Sunday, March 25, 2012

How The Pechanga Tribal Council Violated Their Own Constitution; Their Actions Should Lead to A Halt in Their Recognition

This is a repost of a blog from last year:

Our cousin A’amokat was nice enough to put together a post of how the Pechanga Tribal Council, led by Mark Macarro has violated the Tribal Constitution.

Here are some examples of violations of the Pechanga tribe's constitution and bylaws as relating to the disenrollments and the moratorium.

1. The Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians constitution and bylaws, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, states under Article II (membership):

"The membership enrollment will be opened the first month of each year by the Band's Enrollment Committee"

Violation: The moratorium on new adult tribal members because the constitution and bylaws does stipulate open enrollment is the first month of each year.

Under Article VIII (meetings):

"The simple majority of members present shall rule and decide in all matters of government and business of the Band, unless stipulated otherwise in these Bylaws."

Violation: The tribal council allowed the enrollment committee in 2006 to disenroll the Hunters after the petition to outlaw disenrollment was passed into law by the people in 2005. The people are the final authority in matters of who is enrolled and who is disenrolled, not the enrollment committee, because the Band's constitution and bylaws does not state the enrollment committee has this authority.

Under Article V:

"It shall be the duty of all elected officials of the Band to uphold and enforce the Constitution, Bylaws, and ordinances of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians; and, also, uphold the individual rights of each member without malice or prejudice."

Violation 1: Allowing people who started the disenrollment challenges of disenrollees in both 2004 and 2006 to rule on the disenrollment cases of the disenrollees and who were close relatives of key witnesses against them shows malice and prejudice against tribal members.

Violation 2: The tribal council did not uphold and enforce the law that outlawed disenrollments that was passed in 2005 by allowing the Hunters to be disenrolled in 2006.

There is tribal legal precedent regarding enrollment issues that the enrollment committee is not the final authority in these matters.

In 1986, after the lineal descendants of Rose Murphy including sitting tribal councilman Russell “Butch” Murphy, were turned down for tribal membership, the people voted to overrule the committee to take them in as tribal members.

So the claim in the March 2006 letter from the tribal council to the general membership, just two days before the Hunters were disenrolled, that the people could not question or interrupt the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment is flat out not true and Russell Butch Murphy is living proof this is the case!

Here are some examples of violations of the Pechanga tribe's constitution and bylaws as relating to the disenrollments and the moratorium.

1. The Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians constitution and bylaws, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, states under Article II (membership):

"The membership enrollment will be opened the first month of each year by the Band's Enrollment Committee"

Violation: The moratorium on new adult tribal members because the constitution and bylaws does stipulate open enrollment is the first month of each year.

Under Article VIII (meetings):

"The simple majority of members present shall rule and decide in all matters of government and business of the Band, unless stipulated otherwise in these Bylaws."

Violation: The tribal council allowed the enrollment committee in 2006 to disenroll the Hunters after the petition to outlaw disenrollment was passed into law by the people in 2005. The people are the final authority in matters of who is enrolled and who is disenrolled, not the enrollment committee, because the Band's constitution and bylaws does not state the enrollment committee has this authority.

Under Article V:

"It shall be the duty of all elected officials of the Band to uphold and enforce the Constitution, Bylaws, and ordinances of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians; and, also, uphold the individual rights of each member without malice or prejudice."
Violation 1: Allowing people who started the disenrollment challenges of disenrollees in both 2004 and 2006 to rule on the disenrollment cases of the disenrollees and who were close relatives of key witnesses against them shows malice and prejudice against tribal members.

Violation 2: The tribal council did not uphold and enforce the law that outlawed disenrollments that was passed in 2005 by allowing the Hunters to be disenrolled in 2006.

There is tribal legal precedent regarding enrollment issues that the enrollment committee is not the final authority in these matters.

In 1986, after the lineal descendants of Rose Murphy including sitting tribal councilman Russell Butch Murphy, were turned down for tribal membership, the people voted to overrule the committee to take them in as tribal members.

So the claim in the March 2006 letter from the tribal council to the general membership, just two days before the Hunters were disenrolled, that the people could not question or interrupt the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment is flat out not true and Russell Butch Murphy is living proof this is the case!
Post a Comment