Council cut has people talking
Opinons mixed on Shirley's proposal

By John Christian Hopkins
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — It remains to be seen if President Joe Shirley Jr.’s plan to cut the Council by 64 members will come to pass, but it certainly has the community talking.

But even those who agree that the Council could be downsized seem to think that reducing it to 24 is a poor idea.

“It seems like 24 is too low,” said Bin Begay of Page, Ariz. “Where the heck did he get that 24 number? Maybe 44 — half — would be more logical.”

“I gave this question on cutting tribal council a lot of thought. One thing comes to mind is our population is continuing to grow. We have more youth on the Navajo Nation than other age groups. Therefore, I feel that cutting tribal Council is not a good idea,” Kayenta’s Elsie Shorty said. “Not that our present Council delegates have ever assisted me or my family. They are out of sight out of mind until something are written about them, which are usually negative.”

Council should stay as is, Shorty said. Reducing it “would lead to more illegal activities,” she said.

“They would be less effective with their support services to the Navajo Nation; not that they are effective with support services at present. I don’t see any improvement, or gain made in economic status or employment levels,” Shorty added.

Rebecca Nave-Cling, of Hominey, Okla., agrees with cutting the Council, but not without reservations.

“Well, as for Joe Shirley, I never cared for him as a president, but I do support his decision to decrease the number of delegates,” Nave-Cling said. “I feel that 24 is a small number, perhaps 44 would be better. We are talking 110 chapter houses.

The money that would be saved could actually go to funding the needs of the local governments and that would be why I would support it.”

But Nave-Cling can’t bring herself to believe that Shirley’s move doesn’t have a secret motive behind it.

“I just cannot believe he has no underlying hidden agenda. This just seems too good to be true,” Nave-Cling said. “As it is now, some delegates abuse their position, and lowering the number would also help monitor and account for each delegate.”

This decision is too important to be made willy-nilly, Bernie A. Begay said.

I think they need to work out the details ahead of time, before presenting it to the people,” Bernie Begay said. “They need to work closely together with the chapters. Otherwise there is a real risk that the delegates could be stretched too thin.”

“It is interesting this initiative ended up in a hearing. It has been talked about, and the people will decide,” Lew Morgan of Anoka, Minn., said. “This new development only shows us Shirley is not too confident in getting enough signatures to force the initiative. On top of that, he selected (former President Albert) Hale to argue for him. This guy is not a lawyer, he is a politician. (Attorney Stephen) Boos will use him for a toilet paper and send him down the drain pipe.”

Kym Begay of Tucson supports the change.

“Change is always good,” Kym Begay said. Though change usually results in some upheaval, it can be beneficial in the long run, Kym Begay added.

Maybe reducing the Council will force those left to be more accountable, Nave-Cling said.

“A majority of meetings I have attended in the past, it seems we are always waiting for someone to show up,” she said.
Maybe if meetings started on time, they would find the people more involved, she said.

All in all, decreasing the number of delegates is a great idea. I am in full support with this,” Nave-Cling said. She added, “I never miss a vote either, regardless of where I reside.”

But Shorty says that Shirley and the Council have been butting heads since Day 1.

“The fighting between the two will continue until the next president is elected. That might be Shirley’s buy out,” Shorty said.

John Christian Hopkins can be reached at Hopkins1960@hotmail.com