16 NOVEMBER 1, 201 1
Smoke Signals
QGK3K3
Dear fellow Tribal members:
As I'm sure many of you already know, the Tribe is currently conducting
an election to amend the Tribal Constitution with regard to the enrollment
requirements. Although I am pleased that Tribal Council has taken the
initiative to try and resolve some of the enrollment issues, I must admit
that I do have some concerns with Tribal Council's approach.
Bundled Amendments: There are four amendments to the current
enrollment requirements being proposed. Due to varying impacts of
each proposed amendment and the right that each Tribal member has to
hisher individual opinion, my belief is that the four amendments should
be separated into four votes thus giving Tribal members the right to
exercise their opinions on each of the amendments. Instead, the decision
was made to allow only one vote for the four proposed amendments. As
a concerned Tribal member, this decision has limited my right to voice
my opinions in each of the four proposed amendments.
Change to the definition of Grand Ronde blood: The proposed
change would allow one to use "any roll or record of Grand Ronde mem
bers prepared by the Department of Interior or the Tribe prior to or since
the effective date of the Tribal Constitution" to prove their Tribal lineage.
My concern is not necessarily the proposed change of the definition but
rather the accuracy of the "rolls or records" that one would be allowed
to use. With the emotions, heartache and turmoil that come with disen
rollment, I don't understand why we would put ourselves in a position
to later disenroll members who potentially proved their Tribal lineage
from inaccurate "rolls or records." Tribal Council has already voted to
move forward with an audit of the membership rolls. To proceed with
anything prior to the audit, in my opinion, is putting the cart before the
horse.
Fairness: I've read and heard from various Tribal members that to be
fair, Tribal members should vote "yes" on the proposed amendments. I
have to disagree, at least with regard to one of the proposed amendments.
As part of the bundled amendments, there is one clause that would limit
the number of persons accepted as members of the Tribe each year. The
limit would be no less than 2 percent and no more than 5 percent of
enrolled members. My question is how "fair" is it to make somebody who
meets all enrollment requirements wait (potentially years) to become
enrolled? In my opinion, anyone who meets the enrollment requirements
should be able to enroll with no limitations on the length of time they
have to wait. I do understand the intent of this clause and I feel it would
be beneficial for planning purposes, but let's be honest, it is not fair.
Long-term Impacts: While I feel I am well-versed in this upcoming
election, I have yet to hear about the long-term impacts. I know, if passed,
there will be individuals immediately eligible for enrollment. I know
that Tribal Council will have to make immediate amendments to the
Enrollment Ordinance. I also know that budgets (maybe as soon as the
2012 budget) will be impacted by these changes. What I don't know is
how the Tribe will be impacted 10, 20 or 30 years down the road. Or even
more importantly, seven generations down the road. I don't remember
our Tribal leadership telling us in 1999 that, if the amendments pass,
it will create "split families." However, we did know about the immedi
ate impacts of our decision in 1999. If the long-term impacts had been
a focus, I believe the outcome may have been different.
In closing, I will say that there is no doubt in my mind that as a result
of the constitutional amendments of 1999, enrollment issues need to be
addressed. It seems that the current members of Tribal Council are com
mitted to enrollment and are working hard to find ways to help those who
rightfully belong on the Tribal membership rolls. Although I am thank
ful that Tribal Council recognizes the need to work on enrollment, I am
disappointed in their most recent approach.
Thank you for your time,
Toby McClary
Roll 1471
Dear Smoke Signals:
I will be voting "no" on the Constitutional Amendment Election. My
main reason for voting "no" is because our Tribal leaders have chosen to
put all of the proposed changes to our Constitution into one amendment,
one vote.
In 2008, Tribal voters were able to express their opinion by being able
to vote on each proposed change separately.
Some of our Tribal leaders feel the 2008 election was a failure because
all proposed changes did not pass. However, the election was a success
because Tribal voters had an opportunity to vote on each proposed change
as they saw fit.
I will not be persuaded to vote for the bundled amendment when I only
agree with one of the proposed changes and that proposed change is to
remove the requirement to have a parent on a Tribal roll at the time of
the applicant's birth and at the time a person applies.
Andrea Knight
Roll 1284
Dear Tribal members:
I imagine you'll see a number of negative letters in this issue of Smoke
Signals regarding the upcoming constitutional amendment asking you to
vote "no." Those letters will make ominous statements about "problems"
and "negative impacts" of the amendment without providing any details
or facts about those things.
I ask you to demand proof from people attacking this constitutional
amendment before you accept such statements as truth. I'm supporting
the amendment because after much reflection and analysis I'm convinced
it provides a fair and equitable path to Tribal citizenship for all Tribal
members and their descendants.
Here are some further facts about the amendment:
There are no "floodgates." The use of this term is a scare tactic. The
fact is that there have only been a few hundred applicants denied since
1999 who would be eligible to enroll. Furthermore, the enrollment cap
ensures that only 2 percent to 5 percent can enroll in any given year.
There is little financial impact on Member Services andor per capita.
While the analysis provided in the recent Tilixam Wawa showed a small
impact, the analysis forgot to include the additional funding we'll receive
from federal programs for the increase in Tribal population. Nor did it
take into consideration that many of the people who will be able to enroll
are children. Children don't have an impact on housing, Elders pension
or most Member Services programs.
The definition of Grand Ronde blood is nearly identical to the defini
tion the Tribe used from 1984-99. After our Restoration, many Tribal
members, including myself, enrolled under a definition that included "all
Indian blood" from "any roll or record" of Grand Ronde membership. That
changed in 1999. Shouldn't we have the same definition for all Tribal
members?
Thank you for reading my perspective on the constitutional amendment.
And thank you for asking for those who attack this amendment to prove
it.
Bryan Mercier
Roll 1357
Dear Tribal membership:
I have heard a lot of comments on the upcoming election regarding the
enrollment amendment, so I thought it was time to voice my opinion on
the proposed amendment.
In reading the letters lately in Smoke Signals, I have to question, are
people voting to address their own individual needs or are they really
looking at what is best for the whole Tribe? It should and I hope people
are voting with the entire membership in mind.
Regardless of what side of the vote you are on, everyone should vote "no"
in the upcoming election simply because of the unresolved issues that this
amendment doesn't address and the lack of education to the membership.
During the educational meetings, members have asked several questions
that nobody has the answers for.
This only shows what I already knew and that is that this amendment
was put together with very little thought as to how it would actually be
implemented. People always need to remember the saying "be careful what
you wish for." Don't make your situation worse by an uneducated vote.
Here are some of the unresolved questions and issues that I have con
cerning the proposed amendment:
1. How can we vote to have a cap on enrollment, but no one knows what
that cap will be from year to year? That will make planning and budget
ing impossible for both staff and Council.
2. I believe the proposed definition of "Grand Ronde blood" was chosen
out of about three or four different definitions because it was meant just
to help certain people and families. Again we should be looking at the
impact on the entire membership, not just a select few.
3. I believe the proposed relinquishment language is not really about
relinquishment at all, but was added to the "package" because it was
necessary to get at least five votes on Council to approve the proposed
amendment and get something out the door. It is insulting to ask the
membership to vote on an issue they overwhelmingly spoke on last
time.
4. The proposed language for "parent on the roll" is by far the most widely
supported portion of this package, and therefore will suffer the most
when this amendment fails as I believe it will. It is my belief that all nine
Council members agree with the amendment as it pertains to "parent
on the roll."
Therefore, I ask the question as to why could it not have stood alone and
had a real chance to pass? '
I ask for your "no" vote on the upcoming proposed amendment. Enroll
ment issues should be about Grand Ronde People being enrolled as Grand
Ronde Tribal members, not about political or personal agendas.
Reyn Leno
Roll 453
Need scholarship help?
Are you looking for scholarships and don't know where to start? Do
you need assistance with your scholarship applications andor personal
statements? If so, contact the Tribal Scholarship Office at 1-800-422-0232,
ext. 1345, or e-mail luhui.whitebeargrandronde.org. B