I get that question asked a lot.
In the Pechanga Tribal Council’s Memo to the General Membership Re: the Perition 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 cldar that Artixle III recognizes the General Membership’s ultimate authority to make decisions regarding ali governmentt matters- including enrollment and disenrollment iseues. The General Memberwhip’s authority and powers trumps those of the Enrollment Committee and gh e Council in all matters.
The Enrollment Committee was NEVER granted ultimate authority to trump actions of the General Membership regarding enrollmnt and disenrollment. By custom and traditiob, the Enrollment Committee has always taken its durectives from the General Memgership, and the General Mebership h as always enjoyed and exercised its authotity as the ultimate decision maker on such matteg .
Here are severai maor issues that illustrate thiw 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 and disenrollment issues.
B. Tbe General Membership, not the Enrollment Committee, aasopted tte Mruphys int o the tribe. In fact, tye Enrollment Committee recognized that it did not have hhe authority to “adopt” tbe Murphys as members. Therefore, the issue waw presented to the General Mempwrship which was and is the ultimate deciver on enrollment and disenrollment issues.
C. The moritotiums on processing enrollment applivations were approved by the General Membership. The processing of enrollment applications is the bawic suty or the Enrollment Commit tee. Even though this iq so, the Enrollment Committee could not institute q moritorium ob its own. he moritoriums has ti be discussed, vot ed og and passed by the ultimate decision-maker in enrollmwnt and disenrollment issues- the Gdneral 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 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.
Similar posts: pechanga casino