The Department of the Interior has issued a ruling that could significantly alter the membership of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. This decision pertains to a tribal ordinance establishing a process for disenrollment, potentially affecting 306 individuals. At the heart of the matter lies a dispute over lineage and tribal identity, with the Interior Secretary’s approval of the disenrollment process serving as a pivotal, albeit contested, development. The implications of this decision are far-reaching, impacting not only the individuals facing disenrollment but also the broader Nooksack community and its future. The Interior Secretary Approves Nooksack Tribal Disenrollment Process has been a controversial decision.
The Disenrollment Ordinance: A Detailed Examination
The Nooksack Tribal Council, led by Chairman Bob Kelly and his supporters, initiated the disenrollment process two years prior to the Interior Secretary’s ruling. In September 2014, the council enacted a tribal ordinance outlining the specific steps for disenrollment. This ordinance mandates that each of the 306 affected members compile comprehensive legal documentation substantiating their lineage and schedule a teleconference with the tribal council.
The teleconference is a crucial element of the disenrollment process. Each member is allotted a mere ten minutes to present their case, arguing why they should retain their tribal membership. This limited timeframe has drawn criticism, with many arguing that it is insufficient to adequately address the complex issues of lineage and tribal identity.
The "Nooksack 306" and Their Appeal
The 306 individuals facing disenrollment, identifying themselves as the "Nooksack 306," have vehemently opposed the disenrollment process. Represented by attorney Gabe Galanda, they have filed an appeal against the Interior Secretary’s decision, seeking to overturn the ruling and halt the disenrollment proceedings.
Galanda argues that the Interior Secretary’s decision is not legally binding until the appeal has been fully adjudicated through the federal administrative process. He further contends that existing Nooksack Tribal Court injunction orders mandate a suspension of any disenrollment actions pending the outcome of the federal appeal.
Constitutional Foundations and the 1942 Census
The Nooksack Indian Tribe’s constitution, ratified by a tribal vote in June 2013, defines membership criteria based on descent from individuals who received original allotments of tribal land and those whose names appear on the 1942 tribal census. With a current membership of approximately 2,000, the tribe’s constitutional provisions serve as the foundation for determining eligibility for tribal membership.
The controversy surrounding the disenrollment process centers on the lineage of the 306 affected members. All of these individuals are descendants of the late Annie George, whose name is absent from the 1942 tribal census. The descendants of Annie George maintain that this omission was an error and should not serve as grounds for stripping them of their tribal identity and the associated rights and benefits. They assert that they possess probate records and expert anthropological opinions that validate their claims of Nooksack ancestry.
Conflicting Narratives and Justifications
Chairman Kelly’s supporters within the tribal council present a contrasting narrative. They allege that the 306 individuals are members of a Canadian tribe who were improperly enrolled as Nooksacks in the mid-1980s. They argue that the disenrollment process is simply a corrective measure to rectify this historical error.
Past Attempts and Court Injunctions
This is not the first time the Nooksack Tribal Council has attempted to disenroll members. In 2013, a similar process was initiated, but it was met with resistance from the Nooksack Tribal Court. The court issued an injunction, citing concerns about the lack of legal representation for members during the phone-in process, the insufficient notice period for hearings, and the failure to submit the process to the Secretary of the Interior for approval prior to implementation.
The 2013 process was fraught with logistical challenges and procedural irregularities. Members were given notices with instructions for the phone-in process, which included the risk of losing their meeting if they failed to call on time, if their call was dropped, or if they hung up while waiting on the line for an extended period. These conditions further fueled criticism of the disenrollment process and raised questions about its fairness and transparency.
The Current Process and Concerns Raised
Following the Interior Secretary’s recent approval, which incorporated amendments to address the concerns raised in the tribal court injunction, members have once again begun receiving notices. These notices instruct members to dial a California area code number at a designated time to participate in an "involuntary disenrollment meeting."
Michelle Roberts, one of the affected members, has voiced concerns about the process, particularly its impact on elderly members. She notes that many of the elders lack a comprehensive understanding of the disenrollment process and may struggle to comply with the stringent documentation requirements.
Documentation Demands and Burdensome Requirements
The ordinance mandates that any member facing disenrollment must submit evidence supporting their claim to membership no later than five days before their scheduled meeting. The evidence must adhere to a specific format outlined in the ordinance.
Attorney Galanda has criticized the documentation requirements as unduly burdensome, particularly for elderly members without legal backgrounds. He points out the need for typed documents, cover sheets, exhibit lists, and labels on each exhibit, including the member’s name, enrollment number, exhibit number, and total number of pages. He argues that these requirements are overly complex and create significant barriers for members seeking to defend their tribal membership.
Community Impact and Division
The disenrollment process has created deep divisions within the Nooksack community. Ron Miguel, a spokesman for the Nooksack 306, has denounced the process as a "farce." He emphasizes the importance of oral tradition and the need for face-to-face dialogue between accusers and those facing disenrollment.
Michelle Roberts has noted that many community members are afraid to speak out in support of the 306, as an estimated 50 family members and supporters have reportedly lost their jobs or been reprimanded. This atmosphere of fear and intimidation has further exacerbated the tensions within the community. The Interior Secretary Approves Nooksack Tribal Disenrollment Process has caused stress in the community.
The disenrollment process has taken a heavy toll on the Nooksack 306 and their families. The uncertainty and anxiety surrounding their tribal membership have created a sense of unease and division within the community. As Roberts notes, "Living in the community around people, you don’t now who’s a friend and who’s not your friend."
Looking Ahead: The Future of the Nooksack Tribe
The Interior Secretary Approves Nooksack Tribal Disenrollment Process marks a critical juncture for the Nooksack Indian Tribe. The outcome of the appeal filed by the Nooksack 306 will have profound implications for the future of the tribe and its members. The resolution of this dispute will shape the definition of tribal membership and determine the fate of the 306 individuals facing disenrollment. The Interior Secretary Approves Nooksack Tribal Disenrollment Process is subject to appeal.
The broader Nooksack community is grappling with the challenges and divisions created by the disenrollment process. Healing the rifts within the community and fostering a sense of unity will be essential for the long-term well-being of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. The Interior Secretary Approves Nooksack Tribal Disenrollment Process impacts the future of the tribe.