Attack on leadership deserves a quality defence [editorial]

OK, everybody raise their hands who thinks Glooscap First Nation Chief Shirley Clarke and her band councilors could use some media training. The chief of the “tiny native reserve of 300 people in rural Nova Scotia” has been getting a pounding from reporter Richard Foot of the National Post. His articles on the salaries of the First Nations leadership are making front page news across the country and fuelling the right wing myth that all band councils are corrupt and elected officials are getting rich off the backs of their communities.

Glooscap’s Clarke seems, unwittingly, to be helping his cause.

Foot has put together some puzzle pieces to show that one of the Glooscap councilors earned almost $1 million in the last fiscal year. Angry about the “inaccurate, negative publicity” resulting from the articles, reporters were summoned to hear a statement by the chief.

Here’s what Foot reports that the chief said:
“The document [records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation from the Department of Indian Affairs] provides an inaccurate perception that we are unjustly overpaid for the limited work we do on behalf of our community,” said Clarke.

“Unlike non-Mi’kmaq politicians, we do not receive vehicle allowances, pensions, benefits, insurance or dry cleaning reimbursements,” she continued.

“It is unfortunate that, once again, the public is too easily entertained by inaccurate, negative publicity, once again, focusing on the Mi’kmaq,” Clarke complained.

“The issues of compensation for chiefs and council in Atlantic Canada is complex at this time. We don’t fully agree with the conclusions that have been reached,” she states.

Now, let’s overlook the statement about their “limited work” on behalf of the community. We’re sure that’s just a badly worded argument. Let’s overlook the statement that the lack of “vehicle allowances, pensions, benefits, insurance or dry cleaning reimbursements” could in any way justify a one million dollar a year salary.

Let’s focus on the statements that the public is entertained by inaccurate, negative publicity, and that compensation for chiefs and council in Atlantic Canada is complex.

Now, if a report is inaccurate and one is angry about those inaccuracies, and one pops her head out of the rabbit hole to say so, it behooves the complainer to set the record straight. Proof to the contrary goes a long way to dispel inaccuracies in reporting, so why not offer some up?

Sorry Chief Clarke, but reporters aren’t a bunch of naughty children that you can wag your finger at like someone’s mother. “Because I said so,” is not a statement that carries a lot of weight with the media. Bluster will not move the masses. Proof is what they are after, and that means disclosing actual salaries, if what’s been reported is incorrect.

But if what’s been reported is correct, then say so, and be ready to explain the reasons why those salaries are set the way they are. There is no shame in being fairly compensated for the work that is done on behalf of the community, and no shame in the qualifications and expertise brought to the table.

If compensation for chiefs and council are complex in Atlantic Canada, let’s hear about it. It’s your argument, for heaven’s sake, so it’s your responsibility to discuss it. What makes Atlantic Canada any different than the rest of the country? We’d like to know. You opened the door, so expect us to walk through it with our notebooks and digital recorders in our hands. Don’t invite us to the door, then slam it in our face.

But that’s essentially what Clarke and her councilors did by refusing to answer questions after the chiefs’ statement, refusing to discuss in any real detail the aspects of the report that they didn’t “fully agree with.” And the bottom line is that that’s not good enough.
Instead of putting this issue to rest, Clarke and company may have actually contributed to the myth that leadership as a whole is uninterested in transparency, is uninterested in raising First Nations out of the muck where mainstream governments have left them, and only interested in what’s in it for them.

In an opinion piece penned by Shawn  A-in-chut Atleo, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, he takes a stab at defending First Nations against the recent attempts by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to paint “First Nation leadership as overpaid, unaccountable local bosses, uninterested in the challenges faced by First Nation citizens on and off reserves.”

He goes on to explain the realities faced by the many men and women who choose leadership roles in the communities. How at the office door every morning they are faced with a line-up of their citizens who need jobs and housing that is safe and free of mold, of children who need a quality education that the federal government continues to underfund, of elders that need medical care—glasses, dentures, wheel chairs, and surgeries where travel is involved; care, by the way, that NIHB continues to chip away at, uninterested in the health of First Nations people, and more interested in balancing their books.

“The reality that those of us who actually know the impressive men and women who lead band councils on reserves across Canada is that this generation of First Nation leaders is the best educated, most capable group in our history,” said Atleo. “They make a huge difference in the lives of our people, every day, year in year out, in the face of huge obstacles. They do the work of senior executives in government and the private sector with few of their tools or support…”

Atleo calls the taxpayers federation’s attempt to paint Indian leadership as villains as a very clever attack, that undermines the right of First Nations “to lead our own economic development, education or local governance…”

And if that’s the case, and we believe it is, there should be no qualms in defending against that attack and shinning the light in some of the darker corners of First Nations governments.
Windspeaker