Embedded Files
Discover the myths and fallacies perpetuated by our own Tribal Members, Tribal Council, and Enrollment Committee to justify mass disenrollments. Uncover the truth behind their corrupt and rogue behaviors, and join us in demanding justice and transparency for all rightful members.
"If you aren't from Picayune, you aren't Picayune Chukchansi"
This statement is fundamentally flawed and misleading.
Historical Context: Picayune is the name of a Chukchansi village that was designated as an 80-acre Rancheria by Executive Order in 1912. It is a place, not the name of a tribe or a distinct band of Chukchansi people.
Tribal Identity: The Chukchansi Tribe has historically been recognized as the largest unbroken band of Indians in the region east of the San Joaquin Valley. Unlike other tribes, we were never divided into separate bands. Instead, we had multiple villages spread across our ancestral lands.
Geographical Range: Our Chukchansi ancestors inhabited areas south to Friant and Millerton, north to Raymond and Oakhurst, and even frequented Yosemite Valley. Picayune was just one of many villages within our extensive territory.
Modern Implications: The modern Picayune Rancheria is intended to serve all Chukchansi people, regardless of their specific village of origin. It is crucial to understand that the Rancheria represents a collective heritage and identity, not a way to divide Chukchansi people.
By recognizing these points, it becomes clear that the statement in question is an attempt to disenfranchise rightful members of the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians. Our identity and membership are rooted in a shared history and culture that goes beyond any single village.
"We're correcting our membership rolls."
This statement is largely a fallacy. While it may apply to a very small minority of disenrollments, the reality is quite different for the majority. Here are the key points to consider:
Constitutional Compliance: Families being removed from our Membership Rolls meet the requirements outlined in our Constitution under Article III - Membership. These families possess historical and factual documentation that substantiates their membership.
Enrollment Committee's Actions: The Enrollment Committee ("EC") has been frequently amending the Enrollment Ordinance, granting themselves unchecked powers. In the past 2 years, the Enrollment Ordinance has been amended three times; once, during an ongoing disenrollment proceeding. The actions of the EC has led to a focus on removing rightful members rather than supporting them.
Misuse of Authority: The EC appears more intent on disenrolling members than on helping them maintain their rightful place within the tribe. This misuse of authority undermines the integrity of our Membership Rolls. Additionally, our Tribal Council -- our governing body -- turns a blind eye to this abuse of power.
Role of Enrollment Committee: The EC should serve as a resource for our people, advocating for the growth and strengthening of our population. Instead, their actions are causing our numbers to dwindle, which is contrary to the best interests of our Tribe.
By recognizing these points, it becomes evident that the claim of "correcting" the membership rolls is a pretext for disenrolling rightful members. The EC should focus on supporting and growing our community, not diminishing it.
"Your ancestor's allotment is not in the immediate area of Picayune Rancheria."
Constitutional Criteria: Our Constitution does not specify any requirement for an allotment to be in the "immediate area of the Picayune Rancheria." According to Article III - Membership, the only requirement is that the ancestor's allotment must be from the 1887 General Allotment Act.
Distance Requirements: The only distance-related criterion mentioned in our Constitution pertains to Tribal Council candidates, who must reside within a 75-mile radius of the Rancheria to be eligible for election. This has no bearing on membership eligibility. If such a radius is adequate for Tribal Council candidates, how can it not be acceptable for our ancestors' allotments?
Disenrollment Practices: Many families, referred to as "Allottees", or more accurately, "Descendants of Allottees", have been disenrolled based on the erroneous argument regarding the location of their allotments. These disenrollments are not due to a failure to meet Constitutional requirements but rather due to an unlawful Tribal Resolution.
Unlawful Tribal Resolutions: The Tribal Council and Enrollment Committee have collaborated to create an illegal Tribal Resolution that arbitrarily defines an "immediate area" around the Rancheria for allotments. Families are being disenrolled because they do not meet this unlawful criterion, not because they fail to meet the Constitutional requirements.
Historical Misuse: This argument has been previously used in 2007 to deny membership to descendants of allottees and to disenroll families whose allotments were not in the so-called "correct" Townships near the Picayune Rancheria.
It is crucial to adhere to the Constitutional requirements for membership and ensure that all members are treated fairly and justly, preserving the integrity and unity of our community. We cannot allow unlawful Tribal Resolutions to unjustly disenfranchise rightful members.
Google Sites
Report abuse