c. New Business
12. Tina Danforth RE: Seven Generations Board Responsibility
Action: Motion by Tina Danforth to for the Vice Chair to send a notice to Brenda Mendola-Buckley, Jennifer Hill-Kelly, and Jim Van Stippen regarding the Committee’s intension to remove them from their board responsibilities effective noon on Jan. 30 and an interim that they be noticed of their right to appeal and opportunity to resign, seconded by Ed Delgado.
Action: Motion by Trish King to table the Seven Generations Board responsibility until the end of this evenings meetings, seconded by Patty Hoeft. For: Patty Hoeft, Ed Delgado, Trish King, Melinda J. Danforth. Opposed: Tina Danforth. Abstained: Brandon Stevens. Motion carried.
Tina Danforth: For the record, I opposed because I believe that when we conclude our executive items that we will be adjourned and to bring this item up at the end of the day after I don’t know what that means for one thing. At the end of the day we are no longer in session once we adjourn.
Action: Motion by Tina Danforth to take this item from the table, seconded by Trish King. Motion carried unanimously.
Action: Motion by Tina Danforth to remove from Seven Generations Corporation three board members: Brenda Mendola Buckley, Jennifer Hill-Kelly and James Van Stippen for cause as stated in the Oneida Seven Generation Corporation bylaws Article [3.] Section 12, seconded by Brandon Stevens. For: Tina Danforth, Ed Delgado, Brandon Stevens. Opposed: Trish King, Patty Hoeft, Melinda J. Danforth. Vote tied. Kathy Hughes voted in favor of opposition. Motion failed.
Tina Danforth: For the record, I feel it was important for the Business Committee to fulfill our fiduciary responsibility regarding the assets of Seven Generations Corporation. In fulfilling that fiduciary responsibility, the Business Committee is accountable to General Tribal Council, that’s why I took this action based on responsibility. I’m not basing this on relationships, opportunity to resign and walk away from something that was to the level and extent of these expenditures and loss of tribal assets, both in cash and real estate. We’ve lost a lot during the past eight years and I cannot look the other way. Thank you.
So how did Tina Danforth feel after her sister Cathy Delgado joined the OSGC Board on June 9, 2010 and OSGC then went on to lose over $5 million due to its own lies to the public and elected officials about its garbage incinerator projects as determined by Brown County Judge Marc A. Hammer on January 9, 2013?
Has Tina Danforth ever called for her sister’s resignation from the OSGC Board due to those lies and financial losses?
Or does Tina no longer believe that “the Business Committee is accountable to General Tribal Council” for holding – or refusing to hold – OSGC Board members responsible for OSGC’s losses?
Apparently once her sister Caterina Delgado joined the OSGC Board it didn’t matter how much OSGC lost and Tina Danforth was finally able to “look the other way.”
Note that in her 2009 call for the resignation of OSGC Board members (other than her sister) Tina Danforth invoked the applicability of the OSGC By-laws, which says regarding the personal liabilities of executives and board members:
The Corporation will indemnify any Board member or officer, present, past or future, of the Corporation, against expenses actually and reasonably incurred in connection with the defense of any action, suit or proceeding, civil or criminal in which the board member or officer is made a party by reason of being or having been a member or officer, except in relation to matters as to which the board member or officer is adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding to be liable for negligence or misconduct in the performance of duty to the Corporation.
GTC must demand that the Business Committee hold those OSGC executives and board members who engaged in negligence or misconduct both legally and financially accountable for their actions which caused financial losses to the Tribe.
After all, as Tina Danforth admits, when it comes to holding OSGC responsible for the losses incurred from OSGC’s negligence and misconduct the BC is accountable to GTC.
It seems entirely likely that the City of Green Bay could sue OSGC to recover costs and legal fees the city had to spend defending itself against OSGC’s failed lawsuit, and if the Oneida Tribe has to take legal action against OSGC so that GTC can recover the $5 million or more in financial losses that resulted from OSGC’s lies, so be it.
To do otherwise would be treating the word ‘sovereignty’ as a synonym for ‘hypocrisy.’
