Letters: Join us on Indigenous Peoples Day

The New Mexico Legislature took the opportunity to make history and vote on proposed legislation to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day.

Democratic Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham supported the proposal to rename the state holiday on the second Monday in October. New Mexico is home to 23 sovereign indigenous nations. The state’s population is 10.9 percent Native American, according to 2018 estimates from the U.S. Census.

Numerous cities nationwide, including Albuquerque, have also moved to shift the October holiday’s focus from Columbus by passing resolutions and measures that instead called for celebrating indigenous cultures. It is very fitting that “Indigenous Peoples Day” be recognized, as much as the city of Gallup touts itself as the “Indian Capital of the World” adorned by the many contributions that Native Americans and Navajo individuals made, which can be seen everywhere from the exquisite artwork and murals to the land base that once was Navajo territory.

And then there were the contributions of the Navajo Code Talkers, who in World War II not only sacrificed their lives in service of the United States but used our language as a secret code that could not be broken by the Japanese and helped end the war with their surrender. Other tribes also contributed to the World War II codes that help win the war. On Sept. 27, 2016, the city of Gallup had passed a resolution/proclamation declaring the second Monday of October as “Indigenous Peoples Day” into perpetuity. McKinley County also approved resolution/proclamation designating the second Monday in October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day.

To its credit, Gallup also has an Indigenous People’s Commission as an advisory board to advocate on behalf of the Native population in the city and it is well deserving of official support. The Commission has yet to endorse the resolution/proclamations. In preparation for the 500th anniversary of Native resistance to the European invasion of the Americas from 1492 to 1992, “Indigenous Peoples Day” first began in July 1990, when representatives from 120 Indian nations from every part of the Americas met in Quito, Ecuador, in the First Continental Conference (Encuentro), along with many human rights, peace, social justice, and environmental organizations to recognize 500 years of Native resistance against the continued colonization of our original homelands.

In the face of the deaths of millions of indigenous peoples through the rampant slaughter of innocents, war, famine, forced relocations, poverty and disease, there has been the celebration of life and the Native civilizations that promote the ideals of self-governance and tireless determination that are the framework of our nations.

On Monday, Oct. 14, 2019, join us as we celebrate the annual “Celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day” event that will take place from noon to 5 p.m. at the Gallup Cultural Center (201 E. Highway 66). Bring your signs, banners, drums, songs, and prayers. Remember, every day is Indigenous Peoples Day.

Mervyn Tilden
Church Rock, N.M.

Government reform takes leadership

I also would like to weigh in on the three-branch government (“Referendum on 3-branch government tabled,” Sept. 26, 2019) because of its importance. A referendum is not legally binding but a work in process until a completion is expected in the future. It can be introduced giving people a heads-up and should see a draft proposal by the Council delegates (our legislators) when positions are made clear to advance for public review and they weigh in on it with comments before it is finalized.

The ratification of the U.S. Constitution took years. The people have the final say by vote of approval or rejection. What I’m unclear about: The constitution wasn’t talked about, only the three-branch, which is a constitutional type government, Diné government, and lacking Diné bi bee haz’áanii (Navajos’ law), which goes on to say is stated in the Navajo Code. Maybe to back that up, the “Fundamental Law” is mentioned.

We are still operating on a quasi-status of a government, meaning “almost but not really” since the “chairmanship” days. Later in 1989, the Council obligated its people it represents to morally or legally do something as a trial to see if a three-branch would improve tribal government. However, we’ve been running on a morphed “tribal code system.” If that is what the people want or something better, then a constitution or a parliament-type government would be in order. The article exposed our tribal delegates loafing 30 years of stacking “tables” that’ll come crashing down one day. At least they are talking referendum – that’s a step. A referendum ordered can go two ways.

The Council delegates must refer any acts to the people for approval or rejection at a regular election. The issue is too major and sensitive to be rushed in a special election as there is always a historical low turnout. Amendments are already re-phrased or taken out and what is going in? Is it centralizing or de-centralizing? So you hear, “It is impossible that our delegates will ask, ‘Why are you holding us responsible?’ So let’s remove that.”

That statement blew my mind! Our Council delegates have been walking around lame, dragging their feet like they’re hurt, run over by misappropriation of funds, slapping criminal activities on the wrist, got kicked in the groin, not following policies, etc., and we allow them. The confidence just isn’t there when major issues are tabled, no quorum and no Council delegates attending our chapter meetings. Our tribal government is not at fault. If there is blame to be made, it’s our tribal delegates whom we voted in. Point the blame a little further and that’s us with a capital “U.”

Government reform was right there on presidential platforms – “I’m going to do this!” Unless a charismatic president can influence and take the Council delegates under his wings to reform the government, don’t expect any changes soon. It is Council delegates who make and change laws. I don’t see government reform at the top of their list when they run for office, except win by people knowing them. They run behind the shadows of the presidential race.

“Why are you holding us responsible?” is an assurance the blame rests squarely on our Council delegate if they want to run our government that way. Replace them with better leadership. I can go so many ways with this, but limited with space. Enough. One man against 24. Seems the odds are stacked. Heads need to come together to make a direction known because it affects all three branches, especially the people — come on now.

I agree with Robert L. Hosteen from Beclabito, New Mexico (Letters: “Another attempt at contradictory ambitions?” Oct. 3, 2018). We can’t continue to let them run amok.

Teddy Begay
Kayenta, Ariz.

Vote yes on changing SJC government

The Utah Constitution outlines a careful and deliberative process to consider a change in the form of government. (In drafting a referendum petition for changing the form of government in San Juan County) I was careful to select petitioners along with myself who represent the demographics of the county but who feel there is a better solution in county government. We are represented by a member from Spanish Valley, Monticello, Paiute Mesa, Blanding, and White Mesa.

If a study committee is formed it will represent a broad demographic of the county with four members recommended by the county commission and each of the three incorporated cities: Bluff, Blanding and Monticello. I don’t know what, if any, change in government a study committee will recommend. That is for them to decide.

I personally favor a five-member commission. There are a number of reasons a five-member commission makes sense. Primary among these is that it provides a greater voice to the people. It does this in numerous ways among which are:

1. Share the load. Five members share the workload more effectively than three. This may give more time to any individual commissioner to spend on specific issues of concern. Also, it may help to prevent council members from becoming overworked, burned out and less effective. We have an enormous county. There is plenty of work to go around.

2. Better decisions. More people involved in the discussion almost always leads to better ideas because there is more variety of opinion, experience and expertise. At times more voices on a commission can make decisions more difficult or the commission less responsive. However, most towns, cities and counties run just fine with a five-member commission/council. I maintain that if the discussion doesn’t clearly identify the best solution on an issue then more time and a more deliberate approach should be taken. Sometimes, especially in government, slower is better.

3. Share the power. A five-member commission shares the power and the attendant responsibility and liability with more people. In this case there is certainly safety in numbers. Safety for the commission, as more people share in the decisions being made and more safety for the citizens against possible abuse of power.

4. More responsive. Even though every commission member represents the entire county it has been decided we will have districts. Five districts put each representative closer geographically, and likely more in tune with the citizens in their district. This, in turn, makes them more accessible to the citizens and more understanding and responsive to their needs and opinions.

5. Open meetings compliance. There has been debate in the Utah Legislature to either relax or tighten up on three-member commission compliance with the Open Meetings Act. Under current law, any two commissioners or council members constitute a quorum and may violate, or appear to violate, the act with many of their conversations. These conversations, when they are in the spirit of the Open Meetings Act, facilitate good governance and can happen legally with a five-member commission.

6. Restore representation for Blanding. Since I originally published this paper, decisions by a federal judge have stripped Blanding of representation as a legally protected “community of interest.” A five-member commission restores this representation as explained in No. 4 above.

It has been claimed that this initiative is a reaction to the election of two Native commissioners. That claim is patently false. I asked the prior commissioners to place the question on the ballot. I asked Judge (Robert) Shelby to consider a five-member commission as a better alternative both in person and in writing before the election.

I have been asked if I would have started this process had the election turned out differently, the answer is absolutely yes! I had already started the process and all six reasons would still have been valid. The ethnic makeup of the commission doesn’t change anything. The hallmark of our nation is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Currently we have government by court order dominated by outside parties, hardly democratic.

The race or ethnic background of any commissioner is not relevant to me. I only want them to be chosen by the people and for all the people to have a voice. A change in the form of government will require two countywide votes of all voters before any change could be made. That is democracy. That protects the rights of every citizen of San Juan County. We have a right to petition our government. We have a right to be self-governed.

Vote for self-determination, vote for the study committee.

Joe B. Lyman
Mayor
Blanding, Utah

Thank you for helping find our cheii

The family of the late Dennis R. Hardy Sr. of St. Michaels, Arizona, wishes to acknowledge the many expressions of sympathy and gestures of kindness shown to us following our sad loss. The past couple of weeks have been very difficult for our family. During this stressful time, the disappearance of our cheii (grandfather) has brought our community together.

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to all of the amazing volunteers who helped search and find our cheii. Concerned family members, friends and family who were unable to be there in person sent us their prayers, condolences and monetary donations. We had search volunteers on horseback, ATVs, drones, helicopters, and people on foot searching for our cheii.

The local community members dropped off various food items to help feed our volunteers and hay was delivered for our horses as we continued the search. Our cry for help reached local and national attention. We had our Navajo Nation president’s office offer their services to help bring our cheii home. We will never be able to put into words what your selfless acts have meant to our family. Everyone’s desire, determination and devotion to help bring him home to us will never be forgotten.

Our family will always be indebted to them. This letter is to recognize all the various political leaders, law enforcement, businesses, and volunteers help bring comfort and closure to our family. From the bottom of our hearts, thank you!

Dee Henry
Fort Defiance, Ariz.