By ROBERT JUMPER
Tutiyi (Snowbird) and Clyde, N.C.
I want to give a shout-out to Assistant Editor of the Cherokee One Feather Scott McKie Brings Plenty and Reporter Brooklyn Brown for their work as moderators of the One Feather Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) race debate series. Their professionalism was evident in their adherence to a fairly rigid format and their obvious effort to maintain neutrality in the questioning. The entire One Feather team played a role in the execution of those debates, and I am grateful to each team member who contributed to getting the candidates to the table and facilitating a candid discussion on issues that affect the tribe. It has been my great privilege to institute, oversee, and facilitate the executive and legislative election debates for these many years. It is my sincere hope that this will be a tradition that continues for as long as we have tribal elections. They are indeed historic.
Yes, I know that this series in each election cycle is more of a candidate forum than an exclusive debate. If you have been around a while, you know how ugly some campaigns were a decade or two ago. Candidates would become enraged, and they would use any medium available to communicate their rage and even make accusations that could never be vetted as true or false. Wild accusations, from corruption to challenges to a candidate’s Cherokee heritage, were fair game back in the day. They (we will get back to that pronoun in a minute) would attack each other with public “go for the throat” tactics anytime a public forum was available. And when loud voices are spewing gossip and accusations to distract you as a tribal voter, it is difficult to hear any of the messages that the candidates are truly conveying. When we started discussing the possibility of having debates among the candidates, one of our stated goals was to turn down the volume of the rhetoric and have the candidates’ voices heard. I think we have done a fair job of doing that over the past decade and a half of tribal elections.
So, our series of debates is controlled on purpose. Each tribal member is allowed to submit questions multiple weeks prior to the actual session. We collect and consolidate the questions to produce the maximum amount of information from candidates in the very short 90 minutes we have available to speak with them. Sixty-eight minutes of the 90 are dedicated to allowing the candidates to respond to questions that have been delivered to them roughly a week in advance. The One Feather is not political, and we certainly do not participate in “gotcha” strategies that some might advocate for. The purposes of the debates are more studious and historical. We want the serious Eastern Band voter to be able to hear their candidates provide deliberate answers to questions that affect them. We want the candidates to give well-thought-out answers. We leave the blindside questions to the gossiping crowd and to those unscrupulous reporters who would rather sensationalize than document. That is not what we are here for or tasked with in Chapter 75 of the Cherokee Code. As Joe Friday of Dragnet fame says, we are here for “just the facts, ma’am.”
Having stated that, there is an element of impulse questioning in our debates in that those community members who attend in person are allowed to submit questions to our editorial board proofreaders, and if the questions are in line with One Feather’s ethics policy standards, they are given to the moderator and read to the candidates. We had five such questions that were presented to candidates throughout this year’s debates. The candidates did not have foreknowledge of those questions.
In addition to staff, we coordinated with Jessica “Jae” Winchester at Cherokee Central Schools for the use of the Joyce Dugan Cultural Arts Center as a hosting facility for the debates. Jae and her staff prepared the debate site, and Jae was with us every night of the debate, running the sound and lighting, which is no small task. Stephanie Maney coordinated with us on behalf of EBCI Communications for access to their communications network and technicians for live streaming and recording each evening of debates. Larissa Teesateskie and Tighe Wachacha from Communications stayed with us during each session to engineer the broadcast of each Dinilawigi debate. Pam Sneed from the Commerce Division and the supervisor of the Cherokee Bottled Water program provided three cases of Cherokee Bottled Water for the candidates, a much-needed amenity when candidates are tasked with talking for 90 minutes. Mouths may get pretty dry. Joshua Crowe from Cherokee Bottled Water made sure that the water made it to the Joyce Dugan Center.
While I am shouting out, thank you to the community members who submitted questions to the candidates. While we at the One Feather monitor the topics that are relevant to our community throughout the year and could probably formulate the questions ourselves, we don’t want to presume to speak for you and your needs for answers. Your input has been critically important to each debate we have executed. And to the candidates who stepped up and participated in the debate series. Your thoughtful and insightful responses will make it easier for those who vote based on strategic criteria and meaningful deliberation. Despite what some might think or say, the debates are not about lording over candidates to make them answer to the One Feather. The One Feather debates, just like the One Feather itself, belong to the community. Whether an individual community with the tribe or the tribal community, we ask on their behalf. We, like the candidates, are striving to be servants to the community.
Now, a quick observation about pronouns and the need for transparency. The candidates gave interesting responses on several topics during the debates. The question of transparency in tribal finances caused some of the candidates to invoke the fear of the vague “they” into the discussion. In most responses to the need for the people to be able to see, review, and give direction on their finances (because every dollar in the government coffers belong to sixteen thousand-plus members of our tribe), the longstanding response from the government has been we can’t share that information with you, because “they” might get it and use it against us. I am not aware of any case where the “they” specifically have been identified, nor have there been any examples of a specific member of the “they” being presented as an example of what happens when financial information is revealed. In fact, the municipalities around us provide that information publicly all the time, according to the public information laws of those municipalities. Again, yes, some information, while under contract negotiation, must be held close to the vest, and needs to be done in private. But all financial information? That is not what the Cherokee Code provides for. Even some in the tribal government state that revealing the values of a particular project or the awarding of a tribal grant would uplift the image of the tribe. Just look at the contributions that the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians made to the western North Carolina community during the tragic events surrounding Hurricane Helene. In other words, good public relations.
What we do know is that there are some things that can hurt us if we don’t know them. Take a moment and try to determine who the “they” is in the one piece of documentable financial information that has been issued for quasi-public distribution, the 2024 Annual Report. Ugvwiyuhi (Principal Chief) Hicks gave us a window into what is wrong with and what can damage us by shielding information from the tribal membership.
He said, “Throughout the first year of this administration, a critical priority has been restoring the Tribe’s financial health to secure a more sustainable future and ensure Tribal funds are available to be used in priority areas, such as education, health, and especially language. To that end, we have thoroughly reviewed our financial position and taken carefully evaluated steps to improve the Tribe’s fiscal outlook.”
I know from listening to government hallway scuttlebutt that some in the community were aware of the emerging (or has it been ongoing?) fiscal crisis. But did you?
Ugvwiyuhi Hicks continues, “When I took office in October 2023, the Tribe had a shockingly low 19 days of unrestricted operating cash. This dangerous and unsustainable low cash position was the result of multiple factors.”
He goes on to explain six factors as the causes for the “low cash position”. All six are things that we did as a tribal government. In this case, the “they” that we are so afraid of, was not “they” but “we”. We, in fact, did it to ourselves. It didn’t have much to do with a “they”. Look for yourself. As a tribal member, you either got a hard copy of the report or you may access it on the tribal internet portal and see it there.
Recently, land for a meat processing plant was approved by Dinilawigi, and the land designated for the plant was smack-dab (that means very closely) adjacent to a residential area in one of the communities. This was caught by a community member, who happened to live in the community where the plant was to be placed, after the legislation to approve the purchase of the land and its use was submitted and approved by the Council. She filed a protest and managed to change the direction of the Council to prevent the plant from being put on the property that was purchased by the government. Again, the “they” turned out to be “we”.
Could more transparency in government have prevented these situations from occurring? We will never know. We do know that when one community member found out about the meat processing plant, the direction of our government changed. All it took was one tribal member speaking truth to power. I think we, as tribal members, should have a more detailed accounting of exactly who is such a threat that it is felt that we cannot have fiduciary information that we own.
Could you imagine going to the bank and asking them for a detailed accounting of what funds you have in each of your accounts, and a specific accounting of any monies that had been withdrawn or invested on your behalf, and the bank telling you “no” because “they” might get hold of the information and use it in a bad way. Now, add to the scenario that you are a co-owner of the bank. Would you stand for the bank management telling you that you can’t have access to your financial account information? Well, that is a trick question, because you…we…are already doing exactly that.
