The AFN in all its glory [editorial]

As we head to press, the Assembly of First Nations is wrapping up Day Two of its assembly in Halifax, and while there wasn’t the spitting and hissing that marred the May meeting of the organization, tensions were heightened and loins girded for any sign of bullying and abuse.

Still, the business conducted July 15, particularly, was often mired in layer upon layer of confusion over procedure and process, and it began with what really should have been a simple task of choosing a month for the next election for national chief.

The AFN put forward three options, the least popular of which seemed the scheduled election in July 2015, and they opened up the floor to comments about the choices. Go to the polls in October or December or wait for July 2015 as the large shadow of a federal election darkens the path on First Nations issues.

Some chiefs weren’t prepared for any choices, stating the organization was in such a state of dysfunction, a new national chief would only get devoured by regional division and hi-jinx, just like what happened to national chief Shawn Atleo. (At least according to one chief who may be selectively dumping all of Atleo’s troubles and shortcomings at the door of the chiefs-in-assembly.)

No, we need a ‘rudder for our ship,’ said another chief.
According to those keeping track of what seemed like hours on the topic—and often well off of topic—it was decided to put a resolution to the group that the election would be held in December in Winnipeg.

All in favor? Passed by consensus. The term for the upcoming chief would be extended six months.

Huh?, said one chief. What just happened? I thought we were voting on an amendment.

What?, said another. You can’t change the AFN Charter by extending the term of the chief. That will be open to court challenge (even though the chair previously stated that legal had already determined it was allowable).

One chief complained bitterly about the fundamentally flawed way in how the resolution was presented to the group, and that the decision may not be the one the chiefs as a whole actually wanted.

An exasperated chair said it was done. The votes cast and counted. And he called a break before the next big terrifying discussion on restructuring the AFN. What kind of mess would that bring?

But somewhere during the debate there was a motion, or was it a suggestion, that acting spokesman Ghislain Picard be named as interim rudder. That might get the funds flowing again. Aboriginal Affairs Canada had pinched off the supply until the AFN had a leader again.

Blackmail, said one chief, but a strategy that seems effective.
Picard had to check with his chiefs and he’d get back to us the next day, and sure enough he did.

Great said the chair. Let’s give it up for the new interim chief. Applause.

What? Point of order. Was there a motion? Because there certainly wasn’t a vote? Was there a motion, because the mover withdrew the motion the day before? Is the mover and seconder even in the room?

Well, at the end of it all, we can report that indeed there was a motion and a half-hearted vote for interim leader and Picard was installed, but he is considering a run for the permanent top job, and once he has declared he’ll have to step away from the position to create a level playing field for all candidates. (Of course, that last bit was all communicated to the delegates too late.)

All this will happen over the next few months, so we’re not exactly sure how effective this installment will be. Seems a bit of a waste of energy.

Come on AFN.

Dysfunction at every assembly, commented one chief. A lack of discipline, said another.

There is no doubt that a meeting with so many disparate groups with as many agendas as there are individuals packed into the meeting room would be a chore to run, but really? So much bumbling around. No clear leadership at the front of the room that could be counted upon, and in times of trouble and distress, that’s what an organization counts on. People who can herd cats, and nail Jello to a tree.

And chiefs, you need to take some responsibility to ensure you understand what’s going on—before you vote. There is too much money, time and effort at stake. These meetings take thousands of dollars per participant to attend. Surely, there must be some onus put on individual delegates to get things right.

Windspeaker