E-mail this story
A
|
The nation always brings in these big stars and kiss their butt even though some are rude and won't give autographs to the Diné people?
There are Navajo bands that are professional sounding bands that are very capable of opening for these big names you all hire. Bands that don't sound like chapter house bands - no disrespect to chapter house bands.
Let's get real here, there are bands professional enough that I know personally as friends that can open for these major acts and you as a fair committee and the Navajo Nation (Parks and Recreation Department) should be telling these major acts that they are a guest in our country and should act accordingly and that you should be having our own professional bands be opening for them whenever these big names roll through town.
It's like you're stuck in the 70s mind set. It's 2009 and, yes, Navajo musicians are professional enough and sound good enough to open for any major big act that comes through the fair or any venue on the rez.
It's a slap in the face to all Diné musicians when you, the fair committee and Navajo Nation Parks, and the president's office turn your backs on your own people instead of reminding these major acts they are in our country and these are the best Navajo bands we have.
Navajo Nation is capable of showcasing outstanding Navajo talent worthy of opening the show for any major acts - end of story!
You all have to stand back and take a look at the big picture and start supporting your own people and pay them the respect and money they deserve.
The Navajo Nation has some very professional musicians, singers, bands, and rappers that need to be supported by their own people in the fair committee, government offices, Navajo Nation Parks, etc.
As a professional musician that has been oppressed and kicked by the fair committee, Navajo Nation government, Navajo Nation Parks, etc., I'm taking a stand.
When you pay these major acts tens of thousands of dollars and treat your own without respect that's just wrong and ignorant. Support your own people instead of turning your back on your own people.
Richard Anderson Jr.
Chucki Begay and the Mother Earth Blues Band
Aztec, N.M.
Fair move rooted in land issue
There seems to be a lot of confusion over who is at fault for the Central Navajo Fair being hosted by the community of Piņon instead of Chinle.
I will attempt to explain to the Chinle community that the elected officials (chapter and delegates) made every attempt to get land to permanently establish a fairground where there would be enough acreage to accommodate the excitement of the fair and room for expansion in the future.
The main obstacle was getting the land user to give up some land for this purpose. This has to be done by an agreement document called a "consent form" signed by all those who have a claim to the location.
These people absolutely refused to sign the consent form so there was no land secured to put the fair within the Chinle community.
And last year after Miss Central Navajo was crowned there was a huge dispute over who was actually Miss Central. At that time Chinle Chapter with the help of the council delegates tried to intervene but Irene Bahe, who is still chairperson of the Central Fair Committee, delivered a letter to the chapter officials and council delegates with a legal opinion by the Justice Department saying that the chapter and the council delegates had no jurisdiction or authority nor control over the fair committee and the entire fair activities.
She wrote that the fair committee is in sole control of the fair and did not want any outside interference. The chapter and the council delegates honored her letter and were no longer involved.
Any questions pertaining to the relocation of the Central Navajo Fair should be directed to Bahe and answered by her or her committee.
So the people of Chinle who are upset with the decision to relocate the fair to Piñon for one year should not blame the council delegates, but talk to the land users to give up some land so the fair can come back to Chinle next year.
The council delegates by law cannot force these people to sign the form or get involved in land issues at the chapter level. It is the responsibility of the elected grazing representative to negotiate with the land users to secure signatures on the consent form to obtain land for the fair, business and all other proposed establishments that require land.
It is sad that this had to happen because Chinle has all the facilities and establishments to host this annual fair and it should be brought back to Chinle. However, there is still the land issue, which needs to be addressed immediately so preparation can begin for next year's Central Navajo Fair in Chinle, where it belongs. Thank you.
Harry Claw
Delegate, Navajo Nation Council
Chinle, Ariz.
Council reduction is wrong
Council reduction is wrong for the Navajo Nation. There are two main reasons for this: Reducing the council doesn't do anything about the current impasse between the executive and legislative branches - 24 delegates will operate just like 88 delegates, except smaller chapters won't be directly represented; and it's disenfranchising to both young Navajos currently living off the Navajo Nation and smaller chapters that will loose representation under Shirley's scheme.
On point one, there is nothing fundamentally different between the current set-up of government and President Shirley's proposal-the legislative branch will be smaller, but not less powerful.
The council will still override the president, and the council will still spend the way it does now, just with less representation from smaller chapters.
If cost of government is the concern for voters, council reduction is a crude solution to a larger, more systemic problem. (In fact it's not a very good solution since 70 percent of the tribal budget falls within the executive branch).
It should be emphasized that council reduction increases the power of each delegate. In effect it centralizes power into 24 elites, whereas now legislative power is distributed among 88 delegates.
It should also be noted that legislative bodies throughout the world are notoriously large, with some parliaments having hundreds of elected members. That's the nature of representative democracy. With a nation as large as the Navajo Nation, having a council of only 24 will look autocratic.
On point number two, Shirley's initiative calls for only a simple majority vote, not a "super" majority vote in order to change the fundamentals of the government. This means that it won't take a majority of Navajos, or even a majority of registered Navajo voters to dramatically move power around within the Navajo government. It only takes a majority of those who vote in a particular election to radically change the way the Navajo government operates.
This is why the first attempt to reduce council in 2000 failed because only 34 percent of registered voters actually voted. Shirley's office likes to claim that about 70 percent of voters approved of council reduction in 2000. His office doesn't mention, however, that this is a proportion within a small slice of the Navajo electorate. Only a fraction of the Navajo population actually voted in the 2000 referendum.
Likely, if any international election monitors were involved, they would have objected to the timing of the vote and would have disputed these results.
The vote was held nearly two months in advance of the general U.S. election, and on a year in which only chapter officials were up for election and not the Navajo Nation president or even council delegates-elections that draw larger voter turnouts.
Ultimately, only 22,016 voted in favor of reduction and 9,319 opposed it. The referendum process requires a majority of registered voters, and only 34 percent of the 92,261 registered Navajo voters at the time even bothered to vote.
Just for a quick comparison, the U.S., which has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the world in any given election, had a 53 percent voter turnout that same year and 60 percent in 2004.
With this referendum, which has been called the "people's choice," only 34 percent of registered Navajo voters turned out, or just about 10 percent of the overall Navajo population at the time.
To protect the majority from the minority, we have election laws. These laws prevent dramatic reforms in government (such as changes to Title II) with only a small percentage of the population approving of such changes.
Attorney General Denetsosie has argued that these laws are "draconian" and that the Fundamental Laws support his position. But the provision in the Fundamental Laws that Denetsosie cites only states that "the people" have the choice to elect their leaders.
It's a funny argument Denetsosie has made that a small minority of Navajo voters could dramatically reduce representation for all Navajos based on a provision in the Fundamental Laws intended to support the democratic process for the people in general.
He has used this provision to argue for decreased democratic representation. Or put differently, he has argued that a small percentage of Navajos can decrease representation for all Navajos based on his reading of the Fundamental Laws.
On the matter of poor voter turnout, one can imagine situations that might prevent tribal members from showing up for a special election. Work and family duties overburden younger Navajos who constitute a majority of the Navajo population. With nearly half of the population living off the reservation for work and school related reasons, a simple majority vote in a special election will be unfair for these members.
If Shirley is serious about this proposal, and it's not merely a cheap tactical ploy in his ongoing feud with the council, he would propose the initiative for the next national Navajo election in 2010 when more Navajos will likely turn up to vote.
Any voting procedure before this time, as hearing officer Carol K. Perry stipulates, will be unfair to Navajos living off the reservation. This in fact is why the current election code is the way it is, in order to avoid manipulating government through special elections.
It should be noted at this time that the Navajo have never been a centralized nation. Leadership has been vast and dispersed. It wasn't until the 1920s and into the 1930s that the U.S. government tried to create a centralized government for the Navajo people in order to benefit non-Navajo interests. The Navajo people ultimately rejected this type of government in 1934 in a referendum vote.
It was during this tumultuous time that 24 council delegates supported livestock reduction, which has had ramifications on the Navajo culture and economy up until this day.
In 1936 a constitutional assembly, after visiting with local communities, decided to create a larger, parliamentary style representative government of 74 delegates.
Twenty-four was the number the BIA had established for the Navajo, with two delegates and two non-voting alternates representing each of the then six agencies.
But the Navajo people rejected this form of government and insisted on one of 70-plus delegates.
The basic point is this: the Navajo people throughout the past 80 years have worked well with a large legislative branch. It has been the creation of the presidency, on the other hand, that has had difficulty establishing itself within Navajo political culture.
Council reduction flies in the face of over 80 years of political development on the Navajo Nation and sets up a government the BIA tried to create in 1934, with a small cadre of elite controlling the resources of the Navajo people.
The Navajo people should reject this initiative and concentrate on better government reform.
Andrew Curley
Houck, Ariz.
Your stories deserve to be heard
My student group, with 10 students and two professors, is traveling the country in an effort to discover, or rediscover, what it means to be an American and what unites us all. We recently spent a day on the reservation, both with a Navajo family and learning about your history in Window Rock.
Our group wanted to share with your readers what we learned from our time on the reservation and express our gratitude to the Navajo Nation for receiving us warmly everywhere we went.
We were not sure what to expect when we arrived at the visitor's center outside of Gallup. We just knew that we were meeting a Navajo man named Leland Silversmith who had agreed by phone to show us around the reservation.
Though Mr. Silversmith had just worked a 12-hour shift, he informed us that he had planned a full day's worth of activities for us. Not only that, but his family was already in the process of cooking a meal for us at their home.
While eating, we had the privilege of listening to his parents, Pastor George and Fannie Silversmith, tell us stories both beautiful and tragic that gave us a glimpse of the joys and hardships that come with being a Navajo in this day and age.
After lunch, we received a tour of the executive branch of the Navajo government office, where we were once again welcomed warmly and learned a great deal.
Our whole group was troubled to learn the full details of the difficulties the Navajo people have faced from the American government over issues like culturally appropriate education and land preservation.
We then had the privilege of visiting the Navajo Times office. It was a great experience. We learned how your newspaper, unlike other papers in the area, refuses to capitalize on "Navajo misery."
Your reporters, in light of a tragedy involving a Navajo family, wait to be invited into the family's home to cover the story. It seems as though the community understands that your paper is committed to treating each story and each life with respect.
We were told that your paper believes that "not everything is for sale." This was refreshing to hear because on our journey we have found that often anything and everything is for sale.
We wanted to express gratitude to your community, and specifically the Silversmith family, for sharing your stories with us and welcoming us.
In exploring what it means to be an American, we felt that investigating the perspective of Native Americans, people whose ancestors lived in this land even before it was called "America," was an integral part of the puzzle we were trying to solve.
I fear that too often, quiet and humble voices like those of the Silversmiths are drowned out by louder voices in America. We left your reservation that day determined to continue to share the stories we heard with others, because stories like yours deserve to be heard throughout our country.
Emma Shouse
"40 states in 40 days" group
Belmont University
Nashville, Tenn.
Hopi oversight changes ominous
On the evening of June 25, 2009, the following village council representatives of Kykotsmovi, Nada Talayumptewa, Phillip R. Quochytewa Sr., Donald Humetewa and Norman Honanie, made their report to about 10 village members on their work in the council.
Following their reports, I asked questions to clarify my concerns. One of my chief concerns was the approval of H-038-2009 by these village representatives. This resolution amended the tribe's fiscal management policies.
In Section IV 3(c) it made a drastic change to the composition of the budget oversight team. This change eliminated as members of the BOT the vice chairman of the tribe, managers of major programs on the tribe and all CSA's of the Hopi villages except one.
This amendment specified that from now on only the following will be members of BOT: the chief executive officer, tribal treasurer, tribal secretary, finance director, one representative from regulated entities, one representative from all the Hopi villages and one representative from the tribal court, a total of seven members.
I felt that these changes presented a serious challenge to the Hopi villages because their greatest income comes from the H-13 funds. For instance, in the 2009 tribal budget each village will receive $356,400 to a total of all villages $4,533,200.
This amount is no small pocket change and all the village CSAs need to have an input on how much villages should receive on 2010.
In reference to our village of Kykotsmovi, I asked why these village representatives did not bring this action item to the village membership before it was approved.
They did not have an answer because they realized that they should have but did not. As a consequence, the village board of directors was very unhappy with this amendment so they directed that it be changed.
I think it would be fair to say that these village representatives know full well that anything that affects the village must be brought to the members of the village before they act on it.
I lay much of the blame on Phillip R. Quochytewa Sr., who is the moderator of the council, because he has the authority to manage what action items are acted on by the council. He must have known or should have known that this action item should be taken to the villages before action so that all the villages have their input on it. He failed to do this.
The only stated reason that was given for this drastic change is that "the tribe's annual budget development process has become awkward and unmanageable due to the number of participating members, now numbering twenty-three individuals."
However, I have the feeling that this may be a move towards eliminating all funding for village.
My reason is based on the fact that the Hopi Tribe's income from Black Mesa mines has been reduced. For instance, in 2009, the tribe may receive $10,057,514 from mining royalties. Normally these royalties would be $11 to $12 million. Therefore in the future the tribal budget will have to be reduced.
The challenge to all villages is that they will have only one vote in the tribal budget process and if BOT should decide that village allocations be reduced, this one vote will make hardly any difference.
Therefore, I would suggest to all villages that it would be in their best interest to call in their council representatives and demand that H-38-2009 be rescinded.
Caleb H. Johnson
Kykotsmovi, Ariz.
Seeking father
Hello, my name is Alaine Gene Tsinnijinnie. My maiden name is Alaine Gene Smith from Inscription House, Ariz.
I am writing this letter to the people of the Navajo Nation asking for your help. I am trying to locate my father Tommy Gene Smith of Ganado, Ariz.
Tóhajiilee, N.M., is his last known location. I have not seen my father in almost 14 years. I am now a mother of two beautiful sons.
I miss my father very much and would like to see him again. I would like him to know that he is a grandfather. My life is changing and having my father part of it would make a big difference.
If anyone knows the whereabouts of Tommy Gene Smith, please call or e-mail me at 928-707-2011 or Alainetsinnijinnie@yahoo.com.
Writing this letter is my last resort. Thank you.
Alaine Gene Tsinnijinnie
Inscription House, Ariz.