Sunday's General Council meeting at the onset seemed destined to be short. Our program presentation on the Spirit Mountain Community Fund elicited almost no questions. The nominations for the Elders' Committee, the one committee where members are elected by peers and not Tribal Council, went smoothly. We entered Other Business 15 minutes before the lunch hour.
But a new former Council member seems to have 1) learned of the terrible unintended consequences of both the 1999 and 2008 Constitutional elections on amending the membership requirements; or 2) is already looking ahead to the 2010 Tribal Council elections. On Sunday he stepped forth to propose then and there an advisory vote of the General membership on whether to move forward with another Constitutional election on the same subject, but focusing especially on the "parent on the roll" portion of the requirements. At the risk of sounding a little bit skeptical, the whole stunt rang of electioneering, because I served on Council with this individual and he was hardly a champion of this issue. At least two others made the same observation on the record Sunday. I would not be surprised if some others thought it.
That individual aside, it sparked debate on the topic, and who knows, maybe even hope. This issue has become dormant. But is it an issue that will every really die? I don't think so. Anyway, a few people rightly observed that focusing on only one portion of the enrollment requirements didn't seem to make much sense as at least in regards to split families it would help some but not all. There was also still the issue of the definition of Grand Ronde blood.
The vote, if you could call it that, went something like 25 to 5, with a number of people present obviously not voting as there was more than 30, and with several people stepping up to clarify that their "no" votes weren't opposed to revisiting the issue, but they opposed focusing just on the one section. Even with what I felt like healthy discussion, there had to be a good degree of confusion still on the subject even as the conversation waned.
Looking back, I wouldn't blame anybody if they asked if 25 votes at a General Council meeting was the new standard necessary for Council action.
About Grand Ronde.
1 comment:
Chris:
Thanks for speaking out about the "former council member" and his newly-found interest in enrollment. Not only are his motives suspect, but my mom ascertained at the meeting that he is interested only in a solution to part of the problem--parent on the roll at time of birth. What about the other disenrolled and denied people? Shall we just leave them hanging? If so, we shall still have a divided and unhappy tribe.
Post a Comment