Top News - May - 2004 Indigenous games postponed a year Ontario clubs score AFN battle over voting continues at confederacy This is only a partial listing of the stories featured in the May 2004 issue of Birchbark. If you are not receiving your own copy of Birchbark, then you have missed out on a lot. Click here for Birchbark subscription information. Indigenous games postponed a year Paul Barnsley, Raven's Eye Writer, Marysville, Washington Buffalo, New York may still host the North American Indigenous Games (NAIG), but it won't be next summer. The games have been delayed a year after the games' governing council ended its relationship with the group that had earned the rights to host the games in 2005. The NAIG council was expected to re-open the bidding to potential hosts after a scheduled three-day meeting in Denver May 13 to 15. Another group in Buffalo may be awarded the games or it could go to another city. The decision to postpone the 2005 games for a year was made by the NAIG council on April 23. That came after the council rescinded the hosting rights that had been awarded to the Buffalo Sports Society (BSS) on March 26. After that, NAIG council president Harold Joseph said three options had been considered. The council pondered whether to go with another host in Buffalo for 2005 with strict guidelines including a performance bond of $1 million, open the bidding back up and have the games in 2006, or take the loss of the games and focus on 2008. "The games were taken away from the Buffalo Sports Society because of lack of documentation, actually," said Joseph during a phone interview from his office in Marysville, Washington on April 16. "In the bid process for the North American Indigenous Games, there's a process that you have to go through. If you bid, you get a bid package from the council. In it, it states exactly what you need for a bid. You have to put up so much money to make a bid, non-refundable. And then you have a deadline for when you have to have your package in." In the 14-year history of the games, Canadian cities have fared the best. The last U.S. attempt to host the games, in Fargo, N.D. in 2000, was unsuccessful. While the games are supposed to be held every three years, alternating between Canadian and U.S. locations, the Fargo failure meant there was a five-year gap between games. With the last two Canadian hosted games-in Victoria in 1997 and Winnipeg in 2002-considered successes, the pressure was on the U.S. tribes to come up with a winning entry. Four bid packages were submitted in 2001 for the 2005 games. Eventually, it was narrowed down to Oklahoma and Buffalo. "The initial $1,000 that everyone put up to be in the running, everybody put that money up. Then when it came time to get your package in, I think it ended up only being two-Buffalo and Oklahoma," said Joseph. "When it came time to do presentations to the council, New York was the only one that was still in the running. So it was sort of a unanimous decision." That presentation by the Buffalo Sports Society to the NAIG council was made in Saskatoon in 2002 and BSS was awarded the games. But thousands of athletes and cultural participants are attracted from across North America to the games and hosting the event requires extensive planning and no small amount of organization. The NAIG council spelled out what it required of the successful bidder. It did so by setting a series of deadlines for the creation of organizational charts, a business plan, letters of intent for transportation, for housing athletes, for cultural villages, for support from Native communities in their state and from government officials at the city, state and federal level. Commitments for corporate sponsorship and concrete marketing plans were also required. "When the first deadline came [BSS] had some of that stuff," Joseph told Sweetgrass. "They were supposed to have $1 million in bank and they didn't have but they had a promissory note from a Native-owned bank in New York." The council allowed the process to continue. "We let that deadline pass and then the next deadline came and went," he said. "In December, the council came up with a [memorandum of understanding] with BSS that they had to have these eight action items done by early February. That deadline was getting close and they weren't getting close to it. They asked for an extension. We extended it out to March 2. At that time, we got a letter from BSS that if we pulled the games away from them they'd go into litigation for money that they lost. "When March 2 came and they were supposed to have all that stuff, well, we hired an attorney and she faithfully went to the lawyer for BSS and started negotiating them getting all that information to us. Well, when it came time for them to give us the information, BSS actually came back saying they wanted a letter signed by each member of NAIG council saying that we wouldn't discuss any of the materials that they would give us. None of the council members was going to agree to that. We ended up taking the hosting rights away on that basis. But that was just taking the hosting rights away from that group, not taking the games away from Buffalo for 2005." Guy Patterson did most of the legwork for BSS. He said his board asked the NAIG council to not release any of the information because they were worried that a former member of the organization who was fired might try to use their information to submit a competing bid. "We did all of the work," he said on April 20. "We didn't want the NAIG council to be giving that information to people that we have terminated." Patterson said the NAIG council shares some of the blame for the paperwork being late, that documents he requested from the council arrived late or in a form that did not meet the requirements of New York State law. He said BSS will seek a court injunction to prevent any other group from hosting the games in Buffalo or anywhere else in the United States "in the next three to six years." Rumors had been circulating that BSS has been the subject of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Joseph said he's heard the rumors, checked them out and found them to be untrue. "What I know about a FBI investigation into BSS, it's completely false. The Seneca Nation who was backing BSS, that's where all the money came from for all the sponsorship. There were two major tribes in the state of Connecticut that were waiting for BSS to get everything together and they were going to donate a considerable amount of money-the [Mashantucket] Pequot and Mohegan tribes," he said. Patterson also said he had checked and there is no FBI investigation. He said everything done by BSS was legal in New York and the rumors may have been started by disgruntled former employees. He said the fact that he and his board members proposed to run the games and pay themselves to do so was seen by the NAIG council as a conflict of interest, but they did not intend to pay themselves any more than previous games' managers. He said the general manager of the Victoria games was paid $75,000 while the Winnipeg games' manager earned around $60,000. The salaries contemplated by BSS were in that range and local lawyers had advised BSS that the plan was not considered a conflict under state law. He plans to appeal to Joseph and the NAIG board to reconsider their decision one last time in the near future. With the decision, preparations all over North America will have to be reconsidered and possibly rescheduled. Darryl Hill, executive director of the Ontario Aboriginal Sport Circle, said this summer's planned try-outs will more than likely be put off until next summer. "I've put all Team Ontario preparations on hold at least until after the NAIG meeting next week," he said on May 5. Top Ontario clubs score Sam Laskaris, Birchbark Writer, Prince George Ontario teams collectively had their most successful year yet at the National Aboriginal Hockey Championships. All four Ontario clubs ended up winning medals at the tournament, staged April 18 to 24 in Prince George, B.C. This marked the third year for the tournament. The first two editions were held in Akwesasne. For the third straight year the Ontario South girls' entry ended up winning the championship in its division. It defeated the Quebec team, Eastern Door and The North, 5-2 in the gold-medal contest. The Ontario North girls' team downed Saskatchewan 9-7 in the bronze-medal game. Meanwhile, both of Ontario's representatives advanced to the final in the boys' division. Ontario North downed Ontario South 5-3 in the gold-medal match. A total of seven girls' and eight boys' teams participated at the tournament. Ontario South girls' coach Rhonda Mitchell was not surprised to see all of Ontario's reps return with some hardware from the nationals. "I think a lot of our kids play higher levels of hockey," she said. "Most of our kids don't play on the reserves anymore. They're going into the cities and playing for teams at an AA or A level." Mitchell added opponents didn't need much motivation to get up for games against her team. "Everyone wants to take us down," she said. The Ontario South girls' entry played eight games at this year's tourney. It lost just one round-robin match, 6-5 against Eastern Door and The North. The Ontario South team was almost the same one that captured the 2003 national tournament. "We added four new players," Mitchell said. She believes this year's version might have been the best yet, and she wasn't surprised to see her side have success in Prince George. "I find the girls are beginning to work much better together. I think we knew we could get to the finals based on those we brought with us," she said. The Ontario South girls' team won five out of its six round-robin affairs. Its victories including a pair of lopsided shutouts, 12-0 over British Columbia and 10-0 over the squad representing the Atlantic provinces. Ontario South also recorded wins over Saskatchewan (7-2), Ontario North (5-2) and Alberta (8-2). Ontario South advanced to the gold-medal match by beating Ontario North 7-0 in their semi-final outing. As for the Ontario North girls' entry, it had advanced to the semi-finals by posting a round-robin mark of 3-1-2. The Ontario North boys' team certainly won the games it needed to win most. The club started off rather slow and was winless after its three round-robin games, sporting a record of 0-2-1. That start prompted a players' only meeting. Then general manager Richard Restoule had a chat with team members. "The coaching staff had directed them to do certain things and they weren't following the coach's instructions," Restoule said. Restoule said he was not pleased with how the Ontario North side played in round-robin action. "We were the most penalized team after the first three games," he said. "We also had the most shots after three games but we had nothing to show for it. I had high expectations for the team and I told them they were letting it slip away." Ontario North responded by defeating a team representing the Atlantic provinces 9-4 in their quarter-final game. Ontario North then edged Eastern Door and The North 4-3 in their semi-final match, setting up an all-Ontario boys' final. The Ontario North boys' team had won the bronze medal at the inaugural tournament in 2002 and had placed fifth at last year's event. Meanwhile, this marked the first time the Ontario South boys won a medal. They had placed fourth at the first two editions of the tournament. Ontario South coach Darryl Hill liked the fact his side was not playing at home this time around. "I think the guys were more relaxed out there," Hill said. "They were more focused on playing the game." Hill said he felt his charges might be bringing home some hardware after beating Manitoba, last year's silver medallists, 8-5 in their second round-robin game, boosting their record to 2-0-0. "After that game we thought we'd be in medal contention," Hill said. With some more disciplined play in the final, Ontario South might have also won the gold. It was leading 1-0 after the first period but then ran into some penalty problems in the second and surrendered four goals in that period. "We were killing penalties for a large part of the second period," Hill said. Top AFN battle over voting continues at confederacy Paul Barnsley, Birchbark Writer, Ottawa A Chiefs of Ontario letter shows that the fight over who votes and who doesn't at the Assembly of First Nations' twice-annual confederacy meetings will resume at the next chiefs' meeting in May. National Chief Phil Fontaine sent a letter to all First Nation chiefs and councils on March 18, announcing that "the next Confederacy of Nations to be held at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on May 18, 19, 20, 2004 will be conducted in accordance with Article 11 of the AFN Charter." Article 11 states the "the Confederacy of Nations shall be composed of First Nations representatives of each region on the basis of one representative for each region plus one representative for each 10,000 First Nations' citizens of that region." A two-page letter written in response on March 19 by acting Ontario Regional Chief Earl Commanda (who was filling in for Vice-chief Charles Fox while Fox was on leave seeking, unsuccessfully, the federal Liberal Party's nomination in Kenora-Rainy River) urged all Ontario chiefs to attend the meeting in Saskatoon. Since there are 134 chiefs in Ontario and the province has been allotted just 18 votes under the charter, that's a call to arms. "The Political Confederacy of Ontario met March 15 and agreed that Ontario's position would remain that all chiefs and proxies in attendance would retain the right to vote at this AFN confederacy," Commanda wrote. "The rationale for applying the AFN charter and breaking with convention and tradition that chiefs in assembly have come to expect is unclear." British Columbia and Ontario chiefs waged the same battle during the December confederacy meeting in Ottawa. The chiefs of British Columbia wanted the assembly to operate according to the charter with a set number of voting delegates for each region. Ontario led a group of chiefs that wanted things to continue as they have for the last dozen or more years with every chief in attendance entitled to vote. Since many chiefs had travelled to Ottawa intending to participate as voting delegates and had not been given notice they would not be able to vote, B.C. backed off after a heated three-hour debate. The issue exposed a number of the organizational problems the AFN faces. Aside from the fact that the organization has openly failed to follow its own written rules, the problem of who is in charge of the chiefs' organization was also highlighted. Although a national chief is elected, he is expected to be only a spokesman for the 600-plus other chiefs and to take direction from them. Last year, Fontaine sought to take the lead on an issue and publicly endorsed the federal government's proposed First Nations financial institutions legislation. He was brought into line when chiefs opposed to the legislation reminded him he must do what the chiefs in assembly tell him to do. This edict from the national chief's office about reverting to the charter is being seen as another attempt to assert authority over the chiefs in assembly by Fontaine and will be contested, Ontario sources say. The confusion over voting started when AFN rules for annual general meetings (held every July) were applied to confederacy meetings (held every spring and in December). At the AGM, the charter calls for all chiefs to have a vote. Chiefs who attended the confederacies also wanted to vote and the rules were ignored but never formally changed. For an organization to follow its own charter rules would seem to make sense but the AFN has not done so in recent memory, so it has become accepted practice for all chiefs who attend confederacy meetings to vote. This practice has become a key part of the political strategy employed by competing factions when debating contentious issues: if you want to ensure a favorable outcome on a vote, bring as many delegates as you can find and outnumber the opposition. Sources in B.C.say that since most meetings are held in Ottawa, Ontario chiefs have an unfair advantage because it's far less expensive for them to get to the meetings. AFN executive sources have said that tactic frustrates the will of the majority of chiefs and allows a small group to dictate the national agenda. The AFN is currently involved in a renewal process led by Wendy Grant-John and Joe Miskokomon. That process is far from complete. Commanda asked why the national chief and executive have decided to make a major change to the way the organization does business before the renewal commission makes its recommendations. That question will be asked again on the floor in Saskatoon. Fontaine's letter stated that "representative status accords members the right to vote, move or second resolutions and speak." The national chiefs' letter does not explicitly say that other chiefs who attend who are not recognized as delegates - or other observers - will not be allowed to speak. Based on the most recent statistics and the application of the rules in the charter, the total eligible for voting purposes is 88, Fontaine's letter said. The allocation of representatives by region is: Nova Scotia/Newfoundland, two; New Brunswick/PEI, two; Quebec/Labrador, seven; Ontario, 17; Manitoba, 12; Saskatchewan, 12; Alberta, 10; British Columbia, 12; Yukon, one; N.W.T., two and the national executive, 11. "The process and task of determining who the official representatives are for confederacy meeting purposes is a regional matter. The AFN secretariat will rely on the regional chiefs to address this issue in their own respective regions," Fontaine also wrote.