Smoke Signals 17
NOVEMBER 1,2011
Dear Tribal members:
We would like to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves. We are a
group of dedicated Tribal members from all walks of life. Many of us are
part of those "split families" who you may have read or heard about. Also,
a number of us are family to that large group of children who were kicked
out of the Tribe in recent years.
As you can tell, the constitutional amendment of 1999 had a very adverse
and negative impact on many of our lives. Our goal is to correct that.
To be completely honest, we don't disagree with the intent of 1999
constitutional amendment. Like any other Tribe, government, business,
organization or community, you must grow at a rate you can cope with and
administrate. We understand fully why the 1999 amendment was brought
forth for a vote of the membership.
However, like any major decision, there are always unintended conse
quences. In our case, the new requirements for enrollment divided our
families, leaving some of our children able to enjoy life as Tribal members,
and some of their siblings unable. We believe this scenario to be very un
just, and if many of you were in the same situation, you would probably
feel the same way.
Like many of you, we don't want to see the floodgates to our Tribal mem
bership opened. The new proposed amendment does not do that. It corrects
the unfair situation for us and for many other Tribal families. While the
amendment may loosen our requirements a little, it also includes a provi
sion to limit growth so as to be more manageable. So if you are worried
about a flood of new Tribal members and huge drain on services like per
capita, think again.
The question we ask then is, if something costs very little to you, but
would make a world of difference in the lives of others, would open up nu
merous educational and financial opportunities for the next generation of
Tribal children, what possible reasons could somebody have to not support
that? We can't think of any.
We would like to see the new amendment pass. It is the right thing to
do. It corrects a situation without putting the Tribe as risk and having
little impact on everybody else.
Please join us in voting "yes" on the 2011 constitutional amendment.
Hayu Masi
Dee Edwards Stephanie Boteilho
Roll 2929 Roll 2621
Dell Dickison Michelle Cooper
Roll 3139 Kyle Dickison
Marta Clifford Roll 3141
Roll 3907 Eli Dickison
Monty Parazoo Roll 3140
Roll 2620 Sarah Guinard
Wendy Weston Roll 4136
Roll 2982 Shannon Green
Carrie Hawkins Roll 4298
Becky Weston Travis Parazoo
Roll 2981 Roll 3185
Jennifer O'Neal Michael Parazoo
Roll 4050 Roll 4299
Julie Stokes
Roll 4166
Dear Tribal members:
My name is Steven Soderberg. I speak out once in a while, and this is
just the second letter I've written to Smoke Signals. But right now the
time seems right to say something.
I've now sat through one of those informational meetings on the en
rollment amendment. The presentations they have given us are pretty
straightforward and easy to understand. Members asked some good ques
tions, and I feel staff and Tribal Council have done their best to answer
them.
Facebook is loaded with lots of conversation on this topic. Some of it has
gotten downright ugly, and I am not sure anybody has changed their minds.
I think a lot of people have had their minds made up for years now.
Although I haven't been asked, I would like to share my own view of the
matter. In 1999, we had a constitutional amendment which Tribal Council
saw as necessary because they were worried about the Tribe growing too
quickly. That amendment had some effects that were underestimated.
Now we've got these odd enrollment situations, where you have the split
families and the people who suddenly can't pass on their blood because of
when they or an ancestor were enrolled. None of these situations are fair,
but they've existed and we've known about them for 12 years.
The amendment before us fixes those problems, but doesn't open up the
rolls too much. In reading Facebook it seems like a lot of people are worried
about the "flood" of people. In fact I've read some "sky is falling" comments
about how our Tribe is going to go broke and what not. I don't understand
this because the amendment puts a limit on growth, plus during the last
amendment three years ago we were informed only 300 or so new people
would be able to enroll. I guess people will believe whatever they want,
or those who want this to fail will say whatever it takes.
The information we've been given seems unbiased and reasonable. I
think if we want to undo some of the 1999 amendment, we have to accept
that doing this will loosen our requirements and allow more people to
enroll. I don't think you can correct some of the problems caused by the
1999 act without opening the door a little, so I don't see why people who
are making a big deal about it are acting as if there is some sort of magical
alternative. I don't think there is.
I just think if you have a parent who is a Grand Ronde Tribal member and
their blood quantum when passed to you is at least 11 6th, you should be
able to enroll. It should be that simple. Right now, it's not. When it comes
to whether or not our descendants can enroll, not all Grand Ronde Tribal
members are equal. Not according to our present requirements.
I am voting "yes" because it is the right thing to do. We should all be
equals in this Tribe.
Steven Soderberg
Roll 1415
Dear Tribal members:
Let me begin by saying I felt a compelling need to let you know my
opinion on the upcoming constitutional election on enrollment. I would
like to make several points.
Probably every Tribal member has noticed that per capita isn't what
it used to be. There are numerous reasons for that, but regardless the
amount has gotten progressively lower. I have always believed that per
capita should be a high priority and 45 percent at the minimum 25 per
cent as it is the only benefit this Tribe provides that is equal for each and
every Tribal member, regardless of your age, where you live and, most
important of all, especially in Grand Ronde, your last name. Lastly, per
capita, along with the Tribal health plan, is one of the few benefits we give
to every Tribal member.
When Council was debating how to proceed with the constitutional
amendment, there were several Council members who had issues with
changing the definition of Grand Ronde blood, which is one of the major
changes. I do not understand why, as the proposal would make how Grand
Ronde blood gets passed on equal for everybody. It seems weird that any
Indian person would object to equality given our struggles historically, but
truth is always stranger than fiction and that seems doubly true when it
comes to Tribal politics. There appeared to be a lot of support for the "par
ent on the roll" language, which according to statistics provided us during
the 2008 language would open up the rolls and allow five times as many
new people to enroll. The exact numbers if anybody is interested was 249
new enrollees for "parent on the roll" changes, and 49 for the proposed
definition of Grand Ronde blood. That is a ratio of 5 to 1.
Both numbers have probably increased since then, but the fact remains
that just changing the "parent on the roll" language alone would mean
hundreds, I repeat hundreds, of new Tribal members eligible to enroll
immediately.
This would have a huge impact on the services we provide, would dras
tically affect our plans for the endowments and probably a reduction in
per capita of several hundred dollars every year permanently from here
on out.
We had to consider this when looking at how to address the enrollment
dilemma and that is one of the main reasons why Council agreed to bundle
the language, including the enrollment "cap," the limit on the number of
people who can enroll every year.
I am writing this because our motivations for bundling the amendments
have been questioned, when in fact the reality is Council agreed to the
bundle to lessen the impact of the "parent on the roll" language, which
would allow hundreds of new enrollees, as opposed to dozens for the new
definition of Grand Ronde blood.
Anybody who believes Council was more worried about the few dozen
people who could enroll with the new definition of Grand Ronde blood as
opposed to the hundreds that would enroll due to changing "parent on
the roll" needs to study a concept called logic and, for that matter, math.
I don't have any immediate family members impacted by this amend
ment. I already have an ancestor on the Restoration Roll, so really, I
don't benefit at all from this amendment, other than knowing that I am
helping to heal some of the damage done by the 1999 amendment. For
me ultimately, this is about righting a wrong, but also doing it in a way
that accounts for the concerns of many Tribal members about opening up
enrollment, which is a legitimate concern.
Who knows when we'll get another chance to put all these issues away.
So I am voting "yes" on this amendment. I don't think you will find a more
balanced solution to our enrollment problems.
Kathleen Tom
Roll 817
Zymlba OueDd ddd gym
Zumba, an easy-to-follow, Latin-inspired and calorie-burning dance
fitness party, is held from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. Monday and Wednesday
in the Tribal gymnasium. The first class is free and $6 thereafter
for drop-ins, or $5 if participants purchase a punch card. For more
information, contact Tribal Recreation Coordinator Alton Butler at
503-879-1369.