UPDATE:
- Decmeber 28, 2016 Oneida Business Committee Recommended Action Memo re: November 23, 2016 Fletcher PLLC Analysis of June 13, 2016 Oneida General Tribal Council Motions Regarding Per Capita
TOLDJA!
As Oneida Eye has previously reported, Oneida Business Committee Chair Cristina Danforth continuously fails to attend ~50% of OBC Regular Meetings and also fails to attend many General Tribal Council Meetings due to her external employment as President of the Native American Finance Officers Association / NAFOA Board of Directors and membership of the Board of Directors of both the Native American Bank, NA & the Native American Bancorporation Co. located in Colorado.
Oneida Eye also previously posted a video in which OBC Chair Cristina Danforth admitted at the July 6, 2016 General Tribal Council Semi-Annual Meeting that her absence due to non-Tribal employment combined with the negligence and incompetence of herself and her staff resulted in the loss to the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin of $3 to $4 MILLION from a federally funded prescription drug negotiated cost program.
Apparently, Cristina Danforth was too busy planning for the NAFOA Board’s recent trip to Cuba and she expensively failed to the atend to the business that GTC elected her and pays her to do as Oneida Business Committee Chair…
just as Tina failed in her own personal business resulting in bankruptcy.
Tina Danforth with the NAFOA Board enjoying themselves in Cuba
At that same July 6, 2016 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting, OBC Chair Cristina Danforth claimed that – in her absence from the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting – OBC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth had taken action as based on the opinion of OBC Chief Counsel & GTC Parliamentarian Jo Anne House and allowed GTC to vote on a Main Motion which increased Tribe members’ Per Capita payments to $2,000 for five years and also allowed GTC to vote on Amendments reducing that amount to $1,300 for three years, as seen in the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting Action Report Draft which shows the following:
Motion by Yvonne Metivier to direct the OBC to pay $2,000 Per Capita beginning Fiscal Year 2017 through 2021. Seconded by Scharlene Kasee. Motion carried by hand count: 1068 support; 200 opposed; 35 abstained
Amendment to the main motion by Nancy Skenandore to revise the Per Capita payment amount to $1,300 instead of $2,000. Seconded by Don Charnon. Motion carried by hand count: 791 support; 702 opposed; 32 abstained
Amendment to the main motion by Debra Schnell to revise the Per Capita payment plan to be in effect for the next three (3) fiscal years instead of the next five (5) fiscal years. Seconded by Linn Cornelius. Motion failed by hand count: 642 support; 829 opposed; 52 abstained
Amendment to the main motion by David P. Jordan to go with the OBC’s plan to pay off the debt. Seconded by Chris Cornelius. Motion carried by hand count: 697 support; 612 opposed; 87 abstained
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s criticism regarding OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s opinion and OBC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth’s actions can be seen below in a video excerpt from the July 6, 2016 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting:
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I understand at the [June 13, 2016] General Tribal Council meeting, um, we had a discussion around Per Capita, and there a Motion and some Amendments made. There were some irregularities in [that] the Amendments were contradictory, and, um, there was a failure to adhere to some of the Robert’s Rules [of Order]. … I’ve been in Tribal government for seventeen going on eighteen years now and, um, so I’m very familiar with the procedures around the rules that General Tribal Council has used. At the last meeting, um, as I stated there were irregularities and the Amendments were contradictory to the Main Motion, and that is something that has to get addressed. Um, and I wanted to mention it here first before I take it anywhere else because this was General Tribal Council’s meeting. It’s not a meeting of the [Oneida] Business Committee. It’s a meeting of the membership, of our – uh – our constituency here. And so, I am not sure how this is going to get resolved and how we’re going to move forward, because an Amendment cannot contradict the Main Motion. The Main Motion was voted affirmatively, and it was voted affirmatively with a small margin, and the affirmation of the Main Motion was to provide a $2,000 Per Capita. That is the Main Motion. Unfortunately, as I said, the irregularities that were allowed in the Amendment was contradictory which said that we would pay, um, $1,300 instead of $2,000, and we would provide it for 3 years instead of 5 years was the other Amendment. So those things trumped the Main Motion, and so there is an issue here about what really exists because an Amendment does not go forward unless the Main Motion passes and, as I stated, the Main Motion passed as an affirmative. So that is an issue that this body needs to resolve. I don’t think tonight is the time to do that, but I just wanted to mention it because, um, I am concerned about it. Um, the interpretation of it is not clear and, um, it’s also important because as we proceed tonight we need to be clear about our Motions and our Amendments and how they’re to be followed so that we can have an orderly meeting without contradiction, without confusion, without – um – superceding the Main Motion in the Amendments. So, that’s kind of the issue, um, we’re dealing with…. So now we’re in a situation where we have to maybe unwind what happened at the last meeting regarding the Per Capita on June 13th[, 2016].
Despite OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s claim that her many years in elected positions within the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin/Oneida Nation of Wisconsin means that she understands, values and abides by Robert’s Rules of Order as used by the General Tribal Council, Oneida Eye will demonstrate below that – once again – Cristina Danforth is simply not telling GTC the truth and she is the epitome of misleadership.
Below is a excerpt from the video of the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting regarding the Main Motion and Amendments that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth calls into question:
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Thank you David [‘Fleet’ Jordan], and before we start the discussion, we do have a Motion on the floor, and that Motion is to, um, approve the $2,000 [Per Capita] payout. There’s no caveats on that right now. It’s a [Per Capita] payout strictly of $2,000. Um, so, again, please keep that in the back of your mind that that motion is on the floor. We will keep our comments, um, to the Per Capita and the motion and I will begin with, um, our overflow room. Nancy [Skenandore]?
Nancy Skenandore: Hello, Melinda. So, it’s too late for me to ask for support for the Per Capita plan proposed by the Oneida Business Committee?
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: At this point, um, you could make [an] Amendment to the, um, the amounts that are proposed. Right now it says, “$2,000.” You can make an Amendment to the amount or you could add restrictions to it if you would wish. Um, or we could vote and vote it down. So there’s, uh, a number of options.
Nancy Skenandore: Ok. Can I do what you said then? Make to $1,300 instead of $2,000. The proposed plan from the Business Committee is $1,300, and that would be fiscally responsible, correct?
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Thank you. So your Amendment, Nancy, is to amend the Main Motion to, say, $1,300 instead of $2,000?
Nancy Skenandore: Correct.
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Ok.
At that point in the video, FORMER & ILLEGAL OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan leaned in to whisper to OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth.
We will explain in detail below why David ‘Fleet’ Jordan should only be considered an ILLEGAL OBC Member due specifically to the ‘procedural irregularities’ created by the unlawful & unethical actions of OBC Chair Cristina Danforth…
as well as subsequent unlawful & unethical actions by the Oneida Business Committee, the Oneida Law Office, and the Oneida Election Board.
Fleet obviously wanted to keep his conspiratorial private coaching comments to Melinda Danforth out of the earshot of GTC and thereby omitted from the official transcript. However, turning up the volume of the video allows one to hear Fleet whisper in Melinda’s ear:
Fmr. & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan: You have to use the [OBC’s] Plan, otherwise it won’t work.
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth then turns off her microphone to respond to Fmr. & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan, and as Melinda Danforth’s microphone remains turned off – keeping GTC in the dark about discussions on the stage during their own GTC Meeting – Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth received further conspiratorial private coaching out of GTC’s earshot from Assistant Chief Financial Officer RaLinda Ninham-Lamberies.
After keeping GTC out of the loop of their private conspiracy, the following occurred:
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Is there support? I heard somebody say, ‘Second.’ Don Charnon? So the Motion, or the Amendment made by Nancy Skenandore and seconded by John Charn – Don Charnon is to revise the Per Capita amount in the Main Motion from $2,000 to $1,300. Ok, questions?
OBC Treasurer Patricia ‘Trish’ King: Madame Chair?
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Trish?
OBC Treasurer Trish King: Um, I’d like to either offer an amendment or get a clarification from the Motioner, um, because she did state that it was the Business Committee’s Plan. It’s very important that we identify that the Motion is to adopt the Business Committee’s Plan as presented in order to take care of the debt to use the permanent Contingency Fund for the debt. The Plan works all together.
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Right, but it’s my understanding that the Business Committee could take that action even if it’s reduced. Because we don’t need the General, we don’t need the General Tribal Council action to tap the Government Contingency [Fund] because we have rules in place for us [the OBC] to tap the Government Contingency [Fund]. So if we do allow for the $1,300 we should be able to take that action ourselves back at the Business Committee table, is what I’m understanding. Privileged question, go ahead Sherrole [Benton].
Sherrole Benton: Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, it’s my belief that, um, uh, Nancy’s Amendment would be subject to the Main Motion. The Amendment doesn’t override the Main Motion. So if we want to support the BC’s Per Capita Plan we have to vote down the Main Motion and then bring a new motion forward to, um, to accept, uh, the BC’s Per Capita Plan.
Nancy Skenandore: Ok, whatever it takes.
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: [OBC Chief Counsel & GTC Parliamentarian] Jo Anne [House], what do – can you please render a decision on whether or not the $1,300 [Amendment] would overrule the $2,000 in the Main Motion?
OBC Chief Counsel & GTC Parliamentarian Jo Anne House: The question is whether or not the, uh, first Amendment is is order. The Main Motion calls for a $2,000 Per Capita payment. The Amendment reduces that $2,000 to $1,300. The Amendment is in order and would be effective if it were adopted and the Main Motion were adopted. The Per Capita payment would be $1,300.
OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Thank you.
One month later, the OBC discussed what had occurred during the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting, as seen below in excerpts & video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting (which OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth did not attend):
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: The next item is a request to adopt a Resolution titled ‘Per Capita Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2021’ which was adopted by General Tribal Council on June 13, 2016. Um, I have questions regarding this item. Um, it hasn’t been my understanding that if General Tribal Council approves something we don’t need to approve it, but if we approve something it could go to General Tribal Council, and the other thing is there is an item on – later on the Agenda that’s asking for a Declaratory Ruling on the actions taken at the June 13th [GTC] Meeting, and I’m also asking referring that this, um, be deferred, um, for a legal opinion by an outside attorney. I think the procedural issues regarding the June 13 [GTC Meeting] action, um, need to be addressed, so I think this item should be be deferred, at a minimum. Jo Anne?
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: Under the Per Capita Law, um, a Per Capita is adopted by a Resolution. The current Per Capita Plan, that we’re paying the last one out, uh, was adopted by Motion of the General Tribal Council. The Business Committee ratified that Motion by a Resolution in order to conform to the Per Capita Law itself. This is the same action that’s occurring. This Resolution simply conforms to the Per Capita Law by a Resolution.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I understand that when we do a Rev– Revenue Allocation Plans that there are Resolutions that accompany this. Again, my concern is that on June 13th General Tribal Council took action to approve a $2,000 payment to the membership for 5 years, and then there was a subse– there was also an, uh, adjoining Amendment for $1,300 for 3 years. So, I think there, there is a contradiction here between the Amendment and the Main Motion, and therefore I don’t think this is ready for adoption at this point in time. There’s no need to do it today. There’s no reason why it can’t wait and be deferred until we get the Decla– Declaratory Ruling that’s on the Agenda later, and if that doesn’t suffice I am also going to be looking for an outside legal opinion based on the procedural aspects of the decis– the decision that was conducted at the GTC Meeting. I’m not questioning the Per Capita, not questioning the amount, not questioning the years. I’m questioning the procedural irregularities. I think that needs to be very clear.
OBC Sec. Lisa Summers then made a Motion to adopt an OBC Resolution entitled ‘Implementing Per Capita Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2021 Adopted by General Tribal Council on June 13, 2016,’ and stated “we can always go back and rescind this Resolution” if there were to be a later Declaratory Ruling which determined that there had been procedural irregularities during the June 13, 2016 GTC Meeting. OBC. Sec. Summers’ Motion was seconded by OBC Member Brandon Stevens, but was then stopped dead in its tracks by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth who declared the Motion to be ‘Out of Order.’
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I don’t believe it’s– it’s appropriate to– to move forward on this, and that is for the record. Um, my statements for the record will be entered regardless of how the outcome of this vote is. And, again, this is a plan for 2017 through ’21, and it’s not clear because the Main Motion was for 5 years at $2,000, and in here it’s saying it’s– it’s going to be $1,300 instead of $2,000. So, I think there are some contradictions here and I don’t think this is ready to move forward. So, I’m going to ask for a ruling if– if I can call this ‘Out of Order,’ because that is my next step. And it’s based on the content of the Resolution and based on the irregularities and the contradictions between the Motion and the Amendments that were made on June 13th. So, Jo Anne?
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: I think that the question is whether the Resolution is in order in front of the Business Committee. Um, there are two issues involved in this. One is carrying out the directives of the General Tribal Council. This, uh, as, uh, the Chairwoman has pointed out, um, is not the issue. The issue is the process, uh, the procedures by which the General Tribal Council took action. Um, based on that, the Resolution would be in order. However, (clears throat) pardon me, it is the discretion of the Chairwoman, uh, to determine that this Resolution would be ‘Out of Order,’ uh, since I believe there is a– a sufficient amount of gray area in this. It is not a black and white decision.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you, Jo Anne. Any questions or comments from the Committee at this time? If not I’m going to go to the floor.
OBC Secretary Lisa Summers: Can you just state your decision then for the record, please?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Um, based on what Jo Anne said, she said it is my discretion to call it ‘Out of Order’ due to the gray areas and, again, I think due to the uncer– uncertainty of what the outcome of the June 13th, because the Main Motion is the Main Motion, and the Main Motion was $2,000 for 5 years. That stands, and if there’s an Amendment that’s contradictory then, then we’re not ready to move forward unless we’re going to pay $2,000 plus $1,300, and I don’t think that was the intent of the floor on that day. And I think from a procedural standpoint this is, this needs to be addressed, and it’s not clear. It is just totally not clear. A Main Motion passes, the entirety of the Main Motion passes, along with its Amendments. Based on that, I’m going to say that it’s ‘Out of Order,’
OBC Sec. Lisa Summers then made a motion to Table the item until the July 27, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting, which was seconded by Fmr. & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan, and approved unanimously.
However, there was a related discussion later on during the meeting as seen below in another excerpt of video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting:
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: The next item is a request to approve, um, to direct the [OBC] Treasurer and Chief Counsel to submit Declaratory Ruling requests to the Oneida iciaryiciary by July 15[, 2016,] regarding the [OBC] Chairwoman Tina Danforth’s opinion that the June 13[, 2016] General Tribal Council Meeting Per Capita Motion and Amendments had irregularities and needed further discussion by General Tribal Council. This is – questions, comments? Jo Anne, do you have a question or comment?
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: Um, yes. When this, uh, matter was brought forward I began doing the research with regards to prior [Oneida] Appeals Commission actions, uh, which are applicable under the Judiciary Law. …
As we will discuss below, that admission by OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House that Oneida Appeals Commission actions remain applicable is very important with regard to the unlawful actions of the OBC & the Oneida Election Board which resulted in an illegal election held to fill an OBC vacancy despite the undeniable fact that GTC NEVER VOTED TO ADOPT ANY MOTION TO ENACT SUCH AN ELECTION as is required by the Oneida Election Law.
Thus, the OBC Chief Counsel’s acknowledgment that the decisions of the Oneida Appeals Commission remain binding despite the fact that the OAC was dissolved goes to very heart of why DAVID ‘FLEET’ JORDAN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL OBC MEMBER due to the procedural irregularities created by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, as will be explained later in this post.
Jo Anne House’s commentary continues:
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: There were two prior actions, excuse me [gets up to retrieve documents]. Uh, the first occurred in, uh, 2000, um, regard – uh, [Fmr. OBC Chair] Ed Delgado v. the Oneida Business Committee, and in that, uh, ruling the Oneida Appeals Commission, uh, stated that it is not in a position to respond to Declaratory Rulings [requests] regarding actions taking place within a General Tribal Council Meeting. That the, uh, structure of the Tribe is set up such that the General Tribal Council is a legislative body and the legislative questions are best, uh, process questions are best answered by that body, and they dismissed that request, uh, from Mr. Delgado, uh, regarding a Declaratory Ruling. Uh, it came up again in, uh, 2013, uh, Racquel Hill v. the Oneida Business Committee & the General Tribal Council. Um, that, uh, was regarding, um – I believe it was the adoption of the Election Law and the SEOTS voting. …
More specifically, Former Oneida Election Board Chair Racquel ‘Rockhead’ Hill became several shades of butthurt following the Oneida Eye Publisher’s successful effort garnering GTC’s support to adopt a directive requiring the Oneida Election Board to provide a polling site for all future Tribal elections at the Southeastern Oneida Tribal Services/SEOTS facility…
…rather than continue to allow the OBC & OEB to selectively disenfranchise Tribe members in Milwaukee/Chicago areas by preventing them from having access to a SEOTS polling site as the OBC & OEB had planned to do for the inaugural election of the Oneida Judiciary.
The OBC’s Chief Counsel continued:
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: … Uh, the Appeals Commission, uh, heard that request for a Declaratory Ruling and ultimately dismissed it, um, indicating again that this is a legislative procedural action best responded to by the body itself. The Judiciary Law identifies that Declaratory Rulings can be brought for, um, actions regarding, uh, interpreting Tribal law. Um, Tribal law is identified as something adopted under the Legislative Procedures Act. It is possible, um, and, uh, to bring a request for a Declaratory Ruling, uh, framing this as a procedural – not framing this as a procedural question, but as in regards to whether the action itself is valid in adopting what I’ve always interpreted as a ‘law.’ A directive of the General Tribal Council, it equates to, um, a law, uh, a legislative action. Um, so it is possible to bring a Declaratory Ruling. Uh, I simply, uh, caution the Business Committee that it is likely that it would be dismissed. Um, I’m not entirely certain a Declaratory Ruling is necessary at this point. The General Tribal Council acted at that GTC Meeting. Um, they took action. They had the opportunity to question the action. They had the opportunity to challenge, um, and request rulings on whether Motions were in order, um, and those answers were given. The meeting was closed. Uh, in the past, um, our – our [Oneida Law] Office, uh, myself, I’ve always indicated that those challenges needed to be raised in the meeting and that, um, carrying out that act – directive afterwards was the responsiblity of the Business Committee. So, um, it, in regards to the Declaratory Ruling, um, I’m not entirely certain that the Judiciary will accept it. Although, if directed I will write as strong a request for that Declaratory Ruling as I can.
At that point, OBC Secretary Lisa Summers made a Motion to approve the OBC Chair’s request to direct the OBC Treasurer and the OBC Chief Counsel to submit requests to the Oneida Judiciary for a Declaratory Ruling by July 15, 2016, regarding the interpretation of the opinion that on June 13, 2016, General Tribal Council’s Per Capita Motions & Amendments had irregularities and require further discussion by GTC.
However, despite OBC Chair Cristina Danforth making three calls for support for OBC Sec. Lisa Summers’ Motion, none of the other legally elected OBC Members in attendance seconded the Motion, including Jennifer Webster, Brandon Stevens, Fawn Billie, and Treas. Trish King. [Former & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan was also improperly sitting on the dais, but he didn’t try to second the Motion, either]. Thus, Sec. Lisa Summers’ Motion failed for lack of support.
OBC Treas. Trish King then said she did not support the request for a Declaratory Ruling and that it was up to GTC to take action to challenge the validity of the procedures conducted by OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth during the June 13, 2016 GTC Meeting.
OBC Treas. Trish King then said that in order to be in compliance with GTC’s June 13, 2016 directives she had already begun the process of paying off debt as stated in one of the Main Motion’s Amendments, which had also resulted in the finalization of the budget on Tuesday, July 12, 2016.
King concluded her remarks by saying:
OBC Treas. Trish King: Unless the General Tribal Council wants to bring it up and address it … it doesn’t make a difference unless General Tribal Council makes a difference, takes action on it.
We’ll discuss below what might actually be meant by the term ‘DEBT’ and how it might actually refer to the SECRET MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT (EXTORTION?) PAYMENT THAT OBC SECRETLY ALLOWED JOHN BREUNINGER TO USE THE TRIBE’S FUNDS TO PAY on behalf of companies which are subsidiaries of Tribally-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) and are involved in the expansive fraud schemes of Ron Van Den Heuvel under investigation by the Brown County Wisconsin Sheriff’s Dept. and no fewer than five federal agencies, and which DO NOT have ‘Sovereign Immunity.’
Following OBC Treas. Trish King’s comments, OBC Sec. Lisa Summers said:
OBC Sec. Lisa Summers: [G]etting an opinion from outside of the Tribe’s processes, I don’t think is conducive to where we are. You’re absolutely right when you – you stated that an outside attorney isn’t necessarily going to understand all the nuances of the dynamics between the legislative, judicial and the General Tribal Council.
TRANSLATION:
An outside legal opinion might not be based on the nepotism, favoritism, and tortured ‘logic’ that the OBC relies on to continuously violate Tribal laws in their efforts to bully, intimidate, and undermine the authority of the General Tribal Council, which is the Supreme Governing Body of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin.
Speaking of which, at that point Former & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan asked OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House some questions to which she replied by further explaining why she believed the Amendments were in order:
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: There was…a wage increase petition submitted and there was a Motion to approve the petition. There was a second, uh – there was an Amendment to that Motion, uh, that reduced the salary, uh, level in the petition and placed additional limitations, um, on the payment of that wage increase similar to what we have in front of us today.
What OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House failed to mention was that the OBC, the Treasurer’s Office, the Finance Office, and the Human Resources Department, with the advice & counsel of Jo Anne House and the Oneida Law Office, had all worked together to weasel around the expressed will & stated intent of GTC which clearly voted to limit wage increases to those employees making less than $65,000. By doing so the OBC, Treasurer’s Office, Finance Office, HR Dept. and Oneida Law Office thereby demonstrated – once again – that they collectively and regularly disregard and ignore the directives of GTC.
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne went on to explain regarding the use of Amendments during GTC meetings:
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: Robert’s Rules of Order says that any Amendment related to the subject matter of the Main Motion is in order. Uh, they, in fact have a specific example, um, where a Main Motion, um, is offered to ‘commend’ a member, um, and an Amendment to that Motion deletes the word ‘commend’ and inserts the word ‘censures,’ and [Robert’s Rules of Order] identifies that is an action that is in order. It is germane to the Main Motion, even though it flips it on its head.
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House then admitted there are some ways in which General Tribal Council regularly deviates from Robert’s Rules of Order, but tried to justify those deviations as being based on ‘precedents,’ yet she did not explain how such precedents had been officially established and what would be required to establish new precedents.
Later in the discussion, Tribe member Cathy ‘Kiss Ass-kateer #1’ Metoxen strangely & falsely claimed that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth does “a good job” at abiding by Robert’s Rules of Order. WRONG, as we’ll discuss below.
Oneida Personnel Commissioner Brad ‘Kiss Ass-kateer #2’ Graham then said that the Tribe had paid for him to be trained in Robert’s Rules of Order and that he did not agree with Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s analysis, and then he strangely & falsely claimed that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth “knows what she’s doing.” WRONG, as we’ll discuss below.
[Oneida Eye was surprised to see Cathy Metoxen & Brad Graham acting as Tina’s Kiss Ass-kateers in the video above given that Cathy Metoxen is usually fearless in holding OBC Members accountable and Brad Graham was actually a Co-Appellant with Oneida Eye’s Publisher in a matter brought before the Oneida Appeals Commission which sought to require OBC to bring back to GTC the question of how to address an OBC vacancy due to OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s blatant violations of Robert’s Rules of Order as Used by GTC and her equally egregious violations of the Oneida Election Law during the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting as discussed below.]
Tina laughingly replied “Most times” to her Kiss Ass-kateers‘ false claims, and then explained again why she personally did not agree with the OBC Chief Counsel’s analysis:
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I guess my last concern is, an Amendment doesn’t carry unless the Main Motion carries, and the Main Motion was to adopt the $2,000 payment for 5 years. That carried. Positive, in and of itself. Amendments go with the Main Motion, and the Amendment provided for the the [$1,300], and it said “instead” but, whether is said “instead” or not, it contradicted the Main Motion. An Amendment cannot go forward unless the Main Motion goes forward. The Main Motion fails, all the Amendments go away. So you can’t have an Amendment without a Main Motion. The Main Motion passed in the affirmative. Right here it says there was 1,068 in support of the Motion to adopt the $2,000 Per Capita payment; 200 opposed; 35 abstained. And, so, that is – that’s the fundamental issue here. So they both passed, so they both get paid, or one goes away, or they both go away. It’s not clear, and I listened to the tape. I listened to excerpts of the tape. There was confusion. People were asking, “What are we voting on?” And they were told – they were, they were ignored, they were shut down, they were told, “Well, uh, you can’t ask.” I – uh, and different excerpts there were questions of clarity being asked. Specifically, Mary Ann said, “What are we voting on?” and, and she was told, “We’re voting; we can’t discuss,” whatever, but sh– but we weren’t voting at that point in time. It could have been answered. I listened to it 3 times, that excerpt. So, there was confusion, there was not clarity, and there was procedural irregularities in the sense that the Amendment was not called out of order. Two distinct issues. You can’t – you can’t do one that trumps the other. An Amendment cannot trump a Main Motion, and that’s the issue. Nor can an Amendment go forward unless the Main Motion passes in the affirmative. It passed in the affirmative, allowing for $2,000. That is the issue here.
The item remained tabled at the July 27, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting after OBC Chair Cristina Danforth made three unanswered calls for action. Tribe Member Cathy Metoxen reminded the OBC that it was the OBC Chair’s prerogative to call for a GTC Special Meeting to address the issue if she felt so inclined.
Having researched OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s statements at the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting regarding an Amendment to change ‘commend’ to ‘censure,’ Oneida Eye’s Editors found a document by the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding the use of Robert’s Rules of Order with a section listed as “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised” that seems to support what Jo Anne House said and negates what Cristina Danforth and Brad Graham claimed. It reads as follows (page 17; marked as Section 5-75):
[A]ssume that the following is the pending motion: “that the City Council commend Officer George for his action in…” An amendment to strike out commend and insert censure, although antagonistic to the original intent, is germane and in order because both ideas deal with the Council’s opinion of the officer’s action. Also, since a motion to censure the officer for the same act could not be introduced independently in the same session after the adoption of a motion to commend him, the amendment to change commend to censure is germane under the rule given above. It should be noted that censure is different from not commend.
There are borderline cases where a presiding officer will find it difficult to judge the germaneness of an amendment. Whenever in doubt he should admit the amendment or, in important cases, refer the decision to the assembly: “The chair is in doubt and will ask the assembly to decide whether the amendment is germane. [Debate, if any, provided that debate is in order.] The question is on whether the amendment is germane to the resolution [or “to the primary amendment”]. As many as are of the opinion that the amendment is germane, say aye…Those of the opinion that it is not germane, say no…, etc.
Based on the above information, Oneida Eye has revised its prior analysis and now concludes that – in this one instance, and likely only because it deprived GTC of $700 per person – OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House was remarkably and surprisingly correct, and the Amendment to lower the Per Capita payment from $2,000 to $1,300 was in order.
Specifically, Oneida Eye contends that Jo Anne House only made the right call in this one instance because it comes at a net loss to GTC and the money will most likely be used to pay the secret multi-million dollar shakedown settlement that John Breuninger [the husband of Jo Anne House’s Law Office subordinate Jeri Bauman] secretly agreed to pay using Tribal funds on behalf of Oneida Seven Generations Corporations subsidiaries to suspect companies in the Cook Co. IL lawsuit, and despite the fact that under Article IV of the Oneida Constitution, GTC had the right to veto any encumbrance created by Tribally-owned corporations and could have simply voted to refuse to pay the perpetrators of what appears to be an extortion racket which some Tribal officials & members thought they personally stood to benefit from due to their own personal investment (just as other investors in those exact same companies were told that they would make millions before they sued and won their investments back), and also stood to lose their own personal investments had GTC voted to veto the shakedown.
MOREOVER, Oneida Eye still maintains that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House has a track record of making misleading and false statements to GTC, including making false statements in her legal analysis as published in a GTC Meeting Packet regarding GTC’s access to ‘Disclosure Reports’ of Tribally-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation. One might even conclude that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House LIED IN WRITING to GTC, and Oneida Eye’s reporting has shown that the OBC Chief Counsel has FAILED to properly advise the OBC to hold OSGC and its subsidiaries accountable for refusing to provide accurate ‘Disclosure Reports’ and for blatantly violating the May 5, 2013 GTC directive to prohibit OSGC and its subsidiaries from utilizing any kind of gasification, pyrolysis, or plastics-to-oil facility on the Oneida Reservation:
Recall as we cited above that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House claimed during the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting:
OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: [A GTC directive is] what I’ve always interpreted as a ‘law.’ A directive of the General Tribal Council, it equates to, um, a law, uh, a legislative action.
So why did Jo Anne House aid, abet, and possibly direct the OBC to refrain from taking action as OSGC engaged in breaking the law of GTC’s directive, not to mention violating local zoning ordinances?
Oneida Eye likewise maintains that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s ‘sins of omission’ include another important example of OBC Chair Cristina Danforth blatantly and indefensibly violating Robert’s Rules of Order, yet Jo Anne predictably kept her mouth shut about Tina’s violations of Robert’s Rules of Order in order to aid & abet the OBC in violating Tribal law and disenfranchising GTC in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act.
Specifically, the Action Report, the Official Transcript, and excerpts of the video of the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting regarding whether to and, if so, how to fill a vacancy on the Oneida Business Committee demonstrate that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s newfound ‘concern’ for doing things right and heeding the protestations of GTC members when they call her out for doing things wrong isn’t convincing in the least, and is in fact just another example highlighting Tina’s blatant hypocrisy as OBC Chair as she accuses others of her own crimes.
Oneida Eye apologizes for audio & video syncing problems due to our editing certain portions of the time required for vote counting, but we encourage readers to compare the video above with excerpts below from the Official Transcript of the October 26, 2014 GTC Meeting.
The OBC had outlined six different ways to address the OBC vacancy as described in the GTC Meeting Packet, including Option B which was Motioned, and Seconded, and Failed by a vote of 539 Yes; 728 No; 14 Abstained.
After some discussion as to other Options that were included in the packet that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth declared to be ‘Out of Order,’ and a statement by Former OBC Member & failed OBC Treasurer candidate David ‘Fleet’ Jordan criticizing the OBC inclusion of Option E, which simply allowed the next highest vote-getter (Tribe member Danelle Wilson, Executive Asst. to OBC Member Ron ‘Tehassi’ Hill) to be given the position. Following Fleet’s comments, Tribe member Linda ‘Buffy’ Dallas made a Motion to Reconsider Option B. Robert’s Rules of Orders As Used by the General Tribal Council (page 3) says regarding the definition and 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.
THEREFORE, A ‘MOTION TO RECONSIDER‘ IS MERELY A MATTER OF BRINGING A REJECTED MOTION BACK TO THE FLOOR FOR FURTHER DEBATE & DISCUSSION AFTER WHICH A MEMBER MAY SUBSEQUENTLY MAKE A NEW ‘MOTION TO ADOPT‘…
BUT, A ‘MOTION TO RECONSIDER‘ IS NOT & CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE SAME THING AS A “MOTION TO ADOPT.’
Starting on Page 14 of the Official Transcript of the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting:
Leyne Orosco: Good Morning, my name is Leyne Orosco. I make a motion that we do Plan B with the polling open from 7am – 7pm on election day and also that there be a polling site in the Milwaukee area.
Continuing on Page 17 of the Official Transcript:
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: What does the body want? You want a hand count? I will support that. I will support that. You know, it was relatively close, but I think the difference was in the overflow room. I know there was a majority in here and I believe the majority was in there was with a good number in here as well. So I will honor that. I will honor that there is a hand count on Plan B. Ok, I will honor that. I’m just trying to be fair and I don’t want any questions coming out of this body afterwards so I will respect the wishes of General Tribal Council. Kind of was expecting that anyway. All those who are in favor of Plan B which goes for a caucus today and the deadline for November 3rd to apply as a candidate and that the election occur on November 22nd. All those in favor, again, for Plan B, please raise your hand so you can be counted. Plan B. All those who oppose Plan B which allows for a November 22nd polling site, both here and in Milwaukee. Plan B; if you are opposed please raise your hand so you can be counted. All those abstaining to Plan B, please raise your hand. We have the results, voting yes is 539, voting no is 728, abstaining is 14. Total number of votes cast was 1,281. Plan B now has failed, or Option B has failed so now the floor is open for consideration.
Continuing on page 24 of the Official Transcript:
David ‘Fleet’ Jordan: … For the Business Committee to make a recommendation to take the next [highest] vote-getter[, Danelle Wilson, who] actually works for the Business Committee in…Councilman[ Ron Tehassi Hill]’s office is I think is a major conflict of interest. Thank you.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you, David. I’m going to go to Linda.
3rd Highest Vote-Getter Linda ‘Buffy’ Dallas: I’d like to make motion for the General Tribal Council to reconsider Option B. The accelerated special election that would caucus today with the election on November 22nd. And I make that recommendation because November 22nd is where we have a chance where it’s going to be reasonable weather yet, it is still not going to be cold. And the process is all outlined in there and it gives everyone a fair chance to participate in the election process and it follows the rules and the laws of the tribe.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There is a motion to reconsider Option B based on the discussion; is there a support on the motion?
Sherrole Benton: Point of order Madam Chair.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There is a motion it is seconded by Madelyn Genskow. What is your point of order Sherrole?
Sherrole Benton: Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard Larry Smith make this motion for reconsideration of Option B. Did you recognize that motion?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I did not, no. I did not know he was necessarily making a motion.
Robert Steffes: I have something from the overflow room.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Yes sir. State your name please.
Robert Steffes: Half the people that are saying something over there, I can’t even hear them. Your speakers are low or whatever but I cannot hear. So turn it up.
Corinne Robelia-Zhuckkahosee: I have a point of order.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Just one second, please. There is a motion on the floor by Linda, seconded by Madelyn to reconsider Option B. That is the motion. What is the point of order, Corinne?
Corinne Robelia-Zhuckkahosee: The point of order is we already had a motion on the floor for E. We still haven’t voted on that yet?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: No, it was out of order, Corinne. You’re correct, it was but it was out of order. Thank you, Corinne. Yes, Sir. Can you please state your name?
Matt Johnson: I’m just wondering two things, maybe. If we can adjourn and sometime and have a vote some other day, like a big election. Or maybe we can do it easy, a hand count today and vote if you have to vote we can do a hand count. Or adjourn and do another vote some other day maybe.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you.
Sherrole Benton: I’m going to call for the question.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There is a call for the question made by Sherrole, Sherrole Benton.
Debbie Thundercloud: Madam Chair, I have a privileged question in the overflow room.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Debbie, what is your privileged question?
Debbie Thundercloud: My privileged question has to do with your ruling out of the previous motion. I’m trying to understand how the Appeals Commission could over rule a valid section of the constitution which allows General Tribal Council to make this decision?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: The out of order ruling was based both on my perspectives and based on Jo Anne House perspectives and I will stand with that. Thank you for your question. There has been a call for the question for the vote on Plan B. There also was again a consideration for a hand count so I’m going to move us forward with a hand count for reconsideration on Plan B. All those in favor of Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted please.
Linda ‘Buffy’ Dallas: Tina, can you explain why we are reconsidering Plan B? Because of the legalities of the judicial opinion.
Tina Danforth: We are voting on Plan B as a reconsideration, Option E was ruled out of order and based on the conversation it is now a motion for Plan B. Please raise your hand to be counted.
Brenda John Stevens: Can I ask a privileged question during a count?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: No, no questions during a count, during the voting. Once the voting process starts, we’re voting so please be patient.
Unidentified Speaker: Hello, we need the election board to come vote.
Mark A. Powless: Madam Chair, the count isn’t taking place maybe they should come forward and make a count.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I’m sorry; we’re going to do a count, a hand count. I’m going to apologize there is some confusion between this room and the next room. All those who are in favor of Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted. The election board shall count. Thank you, I guess they didn’t hear the last go around. All those in favor of Plan B raise your hand so you can be counted by the election board.
Unidentified Speaker: Privileged question, Madam Chair.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There are no questions during the voting process. Can you please show the over flow room so I can see if the counting is completed or not, whoever has the cameras. All of those opposed to Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted. All of those abstaining on Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted. Abstentions raise your hand.
Rocky Hill: Privileged question Madam Chair.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Is the election board done with their counting?
Rocky Hill: Privileged question Madam Chair.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Yes, what is your privileged question?
Racquel ‘Rocky’ Hill: Because the vote was voted on previously and failed does this require 2/3 majority vote to pass?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I don’t know to be honest. It is a simple majority vote based on my conservation with the parliamentarian. Majority vote. We have the votes. The motion to reconsider Option B, those voting yes 738, those voting no 469, abstaining 51, motion carries with Option B. We now need to go into a caucus of the body for the candidates for consideration for the election.
Sherrole Benton: Madam Chair.
Tina Danforth: Yes, Sherrole.
Sherrole Benton: I’d like to nominate Greg Matson for the vacant position. Kaylynn Gresham: Privileged question.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Who has a privileged question? Kaylynn.
Kaylynn Gresham: Wasn’t that to reconsider adopting B, not actually adopting it?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: That motion was to reconsider but it was also to adopt B.
AND THERE ON PAGE 27 OF THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT WE SEE THE FLAT OUT LIE TOLD TO GTC BY OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH CREATING A MASSIVE ‘PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY‘ IN WHICH TINA CONFLATES A ‘MOTION TO RECONSIDER‘ WITH A ‘MOTION TO ADOPT‘ DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE SAME THING, ACCORDING TO ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER.
Kaylynn Gresham: Where did it say that?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: That was my understanding.
Kaylynn Gresham: It was just to reconsider whether or not we were going to adopt Option B not to actually adopting Option B.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Where is the motioner? It was made by; motion was by Linda seconded by Madelyn. I guess I’m going to go back to your intent. That is what I understood that we were voting based on the discussion we wanted to reconsider it and so based on the parliamentarian, we could go forward and so that was my understanding is we were voting on Option B. Those in favor of motion B or Option B that is what I stated when the motion was made. Linda, you are the motioner as well as Madelyn is that also your intent? Please verbally respond.
Linda Dallas: Yes, yes it was.
Tina Danforth: Madelyn.
Madelyn Genskow: Yes, that was the intent to vote for Option B.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you.
GUESS WHAT? IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS!
WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT THEY MOTIONED & SECONDED, AND ALL THAT LINDA & MADELYN MOTIONED FOR – AND THE ONLY THING GTC ACTUALLY VOTED ON – WAS A ‘RECONSIDERATION,’ NOT ON ‘ADOPTION’ JUST AS STATED IN THE OCTOBER 26, 2014 GTC MEETING ACTION REPORT.
Kaylynn Gresham: Can I get the parliamentarian to state something? Because that is not what was written as the motion.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: You know what? The call for the consideration should have been before the vote not after the vote.
Kaylynn Gresham: But that is not what the motion says.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: That is what the motioner’s intent was and that what the vote was, that was how I stated the vote, that was my understanding and right now we’ve just concluded a vote with the numbers and the motion passed. That is my ruling based on the vote, based on the motion, based on the intent. Cathy, I don’t know, what is your privileged question?
Cathy Metoxen: I’m just curious, I didn’t hear you recognize anyone and then you’re going to back and forth with somebody if you didn’t recognize them.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Well.
Sherrole Benton: Madam Chair.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Let’s have some decorum here, yes Sherrole.
Sherrole Benton: I guess my, the way I’m reading the motion now, it says to reconsider Plan B so I guess this is kind of, just for clarification, should we be in discussion now or should we be nominating candidates.
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: My understanding is we should be voting on the candidates that we should be going into a caucus and that is why I believe people are lined up to nominate people.
WHY DIDN’T GTC PARLIAMENTARIAN JO ANNE HOUSE ANSWER KAYLYNN GRESHAM’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION?
BECAUSE JO ANNE HOUSE KNEW DAMN WELL THAT KAYLYNN GRESHAM WAS CORRECT AND THAT OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH WAS DEAD WRONG AND WAS VIOLATING ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER AS USED BY GTC, AND THEREBY VIOLATING GTC’S RIGHTS.
WHERE WAS LEYNE ‘LAME-O’ OROSCO TO HOLD TINA DANFORTH ACCOUNTABLE FOR VIOLATING ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER?
WHERE WAS LINDA ‘BUFFOON’ DALLAS WHO OFTEN COMPLAINS ABOUT THE OBC NOT FOLLOWING THE TRIBE’S RULES & LAWS COMING TO KAYLYNN GRESHAM’S DEFENSE AMD ADMITTING THAT IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HER INTENT WAS, AND THAT HER FRIEND TINA GOT IT WRONG?
WHERE WAS DAVID ‘FLUNKY’ JORDAN COMING TO THE MICROPHONE AND SAYING THAT KAYLYNN GRESHAM WAS RIGHT AND THE CHAIR WRONG?
WHY DID CATHY ‘KISS ASS-KATEER’ METOXEN RUN INTERFERENCE FOR TINA BY QUESTIONING KAYLYNN GRESHAM’S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH AFTER TINA BLATANTLY VIOLATED ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER AND REFUSED TO REQUEST A PARLIAMENTARY OPINION DESPITE BEING ASKED, THEREBY VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF GTC?
CRISTINA DANFORTH’S KISS ASS-KATEERS DIDN’T CARE ABOUT TINA VIOLATING GTC’S RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY AND THEIR FRIENDS WANTED TO RUN FOR THE VACANT OBC POSITION OR BE HIRED AS THEIR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS.
IN FACT, OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH WAS HOPING THAT ONE HER KISS ASS-KATEERS WOULD BE ELECTED SO SHE MIGHT FINALLY HAVE AT LEAST ONE FRIEND ON THE OBC.
IN FACT, CRISTINA DANFORTH HAD CAMPAIGNED WITH DAVID ‘FLUNKY’ JORDAN IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTION IN WHICH HE LOST HIS CAMPAIGN TO BE TREASURER, AND WITH HIS FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT LEYNE OROSCO LOST HIS BID TO BE OBC SECRETARY:
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
Beyond the massive ‘procedural irregularity’ created by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s blatant violation of Robert’s Rules of Order, the Oneida Tribal Election Law requires that a Primary be be held whenever there are sixteen or more candidates as were caucused at the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting and were listed on the Sample Ballot, which OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, the rest of the OBC, and Chief Counsel Jo Anne House completely and unlawfully disregarded the Election Law:
2.12-1. When a primary is required under 2.12-2, it shall be held on a Saturday at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the election.
2.12-2. There shall be a primary election for Business Committee positions whenever there are three (3) or more candidates for any officer positions or sixteen (16) or more candidates for the at-large council member positions. …
(b) The fifteen (15) candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast for the at-large council member positions shall be placed on the ballot.
When Oneida Eye’s Publisher confronted OBC Chair Cristina Danforth after the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting and informed Tina that not only was the Caucus held that day illegal but also that forgoing a Primary when there were 16 candidates was in clear violation of the Election Law, Tina admitted that Oneida Eye’s Publisher was right … and shrugged:
As long-time Oneida Eye readers will recall, due to the blatant violations of Tribal Law by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, Oneida Eye’s Publisher – along with Tribe members Michael T. Debraska and Franklin Cornelius, Sr. – filed a request for a Temporary Restraing Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief against the November 22, 2014 Special Election for the vacant OBC position which the Oneida Appeals Commission Trial Body granted and the Oneida Election Board Cancelled the November 22, 2014 Special Election:
Oneida Eye’s Publisher and Co-Appellants asked OBC Chair Cristina Danforth and the rest of the OBC to take the matter back to GTC so that GTC could make a decision in keeping with the Election Law, which the OBC refused to do with the guidance & advice of OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House. As Tribe Member Cathy Metoxen noted above in the excerpt of the July 27, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting, it is the prerogative of the OBC Chair to call Special GTC Meetings, yet when OBC Chair Cristina Danforth was responsible for violating Robert’s Rules of Order, she refused to bring the matter back to GTC for corrective action,
The OAC Trial Body lifted their stay on the illegal Special Election:
Oneida Eye’s Publisher and Co-Appellants appealed the OAC Trial Body’s Decision to the OAC Appellate Body, which found in Appellants’ favor and reinstated a Stay against the rescheduled Special Election planned for January 10, 2015, which was then cancelled:
The OAC Appellate Body ruled in their January 6, 2015 Appellate Body Initial Review Decision, Docket # 14-AC-018, Cornelius, Debraska, Dodge & Graham v. OBC, Oneida Election Board & Oneida Law Office, that the Trial Body’s December 16, 2014, decision to lift the Stay and allow the Oneida Election Board and Oneida Business Committee to set a date for a secondary election was:
…clearly erroneous and is against the weight of the evidence presented at the [Trial] hearing level.
Further, the OAC Appellate Body also determined that:
There is exhibited a procedural irregularity which would be considered a harmful error that may have contributed to the final decision, which if the error had not occurred, would have altered the final decision.
In their February 2, 2015 Appellants’ Brief in Oneida Appeals Commission Docket #14-AC-018, the Appellants noted the following acknowledgment by an OBC Member that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth had violated Robert’s Rules of Order and created a massive ‘procedural irregularity’:
Interestingly, in the November 14, 2014 edition of the Kalihwisaks, one of the Respondents, OBC Council Member Ron ‘Tehassi’ Hill, concedes that the Petitioners/Appellants are correct in his column of that issue’s OBC Forum by stating: “Another irregularity was the vote to reconsider option B (election process). Normally we would have had two votes in the reconsideration process. The first vote would be to see if there is support to readdress the previous action to vote down option B. If that vote succeeded, then we would revote on option B. We only voted once and it was recognized as the actual vote for option B. I feel this action was out of order.”
As Oneida Eye stated in its March 3, 2015 post, Traitors: Oneida Business Committee & Oneida Election Board Illegally Schedule Unlawful Election,’ on February 25, 2015, the Oneida Appeals Commission’s Appellate Body dismissed Docket # 14-AC-018, Debraska, Dodge, Cornelius & Graham v. Oneida Business Committee, Oneida Election Board & Oneida Law Office stating:
This case will not be concluded prior to March 1, 2015. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 1-7-13-B as enacted by the Oneida General Tribal Council this matter is therefore dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs-Appellants had until March 30, 2015, to file an appeal of that dismissal with the Oneida Tribal Judiciary, a body whose election circumstances, ethics, basic competency of jurisdiction, and legitimate existence are all questionable at best.
On March 3, 2015, the Oneida Business Committee illegally adopted the unlawful recommendation of the Oneida Election Board to schedule a Special Election to address an OBC vacancy:
The Oneida Business Committee has approved the recommendation of the Oneida Election Board for a Special Election to fill the vacancy on the Oneida Business Committee. The election is set for Saturday, April 11, 2015 with polls open from 7 am to 7 pm. Should you have questions please contact the Oneida Election Board at election_board@oneidanation.org
Eventually David ‘Flunky’ Jordan became an Illegal OBC Member and hired Leyne ‘Lame-o’ Orosco as his Executive Asst., but not before the Oneida Election Board mailed letters to GTC and published notices in the Tribal newspaper ‘Kalihwisaks’ with the wrong address for the SEOTS polling site:
BUT FACTS REMAIN FACTS.
THE VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT AND ACTION REPORT FROM THE OCTOBER 26, 2014 GTC SPECIAL MEETING ALL PROVE – BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT – THAT GTC NEVER VOTED ON ANY ‘MOTION TO ADOPT’ ANY RESOLUTION ENACTING A SPECIAL ELECTION AS REQUIRED BY TRIBAL LAW.
Article III, Section 3 of the Oneida Tribal Constitution is clear:
The General Tribal Council may at any regular or special meeting fill any vacancies that occur on the Business Committee for the unexpired term.
Only GTC is allowed by Tribal Law to decide whether to fill an OBC position or to just leave it vacant. Not the OBC.
Nothing in the Oneida Constitution nor the Election Law allows OBC nor the Election Board to usurp GTC’s sole Constitutional authority on this matter.
Why couldn’t OBC Chair Cristina Danforth just admit that she was flat-out wrong to falsely claim that a ‘Motion to Reconsider’ is the same as a ‘Motion to Adopt’ and simply bring the matter back to GTC by calling a Special Meeting – as is the perogative of the OBC Chair to do as stated above – and allow GTC to decide whether to fill the OBC vacancy in accordance with the Constitution?
Because – like other OBC members and Election Board members, as well as OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House – Tina Danforth is an ignorant and unethical traitor undermining the authority and violating the rights of the General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin and violating the Indian Civil Rights Act.
THE ONEIDA BUSINESS COMMITTEE AND THE ONEIDA ELECTION BOARD ARE MERELY DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO OPENLY VIOLATE THE TRIBAL CONSTITUTION AND LAWS WITH THE ASSISTANCE AND BLESSING OF THE ONEIDA LAW OFFICE AS LED BY CHIEF COUNSEL JO ANNE HOUSE WHO AIDS, ABETS & OFTEN DIRECTS THE OBC’S TREACHERY.
Tina Danforth’s ‘concern trolling’ about how the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting was conducted in her absence and any ‘procedural irregularities’ is the height of hypocrisy given that she still refuses to admit that:
(a) a ‘Motion to Reconsider’ is not the same thing as a ‘Motion to Adopt;’ therefore,
(b) she violated both Robert’s Rules of Order as Used by the Oneida General Tribal Council and the Oneida Election Law during the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting; thus,
(c) the Special Election held on April 11, 2015, was illegal due to the fact that GTC never voted on any ‘Motion to Adopt’ any option to enact an election as required by the Oneida Election Law;
(d) her friend David ‘Fleet’ Jordan cannot lawfully be considered a legal OBC Member; and, therefore,
(e) David ‘Fleet’ Jordan’s continuing unlawful participation as an illegal OBC Member in any OBC meeting or GTC meeting is itself not simply a ‘procedural irregularity’ but an outrageous violation of Tribal law and the Indian Civil Rights Act.
All of this perfectly exemplifies the OBC’s collective belief that ‘Sovereignty’ boils down to their right to be as or more dishonest, corrupt, treacherous, and treasonous than non-Tribal governments.
As David ‘Fleet’ Jordan has said himself on the record about the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin:
Such a lack of ethics in this entire organization.
Finally, as for the claim that the $700 reduction in Per Capita payment per Tribal enrollee would be used to pay down DEBT:
NOWHERE during the presentation that Asst. CFO RaLinda Ninham-Lamberies gave at the July 6, 2016 GTC Meeting did she ever mention the DEBT generated by the SECRET MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT PAYMENT MADE WITH TRIBAL FUNDS BY JOHN BREUNINGER AFTER HE WAS SECRETLY MADE ‘MANAGING AGENT’ OF OSGC SUBSIDIARIES GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ONEIDA ENERGY INC. & ONEIDA ENERGY BLOCKER CORP. WHICH WERE NAMED IN A LAWSUIT IN COOK CO. ILLINOIS.
Oneida Eye has reported that on Monday, February 22, 2016, Oneida Eye’s Publisher was informed by Oneida Law Office Deputy Chief Counsel James Bittorf that at some point in time (although Atty. Bittorf refused to say when, other than to indicate that it was after the companies’ Boards had been dissolved) Former Tribal Planning Director John Breuninger (and husband of OLO Senior Paralegal Jeri Bauman) was made ‘Sole Director’ of Oneida Energy Inc., Oneida Energy Blocker Corp. & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC (although OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Bittorf did not say by whom), and that John Breuninger single-handedly made the decision to pay an undisclosed amount of Tribal money (although Atty. Bittorf said he was “not comfortable” revealing how many MILLIONS of dollars) to settle the lawsuit filed against those OSGC subsidiaries by Evanston, IL-based Generation Clean Fuels, ACF Leasing & ACF Services against OSGC’s subsidiaries.
After ignoring several previous requests by Oneida Eye’s Publisher for updated copies of the lawsuit’s court filings, OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Bittorf finally provided Oneida Eye’s Publisher with a copy of the Order for Dismissal when she went to his office in person on February 22, 2016:
- February 1, 2016 Order for Dismissal Pursuant to Settlement, Cook County IL Case # 14-L2768, ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC v. Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.
HOWEVER, as Oneida Eye has reported, on October 21, 2015, Oneida Tribe members received a letter in the mail from the Oneida Business Committee (which was dated September 23, 2015) stating that the OBC had declined a settlement offer by the Plaintiffs which would have allowed the Oneida Tribe to settle the matters described above for $9 million:
The OBC’s letter clearly stated regarding the latter lawsuit:
The Oneida Business Committee received a request from the plaintiffs to consider settlement. The complaint alleges $400 million in damages; the settlement offer was $9 million. We discussed this settlement in Executive Session on August 26, 2015, and rejected this offer. We believe that the Tribe has not damaged ACF in any way and was not a party to the contract. As a result, the settlement offer is too high to be considered. We do not make a counter-offer as we continue to believe that the Tribe will prevail in this matter. However, if a settlement offer is presented which we think fairly represents the risk and cost of continuing versus concluding this matter, we have committed to bringing that to the General Tribal Council for action.
Then how & why was John Breuninger allowed to make that major decision all on his own as Atty. Bittorf claimed, which is believed to have cost the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin between $5 TO $15 MILLION ON TOP OF THE $10 MILLION LOST TO NATURE’S WAY TISSUE & OSGC-subsidiary GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, rather than bringing that very important & costly matter before GTC for action just as the OBC plainly told GTC in writing that they would?
It’s ALL MORE PROOF of the OBC’s LIES and VIOLATIONS of General Tribal Council’s authority & Tribe members’ rights…
…all while the OBC & the OLO are PROTECTING CORRUPT TRIBAL CORPORATIONS – whose Boards the OBC appoint & oversee – that POCKET and WASTE TENS OF MILLIONS of the Tribe’s dollars on EXECUTIVES’ INFLATED SALARIES … and LAWSUITS … and PYROLYSIS PONZI SCHEMES… and ENERGY SCAMS with local NOT-SO-GOOD-OL’-BOYS.
Why didn’t the OBC tell GTC about the settlement that John Breuninger paid with the Tribe’s money to Generation Clean Fuels, ACF Leasing & ACF Services at the SATURDAY, February 20, 2016 continuation of the GTC Annual Meeting?
OBC Chair Cristina Danforth claimed to Oneida Eye’s Publisher on MONDAY, February 22, 2016, that she was not informed nor aware of a settlement of any kind being paid by the Tribe nor its corporations, although it’s impossible to know whether she was lying or just clueless.
Michael Debraska, who was with Oneida Eye’s Publisher when they spoke to OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Jim Bittorf on February 22, 2016, about the secret appointment and secret settlement, asked Atty. Bittorf what type of insurance was used to pay the settlement.
Atty. Bittorf answered that there was NO insurance, and that the multi-million ‘confidential’ settlement was paid directly from Tribal funds, presumably from the Government Contingency Funds.
Oneida Eye was later informed by a Tribe member who is also a U.S. military veteran that he had spoken directly to John Breuninger about the ‘confidential’ settlement agreement and that John Breuninger told him that he had approved a settlement in the amount of $15 MILLION, and that John Breuninger seemed oblivious to the fact that there had even been a $9 Million settlement offer that the OBC had rejected, or that the OBC had sent a letter to every GTC Member saying that the OBC would bring the matter back to GTC for GTC to decide how to take action on any settlement decision.
Let’s say that the final settlement that John Breuninger secretly paid was somewhere between $9 to $15 MILLION.
The OBC’s plan was to reduce Tribe members’ Per Capita payments from a proposed to $2,000 per person to $1,300 per person; a difference of $700 per person.
The July 6, 2016 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting Packet states that as on May 12, 2016, there were 17,105 Enrolled Members.
17,105 Members x $700 =
$11,973,500
IN OTHER WORDS…
THE OBC CONVINCED GTC SURRENDER $12 MILLION TO PAY OFF ‘DEBT’ AFTER REPORTS THAT THE OBC SECRETLY ALLOWED JOHN BREUNINGER TO USE TRIBAL FUNDS TO SECRETLY PAY A SECRET SETTLEMENT IN THE BALLPARK OF $9 TO $15 MILLION…
…RATHER THAN BRINGING THAT MATTER BACK TO GTC FOR ACTION AS THE OBC HAD TOLD GTC IT WOULD DO IN WRITING…
…THEREBY DISALLOWING GTC TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO “VETO ANY…ENCUMBRANCE” AS STATED IN ARTICLE IV – POWERS OF THE GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL:
Section 1. Enumerated Powers. – The General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation shall exercise the following powers, subject to any limitations imposed by the statutes or the Constitution of the United States: …
(c) To veto any sale, disposition, lease or encumbrance of tribal lands, interests in lands, or other tribal assets of the Nation.
LYING TO GTC IN WRITING AND PREVENTING GTC FROM EXERCISING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO VETO ENCUMBRANCE OF TRIBAL ASSETS BY TRIBALLY-OWNED CORPORATIONS & THEIR SUBSIDIARIES IS
TREASON…
…PLAIN & SIMPLE.
Cui bono? (Who profits?)
Note that as of August 6, 2016, the OBC & OLO have still not updated the information on the Tribe’s website in the ‘Litigation Updates’ Section which still says regarding ACF LEASING, LLC, ACF SERVICES, LLC, AND GENERATION CLEAN FUELS, LLC V. GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ONEIDA SEVEN GENERATIONS CORPORATION, AND THE ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, CASE NO. 14 L 002768 (CIRCUIT COURT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS):
In 2014, the ACF plaintiffs sued the Nation, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (“OSGC”), and Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (“GBRE”) in relation to contracts between ACF Leasing/ACF Services and GBRE for a proposed plastics-to-oil project. Among other things, the ACF plaintiffs claim the Nation, OSGC and GBRE breached the contracts and were unjustly enriched by learning about ACF’s technology. They also claim the Nation and OSGC intentionally interfered with the contracts, interfered with ACF’s prospective economic advantage, interfered with ACF’s business expectancy, and are vicariously liable for all of the debts and obligations of GBRE. The Nation and OSGC moved to dismiss the claims against them on the grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of personal jurisdiction. GBRE moved to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a claim. The court ruled in favor of the Nation and OSGC, and dismissed all of the claims against the Nation and OSGC. The court also dismissed some of the claims against GBRE, but allowed the ACF plaintiffs to amend their complaint to restate those claims. The ACF plaintiffs have appealed the court’s order dismissing the claims against the Nation and OSGC. On April 7, 2015, the ACF plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Illinois Court of Appeals. On May 11, 2015, the Nation and OSGC filed their response brief, and the ACF plaintiffs have filed their reply brief. We anticipate the Illinois Court of Appeals will issue a decision in 12-18 months.
On December 15, 2013, GTC gave OBC an unambiguous directive to fully dissolve Oneida Seven Generations Corporation which OBC claimed they could not carryout until all lawsuits involving OSGC were completed.
Given that John Breuninger’s secret multi-million dollar payment to ACF & GCF resulted in the February 1, 2016 Order for Dismissal Pursuant to Settlement, why hasn’t the Oneida Business Committee proceeded to carry out GTC’s December 15, 2014, directive to dissolve OSGC with the same level of gusto that OBC Treas. Trish King said on the video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting she was required to use to start making ‘DEBT‘ payments on July 12, 2016, based on GTC’s directive at the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting?
In fact, on August 10, 2016, OBC Treasurer Trish King sent a memo stating she’d already spent down $36.44 MILLION on ‘DEBT.’
How much of that $36.44 Million went toward the undisclosed multi-million dollar settlement figure?
Is that a negative seven question mark figure in the Tribal budget ledger?
– ?,???,???
Or an eight question mark figure?
– ??,???,???
When will the OBC FINALLY do what the GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL – THE SUPREME GOVERNING BODY OF THE ONEIDA NATION OF WISCONSIN – voted to direct the OBC to do more than THREE YEARS ago and dissolve OSGC?
Or will the OBC continue to violate Tribal law in order to defy the directives of THEIR SUPERIORS?
In fact, the Oneida Business Committee is so foolish and tone-deaf that they’ve stated in the GTC Meeting Packet for the August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meetig that – based on the utterly erroneous and counter-factual decision of the corporate puppets known as the Wisconsin Supreme Court but despite the erupting volcano of evidence of the corruption of Oneida Nation High School Principal Artley Skenandore’s & OSGC’s business partner Ronald Henry Van Den Heuvel – the OBC are actually considering allowing OSGC to undertake litigation against the City of Green Bay to recover ‘damages’ due to the City’s Common Council having rescinded OSGC’s ‘Conditional Use Permit’ to build a trash incinerator which was nothing but a facet of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s expanisve fraud scheme:
Was the secret multi-million dollar settlement agreed to by John Breuninger and paid for with Tribal funds in what looks like an extortion shakedown of GTC actually the ‘DEBT’ that OBC Treas. Trish King said during the video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting that she had already started paying on July 12, 2016?
Undeniably, such a large amount will have an impact on the Tribal budget and GTC members have a right to know not only what the exact amount of the settlement was and who authorized John Breuninger to pay it with Tribal funds, but also deserve to know how the OBC paid for it and why they lied in writing to GTC about bringing any settlement decision to GTC for action.
Yet here’s what happens when Tribe members try to get OBC to answer those questions:
That cutting off of the Oneida Eye Publisher’s microphone at the April 11, 2016 GTC Special Meeting occurred just after OBC Chair & OSGC fraud scheme travelling cheerleader Cristina Danforth ran away from the stage right after she acknowledged Leah Sue Dodge at the microphone, abandoning OBC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth to chair the meeting and try to keep GTC in the dark by ordering Oneida Eye’s Publisher’s microphone cut off (though you can still hear Dodge in the background asking OSGC fraud scheme cheerleader Melinda Danforth what she’s trying to hide from GTC).
That’s not the first time an OBC Vice-Chair has bullied GTC members and refused to allow them to speak during a GTC Meeting to keep GTC in the dark about the $397 MILLION lawsuit by GCF/ACF against OSGC in Illinois …which actually seems more like an EXTORTION RACKET that OSGC officers & executives personally entangled the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin in, along with OSGC’s local business partners in Oneida-Kodiak Construction, LLC, which was supposed to build OSGC’s proposed trash incinerators based on Ron Van Den Heuvel’s ‘patented’ technology.
Just like Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair Greg Matson, current OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth prevented GTC’s knowledge & discussion about the bogus GCF/ACF lawsuit – and the $uper $ecret $ettlement agreement – in a doomed attempt to prevent OBC’s & Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s corruption & fraud from being exposed to the light of day, even after GTC has already voted to direct the OBC to fully dissolve OSGC.
Obviously, the OBC lied to the GTC in writing about bringing any settlement decision before GTC for action, and the result of the OBC’s & OSGC’s ongoing corruption scandals is the mysterious loss of many more MILLIONS of dollars of GTC’s money at Tribe member John Breuninger’s sole discretion for a possible SHAKEDOWN in an EXTORTION SCHEME that might be linked to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s expansive & pervasive fraud schemes, which Oneida Eye has reported on extensively.
- April 8, 2015 Supplemental Examination of Philip J. Reinhart by Atty. Jonathan Smies (Godfrey & Kahn) before James P. O’Neil, Court Commissioner, w/ Atty. John Petitjean (Hinkfuss, Sickel, Petitjean & Weiting) serving as counsel for Mr. Reinhart (68 pages, missing pg. 5-8) and related Exhibits (See also: Brown Co. Case No. 2014CV783, Jansen Logistics Services LLC vs. Sharad Tak; and the July 1, 2015 Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. 2014CV724, Jansen Logistics Services LLC vs. Sharad Tak)
- November 25, 2011 Email from OSGC Board member Paul Linzmeyer to Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado’s Elder Advisor Yvonne Metivier, Subject: “Actions ED should take”to protect the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin from Tribally-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corp. which Ed Delgado failed to do, resulting in millions of dollars in losses to the Oneida Tribe
Again, it must be asked…
Cui bono? (Who profits?)
The next GTC Special Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday August 10, 2016, at 6:00 p.m.
Sometimes Wolves have to warn the Clan about other Wolves in the Clan.
