Chippewa Cree Nation ponders constitutional amendment

ROCKY BOY'S INDIAN RESERVATION - Members of the Chippewa Cree Tribe came to a public meeting Tuesday evening at the Chippewa Cree Council Chambers on Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation to discuss a potential constitutional amendment that would relax some of the guidelines for becoming a member of the tribe.

Jeanette Demontiney, the enrollment clerk for the tribe, said the amendment up for debate would alter Article II of the Chippewa Cree Constitution and Bylaws, which currently lays out three paths for enrollment into the tribe. A person can gain membership if they were part of Rocky Boy's Band of Chippewas prior to June 1, 1934; if they are born to a tribal member who lives on the reservation; or if they are born to a non-resident tribal member and are of one-half or more Indian blood.

The amendment would likely alter or completely replace the second and third paths to membership, giving more opportunity to people living off the reservation and people with less than 50 percent Indian blood. Specifics are, as of yet, undetermined because official language for the amendment has not been written.

Demontiney said during the meeting that the conversation to change the constitution began in 2014 and that she hopes to receive recommendations and feedback from the community as the movement goes forward.

"I know that the constitution needs to be amended, that we need to revise it," she said. "Especially the enrollment part. There are people who have to leave the reservation to make a living. They have children who do not meet that one-half requirement, so I'm hoping we can come to some conclusion or get some recommendations."

Demontiney said one of the main objectives of a constitutional amendment would be to be more lenient on future generations as Chippewa Cree families move away and create more diverse bloodlines.

"A lot of us in this room have thought about it and thought about it," she said. "I, myself, have a grandchild in North Dakota who does not meet the one-half requirement because we were not living here when that child was born, so that's a concern of mine."

One attendee of the meeting, Alvina Sayers, chimed in with a similar anecdote, saying she wants her family to be able to become members and engage with part of their history. Sayers said she falls just short of qualifying for membership, but she hopes to see her 6-year-old granddaughter allowed into the tribe.

"I want her to grow up with what I didn't grow up with," she said.

Sayers said she is concerned the one-half blood requirement will prevent future generations from gaining membership.

"I think it's beneficial for our reservation to lower this quantum that the government wants because you are going to lose a lot of your grandchildren, your nieces, your nephews to that rule, and pretty soon there just won't be a Rocky Boy Reservation," she said.

While more than half of the 25-or-so attendees of the meeting were in support of an amendment, many also expressed opposition to any type of changes to enrollment guidelines.

Melvin Morsette Jr. said he remembers the negative effects of mass enrollments during the 1980s and '90s and doesn't want to see overcrowding on the reservation.

"I've been here for 46 years, I've lived here my whole life, my grandpa Bill walked here," he said. "When we enroll people that are an eighth, a sixteenth, or claim descendancy ... I feel that that's taking out of my family's mouth, out of my son's mouth, out of his son, out of his son and on down the line."

"I guess that's why I'm here," Morsette added. "I want to guarantee a place for my son and his family. You know, there's not enough land assignments around here, there's not enough land to keep adopting people."

Gilberta Belgarde also expressed concern with accepting too many people into the tribe and agreed with the idea of retaining the current enrollment policies.

"My great-grandparents were here, too, originally, and it kind of upsets me a little bit when people who just recently got enrolled come get good jobs and here I am not even having a job. It kind of bites," she said. "I'm not saying I'm bitter, and they're not any lesser than me, but that's just my humble opinion. ... We'll find a way, we're smart people. Chippewa Crees always find a way."

Article X called to question

Beyond the debate of whether or not to modify enrollment laws in the Chippewa Cree Constitution and Bylaws, members of the public called to question the legitimacy of Article X of their bylaws which describes how amendments can be legally administered.

Article X mandates that the tribe must receive approval from the secretary of the interior to run an election regarding constitutional amendments. The article also mandates that two-thirds of eligible voters must sign a petition before the secretary of the interior can allow an election to proceed. According to a document handed out at the Tuesday meeting, this means 3,550 of the 5,325 eligible Chippewa Cree voters would have to sign a petition before the request for a vote could be fielded by the Department of the Interior.

The discussion surrounding Article X harped on the fact that the Chippewa Cree nation, as a sovereign nation, must still receive approval from the United States government before making changes to their constitution. Several members of the public expressed a desire to strike Article X from the constitution, which would then allow the Chippewa Cree people to amend their constitution without going through the U.S. government.

A question reading, "Should the entire (Section 1 of Article X) be deleted?" was included on a form handed out to the public during the meeting, and attendees were encouraged to respond with their thoughts. Many did just that during the meeting.

"The government shouldn't have to tell us what to do," Alvina Sayers said. "Don't we know how to make responsible decisions? I believe we do, so yeah, strike (Article X) out of there."

"We've lived this in the past before, in changing parts and adding ordinances" Russell Standing Rock said, warning of the potential downfall of moving too quickly on an amendment to Article X.

"Sovereignty is a really, really good word, it's a strong word, but it's only as good as how we treat it and how we implement it," he said.

Attendee Jim Swan also expressed a level of caution when considering any changes to Article X.

"I sympathize with what has been said, but I have a little concern," he said. "What I sympathize with is the part requiring the secretary of interior to approve what we do. That has concern for me because, let's face it, we're only quasi-sovereign ... and by removing the part about the secretary of interior, that's a good thing in terms of taking back some semblance of sovereignty here.

"On the other hand," he continued, "I go back to history. The reason for a constitution and bylaws in the first place is to protect us, the people, from, well, tyranny. Let's put it bluntly, there's an orange man in the White House that, number one, wants to get rid of tribes and the secretary of interior is not necessarily friendly to tribes. That's why I say remove the secretary of interior part."

"If he could have his way, (President Donald Trump) would govern by executive order and by Twitter," Swan said. "And why can't he have his way? Because there is a paper barrier, a constitution that says 'you are not a tyrant, you are not a king' ... And what I'm concerned about in terms of making it really super easy to change this governing document, is that we could some day in the future elect nine people to this council who want to be tyrants. Without that protection of making it harder for the constitution to be changed, the council can come in to a council meeting and vote to change the constitution themselves without us, the people, having a say."

Moving forward

Although a constitutional amendment has been in discussion for years, notice of the meeting only reached the public in the few days leading up to the meeting.

Jeanette Demontiney said she appreciated the turnout of about 25 members of the public on such short notice, adding that she knows the issue is of importance to the Chippewa Cree people.

After Tuesday's discussion, Demontiney said she will be using feedback from the meeting to make a pitch to the tribal council.

Council member Joe Demontiney said he does not expect any action to be taken on the amendment at Thursday's council meeting, but he hopes to see more members of the public come out to share more opinions on the proposed amendments.

Demontiney said he hopes the full council will be present to hear the public's opinion on the amendments before any action is taken, but that he wants to see an amendment passed.

"It's our goal to get it approved," he said.

The Chippewa Cree Tribal Business Committee will meet 9 a.m. Thursday at the Chippewa Cree Council Chambers, and members of the public are encouraged to attend and share their input on the proposed constitutional amendments.