Kelly Block, the Conservative MP for Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, has tabled a private member’s bill to force the disclosure of the salaries of chiefs and band councillors.

This bill may be well intentioned, but if this comes across as just another dictate from above it will be seen as more colonial meddling.

The public has a right to know what our leaders are paid, so I’m in favour of the principle involved here. The disclosure of annual salaries is important but so are expenses, such as travel and additional per diems.

After all it is First Nations’ public money.

But the issue must first be considered in context. If one is to reveal a person’s salary, then it stands to reason that the accompanying job description should also be revealed.

We have to look at both sides of the coin.

A chief’s job description is unique. It can’t be compared to the reeve of a municipality, or the mayor of small town.

A chief has a job that is a pressure cooker that only a few can survive. Over the years I have seen numerous chiefs get burned out and swamped by their job.

A chief is the community’s leader, as well as its head administrator, community developer, moral leader and political voice.

In the course of a week, a chief may chair the band council meeting, meet with tribal council chiefs, negotiate with the federal government, visit a band member in the hospital and console the family, all while taking requests for support, appeals for welfare, education funding and mediating fights over land use.

Chiefs — or councillors for that matter — have very little personal time. Theirs is a 24/7 job.

The chief and council are the highest paid people on most Canadian reserves. The only other jobs are in the school or band office.

Having the band office as the source of almost all the money that flows onto a reserve creates an impossible situation. Our poverty culture breeds jealousy and pettiness.

Revealing salaries will give some band members one more thing to complain about. Even this should be seen as part of the maturing process, however.

Today, band governments administer and create funds from a variety of sources. The federal government is still by far the largest source of funds, but many First Nations are creating wealth from land leases, businesses, and resource revenue.

At what point does the federal government lose its authority to demand information on the band’s earned income?

While I agree First Nations leaders should reveal their salaries and expenses, this request must come from within.

First Nations history is a series of outside meddling. Today, many First Nations have created their own constitutions that include accountability clauses.

My First Nation makes the audit available to all band members and, if they want more details, this is also made available.

But, if bands are forced to make these disclosures, it will be another example of colonialism. In this day and age the First Nations’ public needs to make the rules.

They say there are two kinds of politicians, those who want to do something and those who want to be something. Most of our leaders enter politics with high expectations that they can make a difference, but there are the horror stories of the occasional chief, councillor or trustee who dips into the till and gets caught.

Sometimes a chief and council may vote themselves an obscene salary grid.

Fortunately these are in the minority and most First Nations are well run with fair compensation for the leadership. It’s the bad examples that tar everyone with the same brush.

I have been a trustee on my reserve for close to 15 years now and I have worked with five band councils and witnessed first-hand the pressure and conflict that our leaders must face daily.

The reason for financial disclosure goes back to accountability, which has become a one-dimensional catch-all concentrated exclusively on financial accountability.

First Nations governance is much more complex, however. Under the current system, the chiefs and councils are elected by the members of the First Nation, but accountable to the federal government.

In order to maintain control, the Department of Indian Affairs can — and does — place a First Nation under third-party management, which is a de facto form of receivership.

This unfair form of colonial control places our leaders in an untenable situation. In reality chiefs and councils are faced with a lot of accountability issues which often overlap, making decision-making and fiscal accountability very difficult.

Chiefs and councils must meet the needs of their people but with chronic underfunding and the threat of third-party intervention they get caught up in Indian Affairs’ neo-colonial administration.

The buzzword these days is self-government, but as far as the Department of Indian Affairs is concerned it only amounts to self-administration.

Currently, all band audits are available on the Indian Affairs website and bands have to file numerous reports over the course of the fiscal year.

The root of the problem is at the local level, meaning simply legislating from Ottawa is not the answer. It doesn’t fit with the new way at doing things.

The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations is elected by, and represents, the chiefs of Canada. Expecting him to turn on his constituency is not in the cards.

For real change to occur it has to start at the local level.

And it is. While not mandated by federal legislation, many First Nations require their financial information be made available through the authority of First Nation’s legislation and band constitutions.

The cause is just, but the focus is misplaced.

Doug Cuthand is a columnist with The Saskatoon StarPhoenix, which first printed this article.