Letters to the Editor -- Jan. 1, 2016

Dear Smoke Signals:

As a Tribal member who votes in every election, I do remember many of our current Tribal Council members running on ethics and transparency. When leaders push for the membership having to vote on bundled enrollment proposals, I do have to question the reasoning behind it. Why not just make it easy and separate matters? It seems to me like the most appropriate and honest way to go about it.

Rex D. Haller

Roll #905

Dear fellow Tribal members:

In general, I live a quiet life, respect others and maintain a sense of humor. I love a good debate, and won’t back away from a fight, especially if I see something wrong or unjust.

It was disheartening to open up the Dec. 15 Smoke Signals, cute Christmas cover and all, only to see two letters by Leroy Good and Rosemary Jameson. They are brother and sister, a fact omitted by their letters.

Here is my take on the dueling letters between the Michigan siblings and Councilman Chris Mercier: Council just delayed a constitutional election on enrollment because most didn’t want to leave some families behind. The Goods wanted the proposal to proceed and hate “bundles.” Mercier says what they want is a bundle: parent on the roll at time of birth and parent on the roll at time of application are different requirements. The Goods say Mercier is not truthful and he is besmirching Rosemary’s reputation by disputing her claims. They urge us to seek the truth.

Here I go, on my truth-seeking journey. Please join me:

Mr. Good’s letter on Dec. 15 quoted the last paragraph of the “Sample Ballot Explanation” of the derailed proposal that Mercier only referenced in his Dec. 1 letter. What Leroy did not quote is kind of important: “There is a single amendment proposed. The amendment will change the requirements necessary to qualify as a Grand Ronde Tribal member. Currently an applicant for membership must have fully and unconditionally relinquished membership in another Indian Tribe for five full years and must show all of the following:1/16th or greater Grand Ronde blood, defined as all Indian blood derived from a direct ancestor whose name validly appears on the official Tribal membership roll prepared under the Grand Ronde Restoration Act;born to a parent who was a member of the Tribe at the time of the applicant's birth; andborn to a parent who, unless deceased, is a member of the Grand Ronde Tribe at the time the applicant files an application for enrollment.”

I am not an aspiring lawyer like Mr. Mercier, but based on No. 2 and No. 3 above, it would appear he’s correct. They are different requirements, so yes, as a single amendment that qualifies as a bundle.

Round 1 goes to Mercier.

Mercier refers to the enrollment application checklist that staff and Tribal Council use. Here is what it says, including the boxes to check, verbatim:

“FACTORS:

Direct Ancestor on Restoration Roll          (Y)    (N)

At least 1/16th degree Grand Ronde blood?      (Y)    (N)

Parent enrolled at time of birth?       (Y)    (N)

Parent enrolled at time of application, if living? (Y)    (N) (N/A)

Full/unconditional relinquishment from other Tribe for five full years? (Y)    (N)    (N/A)”

No. 3 and No. 4 on this list appear yet again to be two different requirements. At least that’s what enrollment staff, Tribal attorneys and Tribal Council think. Weird to have that checklist if they don't.

Round 2 goes to Mercier.

Mrs. Jameson claims her words from November 2011 were being twisted, alleging to have never said “parent on the roll at time of birth” and “parent on the roll at time of application” are separate requirements. Here’s what she wrote, relevant parts anyway:

“Dear Tribal members: When we voted on the 1999 enrollment proposal, many of us did not know what we were voting on. We thought we were stopping Tribal jumpers yet instead we were in a sense voting to keep out our own Grand Ronde people. 

“Now we are told the enrollment proposal has three or four changes to our enrollment. However, when you look closely at the proposed amendment changes, there are actually at least seven changes in total: …

2. Eliminate requirement the applicant needs a parent on the roll the year of the applicant's birth; 

3. Eliminate requirement the applicant needs a parent enrolled, unless deceased, at the time the applicant files their application.”

In other words, Rosemary did actually say in November 2011 what in her Dec. 15, 2015, letter she claims she didn’t say.

Round 3 goes to Mercier.

Final score: Mercier 3, Goods 0. “Parent on roll at time of birth’” and “parent on roll at time of application” are two different requirements, making the aborted proposal ... a bundle.

Humor is how I cope with some of these conflicts. But with constitutional amendments, you don’t get much more serious. That is why if there are going to be more letters, how about debating the issues being voted on and not trying to confuse people?

I am hopingsomeone can tell the membership why they think Tribal Council should not try to help all the families hurt by the 1999 enrollment amendment. Cheryle A. Kennedy, Denise Harvey, Jon A. George, Brenda Tuomi and Chris Mercier are doing the right thing: looking for an equitable solution. For that stance alone they are all rock stars in my book and are responding to what the Tribal membership has asked them to do: be fair and equitable in their decision making.

Tracie Meyer

Roll #2776