Well, here you go…
Obviously Rocky Hill is an OSGC cheerleader who wants to place blame anywhere but where it actually belongs, which is squarely on the shoulders of OSGC for their costly public misrepresentations, their incompetence, their intransigence, their refusal to provide required information (financial and otherwise), and their failure to fulfill their contractual financial obligations to divisions of the Tribe, and also on the shoulders of the BC for their refusal/failure to hold OSGC meaningfully accountable in order to protect the Tribe’s health, safety, welfare, resources and reputation from the incompetence, misconduct and negligence of OSGC and its subsidiaries.
GTC took self-defensive action by voting to dissolve OSGC, but it seems that Rocky Hill would prefer that GTC be defenseless.
See also: Disenfranchisement & Dirty Tricks?
REMINDER: The McGladrey & Pullen audit & analysis (for which the BC paid a six-figure sum) estimates that the Oneida Tribe’s credit rating with or without OSGC is an ‘A-’ and page 68 of the report says, “From a quantitative perspective, as of September 30, 2013 the proposed dissolution of OSGC into the Tribe has minimal impact on the Tribe from a creditworthiness perspective. The Tribe would maintain its ability to meet financial commitments.” So all of ‘the sky is falling!’ scare tactics and baseless claims in Rocky Hill’s motion must be taken with a salt lick.
See also: McGladrey & Pullen Audit & Analysis Of Dissolving OSGC
UPDATE: Here is the Appeals Commission’s Decision to dismiss Rocky Hill’s Motion for Injunction against the BC:
The Petitioner has not established how this Court has jurisdiction to review the internal rules and procedures of the General Tribal Council, not to mention how the sovereign immunity of Respondents can be overcome. …Petitioner must explain and show the legal basis for overcoming sovereign immunity and for reviewing the actions of another branch of the Tribe’s government. That has not happened in this case.
…There is no law, ordinance or rule that allows this Court to intervene. Therefore, Petitioner failed to show that this Court has jurisdiction to hear these claims against the General Tribal Council’s decisions much less overturn them.
