INUVIK
Members of the Nihtat Gwich'in Council voted unanimously at their annual general assembly in Inuvik July 9 to leave the Gwich'in Tribal Council's self-government process and pursue other options under the comprehensive land claim agreement if their concerns about consultation are not addressed.

Nihtat Gwich'in Council president Jozef Carnogursky, at the head of the table, right, spoke out against the Gwich'in Tribal Council's agreement in principle process at the Nihtat annual general assembly in Inuvik July 9. - Sarah Ladik/NNSL photo

"We are hoping with the new executive, the approach will change," said Nihtat council president Jozef Carnogursky, adding that the council is preparing for other possibilities in the event nothing changes once the new Gwich'in Tribal Council executive takes office in late August.

He speculated that the current Gwich'in Tribal Council leadership was trying to formally sign the agreement in principle at the council's annual general assembly in August.

Gwich'in Tribal Council president-elect Bobbie Jo Greenland-Morgan, 39, and vice-president-elect Jordan Peterson, 29, were elected June 27 but won't officially take over the positions until the annual general assembly under regulations related to the organization's non-profit status.

Greenland-Morgan said this week she has no problem with the Nihtat's decision to pull out of the process at this juncture.

"Any leadership that is doing their job would do that," she said. "People should been involved, not just now, but from the beginning and throughout the process."

She said she has grown frustrated with the outgoing executive and the glaring lack of communication she has experienced.

"I respect the transition period, and I want to respect the outgoing leadership, but this is getting lengthy," she said, noting that despite sending an e-mail asking to be included in discussions, she has yet to receive a response from the current Gwich'in Tribal Council executive. President James Wilson was defeated June 27 and vice-president Norman Snowshoe did not run for re-election. Both remain in office until the annual general assembly.

"We want to work with the people, for the people."

Greenland-Morgan said she is looking forward to working with the Nihtat to resolve their concerns with the agreement in principle process.

Gwich'in Tribal Council communications director Tony Devlin, who has insisted all media requests for comment from executives go through the communications department, stated in an e-mail that he was "not aware of any change to the current multi-year, multimillion-dollar, tri-party self-government negotiations," and that it would be "imprudent" for the outgoing executive members to comment on the matter.

He did not respond to questions about whether there are plans to finalize the agreement in principle at or before the annual general assembly. An agreement in principle would allow self-government negotiations between the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the territorial and federal governments to continue.

Reached late on July 12, Snowshoe said the agreement in principle would be brought to the annual general assembly in August and it would be up to the membership to decide what happens from there.

"Whatever the annual general assembly directs us to do with the self-government file, that's what we'll do," he said.

Carnogursky has raised concerns on behalf of the Nihtat with the self-government negotiation process in the past, protesting what he called a lack of transparency by the tribal council and accusing it of not responding to repeated requests for clarification. At the heart of it, he said Nihtat members were not given a chance to understand the agreement in principle before it was approved by the tribal council board earlier this year.

Barry Greenland, who chaired the Nihtat annual general assembly July 9, asked the 30 or so people there how many of them felt they had been consulted by a show of hands. Only a few raised their hands and the overwhelming consensus was that there was a lack of understanding.

"As a member, I didn't know anything about self-government," said Wanda McDonald. "Next thing I knew, I was reading in the newspaper that (the AIP) has passed."

While there was some discussion surrounding the feasibility of pulling out, both council and regular members cited rights outlined in the land claim under Appendix B, Chapter 5, whereby a community can seek to negotiate self-government on its own, as was the case in Deline.

"If we've expressed concerns as a community, and they're still continuing to negotiate, obviously our concerns are not being heard," said McDonald.

Tom Wright similarly raised concerns about the Nihtat not being heard at the table. The Nihtat Gwich'in Council represents about one-third of Gwich'in Tribal Council participants.

"All of a sudden, our own government is suddenly treating us worse than that other government," he said. "That's crazy, if you ask me."

Election issues

Several attendees also brought up issues surrounding the recent Gwich'in Tribal Council election, particularly the implementation of online voting.

"As far as I'm concerned, the election results are null and void," said Herbert Blake. "When you only get a third of people voting, most of our people did not speak. If I were a candidate in this last election, I would appeal."

Concerns voiced by Blake and others July 9 suggested the Gwich'in Tribal Council board of directors and elections officials did not follow the election policy regarding the length of time many voters were given to cast their ballots. Some participants outside the Gwich'in Settlement Area were given weeks to vote online, while those closer to home received their ballots much later.

"You can't just change the election process without changing the election policy," said McDonald, adding that she had written a letter to the elections office, but had yet to receive a response. "I wanted to bring it to this table to see how it could be dealt with."

Carnogursky, who sat on the board of directors when the decision was made to switch to online voting, said the move was made to mitigate the 400 spoiled ballots that had come back just after the deadline in the last election in 2012.

"I'm not sure how it got off the rails as it did, but that's something we'll have to bring up at the assembly," he said. "That's not how it's supposed to happen, voting for a month."

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.