It is an undisputed fact that democratic societies depend upon a free press. As it currently stands, the press doesn’t have it easy on the Qualla Boundary. Interference in its practice is all too commonplace. From denials from tribal entities of what should be public information, to outright attempts of intimidation from private individuals, journalists who cover the Eastern Band of Cherokee have an enormous challenge when it comes to telling it like it is.

Tribal Council still has work to do toward complete recognition of the rights of the media, and one of these areas relates to its executive sessions law. The current legislation is vague.

The only situations in which Council should be allowed to conduct closed sessions are to discuss personnel issues (which, according to the personnel policy, Council shouldn’t have a role in anyway), issues where privacy is a concern, or issues relating to attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, Council should only be permitted to go into closed session after making and adopting a motion to do so, citing permissible reasons.

I must express my extreme disappointment in the floor amendment introduced by the legal department at the request of Chairman Bob Blankenship. While the technical language relating to attorney-client privilege is acceptable, the remainder of the amendment gives Council authorization to keep its constituency in the dark. It undermines the purpose of Ordinance 186, and it gives Council more leeway with what can be done in closed sessions. The language reading, “to serve the best interests of the tribe,” is particularly troubling. The question remains — who determines what’s in the best interest of the tribe, and how will the tribal public be allowed to provide input as to what’s in their best interest?

Blankenship has discussed the need to combat attacks from the U.S. Congress on sovereignty as justification to hold closed sessions. While the need to protect sovereignty is understandable, arguing a need to withhold what should be public information from the tribe’s electorate is a bitter pill to swallow. The very idea should make every elected official within the tribe uneasy.

If the need to keep the community informed isn’t a convincing argument to abandon the practice of holding closed sessions that aren’t within the scope of what’s acceptable, consider it from a public relations perspective.

Closed sessions ...

° Give your constituents the impression that Tribal Government has something to hide, particularly since Tribal Council already has a poor track record regarding this issue, particularly as it relates to gaming.

° While closed sessions may appear to serve a legitimate purpose in protecting sovereignty, holding them actually gives sovereignty opponents more ammunition, especially when these highly organized, highly influential organizations claim that tribal governments disregard the rights of their own citizens and are unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions. If anything positive can be said about sovereignty opponents, particularly the ones who serve in Congress, their attacks have been public.

° Negative impressions, intentional or not, end up being made upon members of the media — Indians and non-Indians alike — which can have an impact on how they report controversial issues within Indian Country. Refusing to allow media access to what should be public meetings increases the likelihood that their reporting will be one-sided. As any public relations specialist will tell you, it’s unwise to make enemies of the media.

During the Civil Rights era, Gov. George C. Wallace once stood in a doorway at the University of Alabama in an attempt to prohibit the first black student from entering. This was his way of making a case for the state’s right to govern its own affairs. While he could have made a valid point about state sovereignty, he was dead wrong to argue that a state or state institution has the right to discriminate on the basis of race.

As a tribal member and an American Indian, Tribal Council will find no stronger supporter of this tribe’s right to govern its own affairs. But in so doing, I recognize that tribal sovereignty does not give tribal government the authority to disregard the God-given rights of tribal members and all who visit and work on the Qualla Boundary, nor does tribal sovereignty absolve the tribe’s elected officials of accountability to enrolled members.

Other than to add the technical wording to the attorney-client privilege language, Tribal Council has a grand opportunity to make a stand for First Amendment rights by passing Ordinance 186, as it’s proposed. Any attempt to undermine or water down the ordinance’s intent is unacceptable and should rightfully be discarded by this Council.