Michael A. Langley

I want to thank everyone for last nights comments. When Tribal Members say they want input before decisions are made, this is what that process looks like. Perhaps it is naïve of me, but my approach is a change in the language of an ordinance is a starting point in that conversation. That is also why I don’t believe an emergency ordinance is proper. The example I gave is of the Hunting and Fishing ordinance, including how many tags someone should get. That starting point was based on the recommendation of staff, and through comments and conversations with Tribal Members, we ultimately arrived at a solid final product, including another 30-day comment period after changes were made. There have been many other times when we receive no comments at all during a 30-day comment period.

That is the process for ordinance change. Other times, such as when staff came to us and recommended we take a pause on enrollment, we went to the Tribal Members to discuss that recommendation before enacting it. There was and are still serious discrepancies and questions surrounding blood quantum in the files. The question then was how could we continue enrolling knowing these discrepancies. I wrote about this earlier, so I encourage you to read that piece. In the end, we did not go forward with the staff recommendation of a pause after consulting the Members. I still feel a Tribal Council Resolution that accepts the files as they are with the highest blood quantum currently being recorded for an individual ancestor being treated the same for all others with ties to that same ancestor. This does the least harm and is what I see as being fair moving forward while providing a historical document for later leaders to refer to.

As was discussed last night, there is still a Tribal Preference clause in the ordinance change. Let’s call it a Tiebreaker clause since it states in the event there are two equally well qualified candidates, the Tribal Member is selected. Also, there was not an intention to do an emergency ordinance amendment despite that being suggested to speed up this process in order to relieve the pressure on the Interim General Manager who would really like to focus on his own job. Both Jack and Cheryle confirmed that we used to see all of the applicants, but somewhere along the way, it changed. However, what I did not fully grasp until last night is the idea that a Tier 1 candidate (Tribal Member) has to be seen before any others because to not do so would taint the process against the Tier 1 candidate. The hiring role person, typically a manager and only a single person, might skip the Tier 1 candidate and move to the other Tiers if they see what they perceive as a better candidate. That is what I would like to discuss – taint

There was a time when there was an opening in housing for the accounting position. I applied for the position, was given an interview as a Tier 1, and was not selected for that job after my interview. That job went to a different Tier level person, not Tier 1. First, let me say that I hold no ill will for the person given the job. However, I felt that I was qualified. I had worked in accounting roles previously, including several nonprofits with grant requirements, and was doing so at the time for a few clients for about ten hours per week. My experience with Great Plains software was light, only being exposed to it via my then role as an intern for Internal Audit at the casino, and that was mostly Read Only access. Since I have worked with multiple different accounting software over time, it was not an obstacle difficult to overcome.

In this case, the other candidate was an internal candidate known to all as applying for the job. So, in a sense, I finally understand what taint means. Is it possible that was what was occurring? I don’t know, nor would I have challenged it at the time because why would I want a job that I was reluctantly given? That seems destined for a disaster. I was also very intrigued by what I was learning in Internal Audit and how that was utilizing all of my skillsets as well as my passion for continuous improvement. So I moved on.

The direct reports to Tribal Council are much different than a single manager hiring. Our process essentially requires the equivalent of nine managers to agree on a hiring. I have never participated in the process in my six years of service. It must be very difficult to reach a point where Tribal Council can firmly agree on a hire. I do know we struggle just to give adequate job performance feedback that we can all agree on. The best scenario would be to reach full consensus, while the worst scenario is a hiring based on a split decision where the Chair has to be the deciding vote. My recommendation in that scenario would be to continue the process until a candidate is found that has a much clearer consensus or at least a much larger majority. This results in a selection that has more Tribal Council vested in the decision and a better chance at continuity as a result. The fact that we only have three Tribal Members in the seven positions, of which only five report to Tribal Council, suggests that the current process has not resulted in more Tribal Members in these roles. I was also surprised to hear that since Restoration, there have only been five Tribal Members in the same seven roles. Of those five, three have been as the CEO or General Manager of Spirit Mountain Casino.

What I am quite certain of  is the fact that all nine on Tribal Council want to see qualified Tribal Members hired. Perhaps that is why the idea of taint was never impressed on me until now. It doesn’t seem as being a likely risk knowing all nine currently on Tribal Council. I can even imagine a scenario where the current Tier 1 process resulted in a split decision (or less) and was then decided to move on to the other Tiers. After interviewing the other Tiers, it might then be decided that based on what Tribal Council saw was available, those numbers changed to more of a consensus if they revisited the previously rejected Tier 1 Tribal Member. For the Tier 1 candidate, it would have been a bumpy ride of emotions, though. A ride that need not have those bumps if all candidates are seen at once. After all, we will still know they are from that Tier 1 category.

In my opinion, it is always easier to address known weaknesses than to discover them later in a candidate. I know my weakness in Great Plains software would only have required me to put in more time until I was familiar with the software. I also see a need for an Assistant General Manager since we have grown from 450 employees on the Tribal governance side to over 800. Through the process moving forward, there is also an opportunity to identify and train up a person through succession planning via an Assistant General Manager position. We have asked for that position to be budgeted, but will need the General Manager position filled first, and I sincerely hope that it is a qualified Tribal Member.

So again, thank you for your participation in the process. We are listening and learning.