (suggestions actually) to the people so that the law is by the people. When I wrote the legislation, I wasn’t trying to impose my will on anyone, but to allow the community to make the choice for themselves. And the questions that I posed were taken up by Council even though I did not have a petition full of names. They were endorsed by Council members to be executed in a referendum, unanimously.
In fact, Resolution 11 passed and was ratified by the Principal Chief. And it has not been rescinded. Since the resolution to revise the referendum questions has been tabled for discussion, does that mean that Resolution 11 should move forward? In October, when someone expressed concern that doing a referendum vote might not get the number of voters out necessary to legitimize the vote, one Council member stated that even if it failed to get a quorum, that another vote on the referendum could be taken at election time. That is how sure they were that they wanted to move forward with the questions. Because I was asked about the clarity of the questions at that time, I asked about modifying the language back in October. The response at the time was “The resolution was passed. The questions will be as stated in the resolution”.
It was stated in Council that one reason they object to term limits is that they do not want to lose all the collected knowledge within the body politic. Comparatives were made with great leaders of the Eastern Band, with some saying that they would not want to lose a great leader because of a term limit. Granted, we have had some very competent leadership, and then we have had some who may have remained in office because they ran unopposed or with little competition. A politician without term limits is a tough opponent, not necessarily because of their expertise, but because they are in the public eye.
In my many years in advertising, I had the opportunity to work with several municipal candidates for offices across western North Carolina. During campaigns, they would seek counsel on what to put in their ads. Most would want their faces taking up a significant portion of their ad space. Over and over, I would ask them to remember what will be seen by the voter on the ballot. It will not be their faces that the voters check off, it will be their names. So having your name out there for multiple terms, with the benefit of monthly and sometimes weekly exposure to the public via broadcasts, presents a significant mountain for a first time or young candidate seeking that seat. And that is before you start talking about experience and education. The lack of term limits causes challenges right out of the gate for a new candidate for a long-occupied seat.
And the term limit as stated in the proposed legislation allows for an incumbent to serve two four-year terms, sit out a term, and then again be eligible for office. So, there is only a pause in the “great” leadership, not a loss of it.
In October, every sitting Tribal Council member, even those with some reservations – mostly about term limiting – passed the referendum questions to be posed to “we, the people”. The Attorney General, in February 2022, expressed that he was concerned or surprised that Council passed the legislation so quickly.
Actually, term limits and staggered terms have been talked about by legislators and executives of this Tribe for years. It is not a good look for our government, especially those drafting law for our governing body, to say that they were surprised and unprepared by the submission of legislation that has been discussed in the halls of our government for years. I know our Attorney General and the lawyers who staff that office. They are competent and professional in their work for the Tribe. So, it is hard for me to understand the expressions of surprise at both the proposal and the receptiveness to it, since in almost every public forum, these concepts have been affirmatively received.
I advocate for term limits (and longer terms with a stagger) not because I feel our leaders should somehow be bridled. I do not. I believe they are working hard. But I do understand, from their own comments, that they are continually having to think about reelection. As one former Tribal Council representative put it, that is partially why we move at the speed of government instead of the speed of business. It is also why some in our Council talk about the projects that sit in limbo for five, ten, twenty years with no movement. And I have never been, nor have I ever aspired to be a politician, but I imagine that some of our leaders have to make gut-wrenching moral decisions when the time comes that they must choose a course that will get them reelected as opposed to doing the right thing for the long-term future of our Tribe.
A 2001 article by Lawrence Reed put it this way, “It was Benjamin Franklin who summed up the best case for term limits more than two centuries ago: ‘In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors. For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them.’
“In other words, when politicians know they must return to ordinary society and live under the laws passed when they were in government, at least some of them will think more carefully about the long-term effects of the program they support. Their end all will not be re-election, because that option will not be available.
“Opponents charge that limits are inherently antidemocratic, that people should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. But, judging by the huge support that term limits have usually won at the ballot box and still enjoy in most local polls, large numbers of citizens feel that a political system without limits is a stacked deck. Any system that allows incumbents to amass so much power and attention in office that challengers can rarely win is surely in need of a corrective.
“Term limits have been approved almost everywhere they’ve been on the ballot because concerned citizens see them as a positive structural reform, a necessary step to change the incentives of legislators so they think more about the good of their constituency and less about their next campaign. Those citizens want to ensure a regular supply of fresh blood and new ideas in legislative bodies. They want to open the system to more people from a variety of professions.”
I appreciate the work of the Election Board and representative counsel from the AG’s office for including me in their redraft of the questions. Unfortunately, it would seem that allowing the redraft caused the questions to be less understandable than my original draft that was approved back in October.
As I said in October, I did not bring those questions forth for consideration to push my or any personal agenda forward. I just kept hearing from the public and from our leaders that these where things that needed to happen, and yet no one seemed interested in putting them before the people so that they might move forward into the change in law that they themselves say is needed. And remember that in October 2021, all our legislators and our Principal Chief officially agreed.
I hope that in March, they will come to agreement on how they want to proceed with the questions. These are broad questions for a reason. The people must first decide if it is the path they want to go down. How it is implemented may be worked out among the legislators, executive, and the lawyers. My original three questions are simple. Do you (enrolled member) agree that legislative terms should be changed from 2 years to 4 years? A simple yes or no will do. If you do, would you agree to change the terms to staggered terms, electing only one seat in a community every two years? Again, a simple yes or no. And finally, If you agree to the 4-year terms, would you agree to limiting the number of terms a legislator may serve as two consecutively? Also, a simple yes or no. Then, when the people have given that direction. The legislators and lawyers may craft the laws that make the will of the people happen.
What happened at the February session is similar to what happened to the Constitution Committee when they brought forth their proposed draft constitution for the Tribe. There is support in public and in theory for creating and implementing a constitution, but when it was brought before Council, it was made to sound so complex that no one would be able to vote in favor of it. The Constitution Committee was even referenced as a reason that the legislation I submitted should be put on hold until they, the Constitution Committee, were consulted, even though I have been an active participant in most of the Constitution Committee meetings since the beginning of 2021 and have made them aware of every step of my decision to submit the term legislation to Council.
The implementation may be more complex, but the direction proposed is simple; increase the terms to four years, stagger the terms to that only one seat of a community has the potential to be changed each election, and limit the number of terms a legislator may hold to two consecutive terms. After a four-year, or one term, break, the candidate could run again for office.
I agree that we want to keep experience on our Tribal Council. I also feel that we need to provide equitable avenues for new blood to sit on Council. I believe the course proposed will do both.
