Watch as Oneida Business Committee Chair Tina Delgado-Danforth blatantly violates Robert’s Rules of Orders As Used by the General Tribal Council (page 3) as it regards the true meaning of a “Motion to Reconsider”:
Motion to Reconsider
This motion is brought forward by a member wishing to bring a matter back before the body. The matter must be on the agenda and the membership must have received reasonable notice. The motion must be seconded, and it requires a majority vote. If the vote passes, the motion or prior action is on the floor as if the prior vote did not occur. Note: There are circumstances when reconsidering a prior motion is not in order.
The October 26, 2014 GTC Meeting Action Report Draft also tells the tale. By the end of the meeting GTC had not voted to adopt any action to address the OBC vacancy. Instead, GTC only voted to approve a “Motion by Linda Dallas to reconsider the adoption of Option B.”
Kaylynn Gresham, the woman who rightly challenged the wording of Linda Dallas’ “motion to reconsider adopting Option B” and clearly asked for the Parliamentarian’s opinion on how a “Motion to Reconsider” could be misinterpreted (or misused) by OBC Chair Tina Danforth as a way to allow the adoption of Option B, was exactly right.
The motion made by Linda Dallas and seconded by Madelyn Genskow was clearly worded in such a way that reconsideration, not adoption, was the only legal outcome, regardless of what the ‘intent’ of the motioner or seconder or the ‘understanding’ of OBC Chair Tina Danforth was. What counts is the wording and the wording is clear: “Motion to reconsider the adoption of Option B.”
(By the way… Where did Chief Counsel / Parliamentarian Jo Anne House go? Did she pop out for a smoke? She should have responded to Kaylynn Gresham’s vital legal question.)
Whatever Linda “Buffy” Dallas’ and Madelyn Genskow’s ‘intent’ was is just as irrelevant as Tina Danforth’s ‘opinion’ that a ‘Motion to Reconsider’ is the same thing as a ‘Motion to Adopt.’
It’s very interesting that at one point Linda “Buffy” Dallas was adamant that rules and laws must be followed, but when OBC Chair Tina Danforth violated Robert’s Rules of Orders As Used by the General Tribal Council regarding the specific meaning of a “Motion to Reconsider” (page 3) in order to unlawfully allow Linda Dallas’ motion to be adopted, Buffy is fine and dandy with it.
Why would Buffy be okay with Tina Danforth violating Tribal laws in order to get her own motion passed? Likely because Buffy was the second highest vote-getter after Danelle Wilson and is currently listed among the candidates on the sample ballot for the illegally scheduled Special Election slated for November 22, 2014.
The other one who pounded the pulpit for following the rules, David “Fleet” Jordan, a former OBC Council member who lost his campaign for OBC Treasurer in the 2014 General Election and is on the sample ballot for the illegally scheduled Special Election, was a running mate of OBC Chair Tina Danforth in the General Election.
Leyne Orosco, an unsuccessful candidate for OBC Secretary and running mate of Tina Danforth in the 2014 General Election, was the one who falsely claimed that General Tribal Council can’t overrule the Appeals Commission and was David Jordan’s Executive Assistant in the last OBC term. (Maybe he wants his old job back?)
Leyne Orosco, Tina Danforth, Chief Judicial Officer Winnifred Thomas, David “Fleet” Jordan in a shared campaign advertisement for the 2014 General Election published in Kalihwisaks
Tina Danforth herself, as well as Buffy, Leyne, and Fleet, said that the Election Law must be followed, but the Oneida Election Law on page 13 says that a primary must be held sixty (60) days prior to an election of Council members if there are sixteen (16) or more candidates, and the Sample Ballot published on the Tribe’s website shows that there are sixteen candidates for the OBC vacancy.
The Election Law also says on page 14, “All Special Elections shall follow rules for all other elections.” Primaries are required in the General Election, so they’re required for any Special Election, too.
Even if GTC had adopted Option B (which it clearly did not) it would be illegal to hold the election on November 22, 2014 as is now unlawfully scheduled. (Maybe Winnifred Thomas can explain it to you.)
Where is that ‘law & order’ mentality now, gang?
Why might OBC Chair Tina Danforth have been willing to violate Robert’s Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council regarding the legal definition of a “Motion to Reconsider” (other than incompetence)?
Because Tina desperately needs a friend at Norbert Hill Center due to the fact that the other seven OBC members seem to be against her, and some are rumored to be organizing a Removal Petition aimed at her, perhaps as meaningless as the failed Removal Petition against Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado organized by Brian Doxtator, who is now the Executive Assistant of OBC Treasurer Trish King.
Why didn’t Chief Counsel / Parliamentarian Jo Anne House correct Tina’s egregious error and explain to her that it had resulted in illegal actions by the OBC Chair? Maybe Jo Anne needs a friend, too. Or maybe she’s part of the cabal that wants to give Tina just enough rope.
So which is it, Buffy, Madelyn, Leyne, Fleet and Tina?
Does the OBC Chair need to abide by the Tribe’s rules and laws?
Do elections of Council members have to conform the Oneida Election Law?
Or are you willing to try to make an exception if you think it could benefit you or your friends personally?
As seen in yesterday’s post, this matter is now before the Oneida Appeals Commission.
See also: GTC’s Real Choices: SPEND $700,000 Or SAVE $500,000
