Subscribe to Original Pechanga

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Thursday, September 16, 2010

How Did the Pechanga Tribal Council Act Outside Our Constitution

I get that question asked a lot. And since Washington DC is interested this week (The Executive Office of the President of the United States checked the blog twice this week) and he-who-lied-to Congress (Mark Macarro) is there now, I thought it would be a good idea to bring this post forward. Please take a look at the links, as they help fill in more to the Pechanga Indian Termination Acts.

In the Pechanga Tribal Council's Memo to the General Membership Re: the Petition Dated June 19, 2005,

The memo to the tribal members cites the Constitution as providing the Council with the "duty to uphold the Constitution, Bylaws and ordinances", but the memo failed to quote the Constitution and Bylaws, Article III which states: "The simple majority (of the general membership)...shall rule and decide in all matters of government and business of the Band." It's clear that Article III recognizes the General Membership's ultimate authority to make decisions regarding all government matters- including enrollment and disenrollment issues. The General Membership's authority and powers trumps those of the Enrollment Committee and the Council in all matters.

The Enrollment Committee was NEVER granted ultimate authority to trump actions of the General Membership regarding enrollment and disenrollment. By custom and tradition, the Enrollment Committee has always taken its directives from the General Membership, and the General Membership has always enjoyed and exercised its authority as the ultimate decision maker on such matters .

Here are several major issues that illustrate this point:

A. The General Membership approved 2 Enrollment Applications (the first in 1979 and the 2nd in 1996). Although the Enrollment Committees drafted each, changes were made by the General Membership and the ultimate approval of each was via votes of the General Membership. The Enrollment Committee did not then nor do they now have sole discretion or authority in enrollment and disenrollment issues.

B. The General Membership, not the Enrollment Committee, adopted the Murphys into the tribe. In fact, the Enrollment Committee recognized that it did not have the authority to "adopt" the Murphys as members. Therefore, the issue was presented to the General Mempership which was and is the ultimate decider on enrollment and disenrollment issues.

C. The moritoriums on processing enrollment applications were approved by the General Membership. The processing of enrollment applications is the basic duty of the Enrollment Committee. Even though this is so, the Enrollment Committee could not institute a moritorium on its own. The moritoriums had to be discussed, voted on and passed by the ultimate decision-maker in enrollment and disenrollment issues- the General Membership.
Staying with the moritorium issue for a bit, if you apply the reasoning expressed by the Tribal Council in the March 14, 2006 letter, the moritoriums would be in conflict with the Constitution's membership requirements (just as they claim portions of the Petition dated June 19, 2005 are), were/are illegal, and should be subject to the same fate as those provisions of the Petiton, i.e. the moritorium should be lifted.

D. The General Membership, not the Enrollment Committee, voted on and enacted the Disenrollment Procedures contrary to the position stated in the Tribal Council's memo, the examples provided above clearly illustrate that the Enrollment Committee does not enjoy ultimate decision making authority or sole discretion in issues concerning enrollment or disenrollment. The Enrollment Committee's authority is clearly derived from the General Membership and the Enrollment Committee exists and serves at the pleasure of the General Membership. The General Membership can, through the authority cited in Article III, and in accordance with custom and tradition, take actions to interrupt, halt, or even disband the Enrollment Committee.

Finally, IF the Mark Macarro-led Tribal Council's action was such a righteous one and was indeed intended to protect the integrity of the Constitution, why did they wait 4 1/2 months to notify the General Membership? Shouldn't they have made the decision right away?
Does the Tribal Council IN FACT have the ability to overrule the will of the people? Or does controlling who votes by eliminating 25% of voters and keeping another 10% from gaining the vote have an impact in how the tribe is run?

More HERE HERE HERE

Comments please

12 comments:

'aamokat said...

What the trial council claimed in its March 14, 2006 letter to the General Membership to notify everyone that we the Hunters were not included in the new law outlawing disenrollment, by the way just two days before we got our Record of Decision on March 16, 2006 informing us we were kicked out of the tribe, was that the General Membership, due to tribal legal precedant, could not interrupt or question the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment.

The council's letter also stated that the petition didn't change the membership requirments.

But we maintain that we meet the requirments but that biased partial people on the enrollment committee, who were closely related to people who submitted statements against our tribal membership and who on several occasions were heard saying that it didn't matter what documentation the Hunters turned in that we were getting disenrolled anyway, were still allowed to rule on our case and as they said we were disenrolled anyway. Which is a violation of the equal protection clause under Article V in the Band's constitution and bylaws forbidding malice or predjudice of tribal members.

That these biased impartial people ignored every piece of evidence that supported our tribal membership that was at least 90 percent in our favor in favor of hearsay presented by their relatives and their supporters.

But back to whether the General Membership is the final authority or not regarding enrollment or disenrollment:

Well in April 1986, after the enrollment committee had denied enrollment for the Murphy family, the General Membership voted to overrule the enrollment committee and to take the Murphys in as tribal members.


So the only tribal legal precedent is that the General Membership is the final authority on matters of enrollment and disenrollment and sitting councilman Russell Butch Murphy is living proof that is the case!

So the tribal council lied in March 2006 when they claimed the General Membership couldn't stop our disenrollments.

Luiseno said...

If General Membership's authority and powers trumps those of the Enrollment Committee and the Council in all matters. And the General Membership is the final authority regarding enrollment or disenrollment. Then I concur that since my enrollment in the Tribe is a life long enrollment, then I am still legitimately enrolled in the Tribe, and entitled to vote and attend meeting, etc. It dose not matter if I receive or do not a check each month. The General Membership voted to STOP MY DISENROLLMENT , and it does not matter what the enrollment committee has said because "General Membership's authority and powers trumps those of the Enrollment Committee and the Council".

I have said this and I repeat it again, we need to show up in force next election and DEMAND OUR RIGHT TO VOTE . Voting the corrupt people out of office.

We have enough people that we could do this in a non-violent manor, and no outside people can interfere because it is an internal matter.

I believe this could be done peacefully.

'aamokat said...

My enrollment card says, "enrolled member of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, Pechanga Reservation Riverside County, California."

So I was never disenrolled from the Temecula Band so maybe we could vote.

Luiseno said...

The point is, is that they had no authority to disenroll us. The General Membership removed this process from Tribal Law, and voted to keep us in the Tribe. What they have said (the enrollment committee and the council) to us was illegal and means nothing. The letters we received telling us we were disenrolled are just worthless pieces of paper, and hold just about the same weight as if they gave us letters of decision stating that we were from Mars.

General Membership's authority and powers trumps those of the Enrollment Committee and the Council in all matters. And the General Membership is the final authority regarding enrollment or disenrollment. The General Membership voted to REMOVED the disenrollment process from law, and to keep us in the Tribe.

Anonymous said...

What happened then if general membership trumps enrollment and council?

Thats a good question?

Does general membership trump bylaws and constitution?

ANSWER PLEASE?

'aamokat said...

The constitution and bylaws would have to be changed by the General Membership which requires a 2/3 vote of the number of tribal members who voted in the last election.

So no technically the membership doesn't trump the constitution and bylaws.

But in practice, and the moratorium is an example, they have done so because the constitution and bylaws says that the general membership is the final authortiy in all matters of tribal government and business except as stipulated in the bylaws.

And it is stiputlated under Article II, membership, that the enrollment is to be opened by the enrollment committee the first month of each year.

So the moratorium should be declared unconstitutional and thrown out on that basis.

By the way, regarding enrolling and disenrolling, nowhere in the constitution and bylaws does it say that the enrollment committee is the final authority on these issues.

So the general membership was within its authority to end disenrollment as a part of tribal law, which they did in 2005, and they were within their authority to stop the disenrollment of the Hunters at that time.

So the disenrollment of the Hunters was unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

So the moratorium should be declared unconstitutional and thrown out on that basis.


SO WHO IS THE JUDGE OR TRIBAL AUTHORITY TO OVER TURN IT OR THROW IT OUT?

Luiseno said...

SO WHO IS THE JUDGE OR TRIBAL AUTHORITY TO OVER TURN IT OR THROW IT OUT?

Mark M............ so good luck on that one :-(

It's a shame when the very people who you are to turn to for justice, are the same ones who have perpetuated the injustice to you. This is how I felt to have those who have instigated your disenrollment, be the ones who were to stand in judgment of you. It was like having a rape victim be judged my the person who raped you.

Anonymous said...

FOLLOW the money. Who gained the most from the $300 MILLION stolen from the Apish and Hunter family. WHO gains if the Tosobols don't get in?
FOLLOW the votes?

'aamokat said...

I would like to ask Pechanga councilman Russell Butch Murphy if, while on the council, he voted to ignore the wishes of the people who voted to end all disenrollments in 2005 if he truly believes that the general membership cannot interrupt or question the actions of the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment.

Because he knows, I know, and everyone else knows that in 1986, after the enrollment committee turned down his application for enrollment, that the general membership voted to overturn the committee's decision to not enroll him.

So Butch if you believe the general membership cannot question or interrupt the actions of the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment, which is what the council claimed in its 2006 letter to the general membership informing them the the Hunters were not included in the new law outlawing disenrollment, then what are you doing in the tribe today let alone sitting on the tribal council?

creeper said...

WHAT IS BUTCH DOING??????????Russel Butch Murphy is making sure that there will be no more Original
Temecula Indians in the Band to challenge his falsified papers.
Did I hit the nail on the head,Butch ?
Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

SORRY ASS BITCH MURPHY!!!!!!WHITE CASH COW!!!!