TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMANCHE BUSINESS COMMITTEE MONTHLY MEETING JUNE 12TH, 2010, 10:12 A.M. COMANCHE NATION COMPLEX LAWTON, OKLAHOMA REPORTED BY: D. ANN FITE, CSR, RPR DODSON REPORTING & ASSOCIATES 435 NORTH WALKER, SUITE 102 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102 (405) 235-1828 (405) 235-1266 (FAX) APPEARANCES COMANCHE NATION BUSINESS COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Michael Burgess, Chairman Richard Henson, Vice-Chairman Robert Tippeconnie, Secretary-Tresurer Lanny Asepermy, Committeeman #2 Darrell Kosechequetah, Committeeman #3 Clyde R. Narcomey, Committeeman #4 LEGAL COUNSEL: James Burson Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS Meeting called to order 5 Role call 5 Invocation 5 Motion passed to amend agenda 10 Motion passed to approve Resolutions 57-10 through 59-10, concerning enrollment list 12 Motion passed to approve Resolution 60-10, concerning new members 12 Motion passed to approve Resolution 61-10, concerning disaster/emergency manager 17 Motion passed to approve Resolution 62-10, concerning authorized signatures 19 Motion passed to approve Resolution 64-10, concerning accounting 24 Motion passed to approve Chairman to travel to Shoshone Reunion 30 Motion passed to approve Chairman to travel to NAJA, adding Mr. Kosechequetah 35 Motion passed to donate funds to the moving wall 37 Motion passed to give HIP funds for repairs to trailer 41 CONTINUATION OF INDEX Motion passed to engage Carl Tahkopher as consultant to provide geologic and hydrologic expertise to the Comanche Nation, to include adoption of the water codes he presents 194 Motion passed to go into executive session, at 2:05 p.m. 194 Certificate of Reporter 195 Certificate of Secretary-Treasurer 196 MR. BURGESS: Gentlemen, we want to go ahead and come to order. We'll go to our Secretary/Treasurer, Mr. Tippeconnie, for a role call. I have 10:12 a.m. Hopefully I'm fast. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Michael Burgess. MR. BURGESS: Here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Richard Henson. MR. HENSON: Here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Robert Tippeconnie here. Edmond Mahseet. Lanny Asepermy. MR. ASEPERMY: Here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Darrel Kosechequetah. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Clyde Narcomey. MR. NARCOMEY: Here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We have a quorum, Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Thank you, very much. Mr. Wahdooah, would you be so kind as to do opening prayer for us? MR. WAHDOOAH: (Invocation). MR. BURGESS: We're going to take a few minutes and we'll let the fellows here review the minutes while I go get my glasses. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Do we want to amend the agenda first before that? (A break was had.) MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Yes. MR. ASEPERMY: For the record, this is my 37th meeting, my last meeting, and we have not started a CBC meeting as mandated by the constitution on time. MR. BURGESS: Excuse me. I think there's a correction there. If I recall in the month of July, if not it was August, we did start one on time, and one we even started two minutes ahead of time. You made note of that. MR. ASEPERMY: And also I would like to amend the agenda under executive -- we don't have an executive session. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes, we do. No. 7. MR. BURGESS: Item 7. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add as No. 7, the gaming commission selection. MR. BURGESS: Any commission duty? MR. ASEPERMY: Yeah, I have a recommendation. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We're just getting advertisements. MR. ASEPERMY: Yeah. I do have a recommendation with the advertisement, too, though. And I'd like to bring that up to the CBC. MR. BURGESS: In executive session. MR. ASEPERMY: Yes. And also -- MR. BURGESS: We have several other items that will come up for agenda amendment. MR. ASEPERMY: Yeah. As No. 7 and as No. 8, the Vice-Chairman's vehicle. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Where are you adding that? MR. ASEPERMY: Under executive session. MR. BURGESS: Well, under executive session No. 9, did you put down water codes? MR. ASEPERMY: What now? MR. BURGESS: Water codes. We'll have a presentation from Carl Tahkopher. MR. NARCOMEY: Better make that No. 5 under old business, Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Oh, old business. All right. Okay. Water codes No. 5, under new business. MR. TIPPECONNIE: And No. 9 would be -- MR. NARCOMEY: So that would be No. 5? MR. BURGESS: Back to No. 5, under new business, yeah, would be water codes. And then under executive session, we already have a museum board, so No. 7 is gaming commission, and No. 8 will be -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Vice-Chair? MR. BURGESS: Yeah, he said Vice-Chair. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. Vice-Chair's vehicle. And then No. 9 is museum nomination. MR. ASEPERMY: No. 9 is what? MR. BURGESS: It's No. 6 already. Under executive session, listed No. 6. Turn to the amendment. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Okay. MR. BURGESS: And then -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: What did you have as No. 9, Lanny? MR. ASEPERMY: I didn't put -- I put 7 as the Gaming Commission, 8 as the Vice-Chairman, No. 9 -- MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: No. He had said water codes. MR. ASEPERMY: It's already on there. MR. BURGESS: Okay. New business, water codes. And then No. 14 -- back to Item No. 5 resolutions. No. 14 will be the Elder's Adviser Board. And then Mr. Tippeconnie has requested to move Item 13 into executive session because it involves an employee. MR. TIPPECONNIE: No. 7. MR. BURGESS: Oh, No. 7. MR. TIPPECONNIE: No. 7 and 13. MR. BURGESS: All right. Executive session No. 7 and No. 13. No. 7 and No. 13 under resolutions, and a motion. MR. HENSON: Move it into what? MR. BURGESS: Executive session. MR. ASEPERMY: 14 is this resolution on the Elders? MR. BURGESS: Yes. MR. ASEPERMY: Okay. MR. BURGESS: Any other items? Motion has been made by Mr. Asepermy. Any second? MR. TIPPECONNIE: I second. MR. BURGESS: Second made by Mr. Tippeconnie for amending the agenda. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." Ayes have it. We're going into resolutions. Item No. 1, Resolution 57-10. This is an enrollment list of ineligibles. And current with that is two other list items, Resolution No. 58-10 and 59-10. MR. ASEPERMY: Also 60-10, Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: 60-10, that's the eligible list. MR. ASEPERMY: Oh, the eligible. MR. BURGESS: Is the Body prepared to approve the first three resolutions in one vote or by single vote? MR. ASEPERMY: One. I vote for the one vote. MR. BURGESS: Each of these ineligibles are persons who are either dually enrolled with another tribe and have not relinquished it, and/or not eligible through other provisions, such as over the age limit or had already received some benefit from the other nation after they turned 18, or should say the age of 19 to get enrolled with the Comanche Nation. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's the total number on the -- MR. BURGESS: Say that again. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's the total number? MR. ASEPERMY: Seven, Mr. Chairman. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How many people is -- MR. ASEPERMY: Seven. MR. BURGESS: Seven. MR. ASEPERMY: Also includes people that are not descendents of allottees. MR. BURGESS: Does the Body want to approve these in one motion, or each resolution separately. Requesting of the Body if they want to approve the three resolutions, one, two, and three, 57-10 through 59-10 in one vote. MR. NARCOMEY: I make a motion that we combine all of them. MR. BURGESS: Okay. MR. ASEPERMY: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Asepermy. Mr. Narcomey on the end. MR. HENSON: I make a motion that we approve those. MR. BURGESS: All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." The ayes have it. Resolution No. 60-10 is the resolution of bringing in new members, a list of eligibles, approximately 48. Did you count them, Lanny? MR. ASEPERMY: Thirty-nine. MR. BURGESS: Thirty-nine. All of these individuals meet qualifications as stated in the constitution. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve Resolution 60-10. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Second. MR. BURGESS: A motion has been made to approve eligibles list, Resolution 60-10. Second has been made by Mr. Kosechequetah. All of those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." We currently have 14,798 members with these additions. If I'm mumbling too much, would you all please let me know. Some people might be hard of hearing there. I can get that way. Now, we have Resolution 61-10, is our Disaster Emergency Manager Resolution. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, for the record, could you read the last "Whereas and now therefore be resolved"? MR. BURGESS: Yes. Pursuant to all of our constitutional responsibilities we are passing a resolution that states, "Whereas, the emergency manager is the authorized representative of the Comanche Nation, during the performance of disaster and emergency operations, and whereas the responsibilities of emergency manager are detailed in the Emergency Authorization Plan and Hazard Mitigation Plan, and whereas the Comanche Business Committee gives its full support to Mrs. Christina Daly, the emergency manager." "Further, the Comanche Business Committee urges all officials, employees, and Tribal members, individually and collectively, to cooperate in the utmost fashion with the emergency manager as necessary and required." "Therefore be it resolved that Comanche Business Committee hereby creates a position and approve the hiring of Christina Daly as the Tribal emergency manager. Resolution is in effect until rescinded or revised by the Business Committee." UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is she here? MR. BURGESS: I don't believe so. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is she Comanche? MR. BURGESS: Yes. She's also -- isn't she a full-time Sheriff or -- MR. ASEPERMY: No. She's the part-time Chief of Police at Geronimo. MR. BURGESS: Chief of Police. And she's been involved in emergency management situations for well over ten or fifteen years. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I wish she would have community meetings in each district because we need some input in our area. I'm sure the others would like that. MR. BURGESS: Yes. That's part of the emergency management plan now that's been adopted, and we need that management. She'll be doing all of that and setting up disaster planning scenarios throughout the area that we have community centers where our people reside. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I think, Mr. Chairman, in the last "Therefore be it resolved, that the Comanche Business Committee hereby creates it," has been already created. It's already established. We're just affirming the position. MR. BURGESS: Should say, "Hereby affirms." MR. TIPPECONNIE: Affirms, yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Now, it was established before, wasn't it, with -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes, it was established before. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- Johnny and that bunch? MR. BURGESS: It was established by action and factis, but we never had an emergency management code or a plan adopted, which is what we've finally done. MR. ASEPERMY: And we don't have one yet, do we? Or is it ongoing? MR. BURGESS: Our plan? MR. ASEPERMY: Yes. MR. BURGESS: Yes, we have one. We have one now. It's been adopted by us, but we did it to code and it's gone to FEMA, a national organization that -- once it's in line with FEMA, and FEMA evaluates and reviews, if they have some pressing concerns and issues, they'll get back to us. But that code with the mitigation plan allows us to go for grants that support our emergency plan operations for materials, supplies or equipment and doing further development for mitigation of creeks, homes, buildings, facilities that the Tribe owns. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Would you repeat her name, please. MR. BURGESS: That's why we had to have the plan first. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Would you -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Christina Daly. D-A-L-Y. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve resolution 61-10 with change on, "Now therefore be resolved." Change the word "create" to "affirms". MR. TIPPECONNIE: So noted. MR. NARCOMEY: Second. MR. BURGESS: Motion has been made to accept, seconded by Mr. Narcomey. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." The ayes have it. No. 6. This is a resolution that provides direction to Finley Cook for processing Comanche Nation payment requests. By this action, this resolution will add the Vice-Chairman to all signatures, as well as the Chairman and the Secretary/Treasurer for all payment requests. No payment requests will be processed without the signatures of at least two of the officers above. And we do not use stamp signatures. Someone asked that question once before. Our signature is not available for stamps. I know mine's not. I don't know about Richard's. MR. ASEPERMY: Could we remove the Tribal administrator from it? MR. BURGESS: It doesn't say that. It's just adding. It doesn't rescind the other resolution. MR. TIPPECONNIE: It doesn't rescind the previous resolution. It stands. MR. ASEPERMY: So are we basically adding the Vice-Chairman? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. MR. ASEPERMY: So signature authority to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary/Treasurer and the Tribal Administrator? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Would that be after the Tribal Administrator, or are you all going to wait until -- MR. BURGESS: Currently he's been allowed to sign up to the dollar limit as normal for the Tribal Administrator's position. MR. ASEPERMY: All payment requests require two signatures before they're processed by one of these four people, the Chairman, the Vice, the Secretary/Treasurer and Tribal Administrator. That's your check and balance. MR. BURGESS: All right. The motion to accept. MR. NARCOMEY: I make a motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Mr. Narcomey has made the motion to accept this resolution. Second? MR. ASEPERMY: Second, Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: All right. Second made by Mr. Asepermy. We'll call for the question. All those in favor say "Aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." (Nay.) MR. BURGESS: The ayes have it. We'll move to Item No. 8, which is resolution 64-10. MR. TIPPECONNIE: 63-10. MR. BURGESS: Excuse me. No. No. That's in executive session. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Oh, yes. Excuse me. That's right. Okay. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Resolution 64-10 is for the accounting process. And it's the last, "Whereas, the BIA monitoring report identified the need for the Nation to update it's management system policies, including the accounting policy to be in compliance with P.L., public law, 93-638, contract requirement." So we've updated our accounting manual, is basically what this is about. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Excuse me. I don't know if Nichole brought this in yet. She was coping -- did you get a copy? MR. ASEPERMY: Thirty-five pages. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Did you get a copy? MR. HENSON: Of what? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Of the accounting. MR. NARCOMEY: It's in the book. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. It's in the book. If you recall we had this done by Finley Cook. So they've gone through the standard of accounting principles. And what it's going to do is put a lot of things further in order that we get on top of it, such as assets management and depreciations of assets. So it's going to be very strong and something further that we have to get in place. MR. ASEPERMY: Has this been reviewed by the attorney? Jim? MR. TIPPECONNIE: No, it wasn't reviewed by the attorneys, but it's the accounting principles, which are always reviewed by other attorneys. It's something that, if you recall in the 2008 it was one of the findings, and we hadn't finished that. MR. ASEPERMY: Uh-huh. MR. TIPPECONNIE: And it's in compliance -- in our high risk standing, we need these principles approved so we can get further out of this high risk. So those are two places that we have to effect this because of that high risk, and because of the accounting. We just have to do accounting in this fashion. MR. NARCOMEY: Do we have any more items we need to clear up before we get off the high risk? More or less? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Less. MR. NARCOMEY: Less. MR. TIPPECONNIE: This is one of the major ones. The second major one that will come out in the 2009 audit will be this matter of assets, you know. And if you look under the accounting principles, it lays out now how we will do those assets, how we will handle assets. So one of the things that was shortcoming was assets. That goes way back in time when we purchased properties, like lands, we have buildings, all of those kind of things. So we've got that pretty much in order, except it's difficult to find some records for 2006, way back there, 2005, 2006, 2007, but we're getting that complete. So that's a major one that we have. MR. NARCOMEY: I'll agree with it. I make a motion to approve it. MR. BURGESS: All right. Motion by Mr. Narcomey to approve Resolution 64-10. MS. ISAAC: Does this mean that you're going to be able to tell us if our lands are not -- THE REPORTER: I'm having a hard time hearing you. MR. BURGESS: We want you to -- ladies and gentlemen, we have a new stenographer with us, so if you're going to speak, stand up and make your name known. MR. ASEPERMY: Identify yourself, please. MS. ISAAC: I'm Beverly Isaac. And I just want to know, is this going to tell us where our lands -- are they in our trust property, or are they going to be a trust property soon, or how is that going since we -- you said something about way back in time. If we purchased our land a long time ago, they know they weren't in trust property, are they going to be in trust? MR. BURGESS: Actually, yes. We have received letters from the BIA asking certain questions and you respond to those questions and provide other documentation if they don't have it. One of those is the Apache Community Center. Another building is the Elders building here in town, documentation from the BIA, responded to these requests. MS. ISAAC: Southwestern Hospital? MR. BURGESS: That's owned by KCA. MS. ISAAC: What about that land over there at Cash on that corner? They said Johnny sold it to somebody and -- MR. BURGESS: Cash over here at -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Right on the corner where the Ralph store is? MS. ISAAC: Right. MR. TIPPECONNIE: No. That's Comanche. Belongs to the Nation. So that's one of the assets that belongs to the Nation. MR. ASEPERMY: Would anyone like to look at this? MR. BURGESS: We have a motion by Clyde. We need a second. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Second, Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Kosechequetah. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." MR. TIPPECONNIE: We're getting smarter and smarter as a nation with the passage of this. MR. BURGESS: Yes. We need to. And technically, each year, I'll let you all know, each of these policies that we have, HR, purchasing, accounting policies, and manual travel policies, all of that has to be updated. That's one of the problems we had. That's why we're on high risk, they weren't updated, if not biannually, annually. And that's one of the findings that the audit tells us, that we're not updating or policies and procedures on a regular basis. So now we've cleared that hurdle, and next year if we have to update this, we'll -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: One thing I might remark on, that is property, we're required to inventory every two years so we know what kind of property we have. So that's required every two years. MR. BURGESS: On that, if you're asking the question about property, and each year we have to have an assessment done of property because the value continues to rise. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Appraisal. MR. BURGESS: Appraisal. So that's why we have to go to property appraisals every two years now. MS. CRAIG: My name is Aurillia Craig. I would like to know if you're taking into account the homes that were purchased through housing that were on the not trust property and they're paid off, are you going to be able to help put those back into trust if they were purchased off of original trust property? MR. BURGESS: That would be for the individual because the Tribe didn't purchase that. The individual that got the home is the one that would have to apply for it to put it back in trust if it was in or out of trust. MS. CRAIG: Well, I was told in the past that someone came to the chairman and he helped them get their house back into trust, which was not purchased by the Tribe. That's in the past, and I'm just asking a question because I have to pay taxes on my property. MR. BURGESS: If the former chairman did anything, he may have helped write a letter and then talked to the superintendent personally. I don't know. MR. ASEPERMY: Aurillia, the land that Toma gift deeded to me, came out of trust. I had to do the application. I did get a letter from Wallace. It took 27 months to put it back in trust. But it's the individual's responsibility. MS. CRAIG: Yeah. Well, that was what I was wondering, if I could get something from the Tribe helping me to -- because I've been paying taxes on it for the past five years, and -- MR. ASEPERMY: Well, another thing, Aurillia, is you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Was your husband 100 percent -- MS. CRAIG: What? MR. ASEPERMY: Was your husband a 100 percent disabled veteran? MS. CRAIG: No. MR. ASEPERMY: Oh, he wasn't? Okay. MS. CRAIG: I could lie and say he was. MR. ASEPERMY: That's an individual thing, although the Chairman did assist with a letter, Mike. MR. BURGESS: Yeah. MR. ASEPERMY: That I sent with a packet. But it took them 27 months. MR. BURGESS: And have you gone to the Bureau to ask them for the application of trust? MS. CRAIG: I've gone to the bureau and they said they would get the information to me, and it's been two years and they haven't got me the information. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, I think you need to go to them, because, yes, you can make application as an individual, but you have to do it as an individual. MS. CRAIG: Well, I'll do it again because -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. MS. CRAIG: -- when my home was paid off it took me two years to get my deed into my hands, and I had to do that labor myself because housing was slow doing it. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Uh-huh. MS. CRAIG: And then consequently I was back -- I owed two years back taxes because they didn't notify me of anything. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, I think it's smart if you have it paid off and all of that, it's yours, to work on it and bring it back into trust, I think it's very smart. Go up and get the application forms and fill them out, and that starts it. But at least you get it going. But you should fill out the forms. MS. CRAIG: I'd like to get it done before I die. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, be positive. Say you're going to live forever, all of us. Right? MR. BURGESS: Item No. 9. Yes, Phyllis. Identify yourself, please. MS. NARCOMEY: My name is Phyllis Narcomey and I have a question about the accounting policy. It only addresses Finley and Cook, and it does mention the temporary -- you know, the community service for us. But there's no mention of if the Tribe, itself, once it comes back, the accounting function comes back, if we're going to function under generally accepted county principles. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. If we come back and that's still a discussion -- in discussion, I should say, if that comes back, yes, we amend these things. MS. NARCOMEY: Okay. MR. TIPPECONNIE: See, they're always subject to amendment and change. If that comes back, then, yes, we would have to live under these principles. MS. NARCOMEY: Anyway, you didn't mention that though. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. MS. NARCOMEY: Or if it did, I didn't see it. MR. TIPPECONNIE: They're outside at this point. MS. NARCOMEY: Okay. MR. BURGESS: Item No. 9. Motion to approve travel for -- Mr. Henson, you said you wanted to go. MR. HENSON: No. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the travel of Chairman Michael Burgess to attend a Shoshone reunion in Fort Duchesne, Utah, from June the 27th, 2010, through July 1st, 2010. MR. BURGESS: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Cannot hear you. MR. ASEPERMY: Okay. Well, this ain't working, either. Where's Charles? MR. HENSON: Turn it on. MR. ASEPERMY: I did turn it on. MR. HENSON: It was working awhile ago. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the travel of Chairman Michael Burgess to attend the Shoshone reunion in Fort Duchesne, Utah from June 27th, 2010, to July the 1st, 2010. MR. BURGESS: Motion made by Mr. Asepermy. MR. NARCOMEY: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Narcomey. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." (Nay.) MR. BURGESS: One nay over here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: One nay? Did you say -- you're serious? He wants you to be around. MR. BURGESS: He wants me to be around. MR. HENSON: Yes. I don't want you to leave. MR. BURGESS: And then Item No. 10. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, can you tell me what the Journalist Association Media Conference is a little bit? MR. BURGESS: The Native American Journalist Association, I believe it's the 25th annual -- 26th annual conference for all Native American journalists across America. MR. ASEPERMY: Is BIA attending? MR. BURGESS: BIA, two people are attending, and myself. It's -- ladies and gentlemen, last year when I came on board I had a special invitation to attend NAJA as one of the founding board members. 1983 and '84 this was started. We incorporated under Washington DC laws. I'm a founding board member and I was the only graphic artist business manager with the NAJA. All of these indian journalists came together, and they had a big discussion over constitution. And in drafting our constitution I looked at several myself, and George Geroski who is deceased now, and Mini Two Shoes who is deceased. We drafted a constitution for this organization. And thankfully I had a lot of experience with other nonprofits in reviewing constitutions and developing them. And I'm very proud of this organization. It's existed quite awhile. We went through a lot of internal struggles with certain individuals that wanted to take the leadership and make the organization a private entity. But it continues to be a non-profit. And currently it's situated in the wings of the University of Oklahoma. Is it within their journalism -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Gaylord Journalism Department. MR. BURGESS: Yes. Gaylord School of Journalism at OU, another prestigious institution for journalism. And our executive director is another Oklahoma boy. His name is Jeff Harjo. Jeff came in midway when I was with the organization up in Minneapolis at the time. And attending this event, since I missed the 25th annual and all of the celebration that went with it, they requested that I come up this time. We're going to be doing a tribute to one of our members, founding members Mini Two Shoes who did a lot for journalism in her native reservation, and stood up for open communications. I'm saying this because the issues that we've gone through in media and communications here locally have been -- those rough waters have been walked by several tribes. And the journalist association always invites various Tribal leaders and a lot of federal politicians to come and talk about communication, journalism, and the law. And it's very important for our young people. I believe we have quite a few here who are into journalism. We've funded several in scholarships throughout the years since I've been with the Tribe in journalism. And to me it's very important that our people have a voice. I'm saying this because in the past here recently, in my tenure that we're saying there's no open communications, when actually there is. I don't sit there and edit everything that our newspaper is doing. I try to edit my writing, my words, and that's it. And there's always a new story. There's always breaking news that we want to present to people. So I'm all for communications. I'm all for our youth. We have a lot of budding graphic artists who are coming into their own right. And when I tell them how I learned graphic arts, by studying type, getting burned by lead, hot lead and all of that, a lot of our kids don't even know what that means when I start talking about where the lead is, the points are. They don't even use that anymore. But that's the foundation. And today I can sit down at any computer and start designing and graphing things out, and some youth are saying, where did you learn all of this. I say, "Well, Haskell." So I'm very proud of the skills Haskell gave me, particularly learning to eat fish all day Friday. I never ate fish until I went there. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, Mr. Chairman, on this, I would like to add Darrel here. MR. BURGESS: Darrel? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. MR. BURGESS: Sure. MR. TIPPECONNIE: And that will be with the understanding that he could confirm it with his situation. But I would like to see it approved so that he could. MR. BURGESS: That's fine with me. So that's -- if you're wondering why I'm going, that's one of the reasons, and the organization. Mr. Harjo will be visiting us next week here with our PIO office. So with that, a second has been made with -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Addition. MR. BURGESS: -- addition for Mr. Darrel Kosechequetah to attend as well. And, Darrel, I'll be driving up. I'm not flying. I know it's a 12-or-14-hour drive. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Okay. MR. BURGESS: So with that -- MR. NARCOMEY: I make the motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Motion has been made by Mr. Narcomey. MR. ASEPERMY: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Asepermy. We'll call for the question. All those approve say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." (Nay.) MR. BURGESS: Motion passes. Okay. We'll move to Item No. 11. This is the -- is this the -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Moving wall. MR. BURGESS: -- moving wall? That's the Vietnam Veteran's moving wall. This is a request from the American Indian Exposition of Anadarko. Do we have a representative? MR. ASEPERMY: They've been here twice. MR. BURGESS: They've been here twice. They're requesting some financial assistance. They met with us at our last meeting. Lanny, what was that figure you came up with, the 39 tribes splitting the cost? MR. ASEPERMY: Thirty-nine tribes in Oklahoma. The Vietnam wall contains over 58,000 veterans that were killed in action, or died of wounds, or died in captivity, or died accidental. This moving wall is half the size of the actual wall in Washington DC. The American Exposition is going to display it at the Indian fair. The cost is about $13,000. They asked for a contribution. We figure if we give them 1/13th, that's what is going to be on the motion. It does contain two Comanches on there. Russell Rusty -- Russell Rusty Pesowanik(sic), who was half Muscolaro, half Comanche. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Say it right. MR. ASEPERMY: And also Robert Carlos Pachika(sic). Both marines, both killed in action in Vietnam. It also contains the names of two Kiowas, Donald Bear, Haskell Pewla(sic). And I believe -- oh, I can't remember the number they told us on the 39 tribes altogether. Probably close to 100. MR. BURGESS: A little bit over 100, I believe. MR. ASEPERMY: So I make a motion to donate a thousand dollars from the charitable fund to the American Indian Expo for display of the moving wall at this year's event. MR. NARCOMEY: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Clyde Narcomey. Thank you, Clyde. So all of those in favor of the motion say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why can't it be a little more than a thousand? MR. ASEPERMY: Because there's 13 tribes, and the cost to get it here is 13,000. We figured we would give an equal share with hopes that the other 13 tribes would also. And you can contribute individually if you so desire. I gave them money. Maybe a couple of other members of the CBC gave them money also out-of-pocket, so -- MR. BURGESS: Yeah. And we'll do some more. All right. The motion has passed. No. 12 is -- let me see what -- this is a motion to utilize HIP funds to repair a trailer that's received some damage. Their only home. Their only abode. So the CBC is looking to approve reimburse HIP funds to repair this home for the individual. The amount is $2,000. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who is it? MR. BURGESS: Mrs. Kate Froehlick-Massey. MR. ASEPERMY: This is the lady we talked to the other day? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How was the damage done? MR. BURGESS: It was one of those FEMA trailers that probably was old and she was using it, and now she's having to live in it this summer. Her water tank is -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Electricity. MR. BURGESS: Her electricity never did really work. And she survived the winter with heat, but now it's cold, and her air conditioning is damaged, and her roof is leaking, so we're going to help her repair that. So we need a motion to approve this. MS. CHEBATAH: Excuse me. I'm Marie Chebatah. Is that formerly Kate Kovino(sic). MR. BURGESS: Yes. MS. CHEBATAH: Okay. I don't know if you guys remember, but about a year ago, a year ago, there was a big report that she had a fire or something in her home in Indiahoma, and that was never verified. Nobody lived there. It was a complete falsehood. So somebody should really check into this. She's close kin to me, but I'm saying this anyway. MR. BURGESS: Well, no. This is the trailer she lives in that we gave her from FEMA. MS. CHEBATAH: I know. But it was the same one. MR. BURGESS: Okay. But that's a different issue. We gave her this trailer, and it was one of those damaged ones from FEMA, so it was worn down. And so we can't afford to build her another home. The best we can do is help her repair these things that need it so she can continue to -- MS. CHEBATAH: Is this verified, is what I'm saying? MR. BURGESS: Yeah. Our HIP people have gone out. MS. CHEBATAH: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Give her another trailer and take that old one back. MR. BURGESS: We don't have anymore trailers, and we don't want to get into the FEMA trailers anymore. There's no more new ones to get, and we didn't get the best ones, so that's one of the problems. So motion to approve. MS. JONES: Excuse me. Same HIP. Can you buy a home for her and have it moved to her property. MR. BURGESS: That still involves more money than our budget allows right now. MS. JONES: It doesn't. You do that. MR. BURGESS: Motion to approve this assistance here. No one has made a motion. MR. NARCOMEY: I make the motion. MR. BURGESS: Mr. Narcomey is making the motion. Second. I'll second it. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve this assistance. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed say "nay." (Nay.) MR. BURGESS: One nay. MS. ISAAC: Excuse me. I want everybody to have a place to live and be comfortable, but there's a multi purpose thing in Lawton that helps people and indians that live out in the country. Have you all counseled people to go and use that place? MR. BURGESS: Beverly, we're not in that -- as the CBC, we turn that over to program staff. They should do the counseling and come back and make recommendations. MS. ISAAC: But they came to y'all to get -- I could use help in my old, old house that I live in. But I'm thinking about going to that multi purpose in Lawton, because I know y'all aren't going to help me. MR. BURGESS: Have you applied at HIP? MS. ISAAC: HIP? No, they -- MR. BURGESS: Housing Improvement Program. MS. ISAAC: No. They won't help. They won't help. I'm telling you. I don't know how some people get by and then it comes to y'all, and then y'all help them. Our house, the one that I live in, is built in the 1930s, and I want -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Eighty-five years old. MS. ISAAC: I want, I need a roof. And if I could have that roof fixed, it could last another hundred years for my grandkids. That's all I need. Where do I start except for this multi purpose in Lawton? And they do -- they do work on Indian homes. MR. BURGESS: Well, why is it HIP won't help you? MS. ISAAC: I have no idea. It's just because who I am, I suppose. MR. BURGESS: You've put in application? MS. ISAAC: Yes. Yes. And the application is under (inaudible) name, because it's her house actually. It was willed to her from my mother. And then she's -- it's her application. MR. NARCOMEY: Okay. Mr. Chairman, to add something about this lady's trailer house: It's a FEMA, FEMA trailer. Our EPA people was supposed to check them out and make sure everything was working, the electrical outlets -- MR. ASEPERMY: Heating, air, hot water heater. MR. NARCOMEY: -- everything before they issued it to the -- whoever was qualified for it. Once it got out there, she tried to plug things in in an outlet, and no electricity. Somehow underneath the trailer all of them wires were all scrambled up. Looked like they just pushed them up there and just left it so they wouldn't be hanging down. So she spent, I think she said $375, to get her electricity fixed out of her own pocket. Then now the hot water tank was going out, so she called the EPA to come check on it. So one of the workers got on top of the trailer. I don't know what they was checking on top of the trailer, you know, there ain't nothing up there except for the roof. But, anyway, since then, it's rained and now her bedroom is leaking because one of our workers got up there to check for something. So in kind of a way, it's our fault, because we issued her that trailer defective. You know, what I mean? We was supposed to have issued it out in good condition. And whoever did the checking didn't do it. I don't know who did it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: My grand daughter got one and hers is in perfect condition. Nothing wrong with it. She's got it plugged up to my house for electricity and all of that. But we have no problems with it. MR. NARCOMEY: Like I said, this one may have got overlooked, you know, I don't know. MR. ASEPERMY: Those trailers were checked out by -- what's his name, EPA? MR. HENSON: Stillwell. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Stillwell. Supposedly every trailer that was placed on the property. And, Georgia, I think Mr. Stillwell gave a class, or showed them how everything operates. I don't know if he did that for your daughter. But I have talked to others who received them. And what happened on this case, I don't know. I think they took it out there, even though I voted against it, and took -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Those trailers, weren't they the ones that were contaminated? MR. ASEPERMY: No. None of them were contaminated. They were all cleared. This one they took out there and they just basically parked it. Now, I can't verify that with Mr. Stillwell, but it sits way out west of Indiahoma and north. But part of the problem was created by our people who went out to check it -- when I say "our people", I'm talking about the EPA people. Why they got on the roof, I have no idea, to check the plumbing. That created a leak, so -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Lanny, how can I get a tag? MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Tippeconnie is working on the title. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We're working on it. MR. ASEPERMY: With Norman -- I mean, with Raymond. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. We're working on that. MS. ASENAP: Arlene Asenap. I was wondering if Mr. Tippeconnie could give a report on the water meeting that he attended this weekend up in Oklahoma City, please. MR. BURGESS: Well, hang on a second. We're coming to a new item on the water codes. However wasn't it that meeting that was supposed to be Friday that they postponed. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Is that the one you're talking about, a hearing? MS. ASENAP: Yes. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. That was postponed. MR. BURGESS: That's been moved to a future date, but we haven't received that new date yet. MS. ASENAP: Okay. Thank you. MR. BURGESS: Okay. The motion has passed on assistance to Mrs. Massy -- or Massey. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah, Massey. MR. BURGESS: All right. Motion on HIP passed. No. 13 has moved. Okay. No. 14 is our -- gentlemen, I think you all have the resolution, Elderly Center Advisory Board. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, have we not acted on this before? MR. BURGESS: No. It was tabled previously. MR. ASEPERMY: Okay. MR. BURGESS: That is 65-10. Resolution No. 65-10, in addition to our agenda, that's Item 14. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a resolution, "Whereas, the duties, responsibilities, and authorities of the business committee shall include the following." This is a quote from the constitution. "To appoint such subcommittees as are needed to develop proposals suggested herein, or any other worthwhile endeavors, including deligation of such authorities to these subcommittees as is commensurate with their responsibilities." MR. TIPPECONNIE: I believe that's "is". MR. BURGESS: "Is", yes. "Now therefore be it resolved that in 1987 the Elderly Center had an advisory board on March 11th, 2010. The Tribal Administrator conducted an in-house survey, and the results of this survey were that 75 percent of the guests that day confirmed that an advisory board was needed." "Survey was given to 51 participants based on these facts. It is requested that the Comanche Nation Business Committee do adopt an advisory board consisting of three to five members. This advisory board will have no executive power over the finances or the employees of the Elderly Center." "The advisory board will never be assured a stipend and/or monetary payment for their participation. This advisory board will be on a voluntary basis only." "The objective of the advisory board will be to better serve the senior citizen population, maintain a list of services needed and requested by elders of service unit to sustain a demographic" -- I think there's a word missing here. "To sustain a demographic profile of the Title 6 jurisdiction, to bring forward positive suggestions to director, and to make appropriate adjustments of services." And that should be, "To bring forward positive suggestions to director and to assist in making appropriate adjustments of services." "No. 4, to adhere and fulfill the majority vote by proxy of all guests of the Elderly Center and the nomination of board members." "No. 5, suggest new proposals to the Tribal Administration, the CBC, et cetera, and to pursue new services for members." UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What does that proxy mean? MR. BURGESS: That proxy means that you're going to allow someone else to have your vote on behalf of voting for the board member, I believe. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think we had that one marked -- the proxy marked out. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We scratched that out. MR. BURGESS: Do you want to scratch that out? MR. TIPPECONNIE: That whole item, scratch that all out? MR. BURGESS: "To adhere and fulfill a majority vote of all guests." Of all attendees, would you say? MR. TIPPECONNIE: No. Take out the proxy. MR. BURGESS: Take out "by proxy". So the correction to make is to delete the words "by" and "proxy". MR. TIPPECONNIE: Should the administration be to the Tribal Administrator rather than administration? MR. BURGESS: It could be, instead of both of us. MR. TIPPECONNIE: To the Tribal Administrator. MR. BURGESS: No. 5 will be changed to read, "Suggest new proposals to the Tribal Administrator, CBC, et cetera, and to pursue new services for members." MR. TIPPECONNIE: I would take out the et cetera, because that's another -- suggests another body. MR. BURGESS: It should read, "Tribal Administrator and CBC." MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. MR. ASEPERMY: Shouldn't the proposal go to the Director first? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. MR. BURGESS: What they're doing is saying they'll suggest a proposal with the Director, and the Director and the Body will bring it forward to the Tribal Administrator and the CBC. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Carol, are you satisfied with this now? MS. HALL: Yes. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I think Mr. Asepermy has made a good point though. I think it clarifies it to put in there, new proposals to the Director, then it goes to the Tribal Administrator and the CBC. I think we should incorporate the Director. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: And how is the board or the committee formulated? How is it formed? Who appoints? MR. BURGESS: The CBC would confirm. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Confirm recommendations? MR. BURGESS: They would vote for it like they do the others. Right? Recommendations made and we vote for them. That's how we do the other bodies. MS. ISAAC: I think the director that's been in place for a long time knows about this body that wants to be a part of that, and she's never even acted on it. And it was voted on at General Counsel. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They have been using the same board since 1984. MR. NARCOMEY: They're all deceased except one. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And they're all deceased. MR. TIPPECONNIE: How was that original board selected? How were they selected originally? Do you know? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have no idea. MS. ISAAC: We're not that old. I'm not that old. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I apologize. I didn't mean to -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Beverly is the only one that's still living, and she said that they only lasted a week. Because Ms. Maria Peavey took them out. She done away with it. But yet she left the board on the -- MR. BURGESS: At that time you were supposed to have a board, way up until the '90s. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She done away with the board, but she -- MR. BURGESS: Yes. Benal. Benal Mason. MS. MASON: I worked at the Elderly Center when that board was first formed. And they picked people from each area that serve as the Comanche that at that time were picked up by a van. And they picked people from those different areas to serve on that board, so that way, you know, it would kind of be even for everybody to come in. If they wanted to complain, there was somebody from their area that could listen. But who is the director down there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have no idea. That's why we're here today. MR. ASEPERMY: It's my understanding that Charlotte McCurtain is the director. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Acting. MR. ASEPERMY: Acting director. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But she is not giving the orders. Maria Peavey is. MR. ASEPERMY: You're going to address this, Aurillia. Right? MS. CRAIG: Yes. But -- MR. ASEPERMY: We'll wait for you to address this. But I want to read part of this that -- "On Wednesday, October 28th, 1987, the advisory board on the Comanche Senior Citizens Center met to discuss the guidelines for home-delivered meals. Those in attendance were Dick Red Elk, Sam Kihono(sic), Franklin Cable, Maria (inaudible), and Luther Pachito. And by the way, Luther came in late. "All of our guidelines will be used to determine an elder's eligibility for home-delivered meals." And then it talks about the service objective, the service activities, the eligibility, the spouse, the preferred target group, the needs assessment, a diagnosis, and intake. So they discussed a number of things during this meeting to make the Elder Center a better -- better operation. And, of course, this has been 22 years ago. And I have never ever seen any other minutes, never knew of an advisory committee. Of course, you're going to have to come up with some guidelines, some rules, some regulations, things like that. Currently we have 23 boards, commissions, you know, etc., etc., so this would be No. 24. And according to this resolution they will answer to the Tribal Ad -- the Director of the Tribal Administrator and the CBC. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. MR. ASEPERMY: So it's a non-paid position, it's voluntarily. You don't run the show, you just make suggestions, and things of that nature. We don't even have a guideline on how the advisory committee is selected, other than consisting of three or five members. How are you going to do that? I have no idea. MS. ISAAC: Well, you've got to start somewhere. MR. ASEPERMY: Well, here's some really good guidance right here. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. MR. ASEPERMY: What they said was the service objective, service activity, eligibility, so -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But she got rid of it because- MR. ASEPERMY: So whoever comes up -- if this is approved, whoever comes up with it, there's a good start right here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, I suggest adding No. 6, or somewhere in there in the order of those numbers, that at the first meeting of this new body, they elect their -- or they determine their officers, not us, not the CBC. But let them do that, if they want officers. MR. BURGESS: I think you need to have them, because you guys -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. So I would add that. At their first meeting, whoever is there, that they determine their officers. MS. ISAAC: Everything was so easy a long time ago. They just worked, you know. And, now, Mr. Chairman you appoint somebody to the board, you know, just like that. So why can't y'all do -- this is like the third or fourth time these ladies have been trying to do this. MR. BURGESS: Well, what we're actually doing is reaffirming that there should be a board there, advisory board, according to that creation when they started it. That Advisory Board should be business. MS. ISAAC: But it's being tabled. MR. BURGESS: No. Right here. This resolution is acting on this advisory board, that they want to continue back when it started in 1987. MR. NARCOMEY: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion to approve. MR. ASEPERMY: Clyde, can we hold on one second on that motion? And the reason I'm asking, because Aurillia Craig, Cheryl Hall and Beth, have concerns on the Elder Center, Mr. Chairman, would you mind if they spoke their piece, and then we'll go back to this -- MR. BURGESS: All right. MR. ASEPERMY: -- and hear what they say? And I guess what I'm asking, Aurillia, is: You know, convince me that we need another board. MS. CRAIG: We definitely do need another board because the way things are down there now -- MR. ASEPERMY: Here. We're putting you on the air. MS. CRAIG: We definitely do need a board. The way things are going on down there now, the morale is terrible. And as you can see by this paper we gave you, Title 6 is where they're getting a lot of funding. And we can't see where Title 6 is being used. And as we see it, there's been fundraisers, and in the past, when they have fundraisers, they were told this money was being used for trips. Well, with an outrageous budget she's got, they shouldn't -- the elders shouldn't have to pay for their own trips. They should be able to go on trips and enjoy themselves. And then the fundraisers that come in, they're not accountable. When you go and ask them how much money came in and what it's going to be used for, well, that's none of our business. And as elders, we want to know what's going on, we want the place to be high standards. The morale is terrible. The kitchen help is always getting harassed. The cook has threatened to quit several times. And if he quits, what's going to happen? Who's going to cook. Is Maria going get back there and cook? All she does is stand back there and glare at everybody like we're going to get second helpings too many times. And then whenever we were going to have bingo, they were charging for the bingo, $2 to play. So I questioned it, "Why are we paying for bingo." Well, the person I questioned went back to Maria in tears and said, "The elders are picking on me." I wasn't picking on her. I was just asking a question, "Why are we paying and where's the money going to go." The elders were also asked to bring gifts for the bingo, the prizes. Now, if you're going to donate a prize like that, that's not going to be any fun. When they've got money coming in, they should be able to buy it. And then she came back and said, "Well, okay. You don't have to pay for everything, but the last game will be a dollar." So after that, most of the people got up and left. It's just little things like that that go on down at the Center that you people are not aware of. But those of us that eat there all the time can see it, and we complain about it. So to complain amongst ourselves is really not doing too much. But coming to you people and letting you know exactly what happens, maybe we'll get something done. I'm not the only person that complained about this. I see a lot of it going on. There's other ladies here that are with me, and they can all get up and say practically the same thing. And I'm really concerned about the moral of the employees down there. They're really good workers. Some of them are really good to elders. They go out of their way to help us. And many times when you ask a question, if they don't know the answer, they'll go find out for you. But when you go and ask Maria or (inaudible) anything, they act like they don't know what they're talking about. And I used to really feel good about going down there and greeting those people, but I don't anymore. You just don't feel good. And we also need food down there that's geared towards the diabetics. We get good food. I appreciate what I get. But a lot of people are diabetic, so they can't eat everything that's given down there. So, you know, it would be nice if we had a dietician come down every once in awhile and help with the menu. Anybody else got anything to say? I've got more to say, but I want to give these other ladies time to -- MR. ASEPERMY: Aurillia, what would the advisory board, if approved, exactly -- tell me what you all would do to make it better. MS. CRAIG: Well, if the people come to us and complain about what they would like, you know, what's not going on, we can go to the Director and advise the Director of the situation, and let the Director take it upon themselves to improve it. Without advice from anybody, the Director is just going to sit there, whoever it may be, and do things on their own, and it's not going to be making everybody happy. And sometimes, too, when we go down there, there's suggestions made, but they're not followed through. We had a person coming in giving lessons or instructions on how to do beadwork. Well, you know, some of the people don't have good eyesight, and they can't do beadwork. But if you want something done down there, they need to ask the people, the majority of the people that are there all the time, what would you like to do, give us a suggestion what could be helpful to the Center. That way the advisory board can go to the director and say these are suggestions that came up. Now, how do you act on it, what would you do for us, things like that. We don't want somebody coming down there and putting on something that nobody is going to be interested in. They're just wasting their time because nobody is going to stay there. So if I called Bunky and said, "Bunky, would you come down here and show us how to make leather crafts", well, who is interested. He would make his trip all the way from Oklahoma City, nobody is there. Those are some of the things that we're trying to avoid. MR. HENSON: I'll make a motion that we approve. MR. BURGESS: We have an addition to this, if you don't mind, to the resolution. That the Board will select its own officers at their first meeting. That would be Item No. 6 on the resolution. MS. MASON: Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Yes, Benal. MS. MASON: With all of the complaining that goes on, it's not just a one-sided deal, because a lot of these people that come down there complain about things that can't be helped at the moment. And instead of complaining about everything that's going wrong down there, try to work together and make it better. I mean, this is a two-sided thing. One person cannot cause all of this. It takes more than one person to make a problem. And if these people would treat the help down there more decently. I've seen people cry down there because of the things some of these people have said to them. That's unheard of when you're trying to make things better. And if you can't put your time in and try to treat somebody the way you want to be treated, don't complain. MR. BURGESS: Thank you, Benal. So ladies, did you get that -- that last board of elected officers? MS. JONES: Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Hang on, Francine. Yes, Sandra. Then we'll come back to you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have just one point of clarification. Did I understand that one of the funding sources requires them to have an advisory board? MR. BURGESS: When it started out in 1987, yes, Community Advisory Board. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So is it still a requirement to have that advisory board? MR. BURGESS: As far as we understand it. It's in the -- every year in the report it's in there. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. So it's in Title 6. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So creating a current advisory board is necessary for a funding source. MR. BURGESS: If you're reporting it, then you should have it. Yes, Francine. MS. JONES: Yes. I go to the Center quite a bit myself, and only table that ever really gets attended to is the people that sit there at that one table, is these people right here. But that other lady, I can't -- Beth. And one day I was down there, and I was backing out the door. Well, Darla -- those people got -- the TA? MR. BURGESS: Mr. Nelson. MS. JONES: Mr. Nelson. He is the one, he put the advertisement in for the new lady to come in. Said he would pay Darla $20 an hour. And then the other lady she come in because it was the opening for -- they sent Maria and Tisey back, you know. And so I showed -- one time -- I got accused -- well, what it was, if somebody -- you're backing out the door, and you're halfway in a wheelchair, would you just stand there -- would you just stand there and say, "Francine, I'm behind you." Because you've got to be careful for me because, you know -- And I sat right behind the door, and the lady -- and I didn't hit her hard, because I can't go fast backwards. And she had to go to the hospital. And I was accused of hurting her. And the lady right there kind of jumped on me about doing that there, you know. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who jumped on you? MS. JONES: So it's not Maria's fault, you know. They need to get -- all of the people get together. But these people are more concerned together that the cook goes to them and see what they want first before he even asks -- MR. BURGESS: Thank you, Francine. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, another thing, too, Francine stuck her with her cane. MS. JONES: I did not stick her with my cane. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, you stuck her with a cane. MS. JONES: What cane? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had a big old bruise. MS. JONES: I did not stick her with a cane. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, may I add, from reading the monthly report, 2,013 meals were served during the month of May down there. 1,194 at the Center, and they delivered 819. You had a diabetes and prescription program presentation, you had the museum director give a presentation, you had a fitness class, you had a special Mother's Day meal, you had bingo twice, you had a basket weaving class, you had a physician from the Indian Hospital give a presentation on food safety, you had a wreath-making class, you had a health fair, and you had staff training. It sounds like you all were pretty busy down there. MR. BURGESS: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But we weren't asked what we wanted to do. It sounds good, but we weren't asked what we wanted to do. Seems like you would say, "What do you want to do? Is there something you want to do?" Because making Indian dresses and beading is our livelihood, and to us it's work. We want something that's recreation to us. MR. ASEPERMY: Such as? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Playing bingo or doing something, learning how to make something else. But to go make shawls or -- that's not -- that's work. That's not -- you know, we all know how to do that. And we want to be asked what we want to do for recreation, where we want to go. MR. BURGESS: Yes. Ms. Chebatah MS. CHEBATAH: I requested from acting that we have -- I went to -- my grandfather gave that land, my great-grandfather gave that land and I have a close connection. I went there for a revival at Easter. They had a wonderful thing. It lasted for hours and hours. I request that we have those singers there, Comanche. It's free. I'm sure if we asked them, they would come. We have a lot of wealth there. We've asked for day trips. We have that band, we have the bus. I'm sure it's nothing. When there's trips, it's hand picked. I've been invited because I used to help. I make a very good living sewing beadwork, shawls. I make a very good living. Anyway, I've been invited to go to Albuquerque, but I have -- don't want to go. I have no desire. If I want to go to Albuquerque, I get in my car and I go. And I used to sew and help at the Center. I've quilted, I've done a lot of stuff, and I never knew where the money was going. I've helped at the fairs, and I quit. I don't do anything down there anymore. I take my grandkids to -- on outings. I spend a lot of time in Lawton because I have to be there all day. So there's a lot of things that you guys don't understand that goes on there. She did run over her. I didn't see it. But she ran over me, too. But she's quick to apologize because I don't have a back-up gear when I -- she got banned from the casino because she ran over somebody down there and laughed about it. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Chebatah. MS. JONES: Well, thank you for that lie. MR. BURGESS: Yes. Last call. MS. JONES: Thank you for that lie. No. I cleaned the toilet bowl, that's what I did. So don't you lie to me anymore. MR. BURGESS: Let's calm down now. Let's calm down. MR. ASEPERMY: Calm down. MR. BURGESS: Yes. Name? MS. SAPCUT: I'm Georgia Sapcut. I worked with the Center for Creative Living for years, about three years. And we had bingo, puzzles, movies, exercise. We even had a little library, we would go in there and use the computer. This is what the Center for Creative living gave the elders when I worked there. They still have a beautiful building. So why can't we have it down there? MR. BURGESS: Thank you, Georgia. What I hear and interpret what everybody has said is that our elders want more involvement. Not some of the things that they can do at home. They want involvement with one another and seeing new things and maybe going different places. I understand that. And so we do have a motion and a second here, so we're going to call for this question and vote on this resolution which is very important and is necessary for our elders. MS. SAPCUT: And I have another -- I'd like to make one more statement. When my mother was alive, she was invited to go on the trips by Maria. However, she said you have to come and help us. Well, her sisters, her family, are never there. But when it comes time for trips, her sisters all go on the trips, you know. And a lot of us -- I would love to go to the Center and help them do anything that needed to be done so I could go on the trips. MR. BURGESS: And I think this is why -- MS. SAPCUT: But I don't feel welcome there. MR. BURGESS: -- the advisory board would be the ones to handle communications, get the word out to people, more so than just one or two staff people. That's why I believe that you all are here and why I think it's important that the advisory board be instituted and continued. So we're going to call for the question here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: With that one addition. MR. BURGESS: With that addition or that correction of how you're electing your officers to the Body, the Board. So we have a motion by Mr. Narcomey, a second over here by Mr. Henson. We'll call for the question. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) All those opposed say "nay." MR. ASEPERMY: Abstain. MR. BURGESS: Okay. MS. ISAAC: You guys just don't understand what's happening and y'all don't even care. MR. BURGESS: The ayes have it. Motion passes with that correction. You all please notify us when you come together. We'll have to get our Tribal administrator and both of us are in the office to meet with you all. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We would like Beth Glasbrooke to be on there just as like honorary or something as long as she wants to. MR. BURGESS: You want Mrs. Glasbrooke to be a board member emeritus? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. MR. BURGESS: Okay. You all can do that, and when you want to recognize her, get with us so we can get a plaque or a resolution made. All right. MS. CHEBATAH: But I think when we get the right director in there, everything is going to fall into place, because the way it is, it's just like a dictatorial place, you know. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We need somebody that's compassionate to all people, not just a certain few. Too much favoritism there. And I don't like favoritism. If I like you, I like you. MR. BURGESS: Please keep the background, your discussions very low if you're going to talk because our stenographer is having a hard time hearing everybody. If that keeps up, we'll put a microphone out here so y'all can come up here and talk. So this motion has passed. Next item on the agenda, going into our new and old business. Aurillia, Mrs. Craig, Mrs. Hall, we just listened to you under new and old business, so if you wanted to go home. MR. ASEPERMY: They've got to be at Tinker, Tinker Air Force base today. MR. BURGESS: Oh, is that where you're going? I want to inform everybody that sometime between now and 1:30, we will probably go into recess. I have to be down here at 2:00, so we'll try to move quickly here. Mr. Red Elk. On the agenda Mr. Red Elk has a question regarding the Comanche Nation constitution. MR. ASEPERMY: Ron Red Elk. MR. RED ELK: Do I really need the microphone? Can everybody hear me? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. Need it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. MR. RED ELK: (Speaking in Comanche.) I said, "Greetings Comanches and CBC members." This is difficult. I'm normally a positive person, but my discourse is not entirely positive. Today my concerns is the violation of Comanche constitution by the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. The rule of law for this committee is the constitution. Each one of you pledge to support and defend the constitution. Now, I have three questions for the committee, and please allow me to finish my discourse before answering. No. 1; Was a lawful quorum established by the CBC to direct our Tribal attorneys to stop an injunction that was asking to finish the Tribal counsel meeting. This was brought before the CFR court. Probably the most important issue here on this question is really not the question. Our agenda for the Tribal Counsel was built so that the budget was never discussed. That is the violation of our constitution. There are four things that the constitution charges, Committee, and that is the last one of those four things, to build a budget, present this budget before the Tribal Counsel for adoption or rejection. This did not happen. When I first heard about the injunction, I was saying, "Oh, no. That's going to -- if that passes, that's going to delay the election." And then after second thought, I said, "Well, we didn't do right by our constitution." And I spoke to some of you after I looked at that agenda. I spoke to several of you and mentioned that, why, why do we have the budget the last thing on the agenda. I don't know the -- The question -- the answers from you all vary. But it didn't change. Then we had a second opportunity to adjust it to make the budget come first in our attempt to complete the Tribal Counsel. Nope, it didn't happen. All of these other items came forth. I'm sure they're important. But the constitution mandates that this committee present that budget to the Tribal Counsel. And it wasn't done. And that violation is Article 6, Section 7, Letter D. Question No. 2: Was a lawful quorum established by the CBC to put the Tribal Administrator on administrative leave. MR. BURGESS: Excuse me. Mr. Red Elk, you mentioned a lawful quorum to stop the injunction, then you mentioned Item No. 2 was the agenda. Is this Item No. 3 of your questions or is this still part of a new question? MR. RED ELK: No. This is the second question. These committee men are legal today because this is a lawful quorum. They do business for us. Outside of a legal, lawful quorum, they're just common folks like us. And they don't make decisions that affect the Nation outside of a lawful quorum. And that's what happened. And it shouldn't have. This violation was Article 6, Section 4. No. 3, Question No. 3: Was a lawful quorum established by the CBC to reschedule this June monthly meeting. Again, this was done outside of a lawful quorum. The violation was Article 6, Section 2, that our monthly meetings are held the first Saturday at 1:30, unless there is a legal holiday, and then it follows the following Saturday. And if an adjustment or a rescheduling is done, it should be done when. When they're legal, and they're legal today. What is my objective? I guess my objective is to address these violations to you gentlemen, and if our constitution was violated, what should you do? What are you going to do? If any of those questions that are asked is no to it being unlawful, then there should be something done, shouldn't there? That's my objective. (Speaking in Comanche.) MR. BURGESS: So, Mr. Red Elk, your first question was: Is there a lawful quorum to stop the injunction. First: Was the injunction given in enough time to the CBC to call a quorum. It was not. All right. Four days business time is not enough notice for us to call a meeting. We're required by the constitution to call a meeting no less than ten days. Is that fair to this body? No, it's not. But we had to respond. Secondly: A lawful quorum to put the TA on administrative leave. Yes, there was. Maybe not on that day, but the CBC met and reaffirmed the actions taken. So there was lawful quorum putting him on administrative leave. He's on admin leave. No. 3: A lawful quorum to establish the June meeting. I don't recall that there is a required quorum to change the date of a meeting established, within the constitution says the first Saturday of the month for the CBC. However you mentioned at 1:30. I think you're talking about Tribal Counsel is required at the third Saturday of every April to start at 1:30. So there is no requirement that we have to have a quorum to change the date of the meeting if it meets other needs, other requirements. So we didn't have to have a quorum to call a meeting for this date, this date. By consensus we agreed. MR. RED ELK: Okay. Speak to the violation of the budget. MR. BURGESS: Now, if you're referring to the meeting we had, I believe there's a lot of people in this room who requested to be on the agenda, and they wanted to be on the agenda to be heard on certain items. I believe this is not the first time we've had two days of a Tribal Counsel, but it's been quite a while. And all of these people wanted to speak first, and they were notified each meeting that we had to get to the budget, that we have to cut this off, let's go into the budget. But, no, people on that list, I believe there were 14 or 16 names, they all wanted to speak to a certain item. We allowed it. I agreed to that because the people wanted to speak before they voted on the budget. This is at the meeting here on the 3rd of April and the ensuing meeting. In the constitution it states that the Tribal Counsel is composed of everybody, 18 years and older. You only have 400 -- 500-some-odd members at this counsel meeting. There are over 9,000 voters if they wish to vote. That meeting of 500 people is not the full Tribal Counsel, according to this constitution, so we have to move forward. And you're right. People wanted to get on with the election. What you're pointing to, Mr. Red Elk, is that we've outgrown our constitution. I've said it before. We have to do business in a better way, more efficient way. To do all of our business one day a year, and people go mad because they didn't approve a resolution or a line item that came after the budget discussions, excuse me, we've got to go on. Now all of Tribal Counsel has voted. There was only 1,400 people maybe, but that's more than the 500 people that were at the meeting that day. MR. RED ELK: Does the constitution specify that this budget is presented to the General Counsel. MR. BURGESS: It's specified to be presented to Tribal Counsel, the 9,000 members who are 18 years or older. MR. WHITE WOLF: No, it doesn't say that. It says that the General Counsel meets at a certain time of the year, the 3rd Saturday of every April. And that General Counsel is the supreme governing body. It doesn't talk about people living in California or New Mexico. It talks about people that meet at the complex at that certain time. That is a General Counsel. You would not allow a person on the -- at the General Counsel meeting to address the changing of the agenda to bring the important items to light. You delayed the meeting. You had a plan of not letting people talk about certain things that we wanted to talk about. You took the time out. You let everybody talk -- well, you let the princes of the situation, which we have no control of, it doesn't pertain to us because that's the Fair Boards Action. You let that in and you let them bring a resolution to the floor that didn't even pertain to anything that we wanted to talk about. You didn't let us vote on the budget, and you were supposed to. You didn't let us vote on the KCA budget we were supposed to. You did everything to keep us from talking about things you didn't want us to talk about, such as economic development, the college, land acquisition. These items you were protecting, so you didn't want us to talk about them. You might deny that, but, Mike, that's the way we seen it. MR. BURGESS: Well, I went by the constitution. MR. WHITE WOLF: No, you didn't go by the constitution. MR. BURGESS: Excuse me. You spoke. MR. WHITE WOLF: Excuse me. You didn't let me speak. You're already telling a lie right now. MR. BURGESS: The constitution states that every member, 18 years old or older, is the Tribal Counsel. The constitution states that no business can be conducted without a quorum of 150. Two times on both of those days we took a count to make sure we had a quorum. Now, did you want me to operate illegally again to go beyond a quorum. I'm not going to do that. That's what happened Mr. Red Elk and Rodrick. That's what happened. MR. WHITE WOLF: You operate your business illegally. How many times has Mr. Tippeconnie there noted at the meeting that y'all were going to change it? Ya'll don't wait ten days. He doesn't give a letter or a postcard because you operate -- MR. BURGESS: He does. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I do. MR. WHITE WOLF: You operate within those 10 days -- or you don't even wait 10 days. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I do give them -- MR. BURGESS: Ten days notice is for a special-call meeting. So we didn't have that with this lawsuit that was presented. They walked in here on a Thursday morning, presented me with papers at 11:00. I'm supposed to be in court at 1:00 that day. There's no way I could do that. That's not fair to this, body, Mr. Red Elk. And then to turn around and go to court and be told I have to appear on Tuesday, that's only four working days. That's not even enough days to call a meeting. So I'm not going to be found in contempt of court. Yes. MS. ISAAC: I don't always agree with what y'all are doing, but, you know, where were all of these people when the same thing was happening and we're in the big mess that we're in now? Where were these people when the former chairman and the one previously before him, where were they when they were doing all of the same thing. I'm getting tired of these petitions. I refuse to sign any more. I don't care if I don't like what you're doing, I'm not going to sign a petition against you, or I didn't sign one against Willy. I don't like the idea that y'all let him go like y'all did, but I didn't agree with everything he did either, you know. And the way y'all got another TA, I don't agree with how y'all chose that, even though I like him. I like the man. You know, I don't agree with a lot of things. But where were these people when the former people got us in all of this mess? We're in a big mess now and that's what we need to concentrate on. MR. BURGESS: Point well made. MS. ISAAC: And at that General Counsel, a lot of us stayed to the end. Went out when it was over, all of that bench ground was full of Comanches. Where were those people? They should have been in the gym. They can come -- they can go to a pow-wow beginning at 1:00 or 2:00, and they can stay until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, they don't complain about it. But when we're trying to figure out what to do at the General Counsel, these pow-wow people are down there complaining. I got a call from one of my friends, a lady friend, she said we were up there -- we were up there like throwing chairs, there was a big old fight up there. And I said, "No. No. None of that happened." But somebody from our group went down there and spread lies, and we didn't do all of that. MR. BURGESS: Yes, Mr. Red Elk. MR. RED ELK: Committee, is any of those questions that I asked you answered with a no? MR. ASEPERMY: Can I address Mr. Red Elk, Mr. Chairman? MR. BURGESS: Sure. Go ahead. MR. ASEPERMY: There are four requirements mandated by the constitution for Tribal Counsel. And one is to hire a private administrator, which was done, to hire an attorney, which was done, to accept nominations for CBC members that's term is going to expire. And I'm looking at the constitution, Mike. Maybe you can show me. I know I've read it, but we're supposed to present a budget. Okay. I'll just tell you how it is. We have a premeeting, five of us was there. We were all asked to come in an hour early for this premeeting to discuss the agenda for the Tribal Counsel. At least two of us, myself and Mr. Narcomey, requested that the budget be moved up on the agenda. It was not done because we didn't have a consensus. That's how that came about. It was put on the bottom, put on the bottom of the list. We did have a second chance to address the budget. It wasn't addressed again. But the budget is on the ballot. Every eligible Comanche voter could have voted and approved, and they did, the budget. They approved everything except for question No. 2, which was to move the LPN program. But they approved every line item on the budget, the Tribal Counsel. And the Tribal Counsel is any member 18 years or older. They did get to see the budget. It was on the ballot. Everybody saw it. So because we didn't discuss it -- I wish we would have, but we didn't. We did ask the Chairman, two of us anyway, or a couple of us, asked to move the budget up. Didn't have a consensus, so it stayed as is. But I think that we did follow the rules as far as doing -- I think we followed the rules doing all four things that's required and mandated by the constitution. That's how I feel. I know we did three of them correct. Oh, we didn't start on time. That's mandated. MR. BURGESS: Okay. And by the way, Mr. Red Elk, now that people have voted to have a 60 percent income, per capita income, not 40 percent, now we have to readjust the budget and do a presentation. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Or we have to ask for approval. MR. BURGESS: Or we have to ask for approval first, and then turn around and readjust this budget. So you want us to go back and have a meeting on the budget that is affected by the per capita request, and turn around and do another budget. You want us to have two more budget meetings. MR. RED ELK: I didn't say anything about -- MR. BURGESS: But I'm saying that's what's implied by your saying we're illegal. Now we have to go back and readjust our budget to see where we can modify this, if the 60 percent per capita is approved. MR. ASEPERMY: And not taking anything away from what you're asking today, Mr. Red Elk, and you did mention: Was there a legal quorum when the Tribal Administrator was put on administrative leave. I don't know how much I can discuss about that. There was a circumstance that happened that is very unfortunate. The Chairman was absent. The Secretary/Treasure was absent. The Vice-Chairman made a decision by putting a memo out, putting him on admin leave. The next day we had a consensus of four who supported the action of the Vice-Chairman. There were mistakes made, and I'll sit up here and I'll tell you what the mistake was, and we've already discussed it. We should have been called, at least, and that didn't happen, here the day of the incident, you know. We did concur with the Vice-Chairman, to the man. To the man up here we did concur with his action on the Tribal Administrator. So, you know, it was one of those, what I consider an emergency situation. Action had to be taken. The Vice-Chairman took the initiative to do what he felt was best. The following day four of us, besides himself, concurred with his action. It was a consensus. It wasn't a legally called meeting, but what do you do in a situation like that? There's no guidance in the constitution. No guidance whatsoever. MR. RED ELK: Is my conception of your duties and responsibilities and legal authority wrong in that you're legal when you're in a quorum meeting, and then outside of that meeting you're like us common folks? Is that a misconception on my part? MR. BURGESS: I would like to believe that, but I'm held more accountable. I've been told I'm the Chairman 24/7. I have to act appropriate. So I disagree with that. And outside of this meeting people look to me to have a different standard of action, I guess. That's even for a CBC member. MR. ASEPERMY: Sometimes we do not. Sometimes we do not. We realize, or we -- we don't do things perfect. Sometimes there is a lack of communication, a simple phone call, or calling your home and leaving a message when you're out of town and you've got your cell. We have hopefully cleared this up where our communication between -- from the Chairman down is better as far as notification on things. Like this meeting today was supposed to be held on June the 5th. Now, we had a consensus that said let's move it to the 12th because of the election. Now, I'm not going to say that we all agreed with that, because we all did not agree with that. But the majority of the members on this committee, when it was brought up, and I believe it was at least ten days prior to moving this meeting, we agreed to it by consensus. Ron, there have been situations when you sat on a committee that we don't always do things correctly, but we try to as much as we can. I'm not taking up for us. What I'm saying is: The majority rules. And sometimes we don't all agree. When someone makes a blanket statement and points their finger at the CBC, it's not all of us. It is not all of us. It takes a majority of four to make things happen. And we don't always agree. Sometimes there's only two. Sometimes there's three. So we're trying to do what is best for the Nation. It's very difficult at times. And I wish you luck. When you get on the hot seat, maybe you can do something about it. MR. BURGESS: Mrs. Asenap, do you have a -- MS. ASENAP: I just have a question for Mr. Red Elk. How many CBC committee meetings have you attended this year? MR. RED ELK: Meetings? MS. ASENAP: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: None. MS. ASENAP: Well, I have attended quite a few, and I haven't seen you, and I just kind of question your timing and your attitude is like holier than thou. And when you're running for election, you know, I just question your motives. Because, you know, you do have a potty attitude, and, you know, like you say, you want us to elect you. Well, I just question your motives and your attitude. MR. RED ELK: That's, you know -- what you can do is -- MS. ASENAP: I will express my opinion on election day. MR. RED ELK: -- on July the 3rd vote for my opponent. MS. ASENAP: I plan to. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Beverly. And then come back to you, Thomas. MS. ISAAC: At that 60 percent change in our per capita, I know it has to go to the Bureau, but doesn't the Bureau -- aren't they supposed to go with a majority of the Comanches? Why do they want to -- I mean, I don't even know why we have to go to them, but I guess it's a rule. We've already voted for the 60 percent. Is that just a -- MR. BURGESS: I don't want to call it a formality, but it's required. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a process. MR. BURGESS: It's required. It's a process we have to go through because that's the approving entity to present any per cap -- or, I mean, to approve any per capita outside of -- MR. ASEPERMY: Beverly, the 40 percent thing, we had to go through this process. And, Clyde, I think you initiated it for the 40 percent distribution plan in 2004. MR. NARCOMEY: Uh-huh. MR. ASEPERMY: I think -- Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, if I could get you or Mr. Tippeconnie -- because y'all approved it, doesn't mean it's going to happen. MS. ISAAC: Well, that's what I'm saying. MR. ASEPERMY: Okay. I'm going to ask the Chairman the Secretary/Treasurer, because they can explain it a heck of a lot better than me. I've read it. It sounds like a relatively simple process, but I think if they explain it, how the process worked, what's the first step, what's the second step, you know. MS. ISAAC: Well, I think the process to me would be the majority rules and the bureau should listen to us because they tell us to do our own government. They don't want to be involved in our government. They throw it back at us. MR. BURGESS: You have a point there. Thomas, is your question along the same line as hers? No? MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: It was about the meeting. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Hang on. Let's answer this question on the per cap. Bob is going to answer that. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Per caps are -- these payments to Tribal members are based upon the Revenue Allocation Plan. That's a plan. And that plan takes the approval of the Secretary of Interior, or his designated official. So we have to present a new Revenue Allocation Plan to the Secretary for approval. That must meet two things. It must meet requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, it must meet requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory act. So there are two things that it must meet. And there are conditions within those acts, you know, that we have to meet. As an example: We have to show that we are a stable government. You know, that we're a government getting on our feet, and that we're able to serve our Tribal members and social activity programs and such. So there are requirements and criteria to which we just respond. So it's not automatic. The voters, the Tribal voters, said, "Yes, let's proceed with this." And if you look at the question on the ballot, it says, "Shall we." You know, so it's up to the CBC now to prepare that plan and resubmit it for approval to the Secretary of the Interior. MS. ISAAC: Are you going to work on behalf of the majority that wanted it and not -- you know, that's what you should do. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, we have to answer the questions, you know, because, again, we have to meet the intent of these two things that I mentioned, you know, the Code of Federal Regulations, you know, those are law. And then the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. And it must meet the purposes. You know, these are purposes that are required. I'll site them. "You must fund the Tribal government operations or programs, provide for the general welfare of the tribe or its members, promote tribal economic development, donate to charitable organizations, and help fund the operations of the Tribal government, or other local governments. So we must answer all of those questions when we submit it, so it's going to be based upon their okay to say, "Yes, you can proceed with this." They may say "no", they may say "modify that". They may say "No, not 60. Maybe 45, maybe 50." But we have to weight that. So we have to complete the new Revenue Allocation Plan and submit it. MR. BURGESS: What we have to do is set a meeting with the Bureau to get specifics from them, how to submit this to them. Benal had her hand up, Robert, and then we're going to come back to Thomas. MS. MASON: I just want to ask a question. Is there any way the elders could get their elder payment in June and let them get their per cap in December. MR. BURGESS: You know, just on that line of thought, other people are suggesting why don't we get two per cap payments a year, not one. That's been brought up. So that can be a question y'all need to think about as the Tribal counsel. It's up to y'all because it runs -- what's happened is some of our elders will get the per cap November or October, and then they get their elder money after that. And one example is Ms. Jones, over here. She's been dinged on her Social Security and her retirement income for two months in a row. And they know that now, so our elders are facing that issue, so that's something to consider. Was your question in line with the -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. No. I just wanted to address the audience, and I wanted to tell Mr. Red Elk that I appreciate his statements and his questions. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's gone. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Because I think it's nice that at least we've got someone that's reading the constitution. And maybe he'll adhere to those items that he brought before the Business Committee. Because, you know, we've got a Business Committee that -- well, they've got a track record. I'm not proud of it, but, you know, I guess like they said, they're doing their best. But thanks, Mr. Red Elk. MR. BURGESS: Well, I'll remind y'all that Section 6 that he quoted requires that no action be taken without a quorum present, so that hinders us. Again, we've outgrown our constitution. We've outgrown the way we're -- Thomas had a question, Mark, and then we'll come back to you. Yes, Thomas. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: In order to prevent running out of time like we did this year, two meetings, we need to have a meeting procedure set up. I guess the CBC could pass a resolution and have all your procedures set up like -- okay. You have the budget items right after your nominations, and then -- well, you're still going to run out of time. So you'll have to say so many minutes for each item, and then the agenda items, why then you need to set a time, 20 minutes. I don't know, whatever time. MR. BURGESS: You're right, Thomas. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: But at least budget it within the one to five or something. MR. BURGESS: The best format for us, and because we have such a large tribe now -- MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: That way we won't prevent next year -- MR. BURGESS: I proposed in the past that we have two meetings a year. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Yeah. Maybe of -- MR. BURGESS: Others came up and said, "We want to speak before we get to the budget because every year we're never heard. We always fall out of quorum. We vote on a budget, people leave, we fall out of quorum." So I listened to -- out of 16 people, 10 people said that. So I told my body here, "Let's listen to the people. They want to speak. They have something they want to talk about." And I'm reminding the Body at that time, "You can review it, if you need to. We've got to move on. We've got a budget to present here. We've got a budget you need to review. Let's take a head count. Do we have a quorum? We keep going while we have a quorum." So we listened to the Body who wanted to speak. And now the majority of that body wants to say we didn't do it right. And the constitution is getting us in a quandary here, in a corner, because of the 18 and over makes the entire Tribal Counsel. And those who attend our traditional Tribal Counsel day say that they make up the whole agenda and present everything to everybody. And we have 65 percent of our voters are absentees saying they want to be heard, too. They want to vote on items. Why can't they vote on these in total -- in the body, the total Tribal Counsel. So we hear that. So, yeah, it looks like we're doing something illegal or wrong, but with this constitution not helping us define what we're saying, people refer to them as general counsel, it's not referred to in the constitution. Yes, Mark. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, you're presenting the Bureau of Indian Affairs the 60 percent per capita. Is there any other tribe in the United States that has that? MR. BURGESS: We've been told of one tribe that's receiving 70 percent, but they have a huge economic development operation going on. They can afford to do that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What if the Bureau rejects the 60 percent? What happens then? MR. BURGESS: We'll come back and let y'all know. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We stay where we are. MR. ASEPERMY: We stay where we are. MR. BURGESS: We'll have to inform you. We'll stay where we're at. MR. ASEPERMY: We don't know how long the process takes. I'm sure a lot of you would like to know when will this takes affect. My best guestimate that it probably won't take affect until October of 2012's budget possibly. That's just the long range forecast, if it happens. If it happens before this October, then this budget has definitely got to be revised drastically. MR. TIPPECONNIE: If it's approved. MR. ASEPERMY: If it's approved. MS. ISAAC: The way I see it, the CBC is really not happy about it, but the majority of the people voted for it. Y'all should work actively to help us do it, because, Clyde and Keith and Edward worked actively on that 40 percent, which the CBC did not want us to have any part of the gaming revenues. We've finally got a part of it. And this is the reason Keith brought it before, because we're not happy with the way things are going now. So this is just to shake you guys up and let you know that we want a part of what's happening. And you're just leaving us out. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, we have to submit it as the voters voted. We have to submit it. MS. ISAAC: Right. MR. BURGESS: Now we've got to draft everything up and present it to the Bureau according to the vote here. MR. ASEPERMY: How do you know we didn't support it, Beverly? MS. ISAAC: Oh, I don't know. I'm just saying, I hope y'all support it. MR. ASEPERMY: I really dislike when people say the CBC, the CBC. We don't always agree. MS. ISAAC: Well, that's what I say, the CBC. MR. ASEPERMY: But don't point your finger at all of us, when it's not all of us. MR. BURGESS: Just take turns pointing to someone, I guess. But, Phyllis, you had a question? MR. ASEPERMY: And, by the way, I voted for it. MS. NARCOMEY: I guess my response to the fact that people out of state don't come, that should tell you that the General -- making the General Counsel meetings is not a priority for them. But they're able to make the priority for the -- you know, the Comanche fair or the Walters pow-wow. That just depends on what the priority is. I lived out of state for a number of years, but yet making the General Counsel was my priority. I may have had to take a day off and not be able to come to something else, but that was my priority. So whenever people would tell me that lived out of state, well, you know, that they missed the General Counsel meeting, they wish there were more, it's their priority to not come. It's their decision not to come if they want to make some -- you know, like I said, the Comanche Fair or something else. But anyway that does kind of irk me because I heard that a lot, and I lived out of state. But for me it was a priority. MR. BURGESS: Well, I know that. And I was able to -- when I lived out of state for almost 20 years, I was able to make my priority around that time based on my work, my family needs, and then my income. MS. NARCOMEY: Yes. MR. BURGESS: Those of us who leave here -- and I'll tell you why I left here. My own tribe wouldn't hire me on three times, so I had to go look for work elsewhere, and I have a family. So I'm not speaking up for them, but I can tell you what I went through, and the anguish I had when I called back and say -- to my mom, "Who's doing what, who's who, what is it you need, what is it we've got to do." Everybody does that. So that's the secondary. But, you're right. People should make it a priority. And that's why I've said it before. We need to have two meetings. One the legislative sessions, one the election and a budget session. MS. NARCOMEY: And, you know, it's kind of like what Beverly has said. Because we all walked out of that -- whenever we walked out of that General Counsel meeting and that pow-wow was going on, they didn't even give people time to -- or the staff people to clean up that room to come in. I bet there was more than a hundred people, Comanches down there, that could have been part of the meeting. MS. ISAAC: And, also, where are these people that are running? Where were they in every CBC meeting, every month? Where are they? I see -- and I -- You know, I have nothing against them, but why are they all of a sudden coming to the meetings? We're here all the time. Most of us are here all the time. We just want to listen. We want to know what's happening. MR. BURGESS: All right. Thank you. MR. ASEPERMY: Ms. Narcomey, you know -- and, Mike, you both brought up something very interesting. If you read the election results and you look at -- break it down, look at our local precincts and our absentee. Our local precincts, or local people that live in our Comanche Country, voted almost the opposite. All of the people locally, they voted one way, and the absentees voted another way. I think -- and I don't know how to resolve this. Our biggest source of information is our newspaper. Then we have the internet. But how many people have a computer? We have a web site. We have Camp Cryer. We have the Comanche Forum. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, please. MR. ASEPERMY: The Comanche Indian Forum. But the one that reaches the most people is our newspaper. So I don't know if the absentee voters are out of touch, or if the ones that are local are out of touch. But they voted just -- just the opposite of each other. MR. BURGESS: Yeah. All right. We're going to have to move on. Norman. MR. NAUNI: I'll just make a few comments, Mr. Chairman, to this committee. This constitution that this organization votes by was adopted by General Counsel. In the years past, the budget has always been approved by the General Counsel on the 3rd Saturday of April. In that constitution it talks about a quorum that has to be established before this meeting takes place. That's the most important. You can't establish a quorum when you're considering a referendum vote. So the quorum pertains to the General Counsel meeting specifically, the 3rd Saturday of the month of April. Now my question is, to the Committee: Since we're going to do the 60 percent on the per capita payment, are you going to bring that back to the General Counsel for approval, or is it going to be -- like now, what you've done, you set a precedent. If the General Counsel allows this to happen, where the Business Committee just sits around the round table, comes up with the budget and don't present to the General Counsel, we may as well not have a General Counsel because that's what -- in essence, that's what's happening. You sit around, establish a budget, and you just put it on referendum vote. And that's not the process according to the constitution that this Tribe has. And I'm very concerned about it. I mean, because I've been involved in politics since '77. And every year we vote on the budget. And why, Mr. Chairman, you think it's different this year, I don't know why. Because the constitution says the same thing. I mean -- but we need -- this General Counsel is the supreme governing body. That's the way it states in the constitution. And I can't understand why we couldn't vote on the budget just like we normally have in the past. So -- but now my question is this: Since we've got the 60 percent, is it going to come back to the General Counsel for approval when you guys determine what goes in programs and so forth? That's my question. MR. TIPPECONNIE: One thing I would respond to on that is that when we submit a new Revenue Allocation Plan, you know, we'll be presenting it on the percentages that you stated in the vote. You know, we have to go on that. So it's going to be broken down into that 10/10 if you remember in the other. So that's the way it will be presented for approval. So then if it's approved, you know, there's going to be components of economic development, Tribal services, you know, and the per cap. So it will probably show that there's very limited opportunities, but my feeling is when it comes back, we should chair that, yes. We have to come back and say, "This is what we presented. It was okayed on these percentages." But then there may be some cause for us when we come to the Tribal members and the general -- and Tribal Counsel, not General Counsel, but in the Tribal Counsel, that we explain to them that -- or we propose to them that the ten percent, if it's approved, economic development as an example, this is what we suggest. You know, do you hear me? So it appears to me that would -- we would have to make that action to bring it forward, that this is the 10 percent, this is the 10 percent, and then this is the 20. So we'll have to come forward and say, "These are the programs." Because if we get 60 percent, there's going to be a big change in the way we do business. And it's going to impact a lot of things. There's going to be a lot of things that we cannot finance. That's going to be approximately $8 million that we take away from activities. So, yes, I think we're going to have to bring it back and say, "Look, this is what we propose." MR. TAHSEQUAH: Mr. Tippeconnie. I'm going to respond. Jerry Tahsequah. My question is on 60-40. You know, we do a lot of loans with banks and everything. Will this put us still in a high risk with bank loans and other areas? We're talking about, you know, moving forward with hotels and things like this. But will we still be considered a high risk bank if we raise our 60/40? That's my question. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Most likely. You know, right now -- excuse me. I don't want to talk too much. But I want to say this. If you look at the economy in America, in the world, Greece is about bankrupt. And I think if Greece goes bankrupt, Spain may, and then some others. And it's going to hit Europe, and they may go into recession. Okay. We may -- right now, if you look at the economy of America, mortgages are tight. And I think we're going to see some mess coming up. We're going to see messes in the bonds, the -- municipal bonds especially I think are going to fail. Okay. Given this: Banks and all of those other parties, they pay attention to this. And then they pay attention to the Nation. If the Nation wants to seek a lone or a business venture or opportunity, they're going to ask us, No. 1, what's your security, what do you have behind this. Well, if we're paying it out all on per cap, we don't have much behind it. So one thing that we needed to do, if you recall, and I pushed this a few years ago, we need to put money away. We need to be putting money for the rainy day fund. But we need to put capital away. When you have capital, you know, that capital is something that you can say, "Okay. We're a little more safe because we have a resource that we can say is" -- excuse me. I use terms that are financial. But we have something that backs it. So I would say, if we get into the 60, yes, they're going to look at us with some question because our assets are all tied up. The assets that we have presently are from what we earn almost each day in gaming. You know, each day it comes in -- well, we get it monthly, but it's not in the bank. So if we find out we're putting 60 percent into per cap, yeah, I think -- can't speak for them, but I would say they would really say, "This is not a very stable government with whom you can do business." UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Or also the Department of Interior will look at this the same way. We're putting ourself into a high risk -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: See, that's why they'll ask those questions. We have to respond to those questions when we make our request. And my thoughts are, too, is, you know, we have to recognize we are a billion dollar activity. But we have to diversify ourselves. You know, who knows when gaming folds. But we can make hay now, but we've got to look smartly. Anyway, yes they'll be looking at all of these, and we could be vulnerable to any outside, you know, venture or loan. MR. BURGESS: Ms. Jones, you had a question? MS. JONES: Yes. Does that per cap come from the casinos? MR. BURGESS: Yes. MS. JONES: Okay. I don't know how they're going to get that 60 percent, because they quit bingo hall. They put us -- they first said, go up there to that first place for the bingo. They moved us from the complex. Said they didn't want the elders to go -- have to drive all the way up here. So they built that for the bingo hall. And then made a casino at one of them places. Then they've got the next place for a bingo hall, which they made another casino. Then they've got us in a half of this building right here, a half a building and an outhouse. How do they expect to get money from the bingo people? Now, we got them started, these casinos. And another thing, they need to set our bingo up, because when you -- the only thing -- money they're making is when something is going on down at this casino, you know, like give away money and stuff like -- they're long in there, long enough to play. And when it's over with, they're gone. I have stayed there all night a lot of times, and it's completely empty, but 12 people in there. So don't expect to get that money. MR. BURGESS: All right. Thank you. Ms. Mason. MS. MASON: My question is: I know of three employees that we've got in this Tribe that makes huge money, and y'all talk about us not having enough money for this and for that. I think you need to look at those three people, and I know you know who they are. But my other question was: Why do we put all of our money in the newspaper, because there's people here that have creditors. As soon as they see that come out in the newspaper, well, they know who they're going to hit up. And a lot of times these people need the money that they're getting. So I would suggest that you don't put that in the newspaper. MR. BURGESS: Ms. Mason -- hang on, JJ. I think -- I mean, my understanding is: I'm holding up the constitution. This constitution tells us to put that in the paper. Now, we can't not follow it. We have to follow it. But we agree with you by majority here. We think it's time for the Comanche Nation to stop putting their financial picture on the street. I'm going to make a statement here. We want to improve our gaming hall. The Comanche Nation Casino has made big strides. No. 1, in appearance. No. 2, the Player's Club is bringing a lot of people in. No. 3, our competition is feeling it. So for those three things to be going on because we renovated our casino, we're looking at trying to renovate our Red River Casino. But because we have a $3 million cap on the ability to borrow money, and that ability to borrow money, a lender will say, "Well, I need you to waive your sovereignty status to 10 million or 20 million, to however much I loan you, I want you to allow me to sue you for that money if our business deal doesn't work." That's our problem because we can't make a business deal and improve a casino with $3 million. We had to spend extra millions of dollars to do that casino. And luckily there was a set-aside. There was a plan to do that. Now, we're trying to do it at the Red River Casino because we are back. Our Casino is getting great notice. Some of you are saying the service is poor. Our casino is getting great notice because Ft. Sill Apaches have stopped production or construction on a hotel nearby there. That tells you one thing. Our competition is greater. Now, we were here first. Casinos, I'm talking about. And so we're thinking that we've got all of these casinos and we're going to be No. 1 all the time. But we were so successful, other tribes became our competitors. With success comes competition. And if you want to continue to earn income on casinos you have to improve and you have to have a plan of improvement. And then you have to have a plan on top of that to continue to attract players. I'm talking to this point because, No. 1, the Ethakia, Comanche Nation Forum, all the diatribe, all the negative talk that it brings out, and discussing our budget on the internet, talking about who did wrong, talking about recalls and petitions for recalls. We've been told we are an unstable tribe because our own people put our business out there for the public venue on the internet. We can't borrow any money. Guess what, folks. We can't borrow any money for the 3 million cap on the waiver sovereignty, and we can't borrow money because the lenders see us as unstable. Our Tribal government is unstable. Every year we get a petition on the Chairman, no matter who it is. Every year we get a petition on another CBC member. Every year we get a petition on the TA. And it's out there in the public. We have to learn to keep our business inside our own tepee. And these recalls, when you want to stand up and recall somebody, they lied, you didn't do right, but when you read this constitution, we can't do anything right. We've outgrown it. We've outgrown it. Our way of doing business is not the best for us. We have to get a better way of doing business. I say this because now we're faced with competition. And all of the people that are employed, we're the third largest employer in the Southwest here. That's all of us, plus the Thibaugh's(sic) and our neighbors with them. So we have a big impact on the economy around here. And we're mindful of that as a body here. We need to do business. Please, keep our business in the house. Please, if you're going to take out a recall petition, make sure you've got your facts straight. You know, let's don't become the laughing stock that other tribes point to because we are successful. In spite of all of these recalls, in spite of all of that, we keep growing and we keep adding things, because you people understand, you care about the community. So do we. But we can't continue to do these things on the internet, and then the whole wide world thinks we're not a legal tribe. They think that we're not a stable government because our people put their personal agendas out there on the internet, or start handing out leaflets and don't sign it, without facts. That's what some of these lenders have looked to. So now we've got to come back to Plan C, what can we do internally, how come we development these things internally, where can we cut budgets and programs, but serve the people that need it, and find the money to meet your competition and exceed competition. That's a business acumen we've got to have. MS. ISAAC: Put them in papers way someplace else. Not around here. And also, can we request not to be put on -- I don't mind, you know -- MR. BURGESS: You can request not to be -- MS. ISAAC: I don't want my picture out there because I've already got a stalker that's -- I do. I do have a stalker, and I really hate it, and there's not a thing we can do about these kinds of things. So no pictures. MR. BURGESS: You can request that. Put it in writing to him so he'll have it on file. Just fair to him, too. MS. ISAAC: Okay. He knows. MR. BURGESS: Or the media to let them know you don't want to be recorded. Yes, Rodrick. MR. WHITE WOLF: You know, I just think that, you know, you try to put a guilt trip on the Tribal members. But I think that we need to have good management in our casino. Now, this good management, if we had good management, they would have foreseen when we have to update our casinos. I would have -- I would have backed a proposal to withhold certain amount of -- maybe a couple of million every other year, or every year. And for -- you know, earmark it for renovation. That's only smart management. But these people down here, as soon as you save any money, you get it stolen, you know. And so what are you going to do? You talk about we can't borrow money, but management should have saved some money. Why do we have to spend all of our money we earn? Why do we have to spend $41 million if we earned that much? Why couldn't you save some? We're supposed to be saving some for a rainy day anyway. MR. BURGESS: Rodrick, I know -- others might have a comment here, but I know what you're talking about, because when I sat on the committee from '01 to '03, my first question when money started rolling in is, "What's our plan for improvement?" And the people who have, excuse me, so much knowledge and skill said, "What do we need a plan for? We're just going to make money." I'm just paraphrasing. That's the comment they gave me, and I was just a CBC member. But my question was, "Shouldn't we have a plan for improvement? Should we have a 5 percent holdback so we can develop more, add more, whatever we have to do to improve the building?" Because in 25 years most buildings become obsolete. They wear out. Whether you hit the walls or not, they still wear out. You're right. And that's where that rainy day fund came in when we were on the floor in '03 and '04, brought that forward. But that passed. The leadership ignored it. I agree with you. MS. JONES: Will we ever get our bingo hall back? MR. BURGESS: I'm working on that. I'm working on that. MS. JONES: That's the people that makes the money. They pay during, before, and after. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've got a question. MR. WHITE WOLF: But I'll say this: I'm not going to approve that $40 million that gaming wants us to go in hawk for. That's too darn much money. MS. ISAAC: And on the gaming, we have to follow the rules in order to do this 60 percent. The charitable funds that people have gotten, can y'all make a rule where maybe these people that have gotten before charitable funds -- because a lot of us didn't know about that. Can you make a rule where maybe some of these people won't get it for at least three years. Because some of us want and need that. Would like to be involved in part of that charitable fund. MR. ASEPERMY: I believe the criteria, Beverly, is that -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: We need to make it tighter. MR. ASEPERMY: -- annually, at least one time only. A one-time only. MS. ISAAC: A year? Just one time forever? MR. ASEPERMY: Yeah. MR. HENSON: I want to make a statement. Part of my platform when I was running was to come in here and build up the economic part of the Comanche Tribe, to get money from other resources, other than gaming, to build a good solid foundation. All of the things I've learned since I've been here basically is that we're -- we're out of debt now. Yes, we're out of debt. When the 40 percent come up on the rack, I got up and I made a statement to the General Counsel that we didn't need to get per cap at that time. What we needed to do was put it back and put it into businesses where at one time we would get a big per cap instead of a thousand dollars a year. Now, what's happened since then is that we have went in -- or the tribe has went into high risk because monies weren't spent correctly. There was a lot of things. I'm not going to mention anything, or who, or what. But money wasn't spent wisely. So we got in a hurting status all the way down. Now, what we're trying to do as the CBC, is try to get us out of that area. But one of the things that I want you to think about very seriously, I know y'all have already passed the 60 percent cap, but when you pass the 60 percent cap, you're taking away from the economic development that we're going to try to build. We've had a lot of people come to us and try to do some economic development for us. Some of them were shams, some of them were wooden. And I want to congratulate the CBC to see. They really looked into it, and they saw a lot of the shams that were done. But you, as the General Counsel, is going to have to think twice about taking money away right now. We need to get down, and we need to build an economic base. We really do. It's vital to do that right now. The way we are in the economic stress right now, the whole world, we're not -- we're not hurting like that, but we will be. Our casinos are down 27 percent. MR. ASEPERMY: No. Not that much. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Fifteen. MR. HENSON: Fifteen percent. That's 15 percent less money. The 60 percent that y'all voted in for us to try to go and get it approved by Gaming Commission and the BIA, is going to take away, not only from economic development or trying to get other business in here, but it's also going to take away from your tribal budget and the programs that you have basically. It's going to take away helping people. It's going to take away from the programs you've got, the educational programs, social services. It's going to take away from all of that. We're going to have to go in -- if this is approved, we're going to have to go in and change that budget around. And that money is going to have to come out of the programs. That's the only place we've got it. So I'm just saying that, for y'all to understand a little bit more where we're coming from and what we're trying to do. I want to say this. Since I've been in, we've looked at a lot of economic development, but it all -- everything comes back that we have some kind of problem with the Tribe. Something that CBC, a lot of times shouldn't be involved in, but we get involved in it. And it always puts a setback on what we're trying to do economically. Anyway, I just had to say that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, Bunky, give me two projects that you were looking at that you couldn't do because of the Tribal membership. Give me two good projects. MR. HENSON: One is down at Red River. There's a hotel -- that was a hotel, and then there's a travel plaza. That's two of them. And then we had some wind energy economic stuff that we could have got into. There was an electrical -- what was that, Bob? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Generating plant. MR. HENSON: A generating plant. But that wasn't because of the money that we didn't have. That was kind of like a scam. MR. ASEPERMY: It was a rip off. They tried to rip us off. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. It was a scam. MR. ASEPERMY: It was. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's not what I thought. MR. ASEPERMY: Well, they came and painted a beautiful picture. "We're going to bring 2, $3 million to you." We would have lost what I'm sitting on, I guarantee you. MR. HENSON: They came and presented to the Saturday meeting. MR. ASEPERMY: It was bad. MR. HENSON: Twice they came. And then they finally gave us a contract and we looked at it. Unbelievable. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Several general counsels ago, when we had three investors wanting to build a casino down on Harris property, there was one of those investors that wanted to build the hotel on the back of the casino we've got down there at Red River. And they were going to build it for us and put $6 million into renovation, and they weren't going to charge us a thing, except they were going to take their cost and whatever profit they were going to make, they wanted X amount of years to charge to take out of the hotel deal. MR. ASEPERMY: That was Wilma Wright. And the people had a choice between Wilma Wright, Flintco, and I forgot the other company. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Barcelona. MR. ASEPERMY: The people -- Barcelona. They voted, the majority of the people on that ballot voted for Flintco. Their price was to build a resort on the 700-plus acres that go into the Red River. By the time -- by the time they presented the final figure, that figure was up to 180 million. They almost doubled the price. So we let that go. Now, the Vice-Chairman said -- just to give you an idea on our casino net profit, you know, what actually goes in our pocket, we're not down 15 percent. We are down about 7 percent from last year. And if you notice, our casinos from 2007, 8, 9, and this year, we've leveled off because of the competition, our per cap disbursement. If you've got more Tribal members -- and we've grown 21 percent over the last five years. MR. BURGESS: Since 2002. MR. ASEPERMY: Of course that's more pieces of the pie, so you're going to get less. Bunky was talking about economic development. I don't know what kind of -- I wish we could get in the grocery store business. I wish we could get into some sort of medical business. I wish there was something that we could fall back on. We do have a water park. Of course it only made $17 last year, cleared. We have a Nations of Fun. They're making money a little bit, but we don't see any of it. We're hoping that Comanche Enterprises, Inc. won't be on the ballot five years from now. We hope that they'll be one of the ones that contribute to the money, but I don't know. It's one of those wait-and-see-type things. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I wish for a lottery win, too. I mean, really. I mean, seriously. I've got better chance of winning the lottery than I've got from seeing any money from the Enterprises. MR. ASEPERMY: Well, I'm not going to say I sit here and I agree or disagree, but, you know, I really wish them luck. And I have my opinion about them. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They'll need divine intervention. MR. BURGESS: Well, thank you. We're going to move on. Mr. Narcomey, Thomas Narcomey. Come forward. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Well, July the 10th, I'm on the agenda for a forensic audit, authorization of forensic audit. Main reason is it helps stabilize the government, you know, correct it. It should help the high risk, do a lot of corrections. I don't know if I'm talking loud enough. But I can use this. Sometimes you can't hear clear on this. I don't know -- I know my voice ain't that clear or -- MR. BURGESS: If you would stand up, she can hear you more clearly. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Okay. Well, anyway, I've been handing out that forensic audit resolution. Anyway, this is a -- we need economic planners, or proposed riders and government proposed riders. Whether or not we have the 60 percent or 40 percent per cap, we still need this. I notice we only have 50,000 for R and D, or whatever you call that plan, Research and Development. Well, next year we might as well go up to 70 and 80 percent per cap. I'm just joking. I don't know. And congress is looking at a nationwide computer casino gambling, so we may not have very much gambling money in the years to come. Well, anyway, this is an important matter because this is our last hope. And I'm almost sure it's -- 60 percent is going to pass, so we've got to make up that 8 million dollar budget change, and this -- well, this shouldn't be just a routine large budget item for planning. And we haven't had no planning department since 1984 or '85, 25 years or more. You know, a lot of tribes it's just a regular budget, but like the Comanches. We need a budget -- this budget needs to be funded by gaming or indirect costs. And we can't get any gaming money for it. And it needs to be black and white not oral, not oral budget or -- I've been trying to get a 202 HUD Elderly Housing Proposal done for three years. And everybody says, "Oh, we've got money in the Capital Budget, or whatever it is, Capital Improvement, said that's part of a building or -- but still waiting. But so the main reason to have the CBC approve a budget for these proposal riders, because I don't think in our economic development -- we all know it's a big joke. They've got -- it's been a big joke for a long time. We need to put the truth in the Comanche newspaper. I think they created eight businesses, and you put them all together and it's a loss. So we need to change the board to get people in there to shut down some of them businesses so we won't have a bigger loss. Anyway, y'all, we need to earmark money for that because we need a lot of things, like a hundred percent construction company. I think that's what the Enterprise is trying to do. So they need help. I guess nobody over there knows how to do a proposal to put together a construction company. But I know A and A has money for it, and Section 8-A, to me it should write itself, and we would get an extra half or 400,000 on that proposal. But they're not going to do it. We need a home healthcare and hospice. I think Laurel Pocowatchit, Carol Hall, and Dr. Chappabetti(sic) were working on that. And they were supposed to present at the annual meeting, but the -- and I thought that was a good idea for -- it would help on an in-kind Tribe's part of a proposal like that. And I think Jean Pekah said it should bring in at least a million a year. That's more than economic development brought in. Transportation, what it is a lot of money for transportation. Nobody does proposals. You can look at the Federal Register. There's a lot of money for education. Our education director don't do proposals. That education budget should be double, you know, from free federal money. So we need to revise that job description on the director to require proposals and readvertise that position. That's what it is, education. Supposed to be educated to do proposals. Dialysis, the Indian hospital can't get reimbursed, but the tribes can. That's how come all the tribes have dialysis. MRI, maybe the same situation. I know there's federal funds. Comanche language. You know there's 295, Jean Pekah got that for the college, and there should be money for college, elementary, junior high. So nobody does proposals here, or very few, or we don't have anybody to do them. I think Phyllis hires consultants, and that's not going to go very far. 50,000 on a consultant. You might get one proposal done, or maybe two, one-and-a-half or something, but it ain't going to go very far. But if we don't set up a planning department, then it's going to be the same way. You know, we're going to look at hiring consultants. It's not going to go very far. Beyond that, yeah, we've also got a lot of need that's caused economic development. I know we've got an advertising manager over there that -- for what? You know, I say eliminate the position today, or next week, you know. But, anyway, let's cut the fat off of some of the -- or pork. But, anyway, we do need the economic -- yeah, economic government proposal writers in staff. And that's what I'm recommending, and, you know, it's up to y'all. MR. ASEPERMY: Can I comment on -- You know, Thomas mentioned an audit. The CBC directed a -- what's that word you used for -- MR. OWENS: Forensic audit. MR. ASEPERMY: I can't even say it. But what that audit is, it examines everything. The CBC directed an audit like that on our gaming. Millions of dollars were being stolen. So they did this audit, and it lasted 13 months. We paid the auditors $500,000. What was the biggest thing they found? When they were changing the machine, someone left the box on top of the machine. There was very little -- there was no putting money in your pocket. There was none of that. It was a half a million dollars. If you want to do an audit like that, what kind of audit are you talking about? Are you talking about a complete governmental audit? MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: No. It's a criminal audit. It doesn't cost anything. And also, there was a contract that never was -- I guess it was audited before, and they said -- recommended to recover damages on this contract that doesn't exist. And nothing was ever done. And we've never had a CBC to authorize a forensic audit since -- we should have had it in 2002. And even today, if we present it to the CBC, it's not going to be approved. We need people that represents the Tribe to -- MR. ASEPERMY: Are you talking about a criminal audit? A criminal audit? MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Yeah. That's what it -- you can read -- if you haven't read this proposed resolution, it's in there. And it has a lot of different areas that needs to be looked at. There is a -- you name it. Comanche College, housing authority, you know, our missing $3 million rainy day fund, our missing retirement fund -- I mean, retirement building, revolving loan fund. You know, everything. MR. ASEPERMY: Where did the money go? MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: This is the reason we're unstable, and this is to help correct that. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, one thing I'd like to say here is: You know, we pushed our audits up in the past few years, so we just are just receiving our 2009 audit, which was completed -- it was the last fiscal year that ended end of September last year. That audit brings out things like the revolving loan. We know the revolving loan has outstanding delinquencies. So it picked up on that. It's telling us that in this audit. And it's preliminary, and we're going to get it all in hand here and review that. There's two things ongoing that people need to understand. We have audits now regularly, scheduled every year. We also have correction plans because we're high risk. There are all kinds of things that need to be done. We have very detailed correction plans, and those correction plans are being acted upon. So we're down to very few items now on the correction plan relative to high risk. Well, high risk comes about because they do look at how you spend money, where you're spending money, how you're reporting, how you're meeting obligations of the federal requirements under contracts like 638. Those are federal contracts that we contract from the federal government, Bureau of Indian Affairs. So those things are under way. Not that say that we're okay. But we know where we're not well. And when these audits are coming out and all this correction plan, and all these things coming from the federal government in the correction plan, that we know where we're sick, so to speak, and we're acting on it. Now, that doesn't mean we're perfect, but our audits are really intensive now on our governmental programs and our activities. And I might say also, we're not the only ones being audited. Our other entities, gaming is audited. You know, all of those have audits ongoing. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Do we know, like the college had their own checkbook, and I don't know how many million they spend in -- and Economic Development has their own checkbook, and they had an audit, we were missing three million -- or three year -- I don't know. There's just so much, that -- Anyway, something needs to be done, a detailed investigation of a lot of these things where you can get people that come forward and, you know, would notarized affidavits and, you know, tell us what's going on. MR. BURGESS: Well, let me say something. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: You know, start correcting these matters. MR. BURGESS: Well, Thomas, the current audits point back -- the problems we faced with the last two audits point back to the years 2000 to 2005, maybe 2006. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. Six and seven. MR. BURGESS: And all of those problems were shoddy accounting. I'll put it that way. And to do the forensic audit -- and I'm going to ask Mr. Burson to explain what forensic versus your general audits are. There's a fine line between a forensic and then a general audit. But those problems are being answered. And today I can tell you that we're -- we are on budget. In these past 12 months, programs are on budget. I say that, because when I came in here in July of last year, someone made the statement, and this is in a recall petition, that two of us here, Mr. Tippeconnie and myself, were responsible for numerous layoffs, loss of funds, and all of this misappropriation of monies. And that the CBC didn't do anything. When the economy of the United States went south, way south, people stopped playing. We can't tell people to play the gaming because we've got a budget to meet. They have a budget to live on. So to say that we are responsible for the economy and the loss of revenue of the casinos and therefore the loss of jobs here, and then overexpenditures on budgets from the previous years, is a very big error. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Did I -- MR. BURGESS: Well, hang on. I'm not finished. And so now I can tell you that in the past nine months, since October 1, every program here, other than Social Services, is on budget. Meaning, we're not overextended. No one is under budget, no one is over budget. So this past nine months, ten months, are very good. The previous 12 months were bad because of the economy. So those audits will reflect the loss of income. It's the prior years that we can't find documentation on all of that, so -- Hang on. I'm going to turn to Jim here, because you're using the word "forensic", and Mr. Asepermy is using the word "criminal". There's a fine line to determine why a forensic audit is called for or not called for. So, Jim, if you would give us a definition of this forensic audit. MR. BURSON: Thank you, Chairman. There's a -- the main difference between your regular audit. You have a regular audit each year by a CPA firm. Your government is audited each year. It's required by your constitution, required by good bookkeeping principles. The gaming operation is audited by a different firm. Your economic development company, your commission is audited by a different firm. And I believe the college turns in an audit. And all of those audits are seen by your CBC in review, each and every year. A forensic audit is a deeper, more investigative audit that is performed by a CPA firm to discover any wrongdoings or criminal activities. If your -- and your regular audits are designed to expose potential wrongdoing in the accounting for the previous year. The forensic audit is a higher cost audit, which looks in greater detail and much deeper into the processes that normally happen on a day-to-day basis, to discover if, in fact, there were any criminal activities. Now that can be called upon by the CBC, or any of the other boards, if they think that that's going to bear fruit. A forensic audit costs about ten times more than a normal audit, because it's much greater detail in what they look at, and it's time consuming. Mr. Asepermy spoke to a -- there's numerous requests for a forensic audit in the gaming operation, which the CBC ordered and paid for about two or three years ago. And that forensic audit, that being the primary source of all of your funds, of the gaming operation, concluded that -- Well, first off: A forensic audit is only as good as the procedures against which they are to measure. In other words, if you have good procedures in place for accounting for all of your funds to begin with, you're going to do two things. You're going to prevent the likelihood of criminal activity from happening. And any audits that are done, or forensic audits, looking back to those procedures, will be able to -- the better the procedures, the better chance they have of discovering any wrongdoing. What your forensic audit -- what your normal audits have indicated, and what your forensic audit of your gaming operation indicated, was that in the past you had poor accounting procedures in place. It makes it -- the poorer the procedures, the less likely it is that any of your audits are going to discover a specific wrongdoer. Because good accounting procedures set out who's responsible for what, when, where, and how. So that a particular accounting misstep will point to a particular person, or one or two persons that it would have happened with. And those can then be investigated to see if it was, in fact, some sort of illegal wrongdoing done. So you have basic audits. Normal audits are always done by all good governments. Good businesses do those each and every year to see how their finances have been both spent and earned. A forensic audit, much more expensive, ten times more expensive. That is called for when there is some suspicion of wrongdoing in your accounting process. It is what you normally discover by your regular audits. A criminal audit is done by the police officers or investigators, if -- now, they can come in any time that -- any person believes that there's been a financial wrongdoing committed inside an organization, they can ask a police officer to come in and investigate whether or not someone stole money from the organization. Now, those don't cost any money. But -- and those can be called upon by any individual that has information about a crime. And so you don't need anything official, actionable body to make that happen. Any person that has any valid information that maybe a crime was committed, should give that information to the appropriate law enforcement people and they can investigate and it doesn't cost the Tribe anything. If you want to conduct a wholesale audit of your finances, and you want that done via a verified accountant, then those are quite expensive. And they will only reveal what -- if you had no procedures in -- good procedures in place to begin with, they won't tell you anything, other than, well, you had some poor procedures here, so we can't really tell whether any money was stolen because the procedures were so bad. And so what it amounts to is you wind up spending a lot of money to find out the obvious, that you needed to have good procedures. Once you get your procedures in place, that will do two things. It will prevent wrongdoings going forward, and if wrongdoings happen, then they will also expose those -- more likely to expose the wrongdoings in the future. And I believe this is what Mr. Asepermy was trying to get to, is that having spent $500,000 to find out the obvious was a waist of money. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Also, that forensic audit, there's a recommendation to hire another law firm because of conflict of interest to cover damages on a contract that don't exist. MR. BURSON: I don't know what you're referring to. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Well, I'll show you that resolution. I've showed you that before. MR. BURSON: But that wasn't in the audit. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Well, I don't know what to tell you. MR. BURSON: No. That wasn't in the audit, Mr. Narcomey. MR. BURGESS: That wasn't in the audit. MS. ISAAC: So that's all the more reason to hire the right people when you hire some people instead of just appointing somebody. We hear about slapping their hands and then pretty soon they're working someplace else. That's all the more reason -- if we can't get to the bottom of a lot of this audit, don't do what they've done in the past. MR. BURGESS: That's right. MS. ISAAC: And I'm not picking on certain people. I'm saying CBC people. I mean, you said Human Resources. I don't think it's Human Resources' responsibility. I think it's this board. MR. ASEPERMY: We don't hire or we don't fire anybody. But I'd like for the Chairman to give y'all some -- what I consider some really good news. But before he does, I will say this: In 2004 our audits had 10 findings, in 2005, 26 findings, in 2006, 26 findings, in 2007, 28 findings, and in 2008, 19. The preliminary audit report for this physical year shows -- Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: That we're only -- in our audits there's only four -- is it four questions on the current audit. Out of those four, three of them refer back to the years of 2006 or before. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Or seven. MR. BURGESS: Or seven. MR. ASEPERMY: So you can't tell us that we've not come a long way. Okay. And I do want to mention one other thing. This -- we've had this budget every year, and I believe we're -- how much under? Under the budget by -- MR. BURGESS: Well, those of you who know numbers, if you look at the budget totally, we budgeted 20 percent less than what we estimate coming in. In prior years, when they made estimations of what the income would be, they utilized all of that estimation. And in three out of the five years they've had to reduce payments to the Tribe because we overestimated the income from gaming. So this year, trying to set the standard and do things in a better business fashion, is to go by 20 percent less than what we estimated because of what happened last year, and what was going on the year before that, in '08. So that our budget to services, to all of the things we do for the community, not per cap, and not elder's payment, we budgeted that side of it at 20 percent less. Hopefully -- and the idea is that we don't want to do furloughs or layoffs, and that our services will continue, but maybe at a reduced rate. With that regard, no more purchases of vehicles by programs with Tribal or federal money. Really watching our travel and trying to get our training here on site for all of those who need a similar type of training. Trying to bring things here so we're not spending a lot of money on that Tribal. Someone is going to walk out of here and say, "What about you?" Well, I drive. I try to drive everywhere where it was 12 to 14 hours to get there. I don't go unless I really have to fly, and that's generally Washington DC. Because I'm looking at the budget, too. And if I have to look at the budget or if I'm telling employees to look at it, then we look at it and make sure we can afford it. We're not going to go on these junkets and take, you know, people who are not associated with the responsibility or the business of that conference or that meeting. MS. ISAAC: That's not what we're hearing though. MR. ASEPERMY: Well, we are about 15 -- I'm guessing. I don't have the Finley and Cook report. I won't have it until the 16th. But last month we were under budget. Help me out guys. MR. BURGESS: No. We were -- programs in the 7th month -- of the 7th month of the year, our programs were within 60 percent of their budget. What that means is: In seven months, we only spent 60 percent of the budget because people have been coached, cajoled, and coerced, to watch their spending. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Not coerced. MR. BURGESS: Well, we're teaching them. We're telling them, "No. Wait a minute. Is this really needed? Plan your purchasing. Plan all of your materials and equipment." MR. ASEPERMY: It's April. MR. BURGESS: And we were within 60 percent of that. Programs were not overspent. Last year at this time you had programs who were looking to 80 percent of their budget and you had five months to go. That meant they only had 20 percent of their budget left. So services were shut down kind of, or real dire needs. And I say that. The exception is Social Services. There has been a lot of dire need by a lot of people who have lost income, children are returning home to live with family because they lost jobs. MR. ASEPERMY: Funerals. MR. BURGESS: Funerals. You know, and the cost of everything has risen. Gasoline, you see fluctuate, in the last three weeks has gone up and down 30 cents. That affects all of our budgets. And that's why we have to be very careful that we stay within budget year after year. I'll tell you, since 2006, when I left here, this is the first ten months that the Tribe has been on budget. I can say that with assurance. MR. ASEPERMY: And I can tell you that that's true. We have been trying to do this for the last three years. And I think with Mr. Tippeconnie -- and I'm not campaigning for him. Mr. Tippeconnie, I think Mr. Nelson, Chairman Burgess, and I think a joint effort, they have got the budget under control, believe it or not. I'm so happy about it, that we're able to say that we're not going to spend what we forecast that we were going to spend. But it's taken us three years to accomplish this. And how have we accomplished this? We've trained our directors. That's one way. We've had Finley and Cook come down and show them bookkeeping and all kind of -- it's a combination of a lot of things. But we're finally getting to that point. And a good rule of thumb is preliminary reports for findings on an audit, when we had up to 28 or 29. It's just dropping drastically because things are being put into place. There's a lot of positive things about the Nation. Y'all just need to stop and think about it. MR. BURGESS: We've got to get going here, Thomas. Are you still on the forensic audit, or -- MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: The turning point was when we hired Finley and Cook. That's when we got our accounting -- MR. BURGESS: Thank you. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Started doing accounting. We didn't do accounting before that. And Jean Prigley(sic) is the one who worked with the contract, and we didn't do it -- and that was the Financial Officer -- or Chief Financial Officer's job. Not his. But -- MR. BURGESS: You're right. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: That's what done it all is when we hired -- MR. BURGESS: We started with that reorganization plan and not looking at our budgets, and Jean was our last planner. I brought him in as a planning officer. You're right. We need to go back to a full blown planning and development office. We've got to have that. Can you keep it short, Eleanor. We've got an agenda here. We've got to keep going. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have something to say, for the record. You know, you talk about the budget, but the budget involves, not only our community education, which is all of our services, and you're saying you're staying on budget. But last year you cut three times, 30 percent, 30 percent, and then the third time I think it was 10 percent. And one of the reasons was that you didn't make enough money at the gaming. But included in the budget, you also have, under Economic Development, another 25 percent. And you didn't cut them, but you cut all of the services. They still got their 25 percent, and you continued to feed the college 300,000 after they were in the red. And we asked Mr. Tippeconnie right here, "Is the college in the red?" And he said, "Yes." But you continue to funnel the money, but yet you continue to cut all of the programs, you know. So I don't see how you can say you've done such a good job. You've done nothing but waste money. MR. BURGESS: What I said was from last October 1 until now. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm done. MR. BURGESS: Thank you. All right. Next item. MR. NARCOMEY: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, one quick deal here to let everybody know how I stand on this Economic Development and college. The Economic Development, we've been given over a million dollars every year, for the past five years that I know of, since I've been on board since '05, with very little results. Now, we met with her two weeks ago, and I think Lanny is the one who asked her, said, "Well, how much longer is it going to take you to get on your own feet where you won't have to be bumming from the Tribe?" She said, "Probably about five more years." So, in other words -- in other words, we could be funding her for five more years with -- and, I'm sure, you know, that there's nothing ever going to come of that, never going to be successful. On the college level, 1.8 million every year for the past five years. It ain't got no students. Why are our people voting for it? You know, to me, I'm against it. Comanche Nation Enterprise, over a million dollars, they make 20,000. That's how come a lot of people are mad, that's how come a lot of people voted to raise that 60, from 40 to 60 percent, because, hell, we're just throwing that money away. And I feel the same way, too. We're just throwing it down the damn drain instead of sharing it with every -- with all the people. Thank you. MR. ASEPERMY: Good, Clyde. MR. BURGESS: Thank you. All right. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a correction for the writer, the grant writer program. Is that program just to seek grants, or do they fulfill the application for anybody -- for whatever, the Tribe meetings? MR. BURGESS: Our grant writers, which we only have a grant facilitator, and we utilize consultants, and it doesn't work best with consultants, is the only person who is helping with a lot of the grants. And what Thomas referred to is that we need to have a full-blown planning department as we had it with plans development. We need to go back to that. Most of that department was funded by indirect cost rate anyway. That's monies that we take from programs to conduct the administration part. MS. ISAAC: So does that person fill out the grant or do they just -- MR. BURGESS: They fill out just for the Tribe. MS. ISAAC: Just for the Tribe. MR. BURGESS: Yeah. MS. ISAAC: Well, with that land development at Indiahoma, what about that? MR. BURGESS: Land development Indiahoma? MS. ISAAC: Oh, I can't think of the name. The one Jarvis is supposed to be looking into. MR. ASEPERMY: Out in the woods? MR. BURGESS: Well, we have a subcommittee that's headed by Darrel and they're supposed to meet and come out with our plan. MS. ISAAC: Right. So with that type of thing that Jarvis wanted, you know, help in, would that grant writer help in that grant -- MR. BURGESS: Yes. MS. ISAAC: -- or to seek out application? MR. BURGESS: No. Help in writing the grant and sending those grants forward to agencies that would fund those kinds of activities or that program. MS. ISAAC: I don't see Jarvis that often because everything has been happening. But when I talked to him last time, he said that she gave him an application. I said "No, I don't think that's the way it's supposed to be." MR. BURGESS: I don't know. MS. ISAAC: And he said, "Well, that's what she gave me, an application." I said, "I thought she was supposed to do it." MR. BURGESS: Well, I'm not aware of that, so I don't know what happened there. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: I'm not sure why she gave him an application. That doesn't make sense. MS. ISAAC: I don't either. That's why I was asking. MR. BURGESS: Mrs. Bigby. MS. BIGBY: I am an economist, and I'm on the Economic Development Commission. We have four businesses that are up and running paying their own bills. And you will notice, for the last couple of years the funeral home has not been on the budget. They make their -- they pay their own way. We've got four other businesses that are beginning to pay their own way, so that our Economic Development money has not gone down the drain. We are in the process of finishing our '09 audit. And any mistakes or miss spending shows up in those audits. We have three years of clean audits. So you can look at our audit and know where our money goes. And we're still looking for other opportunities to build on. And it takes at least three years for any business to get started, and start making money. And Bunky's on our -- is a member of our Economic Development. And he comes to our meetings, you know, you can ask him questions as well. Thank you. MR. BURGESS: Thank you, Mrs. Bigby. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How much money has the economic got in federal funds in the last five years. MS. BIGBY: By the way, we were cut. Our programs were cut just like everybody else. Okay. MR. ASEPERMY: No federal funds. MR. BURGESS: None. They don't go -- MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Zero in five years. But they've spent 5 million, and they didn't bring in any federal money. MR. BURGESS: That's Tribally supported. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Well, they need an economic planner over here, somebody that knows how to do a proposal or business plan. MR. BURGESS: All right. Thank you, Thomas. We're going to move on. Francine Jones. Francine, on this one issue here. MS. JONES: There's about four pieces. MR. BURGESS: On that one page that has the date of 5/12/10. MS. JONES: Yeah. That's what I mean. MR. BURGESS: Don't discuss that one because it's a ongoing issue. But the other ones, if you have a general statement. MS. JONES: From March the 8th. Can you read that one, March 8th? MR. BURGESS: As soon as I get it, Francine, I'll read it. Mrs. Jones is approaching us, ladies and gentlemen. She does have a complaint. Mrs. Jones is approaching the CBC to lodge a complaint against Mr. Willy Nelson. She has a statement here of March 8th, complaint about, "Unsatisfactory treatment towards me." And my question to Mr. Burson, and we're discussing an employee here, but her statement, the one March 8th, is a letter just to me. She's concerned about receiving the Comanche Elder payments, and where she has to repay the supplemental security income. She's been coming to the offices here at social services to help respond to SSI. And she comes by bus during the day, and then has to wait for the bus at 5:00. She said during one of her visits, "Mr. Nelson made a statement to me in a very rude and sarcastic tone." Now, should I stop there or -- MS. JONES: Keep going. MR. BURGESS: -- go forward? Hang on. I'm asking him because this is a legal position that you want us to read and we are his supervisors. MS. JONES: Well, I'll read it then. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Can she read it? MR. BURSON: Well, she's made it known to you that she has a complaint against one of your employees. MR. BURGESS: It's a general complaint. MR. BURSON: Take that under advisement and investigate the complaint against the employee. MR. BURGESS: See, my concern was: Are we out of any legal order hearing it, so -- apparently not, because this is our employee. MR. BURSON: No. You can hear it. It's just that -- that it would unseemly for your response -- MR. BURGESS: Okay. MR. TIPPECONNIE: No response. MR. BURSON: -- without investigation. MR. ASEPERMY: I don't think this should be public record. I think this is something we need to discuss internally. And if we need to make it public afterwards, then let's do so. MR. BURGESS: All right. Then, Francine, we'll ask you to hold off, and we'll come back to you in executive session in about 15 minutes. Okay? MS. JONES: Okay. Because I'm going to tell you right now -- MR. BURGESS: That's what we want you to do because it's an employee. MS. JONES: If I can't say something about that man, that man is crooked like hell. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Thank you, Francine. Mr. Tahkopher, Carl. MR. TAHKOPHER: Yes. MR. BURGESS: We have you on the agenda to discuss water codes. Just to give information that's happened in the past prior, info: Mr. Tahkopher, Carl Tahkopher, had been -- Is this in regards to water codes. No? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I was trying to catch you before, but I didn't. MR. BURGESS: In regards to what? MR. NARCOMEY: Let's go on with the water. MR. BURGESS: Is that No. 5, though, you said? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. You're on No. 5. MR. BURGESS: Yeah. No. 5, water codes. Okay Carl, come forward. I'm saying in the past, Mr. Tahkopher was contacted by a former chairman. They had a discussion of water codes. Now quite a few families are aware that we're having big discussions with the State of Oklahoma over water codes and the impact of water drilling on various properties adjacent to Tribal lands. I want Mr. Tahkopher to inform y'all why we need water codes. And we have a plan here with him, and we need to go ahead and move forward with these developed water codes. MR. TAHKOPHER: Well, and what I would have to say here is that the State of Oklahoma is really after our Tribal water, as well as that includes our allottees. If we enter into any type of litigation with the State of Oklahoma over our water rights, our ground water -- I'm talking specifically about ground water, not surface water -- we will lose our most valuable resource right now because water is becoming, not only a State issue, a National issue, it's here now. We're facing it. State of Oklahoma is trying to say that there is no doubt that your tribes have water rights. We don't deny that. But our -- what we're looking at is how are we going to legislate those water rights. They have no right to legislate our water rights. Only if we have our water codes set by our Tribe will we be able to protect our water for our children, their children, for everybody down the line. Without having any set water codes, it's like you facing a battle with plenty of rifles, but no ammunition. In order for our leaders to protect the Tribe and our allottees, we are going to have to have water codes in place immediately -- or soon, so that we can legislate our own laws without the State of Oklahoma or anybody else trying to tell us how they're going to give us -- let us use our own water. And it may even come to the point that someday we'll be paying for -- to use our own water. Now, it's pretty easy right now -- you say, well, if I need water I can go to the tap and get water, a glass of water, I need to water my plants. You know, that's too easy right now. But that's coming to an end. And I would hate to give up our water rights and let the State of Oklahoma legislate how much water we can use for our domestic use. We may end up, if we don't have our codes, and if we're not successful in fighting with our feeding rights, we're going to lose our water, period. That's the way it is. That's what they're after. Believe me, they're coming. They're already here. They're right at our doorstep right now. And they're not going to stop until we can stop them, or until they succeed. Now, it's going to have to be fought. It's got to be fought with -- our leaders are going to have to lead us into adopting water codes so that we'll have something to fight with. Otherwise, all of the allottees, and all of your generations after that, you won't have any water. It will be gone. They'll be telling you how much water you can use if you have allotted land. If you want to use it for your domestic use, they'll be telling you how much you can use. And you'll have no choice but to accept it, because they will legislate the laws, and we don't have any codes stating out specifically what is ours. And the codes that are in place now state specifically what -- what our codes, what they outline, what we can do. Before this, it was seven years, going on eight years ago, I was called by the -- one of the officers at that time, wanting to speak to me about oil and gas, and also, what he brought up mainly, water. He said, "The State of Oklahoma is looking at us, and look at this letter. They want our water codes." They said, "What are water codes?" And I said, "Well, it's the right to state your position that the Tribes and the allottees are the owners of this ground water that underlies your allotted land." And I said, "They're asking you how you're going to have these codes that will protect that." And I said, "I don't understand why the State of Oklahoma is asking you anyhow because they have no rights trying to legislate our water codes according to the Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867. It's in Article 12, it's stated in there that we're the only one that can legislate that. And he said, "Well, can you develop some water codes?" I said, "Yes, I can." So he said, "Come back and see us next week." That's the last I heard of it. Nothing ever happened again, so I just dropped it. But here within the last two to three years I've noticed the preponderance of activity concerning water. The State of Oklahoma needs water for this, the State of Oklahoma needs water for that. And where do they look, if we make a compact with the State of Oklahoma? Texas wants our water now, too. They want the Southwestern Oklahoma water here. They want access to our major basins here, which is what they call geologically the Cash Creek Basin, which is 40 miles wide, 60 miles long. Contains a heck of a lot of water. That's what they're after. And who has all of that? Our allottees and our tribe. So that's what we have to protect with these water codes. And they are ready to go. They can be implemented at any time. Because under the Skirmsy Clause(sic), and also the Medicine Lodge, we can adopt our own water code at anytime without going to the Bureau or the Secretary of the Interior. We can do that at anytime. The Counsel, according to our creeds, have that right. Now surface waters are a little different because we're not under the -- what they call the Winters Doctrine. Most of the tribes out west are. What that means, that they have a lot of rivers that drains and runs through their reservations, so they can put this to the government, or the interior for adherence to the Clean Water Act, because everybody uses that water in the river that comes down the stream. And they have to have that Clean Water Act for their own domestic use to clean up their waters and possibly for the fishing that they have in that river. So all of the water has to be clean as it flows through their reservation. So every state that it flows through, they have to make sure the water is pure and clean for the other users going down stream. But what we're looking at now, we're facing kind of a big battle in the coming, very, very near future. It's already here. We're going to have to make a decision, or the Tribe Counsel, the business people, are going to have to somehow protect the allottees and the Tribe in the matter prescribed in the constitution to protect our health and welfare. It has to be protected. Has to be protected now. Because if we don't -- if that is the loss, we will lose our water rights. State of Oklahoma will take it. So it's critical, and it affects -- it affects everyone, everyone in the Tribe and their descendents. So it's an issue that needs to be dealt with and it needs to be dealt with quickly. That's all I have to say. MR. BURGESS: Thank you, Carl. Yes, Beverly. MS. ISAAC: How does the Governor of Oklahoma feel about our rights concerning that? MR. NARCOMEY: Water codes. MS. ISAAC: Governor Henry. MR. BURGESS: Bob is going to -- Bob has been on our -- represented the Tribe and other Indian Tribes with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board in this pending issue. MR. TIPPECONNIE: You know, I had mentioned to you before that the State of Oklahoma undertook water planning. And it's been ongoing for two-and-a-half years. They recently completed a phase of it, a major phase of it, with a town hall in Norman. And I've participated, fortunately, as an individual before I came in elected office, so I've been involved with that from the beginning. And I was -- they invited just a few people to the town hall, and I was one of the invitees. Well, this effort is the State of Oklahoma's effort. Fortunately within the old planning effort there were about -- well, I think from the beginning just a couple of us speaking out loudly on Indian water rights. Just a couple of us. When we met in the town hall, I was glad to see that they had invited, as an example, the Chief of the Seminole Nation, the Vice-Chief of the Sac and Fox Nation, and there were a few others. So there were in the final setting some Indian people that were speaking up. Well, in the whole process, it wasn't a process that included American Indians or the Tribes -- the 39 Tribes of Oklahoma. So we raised the issue all the way through -- two of us basically, all the way through, that the State needs to consult and work with Indian Nations. It rose in this town hall a couple of weeks ago as a high action. And it was endorsed by the whole body. All of those 100-plus, almost 200 delegates there supported the fact that the State must work in a consultation with the American Indian Tribes. In the setting, as we went through this planning process, Edmonson, speaking for Henry, the Governor of Oklahoma, acknowledged that Indian Nations -- no question that Indian Nations have water rights. There's no question, he said. Okay. Now, how do we go about this? Well, in the planning process, this process was sizing up basins around the state and what they were as a manner of water to the State. And if you look at the southeast part of the state, water is really in abundance, and that's where Texas is trying to move and to get water. If you read the Daily Oklahoman, or the Oklahoma papers, or even the press lately, you'll see that Oklahoma City is trying to buy a lake called Sardis lake down in Southeast Oklahoma. The Choctaw and Chickasaw say that is their water, so they're going to challenge that. They're challenging it now. Well, a lot of these things have been happening -- well, one thing I want to just say here shortly is that the State of Oklahoma is beginning to see they have no role in determining Tribal water rights. It's the Tribes that will have to be speaking up on it, and the Tribes are going to demand consultation as it goes about. There are some interesting things that are being formulated, and I hope they come about. One of them is to have a summit with Tribes on this matter, the 39 Tribes of Oklahoma. But getting around to what Carl says. The Tribes really needs to establish some things in place. One of them are those water codes. We really need to put those water codes in place. I'm not -- I am one that I think we have rights in the Winters. We do. So I take exception to that. We do have rights under Winters Doctrine. We also have, in my opinion, surface and ground water rights. As an example, I am challenging our Tribes, three tribes in this case, Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, to think about Waurika Lake. Because right now the City of Lawton is attempting to buy the remaining water rights on that lake. Well, that's the same thing happening in the Sardis lake. The City of Oklahoma is attempting to buy those water rights in that lake, and pay off the federal debt. Well, the federal debt was what constructed Sardis. The federal debt is what constructed Waurika. So Waurika payoff will be, if Lawton buys into that and buying it. But at the same time I feel the three Nations, Indian Nations, on this reservation, which I say still exists, that on the reservation we have the surface and ground water rights more than anyone has ever acknowledged. So some of the things that Carl is saying, we're going to have to put in place. We're going to have to put water codes into place. Another thing that's under way, we have been mentioning to the Assistant Secretary of Interior, Mr. Echo Hawk, Honorable Echo Hawk, that we need money in Tribe's hands to do planning on water. When you look at the federal dollar that's available for water rights or water activity, it's for litigation. You have to be in the court, and then they help us with some money for litigation. Fortunately in the 2012 budget, and I'm happy to say that I've been able to be involved with that, we've challenged -- and I sat in that setting, and the Tribes from across the Nation challenged the budget to include water monies. And it was a very happy -- I was very happy to see that all of the Tribal people there at that time voiced that as a high priority across the Nation for federal dollars. So in the 2012 budget, and I hate to say this, though, it's going to be cut because the president is cutting the budgets in those years, and we hope he doesn't cut these. But, anyway, we're asking for a high priority of water funding. And the way it stands now, the Assistant Secretary has to present that budget in 2012 with high priority for water monies. Those water monies, we're saying down here, our Tribes -- and I know the Chairman has been involved with this. Our Tribes are saying we need to get on top of this issue, and we need money to do planning. That's determining all of the kind of needs we need. Where is our water? What is our water? As an example, there can be questions where we had trust lands go out of -- do we still have that water. I would say in some cases we still have that water. MR. TAHKOPHER: The water corp has specified that. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. We have that. The Supreme Court upholds some things, you know. So I think we have a lot of Indian water law, and I've become very schooled in this now. A lot of Indian water on our support. But the thing is: We have to get underway with some actions. And one of them is the water codes. I strongly support we need to get on with the water codes. But there's many other things we need to be doing too. MR. NARCOMEY: So, Bobby, I can verify that the water codes were done -- it's done at this time. They're just -- in the printed plan being put together, you know. So what to -- MR. ASEPERMY: Carl is talking about water codes. You know, I visited with Hammond Mowtah. Hammond Mowtah at one time worked on water codes as well. And he worked on it principally for the Apache Nation of Oklahoma. So they have water codes, you know, in place, I understand, the Apache Nation. The Comanche Nation, we don't fully have water codes, but we need to get those water codes finalized. MR. NARCOMEY: That's what's I'm saying. He's got it ready. That's what I'm saying. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We need to see those, and we need to review those water codes. MR. BURGESS: Hang on, Thomas. Young man, would you stand up and identify yourself. MR. VALDEZ: My name is Larry Valdez. I was wondering if I could add something to the agenda on new and old business. MR. BURGESS: Just to finish this discussion: I think what you want to add on the agenda is going into executive session. Aren't you with WEHA(sic)? MR. VALDEZ: Yes. MR. BURGESS: So you're in executive session. MS. ISAAC: So you didn't really answer my question about our Governor. How is he -- for or against, or he's -- MR. BURGESS: He said Edmonson spoke on behalf of the Governor acknowledging Tribes have water rights. The State cannot overdue our rights, or go over our rights. They have to respect the law for us on the federal side. MS. ISAAC: Right. So what about the federal -- the Brogden that's running for Governor? He wants to pull away from the federal -- so he's a -- see, what do you know about him? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, the thing that we have to remember, when we made a treaty, we didn't make it with the State of Oklahoma. Our treaty, Medicine Lodge, and other things that we have legal, were made with the federal government. So our relationship is government to government with the federal government, with the President of the United States. And the person that speaks in our interests in the federal government is the Secretary of Interior. There are others that are being told to address us by the executive orders that Obama has passed and met with all the Tribal leaders not too long ago, saying that all federal agencies have an obligation, even a trust responsibility, to American Indian Nations. So our relationship is above the State. So when we go to bat, so to speak, the federal government has to stand there representing us. MS. ISAAC: So other than the native tribes in Oklahoma, if the State voted to pull out of the federal government, where does that put us? We're still okay? MR. TIPPECONNIE: We're still okay. The thing is: Remember, we were here before the State of Oklahoma. So when it comes to things like water rights, and those -- it goes -- they look at the people that were in place before, you know, like the State came in and the State started putting things into place. Well, the State water codes, Oklahoma Water Resource Board enforces the codes. The Oklahoma Water Resource Board has no statute that says they can do anything with Indian Tribes or with Indian rights. So they have no place. And, as an example, if something -- a water hearing was proposed, and we're very sensitive on this. When people who have fee land, if they want to do something more than drill a well for domestic use, that's for drinking and just household use, they have to go to the Oklahoma Water Resource Board and ask for a permit to do that, which is usually selling water or doing something more with that, bigger irrigation of the water, whatever. You have to get a permit. Okay. Some of that is occurring now adjacent to our trust lands. It makes us somewhat uneasy because we don't want the State of Oklahoma to acknowledge that we have to go into their proceedings, or into their court. Where they need to -- we want to be acknowledged is at the federal place. The Federal Government has to uphold it, not the State of Oklahoma. So it becomes very interesting for us when we go into these water hearings with the State of Oklahoma because, you know, I think we want to come on board quickly to not give any acknowledgment to the State that they have any right over us. So when they have their proceedings, we want to acknowledge, yes, we're here, we don't like what you're doing, we'll even protest it, but you have no jurisdiction relative to our Tribal water rights. That's between the Federal Government and the Comanche Nation, or the Kiowa and Apache on our reservation. This is a very complex subject, and I know I'm speaking a lot. I need to give more information out to everyone on this. But what needs to happen right now -- Carl is making a very good point, water is gold. And right now, when you see the fight, Texas is growing. They're running out of water. Tarrant County, Dallas and Ft. Worth, can't wait to get Oklahoma water. Well, there's another thing that I want to let you know about. The Red River flows, and our water, surface water, flows into the Red River, most of it. The Beaver Cash water shed, and someday you'll see it. Maybe I'll show you maps of where these water sheds that are on our reservation, parts of the Ogallala and the Beaver Cash. Anyway those water sheds go into the Red River. Well, the Red River has a compact on it. What that means, the States of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana agree to quantities of water that flows through that river. Well, where we challenge, not just ourselves, the Chickasaws and Choctaws are joining in in this challenge. We're challenging the fact that when they made this compact, the Tribes were never involved. And that has good standing, I say. It will go all the way. If they wanted to take it to the Supreme Court, we would be upheld. I would just say that without question. But the thing is: We have to get ourselves equipped with water codes, we have to get ourselves equipped with knowing where our water is. We also have to recognize that when we talk about water, we want quality. Like Carl said, we don't want this dumpy water. I'll give you an example of something. In New Mexico, Albuquerque has a pueblo on the north side, Isleta Pueblo -- Sandia Pueblo. On the south side they have Isleta. Yeah. Sandia and Santa Anna on the North, and Isleta on the south. Those two Pueblos have established water codes, they've established water quality codes. So the City -- the Rio Grande is the river that flows through. Comes into them and then it goes into the City of Albuquerque. Those pueblos could shut down Albuquerque because of their water codes. They have quality. And if it comes to Isleta, which is south of Albuquerque, it has to have a quality. It can't be contaminated. So it's been a big issue in New Mexico now, even to that degree now. The Tribes are looking at quality, not just on their water rights. When it comes to our reservation, I feel, and I know a lot of people can refute, and say disagree, but I say on the reservation a good part of the boundary, within the boundary of the reservation, we have great water rights. And that is service and ground water. There's no question we have the ground water. But I say we -- as an example, I would go so far -- and I'm putting myself on a limb, because I'll be challenged. But I say within Waurika Lake, within Lawtonka Lake, Ellsworth, a good part of that is our water. It belongs to us. It belongs to the three Tribes. But, anyway, that has to all be qualified and has to be worked on, as Carl is saying. Get on our water codes, getting all of this identification, all of this planning. And the Chairman is very good about the planning, so we have to really move out. MR. BURGESS: All right. Mr. Owens. MR. OWENS: You talk about, we were here first before Oklahoma was. Waurika Lake is a manmade lake, correct, Elsworth and Lawtonka? MR. TIPPECONNIE: All of them are. MR. OWENS: I think all of them are in the State of Oklahoma. So there's no natural lake. And you're talking about surface water only? MR. TIPPECONNIE: I'm talking about all of them. MR. BURGESS: That's included. MR. OWENS: So technically, if you say it was Indian land before, then we haven't lost that reservation status -- well, I guess we have, but we're still deemed a reservation. MR. BURGESS: Out west we would be referred to as a checkerboard reservation. MR. OWENS: But we still have rights, is what you're saying? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Aboriginal rights. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Aboriginal rights. We were here first. MR. OWENS: That's what I'm saying. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Of course, I guess it's safe to say then that it's a better question to do it first, rather than try to undo what the State might try to do. And another thing, too, on that quality of water, like you said, the Indians and the New Mexico did, didn't Inhofe do a thing about lending our input to the quality? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, what Inhofe did was, it's called a Midnight Rider. He wrote it on to a bill he knew would get passed. In the Environmental Protection Agency, you know, they -- there's a lot of funding and there's a lot of opportunity to do things environmentally, like look at your quality of water, look at the quality of air and everything else. Well, under the law, the states were to be recognized just like states were -- I mean, Indian Tribes were to be recognized just like states. So any money that EPA would give for water quality, air quality, all of it would come direct to the Tribes. Well, fortunately one Tribe in Oklahoma moved fast on it. That was the Pawnee Nation. So they can act directly with the EPA as an entity. They don't have to go through the State. Well, Inhofe passed a bill at midnight, or he added it to a bill which was passed, which took it away from all of the other Tribes. So we have to go through the State of Oklahoma through environmental kind of things like that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For the money. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah. For the money. But it doesn't mean that we can't set the standard, like Carl says, on the quality or on the codes. We can do that. But the money is somewhat restricted, but it's still available to us. Indian Tribes still have some pots and some preferences, but we can go direct on grants or -- monies that come through the State we have to go through the State. MR. NARCOMEY: When did Inhofe do this? MR. TIPPECONNIE: He did this two years ago. MS. ISAAC: So the Pawnee Tribe is the only one that has the code? MR. TIPPECONNIE: The Pawnee Tribe is the only one. And they have beautiful codes. They have beautiful activity that they're getting established on environmental areas. MR. BURGESS: Us accepting these codes that Carl has worked on for awhile, will put us in the ballpark that if we go back to this hearing, whenever they give us a date, we walk in and say we do have established water codes. But it means that we can potentially revise them, upgrade them, and work on water quality, will be the second step in all our areas. MS. ISAAC: So those of us who have land -- I just feel so rich, but we don't have no money. But we're right next to the lakes. MR. BURGESS: Well, we're claiming all of the exterior boundaries of the reservation. From the middle of the river at the Washita, all the way to the south bank of the Red River. From the 38th meridian, west, to the middle of the river, coming down south on the western edge of Oklahoma right now. We're supposed to have the other side of it, too. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's still considered reservation? MR. BURGESS: Yes. It's never been extinguished. The Dawes Act just sold land. They didn't extinguish reservation boundaries. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I might say something, too. We have to follow this matter of opinion, rights and water. You know, Osage Nation has been always acknowledged as a reservation in Oklahoma. The Chairman -- or the chief, so to speak, of Osage Nation pressed the fact that, you know, because of that, they didn't need -- their members didn't need to pay taxes within the reservation. And if you go out west, that's true. You know, if you have your income, you're living in your reservation, you don't pay state tax. So they pressed that issue. But then the Court ruled against them. Of course, they're going to appeal this. But the fact is that they ruled -- they said in the Court, there's no reservations in Oklahoma. Well, I think not only the Osage should challenge, you know, I think we should join with them because we do -- our reservation, if you look in the books, was never done away with. It was never done away with. You have to -- I might say one other thing. There's water law, there's Indian law. And Indian law, they call it canons of law. There's one understanding. If it wasn't stated in a treaty when we signed a treaty that water was given away, we have it. It has to be explicit. It has to be clear within the treaty that we gave the water away. Well, our treaty doesn't have that, so I keep saying, we have the water. MR. BURGESS: We're going to have to move here, Thomas. Keep it short. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: Yeah. I'd like to make a comment. The federal government will enforce our water codes. They're obligated through treaty and the Supreme Court, Winter Doctrine case, and other lot of cases. So once we get our codes done, they will assist us in enforcing it. MR. BURGESS: All right. Oscar. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It sounds like you're getting ready to pass us. And all I would request as a property owner is that I would get more -- all of the property owners would get a version of this electronically. Either, if you don't want to publish it, somebody we could contact so you could email it to us. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We probably need to put it in our paper maybe. MR. BURGESS: Here's the deal. Carl worked on it. It was initiated by the former Chairman, was never brought to the Body to approve. Carl is willing to bring that to us. He's a private person. He knows Geology. He's a geologist that knows hydrology. He would become our resident expert. So when we go into our executive session, Carl is going to be talking with us. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Real quick. I'm sorry. I know that the National Congress of the American Indian is meeting at the midyear. Will they be discussing water rights in any way, Mr. Tippeconnie? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Most likely. Because, like I said in 2012, the Tribes from around the US, we solidly said water rights need to be in there. So this whole issue, if you were living in Nevada right now with the Pyramid Lake Paiutes, that's one of their number one issues. They haven't given up on Pyramid Lake or on their water rights. And then you go all the way northwest -- even eastern Tribes now are speaking up, believe it or not. So I think it will probably be an issue. If it's not, I'll bring it up. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that Mr. Tahkopher -- that our tribe, because we are very much involved in this, and with Mr. Tahkopher's knowledge on it, that we, as a tribe, allow him to represent us, since he has all of this. And to go with Mr. Tippeconnie to the National Congress of American Indians and to get their advice. Because we do have caucuses. We do have the Oklahoma caucus, and we could bring this to their attention if we allowed Mr. Tahkopher to go to the National -- MR. ASEPERMY: That's already recommended. MR. NARCOMEY: That's already been done. MR. ASEPERMY: Already recommended. MR. NARCOMEY: And, Mr. Chairman, what do we need, just a motion to pass to accept these water codes because it's necessary. MR. BURGESS: I want us to make a motion to engage Mr. Tahkopher on the water codes, but, I mean, we have to review it, read it forward. We engage him to produce that work, and in executive session we discuss a -- the reimbursement for his effort. He's a private individual and he's doing this for the Tribe, but we should pay him for his effort. We can do that in executive session. MR. NARCOMEY: We're not going to get to it today though if we're going to shut it down at 2:00. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why couldn't you accept his codes now tentatively and wait until -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Subject to review. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- the final to scrutinize it. MR. BURGESS: That's fine with me. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I mean, go on record this date. MR. NARCOMEY: Do you have the codes now? MR. TAHKOPHER: I have a draft of the final codes, the final -- put together. It's all finished. I just need to put it together in a cover and binder. It will be ready Monday evening or Tuesday morning for sure. MR. BURGESS: Clyde, do you want to make that motion to accept this code and -- MR. NARCOMEY: Yes. I'll make that motion. MR. HENSON: And I'll second that. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Subject to review. MR. HENSON: Subject to review. MR. BURGESS: Well, we need something on the record. If we're going to be going before OWRB, and the review will be done by our attorneys in compliance with federal law. He knows that, but we still have to have that, so we'll go forward. MR. ASEPERMY: Can we add to the motion that we use Mr. Tahkopher as a -- I know Robert is on it, and you're on it both as a -- MR. BURGESS: Yeah. We need an expert. He's with us. I don't see any problem with it. MR. TIPPECONNIE: So what -- you're saying the motion needs to be, bring him in as a consultant? MR. BURGESS: Motion to engage him as a consultant. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Engaged as a consultant to complete the water codes. MR. BURGESS: He's got the codes. MR. TAHKOPHER: No. The codes are already finished. MR. BURGESS: Well, to provide them. MR. TIPPECONNIE: He's bridging the codes, and if we have to revise them, we'll review that with the attorneys and Carl. The second part of the motion is for him to be our consultant expert on water rights of geologic issues. MR. ASEPERMY: And to work with -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, I wouldn't say on water rights, but -- MR. BURGESS: Well, on the water issues because he's a hydrologist. MR. ASEPERMY: To work with you on that, Robert, and the Chairman. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Water rights is very -- MR. BURGESS: Geology and hydrology within our reservation boundaries. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is another motion. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Get to the big motion. MR. BURGESS: Two parts to it. MR. ASEPERMY: Read the motion Clyde made, Robert. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I'm writing one. MR. NARCOMEY: I know. MR. TIPPECONNIE: To engage Mr. Carl Tahkopher as consultant to provide geologic -- or his hydrologic expertise. MR. TAHKOPHER: It's geology and hydrology. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Okay. Geology and hydrology. Okay. That's good. MR. NARCOMEY: I thought we was going to adopt this -- MR. ASEPERMY: Water code. MR. NARCOMEY: -- water code. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Which would be within -- do you want to say, including adopting the water codes? I can add that on. MR. NARCOMEY: Yes, please. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Okay. Including adopting -- let me read it again to us all. MR. BURGESS: Okay. MR. TIPPECONNIE: "To engage Mr. Carl Tahkopher as a consultant to provide geologic and hydrologic expertise to the Comanche Nation including -- to include adoption of the water codes he presents." Okay? MR. NARCOMEY: It's called -- what it's called, Tippeconnie, is Ground Water Protection Act. That's what that water code is filed under. MR. TIPPECONNIE: It is. It's under Act though. MR. NARCOMEY: Ground Water Protection Act. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Well, we can put it this way, and then we'll put it under the -- MR. BURGESS: We'll do a resolution to adopt them as our codes, and that's what it will be under. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Be under the Act. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you just not getting him to come on board? You also -- don't you need to accept what he's done as a matter of record. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. That's why we say we accept those codes. MR. ASEPERMY: That's in the second half of the motion. MR. BURGESS: And then next Tuesday or so when we vote here, Mr. Tahkopher will bring them in and -- do you have an electronic copy? MR. TAHKOPHER: I have the draft copy, but it's not -- you know, some of the typing, you know how those electronics things are. Some of it runs down and it needs to be pulled up. MR. BURGESS: Okay. We'll have the girls -- MR. TIPPECONNIE: We can scan it and then we can edit it. MR. BURGESS: We can fix that up. Bring three hard copies. So we'll call for the motion here. Clyde has made the motion. Mr. Henson seconded it. All right. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) All those opposed say "nay." Those that abstain. All right. Ayes have it. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move into executive session. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to go into executive session. MR. HENSON: I'll second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Henson. All those in favor say "aye." (Aye.) Those opposed say "nay." Ayes have it. (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED) * * * * * C E R T I F I C A T E I, D. ANN FITE, Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the State of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing meeting transcribed by me is a true and correct transcript of the meeting; that the meeting was held on June 12th, 2010, in the State of Oklahoma; that I am not an attorney for nor relative of any said parties nor otherwise interested in the event of said action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this 17th day of June, 2010. _____________________________________ D. ANN FITE, CSR, RPR Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Reporter Registered Professional Reporter Certificate No. 1108 SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE I, Robert Tippeconnie, Secretary-Treasurer of Comanche Nation Business Committe, certify that the above is a true and correct transcript of a meeting of CBC members held at 10:05 a.m. on June 12th, 2010, and that the meeting was duly called and held in all respect in accordance with the charters and bylaws of the Comanche Nation and that a quorum was present. I further certify that the votes and resolutions of the CBC Members of Comanche Nation at the meeting are operative and in full force and effect and have not been annulled or modified by any vote or resolution passed or adopted by the CBC since that meeting. Signed:_______________________ Date:________ Robert Tippeconnie, Secretary-Treasurer 61