Ian Record:

"Welcome to Leading Native Nations. I'm your host, Ian Record. On today's program we are honored to have with us Jill Doerfler. Jill grew up at White Earth and is a descendant of the White Earth Nation. She's been involved with White Earth's efforts for constitutional reform and served as a member of the constitutional proposal team. She also serves as Assistant Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota in Duluth. Jill, welcome, and good to have you with us today."

Jill Doerfler:

"Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here."

Ian Record:

"So I've shared a few highlights of your personal biography, but why don't you just start by telling us a little bit more about yourself. What did I leave out?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. Well, as you mentioned I grew up at White Earth and then I did my undergraduate work at the Morris Campus of the University of Minnesota and then on for a Ph.D. in American Studies at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus. And then had two years outside of Minnesota, one at Michigan State and one at the University of Illinois. Then I came back to Duluth for American Indian Studies, which has been really a great place for me to work."

Ian Record:

"And you're also a published author."

Jill Doerfler:

"I am. Thank you. I have had a couple of books come out recently, one co-authored with Gerald Vizenor called The White Earth Nation: Ratification of a Native Democratic Constitution, which we'll be talking more extensively about as we move on today, but Gerald was the lead writer during the constitutional proposal process and so we collaborated on a book. David Wilkins wrote an introduction for us. Gerald wrote a chapter and the constitution itself is in there and then I write newspaper articles for our tribe and so some of my newspaper articles examining the constitution and explaining different chapters are in the book. So that was exciting. And then just recently in February I had another book come out that's co-edited called Centering Anishinaabeg Studies: Understanding the World Through Stories. And so in that book, I collaborated with Heidi Stark and Niigaan Sinclair and we have 21 chapters. It's a much lengthier book than the first and it's a wide range of scholars working in Anishinaabeg studies and using story as a kind of framework to look at law, to look at environmental studies, language, education, so a wide range of disciplines and kind of centering around story as a framework. And my chapter, in that I examine Ignatia Broker's Night Flying Woman which is a White Earth author's text about basically it's very instructive about how to act as a Ojibwe or an Anishinaabe person, and I examine how that text might apply to constitutional reform."

Ian Record:

"That's great. I'll have to check it out. So we are here today to talk about constitutional reform, and I'm curious to learn about how you personally came to be involved in the recent constitutional reform effort at White Earth."

Jill Doerfler:

"Yeah. So I was just a Ph.D. student working on my dissertation, which was on Anishinaabeg identity and citizenship focused on White Earth starting around the turn of the 20th century and moving forward. And I was just wrapping up the dissertation in 2007 when Erna Vizenor, our chairwoman, gave her State of the Nation address stating that we were ready to move forward with a new effort for constitutional reform. There had been other efforts at White Earth previously, but she announced that and so I was very excited to think about how my research could come into play in a very sort of real concrete way. So I called up the office and asked how I could get involved and we started out using newspaper articles as the first way, using some of my dissertation research and rewriting it into newspaper articles to share with people the history of tribal citizenship and Anishinaabeg identity. And then as the reform process moved forward, I continued to give presentations on my research to the constitutional delegates and so I became involved in that way."

Ian Record:

"So in 2009, those delegates ratified a new constitution for the nation. What prompted...you mentioned that White Earth had looked at constitutional reform in the past and had never sort of gone through the whole process and this time they did. What prompted them to go down the reform road?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Well, I think there's a wide range of factors. Currently, White Earth is under the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe constitution, which hasn't been functioning very well for us and there are no separation of powers, for example, in that constitution and the provision for citizenship hasn't been working well for us and there are several things, the Secretary of the Interior I think is mentioned maybe 13 times, and so that constitution just basically hadn't been functioning. And so there had been a few other efforts for reform starting actually in the "˜70s and then a strong effort in the late "˜90s and then Chairwoman Vizenor had ran in part on the fact that she would engage in constitutional reform. It's something that the people at White Earth have wanted for some time. They feel that a new constitution could provide some checks and balances. We have had some issues with corruption and fraud at White Earth in the past that were really problematic and if we don't have a new constitution in place, we don't have a way to prevent that from happening again."

Ian Record:

"So can you briefly describe the process that your nation devised to develop a new constitution, because I can tell you from my own experience that there's a lot of nations talking about the need for constitutional change, but of that number, there's a minority among them that actually make it through to the ratification of a new constitution. So in that respect, process is absolutely critical, so can you share a little bit about the process that your nation took?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. It was definitely a grassroots kind of process and we weren't as organized to have a full plan laid out with timelines and deadlines when we started. Mostly, Chairwoman Vizenor just wanted to start by holding a constitutional convention and see how things went. So in preparation for that, I was writing newspaper articles and then we had a process for constitutional delegates. It was advertised mostly in the tribal newspaper and then people could apply to be constitutional delegates and then Chairwoman Vizenor also sent word out to our community councils and asked those community councils to each send two delegates. And everybody who applied to be a delegate was accepted so it was really inclusive that way. At the first convention, we discussed a wide range of issues and Chairwoman Vizenor ended it by asking the delegates if they wanted to carry this process forward and they did and so we did. So it was really...even though she was in some ways leading the process, she was really letting the delegates make the decisions as far as what they wanted."

Ian Record:

"So your process went through to its fruition, but I would imagine along the way there were several issues or obstacles that emerged. Can you talk about some of those challenges and how you worked to overcome them?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. I think one of the biggest challenges was keeping everyone engaged and keeping the attention of the people and of the delegates, 'cause it was a couple of years in the process. So we started with that first convention in 2007 and then wrapped up in April of '09, so it was that lengthy process. We didn't have a large amount of funding or anything like that. We didn't have a person in charge of doing all the organizing. There were myself and Joe LeGarde and a couple of other people helping get things done, but we didn't have a dedicated person, which I think would have been advantageous to have somebody really coordinating the effort who was in charge. And so we were kind of splitting the duties and kind of each contributing what we could. So that was a little bit of a challenge, but I think the delegates who really believed in the process stuck through with us because they cared so much about the issue they were willing to take the few bumps in the road and to keep moving forward knowing that the results would be worth it."

Ian Record:

"So you sort of touched on this issue of citizen education and engagement, and you mentioned you did a number of newspaper articles which I've had a chance to read, and I think unfortunately we don't see that level of education in many other tribes that are engaging reform so I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the efforts that you and the delegates undertook to really I think first and foremost get the citizens to understand why this should matter to them and then get them sort of moving in and engaged in the actual deliberations around what do we need to change in our current constitution or do we need to in fact develop an entirely new one."

Jill Doerfler:

"Yeah, well, I think the delegates are the ones who really did a lot of the work going out. We would talk about issues at the conventions and we would always say, "˜Okay, go back to your families, go back to your community, whether you're on community council or whether it's informally at other gatherings, talk about these issues,' and then I would write the newspaper articles also to kind of keep things at the forefront and hopefully keep people thinking about it and talking about it whether it's over a coffee break at lunch or whether it's at a powwow or like I said, another formal meeting. So we really asked the delegates to kind of go out and keep those conversations going and then to come back and share with us what they had learned and what people were telling them."

Ian Record:

"So it wasn't just about what you were hearing in the actual meetings but it was what you were hearing second hand from people who were coming back with essentially field reporting on what they're hearing sort of on a one-on-one personal basis."

Jill Doerfler:

"Definitely, definitely, and I definitely also received quite a few emails. As technology improves and with my newspaper writing, definitely a lot of people emailed me to tell me their thoughts and ideas and so we took all of that into consideration."

Ian Record:

"How important is that to make sure that the education and engagement of citizens around everything from what a constitution is to what we're thinking about in a new constitution, how important is that to be ongoing versus intermittent? We've seen other tribes stumble where really the only time they're really educating and engaging is when they have a physical meeting and whoever shows up, you show up and you get the information you need and you maybe give the feedback you want to give, but everyone else is sort of left out in the cold."

Jill Doerfler:

"Yeah, I think it really has helped the process that we've tried to stay as engaged as possible throughout, because it gives people more of a commitment and they feel like they're more part of the process, they are more part of the process which is what we want. We don't want a document that just comes out of a few opinions. We need to have everyone's input, because a document like a constitution is a big compromise ultimately. We took in lots of ideas and I'm sure no one person got exactly everything they wanted in that document and so that's another part of the process is sharing the deliberations, sharing the different ideas, and then the outcome so that people can see that there's such a range of ideas that we compromised on certain aspects to try to do our best with what would be the best choices."

Ian Record:

"So you mentioned at the outset that Chairwoman Vizenor was sort of the spearhead for this effort. She made it part of her State of the Nation address and took a lead role sort of at the outset, but then from what I'm hearing, she sort of took a step back after that and played more of a supportive role. And we've seen that as critical in other places as well, where it's good that the leaders are supportive of the effort but not dominating the effort. Is that sort of how it unfolded there and how important was that in the overall success?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Yeah, absolutely. I think it helped take...politics is never going to be out of anything, it's definitely not going to be out of a constitutional process, but I think it helped remove that Erma was not a delegate, she did not vote on the document, she helped facilitate the meetings, she helped with the agenda, but she was not making any of the choices. When delegates had to vote for something, she helped make the motions and helped the process, but she didn't have a vote in the issue, and so it helped give voice to the people and helped the people realize that it's up to them, they're the ones in control and they have the power to make the choices and it's not going to be a process where tribal government just hands us a document and says, "˜This is what tribal leadership wants.' Instead, it's more coming from what the people want."

Ian Record:

"So you did a presentation earlier this week at the Native Nations Institute's constitutions seminar on this topic and one of the things you cited as a key to success in terms of getting the citizens engaged and keeping them engaged was the use of small-group discussions, sort of breakout groups. Can you talk a little bit about what led the nation to use that as an approach and just how critical it was?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Yeah. Boy, I'm not exactly sure how we came to the decision to do that now that I think of it, but in preparation for the first convention we talked about...I was talking with Chairwoman Vizenor and Joe LeGarde and others about how the convention might run and topics and I think it probably was maybe Joe LeGarde that said we should do the small-group breakout. We started out with 40 delegates, which is a large group to try to have a conversation with and then all of the conventions were open and public, so at all conventions there were also other people who attended who were not delegates, and so what we did then is we would have a presentation on a topic or introduce a topic and then give the delegates time to consider certain questions within their small groups. And I think that gave each individual, whether they were a delegate or not a delegate, time to discuss and time to discuss with delegates what was best and it helped people get a more personal viewpoint and also not to feel intimidated to talk in front of a group of 40 delegates plus other attendees. That can be intimidating for some people and as far as time constraints go it was also useful that way. People could say more and then report back as a group and also kind of start the compromise process within the groups hopefully hearing a diversity of ideas in the group, presenting back maybe one or two ideas, and then hearing from others. And so I think overall it helped people feel like they were heard."

Ian Record:

"That's great. So you mentioned that this process lasted over two years. You had four constitutional conventions sort of spaced out during that time and obviously from what you're saying a lot of work in between, ongoing work. Was there...at any point in the process were you at all concerned that or did you doubt that a new constitution would actually take shape and be ratified by the constitutional delegates?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Well, let's see. I don't think...there was going to be no guarantee at the end what the outcome was because we started out with a very loose process with delegates asking them if they even wanted to continue with the process. And there was probably not the clearest of roles from the outset, and it wasn't until Chairwoman Vizenor selected the constitutional proposal team to start the writing of the document...and I think we were very fortunate to have Gerald Vizenor be a constitutional delegate, and as some of the viewers probably know, Gerald Vizenor is a really accomplished scholar from White Earth -- having written I think at this point well over 40 books, everything from poetry to novels to short stories to theory to history -- and so that was lucky for us. We didn't engage a lot of legal consultation, we didn't have somebody sitting by the wayside doing that, and so we had our processes and I had detailed notes and we kind of used that to start the writing. So I think until we started writing the document, it was a little unclear how long the process was going to be and who was going to be in charge of the writing. And I think it actually helped that we didn't have that team designated from the outset, that we were kind of in a looser process because then it wasn't...nobody identified us early on and said, "˜I want to make sure I say this to Gerald or this to Jill because they're going to be part of writing it.' Instead it was...kept it more open and kept the power also more dispersed."

Ian Record:

"So you briefly referenced the role of lawyers in reform process, and I think you may be an exception to the rule at White Earth in that you're not a lawyer and Gerald's not a lawyer and you wrote the constitution. We've seen other instances where the lawyers get involved, even before the writing of the constitution they're heavily involved in the process. Was that ever at sort of the forefront of minds, "˜Let's keep the legal aspects to the side, the legal folks to the side because we want this to be an expression of the people's will and not the expression of any particular lawyer's will?'"

Jill Doerfler:

"Absolutely. I think it's really difficult to find sort of objective legal advice. Everybody has their opinions, even staff attorneys at White Earth have their interests, and so we really wanted it to be a document that people can read and understand. Sometimes...from a legal perspective, sometimes lawyers write in a certain way that's difficult to understand and so we definitely wanted it to come from the people and we did not really utilize lawyers, which some lawyers have critiqued since then. Sometimes I get a raised eyebrow from lawyers that we didn't really engage that in the process."

Ian Record:

"Time will tell I guess if it's going to be an issue."

Jill Doerfler:

"Right, right. We'll see how well that works out in the end."

Ian Record:

"So what would you say ultimately -- now that the process is done -- what would you say ultimately were the keys to the success of the nation in actually seeing this process through?"

Jill Doerfler:

"I think definitely we had a very open, inclusive process. As I mentioned, we had delegates -- who everyone who applied was accepted -- and then all of the constitutional conventions were announced in the newspaper, it was open, anyone could come who wanted to come. No one was ever asked to leave or turned away and so it was very...it was as transparent as we could be and I think that was really critical. We never had a closed door meeting. Never had a closed door meeting with lawyers, we never had a closed door meeting with delegates. Everything was open and so that was definitely one of the keys to our process. Maybe I'll also say that persistence was part of the key as well, because it did take a couple of years and in a way that seems like a long time for me, 'cause that's the timeline I was involved, but some of our constitutional delegates had been involved in different efforts for reform over the past 30 years and so some of them definitely get a lot of credit for seeing the different processes through. And I would say that none of those previous efforts were failed efforts which could be looked at as well. We tried in the late "˜90s, there was a draft constitution at that time, but no action was ever taken on it. True, but I think nonetheless that process still helped us build up to what we did in 2007 and the experience that those people had, they brought that to the table with them when they came in 2007 with those other efforts so that was really advantageous for us."

Ian Record:

"And perhaps some informed perspectives on what didn't work and what to avoid and that sort of thing."

Jill Doerfler:

"Absolutely, yes."

Ian Record:

"So I want to turn to the subject of citizenship, which is as you know one of the most controversial issues facing all Native nations -- who's going to be a part of us and how do we define the criteria that determines that? Citizenship was at the core of your nation's constitutional deliberations, and I'm curious before we get into sort of the mechanics of how you came to arrive at your new definition of citizenship or perhaps a returning to an old definition of citizenship, can you talk a bit about how the White Earth Anishinaabe defined citizenship traditionally and what criteria they used prior to colonization?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. It varied over time, so there isn't just one answer to how things worked, but there's big changes over time. Anishinaabeg people have had contact with non-Indians for hundreds of years by this point and there have been changes, migrations and where my research really starts is starting in the early 20th century, right after the turn of the century. And in my research, I wanted to look at how Anishinaabeg people thinking about their identity, sort of pre-IRA, pre-organized government, and what I came to look at was a series of records that were based actually on land transactions at White Earth. In the 19-teens, allotment happened at White Earth as it did in many nations. And what happened at White Earth is there's legislation that says, "˜Mixed-blood people can sell their land, full-blood people cannot.' Land at White Earth is really gorgeous and spectacular. It was both good timber land and good farm land, lakes country. Lots of non-Indians said, "˜Hey, we'd like that land, we can either make a living there or make money there.' And after allotment happens at White Earth, then we get that legislation about mixed blood and full blood and then land transactions take place at an extraordinary rate. White Earth is often pointed to nationally as a case study because of how quickly land changed hands. And White Earth people complained that there was illegal activities, that people were being lied to or people who couldn't read were asked to sign papers that they were told was for their bill at the store and it was for a lease or it was for the sale. So lots of White Earth people complained and ultimately the federal government did a couple of investigations and one was conducted by Ransom Powell, who was a relatively well-known attorney in Minnesota because he represented some lumber company interests and he was selected to do the process at White Earth. There's a clear political choice there on the part of the U.S. government in choosing him, but he and his team went around and interviewed Anishinaabeg people asking them, "˜Is so and so mixed blood or a full blood?' and those records are extraordinarily rich with responses by people at White Earth saying, [a] "˜I have no idea what you're talking about when you say mixed blood and full blood. We don't define people like that.' 'I can't remember' was a big one. And then Powell and his associates would then also ask questions like about phenotype. "˜Well, did such and such have dark skin' and Anishinaabeg people would say, "˜I don't know, I don't remember,' or some people would say, "˜I don't know, they weren't really light but they weren't really dark, they were kind of medium,' and so Anishinaabeg people found all these inventive ways to kind of get around these definitions that the U.S. government was trying to push, which were these sort of fixed biological, unchanging definitions and for Anishinaabeg people identity wasn't something that was fixed. Identity was something that people created themselves through their actions, how they lived their lives, what choices they made and so they conveyed that time and again in the interviews. And so part of what I shared was some of my research on that, that identity was fluid and people were empowered to create their own identity, which I think is really interesting for us to think about today, that many of us have been really familiar with blood quantum and thinking of identity as this thing that is unchanging that you're born with versus a 100 years ago, Anishinaabeg people saying, "˜Well, you make yourself a full blood or you make your own identity.'"

Ian Record:

"So you brought up a good segue to the next question, which is about blood quantum, because in 1963 White Earth, the sole definition for...sole criterion for citizenship at White Earth became blood quantum. And I'm curious -- how did that come to pass? And it doesn't sound to me like the White Earth people certainly prior to that and I would imagine in 1963 probably didn't fully embrace that change, did they?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Right. Blood quantum I always think is used to disenfranchise people at White Earth in two ways and first it starts with those land transactions. Ultimately, what that investigation found is that about 90 percent of people at White Earth were mixed blood, i.e. 90 percent of those land transactions are legally valid and there's no legal recourse. And so people at White Earth were familiar with how the federal government could use identity to disenfranchise them, in that case to take land basically illegally. And so White Earth becomes part of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, which forms in 1936 with the IRA kind of style government and originally there isn't real firm criteria for citizenship. People basically apply to become citizens based on their parents and they're approved. There is no blood quantum requirement initially. And the Secretary of the Interior starts writing to the tribal executive committee, which is the governing body of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, saying, "˜You really need to think about your citizenship requirements and you really need to think about using either blood quantum or residency or some combination of these things.' And many members of the tribal executive committee including people from White Earth said, "˜No, we don't want to do that. That's going to become a problem for our children or our grandchildren and we need to think about future generations.' And so they passed several resolutions on citizenship that were lineal descent and sent them to the Secretary of the Interior who has, there's an approval clause in the constitution that the Secretary has to approve. The Secretary rejected all of those resolutions time and again and so over about a 20-year period, this would kind of ebb and flow. It would kind of come up and they would pass a resolution and the Secretary would reject it and then time would pass and the Secretary would say, Well, you really need to decide this.' And they would do the same thing and the Secretary would write back saying, "˜For all intents and purposes, this is the same legislation that you sent me last time. I rejected it last time, I'm going to reject it now.' And then finally we move into the later "˜50s and into the early "˜60s and this is termination time as people familiar with American Indian history are familiar. And basically there were some letters sent that weren't too veiled threats regarding termination saying, "˜If the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe doesn't decide this very soon it'll be made a matter of Congress and Congress will decide.' And so ultimately the tribe agrees to one-quarter Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as the sole requirement for citizenship. It gets voted on by the leaders in '61 and it goes into effect in '63 as a constitutional amendment."

Ian Record:

"So it sounds like this was at the beginning...it sounds like this was a main topic of conversation from the get-go when the new effort began."

Jill Doerfler:

"Yes, absolutely it was. People have felt the impact of blood quantum now. I myself am one of those people. As you mentioned, I'm a White Earth descendant, meaning my mother is a tribal citizen and I'm not and the reason is because of blood quantum. And so many, many families have been impacted, literally divided by blood quantum which is what leaders were talking about in the "˜30s and "˜40s and the record on their statements is very rich, very impassioned speeches about the importance of family and how this will affect the future. In a lot of ways, it was a delayed form of termination. The tribe in some ways was up against these threats of immediate termination, but blood quantum itself is designed to slowly make the population smaller and eventually designed to eliminate tribes. And the Secretary of the Interior was very, relatively frank about that in some of his communications to the tribe saying, "˜Every person that you add to the roll diminishes the share that each person has,' and so trying to use resources to try to get people to tighten up citizenship requirements, trying to limit population numbers. And so to some extent, it's working. And the tribe actually did a demographic study recently showing population and the demographer found that using trends over the last 100 years, if we kind of average things out, we anticipate that by about 2040, we'll just have an aging population, there won't really be anyone eligible for citizenship, and by about 2080, 2090, we anticipate that there may be few or no citizens meaning that as the U.S. government has hoped, the nation will cease to exist. If there are no citizens, there are no treaty obligations, no tribal government, and it's over."

Ian Record:

"So you said the resolutions were from about the 1930s and the 1950s from White Earth about this issue and they were all rebuffed?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Yep. Yeah, "˜30s, "˜40s and then they tried some other tactics sort of in the "˜50s because what was happening was some people were like being rejected from healthcare, other BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] programs and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and White Earth as a part of that would write to the Secretary of the Interior or to the agent and say, "˜These people are our citizens and they don't have one-quarter blood quantum as the Bureau sometimes wants, but they're still our citizens and they still are entitled to these services.' And there was a big fight and as I said, the record is really rich, and I would imagine that the same is true for other tribes, and I would really encourage other tribes to take a look at their histories and kind of examine what was going on. If the tribe has blood quantum, how did that come to be, what was going on before that? Because I think for lots of people at White Earth, you know, we've had blood quantum since '63. A lot of people have grown up with that and not known anything different, and we need to look back at what our ancestors were saying, what people were doing historically, and think about, 'How can that guide us today? Can some of their wisdom still apply today?'"

Ian Record:

"I saw you when I was doing my presentation yesterday, I was making that exact point. You were nodding your head 'cause I was basically saying that it's absolutely vital for tribes when they begin the constitutional deliberation process that they need to first understand where they came from, where their constitution comes from, what's the oral history, what's the archival history, what's the documentation around what your own people were thinking back when these things were created and did they have any say in how these things were created? Or did they try to voice their opinion on how these things were created and were ignored, were refused, etc.?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Absolutely. I think that's very key. I think people sometimes assume that whatever document we have now or whatever document their tribe has been operating under was somehow sanctioned by elders or was the result of a lot of deliberation and thought and that's not necessarily the case. Sometimes these constitutions were passed with very little participation, sometimes the Secretary of the Interior or other bureaucrats from the BIA were heavily involved in writing these constitutions and it's important to look at that history. Before you're ready to move forward you have to think about the past, because really the way that we construct the past and what happened helps us understand our present and that's what helps us envision our future as well."

Ian Record:

"Isn't it really...at a fundamental level isn't it really an issue of ownership, that there are a lot of people in the community that -- because they don't know that back history, they don't know the origin story, if you will, of their current constitution and system of government -- that there is a sense that we do own this, that this is ours, that this is somehow our creation when in most instances, I won't say all, but in most instances, that's absolutely not the case."

Jill Doerfler:

"Yes, exactly. Yeah. There can be a loyalty to that document that maybe people would have a different opinion on if they had a little bit more historic information."

Ian Record:

"So I want to kind of dive now into how you guys deliberated citizenship, this issue of citizenship in the recent reform process. At the outset you developed some questions to help guide constitutional delegates in terms of evaluating the different options for redefining tribal citizenship. Can you talk about what those questions were and why you chose them?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. It was actually a little bit more towards the end of the process. So we had had several deliberations on citizenship. I had given some presentations also on the history of blood quantum, which is important. It's important for tribes to know their own history, but then blood quantum as a concept has its own history. So we discussed those things, and then because of previous reform efforts at White Earth, there was a constitution created that had a list of citizenship options and so we utilized those during the current process. And so I asked delegates to take a look at those options and start going through them and based on the previous conventions I created a set of questions that wanted to ask which of these options best enacts our Anishinaabe values and beliefs because delegates had said time and again, "˜What we want is a constitution that's ours, that reflects our Anishinaabe culture and our values and how can we put that in the constitution? And so that was kind of an easy mark to say, "˜Then that's a question we want to ask as we look at our citizenship options.' One delegate had talked about how citizenship really is part of the question, who are we and who are we in our hearts,' which I thought was good so we utilized that. We also utilized a question relating to which of the citizenship options will be best for White Earth in the future, so not only looking at our current situation, not only thinking about ourselves or delegates thinking about themselves, but thinking about future generations as our ancestors had encouraged us to do then if we used that to look at the different options."

Ian Record:

"So tell me about one option which you've termed the "band-aid" option or maybe you didn't come up with it, but it's what you shared as the band-aid option. What did it propose and why was it ultimately discarded?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. So we basically had several options that we were looking at. One was lineal descent, three were a variety of blood calculations of different types that were...some were relatively complex, and then delegates, White Earth delegates came up with another option during one of the conventions. One of the small groups said, "˜We have another option which is to make everyone who's currently enrolled, whoever is on the rolls right now, we'll make them a full blood. We'll make them four-fourths.' And ultimately that became termed the 'band-aid' approach. I think one of the delegates said that, that wasn't my term, but delegates considered that option a little bit and it was called the band-aid approach I think because it just put a temporary fix on the problem. What it would do would make it so that everyone who's a citizen now would guarantee that their grandchildren are enrolled no matter who they've had...who their children had children with, etc., that their grandchildren would be enrolled. But it doesn't guarantee anything beyond that. So we're looking into the future, but we're only looking into the future a little bit and there were probably definitely delegates with great-grandchildren who are part of the process who could already see that that probably wasn't forward looking enough. And delegates talked about the fact that this will fix the problem now, but what it will ultimately do is pass the exact same problem on to either our children or onto our grandchildren or some future generations, and so I think delegates ultimately felt like they came to be part of the process to make the hard choices. This isn't going to be an easy choice regarding citizenship, but they wanted to make it in a way that was more forward looking than just two generations in the future."

Ian Record:

"I think on Capitol Hill they call that the 'kicking the can down the road' approach."

Jill Doerfler:

"I think they do."

Ian Record:

"So what decision -- and I think you referenced this already -- but can you talk about the decision that the delegates finally arrived at regarding citizenship, and how did they arrive at that decision?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. Ultimately lineal descent was selected as the option. We deliberated it, delegates deliberated it several times, I had given several presentations as I said evaluating options and sharing information and finally we were discussing different options for citizenship and finally one delegate just made a motion and said, "˜We would like to stop discussing options that deal with blood quantum.' It passed and therefore the only one option that doesn't deal with any type of blood quantum, that was lineal descent and then we moved forward from there. And I think it was probably a culmination of things. In some ways I think delegates who probably decided from the outside that they were in favor of lineal descent were maybe weary of talking about it because we had spent a lot of time on it and so I think for some of them they were like, "˜We are ready to make this decision' and I think for other people it was a little bit of a push that they needed to be like, "˜Okay, we're just going to...we're going to have to just make a choice here. We're never going to get a unanimous decision. There's going to be some people who are going to vote for and some people who are going to vote against and we have to accept that process and move forward.'"

Ian Record:

"So how do you...it seems to me that you're pretty certain that this will strengthen, this new criteria will strengthen the nation moving forward. Can you discuss in what ways?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. Well, I think ultimately it is an enactment of our Anishinaabe values. It really places family and relationships at the center of the nation which is historically appropriate, which is things that we know that our ancestors wanted, and so that's advantageous 'cause it's putting those values into action. If we say family and love and respect is at the heart of the nation, how can we do that? Well, using lineal descent, using family then is one way to do that. It also strengthens the nation from the perspective that potentially we have the option to exist in perpetuity. We don't have a graph with a line that shows when the population will end like we do with blood quantum. We have the idea that as long as families are passing on their values and traditions and political loyalties exist, people will choose to become citizens of the nation and that leaves that option open. A strong citizen base I think is critical for any nation. It gives them a diversity of resources regarding people, what citizens can contribute to the nation, which is something we also talked about at White Earth quite a bit. Sometimes there's a perception that citizens will just drain resources and people will just want to become citizens in order to get certain benefits. We also talked about the fact that becoming a citizen is a responsibility and that when you make that choice to become a citizen, A, you're in some ways acknowledging the jurisdiction of the White Earth Nation, B, you're submitting yourself to those laws and codes and you have obligations to carry out. You're not necessarily going to get anything. We don't have per capita payments at White Earth. I don't see that happening in the future, and I think we want to think of citizens as assets and think about how can more citizens provide more resources. How can having somebody who's a citizen who has expertise in environmental like change, climate change be an advantage? How can we bring more people in and be more inclusive and what could that mean both for the nation politically and economically as well?"

Ian Record:

"So it's interesting you mention this issue of obligations. We talk with a lot of nations about that issue, that somewhere it was lost in the colonization process the obligations of citizenship, that a lot of folks in Native communities, because of the legacies of colonialism, view their relationship with the government as 'what do I get out of it?', not so much what the government and the nation should be expecting of them and what they should be obligated to do. Can you be a little bit more specific on what sort of obligations I guess are expected of citizens under the new constitution and system of government?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. And I'll also say that I think in some ways, because of colonialism, that the relationship with tribal government and the relationship with federal government has sometimes been a little bit confused and I think there is this obligation and what the federal government owes especially via treaty obligations to tribal nations and tribal citizens. But tribal governments don't necessarily owe tribal citizens anything. They may choose to provide services, again enacting our values or choosing to do certain things, but that's not an entitlement necessarily that somebody has. So part of being a citizen is contributing and everyone...as Anishinaabe people we always say, "˜Everyone has a gift,' and the range and diversity of gifts is important to us. We don't want everyone to have the same gift. We want a diversity of people which also relates to increased population. But everyone will contribute in their own way. They will contribute maybe working in tribal government, maybe working for a certain program or service. They may contribute by raising healthy children, they may contribute by helping other family members, they may contribute in a wide range of ways, but focusing on that instead of focusing on what a single person might get."

Ian Record:

"I want to move now onto the other aspects of the new constitution, and I'll ask you in a second for your thoughts on what you think stands ou,t but I'm curious, there's one change that I forgot to write on the list of questions and that is, you're no longer the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, you're now the White Earth Nation. Why was that change made?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Well, we use that sometimes now anyway and we do feel it's a little bit more appropriate for us. It's a little bit stronger assertion of our sovereignty. That's been a preferential name that we've used internally for a while and so this was an opportunity to make that change officially in the constitution."

Ian Record:

"So what other things stand out in terms of the new constitution? Can you give us a brief overview of some of the concrete, fundamental differences between the new constitution and how you govern yourselves under the old arrangement?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Absolutely. I think the separation of powers is one of the biggest things. When Chairwoman Vizenor first announced the fact that she wanted to start constitutional reform, she mentioned two things: citizenship and separation of powers. Currently, there is no separation of powers and the court system is basically established via statute not in the constitution, which gives it a little bit more precarious of a position. And so the new constitution, the ratified constitution of the White Earth Nation, separates out a president, a legislative council, and the judiciary, and each has separate roles and responsibilities. Also the legislative council is not enumerated in a fixed way, because we know that White Earth population will change over time and we don't want to lock ourselves in to having three representatives or three districts or five districts and so that is left open, that will change over time. One part that is fixed is off-reservation representation -- which is something that doesn't exist now -- in a very concrete way. Right now, everyone votes for the chairperson and the secretary-treasurer. They're elected, as we say, at-large. But there are three districts on the reservation right now. So the constitution has sort of open number of districts on the reservation and then two representatives for off-reservation but within Minnesota. And so that's a guarantee that off-reservation [citizens] will have at least two representatives, which is important because we have a large portion of the population, White Earth citizens living off the reservation, so that was a major change. And as I said, having the judiciary separate and established within the constitution, that's really critical because things like the new Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act, which is hopefully going to allow Native nations to extend their jurisdictional reach a little bit, part of that is having that separate judiciary helps guarantee for everyone that there will be some independence there. I think most of us in Indian Country are in favor of increased jurisdiction, but increased jurisdiction without a separation of powers can be a little bit scary and so that's also..."

Ian Record:

"It essentially raises the stakes and if you maintain a politicized court system, it's just going to make things even worse potentially."

Jill Doerfler:

"Correct. I'll also say a couple of other things about the new constitution. Currently at White Earth, we have community councils, which are operating in a relatively informal basis. They're not written into any governing document, but in the new constitution we have community councils established, we have an elders council and a youth council, and they all have real important roles within the community for people to gather to talk about political issues to also engage in cultural activities, to keep language and cultural practices ongoing and it allows people ways to engage the elected leadership and allows elected leadership maybe to choose to come to a youth council meeting or to come to an elders council meeting when they have a problem. And so that was really important to delegates, and I'm really proud that we have those different councils established and set within the constitution itself."

Ian Record:

"That's fascinating. One tribe I worked with for quite a long time, they, in a draft constitution, which has not yet been ratified, they actually gave constitutional authority to their elders council and their youth council to review legislation before it could be voted on which I thought was really cool."

Jill Doerfler:

"Wow!"

Ian Record:

"I'm really looking forward to that getting ratification at some point. So we talked about what's actually in the new document, some of the things you referenced. That's ultimately just a piece of paper. That leads me to the question: what's the new governance reality that that document seeks to create? How does it seek to improve the effectiveness of White Earth governance and make it more culturally appropriate, etc.?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Yeah, I think also trust is a big issue with government at White Earth and other nations as well. White Earth, as I said briefly, has had some issues with fraud and corruption in the past and that has really tainted peoples' view and their trust and their view of the tribal government as legitimate. And so we hope that the new governing document with the separation of powers, with the ways in which elections are structured, will help improve peoples' pride in the government, potentially their political loyalty, that would be improved."

Ian Record:

"If you were to explain to somebody that knows nothing about your tribe and knows nothing about the reform effort, what aspects of the new constitution and the new governance system are most culturally distinct to White Earth, what would you tell them?"

Jill Doerfler:

"I would say that our preamble is actually potentially most distinct. Preamble, as some people know, is a place in the constitution where there is sometimes a little bit more freedom rather than the articles and exact procedures that are laid out. But I think the preamble is really nicely written, acknowledges our broad range of relationships and cultural values historically and contemporary, and so I think that does a nice job. I do think that we have some processes for basically ethics, impeachment, citizens are allowed to petition. I think that kind of citizen involvement is very culturally appropriate and something that people will welcome having in the new constitution in a way that citizens haven't been able to be as engaged with the current governance structure. And I think historically, Anishinaabeg people and White Earth people had a lot more opportunity to engage leaders, to be a little bit more involved in the process than is currently available, so I think the new constitution also does that. And I think the balance of checks in power and balance of power is also culturally appropriate. Historically, Anishinaabeg people didn't have one or two leaders who were making all the decisions for the tribe. That power was disbursed, there were lots of lengthy council meetings where people could get out and participate, and so we see some of those things integrated in the new constitution as well."

Ian Record:

"So what cultural values would you say does the new constitution seek to protect, advance, to live, and what future do you feel it's designed to help create within the nation?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Sure. I think that one of the things that we talked about a little bit during the process was cultural values and core values. At ones point delegates were asked to identify some of their core values and write belief statements, and ultimately they came very close to intentionally or not intentionally mirroring our teachings, which are sometimes called the seven grandfather teachings, which is basically love, respect, honesty, humility, wisdom -- these types of really basic core values that transcend time, that transcend place that we can all be engaging in today. Sometimes culture for American Indians gets fixed a little bit historically in the past and fixed into certain actions, but if we think of love and respect as part of our cultural values then that opens us up to enacting them today."

Ian Record:

"So final wrap-up question. You guys have gone through the whole process. You're awaiting a secretarial election, is that correct?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Right."

Ian Record:

"But in terms of the actual process and the crafting of a new foundational governing document, you've gone through that process. What do you feel other nations can learn from the White Earth experience? What sort of lessons do you feel that you've learned that might be transferrable to the challenges that other tribes are facing?"

Jill Doerfler:

"Right. So I do hesitate to say we're through the process, 'cause we're gearing up for a really...hopefully what will be a really big citizen engagement and education effort, because things have been sitting at White Earth a little while. Delegates ratified the document in 2009, it's now 2013, and so we do need to work this summer and into the fall to reinvigorate and to educate about the document to make sure any questions that people have are answered. But as far as the writing process and the process that went into getting the document that we have now, I think that transparency was key. I think we did a relatively good job with that. I think since we've finished, social media has really taken off and I would say if we were doing...the nation who's doing it now I would say need more presence on the web. We primarily used newspaper articles which was great, but things on the web can happen a little bit more in real time and I think that would be something that tribes could utilize. I think the fact that we were inclusive as far as delegates went is also good. It also provided some trust I think to people who were maybe skeptical of the process. We can say that everyone who wanted to be included was included but there was that application process and there was a deadline and that was it. There were later some people who wanted to become delegates after the process started and we were unable to do that because we had to stick with our original plan. But I think that that was good as well. I think if we would have added new delegates later we would have almost had to start over and re-educate, so I think it was good that we had that open process, but then once the delegates were selected we stuck with it and we didn't make changes. So I think it's easy to say, "˜Oh, yes, we'll add you,' because there were definitely great people who came along that would have been great additions. Instead we said, "˜Please continue to come to the conventions and you can still share your thoughts and ideas and talk with the delegates and be involved that way.'"

Ian Record:

"Well, we really appreciate you taking some time out of your busy schedule to share your thoughts and experience and wisdom with us, and I'm very eager to see how things unfold there. I definitely think that other nations that are talking about reform, embarking on reform, struggling with reform can certainly learn a lot from the White Earth experience."

Jill Doerfler:

"Thank you. It's been a pleasure to be here and I'm definitely looking forward to our referendum, which will hopefully happen soon."

Ian Record:

"Well, thank you, Jill. That's all the time we have on today's program of Leading Native Nations. To learn more about Leading Native Nations and the Native Nations Institute's website, please visit nni.arizona.edu. Thank you for joining us. Copyright 2013, Arizona Board of Regents."