August 30, 2026.
The September 1 Board of Director's Agenda contains two resolutions directly related to the constitutional debate.
The first would rescind Resolution 2026-145 and establish a process for additional financial analysis before potentially returning the amended Constitution to the Board in June 2027.
The second is titled “Upholding the Membership’s Right to Vote and Enforcing Board Accountability.”
If the Constitution Vote Is Delayed, We urge the Board to Use the Time to Protect Every Tribal Member’s Rights. If the delay is not approved we continue to support Voting NO to the current draft of a new constitution.
The Board is scheduled to consider a resolution that would rescind Resolution 2026-145, which authorized submission of the proposed amended Constitution for a Secretarial Election. If approved, the resolution would require the tribe’s executive team to prepare five-year financial projections, conduct monthly workshops and bring a resolution authorizing submission of the amended constitution back to the Board for a vote at the first Board Meeting in June 2027.
If the Board believes more time is necessary, then use that time wisely.
Don't simply delay the vote. Use the delay to fix the Constitution.
That means addressing equal rights, preserving existing Tribal Member rights, strengthening accountability, reconsidering provisions that could affect those rights — and changing the way Tribal Members ultimately vote on the proposed changes.
The Constitution should guarantee Equal Rights for every Tribal Member.
It is our view; the proposed Constitution should contain an unmistakable guarantee of Equal Rights for all Tribal Members including stating that blood quantum can never be used as a reason to deny Tribal Enrollment to Decedents of current Tribal Members.
Another important protection should be the right of any qualified Sault Tribe Member to seek election to the Sault Tribe Board of Directors regardless of where that member lives, provided the member meets all other qualifications for the position.
- A Tribal Member who lives outside the designated service area should not automatically have fewer political rights than a Tribal Member who lives within it.
- The Constitution should provide that all Tribal Members have an equal opportunity to apply for Tribal benefits and programs, including benefits currently available only to members living within a designated service area, subject to the legitimate eligibility requirements of the individual program.
In simple terms:
Where a Tribal Member lives should not, by itself, determine whether that Tribal Member has greater or lesser rights as a Citizen of the Sault Tribe.
Let Tribal Members vote on each constitutional change separately.
There is another issue that must be addressed before the proposed Constitution reaches a Secretarial Election.
Tribal Members should not be forced to approve or reject an entire Constitution as one package when that document contains numerous individual changes.
Each substantive constitutional change should be presented as a separate question on the ballot.
For example:
- YES or NO on creating a Three-Branch Tribal government.
- YES or NO on individual changes to the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
- YES or NO on changes affecting elections.
- YES or NO on recall provisions.
- YES or NO on referendum provisions.
- YES or NO on the proposed addition of the Mackinac Band.
- YES or NO on explicit equal-rights protections for all Tribal Members.
- YES or NO on allowing qualified Tribal Members to seek election regardless of residence.
- YES or NO on equal opportunity to apply for Tribal benefits and programs.
- YES or NO on all changes to the Bylaws individually.
- YES or NO on changes to the constitutional amendment process.
- YES or NO on the provision prohibiting a person elected or appointed to the Board from simultaneously being a Tribal Employee or Independent Contractor, including whether that provision should be retained or changed.
This is not an argument against constitutional reform. It is an argument for informed and meaningful self-government.
If a Tribal Member supports creating three branches of government but opposes a separate provision affecting member rights, that member should not have to choose between accepting both provisions or rejecting both.
Likewise, if a member supports the proposed addition of the Mackinac Band but opposes another constitutional change, the member should be able to express that distinction.
One Constitution can contain many individual decisions. The membership should be allowed to make those decisions individually.
The Mackinac Band deserves its own question.
The proposed addition of the Mackinac Band should receive particular attention. The Mackinac Band a State of Michigan Recognized Tribe by Michigan State University and others is seeking Federal Recognition.
If the amended Constitution contains a provision addressing the addition or recognition of the Mackinac Band within the Tribe's constitutional structure, that issue should be presented as its own question to Tribal Members.
The ballot should make the choice unmistakable:
1. YES — approve the addition of the Mackinac Band only with approval of the Mackinac Band Members that are currently enrolled in their tribe.
2. NO — reject the addition of the Mackinac Band.
3. OR Provide both a Letter of Support along with financial support from the 2% fund to the Mackinac Bands Legal Cost needed to obtain their Federal Recognition while allowing Enrolled Sault Tribe Members that believe they are also Mackinac Band Members the option of retaining their membership.
Protect Article III, Section One of the Bylaws.
The Board should use the additional time to protect existing rights contained in the Sault Tribe Bylaws.
ARTICLE III — TRIBAL RECORDS contains the following language:
Section 1. All books, records and financial accounts of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, including the tribal roll, shall be open to inspection by tribal members upon reasonable request to the board of directors.
We strongly believe this provision should not be weakened but instead it should be preserved and strengthened.
The existing language provides Tribal Members with the right to inspect Tribal books, records and financial accounts, including the Tribal Roll, upon reasonable request to the Board of Directors.
That is a member right worth protecting.
Don't replace a clear right with government-controlled disclosure.
The independent analysis found that the proposed constitutional changes affecting Tribal Records maintain inspection rights but would place aspects of “reasonable disclosure” under laws subsequently enacted by the Tribal Council.
That raises an important question:
Why should an existing Tribal Member Right become dependent upon future legislation?
If the Tribe believes reasonable limitations are necessary to protect confidential, proprietary or legally protected information, those limitations can be clearly defined.
But the basic right of Tribal Members to make reasonable requests for Tribal records should remain protected with additional protections added.
There should be:
- A clearly defined time frame for responding to a reasonable request.
- A process for challenging an improper denial.
- Protection against retaliation for exercising a legitimate member right.
- Clear requirements for government officials to comply with the Constitution and Bylaws.
- Meaningful Consequences when officials knowingly and repeatedly refuse to comply.
A right without a meaningful way to enforce is an incomplete right.
A three-branch government should mean more accountability — not less.
The proposed Constitution is not simply about creating three branches of government.
The previous analysis identified substantive changes involving member rights, equal-protection language, qualifications for office, judicial appointments, recalls, referendums, elections, public records, financial oversight and the constitutional amendment process.
That is precisely why the membership deserves sufficient time to examine every change.
If the Tribe is going to establish separate legislative, executive and judicial branches, there should be stronger checks and balances and stronger protections for Tribal Members.
The government should be accountable to the people.
The supporters of the resolution "Upholding the Membership’s Right to Vote and Enforcing Board Accountability.” have a different view.
They believe those that want a delay should be punished for their conscious decision to delay the vote and appear to have no interest in adding equal rights for all members or believe any other changes are needed other than what they have already published.
That resolution states that nine currently seated Directors voted for Resolution 2026-145 and that three newly elected Directors campaigned on commitments to uphold the membership's right to vote on the separation-of-powers amendment. It argues that the cost of protecting membership rights should not be used to deny or delay constitutional rights.
It also proposes consequences for Board Members if Resolution 2026-145 is rescinded, including forfeiture of Board Compensation until costs resulting from the rescission are satisfied.
We say....Let the members decide. But give them a real choice.
That is a far more meaningful exercise of Tribal Sovereignty than an all-or-nothing vote on a document containing numerous unrelated changes.
The Board is scheduled to meet at 5 p.m. Tuesday, September 1, at the Kewadin Casino and Convention Center in Sault Ste. Marie; You have an opportunity to attend in person or on Zoom.
The recording of the meeting will be available on the Sault Tribe Government You Tube Channel.
Link for Advertiser Information and Advertising Rates.
Editorial note: The positions expressed in this editorial are those of the Sault Tribe Guardian Editorial Board. The equal-rights provisions, separate-question voting proposal and separate YES/NO vote concerning the Mackinac Band are editorial recommendations for consideration and are not provisions established by the Sept. 1 resolutions.
