Discussion about what is best has a lot of 'ifs'

WINDOW ROCK, May 8, 2008

all of a sudden everyone is talking about reducing the size of the Navajo Nation Council ... again.

This was a big topic back in 2000 when the last big push to reduce the council occurred and although the Navajo people, in a referendum in September 2000, voted overwhelmingly for a reduction, it went nowhere because of a technicality.

Last week, President Joe Shirley Jr., the man who won two campaigns for tribal president on the plank to bring about government reform, revived the debate by taking the first steps to get a second referendum held on the question.

Within days of that effort, Speaker Lawrence Morgan shot back a response lashing out at Shirley, questioning his motives and coming out against any reduction.

But there is a bigger issue involved if you read the dueling press releases that came out from the president's and speaker's offices in the last few days. The question is what is best for the Navajo people?

Both sides say they know what is best for the Navajo people and both sides say the other side is trying to take away the power of the people.

Confusing? In a world where public perception is more important than being right, both the president's office and the speaker's office are hoping to convince the Navajo people of the rightness of their arguments.

Saving money

Shirley and supporters of a reduced council talk about the savings - millions of dollars - that would occur with a smaller council.

A smaller council would also be more efficient, in their view, because it would provide more opportunity for council delegates to take a leading role in issues affecting the Navajo people.

As it is now, dozens of council delegates seem to drift through their four years in office, serving on committees and attending council sessions but rarely speaking up and almost never affecting the outcome of resolutions that come before the council.

Shirley also said that a reduced council would balance the power between the legislative and executive branches, significantly reduce micro-management by council committees, and return the legislative branch to its intended policy making function.

But Morgan looks at a reduced council from another perspective - less representation for the chapters.

"If anything, the Navajo people will lose their voice in the tribal government under the propose initiative by the president," he said.

Assuming that tribal officials are right and there are 300,000 tribal members, that would mean that currently each of the 88 council delegates represents about 3,500 tribal members. Reducing it to 24 would mean each delegate would represent about 12,500 Navajos.

But more importantly, at least from the perspective of many Navajos who live on the reservation, the current structure allows almost half of the delegates to represent only one chapter and allows the bigger communities to have three or four representatives.

Going to 24 members would mean only the major communities would have their own representative. No community would have more than one representative and probably 20 of the 24 would represent anywhere from three to seven chapters.

Morgan also views this as a way of Shirley changing the balance of power that now exists to one that would return a substantial amount of power to the president's office.

This was one of the arguments that was made back in 2001.

The only way the president of the tribe can have any power on policy making under the current system is by creating a block of support in the council, a block that would be beholden to him and would fight for his initiatives.

This is the same situation that exists in the federal and state governments with the power divided between the Republicans and Democrats. If the president is a Democrat and Congress is controlled by the Democrats, he is able to get his programs approved a lot easier than if the Republicans are in power.

Under the Navajo system currently in place, there are no such blocks and to get something through - such as a $500 million bond issue - the president's office has to deal with 88 separate delegates and get 45 to go along with the proposal.

It's a lot easier to put forth all of that effort for only 13 votes. It would also allow, for the first time since the 1990 reform laws, for the president to develop a coalition that would allow the president to have, in some ways, the same amount of power that tribal leaders had when the chairmanship system was in effect.

But even more importantly, the president's office would only have to have the support of eight of the 24 delegates. If they had that support, they could prevent an override of a presidential veto and the president could exert his authority through the use of a veto.

A hinderance

Morgan believes a council reduction will "only hinder and discourage the involvement of the Navajo people."

"The president's plan will not improve government efficiency and effectiveness and it will not create a balance of power," he said.

Shirley questioned Morgan's motives, pointing out that the council has taken several actions over the past years and even in the past few months which have reduced the involvement of the Navajo people in their government.

For example, he vetoed legislation on Monday that would have reformed the Eastern Navajo land Commission by allowing the speaker to appoint six council delegates as members, leaving no place on the commission for local citizens or officials.

"The commissioners, all of them except one, are council delegates," Shirley said, asking if that was an appropriate use of local governance.

"I don't think so," he said. "Why aren't there any chapter officials? Why aren't there any citizens on the commission?"

He also pointed out that the Navajo people have never been given the opportunity, as was said back in 1990, to one day vote on what kind of government they wanted.

Because of the power the council has, members are able to keep certain information from the Navajo people, such as how much money they actually make over and above their base salary of $25,000 a year. Council delegates also get per diem and fees for attending meetings.

"The people need to know how much money the council delegates are getting," Shirley said. "They know how much I'm getting."

Shirley makes $55,000 a year.

Would referendum stand?

The big question in all of this is another simple question that probably he and many Navajos are now asking themselves.

If the president's office is successful in getting an initiative on the council reduction size and his other issue - giving him the line item veto - will it actually take place if a majority of Navajo voters approve it?

After all, the Navajo people voted twice against gaming and the tribe is now going ahead with not one but as many as six casinos.

The people also voted in 2000 to reduce the council and because of language in the petition which requires a majority in each chapter to approve it, it never became law.

Since there is no tribal constitution and the laws can be changed from one day to the next by either a simple or two-thirds majority of the council, what's to keep the council after a vote approving a reduction from simply - by a two-thirds vote - overturning the vote?

Shirley claims that the wording of the initiative - which says that it can only be overturned by another initiative of the people - means that the council will have no say in the matter.

If the people want a reduced council, the council will have to go along with it, he said.

So the question of who has the ultimate power in a government where there is no constitution may finally have to be decided by the third branch of the government - the tribal courts.

Back to top »