Push would kill office, commission

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — Legislation to abolish the Commission on Navajo Government Development and strip the Office of Navajo Government Development of its authority is on the Navajo Nation Council’s fall agenda.

In August, Delegates Charles Damon and Francis Redhouse introduced legislation to abolish both the commission and the office. Under new legislation introduced by Navajo Nation Council Speaker Lawrence Morgan and Damon, the commission would be abolished and the office retained.

Whereas the office now has quasi-independent authority to work on government reform, that no longer would be the case. The office would be directly responsible to the Speaker. The office’s executive director would be appointed by the Speaker, confirmed by the Council, and would serve at the pleasure of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee, which the Speaker chairs.

Marlon Stevens, director of the Office of Government Development, said Thursday that he views the legislation as possible retaliation for his filing a complaint with Navajo Nation Police against Dr. James Davis Jr., Speaker Morgan’s chief of staff.

Stevens filed the complaint this week alleging intimidation and harassment after meeting with Davis Monday regarding a memo in which Davis directed him to issue a written warning to a member of his office for “unprofessional behavior.”

“Dr. Davis came in as chief of staff and tried to dictate to me on one of my staff members going on the radio, that was how it all started,” Stevens said.

According to the memo, Bennie Silversmith, project program specialist, gave an interview to a local public radio station during work hours.

“Today, several Council delegates brought to my attention that Mr. Silversmith openly criticized members of the Navajo Nation Council and chapter officials,” Davis said in the Sept. 21 memo.

“Although Mr. Silversmith is entitled to his own opinions about the Navajo government, he should not use his official position to voice these beliefs ... Mr. Silversmith is in no position to offer comments on legislative matters,” Davis said.

Stevens said that while Silversmith was on Navajo Nation time, giving the interview “was part of his responsibility as public outreach.”

“But nowhere in there did he ever say anything derogatory or negative against anyone. It was just citing some of the past projects that the commission has considered. But he never said that was the position of the office.”

Stevens said he did not issue Silversmith a write-up because there were no supporting documents. By directing him to issue Silversmith a warning, Stevens said, the chief of staff is “micro-managing — telling me to write up my staff for something that was part of his job.”

“The other thing is there were no supporting documents as to who the council delegates were. In the grievance process, I could be held liable. I was just trying to follow the policies and procedures.”

Davis said Thursday that the memo states the rationale behind his request. “It’s simply to comply with professional expectations. That’s why the memo was sent to him.”

Regarding the allegation of retaliation, Davis said, “What speculations they want to use, that’s up to their fantasies. I do have a job here to ensure that people within this branch perform and maintain with professional expectations.”

He said he had not yet seen the complaint filed with the police and declined to discuss the matter further.

“If you look at the legislation, they actually marked out the commission, who I report to — who are my bosses — and would have me be confirmed by Navajo Nation Council and work directly under the Speaker, so they’ll have that control,” Stevens said.

“If this goes through, what will happen is they will hand me my walking papers and say, ‘It says here the Speaker shall appoint, and you were never appointed by the Speaker and you were never confirmed by Navajo Nation Council.’

Having the office under the full control of council and abolishing the commission will impact government reform, Stevens said.

The current Government Development Commission is made up of 12 members, five of which have to be recommended by their chapters and confirmed by their agency councils. The other seven members must be recommended by their respective agency, commission or board and then confirmed by council.

“That bypasses the whole process where the people or the chapters provide their input,” Stevens said.

Additionally, “The commission was never informed of what changes were made on this legislation that affected them, although we’ve heard about it through various people. The commission did not see the legislation until today.”

Bess Tsosie, chairperson of the Office of Government Development, sent a memo Sept. 14 to Speaker Morgan requesting a meeting after IGR met the week of Sept. 10 at the Inn of the Mountain Gods to discuss the status of the office and commission.

“Today, I was informed that the Intergovernmental Relations Committee held a workshop off reservation on the topic of abolishment of other boards and commissions. Why weren’t we invited to participate in these important discussions?” Tsosie asked.

“As it is, the responsibility of establishing an alternative government for the central government and the local chapters is a very sensitive topic and we should be afforded every opportunity to present our plans,” she said.