'Choose leadership wisely'
Indian Country Today's editorial, ''Disenrollment and Community Building'' [Vol. 27, Iss. 36], opened an old sore spot in this elder's memory. Are we really advancing American Indians as an honorable race of people who value and respect each other?
We are advancing in education, but a diploma doesn't guarantee wisdom or brain power. The number of our educated professionals has risen from less than 10 in 1960 to several thousand today. But too many graduates choose to serve the general public instead of their tribe. There are exceptions, of course, but tribal leadership roles are shunned by them.
Their reasoning is understandable. It's the toughest job in the country, with more problems than even the U.S. president has. As professionals, they deal with other peoples' problems and not their own. But when a tribal leader goes to bed at night, he can't be sure that his reservation will still be there in the morning, or if another recall petition will be delivered tomorrow.
Community development on reservations was a federal program of the 1960s and '70s. A goal was to prepare tribes internally for the perpetuity of their tribal nation, and not the destruction of it. Disenrollment of tribal citizens, as practiced today, is not a way to build community togetherness. Progress would declare it an anachronism, a thing of the past. But if given credibility, a tribal leader and his council could get rid of dissidents in one fell swoop by disenrollment.
In 1991, one tribe's chairman allegedly mismanaged tribal funds. The protests of his conduct continued for weeks. Then, in a closed tribal meeting, the protestors were subjected to (according to the protesters) a ''kangaroo court'' trial wherein the tribal council served as a jury; the tribe's white attorney served as prosecutor; another white lawyer served as tribal chairman so that the real chairman could testify. The protestors were found guilty of ''misconduct.'' The cards were stacked against them.
Read More
One of the protesters later told a reporter, ''It was a kangaroo court all the way.'' They were stripped of all tribal rights, medical benefits, their $35,000 share of a land settlement, fined $50,000 each, and barred from all tribal affairs and voting rights for 20 years. Their ''crime'' was organizing a meeting of tribal members to discuss the chairman's removal. They were, in effect, temporarily disenrolled.
The obvious miscarriage of justice raised questions of one's constitutional rights versus tribal sovereignty. The protesters' attorney later sought redress through the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. It did no good. He then called for an investigation by the BIA, and it refused to get involved.
The refusal of federal agencies to get involved in tribal matters was a catalyst for more disenrollments, I believe. It has also emboldened some lawyers to provide advice to leaders on how to deal with dissidents seeking a recall. The recent decision by Interior to step back from involvement in tribal affairs has been added encouragement. This should be a warning to tribal members to choose their leadership wisely.
- Elmer M. Savilla
Burke, Va.
Mr. Savilla is former executive director of the Inter-Tribal Council of California and the National Tribal Chairmen's Association.
