Michael A. Langley

The biggest topic and the most difficult considering the emotional impacts to identity, so why not come first out of the gate. I promised more writing in the Tilixam Wawa Candidates Statements, so this is number two of this summer’s series (counting the Wawa). While I am not going to talk about this topic in a way you might expect, I do feel it is important to first discuss my own six-year public record and Tribal Council’s decisions for those not aware. In fact, this very blog site you are now reading should have the date of original posting noted. If this is in print, that site is 4michael-langley.com

When first reviewing our enrollment ordinance, policy, and practices, nothing disturbed me more than what I read in the 2012 Enrollment Audit. I have written about this before, so I will not do so now, but please read my other pieces. At the end of my first year and during the September 26, 2018, Tribal Council meeting, I first discussed the limitations of the 2012 Audit. It was very important to me that the members fully understood the status of the files.

Smoke Signals did a piece in an 8/29/2019 article. That article did a good job outlining the steps we had taken and can be read here https://www.smokesignals.org/articles/2019/08/29/tribal-council-2012-enrollment-audit-cannot-be-relied-on-regarding-blood-quantum/ We could and did take what we knew to the Tribal Members through Special Editions to the Tilixam Wawa complete with comparisons, examples, and numbers. As noted in the article, an Advisory Vote banning disenrollment was on that summers ballot, and Tribal Members could request the 2012 Audit for themselves for the first time. We also had live informational sessions doing the same. We acted under the principle of doing no harm, and continued enrolling people with staff doing extra work to ensure that even if there was a potential blood quantum question, the difference would not be at the amount that would preclude an individual to be enrolled.

That worked until it became clear that the errors were much more complicated due to the interconnectedness of families and the vastness of the problem. Every Tribal Council Member has been communicating the status of our files since that awareness. We have been fully united, agreeing to inform and work with folks to a solution that avoided catastrophe. However, the entirety of the messages were not being heard. The false sense of security the 2012 Enrollment Audit gave some Members was clearly evident. Despite all of us saying so, folks clearly thought it was other families, not their own.

So, assessing where we felt the Members were, it became a higher priority to ask you all for a Constitutional Amendment for the Banning of Disenrollment. We felt this was necessary in order to have a safe conversation without the threat of disenrollment and to easily find a path forward. We were united in this effort, and, thankfully, it passed.

Well, even the removal of that threat was not enough to overcome the fear of losing tribal identity. When staff came to us with the idea of a moratorium (or pause) on enrollment, we agreed to take the idea to the Members. The known blood quantum questions were now identified in around 80% of our files. A large number of those traced back to the beginning of the reservation era when records were most inaccurate. Some of these blood quantum numbers were and are inconsistent with those ancestor’s own recorded testimony. Some files had blood quantum resolutions but no supporting documentation. Some had blood quantum adjustments with no resolution. Some were just mathematically wrong and easier to address. It’s a melting pot of errors. What is a Tribal Council to do to uphold our Constitution and our dual oath to it and the Members? How do we do so while holding to what we all agree on as an overriding principle to do no harm?

The simplest solution would be to gain support for a Constitutional Amendment moving to enroll based on lineal descent instead of on the basis of blood quantum. That in itself would make the blood quantum issues irrelevant. Another simple solution is some form of 4/4 blood quantum assigned based on either a date or an actual roll. This would accomplish the same thing. However, Constitutional Amendments are never simple.

Passing a Constitutional Amendment is very difficult and rarely successful. It takes a super majority of 67%, or 2/3 of our voting members, to agree. It was always a concern that while it seems logical to address our enrollment issues in one of these ways, there was a huge risk that it would not pass, and we would still be at square one. While I always value minimizing risk with a Plan B, we went all-in on either lineal or direct descendants or a 4/4 option based on a date or roll. It was our understanding that we needed this to continue to enroll people. It was not until that first meeting this Spring that something former Tribal Council Member Jack Giffen said stuck with me. He said Tribal Council has the authority to pass a resolution accepting the files “As Is”. So, I asked later if it was true, Tribal Council could just pass a resolution? The answer was yes, we had that authority, and not only did we have the authority, it had been done before.

As the meetings progressed, it started to become clear that folks were not coming together on a single solution. While the meetings were informative, we consistently heard that many people felt rushed into a decision. Some of the information was confusing even to myself, and I am immersed in this stuff. For example, while most people were talking of a lineal descent method for enrollment, the numbers in the graphs were for the direct descent method. They sound the same, but they are not. The lineal method includes all down-line descendents while direct only includes a single generation. That is a big difference and explains why my mathematical gut instinct kept saying the numbers were wrong. So, instead of an additional 2000 Members, it is much more if lineal is chosen. Think of the difference this way. Direct is an 85 year old at 1/16 blood adding their 65 year old son and not his son’s 43 year old daughter, her 21 year old son, and his newborn. Lineal includes all of the generations, not merely the first generation. This very simple example also only assumes one child for every generation, which is unlikely.

One of the suggestions was limiting the numbers enrolled every year. Even using the simple 2000 additional Members becoming eligible, a limit of 150 per year would take over 13 years to fully enroll the newly eligible. Meanwhile, we would still have the others who would be eligible anyway. Do they count in those limitations? Who and how do we decide on the 150? How does that feel to be left out when a sibling may be enrolled? Is it simply first come, first served, and too bad if you are someone who has to wait until year 13? Is that in itself not harmful? Should we temporarily increase staff, and what would be the targeted number to land on as the right amount? I like the temporary staff increase route myself.

None of our discussions on enrollment changes addressed financial impacts or any kind of planning. While I have a plan on how we can increase our rolls while delivering some kind of equivalent in benefits for folks, there are still many discussions to have before we get people on the same page or at least a page that 67% can agree to read and act on together. Perhaps that financial discussion will help. I intend on writing more about it in this summer series and believe it helps address those folks with concerns about impacts. We need some of them to get us over the thresshold.

So, if you are still with me after rehashing how we got here to this now, and if there is no pause on enrollment, what are we as Tribal Council to do? My professional experience is to think about risks. Previous political seasons had some very strict Constitutionalists play a large part in the discussions. What is it that we can do now to keep enrolling tribal members without those enrollments being questioned by a future Tribal Council or General Council? Especially in light that we have kept enrolling despite awareness of the prevalence of these situations.

The twin duties of our oath to the Constitution and to the Members are somewhat at odds in this enrollment fiasco. That makes us very uneasy. I see another option to move forward so that we can justify the continued enrollment. The easiest path is a resolution that accepts the files “As Is” as Jack suggested, with a slight modification. Essentially, an ancestor’s blood quantum will remain at the highest currently recorded by resolution. This does no harm to our Tribal Members whose blood quantum was questioned. However, what of those folks who share the same biological ancestor only with a lower recorded blood quantum (which is even sometimes in agreement with the genealogist’s work)? If it is fairness, equity, and no harm we desire, then it must also be true that a single ancestor should be recorded at the current highest blood quantum and that amount should be the same for all families who tie back to that same biological ancestor. Otherwise, we will always have this conspiratorial question and the divisive feelings that come with it. Why are some families treated differently and preferentially over others? We don’t need that, either. It isn’t anyone’s fault. It is simply a situation in need of a well considered and wellness centered response.

I hope to have the full support of Tribal Council and the Members. There is no easy way through this. This will address a large portion of the questions in our files. It will not address others. This does not mean we abandon our efforts for some kind of Constitutional Amendment regarding enrollment. It is merely a Plan B and gives us time to bring us all together. This makes it clear and transparent the justification for the current Tribal Council continuation of enrolling Members. The original purpose behind the pause was for the Members to help with a solution. This is something that came from that communication. As I learned, Tribal Council has the authority to take this action, and I believe it fulfills our Constitutional duty while operating in a transparent way. The justification will be part of the resolution and has a better chance to stand the test of time. To continue enrolling Tribal Members without a resolution of this type risks those actions being undone someday. And not for the least reasons, a resolution such as this establishes a historical record of our intent in case that is ever questioned.

While I did not create this issue, I have always worked to inform the Members and to have the uncomfortable conversations folks deserve. I also want to be solution oriented. While Tribal Council may have the power to do a resolution like this, I sincerely hope it will be rarely exercised and only due to extraordinary circumstances such as where we are now. This is merely one step, but it is a big step. Banning disenrollment shows we can walk together in a supermajority way. Let’s take another step forward in order to keep moving forward. Please voice your support for this Tribal Council action before and if it passes.