As the nonsensical debate continues between the legislative and executive branches over the direction of government reform, the fog only grows denser.
Each side has a weak argument, easily refutable by common sense.
On the executive side, which touts President Joe Shirley Jr.'s proposals to reduce the number of council delegates and grant the president line-item veto power as cost-cutting measures, the glaring reality is that most of the people's money pays for executive branch programs.
The executive branch absorbs about 70 percent of general funds each year and if you wanted to reduce spending this is first place to look, logically at least.
On the legislative side, which opposes Shirley's proposals because they say the voters will lose representation, among other reasons, council delegates keep bungling the issue by their wild spending.
They want to hang on to their jobs but keep giving ammunition and justification to proponents of reducing their membership.
So the situation is one of warring sides that are both wrong.
If Shirley wants to cut spending, he should lead the way by cutting the salaries and positions of his high-paid staff.
Some massive expenditures of money have remained unchanged for decades, such as the purchase of tribal vehicles at a cost of millions. This type of practice mirrors the continuing bureaucracy of the BIA, which may outlive President Barack Obama's attempts at reform.
As for the council, if the delegates want to spend money they do not have or should not have access to, such as the money used for employee raises and cost-of-living adjustments, they should begin by tapping into their own deferred compensation fund, which sets aside a percentage of their salary until they leave employment with the tribe.
Discretionary funds
When the powerful are challenged and caught in the act of misusing their positions, the first reaction is to strike the source of the revelations.
At the Navajo Times, the staff is familiar with this arrogance. The paper has been shut down (Peter MacDonald Sr.), criticized for sensationalism (Albert Hale), attacked for negativity (Lawrence Morgan) and blasted for inaccuracy (Joe Shirley Jr.).
Sometimes the attackers are motivated by fear.
This fear is due to the damage to their personal and professional reputations when the issue becomes public.
The fear is also a gut reaction when information they had tried to hide suddenly is exposed to all.
Our purpose is not to try to find things to embarrass or ridicule our leaders. Rather, our responsibility is to report information of importance to the Navajo people. In addition, our role is to be a watchdog for the people in the interest of keeping our leaders accountable.
In the most recent case, our reporters had tried for years to obtain information about how our leaders use their slush funds, otherwise known as discretionary funds.
Like any appropriation or spending of money meant to serve the Navajo people, discretionary funds and how they are used should be in the public spotlight. Indeed, not only is this a requirement of open government, but also it demonstrates that our leaders are doing their jobs.
Unfortunately, our efforts to report how the legislative and executive leadership are using their slush funds, which could be for any reason ranging from helping to pay constituents' bills, for burial assistance, unexpected medical bills and student assistance, are met with stonewalling and silence.
While the council has been roundly criticized in the past two weeks since information was leaked to the Navajo Times about how some individuals received thousands of dollars, the president's office should not be left off the hook.
President Shirley should provide the records of how his discretionary funds have been used to assure the people that no such questionable use of money has occurred in his office.
The only question is why he has not yet done it.
E-mail this story