IN THE TRIBAL COURT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS OF OREGON
Case No. TC 09-04

LISA BROWN, Petitioner,
MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF
TRIBAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2009-136;
MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF ONE-YEAR BAR
BY THE SILETZ TRIBAL GAMING COMMISSION

vs.

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ
INDIANS OF OREGON, SILETZ TRIBAL
COUNCIL, Respondents.

Comes now Petitioner, Lisa L. Brown, to submit this final response requesting relief from the Court in the form of a revocation of Siletz Tribal Council Resolution 2009-136 that expelled Petitioner from the Siletz Tribal Council, and the revocation of the one-year bar against Petitioner enacted by the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission.

Introduction

At issue are the flawed nature of the expulsion proceeding, the absence of procedural due process, and a conspiracy conducted by Respondents, two tribal attorneys, and Jim Kikumoto to remove Lisa Brown from the Siletz Tribal Council as quickly as possible, and without cause. Given the severity of the penalty, a lifetime ban on Petitioner’s right to run for tribal office, careful adherence to tribal ordinances regarding expulsion, as well as adherence to federal, state, and tribal standards enacted to protect due process were the onus of Respondents throughout the expulsion proceeding. Such careful adherence was non-existent.

Expulsion Proceeding

The expulsion proceeding was flawed in the following manner:

At 8:54 am on February 8, 2009, Lisa Brown posted an email that made reference to Jim Kikumoto, then General Manager of Chinook Winds casino (tab 2, pages 1-3 of the evidentiary notebook presented at hearing, hereinafter referred to as “the notebook.”) On February 9th at 10:28 am, less than 22 hours after Ms. Brown was sworn in as a Tribal Council member, Siletz Tribal Staff Attorney Cathern Tufts sent an email (tab 4, page 9) to Council Chairman Delores Pigsley claiming that Ms. Brown’s email comment was “racist,” “appalling,” and, “creates liability for the tribe.” Ms. Tufts is employed as a program attorney, a position paid through indirect funds, and as such she can officially comment and be involved in programmatic issues only. Yet Ms. Tufts’ email was sent from her workstation and in her official capacity as staff attorney, as shown by her comment, “My ‘professional’ reaction is that this is terrible” and “that statement would be Exhibit A in a discrimination suit!” In 1994, the Civil Rights Commission of the State of Hawaii upheld the use of a three-pronged test to establish whether racial harassment has occurred (Tseu v. Volcano Island Farms.) This test was created, in part, on rules regarding harassment based on ancestry. The test requires that the harassing conduct be regarded as intimidating, hostile, or offensive, and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. In a 2004 Eighth Circuit Appellate case, Bainbridge v. Loffredo Gardens, Inc., the Court found:

“To be actionable under Title VII, the work environment must have been both objectively and subjectively offensive. Id. To decide whether a work environment is objectively

offensive, that is, one which a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, we

examine all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct,

its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive

utterance, and whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work

performance. Id. To constitute an objectively offensive work environment, the

discriminatory conduct must be so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of

the plaintiff’s employment. Id. A hostile work environment exists when the

workplace is dominated by racial slurs, but not when the offensive conduct consists

of offhand comments and isolated incidents. Id. at 794.”

On March 27, 2009, at a special Tribal Council meeting held the day before Petitioner’s final expulsion hearing, Petitioner and her spokesman personally presented to the eight Tribal Council members present a document (attachment A) titled Request for a Motion to Dismiss. This request, under heading 1. (a) informs Tribal Council that an objective standard, such as the standards cited above, was not met for the charge against Plaintiff of “Making racist comments.” The Council’s lack of the use of any objective criteria whatsoever also nullifies the charges “Acting in a manner inconsistent with the supervision of an employee” and “Jeopardizing the assets of the Tribe.” Ms. Brown’s comment referring to Jim Kikumoto merely meets the standard of an offhand comment, or an offensive utterance, according to the law. Further, Petitioner quickly arranged for the removal of her allegedly offensive email, as proven by a request sent by a tribal member who was searching for it on February 18, 2009 and couldn’t find it (tab 4, page 1.)

In Craig Dorsay’s May 12th Response to Motion for Appeal, he expands on Tribal Council’s reasoning in regard to its determination that it was necessary to immediately expel Petitioner. Costs related to Jim Kikumoto’s resignation, which he based on Petitioner’s comment, the search for his replacement, and an alleged impending boycott of Chinook Winds by the Portland Asian community, are presented as primary reasons. However, Mr. Dorsay fails to include evidence that Mr. Kikumoto had already stated, one week prior to the February 7th election, that he would resign when and if Ms. Brown was elected to Tribal Council. Petitioner will provide sworn testimony regarding Mr. Kikumoto’s statement for the Court’s consideration during hearing on May 18th. After Cathern Tufts implied that Council member Brown’s email was racist, Delores Pigsley quickly enlisted a handful of members of her family and inner circle to follow Ms. Tufts’ lead and send in letters and emails of their own, a direct contradiction of the Tribal Council Rules of Procedure, Sec. 2.100 that requires a newly elected Council member receive orientation. The mildly offensive comment made by Petitioner was easily remedied through orientation, training, or mentoring, as was every charge against her, but Ms. Pigsley chose instead to violate the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance Sec. 2.201 that requires she “maintain high standards of honesty, integrity, fairness and impartiality.” In fact, Ms. Pigsley’s decisions throughout the expulsion proceeding violated Sec. 2.201 of the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance which states, “Tribal Council members shall take action in the best interest of the Siletz Tribe and the tribal membership, not in their personal interest.” Ms. Pigsley’s decisions were based soley on her own personal interest to remove a duly elected Council member whom she did not like personally.

Based on an unauthorized financial agreement with Council Chairman Delores Pigsley, Mr. Kikumoto decided that he would instead resign his position as General Manager of Chinook Winds casino based on a claim of a hostile work environment. Petitioner will submit subpoenas for details of this arrangement for the Court’s review, as well as provide sworn testimony that the deal was not authorized by the Siletz Tribal Council. Mr. Kikumoto failed to file a formal complaint alleging a hostile work environment, nor did he present any evidence to support this claim, and such a claim was not processed, nor proven, in any administrative hearing or court proceeding. The bizarre claim that Ms. Brown’s offensive utterance was “racist,” beyond the reasonable doubt of anyone but the members of the conspiracy, is the driving force behind her expulsion from Tribal Council, as well as Mr. Kikumoto’s resignation. His subsequent monetary award, or “golden parachute” was paid from tribally-owned assets of the Siletz Tribe, not Ms. Pigsley’s bank account, and was based on a highly suspect, unproven, and extremely subjective determination of the damage he suffered, if he indeed suffered at all. This is a violation of Section IV of the Siletz Constitution that delineates the authority of the Tribal Council “to prevent the sale, disposition, lease or encumbrance of tribal lands, interests in tribal lands, or other tribal assets without the consent of the tribe.” Petitioner maintains Mr. Kikumoto did not properly file a discrimination claim because the claim could not be proven; the comment made by Petitioner was not severe, it was not pervasive, it occurred one time, it was not physically threatening or abusive, nor did it alter Mr. Kikumoto’s work environment. Ms. Brown’s comment could not be proven to be both subjectively and objectively offensive in any administrative or court hearing. In fact, Mr. Kikumoto’s exemption from the casino’s standard discrimination claim procedure is indicative of his involvement in the conspiracy to expel Council member Brown based on his pre-existing, personal animus toward her. Further, if Tribal Council wants to make the claim that casino revenue is at risk, financial reports must indicate such a decline, and it must be proven that the decline is the direct result of Petitioner’s allegedly “racist” remark. The evidentiary notebook used by Respondents at hearing contains one (1) email, (tab 2, page 8) written by a casino employee, that identifies one individual, Scott Sakamoto, hinting that the Asian community will no longer support Chinook Winds. There is no direct email or letter from Mr. Sakamoto himself, stating that he considered Ms. Brown’s comment racist; no sworn affidavit, nor any written proof from Mr. Sakamoto that a boycott was imminent. There is no flyer or email addressed to the Asian community announcing a boycott of Chinook Winds. In other words, there is no direct evidence that tribal assets were at risk. There are however, two statements that indicate Mr. Sakamoto is a close personal friend of Jim Kikumoto. Tab 2, page 8 “He and Jim are friends,” and tab 2, page 7 describing Mr. Kikumoto as “a personal friend” of Mr. Sakamoto. Further, tab 2, page 7 describes Mr. Sakamoto as “representative for the Asian community in Portland, OR” but no written or direct evidence of his title was provided by him, or by Respondents. There is no direct evidence that Mr. Sakamoto is an officer of an Asian organization, or any other proof that Mr. Sakamoto represents the Asian community. Petitioner hereby maintains that Siletz tribal members are entitled to an accounting of tribally-owned funds, in compliance with the Siletz Constitution, in the matter of the monetary award to Jim Kikumoto upon his resignation.

Petitioner claims that Council member Robert Kentta also exhibited a pre-existing personal animus toward her, which resulted in a biased and prejudiced expulsion proceeding. In an email (attachment B) to tribal member Lynette Warren, Mr. Kentta describes Ms. Brown as a screamer, a finger pointer, and challenges her to air “her own dirty laundry.” The question Mr. Kentta was responding to during this email exchange was in regard to the Siletz Tribal Business Corporation, of which he is the Board Chairman. On March 6, 2009, tribal member Delores Riding In approached Mr. Kentta at work and asked him why he made the motion to expel Ms. Brown. Mr. Kentta’s response was revealed to Tribal Council in a letter sent by Ms. Riding In on April 3, 2009 by registered mail (attachment C.) Not one member of the six-member quorum that voted for expulsion, or their attorneys, made any move to prevent Robert Kentta from voting on the expulsion of Lisa Brown, a violation of the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance, Sec. 2.201 which states, “Tribal Council members shall carry out their duties and responsibilities in the highest ethical manner,” and “shall maintain high standards of honesty, integrity, fairness, and impartiality in their conduct as Tribal Council members. . . ” By not removing himself from discussion and vote, Mr. Kentta violated Sec. 2.204 of the Ethics Ordinance that forbids him to act in his own personal interest. He also became subject to Sec. 2.204 (b) of the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance that states, “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.” In addition, Sec. 2.106 (a) of the Tribal Council Rules of Procedure reads, “No Tribal Council member shall vote on any matter or take any other action as a member of the Tribal Council where such action or vote would violate that member’s ethical obligations under the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance.” Through their failure to hold Mr. Kentta accountable to these tribal ordinances, the six-member quorum of Tribal Council that voted to expel Ms. Brown remain in violation of the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance.

Violations of due process

At the beginning of the March 19th expulsion hearing, Petitioner was handed a notebook of evidence against her. Neither Ms. Brown, nor any member of Tribal Council, was ever served or had ever previously seen this notebook. Ms. Brown was then expected to construct a defense before the end of the hearing, at which time a final decision on whether to expel her was set to occur. This was a violation of Ms. Brown’s right to discovery, right to a fair trial, right to participate in her own defense, and right to face her accusers. Also at the beginning of this hearing, Mr. Dorsay declared that the issues addressed would be limited to the 13-day period Lisa Brown acted as a sitting Tribal Council member. He then proceeded to read “evidence” from the year 2007 into the record. Every Tribal Council member, at their swearing-in ceremony, swears an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner argues here that this sworn oath includes the right to due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Federal law, at 25 U.S.C. Section 1302 (8) expressly prohibits the Siletz tribe from denying “. . . to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. ” The Siletz Tribal Code Sec. 3.200, the TORTS AND INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT at Section 3.219 reads, “The Tribe is subject to actions for violations of an individual’s rights by the Tribe . . . under the Indian Civil Rights Act.” Ironically, the culmination of the many ethical and due process violations committed by the Tribal Council, with the exception of Council members Lillie and Reggie Butler, meets the exact criteria for their own expulsion, as described by the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance, Sec. 2.201 which states, “Violation of this ordinance may constitute “neglect of duty” or “gross misconduct” as those terms are defined at Article VII, Section 4 of the Siletz Constitution.” Near the end of the March 19, 2009 expulsion hearing, Chairman Pigsley stated that complaints need to be written and signed in order for Tribal Council to respond to them, and that she has been telling this to tribal members for years. The evidentiary notebook handed to Lisa Brown that day contained one (1) written complaint about Ms.Brown that included a signature, that of Delores Pigsley’s sister. One of these letters does not contain the last name of the author (tab 4, page 7) and another does not have a date (tab 4, page 12.)

In a March 6, 2009 memo (attachment D) to Tribal Council members, Mr. Dorsay writes, “There is no requirement that there be strict standards on the use or admission of any evidence.” As the legal representative of the Siletz Tribe, paid through tribally-owned funds, Mr. Dorsay IS indeed bound to strict standards related to due process that are upheld, protected and demanded by the Tribe under Article III of the Siletz Constitution, the Federal Indian Civil Rights Act, and the TORTS AND INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of the Siletz Tribe, as well as his own sworn oath as a member of the Oregon State Bar to uphold the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under bullet point #6 of his memo, Mr. Dorsay decides, “Hearsay evidence should be allowed, so long as the Council determines it is relevant and reliable.” At this point, Mr. Dorsay is acting as a judge, ruling ahead on the validity of evidence, and authorizing Tribal Council to make such rulings. At the two expulsion hearings, no sworn affidavits were presented, nor were witnesses called to support Tribal Council’s case. The evidentiary notebook contained written complaints from eight (8) tribal members who considered Petitioner’s comment about Mr. Kikumoto racially offensive. These seven tribal members represent .0035 of the 2,263 registered voters of the Siletz Tribe, or approximately three-tenths of ONE percent. The actions described in this Motion clearly establish Ms. Tuft’s and Mr. Dorsay’s involvement in a conspiracy, with six members of Tribal Council and Mr. Kikumoto, to remove Petitioner from Tribal Council immediately, and at any cost.

Mr. Dorsay’s April 6, 2009 Response to Petition states, “The Tribal Council’s authority to expel a member pursuant to this provision should not be unduly limited or constrained.” Mr. Dorsay’s claim means that the Siletz Tribal Council enjoys an authority greater than the Civil Rights Commission of the State of Hawaii, and the Eighth Circuit Court of the United States. It means that members of the Siletz Tribal Council are somehow exempt from ethical standards of conduct described by the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance, and the Tribal Council Rules of Procedure. Mr. Dorsay claims that gross misconduct “is conduct that is out of all measure, beyond allowance, flagrant, shameful, or such conduct as is not to be excused.” Petitioner’s response is that her email comment of February 8, 2009, upon which six members of Tribal Council’s entire expulsion case is anchored, does NOT meet Mr. Dorsay’s definition of gross misconduct, nor his claim that her comment “was racist in character. . . beyond dispute.” In reality, it consisted of 12 words that were quickly removed from a public forum and never repeated. The comment was not spoken in Mr. Kikumoto’s presence, or at his worksite, two elements that would be required to prove a claim of a hostile work environment according to the law. Petitioner also disputes Mr. Dorsay’s claim that “The STGC independently sanctioned petitioner . . .” in support of Council’s position that her email comment falls within the sanctioning authority of both Tribal Council and the STGC. During the special tribal council meeting on March 27, 2009, under questioning by Petitioner’s spokesman, Delores Pigsley stated on the record that she is responsible for sending the letters and emails complaining about Ms. Brown’s allegedly “racist” comment to Shawna Gray, the Executive Director of the STGC. On March 6, 2009 (exhibit E) Robert Kentta wrote, “I believe the Chair has a responsibility to report allegations of misconduct to the head of the STGC – when those become known to her. . .” The Siletz Tribal Code Sec. 2.200, the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance, at Section 2.206, titled CONFIDENTIALITY reads, “Tribal Council members, or complainant. . . or any other person involved with investigation or review of an ethical violation, shall keep all information obtained in the review investigation process confidential, until a final ruling by Tribal Council, or otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Violation of this section shall be a violation of this ordinance for Tribal Council members. . .” Petitioner hereby claims that her right to confidentiality was violated by Council Chairman Delores Pigsley, which resulted in the initiation of an STGC investigation that began on February 23, 2009.

The STGC investigation is a biased, unilateral affair that does not contain an interview with Petitioner that allows her to respond to, and refute, rumors and hearsay. As an example of hearsay, Petitioner recognized and chatted with a Chinook Winds vendor at a Fred Meyer store. Upon learning of the conversation from a Chinook Winds buyer, the casino’s Purchasing Manager, Christine Danner, contacted the vendor directly because he could not identify the person that he met in the store. Ms. Danner asked the vendor to go online and view pictures of Tribal Council members. The vendor could not identify Petitioner from her picture. Ms. Danner then reported the incident to the Finance Director, Angie Calkins, who informed Mr. Kikumoto. The result was an email from Jim Kikumoto to Delores Pigsley in which Mr. Kikumoto states (about the vendor) “his statement was he was stopped by Lisa Brown today” which is false. The vendor never identified Petitioner, and his statement was steadfast that he couldn’t name her. This series of emails, however, were used as “evidence” against Petitioner at hearing. Petitioner is appalled that false statements such as Mr. Kikumoto’s, are what the Siletz Tribal Council considers proof of “gross misconduct.” In a March 9, 2009 memo from STGC Executive Director Shawna Gray to tribal attorney Craig Dorsay (tab 2, page 4) Ms. Gray states, “If in fact Ms. Brown were expelled, we would consider the issues/violations to be resolved.” Ms. Gray then backtracks and imposes a one-year “bar” against Petitioner entering Chinook Winds property on March 23, 2009, although no new evidence was presented. Ms. Gray’s false statement of March 9th is typical of the mean-spirited, personal nature of the vendetta against her. Petitioner hereby claims that the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission does NOT have the authority to violate her Constitutional right to equal opportunity to participate in the economic resources of the Siletz Tribe, which includes Chinook Winds casino. The STGC bar was enacted prior to the final decision by Tribal Council to expel Petitioner, therefore, the STGC bar was based on unsubstantiated and unproven allegations. Mr. Dorsay’s claim that the STGC investigation was “independent” is false. The STGC’s bar, and demand for Ms. Brown’s badge, was a deliberate, preemptive and prejudicial subversion of, and interference with the tribal governmental process, and the protection of rights guaranteed to Lisa Brown by the Siletz Constitution. Petitioner requests the Siletz Tribal Court revoke the one-year bar currently in force against Petitioner based on the fact that the STGC had no grounds to enact such a penalty.

Conclusion

Petitioner maintains that the conduct described in this Motion by six members of the Siletz Tribal Council, Mr. Dorsay, Mr. Kikumoto, and Ms. Tufts does meet the standard of gross misconduct described by Mr. Dorsay, the Siletz Constitution, and the Tribal Council Ethics Ordinance. Ethical standards were ignored, especially by Robert Kentta; Tribal Council Rules of Procedure were ignored; civil rights that include due process were violated; an unauthorized and illegal arrangement to transfer tribal funds to Mr. Kikumoto was conducted; and the Siletz and U.S. Constitutions were rendered meaningless.

Based on the foregoing evidence, Petitioner prays for the following relief from the Siletz Tribal Court: that the Motion for Revocation of Tribal Council Resolution 2009-136, and the revocation of the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission’s bar against Petitioner entering Chinook Winds property be granted.

Signed this ______ day of __________, 2009.

__________________________, Petitioner

By a predictable 6-2-1 vote, Lisa Brown was expelled from the Tribal Council today.

Those voting to expel were:
Dee Pigsley
Bud Lane
Robert Kentta
Tina Retasket
Jessie Davis
and Loraine Butler

Lillie Butler and Reggie Butler voted no on the expulsion. Lisa Brown abstained, as required.

Chairman Delores Pigsley will appoint someone to fill Brown's seat, presumably within the next few days. I've been informed that Phil Rilatos had already been asked if he was interested in taking over Lisa's seat prior to the February 21st meeting when expulsion procedures began. It remains to be seen, however, who Dee Pigsley will pick to take Lisa Brown's place.

The news today that Lisa Brown has been banned from Chinook Winds by the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission (STGC) comes as no great surprise.

In a letter to Lisa Brown, Executive Director of the STGC Shawna Gray writes:

The Gaming Commission's investigation concluded that you have a disregard for the authority of the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission and you are an integrity risk based on your actions in your role as a Tribal Council Member. You have abused your duties and resonsibilities as a member of the Tribal Council by interjecting yourself in the day to day activities/operations of Chinook Winds Casino Resort. You have made statements that are damaging to the Chinook Winds Resort operations. You have made Chinook Winds Casino Resort employees feel uncomfortable and threatened for their jobs and have interfered in the day to day operations of the Casino. Additionally, the racist and offensive statements made by you to the former General Manager have had a negative impact on the reputation and profit of Chinook Winds Casino Resort. Your actions since you became a member of the Siletz Tribal Council have establised a pattern of non-compliance and disregard for the Charter of the Siletz Tribal Gaming Enterprise.

The conflict of interest in this matter is stunning. Dee's majority directly hires and fires the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission. Shawna Gray's job depends on whether she acts to satisfy her direct supervisor, Dee Pigsley and the majority on the Tribal Council, the very people who originally concocted the charges that Shawna cites. They invited the STGC to join the expulsion process. The Same group of people who now seek to expel Lisa Brown have enlisted their subordinates on the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission to take action against her. In fact, the commission's letter reads like it could have been written by Robert Kentta, himself, Dee Pigsley's point man in the expulsion scheme.

The commission's investigation and conclusions are specious, much of which consists of secret evidence and anonymous witnesses, phantom accusers whom Lisa Brown may not question or even know the identities of, unless by an arbitrary ruling by, you guessed it, Dee Pigsley.

Don't be surprised to see Shawna Gray's admonishment and the news of the banning of Lisa Brown from the casino in the next issue of the Siletz News. The Pigsley-Bremner Political Machine can get news published in a hurry, when it benefits them. I'm sure that Chairman Pigsley will cite the commission's censure of Lisa Brown as independent corroboration to the membership of Brown's high crimes and misdemeanors, but it doesn't take long to connect the dots in this case. The other members of the Commission are Trevor Trachsel and Allison Simmons, who is Vice Chairman Bud Lane's sister-in-law. They report to Shawna Gray. And all of the commission members owe their jobs to the fact that they remain loyal to the Pigsley-Bremner political machine.

Loraine, I hope you think enough of Lisa to vote not to remove her from council, Many of us voted her in and it is in the best interest of the tribe to keep her on council. Many of us are watching how this goes and we know that you are the deciding vote. Please help us to keep her in, thanks
[name withheld]

Mrs. Butler

I am writing in support of Lisa Brown. I am requesting that you vote against the expulsion of Lisa Brown and uphold the will of the tribal members in the election. Lisa was voted in by an overwhelming number of votes. We need to have individuals with differing views on our tribal council, we need individuals willing to ask questions and seek answers, we need individuals who are willing to hold themselves and other council members accountable for their actions. I believe Lisa is this type of individual.

Please do not allow political pressure to sway your decision, but instead recognize the will of our tribal members.

Thank you,

Cheryl Lauridson

From: Donna Rodriguez
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:22 -0700
To: Dee Pigsley; Bud Lane; Jessie Davis; Lillie Butler; Loraine Butler; Robert Kentta; Tina Retasket
Subject: A voice in the matter of tribal ethics.

Tribal Council,

I am writing this letter on behalf of every tribal member who voted in this year's election, for every tribal member who has voted in the past and for every tribal member who will vote in the future.

I am appalled that five people (and you know who you are) on our Tribal Council believe they are above the tribe, to make decisions for us according to their wants and needs. I, and other tribal members, are appalled that you are going as far as to to expel Lisa Brown. It is totally obvious that you don't care what the tribe wants or needs.

It saddens me that we have entrusted something so precious to you people. We have entrusted you with our lives, our children's lives and OUR WAY of life. By your action, you have made it clear that your lives, your families' lives and YOUR OWN WAY of life is all that is important to you. Lisa Brown has got to Tribal Council by the peoples vote! It is because she is not who you wanted to win the election and because she has personally pointed a finger at each and everyone of you that you want her gone. You are planning to make sure to get rid of her for good. What does that say for each and every one of your own council ethics?

It does not matter whether you like Lisa or not. It does not matter whether I like Lisa or not. Your job is for the tribe, to help the tribe in making important decisions, not to make them for the tribe. The majority voted Lisa into council and she deserves the right to prove herself worthy or not. It is not up to five or six members of our Tribal Council to decide that Lisa is not capable of performing her job on council. Somehow, Tribal Council's power has gotten out of hand and has gone straight to their heads. It is because we trusted our council to make the right choices for the tribe and to treat us as equals (each and every one of us) that we have let you get this far. But now we see that your interest is not the tribe's interest, but your own interest. I believe that if you continue, and succeed, in your attempt to remove Lisa Brown from Tribal Council for your own reasons, without consulting with the majority of the tribe and giving them the opportunity to personally question your motives, you people will lose a lot of respect. And I don't think the three council members, who are coming to the end of their terms, want to disappoint too many tribal members. This action will no doubt affect the votes they will receive if they plan to run for council again.

I know that I am not the only one that feels this way because I have been listening to the people, unlike the tribal council who want to keep us quiet. As Tribal Council, you should not want to silence us, you should want to include the General Council in all major decisions. I like to believe that our council members have enough dignity and honesty to not let this expulsion happen. Please think of the 401 tribal members that voted Lisa in, not the few that hate her for their own personal reasons. This is not about who likes her and who does not. This is about tribal ethics! Give the girl a chance. Lisa has earned the right to show us what she can do. The members who voted for her gave her that right. If she fails and the people are not happy with her then let them decide if she stays or goes at the next election. That is the right of the people. What you are doing tells those 401 tribal members that their word does not count. I have heard several people, who did not vote for Lisa, complain about what is going on. They agree it isn't right for the council to overturn an election like this.

I also have something to say about Jim Kikimoto resigning. It is time for him to go, he should have gone sooner. If he wants to run a golf course then let him buy his own and run it. Let us get on with casino business. there are golf courses everywhere, why do you think the golf course was for sale? We need to provide training for tribal members that want to move forward in their own casino. There are so many dedicated tribal members working at our casino that need the opportunity to advance and never get it.

The economy is not our only problem at the casino. If you go behind the pretty lights and slots, there are a lot of things being ignored. Things that would make the casino run smoothly, like a working freight elevator, a working escalator, a larger kitchen and food storage (freezers, coolers, work areas, etc...), building a positive work force and much more. the list is so long I cannot include everything. Give the people back their hours and stop wasting money on stupid fitness challenges and employee golf tournaments...all things to bring business into the golf course. Forget the golf course for now. Concentrate on getting the casino back into production, our marketing team needs to bring the business back into the casino where it belongs. The casino is why we are here.

We need to get our people into training and get them into positions that will make them feel good about themselves. Give them encouragement and reasons to better themselves. That was the original goal and we lost track of that goal since Jim K. has been here. It is time to FOCUS on the tribes best interests once again.

I know you think that I am no one important and that my opinion does not matter. But I know better, I am an enrolled Siletz tribal member and I am proud to be Indian, rich or poor, no matter what! My opinion does matter because I am tribal. Every one of our tribal member's opinion matters whether you like to think so or not. Stop excluding the membership! We are not YOUR tribe, you are OUR Tribal Council.

Sincerely,
Donna J. Rodriguez #1054
One of many concerned tribal members.

In a stunningly naked power grab Dee Pigsley and allies on the Tribal Council voted to expel newly elected Lisa Brown from the Tribal Council at her very first regular Tribal Council meeting.

This happened on Saturday, just two weeks after Brown was elected with the fifth highest vote total in tribal history.

I'm still scrambling for details, but it's my understanding there will be a meeting on March 19th to decide the issue. Six Tribal Council votes will be required to expel Lisa Brown from the Tribal Council.

401 tribal voters propelled her into office just two weeks ago.

I've been asking Tribal Chairman Delores Pigsley for months about the illegal payments to the Election Board in 2007, and receiving few answers. Today I asked her:

We know that the Election Board was paid over the past three elections. This directly contradicted our law in place at the time, which said that "Election Board members shall serve without pay." In the Nesika Illahee you said our elections were fair and legal. How could the payments to the Election Board be legal?

Chairman Pigsley responded:

This was not an illegal election. The election needed to go forward, council agreed to let the staff people receive their pay. Were it not for them the election could not go forward. What would you have done?

I answered:

In answer to your question: I would have obeyed the law.

One thing you could have done was change the election ordinance as you did in September and November of 2008. But I would have made it legal to pay any tribal volunteer to serve on the board, not just hand-picked staff of the General Manager - because we need an Election Board that is independent of the Tribal Council and the General Manager for our elections to be fair and impartial.

You say the Tribal Council authorized paying Election Board members. I have two follow-up questions:

1. How did the Tribal Council have authority to ignore the election law which stated "Election Board members shall serve without pay"?

2. There is was no resolution passed by Tribal Council authorizing such payments. There is no mention in the minutes about Tribal Council authorizing such payments. Where is the record of this authorization?

Our recent elections have been illegal in an even more fundamental way. None of our last three elections was certified by a legally appointed Election Board. Our law clearly states that “The Election Board shall be appointed by resolution of the Tribal Council”, but none of the members of the Election Board for our last three elections were appointed by resolution of the Tribal Council - they were all illegally appointed by General Manager Brenda Bremner, while Tribal Council ignored it's legal responsibility. Chairman Pigsley has tried to cloud this issue, suggesting that Bremner only recommended appointments. That's not true; Bremner made all the appointments for our last three elections herself, in direct violation of our law.

Clearly it could not be legal to pay Election Board members when the law said they must serve without pay. Tribal Council has no constitutional authority to exempt the General Manager and the Election Board from our laws. And isn't it just terribly convenient that this illegal authorization was granted without any mention in Tribal Council minutes or any other public record? Did Tribal Council really even vote on the payments, or was this just a "tacit agreement" with the Tribal Council sitting silently while Brenda Bremner explained her illegal policy?

Last September the Tribal Council amended our election law to allow tribal staff members (only) to be paid for serving on the Election Board. Obviously there would be no need for this amendment if the payments received by the Election Board over the last three elections were legal already. Note that Tribal Council could have authorized paying any tribal member to serve on the Election Board. Tina Retasket was paid over $40 an hour to serve on the Election Board in 2007 - does anyone imagine there would be a shortage of volunteers if that same pay was offered to all tribal members?

So why is the Tribal Council only willing to pay tribal staff to work on the Election Board? Because that staff can be hand-picked by the Chairman's niece, General Manager Brenda Bremner. And a politically loyal Election Board comes in very handy when, for instance, you need to prevent an opposing candidates statement from going out to all tribal members in the voter's pamphlet.

Today I asked Tribal Council member Tina Retasket the following question:

In October of 2007 you were paid for serving on the Election Board in violation of our election law, which said, the Election Board shall serve without pay. Why did you accept these payments when the law said Election Board members shall serve without pay?

She responded:

As you are aware, when we served on the Election Board we were staff members of the Tribe. As you may know, employment law requires that when you assign work to staff members, they must be compensated. We were doing the job we were assigned to do as part of our regular job assignments, and therefore were paid as staff members. As you know, the situation the past couple of years has been unique in that volunteers did not want to serve on the Election Board and the Council was tasked with finding a unique solution to the problem.

No employment law required Tina Retasket to sit on the Election Board. And since our election law clearly stated "Election Board members shall serve without pay", General Manager Brenda Bremner could not lawfully assign Election Board duties to Retasket as part of her job and Retasket could not lawfully accept payment for such duties.

Tina Retasket was a veteran Election Board member; she had served through previous elections. She had a solemn obligation to know our election law and to obey it. Retasket says this was a unique solution to a unique situation, but illegal payments to the Election Board through at least three elections can hardly qualify as "unique".

Keep in mind that Tina Retasket was paid an hourly wage about the same as the Governor of Oregon when she served on the Election Board in late 2007. The Tribal Council could have offered the same pay to any tribal volunteer. Instead they have arranged things so that only the hand-picked loyal staff of Brenda Bremner can be paid to serve on the Election Board. This assures an Election Board loyal to Brenda Bremner, and thus loyal to Chairman Pigsely herself.

Of course it is ridiculous that Retasket was even re-appointed to the Election Board in October 2007, since she had been removed from the Election Board in January 2007 when she was caught campaigning for Chariman Dee Pigsley and Vice-Chairman Bud Lane, during an election that Retasket was supposed to be administering fairly. But Retasket was spared any public announcement of her removal and she was spared any paper trail documenting her removal.

And later the same year she was quietly (and illegally) re-appointed and illegally paid over $40 an hour because political loyalty is what counts in the Pigsley/Bremner political machine, not ethical or even legal service.

I'm Lynette Warren and I'm running for Tribal Council....

...but you won't see my statement in your voters pamphlet because, for the first time in our history, a candidate's statement was rejected by the tribal government. You also won't see any details of my candidate's declaration in our quarterly Nesika Illahee, because, for the first time in it's history, the candidate's declarations made at the General Council Meeting were not reported. That is because Tribal Chairman Dee Pigsley, and her niece - General Manager Brenda Bremner, along with Bremner's hand-picked Election Board want to keep you from seeing what you're about to see in this letter. But it's important that you read it.

I've been encouraged and grateful for the support given to me throughout the past year. In May we led a successful drive to block a Constitutional amendment that would have further disempowered the membership. In the the last election I received 177 votes. That's an impressive showing from an out-of-area, first time candidate who was virtually unknown until last year. My friend, ally, and long time tribal activist, Lisa Brown, nearly won, but she fell short by a mere 29 votes. Let's elect Lisa Brown this year! Reggie Butler has spoken out against our failed business policies and against the conflicts-of-interest inherent in the fact that six of our Tribal Council members hold tribal jobs, five of them under Brenda Bremner. I also endorse Reggie Butler.

In this letter, I will explain in detail how our business ventures have become one disaster after another. In fact, the Siletz Tribal Business Corporation has lost millions of dollars of your money and has lost money every year it has existed. But Dee Pigsley's political machine will not allow this to be mentioned in any tribal publication.

I will also explain in detail how our election process has been corrupted. Did you know that before Tina Retasket became a Tribal Council member, she was removed from the Election Board in early 2007 when she was caught campaigning for Chairman Pigsley and Vice-Chairman Bud Lane in the middle of an election she was supposed to be administering fairly? You probably don't , because the details were never published and there was no written record of her removal. And Pigsley's political machine put Retasket back on the Election Board for the very next election! I will also document how Brenda Bremner arranged illegal payments to her hand-picked Election Board through our last three elections. And now that Election Board has rejected my candidate's statement for the voters pamphlet, because I explained all this in my statement.
Read the rest of this article »

Early on December 24th, I submitted my candidate statement to the Election Board for publication to the Voters Pamphlet. It was submitted on time, as per the Election Board's rules, but the Election Board refuses to print it. Instead they are publishing the words, "No statement available," after my name in the Voters Pamplet. The following is my statement, as submitted to the Election Board last week.

Lynette Warren Candidate Statement

Our tribal elections are being run by individuals who do not follow our laws. At the last General Council meeting Tracey Worman and Kurtis Barker introduced themselves as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Election Board. In truth, they were not on the Election Board since their terms had expired. Barker said the Election Ordinance gave the General Manager the authority to to appoint them to the Election Board. The Election Ordinance does no such thing, in fact it requires that the Election Board be appointed by resolution of the Tribal Council. But Worman and Barker were appointed to the Election Board by General Manager Brenda Bremner in October 2007, in direct violation of that law. They either don't care enough about our law to know it, or they don't care about breaking it. In November they were again appointed illegally to the Election Board, this time by the Tribal Council which appointed them to the Election Board for a term ending in June 2009, directly violating the Election Ordinance which requires a term of 1 year.

The relationship between the Election Board and Brenda Bremner has been especially troubling. In October Tracey Worman told me several times that Brenda Bremner was overseeing the Election Board, and that they would go to her first with questions about their duties. This was utterly inappropriate since the General Manager has no legitimate legal role in our elections. But the Election Board has considered Bremner their boss, a fact Worman confirmed in at the General Council Meeting when she admitted they would consult Bremner first on matters of policy.

Just before the 2007 General Election, Tina Retasket was removed from the Election Board because she was caught campaigning for Tribal Chairman Dee Pigsley and Vice-Chairman Bud Lane. Chairman Pigsley whitewashed the incident by failing to disclose that the Election Board member removed was in fact then Assistant General Manager Retasket. Pigsley also failed to disclose that Retasket had been campaigning for Dee Pigsley and Bud Lane. Brenda Bremner told me that she asked Tina to resign and Tina did.

But since Retasket is a political ally of Chairman Pigsley, Vice-Chairman Lane, and General Manager Bremner, there was no paper trail – there is no written record of Retasket's removal from the Election Board, although the Election Board has the resignations of other members on file. This apparently does not seem irregular to Worman and Barker.

In October of 2007 the Tribal Council illegally ducked their responsibility to appoint the Election Board and passed a resolution to have Brenda Bremner appoint the Election Board. The reason given for authorizing this was that some of the Election Board members recently appointed by the Tribal Council had resigned, including Tracey Worman and Kurtis Barker. They resigned because they were not being paid for their Election Board duties. Bremner re-appointed Worman and Barker and initiated a policy of paying tribal staff members for their Election Board duties. This was in direct violation of our Election Ordinance at the time which required that Election Board members serve without pay. The ordinance was changed in September 2008 to allow staff members to be paid, but during our last three tribal elections Election Board members were paid in violation of our law.

Bremner also took the astonishing step of re-appointing Tina Retasket to the Election Board, even though she had asked for Retasket's resignation that same year when Retasket was caught campaigning for Pigsley and Lane. And it's worse than that – Brenda Bremner told me that she appointed Tina to serve only for the referendum election in December 2007, since Retasket planned to run for General Council. Our law forbids anyone from serving on the Election Board if they plan to run for office during the coming year. Worman has stated that Retasket worked only on the referendum election. Why would that be, if Retasket was appointed for a year like all the other Election Board members? Clearly because it was known Retasket would run. And Retasket did run and win, even though she sat on the Election Board for more than a month after the other candidates had declared.

We need to clean up our elections.

There is much more I need to address as a candidate but the Election Board has now imposed a word limit on what you can be allowed to hear in these statements. You can read the rest of what I have to say on Siletz.Net.

----

I sent the above statement at 12:53 AM, Dec 24. Election Board Chairman Tracey Worman confirmed that she received the statement at 8:12 AM the same day. Later that day, Election Board member Kurtis Barker sent out the following email. He didn't specify what he thought was a personal attack.

From: Kurtis Barker
Date: Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Lynette Warren 2009 Candidate Statement
To: Lynette Warren
Cc: Tracey Worman

Lynette,
Your Candidates Statement "as is" below will not be approved by the Election Board.
It violates the following rule: "Candidates Statements shall not include personal attacks on individuals."
This rule was approved by Tribal Council November 8th, 2008 with Resolution No. 2008-424.

You have three options:
1. Revise your statement and have it to the Election Board by 4pm today.
2. We can approve the last 2 paragraphs. The paragraph stating "We need to clean up our elections" and the paragraph that follows. (Let us know if you want this by 4pm today)
4. You could withdraw your whole candidates statement from the Voters Pamphlet.

If your statement is not re-submitted by 4pm today, it will not be included in the Voters Pamphlet.

As a friendly reminder- you have until 4pm today to submit a photo for the Voters Pamphlet and ballot, and you have until 4pm December 29th to withdraw your candidacy and not be included in the Voters Pamphlet.

If you have any questions, please let Tracey or I know.
Kurtis Barker
Election Board

Yesterday, November 13th 2008, I visited our tribal offices in order to see our election records. I asked our Election Board Chairman Tracey Worman for the Election Board minutes. I also asked to see the signed oaths of office for Election Board members from the past few years. Our Election Ordinance says:

"Upon accepting the appointment, each member shall sign an oath which shall become part of the election records stating that he or she will serve according to the best of his or her ability and shall make every effort to prevent fraud or abuse of the election process."

I also asked to see any written records of resignations from the Election Board.

Tracey Worman informed me that I needed to submit any such requests in writing to Craig Dorsay, the tribe's lawyer.

Over the past few weeks I have asked most of the Tribal Council members about access to Election Board minutes. I asked Tribal Chairman Dee Pigsley and Vice-Chairman Bud Lane, as well as Tribal Council members Tina Retasket, Lillie Butler, Lorraine Butler, and Jesse Davis. Without exception, they each told me that they knew of no reason why tribal members should not be able to see the minutes of the Election Board.

The integrity of our elections is vital to the welfare of our tribe. Tribal members can only verify the integrity of our elections by examining our election records. Our election processes should be transparent, there is no excuse for keeping such records secret from tribal members.

Unfortunately, our Election Board is now adopting the posture of a criminal defendant: You want records? Talk to our lawyers!

Tina Retasket and Brenda Bremner
As a consequence of my recent presentation at the General Council Meeting, there was a Special Tribal Council Meeting today to consider appointments to the Election Board. The Tribal Council voted to re-appoint Kurtis Barker and Tracey Worman to the Election Board, as well as Felicia Carmona.

I gave the following presentation to the Tribal Council, just before they voted:

---

I'm here today to address growing ethical problems with the Election Board. I intend to explain why our General Manager Brenda Bremner is ethically unfit to recommend appointments to the Election Board and why Kurtis Barker and Tracey Worman are unfit to serve.

In late 2007 Brenda Bremner and Tina Retasket conspired to break our elections laws, apparently with the tacit approval of the Tribal Council.

The Election ordinance states: “Election Board members shall each serve for one year from the date of appointment and may be removed only for cause.”

And it says that no person shall be appointed who “plans to be a candidate or who has an immediate family member or resident of the household who plans to be candidate in any election during his or her term of service.”

This was our law in 2007 and it remains our law today. The ordinance clearly states that no person shall be appointed who plans to be a candidate for tribal office in ANY election during their term, and it clearly defines that term as one year.

But Brenda Bremner appointed Tina Retasket to the Election Board in October 2007, and Tina accepted that appointment, even though both knew very well that Tina planned to run for Tribal Council just two months later.

I spoke with Brenda Bremner two days ago, on November 6th. She told me that Tina had only been appointed to the Election Board for the duration of the referendum election which was held on December 8th, 2007. Brenda told me that she gave Tribal Council a memo which explained that Tina would only serve on the Election Board through the referendum because Tina planned to run for Tribal Council.

Our Constitution says that Election Board members must serve set terms of office and our Election Ordinance defines that term as one year. There is nothing in our laws that authorizes Brenda to redefine that term of office.

So even though Brenda sought to create a term tailor-made to accommodate Tina's campaign for Tribal Council, Tina's term was legally one year, a year in which both Tina and Brenda knew perfectly well that Tina would run for Tribal Council.

Again, the Election Ordinance clearly states that no person shall be appointed who plans to be a candidate in ANY election during their term of office.

Brenda and Tina both knew the law. But they violated the law in order to get Tina on the Election Board and still accommodate Tina's campaign for Tribal Council. This is punishable by up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up to $5000, or both.

Tina was sitting on the Election Board at a time when it was already engaged in it's duties supervising the 2008 General Election - the very election in which Tina planned to run.

Our campaign for that election began on November 3rd, 2007, at the General Council Meeting. Robert Kentta, Lorraine Butler, Cynthia Farlow, Lisa Brown, Eva Clayton and I declared our candidacies that day. Tina Retasket did not declare her candidacy then because she was still on the Election Board. And Tina was still on the Election Board a month later - a full month into the campaign for Tribal Council. Obviously it is unethical for a candidate to sit on the Election Board during a campaign in which she intends to run. That's why we have laws against it. The result was that Tina won a seat on the Tribal Council, edging out Lisa Brown by only 29 votes. Of course, Lisa Brown did not have the advantage of sitting on the Election Board during the campaign.

The ethical problems with Brenda's appointment of Tina run much deeper. Earlier that same year Tina had departed from the Election Board due to an ethical scandal. When we spoke two days ago, Brenda told me that she, herself, had asked Tina for her resignation at that time, and that Tina had agreed. I asked why Brenda had called for Tina's resignation. Brenda said: “There was the appearance of a conflict because she wrote a letter and sent it out “

Brenda also said that the letter had endorsed certain candidates.

We know that those ”certain candidates”were in fact Tribal Chairman Dee Pigsley and Vice-Chairman Bud Lane.

Brenda told me Tina wrote and sent out the letter. This the same thing Chairman Dee Pigsley told the General Council in February 2007, although Dee failed to name Tina and she failed to disclose that Tina had been campaigning for Dee Pigsley and Bud Lane in the letter.

Brenda told me that she did not know if Tina had actually done anything unethical, but that Brenda had asked Tina to resign because of the appearance of unethical conduct.

I hardly know what to say about someone who claims not to know if it is unethical for an Election Board member to be campaigning for the Tribal Chairman and Vice-Chairman during an election she is supposed to be supervising fairly.

I can only say that such a demonstrated lack of an ethical compass should disqualify Brenda Bremner from any further involvement in our election process. Given all of this, the Tribal Council should never again consider her recommendations for Election Board appointments.

Today Brenda is recommending that Kurtis Barker and Tracy Worman be re-appointed. I will now present further reasons why these two individuals are unfit to serve.

I spoke with Tracey recently. I was astonished to hear her say that Brenda oversees the Election Board. She repeated this several times. She told me, for instance, that if the Election Board had an issue with a candidate's statement they would first contact the candidate to try to clear up any problems, then they would consult Brenda and then the Tribal Council if necessary. I asked another question about Election Board policy and Tracey told me she would have to ask Brenda, and that Brenda was away for a few days.

The problem here is that Brenda has no legitimate authority whatsoever over Election Board policies and decisions. It is an egregious violation of fair election practices for Brenda to be running our Election Board. I asked Jessie Davis about this and she told me “it would not be kosher” for Brenda to be overseeing the Election Board on such matters. Lillie Butler told me much the same thing.

But at the General Council meeting last week, right in front of the Tribal Council, Tracey confirmed that the Election Board would consult with Brenda first on matters of election policy. They don't see anything wrong with that.

On page 4 of the November issue of Siletz News there is an article by Kurtis Barker which states: "The Election Board now will be responsible for accepting and approving all candidate's statements. We have chosen to adopt many of the rules that govern statements in Siletz News. Statements will be limited to 450 words and not contain any personal attacks. One photo (optional) can be accepted with statements. Candidate's statements cannot be posted on Tribal property."

On the other hand, the Election Ordinance clearly says that the Election Board may propose rules regarding candidates statements, but the Tribal Council must review and approve such rules.

Tribal Council members Lillie Butler and Jessie Davis have both confirmed to me that the Tribal Council has not reviewed or approved the rules that Kurtis has attempted to impose on candidates. This article was of course published in our tribal newspaper by Brenda .

It is unlawful for the Election Board to impose rules that have not been reviewed and adopted by the Tribal Council. And it is utterly inappropriate for Brenda to be publishing such illegal pronouncements.

But it's hardly surprising that an Election Board which thinks it is supervised by Brenda is trying to impose the rules of the newspaper which Brenda runs, rules which she has used to reject or heavily censor my letters when I've criticized the Tribal Council.

Both Kurtis and Tracey confirmed to me that suppressing criticism of the Tribal Council was indeed a purpose of the new rules. Kurtis Barker put it most bluntly when he said: “We want articles that state why you want to be on Tribal Council, not like an attack mode where you candidates can blame the Tribal Council for what's going on. “

Brenda 's policy of political censorship of letters to the Siletz News is being extended into our election process with this power grab to control candidates' statements. Brenda is clearly orchestrating our newspaper and our Election Board in concert to muzzle political opponents of the Tribal Council. And Kurtis and Tracey have attempted to impose these rules unilaterally, without the approval of the Tribal Council, which our law requires.

For these reasons, Kurtis Barker and Tracey Worman are unfit to serve on the Election Board. Tribal Council should not re-appoint them.

If you do re-appoint these two to the Election Board, I want to be put on the agenda for the next Tribal Council meeting where I will present additional evidence of more violations of the election ordinance by Brenda Bremner, Tracey Worman, and Kurtis Barker. Also, expect to see me back in Siletz on election day explaining to the General Council why these two are unfit to serve on the Election Board and how Brenda Bremner is using them to corrupt our election process.

Lynette Warren
November 8th, 2008

---

note:

I spoke with Brenda Bremner two days ago, on November 6th. She told me that Tina had only been appointed to the Election Board for the duration of the referendum election which was held on December 8th, 2007. Brenda told me that she gave Tribal Council a memo which explained that Tina would only serve on the Election Board through the referendum because Tina planned to run for Tribal Council.

Even though Brenda told me this just two days ago on the phone, Brenda now denies knowing that Tina planned to be a candidate at the time of Tina's nomination to the Election Board in October 2007.

At this afternoon's Special Tribal Council Meeting, Tina also wouldn't admit that she planned to run for Tribal Council during the time she served on the Election Board for the pay raise referendum last year.

Here is what I said Saturday at the General Council Meeting in my candidate's declaration:

At the General Council Meeting in August of 2007 I tried to alert tribal members to grave problems associated with our Tribal Council's bailout of the bankrupt U.S Aeroteam. I also expressed grave doubts about the viability of Siletz Aeroteam.. I presented documents showing that, at a time when US Aeroteam was 100% owned by the tribe, US Aeroteam Chief Financial Officer John Busch submitted false and misleading information to the state of Ohio in order to qualify for a minority loan for over $1 million. The application stated that our tribe would remain 100% owners of U.S. Aeroteam, when in fact the officers of U.S. Aeroteam and all members of our Tribal Council knew that 80% ownership of U.S. Aeroteam would soon be returned to Suhas Kakde and his partners. John Busch also submitted statements saying that U.S. Aeroteam had a facility in Oregon and that they were considering moving their Ohio business to Oregon, trying to secure financial incentives from Ohio to keep their business there. Our tribal council knows U.S. Aeroteam has never had a facility in Oregon and says there were never any plans to move the Ohio business here. So how can we explain these false statements presented to Ohio by U.S. Aeroteam on behalf of our tribe? Clearly tribal council was asleep at the wheel again, and was failing to do due diligence as they failed to do with River Reclamation Group. I further informed tribal members that one year earlier, in 2006, the Tribal Council had quietly made Phil Rilatos, one of their own members, the President of Siletz Aeroteam. Rilatos was paid over $30,000 a year while managing one employee half way across the country. Phil had been drawing this salary for over a year but Tribal Council had never seen fit to reveal this to tribal members.

For this I was silenced at the by General Council Meeting via a motion that Chairman Dee Pigsley ramrodded through in 20 seconds without allowing for any discussion on the motion. That was 15 months ago and the Tribal Council has still shown no interest in finding out why false statements were made to the State of Ohio on our behalf. We've seen that Siletz Aeroteam was never anything more than a pie-in-the-sky plan sold to the Tribal Council by our U.S. Aeroteam partners Suhas Kakde and Jeff Maag. Siletz Aeroteam is dissolved. There was never any reason to think our Tribal Council was competent to launch and run an aerospace company.

From the very day I was silenced in August 2007 General Council, my letters submitted to Siletz News have been regularly rejected or heavily censored by the authority of the editor Brenda Bremner, who, of course, is also our General Manager and the niece of Chairman Dee Pigsley. My letters have often been rejected without comment, in those cases I only find out when the paper arrives and my letter isn't there. I have sought clarification for over a year on why my letters are rejected and only once did I get the editors to indicate what specifically they felt was unacceptable in a letter I submitted to them early this year.. Here is the largest passage that they was deemed unacceptable for the paper:

“The Editor-in-Chief of the Siletz News is Brenda Bremner.  Brenda, as the General Manager of the Tribe, is an appointee of the Tribal Council and she is also the niece of the Tribal Council Chairman.  There are major conflict of interest problems with this arrangement.   “

I was told this passage violates the policy which says letters may not contain “profane language, libelous statements, personal attacks, or unsubstantiated statements”. No one would ever tell me how that passage I wrote violates the policy. This is censorship of a critic of tribal government, plain and simple. Tribal members need a newspaper where criticism of tribal government can be freely expressed, but we don't have one. I showed this and other examples of censorship to every member of tribal Council and none have shown the slightest interest.

Silencing tribal members in our newspaper is bad enough, but now there is a plan in motion to muzzle our candidates for tribal office. In the October issue of Siletz News you will find an announcement from Election Board Vice Chairman Kurtis Barker which announces that he will now be approving all candidates statements and they will be applying the editorial rules of Siletz News, which apparently means there is an excellent chance that my candidates statement will not be accepted. They even intend to limit candidates' statements to 450 words for the first time in our history.

I called our Election Board Chairman Tracey Worman and asked who had decided that the election board would now have authority over candidates statements. She said, “That was brought forward to council mainly because they were afraid that instead of people telling us what their qualifications were, and their stance on different platforms, that they were gonna bash other people."

Election Board Vice Chairman Kurtis Barker who was even more blunt about the new policy on candidates statements. He told me, “We want articles that state why you want to be on Tribal Council, not like an attack mode where you can blame the Tribal Council for what's going on.“

The new policy is clearly intended to prevent candidates from criticizing Tribal Council.

As I tried to learn the source of this new policy from Election Board Chairman Tracey Worman, I was shocked to hear her say that General Manager Brenda Bremner oversees the Election board. She confirmed this several times in no uncertain terms. She told me that if the Election Board had an issue with a candidate's statement they would first contact the candidate to try to clear up any problems, then they would consult Brenda Bremner and then the Tribal Council if necessary. I asked another question about Election Board policy and the Election Board Chairman told me she would have to ask Brenda Bremner, and that Brenda was away for a few days.

Here's a big problem - under our laws Brenda Bremner has no legitimate authority whatsoever over Election Board policies and decisions. Our Election Board is supposed to be an independent body, which, by law, only reports to the Tribal Council. It is utterly inappropriate for Brenda Bremner to be supervising our Election Board. How did we arrive at a point where our Election Board Chairman, Tracey Worman believes that Brenda Bremner oversees the Election Board?

As I went through the minutes of the Tribal Council meetings from the past few years, trying to discover how our new election policies came about, I saw that Brenda Bremner often reported to the Tribal Council on Election Board recommendations and decisions – she spoke for the election board. No wonder they think she's their boss!

One of the few occasions where Election Board Chairman Tracey Worman and Vice-Chairman Kurtis Barker met with the tribal Council to discuss proposed changes to election policy was in April 2008. Surprisingly this discussion took place entirely in secret executive session.. Election Board Chairman Worman told me that Brenda Bremner was also present in this session, though the minutes failed to record this. The session lasted over 90 minutes. I can't imagine any legitimate reason why the tribal Council and the Election Board should discuss election policy in secret for 90 minutes. Nor can I think of any legitimate reason why the General Manager should be present for 90 minutes of secret Election Board discussions.

I found another shocker. At the General Council Meeting in Feburary 2007, on election day, Monte Kentta asked the Tribal Council about a campaign letter sent out by an Election Board member. Chairman Dee Pigsley said the person hadn't broken any rules but had been removed because of the appearance of an ethical problem. I had seen this exchange long ago on one of our DVDs and had not thought much about it. Now I was inclined to dig deeper and I discovered that Chairman Dee Pigsley's account of the matter was extremely self-serving. In fact it was a cover-up.

What Chairman Pigsley should have told tribal members, even before the election, was that the Election Board member who had been removed was none other than the Election Board Chairman, Tina Retasket and that she was removed because she had campaigned on behalf of Dee Pigsley and Vice-Chairman Bud Lane. During the very election she was supposed to be administering fairly, Election Board Chairman Tina Retasket, who was also Assistant General Manager at the time, sent out letters endorsing Dee Pigsley and Bud Lane in the Election. The letters were signed by Tribal Council member Robert Kentta, his mother JoAnn Miller (a recent Tribal Council member), Bud Lane's father, and Rose Bremner (the sister of Chairman Pigsley and the mother of Tina's boss, General Manager Brenda Bremner). You can see a photocopy of the letter on Siletz.Net.

All of these people should have known better than to sign this campaign letter by the Election Board Chairman, but Robert Kentta's involvement is the most troubling because he was a sitting member of the tribal Council that put Tina Retasket on the Election Board.

Every member of the Tribal Council knew this had happened; they knew weeks before the election. They may think that this was not a serious matter. But that was not for them to decide, that was for voters to decide. Every Tribal Council member had a responsibility to investigate the incident and to disclose the facts of this case to the voters. But they don't care much about what the members of this tribe deserve to know, they're mostly concerned about what they can get away with. Chairman Pigsley will tell you that it's really no big deal that the Election Board Chairman was campaigning for Dee and her nephew, Bud Lane, that it's really no big deal that Robert Kentta signed that campaign letter. But what's indisputable is that she didn't give voters the chance to decide for themselves just how big a deal this was, because she didn't give voters the facts.. And we can't let any Tribal Council members off the hook on this one, they all let the tribe down.

Astonishingly, the minutes of the tribal council eight months later, in October 2007 show Brenda Bremner telling Tribal Council that Tina Retasket was back on the Election Board.

You can't make this stuff up.

In her whitewash of this affair Chairman Dee Pigsley said that working on the Election Board is a thankless job. I'm not so sure. Through the Freedom of Information Act I got a copy of a grant application submitted by the tribe which shows that the salary of our Assistant General Manager was $56,062 in 2006 and then jumped to over $96,948 by 2008. Tina Retasket was Assistant General Manager during those years. (Copies available upon request.)

I've told you how my letters to the paper started getting rejected after I criticized the tribal government. I live out-of-area so that's the worst that's happened to me so far. I know it can be a lot worse for people who live here when they criticize the tribal council. I've heard from many tribal members that they cannot afford to come forward with criticism for fear of retaliation. And they have good reason to be afraid.

Lisa Brown has been an outspoken critic of tribal government for years. Earlier this year she was in the Culture Office and asked if she could get some copies made of a petition aimed at making it easier for tribal members to register to vote. A tribal employee made ten copies of the petition for Lisa. Tribal Council Vice-Chairman Bud Lane came in and expressed displeasure that Lisa was getting copies for such a purpose and said he would report her. Lisa offered to pay for the copies if there was a problem, but this did not satisfy him. Lisa reported this little altercation on Siletz.Net the next day. Weeks later Lisa's boss called her in and handed her a reprimand charging her with theft for using the copier in the Culture department. This charge was obviously initiated by Vice-Chairman Bud Lane and it is a brazen example of harassment of a political opponent. You can read the reprimand at www.Siletz.Net. After ridiculously charging Lisa with theft for asking for copies, it says that Lisa would have 30 days to improve her behavior at which time she would meet with her supervisor for review. This happened on May 2nd and the General Council Meeting was the next day. Lisa brought the matter to the attention of the Tribal Council. She was fired upon returning to work the next week – fired for requesting copies in Bud Lane's department. On Friday she was given 30 days to shape up, but after speaking of this at the General Council meeting on Saturday she was immediately terminated. The message is clear - tribal employees cannot criticize tribal government if the want to keep their jobs.

Tribal Voters need to clean house. I urge you to vote for Lisa Brown and against the incumbent tribal Council members Frank Simmons, Jessie Davis, and Reggie Butler. They are not representing you as you deserve.

Finally I want to point out that Chairman Dee Pigsley just introduced Kurtis Barker as a member of our Election Board. In fact, his term has expired and he is not on the Election Board at this time. Kurtis Barker just said that the election ordinance gives the General Manager the power to appoint him. In fact, the election ordinance grants no such power.