Charlie explains how burning garbage is ‘Green Recycling’:
On May 5, 2013 General Tribal Council decisively said ‘No’ to all of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s plans to build incinerators on the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin’s Reservation.
The Oneida Business Committee has refused to hold OSGC accountable for schemes to market toxic incinerators to other tribes and to the City of Green Bay through misrepresentation of facts to the public which is damaging to the Oneida Tribe’s reputation and resources.
Instead, OBC is using the Tribe’s money to let OSGC’s try to defend their waste incinerator schemes.
OBC also wants to let OSGC continue to use the Tribe’s money to keep trying to sell to other tribes and municipal governments the same harmful nonsense that GTC has already rejected, further risking the Oneida Tribe’s reputation and resources.
The next step in GTC’s self-defense against OBC & OSGC is obvious:
General Tribal Council directs Oneida Business Committee to dissolve Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.
- PART 1 – Business Model: Marketing Toxic Incinerators
- PART 2 – Business Method: Misrepresentation of the Facts
- PART 3 – Business Mysteries: Unaccountability for their Acts
- PART 1 – Business Model: Marketing Toxic Incinerators
Here is a copy of OSGC’s 2013 Semi-Annual Corporate Report which will be presented for approval by General Tribal Council at the Semi-Annual GTC Meeting on July 1, 2013.
It includes the following claims regarding OSGC’s ‘Energy Project‘:
- OSGC is not aware of any similar projects being implemented by other tribes.
- Potential to provide a new source of revenue in a climate of declining gaming revenues to support tribal operations.
- The potential exists for other tribes to replicate the project.
- The Oneida Energy project will provide a working model and will serve as an educational opportunity for evaluation and replication.
- The OE project has the added benefit of expansion at a later date that will make the business more profitable and address other problematic environmental concerns.
- Future options include evaluating the technology and processes for disposal of tires, dairy waste, auto shredder residue (also referred to as auto fluff), human sludge and other wastes to be used as fuel for generating electricity for sale to the energy marketplace.
It would seem the most logical reason that no other tribes are implementing “similar projects” is because they’re smart enough to avoid them, which means that OSGC’s attempts to “provide a new source of revenue” by providing an “educational opportunity for evaluation and replication” and any suggestions that pursuing such projects “will make the business more profitable” are nothing but pipe dreams… or is that ‘stack dreams’?
Why would OSGC be primarily concerned about other tribes implementing similar projects as if they are involved in a contest or race of some sort?
Was the incinerator idea pitched to tribes in a competitive manner by the U.S. Departments of Energy and/or Interior, or by the corporations who manufacture incinerator technology?
OSGC’s Semi-Annual report also says regarding ‘Goals, Targets & Accomplishments‘:
- Complete and successfully operate the Oneida Energy plant. Contracts for waste, energy, management and recycling are already in place.
- Develop, sell, and manage similar plants to communities and businesses that need to either resolve waste disposal issues or develop renewable energy.
Well, we know who OSGC has an agreement for “management” with: a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tokyo-based Marubeni which is itself a violator of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Again, why would other communities want to implement that which the Oneida Tribe has already wisely and widely rejected on the Oneida Reservation and which the City of Green Bay rejected once the facts about OSGC’s misrepresentations came to light?
Perhaps OSGC is simply hoping that other tribes and communities won’t find out about GTC’s and Green Bay’s rejection of OSGC’s schemes?
Under ‘Key Elements for Success‘ the report states:
- Our primary goal remains to establish a state-of-the-art energy recovery facility that demonstrates the benefits of using waste as a fuel in an environmentally friendly manner.
Here’s the problem: OSGC has not been able to point to any facility anywhere which demonstrates that OSGC can incinerate wastes “in an environmentally friendly manner.”
Under ‘Market Growth‘ the report states:
- The strategy is to build several plants within the state of Wisconsin and around the U.S.
- No additional investment is required from the Tribe.
- Changed the waste stream from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to a food grade recycled plastic.
So, once more, OSGC’s plan is to try to sell the same experimental incinerator technology which GTC flatly refused to buy and which Green Bay has also rejected.
Don’t be fooled by the patently false suggestion that the Oneida Tribe will not be on the hook for OSGC’s dangerous incinerator schemes.
OBC & OSGC clearly intend to leverage the Oneida Tribe’s resources and reputation to qualify for a BIA loan guarantee which jeopardizes putting the Oneida Tribe in tens of millions of dollars of unrecoupable debt as well as exposing the Tribe to other liabilities.
If OSGC has fully switched from their plan to incinerate Municipal Solid Waste to a ‘plastics only’ feedstock across the board, it means they cannot achieve the goal of putting any significant amount of electricity to the grid which their one of their $2 million loans from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation stipulates (LEG FY10-19812).
As for the truly toxic nature of OSGC’s incinerator schemes pitched to the public & elected officials through misrepresentations of material fact, one need only read the following analyses to realize that OBC & OSGC are fully committed to forcing the Oneida Tribe into the very risky business of marketing toxic incinerators on falsehoods, which is why GTC must take action to stop them:
The evidence is indisputable: OSGC has admitted its incinerator scheme would emit hazardous pollutants including Dioxins/Furans, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, Chromium, Fluoride, Antimony, Mercury, Nickel, Iron, Copper, Selenium, Chlorides and Hydrogen Sulfide despite the incontrovertible fact that the Oneida Business Committee unanimously passed Resolution 11-08-00-B which specifically requests that the U.S. State Department pursue ending the production of Dioxin throughout the same United States where OSGC now wants to shill dioxin-emitting incinerators:
That Resolution specifically states:
[T]he ability of our Native Community to be protected from the affects of dioxin poisoning is critical to the future of our tribal nations and all life that sustains us…. [T]ribal communities and families continue to be disproportionately exposed to dioxin and other persistent organic pollutants. Many of our tribal members are more susceptible to these dangerous toxins due to our land based culture and subsistence practices, and…dioxin has been classified as a ‘known human carcinogen’ with the ‘highest’ level of certainty by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and acknowledged by the World Health Organization that dioxin exposure is linked to severe health effects….
NOW, THERE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin requests that the United States State Department pursue ending the production and release of Dioxin and other Persistent Organic Pollutants in the United States.
In other words, by marketing dioxin-emitting incinerators to tribal and municipal governments throughout the U.S., OBC is supporting OSGC’s business model to peddle a means of genocide.
The General Tribal Council of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin must exercise its right to prohibit OBC & OSGC from marketing toxic incinerators in the Tribe’s name and on the Tribe’s dime and direct OBC to dissolve Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.
- PART 2 – Business Method: Misrepresentation of the Facts
Oneida Seven Generations Corporation, its affiliates (Oneida Energy, Inc.; Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC; etc.) and their surrogates have misrepresented the facts about OSGC’s incinerator proposals both to members and officials of the Oneida Tribe as well as to other local communities and elected officials.
This determination was made by Brown County Judge Marc A. Hammer on January 9, 2013 in Case 12-CV-2263:
The following is from Court Transcript pages 90-92:
THE COURT: […] I’m satisfied that the following misstatements were included in the minutes and on the audio tape. Mr. Cornelius stated there are no hazardous material. I don’t think that’s true. The system is closed so there is no oxygen. Once it is baked, all the gas is taken off by a, quote, “cherry scrubber,” closed quote, so it takes away any kind of harmful toxins that might be in the gas and the rest is burned as natural gas. Anything that is left over will run back through the system. The ash that comes out can be dumped in a landfill or mixed with cement as road base.
Now, the last sentence I’m not satisfied is a misrepresentation. I don’t know. I’m satisfied that comments regarding “once it is backed out, all the gas is taken off, it takes away harmful toxins.” I’m satisfied these aren’t true statements.
Mr. Cornelius indicated at the Planning Commission hearing that there are no smokestacks, no oxygen and no ash. I’m satisfied that’s a misstatement. There is carbon and ash which actually could have been tested and go right into organic farming. I’m satisfied that’s not true. There are no fallout zones. I have no reason to challenge that. There have been some dioxins but no PCB’s. This all goes into slag here. I’m not satisfied that is a truthful statement.
Mr. Cornelius in response to a question — the question was from an alderman, and he said, in the report under emissions, it refers to some particulate matter, also hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and dioxins. The alderman asked if all of this was in the ash. Mr. Cornelius stated this is all taken out in the process, is all scrubbed out. A lot of this stuff is destroyed when it goes through the energy process at the end. I’m satisfied that’s not true based on my interpretation of what was said.
MR. WILSON: And, again, Your Honor, apologize to interrupt. Just so the record is clear, Mr. Cornelius was not the one who made those statements. It was Seven Gens representative but not Mr. Cornelius.
THE COURT: And you are correct. I remember the voice. […] I believe those are all the material misstatements that I relied on in making my ruling today.
According to the media, including the Kalihwisaks, OSGC has referred to their latest incinerator proposal which would melt plastics into a combustible oil & vapor as “recycling” despite the fact that:
EPA adopted the National Recycling Coalition’s definition of recycling: ‘…activities by which materials that are no longer useful to the generator are collected, sorted, processed, and converted into raw materials and used in the production of new products.’ This definition excludes the use of these materials as a fuel substitute or for energy production.
This only goes to show that OSGC has not learned their very expensive (potentially $5+ million?) lesson that they need to be honest about their incinerator proposals rather than continue to misrepresent them to the public and elected officials.
Oneida Business Committee, for their part, continues to support OSGC’s deceptive schemes and has given OSGC money from the Tribe’s General Fund for their lost lawsuit against the City of Green Bay and the ongoing appeal which even OSGC’s legal representatives in the matter (Godfrey & Kahn) have – according to some OBC members – supposedly said has a 40% chance or less of success. Here is a copy of OSGC’s May 28, 2013 Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants, OSGC & Green Bay Renewable Energy vs. City of Green Bay.
According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court & Court of Appeals Access website, the City of Green Bay’s Brief which was originally scheduled for June 26, 2013 is – following a Joint Motion – now anticipated on July 15, 2013 and OSGC’s Reply Brief “shall be filed by 8/2/13.” Updates and some documents can be found at that website by searching for Appeal Number: ’13AP591′; County: ‘Brown’; Court Type ‘CA – Court of Appeals’; District: ‘3.’
OSGC’s misrepresentation of their incinerator proposal if further evidenced by OBC Resolution 12-08-10-B, ‘Supporting Oneida Seven Generations and Oneida Energy in the Development of the Waste-to-Energy Project’ which falsely claims:
[T]his project will implement technological systems that do not use any type of incineration or burning[.]
The reality is that OGCC’s project was always designed to produce and incinerate a combustible material which would result in ash and char, and according to a June 1, 2012 email by Richard Angelbeck of EPA, Region 5, Air Permits Section:
Here’s the justification for gasification=combustion: …[W]e look to the NSPS definition of municipal waste combustion unit which includes equipment that combusts…gasified municipal solid waste including…pyrolysis/combustion units. So, incineration=combustion, and combustion includes gasification, therefore incineration includes gasification.
Despite the misrepresentation made in OBC Resolution 12-08-10-B and the fact that OBC should have at some point been apprised of the fact that OSGC’s incinerator proposal would emit dioxin in contradiction to OBC Resolution 11-08-00-B, ‘Dioxin and Persistent Organic Pollutants,’ on April 11, 2013 OBC reinforced OSGC’s misrepresentations of the nature of their incinerator project by unanimously reaffirming OBC Resolution 12-08-10-B and falsely claiming that they did so in support of OSGC’s Green Bay proposal when the first page of Resolution 12-08-10-B plainly lists OSGC and Oneida Energy
…as corporations wholly owned by the Tribe constructing this facility on the Oneida Reservation[.]
Some OBC members later admitted that they had relied on the misrepresentations of the Resolution made to OBC by attorneys rather than having read the three page Resolution for themselves, and some OBC members have apologized for having wrongly accepted the misrepresentations made by attorneys regarding Resolution 12-08-10-B.
All of this raises the obvious question of which specific attorneys made the misrepresentations to OBC of their own Resolution. It does not, however, excuse the unwise actions of OBC which exemplify why GTC cannot rely on OBC to defend GTC from OSGC.
Another glaring example of OSGC’s misrepresentation of fact is by none other OSGC President & Chairman Atty. William Cornelius. Namely, Atty. Cornelius’ misrepresentation of his OSGC Board membership & office in a $2 million loan agreement with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.
Misrepresentation in a loan document is not a small matter, especially for a licensed attorney who improperly signs on behalf of a Tribally-chartered corporation acting as Guarantor (OSGC) for a loan to a corporation registered with the State of Wisconsin of which the attorney is supposedly Chairman & President (Oneida Energy, Inc.).
The best defense that one could plead? Incompetence.
Whether intentionally or incompetently or both, OSGC has misrepresented themselves and their incinerator proposals to the Tribe and the general public as well as to elected officials and State agencies, and OSGC remains – with the support of OBC – intransigent in their perpetration of falsehoods.
This only adds weight to the importance of the General Tribal Council of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin to exercise its right to prohibit OSGC & OBC from continuing to make and support misrepresentations of fact in the Tribe’s name and on the Tribe’s dime and to direct OBC to dissolve Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.
- PART 3 – Business Mysteries: Unaccountability for their Acts
The General Tribal Council of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is the shareholder of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.
The Oneida Business Committee is the representative of the shareholder and is supposed to act in the interests of the shareholder and to take direction from the shareholder.
The ability of the shareholder to make informed decisions with regard to OSGC requires that the shareholder have adequate access to information and documentation.
OBC and OSGC appear to be conspiring against the real shareholder by keeping GTC in the dark which has led to unaccountability for actions that have and will negatively impact the shareholder.
For example, for almost a year-and-a-half the OSGC page on the Oneida Tribe’s website has hosted an outdated version of OSGC’s Corporate Charter from January 18, 2011 despite the fact that the Charter was revised on February 8, 2012.
Additionally, the OSGC page on the Tribe’s website is supposed to host the most recent copy of OSGC’s by-laws, but as you can see that information is entirely missing and in its place is a template that just says, “To be a member of the [body], applicants must meet the following qualifications: • Refer to by-laws; • Refer to by-laws; • Refer to by-laws.” If only the shareholder could refer to the by-laws!
In fact, when the Tribal Secretary’s Office was asked in April 2013 for a physical copy of the most up-to-date version of the by-laws, the copy that was provided was from December 11, 1996. While it’s possible that no changes have occurred in seventeen years it seems highly improbable.
What’s taking the Tribal Secretary’s office so long to provide up-to-date information online and in the Secretary’s Office to keep the shareholder informed? Is the shareholder being intentionally deprived of information to which they have the right of access? And, if so, at whose behest and for whose benefit?
Included in the February 8, 2012 version of OSGC’s Charter is the Corporate Report Model established by Resolution 01-26-11-A, ‘Amending the Corporate Charter of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation,’ which amended Article XIII of the January 18, 2011 version of the Charter by “deleting the language in that article and replacing it with the language of the amendment.”
Resolution 01-26-11-A states:
The Secretary or other designated reporting officer of the Corporation shall file reports with the Oneida Business Committee and General Tribal Council in accordance with this Article. Reports shall be prepared at least quarterly to coincide with the annual meeting of General Tribal Council, with other reports quarterly to the Oneida Business Committee or as required by the Business Committee as the shareholder/member of the corporation.
However, in her March 12, 2013 Memorandum regarding the Anti-Incineration petition approved by GTC on May 5, 2013, Chief Counsel Jo Anne House wrote regarding a 2008 petition by Madelyn Genskow:
The legal opinion identified that shareholders of corporation (i.e. the Tribe) have access to certain information as defined in Tribal law and the corporate charter.
Chief Counsel Jo Anne House goes on to write:
The charter for Oneida Seven Generations Corporation identifies that the shareholder, as represented by the Oneida Business Committee….
Therefore, the wording of Resolution 01-26-11-A is erroneous because it suggests that OBC is the “shareholder/member” when in fact OBC only acts on behalf of the actual “shareholder/member” of OSGC which is “the Tribe,” which in ownership voting matters regarding OSGC is in fact GTC.
The reports called for by Res. 01-26-11-A are: Narrative Report, Financial Report and Disclosure Report.
According to Section 1 (B) of Res. 01-26-11-A, Narrative Reports “should include, but are not limited to, at a minimum” among others these components:
e. Explanation of any material changes or developments in the market or nature of business the Corporation is primarily engaged in since the last reporting period.
j. Summary of the assets of the Corporation, including but not limited to its financial, physical, employee, customer, brand or intellectual property, and supply assets.
k. Summary and status update of any pending legal action to which the Corporation may be subject.
Here is a copy of OSGC’s Narrative Report as of March 31, 2013. This is how OSGC addressed the “financial” and “physical” aspect of item j:
Financial / Physical: Checking accounts; Buildings; Other Business Ventures.
Quite the informative summary, no? Who could ask for more? Other than perhaps the shareholder to whom a meaningful summary is due.
Also important in relation to item e is the conspicuous absence of any mention of very significant “material changes or developments in the market…of the business[.]” Specifically, that on May 5, 2013 the shareholder of OSGC – General Tribal Council – passed the following resolution:
General Tribal Council directs the Oneida Business Committee to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) from building any “gasification” or “waste-to-energy” or “plastics recycling” plant at N7239 Water Circle Place, Oneida, WI or any other location on the Oneida Reservation.
Clearly this is a remarkable sea change for OSGC ‘s market as its shareholder has informed the corporation and the world at large that it has no interest in buying what OSGC is selling when it comes to an important component of its business. Surely that would be of interest to the tribal and municipal governments that OSGC supposedly intends to market its undesirable incinerator plans to.
Instead of acknowledging the crucial importance of GTC’s overwhelming rejection of its incinerator endeavors, as well as the adjudicative rejection by the City of Green Bay, OSGC’s Narrative Report simply provides the following understatement:
OSGC is currently in litigation with the City of Green Bay regarding our rescinded permit.
No mention of the fact that OSGC is now appealing the suit it lost on January 9, 2013, nor any mention of the fact that OSGC is apparently in such dire financial straits that it had to ask OBC for $750,000 to pursue its failed lawsuit and improbable appeal of that loss. In other words, a misrepresentation of the basic facts which one has to assume is intentional.
OSGC’s Narrative Report also mentions:
OSGC reached a formal agreement with a former tenant to collect back rent. The former tenant failed to comply with the agreement and we are seeking a judgment to make the former tenant comply with the agreement.
As Oneida Eye has previously posed hypothetically, what if it turned out that OSGC or one of its business ventures was itself several years in arrears to the Tribe or departments of the Tribe? Who would be responsible for seeking judgment against them, especially regarding any agreements with the Oneida Casino given that OSGC President & Chairman Atty. William Cornelius is Counsel to the Oneida Gaming Commission?
According to Res. 01-26-11-A, information about debts owed by OSGC or its business ventures would be part of the Financial Report:
…due quarterly to the Oneida Business Committee with copies to the Oneida Treasurer and Chair of the Oneida Audit Committee and as otherwise demanded by the Oneida Business Committee as the representative owner of the Corporation.
Yet, as was noted before, OBC is not the “representative owner of the Corporation” but merely the representative of the owner/shareholder/member of the Corporation, which is in fact General Tribal Council.
Res. 01-26-11-A specifically says regarding Financial Report Access:
They may be disclosed with permission of the Corporation’s Board and/or the Owner for economic solicitation purposes or as demanded by the Owner.
The Tribe – through General Tribal Council – owns OSGC and therefore can direct OBC on matters regarding OSGC. Therefore, it seems quite obvious that the Owner – GTC members – plainly have a “legal or legitimate need to know such report information.”
As for the Disclosure Reports that OSGC is required to prepare, Res. 01-26-11-A says in Section 3 (A):
Disclosure Reports Defined: Disclosure reports financial and familial relationships and connections between the Corporation and other entities, as well as members of the Corporation’s Board and key management personnel. Any financial or legal relationship, ownership interest, or any blood kinship within the Corporation and its financial practices or partnerships shall be detailed in a structured and easy to understand format.
It goes on to say in Section 3 (B):
The Disclosure report shall include, but not be limited to, the following detailed information:
a. Names and title of all of the Corporation’s Board members’ names, time in position, and date when position shall be up for renewal or replacement (if applicable).
b. Names and title of all of the Corporation’s key management personnel, with length of service in that position, and if under contract, when that position is up for renewal or expiration of the contract term.
c. Summary of any financial or familial relationship between any of the people in part a. or part b. in this Section, as well as any relationship, financial or familial with any current member of the Oneida Business Committee or any member of any regulatory body within Oneida such as a board committee or commission charged with regulating the Corporation’s industry or activities.
d. Names of any other person, whether it be a business in any legal form or an individual, doing business with the Corporation for purposes of mutual enterprise (i.e. including but not limited to: joint ventures; membership in an LLC together; acquisition of a subsidiary; partnership).
e. Summary of the financial transactions or relationship between those listed in d. above in this Section and the Corporation, including the purpose of the mutual enterprise, legal relationship, or other connections between the Corporation, its Board or its key management personnel and this other named entity or person.
Section 3 (C) says that a Disclosure Report is due “whenever there is a change to the Corporation’s Board membership, turnover to key management personnel, or a business venture creating a new partnership, LLC, subsidiary, or any other legal entity connected to the Corporation for any purpose.”
Finally, Section 3 (D) says, “Disclosure reports are proprietary and considered confidential information owned by the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, to be retained by the Secretary’s office. Disclosure reports are submitted to the Oneida Business Committee and accessible only to those authorized officers, officials and personnel of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin with a legal or legitimate need to know such report information.”
So how can OSGC’s owner – General Tribal Council – get an understanding of whether or not OSGC is fulfilling its disclosure report obligations? For starters we can look at the OSGC Disclosure Report as of December 31, 2011 which was submitted as part of the open record in the meeting packet for the February 22, 2012 OBC Regular Meeting.
Here we find stunning omissions of disclosure that undermine the very purpose of requiring a Disclosure Report in the first place. Let’s look at the most egregious examples of omitted information:
- OSGC manages properties on land owned by the Tribe and the Oneida Land Commission oversees land use and zoning, yet the report fails to note that Land Commission Chairperson Amelia Cornelius is the mother of OSGC CEO Kevin Cornelius.
- OSGC and some of its business ventures have contracts and agreements which must be reviewed and approved by the Oneida Gaming Commission, yet the report fails to note that OSGC President & Chairperson Atty. William Cornelius is Counsel for the Oneida Gaming Commission and that Gaming Vice-Chairperson Amelia Cornelius is the mother of OSGC CEO Kevin Cornelius and she oversees the contract between Atty. William Cornelius and the Oneida Gaming Commission in addition to having approval of contracts between Oneida gaming operations and OSGC ventures including Oneida-Kodiak Construction, LLC, and Oneida Generations, LLC.
- OSGC doesn’t disclose that Oneida Generations, LLC, has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Oneida Tribe, nor that Oneida Generations receives monthly lease payments from the Oneida Casino for occupancy of the 29/32 Travel Center.
- Names of persons whose businesses are doing business with OSGC for purposes of mutual enterprise are entirely omitted.
- While registered agents’ names can be found publicly on the Wisconsin Dept. of Financial Institutions website, the owners, partners and key personnel of each entity is not listed. For example, the board members of Oneida Energy, Inc., which include President William Cornelius, CEO Kevin Cornelius, Director Nathaniel King and Michael Metoxen are not disclosed.
- The very existence of Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, which was formed on December 15, 2011 and registered in the State of Delaware and is a co-party with OSGC in their failed lawsuit and current appeal against the City of Green Bay, is completely absent from the Disclosure Report.
Given these inexcusable examples of OSGC’s utter failure or blatant refusal to comply with its Corporate Charter to reveal basic and relevant disclosure information, it’s no wonder that OSGC has kept all of of its subsequent Disclosure Reports inaccessible to GTC by claiming a need for “confidentiality.” It makes one wonder just exactly how OBC could have missed the blinking neon signs of corporate irresponsibility given the fact OBC is responsible for oversight to ensure that the information OSGC submits is sufficiently adequate and accurate. OSGC must know by now OBC won’t press for details.
This raises the question: Who has oversight over the Oneida Business Committee and can hold them accountable for failing to hold OSGC accountable? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question, ‘Who owns OSGC?’: General Tribal Council, which apparently cannot trust OBC to be the arbiter of whether OSGC is fulfilling its obligations and serving the interests of the Tribe, which is why GTC should not be denied access to OSGC’s Narrative Reports, Financial Reports nor Disclosure Reports.
OBC has proven itself incapable or unwilling to hold OSGC accountable for:
- OSGC’s plans to build dioxin-emitting incinerators on the Oneida Reservation.
- OSGC officials signing contracts after the expiration of their Board terms.
- OSGC’s relationships with subsidiary of a violator of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. (see below)
- OSGC making misrepresentations of fact to the Tribe and surrounding communities.
- OSGC inflicting damage to the Tribe’s reputation.
- OSGC losing millions of dollars due to its own actions.
- OSGC failing to fulfill its agreements with the Tribe.
- OSGC failing to fulfill its reporting obligations.
Therefore, the General Tribal Council of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin must exercise its right to hold OSGC accountable for missing and withheld information, misinformation and disinformation and to direct OBC to dissolve Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.
See also:
PIC to Operate New Biomass Gasification Plant
PIC is pleased to announce that it has entered into a full care, custody and control Operations and Maintenance agreement with Oneida Energy for a new biomass gasification project located in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
As of March 2008, PIC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marubeni Group, a publicly listed company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan with $41.1 billion in revenue.
From JUSTICE.gov on Tuesday January 17, 2012: Marubeni Corporation Resolves Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Investigation and Agrees to Pay a $54.6 Million Criminal Penalty
Marubeni Corporation has agreed to pay a $54.6 million criminal penalty to resolve charges related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for its participation in a decade-long scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials to obtain engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division announced today.
