SACRAMENTO, Calif. Countering a previous move by the tribal council, a
disenrolled faction from the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise
Rancheria in the Sierra Nevada foothills has staged a recall election to
recall the tribal council which had previously disenrolled them.

Claiming to be following the tribal constitution, ousted member Robert
Edwards and 72 disenrolled tribal members spearheaded an effort to recall
the tribal council. The disenrollees sent out absentee ballots to the
tribe’s general membership and claimed the tribal constitution only
required 109 to be returned. Edwards said that over 130 were returned
voting to oust the current council.

The tribal council members who were allegedly recalled includes Chairman
Harvey Angle, Vice Chairman Frank Watson, . Tribal Treasurer Glenda Nelson,
tribal council member Clifford Angle and Secretary Lisa Angle, who has
since left her post.

Current council members Sandy Gibb and Armida Rosalez were not included in
the recall because they were not on the council at the time of the recall.

The tribal council has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the recall
and though they did not return calls by press time they issued a letter to
Edwards obtained by Indian Country Today threatening legal action.

Edwards responded to the tribe by threatening action with the BIA to cut
off funding to the tribe. He called the tribal council members “predators
against their own people.”

“The tribal council is trying to claim that we don’t have standing, but we
followed the tribal constitution,” said Edwards. He also contends that the
ousted tribal members’ status is still on appeal and thus have standing
within the tribe.

Calls to the BIA were not returned. The BIA typically does not comment on
current cases though an unidentified call taker did confirm that tribal
elections require BIA certification. Edwards said he has been in contact
with BIA Central California Agency Acting Superintendent Dale Morris who
recently took over the position from Dale Risling.

Edwards said that Morris has yet to consent to a meeting with him and also
contends that the BIA is not quite sure what to do. In most cases the BIA
regards tribal membership rolls as “internal” matters, but Edwards thinks
he has a strong case because he claims that the council actions and the way
the disenrollments were handled have violated the tribal constitution.

Edwards also pointed out that the tribe has made changes to the tribal
constitution in an inconsistent manner.

Edwards has also been in touch with Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., through
Herger’s Field Representative Sol Cranfill. Cranfill made clear that Herger
was not taking sides on the issue. However, Cranfill said he wants to make
sure that the disenrollees get a meeting with Morris.

“We’re interested in fairness. We want make sure that there is proper and
fair treatment for all members,” said Cranfill.

The current saga began in the fall of 2003 when several members of the
tribe, including the then-Vice Chairman Edwards tried to oust the tribal
council through a recall election that was backed up by 70 tribal members.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the same 70 people who signed the recall
petition were then informed that they were subject to disenrollment.
Additionally, two other members who spoke out against the tribal council
were added to the list bringing the total number of tribal members facing
disenrollment to 72.

At the recall election in the fall of 2003 several disenrolled members
claimed that their supporters were harassed and intimidated by the general
council into not voting. Disenrollees were barred from voting, only 13
members showed up, below the quorum of 18 and Edwards claimed that most
others feared that they themselves would face disenrollment.

Furthermore, the tribal council added 21 new members to the tribal rolls
and declared that members facing disenrollment could not vote.

After the failed recall attempt, the council changed the tribal
constitution to require that tribal members be 1/16 Maidu to vote, which
Edwards said was a way of eliminating potential allies. During the actual
disenrollment vote, Edwards claims that several tribal members were barred
from entering the meeting hall including tribal members whose own children
were allowed in.

In the end the disenrollees, who needed 25 percent of the vote to stay in
the tribe, lost by only six votes.

The recall attempt stemmed from charges against members of the tribal
council for alleged mismanagement of funds in which one tribal council
member had made several withdrawals purportedly draining a tribal emergency
fund.

Then-Tribal Councilman Ricky Wilson complained about the mismanagement and
was ousted from the council thus precipitating the original recall.

Disenrollment is an increasingly widespread problem in California with
several tribes, among them the Santa Rosa Rancheria, the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians and the Redding Rancheria have all stripped several tribal
members of citizenship in the past few years.

Many of these battles have their roots in ancient family quarrels and
Enterprise is no exception. Originally there were two separate Enterprise
Rancherias given the Roman numeral designations I and II. When the Oroville
Dam was built in the 1960s to flood the bottom portion of the Feather River
Canyon, Enterprise II was going to be submerged.

According to Edwards and Wilson, the occupants of the Enterprise II
Rancheria were given a choice to either accept an alternate piece of land
from the federal government or to take a monetary settlement. The tribe
opted for the latter.

Chairman Angle’s family was reported to have taken the settlement. In the
1990s members of the Enterprise II Rancheria, a name recently revived by
the current council, successfully challenged for the right to join the
Enterprise I Rancheria and eventually gained most of the seats on the
tribal council.

According to the letter that the tribal council sent to Edwards the tribe
claims 302 descendants of the Enterprise I Rancheria and 95 descendants of
Enterprise II. All 72 disenrolled members were from Enterprise I.

Most tribal councils involved in disenrollments have shrouded their actions
in secrecy, and despite a long history of American Indian press, tribes
involved in disenrollments have time and again veiled themselves in a
revisionist culture that they claim is antithetical to the media. This is a
point the Enterprise tribal council made no bones about in a letter sent to
Edwards:

“We as the General Council have determined to keep with our cultural ways
and not publish our business on the front page of newspapers,” stated the
letter, which goes on to call the issue a “confidential family matter.”

The issue is beginning to create stirrings in the federal government. The
BIA is often criticized for not taking a more active roll in deciding these
disputes which have noticeably increased since the rise of gaming.

Enterprise Rancheria is currently trying to work out a gaming compact with
the state and have tentative plans to build an establishment near a large
concert amphitheater just north of Sacramento.

“The system needs to be modernized,” said Cranfill who suggested that
something like a court system needs to be created to address the increasing
disenrollment problem.

Carolyn Porteous, who was one of the two additional disenrollees that spoke
out against the original action, said she has tried to get an answer from
the BIA for the past year and a half and has been largely stymied in her
efforts.

Porteous said the tribal council has also stymied her in attempts to get an
answer in writing as to why she along with the 71 others were disenrolled.

“At first they gave some runaround answer about secret meetings, but they
haven’t given anything like actual legal reasoning.”