Siletz.Net

It's hard to get away from conflicts of interests even when the council members are making good faith efforts. There will always be gray areas, but a few members of the Tribal Council have crossed clear ethical boundaries.

Robert Kentta and Bud Lane are most notable in that they are employed as directors of their departments or disciplines and, as it happens, their particular disciplines, culture and language, are undergoing huge budget increases. I'm not saying culture and language are not important, they are. Bud has done a commendable job of teaching and advancing our language and crafts, but he and Robert Kentta should not be making policy on large funding allocations, expensive junkets, and other forms of voluntary spending for their own departments while they're on council.

When Lisa Brown asked Robert Kentta why he didn't abstain from a budget vote that directly benefited his own department and, in turn resulted in his own financial benefit, Robert said the resolution included other items outside his own budget, as well. He felt it was unreasonable, in this case, to abstain from the vote, even though it did substantially affect the funding of his own department.

But our Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance does not allow for ethics breeches simply because the decision being considered contains other items. It says:

(b) When a conflict of interest exists for a Tribal Council member with regard to a
particular issue, the member shall not participate in any discussion or action with
regard to such matter.

(c) No Tribal Council member shall engage in any decision, which would be likely to
result in a financial benefit or advantage to them, or their immediate family.

If it's impossible for Tribal Council members to avoid significantly affecting policies regarding their own departments which lead to their own financial benefit while they serve on the tribal council, by our existing ordinance, they must make the choice of staying on the council or retaining their jobs. To do otherwise generates serious ethical conflicts.

The Tribal Council moonlighters and their supporters would counter this by saying the voters have spoken and we do not constitutionally prohibit the practice of holding other jobs, but the 2005 constitutional vote was a close 47% to 53% and, while the practice is not constitutionally prohibited, the tribal membership, as a whole, still questions the ability of some Tribal Council members to ethically remain on the Council as they hold other tribal jobs.

Of the 615 voting, if a scant 23 voters had voted differently they would have tipped the result in favor of the amendment, thereby outlawing the practice of holding tribal jobs while serving on the Tribal Council. 23 votes and the amendment would have passed. It should also be taken into account that in addition to the 47% of voters who felt the practice should be soundly outlawed, some portion of the 53% majority also felt that holding a tribal job while on council is, indeed, some degree of a conflict of interest, but they didn't want to prohibit it completely via a constitutional change. For example, it's far less of a conflict of interest for Loraine Butler to keep her job as Enrollment clerk than it is for Robert Kentta to hold a job as the director of a department where the funding is mostly discretionary spending.

Ironically, Loraine Butler is the only member of the present Tribal Council who has offered to even consider quitting her "day job" with the tribe if the the pay raise passes. The other moonlighters - Frank Simmons, Jessie Davis, Bud Lane, Phil Rilatos, and Robert Kentta - seem to have no plans to move in that direction. So this is not an issue that was put to rest by the 2005 Constitutional vote. It's perfectly reasonable for the tribe to re-visit this question in light of the Tribal Council's subsequent behavior.