Thank You For Smoking, Part Tali: Follow the Money

We got some feedback about our blog regarding the mysterious smoke shop subsidy, which puts money in the pockets of people who sell cancer sticks in our communities.  Seems pretty stupid, but it passed the Tribal Council unanimously, and Baker’s treasurer was there to support it.  So someone said we should follow the money.  As in, whose pockets does that $725,000 land in?  And lo and behold, the mystery became much clearer.

First, remember that the money helps two classes of people:  1) the people who lease their land to smoke shop owners, who now have most of their rent guaranteed, and 2) the smoke shop owners themselves, who now don’t actually have to pay their own rent. 

So a closer look shows that one of the proponents of giving Cherokee money to cancer peddlers instead of senior citizens was Chuck Hoskin, Jr.  And it turns out that his dad, Chuck Hoskin, Sr. owns land that is leased to a smoke shop.  Cha-ching!  What a great deal!  Chuck Jr. didn’t even recuse himself, he just voted to have the Cherokee Nation send money to his dad.  Pretty sweet.  It must be tough for Chuck Sr., making ends meet.  He’s already having to work two full-time jobs (State Rep and Chief of Staff).  The Nation was only paying Chuck Senior $130,000 this year, and the State of Oklahoma was chipping in a mere $38,400. 

While that’s not bad for a guy who lives in Vinita but whose offices at both of these “full-time” jobs are in Tahlequah and OKC, he did manage to find a way to squeeze another few extra bucks out of the Nation.  Well played.

Who else?  Well, who else is close to Baker?  No one is closer, literally, to Baker than the guy whose job is to drive him around.  Billy Bob Dougherty was a campaign donor Baker hired to be his driver/special projects guy.

But guess what?  Dougherty also owns a smoke shop and apparently needs a second check from the Cherokee Nation. Thanks to his boss/co-pilot, he doesn’t have to pay rent at his store anymore, according to the Cherokee Phoenix. 

So, he can continue selling low-tax tobacco, because of course it is in the Nation’s best interest to do so.  And the idea of giving the Cherokee people’s money away to people who sell tobacco, instead of say, that elder stipend we’ve be waiting by the mailbox for, is not just a stupid idea.  It’s starting to look like a corrupt one.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 11: Know your Roll/Role

It is important to know your roll* as a council member.

Ever since the Cherokee Nation won its lawsuit against the freedmen (last week), there has been some discussion about the OTHER lawsuit with the freedmen, known by some as the Nash case.  Nash is the name of the one of the freedmen who sued the Cherokee Nation in Tribal court (and lost) over citizenship.  The Cherokee Nation sued him (and a bunch of others) back in federal court.

Baker and his lawyer, Chuck Hoskin Jr., are referring to this when they said that Smith “secretly cut a deal secretly cutting a deal with Congressmen in DC to allow the Freedmen to remain on the roles (sic)* as long as he was chief in exchange for HUD money.  Smith illegally cut this deal with a group of Congressmen without the knowledge or consent of the elected Cherokee Council.”

He also said that the  "Tulsa World further verified that Smith waived the Tribes (sic) sovereignty and we demand the details. The tribe's suit, which waived the Cherokee Nation's sovereign immunity only, in that case, was originally filed in Tulsa,’ the Tulsa World wrote.”

They asked Attorney General Diane “Hammonds”   to investigate this “secret deal.”

Well she did, and she released the results of her investigation today.  The Smith campaign liked it so much, they posted it online.

 

It’s just a couple of pages long, and it’s pretty straight forward.  She notes that the request for the investigation was filed 3 days before the election and immediately publicized by Baker’s campaign.  She also points out that Baker was well informed about the Nash case, despite his claims otherwise.

We did a little research of our own, based on Hammon’s analysis, and the more we looked the more Cherokee Truth came out. Here’s what we discovered:

On February 3, 2009, the Cherokee Nation issued a news release, which is still publicly available on the Cherokee Nation’s web site for all to see. It begins:

“TULSA, Okla.—The Cherokee Nation filed today a lawsuit asking a federal court in Oklahoma to resolve the long-standing dispute of whether non-Indian Freedmen descendants have a federal right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.  The Cherokee Nation is asking the court to confirm that Congress unilaterally modified the Treaty of 1866, and, as a result, the non-Indian descendants of those Freedmen have no federal rights to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.”

It later has a quote from Smith:

“Last year, I assured members of Congress, including Barney Frank (D-MA), that if they would let the federal courts decide we would push to have the controversy heard on the merits,” Smith said.  “This filing today is the Cherokee Nation keeping its word, and letting the federal courts have a clear path to reaching a decision on the merits without compromising the Nation’s sovereign immunity, and without the risk of setting procedural precedents that may affect other tribes.  Members of Congress have said they will respect a federal court decision on this issue, and this is the quickest way to an impartial, apolitical, judicial solution."

Nothing secret going on here: There was and is a news release about it on the Cherokee Nation’s web

site.

There are also later media references to the case, including an Associated Press story. 

Just two days after the case was filed, Hammons told a council committee meeting about it (see the rules committee meeting minutes from February 5, 2009).  Smith talked to the full tribal council about it at the February Council meeting (see the council meeting minutes from February 17, 2009).  The full council voted on, and unanimously approved of the lawsuit in the March council meeting (see minutes of the March 16, 2009 council meeting).  

Unanimously, of course, means everyone on the council agreed.  Bill John Baker and Chuck Hoskin Jr. were both on the council during these meetings, and both men were in attendance.  Hammons was kind enough to pass along a PDF showing Baker and Hoskin had indeed approved it.

So not only is the "deal" not secret, Baker and the full tribal council were explicitly informed about the case--so much so that they agreed it was a good idea for it to move forward!

So, that said, let’s walk back through Baker’s quotes again after having done some cursory research that any Cherokee citizen could do for themselves.

Baker claims: “Smith illegally cut this deal with a group of Congressmen without the knowledge or consent of the elected Cherokee Council.”  WRONG. Council minutes referenced above show that the council, and any Cherokee who checked the Cherokee Nation web site, were proactively informed about the lawsuit.

Baker claims: “Tulsa World further verified that Smith waived the Tribes (sic) sovereignty and we demand the details.”  WRONG AGAIN.  And while we’re handing out demands, how about this: the Cherokee people demand you pay attention in the council meetings we pay you to attend!  The details you need are in the minutes from the meeting in 2009 when you voted IN FAVOR of the lawsuit you are now criticizing.

Smith had some choice words on the subject and he, rightfully, lets Baker have it with both barrels.  You can visit his facebook page if you want to find out more.  

Baker and Hoskin may have presented more evidence to Hammons, but the evidence that any Cherokee can find is clear:  the discussion of the Nash case was made in a very public way and approved by the very people who now claim not to know anything about it.  It doesn’t seem like they take their rolls** as council members very seriously if they don’t even know what they voted on.

  

*Probably a typo.  He probably meant tribal rolls, the list of Cherokee Nation citizens, not ‘tribal roles’

** We meant to use the wrong word here.  Because it is funny.  We know our role, as citizens on the Cherokee Nation’s rolls.  See?  It isn’t that hard really. But don't get us started on the difference between polls and poles.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 10: Accountability Watch, Part 1

Today’s post doesn’t have a lot to do with the election, but it does have a lot to do with why Cherokee Truth even exists in the first place.  

We are going to make it a point to call out elected officials when they vote for something that is bad for their constituents but good for their political career.  And some of that happened last week at the Rules Committee meeting.

Lost in some of the discussion about who gets to vote after election day, and where they get to vote and when (all of which was decided by the freedmen, APCSJC and the BIA--at least two of which favor Baker for Chief), is the fact that the tribal council had an opportunity to send a message to the election commission about the idea that LATE voting should only take place in Tahlequah.

Smith made a big deal out of Baker voting against having any voting locations anywhere but Tahlequah. But Smith probably gives Baker too much credit--- the vote was 7-7, so Baker didn’t singlehandedly kill the idea of voting in other places besides Tahlequah.  He had some help.  Which made us wonder:  who was it that voted against their own constituents having a convenient way to vote late?

To start, there are 15 members currently on the council (APCSJC seat has yet to be filled, and Meredith Frailey is Acting Deputy Chief, so two seats are currently empty).  David Thornton arrived late, and didn’t vote.  So the council members who voted in favor of allowing people to vote in their own district were:  Lee Keener, Buel Anglen and Cara Cowan Watts, from District 5, Don Garvin and Janelle Fullbright from District 3 and at large council members Julia Coates and Jack Baker.  Voting against it were Baker, Tina Glory Jordan and David Walkingstick, who are all in District 1. Their folks are already voting in Tahlequah, so they were actually voting in favor of keeping an advantage for their constituents.  

That’s not the case for the other four voters. Jodie Fishinghawk from Stilwell and Curtis Snell from Kansas basically told their neighbors that if they wanted to vote late, they needed to drive to Tahlequah.  Same with Chuck Hoskin, Jr. from Vinita and Dick Lay from Ocheleta.

Lay is new on the council, so this was really one of his first votes, and it was to tell his constituents that they don’t deserve to be able to vote in  their district-- only in Tahlequah.  Our google maps show its 101 miles one way from Ochelata to Tahlequah.  202 miles round trip.  If you get 25 mpg that’s 8 gallons of gas-- a whopping $25+ to cast a vote.

Chuck Hoskin lives 70 miles away in Vinita.  That’s 140 miles round trip to vote.

Granted, any vote in a committee meeting would not have been binding, but it could have sent the election commission a message.  Hoskin, Lay, Fishinghawk and Snell could have at least made a symbolic gesture to fight for their constituents right to vote in their district during the extended voting times.

What do all of these council members have in common?  They all support Baker, not Smith, in the election. Baker wants the voting only to happen in Tahlequah, and at least four council members made the conscious choice to do what Baker wants instead of what would be good for the people that elected them. How's that for representation?

3 Days Until the Election: Mr. Crittenden Goes to Washington

It’s official:  Freedmen can vote in our new election, thanks to an agreement approved Wednesday by APCSJC, the Freedmen and the BIA.  Significant in the deal is that the election ain’t over on Saturday:  Freedmen get extra time to get their absentee ballots in (which makes sense since they didn’t get them as early) and they also get two extra days to go vote in-person, besides election day and the other early voting available to the rest of Cherokee citizens.  

Oh, did we mention the best part?  The federal court ruling seemingly trumps our Supreme Court by telling them that Cherokee law doesn’t count and that freedmen are citizens.  So that whole referendum to gain signatures, and then the vote of the people and then the four year court challenge all meant jack squat, because it was tribal law.  Freedmen are citizens as long as the judge in DC wants them to be, according to the court order.

Pretty harsh huh?  The judge really handed it to us on that one. Oh wait, the judge didn’t decide that! Crittenden decided that himself by signing the agreement.  Maybe he felt he needed to compromise and let the BIA have what it wanted and let the freedmen have what they wanted, but in doing so he ignored what the Cherokee people voted for in 2007, and he did so voluntarily.  Ouch.

The election will go forward on Saturday.  For the people who were Cherokee citizens on Monday, that’s their last chance to vote for chief.  For the people APCSJC decided to make citizens on Tuesday, they have until October 8 to vote. 

Let us make sure you understand what we're saying here: if you are Cherokee by Blood-- you can vote early in person Thursday in Tahlequah from 9-5, and in your assigned precinct on Saturday, the 24th. Your absentee ballot MUST be received by the Election Commission on Saturday. ONLY non-Indian Freedmen get extra days to vote. Check out the Cherokee Phoenix's online story today for all the hairy details.

 

P.S.  Late tonight we heard that Baker and Chuck Hoskin, Jr. are accusing Smith of colluding with Barney Frank to somehow keep HUD money while Smith was Chief.  When asked by Channel 6, they could produce no evidence, and Frank himself said it was bull BLEEP.  Really. Only he didn’t say bleep!  Watch the channel 6 story if you don’t believe us.  This time Baker is getting busted by the media and a Congressman immediately when he’s not telling the truth. We’ll see if it slows him down.

Election Limbo Day 46- Campaign Finance & Baker

With all the recounts, threecounts, court decisions and runoffs, we never got around to the campaign finance reports for July for Smith and Baker.  Since the August reports are due already, we thought we’d play catch up.  For those of you who are new, we’ve analyzed their campaign finance reports since they first started coming out in April.  You can see them in our archives.

April

May

June

Over the next four days, we’ll go through the July reports and see where the candidates got their money and what they spent it on.  We’ll post the reports for you to see, since the July ones never popped up on the Cherokee Phoenix like the other ones did.

And just so you know where we’re going, we’re going to do Baker contributions first, then Smith’s, then Smith’s expenditures and then Bakers.  That’ll be four days worth.  Depending on what ever else happens, we may post these over the next four days or spread them out a little, but don’t worry, they are coming soon.

So, let's start with Baker’s contributions.   He started the reporting period with $13,507.08 in the bank.  He raised $17,553.72 from others and loaned his campaign $40,000.  That brings his total loans so far to $155,000… as we’ve said before, that’s a huge commitment from the Mr. and Mrs. Baker, who report a combined income of $41,000 to the IRS.

Notable contributions include $500 from Susan Chapman Plumb (nominated by the council for the election commission) and her husband.  Susan’s dad, Gary Chapman, gave Baker $1,000.  UKB lawyer Dianne Barker Harrold coughed up $150.  One of our readers and occasional commenters chipped in $2,427 (we won’t name names, but claim it if you want).  Chuck Hoskin gave $97.  We’re pretty sure that’s Chuck H. Jr., because he’s listed as a lawyer and Chuck H. Sr. was an educator and is now a state rep, but that’s just our speculation.  It’s clear that both Sr. and Jr.  support Baker, so it probably doesn’t matter which one handed over the $97.

Baker’s total contributions from others so far, $191,628.17 (including $20,000 from his family).

That’s on top of the $155,000 loan, which puts the total money in his campaign so far at $346,646.96.

Coming soon… Who’s giving to Smith?

Election Day 41: Playing Hookey

Ferris Bueller's  Bill John Baker's Day Off

The rumblings about Bill John Baker skipping out on today's council meeting were true. Today, Baker, S. Joe Crittenden and 4 other council members refused to show up to a meeting that would have addressed election law tweaks Baker himself actually demanded in court just a few short weeks ago. Not only that, but now the Election Commission has to work short-staffed for another 17 days because they weren't able to approve Susan Plumb, the woman unanimously appointed by the council, to be the 5th Election Commissioner. 

Chief Smith called Baker on the carpet saying, "Most Cherokees, if they flat out refuse to show up for work, they get fired. How does he expect anyone to believe he’ll do the work of a chief when he won’t do the work of a councilman?”

Speaker Meredith Frailey and the council members who showed up were dismayed that their colleagues would refuse to do the job with which they were entrusted by the Cherokee people, saying, "I’m very disappointed that we don’t have a quorum to do the work and be the voice of the Cherokee people."

Meanwhile, Baker and friends sent out a press release spewing that the special meeting requested by Speaker of the Council Meredith Frailey and called by Chief Smith was illegal and unconstitutional. They even went so far as to claim that council attorney Todd Hembree stated as much. 

However, in the very document supposedly backing up this claim, Mr. Hembree never even used those words. Perhaps they are counting on the fact that no one will read the opinion. But we did and we hope you will too. Go ahead, just click here.

In fact, according to Article 7, Section 7 of the Constitution, the Chief CAN call a meeting and SET the agenda. The council doesn't have to like it or apparently show up, but it is NOT illegal. In fact, it's very constitutional, so much so that it is actually written INTO THE CONSTITUTION. 

It's pretty weak and misleading for Baker and Company to stretch an attorney's memo about council procedure into something bigger and more important than the constitutional authority of the Chief. 

A little teaser for tomorrow's Truth--there's something that looks a little unusual about Baker's news release today. Do you see it?

Election Limbo Day 40: To Meet or Not to Meet?

Friday there is a special council meeting with four agenda items, two of which are focused on the election and two of which are not.

The two election-related items are the appointment of the council’s election commission nominee, Susan Plumb, and potential election law changes.  The council chose not to take up the changes in committee last week, even though the majority of the committee voted to do so.  They needed two thirds of the vote to amend the agenda, and came up one vote short.  Baker was one of the votes against considering changing the laws, and he tells the Muskogee Phoenix that changes to the election law ‘would not be valid at this point,’ even though he asked the Supreme Court to change the rules himself just a few weeks ago.

In fact, Baker proposed seven different election law changes himself to the Supreme Court, and could have had the council consider them at last weeks committee meeting, but instead voted not to.

It will be interesting to see what he does tomorrow, because, it’s apparent that a lot of Cherokees, including Smith and Baker, think things could be improved in our election processes.

Smith seems to think Baker might not show up at all, and points out that Baker once supported penalties for council members who skipped meetings back during the crisis.  In the Muskogee Phoenix story earlier this week, Smith challenged Baker to show up, and Baker didn’t appear to answer whether he would be there or not.

If he’s not, it may have something to do with the other two items on the agenda, the appointments of Diane Hammons as Attorney General and Sharon Wright as Marshal.  Both of these appointments are for 5 year terms, which are intended to overlap chief terms in accordance with the Cherokee Constitution.  Their terms have expired, but some council members, including Hoskin and Crittenden who are in Baker’s camp, wanted to wait until after the September election to fill those slots, just in case Baker wins and he can appoint them instead.  That’s just politics, but the other two items could impact the quality of our election-- so it will be interesting to see if Baker and his friends who have been critical of the previous election show up, or if they try to keep a quorum from being assembled.

Added to the mix is the fact that council member David Thornton is recovering from heart surgery and likely won’t be at the meeting.  It takes twelve members to make a quorum, so we’ll see if they get that many and see if they address the election issues that both candidates (and their supporters) have raised over the past few months.