10 OCTOBER 15, 2011 SmOKE SlGNALS
Dear Tribal members:
I am a Tribal member who is part of a "split" family. I have two daugh
ters who are Tribal members and one son who was a Tribal member, but
was disenrolled in 2008. The three children have the same parents and
the same blood quantum. They are now old enough to ask why the older
two are Tribal members and the youngest one is not. No matter how I
explain it to them, their response to my explanation is always "but that's
not fair."
I hope that each Tribal member will ask themselves how they would
explain the current enrollment situation to their family members if they
were one of the "split" families.
Please vote "yes" on the constitutional amendment to change our enroll
ment criteria.
Mike Portwood
Roll 2936
Dear Tribal members:
Every once in a while we are faced with a decision that will impact oth
ers a lot more than ourselves. The upcoming constitutional election on our
Tribe's membership requirements is one such point.
If you have been reading Smoke Signals or following the online dialog
on any of the assorted Facebook sites, to say this is a contentious issue
might be an understatement. But I personally think much of what you
are reading is fueled by a vocal minority. The last constitutional election
in 2008 showed that a majority of Tribal members support enrollment
reform. If most of you vote "yes" on this looming amendment, as I plan to
do, we can put this issue to rest.
For anybody who wants to question my motivation in supporting this
amendment, let me make several points.
First, I have an ancestor on the Restoration Roll, so my own situation
doesn't change or improve either way. Second, while I know a number of
people who will be helped by this amendment, the vast majority of them
I don't know. How could I? In fact, the one vocal group who this helps
has made it abundantly clear they are not fans of mine, or of my brother.
But I support it nonetheless. Because to oppose something just because
it helps somebody who may not like me or who I may not like is the worst
kind of politics, and should have no place in our Tribe. My motivation for
promoting this amendment is simple: fairness.
I've learned over time to see both sides of an argument and could see
reasons to vote "no." Oppose bundling? I get it. Slightly less per capita?
Even easier to understand, though often overstated. They aren't real Grand
Ronde Indians? I'll never agree with that kind of thinking, ever.
You can call me naive, or idealistic. But I really have a hard time be
lieving that when we were restored in 1983 that we planned on excluding
people who have a right to be members based on technicalities. But we
have been doing exactly that since 1999.
There are plenty of people who are more than willing to share their
stories. I'd recommend asking them.
The truth is we are very lucky to be Grand Ronde citizens. We are a
Tribe that cares for and takes care of its people. All of us have had our
lives improved because we are descended from Indians who once roamed
western Oregon. This blessing is something we should be sharing with
fellow descendants, not quarreling because they belong to such-and-such
family, or because we might receive less per cap. Imagine yourself, just
for a moment, in their shoes.
Please vote "yes."
Bryan Mercier
Roll 1357
Dear Smoke Signals:
I would like to thank Tribal Council for moving forward with the Enroll
ment Amendment vote.
While I do not think the new amendment is perfect, I am extremely
grateful for the opportunity to correct the enrollment injustices brought
about by the 1999 amendment.
Too many people with the proper blood quantum have been denied
their rightful place in our Tribe. Too many families are "split," with some
children enrolled and some denied. We are a caring people. I ask that you
open your hearts to these families in distress.
My family and I encourage everyone to vote "yes" on the Enrollment
Amendment now before us. It's the right thing to do.
Debi Anderson
Roll 3264
Dear Tribal members:
I'm writing this letter as a grandmother who has experienced the sor
row of having to deal with my grandchildren not being accepted as Tribal
members because of the 1999 constitutional amendment.
It has been very painful to try to explain to these grandchildren why
they have not been accepted into the Tribe and their cousins have.
I would be eternally grateful if my fellow Tribal members would vote
"yes," rectifying broken families and broken hearts.
Dwanee Modrell
Roll 2590
Dear Smoke Signals:
Two enrollment measures that we previously voted on will again be on
the upcoming ballot. Both measures won a majority of the votes, but did
not achieve a two-thirds majority.
My hope is that enough voters will want to heal split families so that
we can achieve a two-thirds majority on both of these measures in this
election.
My three children have split families, and it is painful for all of us.
This issue has been in front of us and has occupied countless hours of the
council's time, and it would be nice to put it behind us so the council and
the Tribe can move on to other pressing issues.
Marilyn Portwood
Roll 2915
Dear Tribal members:
I am hoping that you read this letter with an open mind and, more
importantly, an open heart. As you know, the 1999 constitutional amend
ment had a number of unintended effects, including split families and
making some Tribal members with sufficient blood quantum unable to
pass on Grand Ronde blood to their children. I know firsthand the emo
tional distress this caused a lot of fellow Grand Ronde Tribal members.
I know because I belong to one of those families. I am one of those Tribal
members.
For the past decade, I have devoted a lot of my personal time trying to
correct some of the unexpected side effects of the 1999 amendment. I was
one of the first Tribal members to put in an application to the Enrollment
Requirements Ad Hoc Committee in 2005, and was lucky enough to serve.
We put a lot of time and thought into our recommendations to the Tribal
Council, and although the language may not have been what every one
of us wanted individually, there was a consensus amongst a very diverse
and opinionated group of Tribal members.
That is why I believe our recommendation, had it been implemented,
would have helped solve a large portion of the enrollment problems that
continue to hurt our Tribe since 1999. Sadly, the major parts of our rec
ommendation failed in the 2008 constitutional election. A clear majority
of Tribal members agreed with them as evidenced by the vote totals, just
not the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution.
We are now looking at another constitutional election. I can see that
the language council has put forth for a vote is not identical to the Ad
Hoc Committee's recommendation, but still solves the same problems
we saw. That said, I am urging you to register and vote in the upcoming
constitutional election, and to please vote "yes."
I think the language is fair, equitable and will come at little cost to many
of the services we as Tribal members receive. Furthermore, it would end
a lot of heartache in some of our Tribal families, and opens up a lifetime
of opportunity for many of our Tribal children and youth, many of whom
should be members of this Tribe.
Diana Norton
Roll 2599
Dear Tribal members:
My name is Wesley "Buddy" West. I had the honor of serving you on
Tribal Council years ago. Thank you to all who supported me in my re
election bid this summer.
Though I did not get elected, that doesn't mean my goals as a potential
council member get abandoned. One of those is finally putting our enroll
ment problems to rest. I am writing this letter in hope that you will join
me in voting "yes" on the upcoming constitutional election. The problem
has been going on long enough and we are finally being given the chance
to solve it.
I am not writing this to gain votes, because elections aren't for another
year. Nor am I writing this because my family will somehow benefit.
Many of us have ancestors on the Restoration Roll, so we aren't affected
one way or the other. But I do believe that passing this amendment is the
right thing to do.
People have their issues with some of the language and that is under
standable. Many people it seems are concerned with the roll being opened
up too much and we'll be flooded with too many new Tribal members. But I
do believe that is why this proposal includes a cap on the number of people
who can enroll every year. So any notions about the "floodgates" opening
and our Tribe being sucked dry of resources are hogwash. The language
on the cap is meant to specifically to stop that.
I do not expect all of our enrollment problems to be solved by this amend
ment. There will still be future issues we have to contend with, like dimin
ishing blood quantum. But what we are voting on right now deals with the
unintended consequences of the 1999 amendment, like split families and
blood being passed on inconsistently. It also respects the council's goals
in 1999 of being able to control Tribal population growth.
Yes, I can see that people are hung up on whether to split up the votes
into four or five or whatever. My question is the last time they did that
with a constitutional amendment, how did that work out? Not so good as
I recall. Not much changed.
Really, what is there not to like about this amendment? I am voting
"yes" and hope you'll do too.
Wesley West
Roll 842