I agree the article is racist.  Concerns for “Potential water policy, law enforcement, county jail, taxation, Cherry Point and other land use policy to name a few” are false flag baloney.  County policies should be comprehensive and fair.  Adding perspective rarely decreases public outcomes in regional policy.

The writing suggests tribal folks like Ballew should stick to tribal governance and keep their noses out of white man’s business.  There are always conflicts in policy matters - and well established guidelines to inform each policymaker’s performance.

Ballew would necessarily need to recuse himself from any action taken from which he might potentially derive a personal benefit, but that doesn’t mean he can’t work for measures that improve the lot of tribal members or that tribal members don’t deserve better representation in Whatcom County.  Representing tribal members and working for better services, etc., would be  exactly what other constituents expect from representatives in their districts.  If one district has interests that “compete” with another district, that’s not a conflict of interest, it is a policy debate and representatives are expected to argue their points, vote on them as a body, come to conclusions and see the outcomes implemented.

There are plenty of legislative representatives from tribes officed in jurisdictions of other US political subdivisions. The National Caucus of Native American State Legislators has 81 members from 22 states that “work to promote a better understanding of state-tribal issues among policymakers and the public at large”.  If it is good enough for almost half of our state legislatures, it just might work in Whatcom County, too.

I found Ballew’s work on the Lummi Indian Business Council impressive.  He may not be my first choice for an appointment, but the mere appearance of this article suggests better tribal representation on the council is still badly needed.

Why don’t you send both articles,  yours and Charlie’s,  to each candidate, including Timothy Ballew, and ask their opinion if the article is “racist”.     Should make for some interesting and revealing responses.  And see who is willing to step up and respond to their prospective constituents and who prefers to hide.

My opinion on Charlie Crabtree’s article?

Advocacy  ?  Yes.   Racist ?  No.   

John and Tim you guys have got to be kidding.  I am suprised you have made such a slanderous remark against Bruce Ayers.  I know Bruce personally, have worked with him in various capacities over a number of years, much in the same manner as I had worked with you (John)  over a number of years.  Bruce is most certianly not a racist or anything of the sort. I can say that you (and Tim) are off-base with your accusastions of racism, which is why you should both man up and take your accusations back. 

Sure, Bruces’ political opinions may diverge here and there from yours, but pulling the race card is ridiculous and pure cannon fodder and a cheap diversion to avoid addressing  Bruce’s actual point…the appropriateness of supporting candidates or electing individuals for local U.S. government who may have conflicting political alliances with soverign foreign entities.  I can imagine that is the nexus of Bruce’s actual piece, at least that is how I read into it.  Does that make me a racist also if I don’t see it the way you saw it , or just wrong if I didn’t see it your way?

  I am sure  Mr. Ballew is a quality individual, but really, if his loyalties lie with a soverign politico-coroporate entity than why not get that clarified up front…  How in this complex world is that not a prudent question to be asking?  Why drag the conversation into the muddy waters of race and equality when that is not what is going on here. 

Regards, 

Gus

Didn’t see anyone call Ayers a racist, rather that the article contained some basic racist precepts. Bruce knows better than he wrote. He served on the city council and voted on land use affairs that indirectly could have benefited his surveying business, maybe, in the future. I’m sure he never voted on anything of direct personal benefit. He’s no dummy. That’s why I was surprised he would forward such a vacuous argument concerning Ballew’s possible integrity in similar matters. 

Constantine, Tip has it right.  No where does my article call Bruce a racist.  Please.  Indeed, he may not have even written the article, as often  a political operative will write and then they find someone to put their name to it.  The article stands on its own words and is a racist article.  

You suggest the Lummi Nation is a ‘sovereign foreign entity’?  Sorry.  That is actualy very false.  And what follows in your argument is thus false.  You need to do a recheck.  You are really trying to marginalize a people who are a core part of our nation and of our county.  To call the Lummi ‘foreign’ is without legal or moral or factual basis. 

I struggled with the wisdom of weighing in here, but I trust that nobody will misinterpret this.

Let me pose a socratic question, a hypothetical:  “If one of the local refinery managers resigned and promptly threw their hat into the ring, would people question the possiblity that conflicts of interest would arise in respect to county policies?”

Working together, council must make policy that doesn’t favor anyone.  That’s the specific argument for having at-large representative positions.  I think everyone wants council to operate as objectively as possible, in a fair handed way.  While I expect representatives to bring different experience and perspective individually to the body, the public and council itself must be on guard against anyone bringing pre-judged positions and committed affiliation(s) to the table.

What matters is, with this appointee deliberate policy, make appropriations, and otherwise represent the county at-large without bringing commitments to prior positions to the table?  Will deliberations and decisions be made without respect to business or lineage-related affiliation(s)?    If that’s the question that was raised, it would be a fair one.  I have no idea how today’s seating will play out, who does?

John, you don’t call Ayers a racist.  You are quite civil.  Let me take it a little further.

Ayers asserts that any Lummi tribal member has an inherent conflict with the management of the county government.    This view is divorced from truth.  Is not the Lummi nation one of the signatories to the treaty of 1855, one of the foundational constituencies that established the basis for civil government that led to the formation of the state of Washington, and subsequent inclusion in the United States of America?  Do not Lummi tribal members provide proud and persistent service to the United States of America?  Constitutionally, the Lummi nation is the eldest constituent of our region.  To suggest their interests are anything but integral to the state and country is fiercely and defiantly racist. 

The ugly elephant in the room is that this exclusion of native American communities is the norm in the U.S..   The treaties that established the constitutional right to form civil governments have been violated over and over.  Indian reservations are militarily managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers, as charges of the federal government.  It is way past time to ask native Americans to forgive us for this habitual racism, and to honor their leadership in the communities to which we belong.   We should be grateful that tribal members are willing to participate in local government.  It should give us hope, not inspire fear.

P.S.  Racism against American Indians is another manifestation of the oppression and exploitation that is called out by the #metoo movement.   It’s way past time to stop appeasing it in civil discourse, much less in the halls of power.

In some ways, all elected people have conflict of interest. When one chooses a party to be affiliated with, it becomes a conflict of interest. Some at highest levels of our government don’t think they have to recuse  from their business endeavors as in their mind there is no conflict of interest.  A lot of congressional members and public support that view.

Some years ago, someone on council told me in very frank terms that one of the perks to serving on council was helping his friends, “supporting a constituency.”

While politics is supposed to be the mechanics of government, in far too many cases (then and now) “supporting a constituency” really means putting fingers on the scale when possible, and cronyism.  I have come to recognize both proclivities.

As an independent, I’m more on the watch for “intelligent,” “honest,” and “objective” in representation.  Here’s to principles and higher ideals, when and if you can find anyone who actually possesses such virtues.