Motion, Vote, Action!

But as the Action Report also shows, the motion had to be put forward twice because, even though there was a motion on the floor for an up or down vote on the petition matter, Parliamentarian (and Chief Counsel) Jo Anne House determined that a subsequent motion to table the petition matter could be voted on before voting on the motion to adopt the petition matter.

And this explains exactly why the vote to table the petition matter was even anywhere close enough to require a hand count:

• GTC members were confused as to which motion was up for a vote.
• The voting instructions on the motion to table were unclear for many GTC members.

Nevertheless, the motion to adopt the petition language passed with such an overwhelming show of hands in support that a hand count was NOT necessary.

Now the meeting minutes will go before GTC for approval at an upcoming GTC meeting (hopefully in October) and the adoption of the motion will be ratified.

Where does this leave the Oneida Business Committee?

As was explained to those OBC members who attended the out-of-the-blue special (emergency?) working meeting on Friday July 12, 2013 which was not posted on the Tribe’s GroupWise notification system:

• OBC Resolution 11-08-00-B, Dioxin & Persistent Organic Pollutants, makes it clear that dioxin poses a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the Oneida Tribe and therefore called upon the U.S. State Department to pursue ending the production of dioxin everywhere in the U.S.
• OBC Resolution 12-08-10-B, Supporting Oneida Seven Generations & Oneida Energy in the Development of the Waste-to-Energy Project, which was adopted on December 8, 2010 and reaffirmed unanimously by eight OBC members on April 11, 2013 supports building a dioxin-emitting incinerator on the Oneida Reservation for the purpose of having a demonstration model to market dioxin-emitting incinerators to tribal & municipal governments throughout the U.S.

The Oneida Tribe’s Code of Ethics 3.1-1. ‘Policy and Purposes,’ says that elected officials are expected to “promote the highest ethical conduct” and “work upwards and strive to work toward improving the health, safety and welfare of the Oneida Nation.”

Despite that, OBC has twice taken official action (voting to support Resolution 12-08-10-B) which resulted in OBC jeopardizing the health, safety and welfare of the Oneida Tribe because, as Resolution 11-08-00-B notes:

[T]he ability of our Native Community to be protected from the effects of dioxin poisoning is critical to the future of our tribal nations and all life that sustains us[.]

To understand the ugly reality of OSGC’s OBC-supported attempts at building & marketing dioxin-emitting incinerators, one need look no further than the Dept. of Energy’s Final Environmental Assessment for the the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation: Energy Recovery Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Specifically, the following statements from pages 112-113 in the section titled, ‘4.2 Summary of Cumulative Impacts.’

This statement deflates the ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’ mantra of incinerator supporters:

Socioeconomics: The proposed project would have minor beneficial impacts on the area’s economy due to the influx of construction monies and new jobs. The reasonably foreseeable projects could have similar beneficial impacts as a result [of] construction activities; however the cumulative impacts are expected to have minor positive effects on the area’s economy.

What is meant by “foreseeable projects”? That once a demonstration model was built, OSGC planned to implement the same incinerator technology in other areas nearby. And what would be the impact of more than one incinerator in the local area?

The following statement hurts to read:

Environmental Justice: Because the reasonably foreseeable projects are reasonably distant from each other and from the proposed project, it is very unlikely that the same group of low-income or minority populations would be affected by more than a single project. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to environmental justice would be expected.

In other words, there is no denial that OSGC’s incinerator projects would have negative impacts on people, especially low-income and minority populations, but because the various projects would be evenly spread out among low-income and minority populations, no one group would be able – the ‘thinking’ goes – to claim that they were being negatively impacted by more than one incinerator at a time.

No mention of the fact that, as Resolution 11-08-00-B notes:

[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[.]

Additionally, the implication is that groups working for environmental justice on behalf of low-income and minority groups would be less likely to be able to marshall their forces together against any one particular incinerator because each group would be too busy fighting the incinerator planned for their own backyard.

This is OSGC’s vision for economic development as supported by the Oneida Business Commission.

Isn’t it a clear violation of the Oneida Tribe’s Code of Ethics?

Yet, OBC does have an option to demonstrate good faith and honest remorse: OBC could rescind Resolution 12-08-10-B.

Or OBC could continue supporting projects that jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the Oneida Tribe & Reservation as well as surrounding communities and tribes & cities throughout the U.S.

This is just one of many reasons why Oneida Seven Generations Corporation should be dissolved, and when the petition is presented to General Tribal Council at a GTC Meeting sometime in the near future, it will once again be time for…

Motion, Vote, Action!