14 MAY 15,2011
Smoke Signals
Dear Smoke Signals:
. I recently had the opportunity to attend and participate in the Great Chili
Cook-off Challenge, sponsored by the Grand Ronde Community Resource
Center. The event was held at the Tribal Community Center.
It was a very enjoyable event. It was a place where the whole family
could go and appreciate a relaxing and fun time. There was food, enter
tainment (a live band), a pie-eating contest, children dancing and lots of
good old-fashioned visiting with family and friends.
Although I do not know the names of all of those who were involved, I
just wanted to acknowledge and thank those who put it on. A great big
thank you. It was great fun.
Joann Mercier
Roll 546
Dear Smoke Signals:
I have recently been trying to file a complaint on an individual, but have
had no success. I have gone through all the channels I could think of, trying
to get someone to take this issue seriously. The issue in question concerns
all Tribal members and is, in my opinion, one that needs to be addressed
and not put aside like yesterday's news.
It really bothers me that people who are supposed to be concerned about
the health and welfare of Tribal members cannot bring themselves to
research this and get back to me. Not only that, but this issue has caused
me great pain and suffering, to say the least.
Now when I ask who is responsible for the extra charges that are now
added on because of one individual's arrogance, I get told, by a department
head, that neither the Tribe nor the individual responsible for all of this
is responsible for any extra money that has to be paid to get what I was
after in the first place. Through no fault of mine are these other expenses
my fault, yet I get told I have to pay them.
What do we as Tribal members have to do to get people to listen to us?
Just how are we supposed to file formal complaints if no one listens? Or if
they won't even return your phone calls? Who do we turn to now? No one
wants to do anything, it seems to me. And that really bothers me because
my issue with this individual is of great concern for me on how it can
negatively affect the rest of the Tribal members.
Rod Smith
Roll 770
Dear Grand Ronde Tribal members:
This is a follow-up to my letter that was in the May 1, 2011, issue of
Smoke Signals.
I have been told that our Tribe falls under the Code of Federal Regula
tions - Title 25 - Indians (25 CFR) because the Tribe is reorganized under
a federal statute. Thus, amendments to the Tribe's current Constitution
are conducted by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with 25 CFR,
Section 81, which lists specific rules for such elections. It is in reading
these rules that I continue to feel the four changes proposed to our Con
stitution under Article V - Membership should each stand on their own
merits and be broken out into four separate and distinct ballot issues,
i.e., "Proposal Amendment A," "Proposal Amendment B," etc.
In 1999, we did not have a choice when five changes were proposed as
one amendment to our Constitution under Article V - Membership. We
have seen the wisdom of that decision and its negative impact.
Some enrolled Grand Ronde Tribal members are pushing to keep the
four proposed changes to our Constitutional Membership Requirements
as one item. I feel they are doing this because there is a strong chance
that the new proposed definition of Grand Ronde blood would not pass if
it is presented as a separate ballot issue.
Some of these Tribal members do not have an ancestor on any Grand
Ronde roll or records of Grand Ronde members prepared by the Depart
ment of the Interior, from the time the Grand Ronde Reservation was
officially created by the Executive Order of June 30, 1857, until sometime
after 1986. Without the new proposed definition of Grand Ronde blood,
these Tribal members would not be able to carry their lineage down to
the next generation(s). This may be difficult to believe, but it is true, and
can be verified through Tribal rolls or records and other documents that
are available to the public in various formats.
It is my understanding that the proposed Constitutional Amendment
- Enrollment Secretarial Election is on a fast track forward to have Tribal
members registered to vote, ballots in the hands of those voters and
completed ballots returned by the end of June 2011. However, it is still
not too late for changes to be made to the structure of the Constitutional
Amendment - Enrollment.
So, I urge you to contact each member of the Tribal Council and give
your opinion, as to whether you feel the proposed Constitutional Amend
ment - Enrollment should be one item or broken down into four separate
ballot issues, so that each issue can be voted on based on its own merit.
Thank you for your time.
Leroy Good
Roll 892
Dear Tribal members:
In the last issue of Smoke Signals, there was a letter by Leroy Good of
Michigan which I would like to respond to.
As many of you know, I was a part of the Tribal Council who established
the Enrollment Requirements Ad Hoc Committee in 2005. We knew there
were issues of fairness and inconsistency with our Constitutional member
ship requirements. We didn't know what the solutions were, but we knew
there was no better place to turn to than our general membership.
My sister, Debby La r sen, was the chair of the ad hoc committee and I know
for a fact that they spent countless hours committed to learning everything
there was to know about our specific Tribal enrollment issues. It's important
to note that we balanced the committee with an equal number of people for
and against changing the enrollment requirements as well as people who
were neutral on the subject. They did a tremendous amount of research
ranging from letters to interviews to long, long committee meetings. After
more than a year, we had a group of virtual experts on enrollment and in
the end they made their recommendations, which we accepted.
Everybody knows that the Constitutional election failed in 2008. The
mistake I think Council made, aside from never publicly supporting the
amendments, was stopping the election midstream and switching from
two amendments to three. If you remember correctly, the BIA election
was abruptly terminated and re-issued immediately after a shift in the
Tribal Council majority. It was quite confusing, but that may have been
what some members of Council wanted.
Leroy Good has publicly advocated that Tribal Council only move forward
with an amendment that I can only assume would allow his family mem
bers to enroll. He is asking Tribal Council to support only this amendment
and no other. His proposal will not address several of the unintended con
sequences of the 1999 Amendment or the recommendations of the Ad Hoc
Committee. Sadly, it would once again leave many of the people adversely
affected by the 1999 amendment out in the cold.
I pray Tribal Council never does something so cruel as to deliberately
help one group but ignore another with the same problem. If we are going
through the costly and lengthy process of a Constitutional election, com
mon sense is to address all the issues now. It makes no sense to leave some
of the pieces for a later date. And for heaven's sake, please don't propose
changes unless you plan on backing them. I question whether or not Council
members plan to back the amendment or if they are simply agreeing to
issue a ballot as a campaign promise. There is a big difference.
In closing, I have wanted to say this for years, and no offense is intended
to Mr. Good, this is really pointed at more people than him. Our Tribe is
a democracy and everybody has a right to criticize what they don't like
about the government, but when the messages are inconsistent, I question
the credibility of the messenger. You can't say, "Per capita should be our
number one priority" one day and then the next say "Please don't think
about money, just vote for this amendment so my family can enroll." You
can't have it both ways, so which is it? Anybody with basic math skills can
figure out adding such a large number of new members to the roll means
less per capita. Do you only support reducing per capita as long as your
family gets in on the deal, but not for any other reason? This kind of con
tradictory double-talk is what falsely paints those championing enrollment
justice as being only about the financial benefits of Tribal membership.
I hope the membership realizes not everyone thinks that way. I know
many people, myself included, who support enrollment justice for everyone
regardless of the impact it will have on their personal pocketbook. Being a
Tribe is about the collective whole, not individual gain. As much as some
people would like to reduce every issue to dollars and cents, we are not
shareholders and our gains and losses go far beyond monetary indicators.
Membership is much more than receiving a quarterly check.
Tribal Council, whatever you decide, I thank you for having the collec-
tive spine to finally address "this issue. I plan on voting yes on whatever
amendment(s) you propose. I have nothing to gain personally, but as a
Tribal member, I benefit from knowing that my people are still benevolent
and unselfish, the way our ancestors were. It is long overdue.
Angie Blackwell
Roll 1089
Dear members of the General Council:
I want to respond to a letter printed in the May 1 issue of Smoke Signals
by Leroy Good. He has presented his own argument as to how Tribal Coun
cil should be handling the upcoming Constitutional Election on enrollment
requirements. I would like to present my own, which is really not that
different from what eight of our Tribal Council members believe.
Since the 1999 amendment with its unintended consequences, the topic
of our Tribe's enrollment requirements has remained a fairly contentious
one. In 2005, it appeared that Tribal Council was willing to make, some
effort to address the issues surrounding enrollment justice. They estab
lished an ad hoc committee, a task force if you will, composed entirely of
Tribal members who were for, against and neutral in terms of changing
our enrollment requirements, and basically assigned us the duty of trying
to develop a solution to this divisive issue. The Tribal Council was quite
generous, giving us both a budget and access to the expertise of key staff
See LETTERS continued on page 15