20
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
S moke S ignals
Enrollment Board statement on recent decision
The Enrollment Board believes it is important for the
membership to understand the issues surrounding our re-
cent dismissal of an earlier disenrollment determination of
a particular family claiming descent from a Treaty signer.
A lot of negative and false information has been published
over the course of this family’s disenrollment process that the
board has been unable to respond to. Now that the process is
completed the board can finally make a statement in support
of the Tribe, the Enrollment Department and the board.
The board believes that it has the responsibility, as the
Enrollment Board and Tribal Elders, to ensure the Tribe
continues as a sovereign nation and to preserve Tribal
identity and culture, of which membership is central. Hon-
oring and recognizing Tribal membership’s exclusive right
to establish and amend the Constitution to determine who
can be a member assures the Tribe’s integrity as a sovereign
nation. The board takes this responsibility very seriously.
The board makes decisions based on the Tribe’s Constitution
without political or personal agendas.
The Tribal Court of Appeals remanded the board’s de-
cision to disenroll this family, and the Tribal Court order
upholding the board’s decision, based solely on non-Tribal
equitable defenses called laches and equitable estoppel. The
Court of Appeals essentially ruled that the Tribe waited too
long to begin disenrolling this family. Neither the Tribe’s
ENROLLMENT BOARD:
Michael Mercier
Robert Schmid
Laura Gleason
Terri Wood
Sharon Hanson
Sharon Freund
Constitution nor the Enrollment Ordinance provide a time
limit on correcting the Tribal roll when someone has been
erroneously enrolled. However, the Court of Appeals still or-
dered the Tribal Court to remand the case back to the board
and ordered the board to dismiss the previous disenrollment
decision. The board dismissed the previous disenrollment
decision, but did so in protest.
The board strongly disagrees with the Court of Appeals
decision because it ignores the real issue which is whether
an individual meets the Constitutional requirements for
membership at the time they are enrolled. The Constitution
clearly lays out the requirements for membership and you
should not be a member of this Tribe if you do not meet the
requirements.
While the board cannot publicly address the specifics of
its determination on disenrollment of this family, the board
can state that the findings of the board and the Tribal Court
as to this family’s eligibility for membership under the Con-
stitution were not overturned. The board’s previous Con-
stitutional determinations still stand and the board stands
behind them.
This has been a long and difficult process for everyone.
Regardless of how people feel about this result, the board
hopes that the Tribe and its members can move forward in
a positive direction.
Margaret Provost: I did not sign on to this
statement because I support the Court of
Appeals’ Decision.