TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMANCHE BUSINESS COMMITTEE MONTHLY MEETING MARCH 6, 2010, 10:14 A.M. COMANCHE NATION COMPLEX LAWTON, OKLAHOMA __________________________________________________ REPORTED BY: KELLY STOABS, CSR DODSON REPORTING & ASSOCIATES 435 NORTH WALKER, SUITE 102 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102 (405) 235-1828 ~ (405) 235-1266 (FAX) dcri@coxinet.net A P P E A R A N C E S COMANCHE NATION BUSINESS COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Michael Burgess, Chairman Richard Henson, Vice-Chairman Robert Tippeconnie, Secretary-Treasurer Edmond Mahseet, Committeeman #1 Lanny Asepermy, Committeeman #2 Darrell Kosechequetah, Committeeman #3 Clyde R. Narcomey, Committeeman #4 LEGAL COUNSEL: James Burson, William Norman Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker * * * * * * INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS PAGE Meeting called to order at 10:14 a.m. 5 Roll call. 5 Motion passed to amend agenda. 15 Motion passed to approve Resolution #17-10/ 16 Enrollment List No. 819 Ineligible. Motion passed to approve Resolution #18-10/ 17 Enrollment List No. 820 Eligible. Motion passed to approve Resolution #19-10/ 18 Adopting revised liquor control board rules and procedures. Motion passed to approve Resolution #20-10/ 27 amending Section 212 of the Comanche Tax Code. Motion passed to approve Resolution #21-10/ 28 Amending Part 7 of the Comanche Tax Code. Motion passed to approve Resolution #22-10/ 34 Comanche Nation Enterprises/Approving appointment of directors. Motion passed to approve Resolution #23-10/ 66 Sac & Fox Juvenile Detention Services. Motion passed to approve Resolution #24-10/ 68 SORNA. Motion passed to table Resolution #25-10/ 73 Amending Resolution #185-09/Processing of payment requests. Motion passed to table Resolution #26-10/ 76 Hiring of Tribal Administrator/Manager. Motion passed to approve amending FY 2011 122 budget by adding emergency management assistance in the amount of $200,000, in addition to the $45,000 already in place for emergency management officer. INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS (continued) PAGE Motion passed giving direction to TA and 132 HR office to advertise in accordance with HR policies the following positions: Emergency Management Service Officer, Tribal Employment Rights Officer, and a Chief Finance Officer. Mr. Henson leaves meeting at this point. 134 Break held. 135 Motion passed to move Comanche 173 Nation College nursing students to Item Number 1 in executive session. Executive session commenced at 1:50 p.m. 173 Reporter's Certificate. 174 Secretary's Certificate. 175 (Meeting called to order at 10:14 a.m.) MR. BURGESS: Mr. Secretary- Treasurer, do the roll call for us please. 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. BURGESS: Darrell Kosechequetah? Clyde Narcomey? MR. NARCOMEY: Here. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Chairman, we have a quorum. MR. BURGESS: All right. Thank you again, Brother Vince, beautiful prayer. We don't have our minutes from last month, so we're going to bypass that and table the minutes at this time. MR. NARCOMEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a quick comment. I know this past month or so we've been having a lot of problems with our college. We've been on the news and in the newspaper several times. And me, myself, I don't know about the other CBC members, but I support them students. You know, I don't know whose fault it is, the president or the students, I don't know, but I'd just like to make the comment that I support the students. That's it. MR. ASEPERMY: And I support the students, also. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amend the agenda. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Motion to amend the agenda. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Two items: I'd like to move the higher education to executive session. I'd like to add Resolution 26-10. MR. BURGESS: Let's do one at a time. Resolution 26-10? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. MR. BURGESS: That would be Item Number 12, or you want to move it to Item 9? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Under Item 9, we'll change the numbering, so it will be number 10. MR. BURGESS: 26-10; is that correct? MR. TIPPECONNIE: 26-10. MR. WHITEWOLF: I'd like to ask Robert Tippeconnie why he wants to be so secret, why you have to go discuss this thing in private. Is it not all our business? MR. TIPPECONNIE: It's everyone's business. If something comes out of it, yes, I think it should be in the open session. But I think there's some matters that are relative to persons. I'm not sure, because I haven't been into this full discussion yet. So that's the reason. MR. BURGESS: Bob, we've had a brief discussion on it. I'm not trying to pick bones with you, but Mr. Whitewolf has a point. And for your clarification, just to give you some background, the matter does concern appropriations and the use of those appropriations to a large sum of money that concerns me in how it was appropriated. We do share responsibility. This body has -- I've been reminded numerous times that no one person on this body has the authority to make a discussion on behalf of this body. So I've always, as Lanny can say, and Darrell and Clyde, they can all say that I try to call these meetings that concern important issues that require discussion before it comes to this table. We've had a brief discussion on it two or three times. Some of the members aren't aware of the full gamut of this appropriation and its responsibility. And I had it on here in open session, so for your information, it will be discussed. It is all of our concern, and the lack of follow through on our responsibility is my concern. That's why now -- I'm not going to say names, but it does concern dollars. In that regard, we all support the students. We've all supported these students and their efforts. But at the same time, we are charged to recognize the charter of the college and its responsibility to get things done. And we can't intrude on the college council's responsibility to its only policies and procedures. We had a questions before us yesterday. Were we following procedures, were we following policy? In that regard, we didn't have a clear set guideline on policy. We didn't have procedures in place on that topic. So we said we're going to have a meeting with those people involved and come back input from those people, and so we are caught in the middle here with supporting our students that desire their education, having a resolution that this body, the general council, passed to present, protect, provide and continue to nourish the tribal college. So we are caught in the middle. That's our responsibility to both parties, to see that is done. If we continue to intrude as a political base, political people, under responsibilities of something we've given them the responsibility to do, then the people who recognize them with their credentialing would say that we're doing the wrong thing, that we're intruding politics on the educational system. So we have a fine line to walk, and that will be another discussion for this body with those students, because it entails federal guidelines and federal rules. This issue on Number 1, the higher education, it concerns Comanche Nation gaming funds, no other federal funds, no other federal dollars are implicated in it, just tribal funds. MR. WHITEWOLF: Are you saying, then, that it's not that important if it's tribal funds? MR. BURGESS: No, it is, it's very important. MR. WHITEWOLF: I understand what you're saying. To me, to my understanding, is the college an arm of the tribe or what? Is it a tribal entity? MR. BURGESS: This is two subjects. I'm speaking, because two people spoke out on behalf of the students, yet this body is charged to recognize the college. That's a separate subject. This first subject, higher education, is in regards to the funding we give to the program called Higher Education, so it's two separate items. MR. WHITEWOLF: But is that school a Comanche entity or is it not? MR. BURGESS: It is a Comanche entity, because you funded it. MR. WHITEWOLF: Yes. So, you know, I'm coming from the standpoint of I've seen these articles in the paper, I've heard conversation, and you're talking about changing charters and allowing the school to change their charter. You're saying that you don't want to mess with their internal affairs. I understand. That's boring. But by they same token, I don't want to -- I think we need to be careful that an entity that governs itself, it will involve our liability. How much liability do we have? You know, that's what I'm concerned about, coming from the point of tribal liability, because I don't want to -- we're tired of lawsuits. MR. BURGESS: You're right, you're right. And the liability stops right there at the college council. It wouldn't flow over here to the tribe, I believe, because we chartered them separately. They carry their own responsibility, insurance, and professional leadership, professional development. They carry their own insurance, and that's where it would stop. MR. WHITEWOLF: I would suggest that CBC create a resolution that says that any expense for attorneys for the school, if they're going to -- if what you say, you don't want to mess with them, if they do something on their own, then they fund their own legal activity. MR. BURGESS: I believe it's already that way, Mr. Whitewolf. It's already that way. They do pay for their own accounting and legal recording and responsibilities. MR. WHITEWOLF: But with tribal money? MR. BURGESS: Well, once we turn the money over to them, it's still their responsibility to protect themselves with no return back to this council or to the body. No legal entity can sue us or come at us for the decisions that are being made over there, as long as they're following their policies and adhere to them. That's how I understand. I could be wrong. We've got attorneys here that can define that better than that. MR. NORMAN: The college does handle its own legal fees. I think they have one attorney, and then for some matters we advise them. They have their own budget for that. They are an arm of the tribe and have some of the protections of the tribe. They must function with some level of independence for them to be effective the way they need to be so that they can actually get the students through with the accreditation that they need. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's in conflict with what the chairman just said. Are you assuming -- as our tribal lawyer, are you assuming some responsibility for them? MR. NORMAN: We've been asked on occasion to advise them with regard to certain matters. MR. WHITEWOLF: Were you going to add something, Lanny? MR. ASEPERMY: I could add a lot, but I want to wait until we discuss this, and then we can bring it out in the open. I think it needs to be brought out in the open. Right now we do have -- and y'all've read the newspapers. You've read pro and con. You've heard the students' comments, you've heard the leadership of the college, you've heard the leadership of the chairman. It's up to us to decide, or it's up to somebody to decide who's right and who is wrong. MR. BURGESS: Mr. Tippeconnie has one more item to add to the agenda. It's Item Number 11 in executive session. An individual here will be listened to, Mr. Cara. MR. HENSON: Is that Number 1 or Number 11? MR. BURGESS: Number 11 in executive session. We haven't voted. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yeah, we haven't voted on it. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Anymore amendments? The body, CBC, any others? MR. ASEPERMY: I would like to discuss Resolution 162-09 privately. MR. TIPPECONNIE: That's a previous resolution that had passed. MR. BURGESS: Item number? MR. ASEPERMY: 12. MR. BURGESS: No, Item Number 11. MR. ASEPERMY: 12. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: In executive session. MR. TIPPECONNIE: In executive session? MR. ASEPERMY: Yes. MR. HENSON: What was that, Lanny? MR. ASEPERMY: For compliance and a budget analyst. MR. HENSON: What resolution was that? MR. ASEPERMY: 162-09. MR. HENSON: 162-09. MR. BURGESS: All right. Barring any other amendments, call for the question. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. Motion passes, amendments made. MR. HENSON: Higher education did move? MR. BURGESS: Executive session. MR. HENSON: That's 13. MR. BURGESS: Let the record note that I didn't agree with that. I forgot my glasses. MS. ISAAC: I have a question. I have a question. When y'all make a decision on these resolutions, and of course they affect the whole tribe, do you get both sides of the story before you decide what you're going to do? I'm not taking issue with anyone, I'm just asking. Because in the past, you know, decisions were made without listening fully to both sides. MR. BURGESS: I try very hard to do that. We had a big discussion on that yesterday, that issue, so I try hard to make sure that the pros and cons of the issue are here before us. Resolution 17-10, this is enrollment list. Did you have that, Bob? Because I have the list there. MR. TIPPECONNIE: You should have it. Yeah, they're not -- list 819, but the Resolution Number is 17-10. MR. BURGESS: This is a resolution to notify those people ineligible for membership into the nation according constitution. They are not living, direct descendants from allottees, so they don't descend from original allottees. There's seven of them. MR. ASEPERMY: Seven. MR. BURGESS: So, gentlemen? MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Motion to approve Resolution 17-10, Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Motion's made by Darrell Kosechequetah. You second, Mr. Henson? MR. HENSON: Second, yes. MR. BURGESS: Second is made. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. Now, Resolution 18-10, this is Enrollment List Number 820 of those eligible to obtain membership in the Comanche Nation. They meet all criteria such as descendants of original allottees and having the one-eighth or more degree of Comanche Indian blood. Lanny, did you already count them? MR. ASEPERMY: Twenty-three. MR. BURGESS: Twenty-three persons. That takes us from 14,700-something, right? MR. ASEPERMY: 14,741. The current membership is 14,741 with the 23 new additions. MR. NARCOMEY: I make a motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Motion made by Mr. Clyde Narcomey to approve. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Darrell Kosechequetah. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. The ayes have it. Now I have a total of 14,764 members. MR. ASEPERMY: No, that includes -- that number I gave you includes them. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, 741 plus 23. MR. ASEPERMY: No, that 741 includes them. MR. BURGESS: Thank you. I stand corrected. There's like six of those -- yes, six or seven live in the state of Oklahoma. Resolution 19-10. This is a resolution adopting liquor control board rules and regulations. It should say procedures. MR. WHITEWOLF: What was the change? Why the revision? MR. BURGESS: We have an attachment here, Mr. Whitewolf. Bob, do you know where, specifically? This one's not highlighted. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I missed that meeting. Maybe you can ask Hobbs, Straus. MR. BURGESS: What's the specific change here, Mr. Norman? MR. NORMAN: I'll have Mr. Burson address that. MR. BURSON: Yes, Chairman. Actually, some significant changes to this, bringing your current liquor control board rules into alignment. MR. WHITEWOLF: Can't hear you. Can you talk a little louder? MR. BURSON: This represents a significant change over the previous rules to modify them to bring them in conformance with the rules that all the bars and retail establishments who sell liquor within the jurisdiction. It fills in some holes and some gaps that were left by the liquor control ordinance and the previous rules. And it helps bring it into conformance with what they have to follow under state law. MR. WHITEWOLF: Sorry I asked. MR. BURGESS: Some of the old rules didn't allow us to do -- prosecute wrongdoing. For instance, we had someone that was found to be drinking on the premises that's not allowed by state law or federal law, so we had to modify our rules so we could enforce no drinking on the premises, even after hours were closed, and some prosecutorial steps, right? We were able to say that A, B, or C will happen to you in these events. And they weren't in the previous liquor control board because we were trusting folks. MR. WHITEWOLF: To prosecute somebody? MR. BURGESS: Police-wise. They can arrest them, detain them on our tribal property now, because we don't know what's going to happen when they live here. You know, we just don't know what they're going to do if they're drinking too much. MR. ASEPERMY: This seven-page document was discussed with us at the last liquor board meeting. It was discussed with us with the recommended changes page by page, line by line, to try to make it correct. And there were some fallacies in the old one. Nothing major. We had a couple of incidents where we couldn't do nothing to people who were selling alcohol without a license, they were selling alcohol and consuming alcohol in one of our businesses, and they weren't supposed be doing that, and stuff like that. MR. NARCOMEY: After hours, after 2 o'clock in the morning. MR. WHITEWOLF: The Delphine fiasco. MR. NARCOMEY: We couldn't charge them with nothing. There wasn't nothing in here to say that we could. If we did charge them, they would have sued us and we would have got beat. MS. ISAAC: So when did we start having a liquor law? MR. BURGESS: The first concept was to sell alcohol to patrons of the casinos. That was back in, I believe '02, '03, when we started -- MR. BURSON: 2000. MR. BURGESS: Was it 2000? But since that time, it's been expanded. I think some of the smoke shops, because of our financial crisis, have been trying to sell beer mostly, so -- MS. ISAAC: So that's even drinking on our property, federal trust land? That's just drinking, even if you're not selling it? MR. BURGESS: As far as I know, it's only licensed, right? You have to have a license. MR. NORMAN: There are certain parameters on what you can and can't do if you have a license to sell alcohol, whether it's activity within the casino or whether it is a commercial business within Comanche trust land. That's who that affects. It doesn't attempt to regulate individual consumption in your home. MS. ISAAC: I'm talking about like at the -- that golf course coming out of -- over there by the -- we drove by there one day and there was beer cans all over that parking lot, so we know somebody's drinking down there. Does it regulate anything like that? MR. BURGESS: It should, because we don't have a -- you're talking about the driving range? MS. ISAAC: Yeah. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, we've not allowed liquor for sale or consumption on that property because it's a family entertainment area. MS. ISAAC: Right. There were employees there, so why those employees didn't just pick it up, you know, without somebody seeing it, because her and I were driving by and we saw it. It's not a good thing to see. MR. BURGESS: Was that during the day or after hours? MS. ISAAC: It was during the day. MR. BURGESS: We'll take that issue up with the economic development board. I believe the Comanche Nation Police confiscated the alcohol. They were selling it without a license. A fine was levied to the person responsible. We had one of our smoke shops that sells alcohol -- if you sell alcohol in a business like that, like a liquor store, you're not allowed to consume during business hours, and we had that happen on two occasions. So I don't know if we're going to levy a fine on them or not, but those things weren't covered in the old liquor board ordinance here. They are now covered where we can prosecute -- or not prosecute, but where we can take action on things that aren't being done right. Delores, Ms. Aitson, you had your hand up? MS. AITSON: Yes. I was going to say, you guys have rigid rules and this and that, and you have security, you have Comanche police going down to the casinos all the time. And I go down there, and I could say until 10 o'clock maybe sometimes, and I have always seen beer cans by the cars, out in the parking lot, so someone's not doing their job, you know? And if you go and tell the security, they say, well, we'll have someone pick it up, and that's all. But our Comanche police are down there. Why aren't they, you know, seeing what I see? And I know that there's young kids that come in there after hours that are drinking, but no one does anything about that. MS. CRAIG: This reminds me of a story like you read in the paper. This railroad crossing, there's little signs on there, but they don't do anything about it until somebody gets killed. This is exactly what our tribe is doing. We're not doing a thing about this until somebody really gets into trouble. This has been going on a long time. We have attorneys that could have looked into the situation a long time ago before Beverly and I just brought it up. Why wasn't that taken care of in the first place whenever you knew liquor and beer was going to be sold at the casinos? Why wasn't that, whatever you're looking at, scrutinized better before you even jumped into anything? You would eliminate all this problem that the people are talking about. It's like letting something happen before -- I don't know. I didn't understand your thinking. Maybe you listen to one person, but the other person comes along and you say, oh, well, that's just them, they just talk too much. We're not going to pay any attention to it. Believe me, when I go around and look at things and I see it and I come to you men about it and I tell you about it, I'm not going to tell you until I know it's the truth. And I've got a lot I can tell you right now, if you've got time to hear it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mine may be closer to hand, and it's becoming worse all the time. The ballpark during the fair, I just wanted to speak my mind. We do very little at the fair because I don't agree with some of the things. We are strong supporters of the softball teams. There's children out there. Later on in the day it gets, the more drunks are there. They are so falling-down drunk they cannot play ball, and there's no security. MR. BURGESS: All right. That's one. Two? Go ahead, Bill. MR. VOELKER: Since the conversation has digressed a little bit to beer cans: Too often we don't see some of those positive things that happen. And I would just like to call attention to the fact, when I pulled down the road to come into the complex area yesterday, the bar ditches were full of Comanches, and the Tribal Administrator, and they're out there cleaning up the side of the road, picking up all the trash, and I think that's a wonderful thing. I wanted to commend everyone that was out there doing that, picking up beer cans and everything, so ura. MR. BURGESS: We've got an agenda now. Thank you. Let's give the staff a round of applause. (Applause.) MR. NARCOMEY: Back to Beverly's question: We did fine the person that was in charge of the driving range, which was economic development. The tax commission/liquor board fined her $1000 on each of the cans. There was two cans and she got fined $2000. They did confiscate 200 -- a little over 200 cans of beer. MS. ISAAC: Yeah, but who's paying for it? We're probably paying for it. MR. BURGESS: Okay. It was supposed to be a personal levy. I mean, the fine was levied on the individual. We passed that last resolution. We're now at Resolution 19-10, adopting the liquor ordinances on behalf of the liquor board. We need a motion. MR. NARCOMEY: I make a motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. BURGESS: Motion made by Mr. Clyde Narcomey. Second? MR. ASEPERMY: Second. MR. BURGESS: Lanny Asepermy, second. All right. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. Resolution passed. William or Jim, that resolution did include the bonding, correct? That's what Mr. Henson's asking. He's got a bad throat. MR. BURSON: It's coming up. MR. TIPPECONNIE: That's another one. MR. BURGESS: That's Resolution 20-10? All right. MR. TIPPECONNIE: This one has the bond. MR. BURGESS: This resolution, which is Number 20-10, this one adds Subsections C and D to Section 212 of the previous liquor license through the Comanche Tax Code. This is what this one is. It add a section of bonds. Mr. Burson, would you explain the bonding issue? MR. BURSON: This will permit your tax commission to require a person who is seeking a license to post a bond before they get that license to cover the potential liability of taxes that they may subsequently not want to pay when they go out of business, so that your tax commission gets some protection from people trying to evade the taxation of Comanche Nation taxes. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Thank you, Jim. MR. HENSON: Motion, I make a motion. MR. BURGESS: Motion made by Mr. Henson to approve. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Darrell Kosechequetah. Mr. Henson made the motion to approve. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. The ayes have it. Resolution 21-10, amending Part 7 of the Comanche Tax Code. What we have is an oil and gas severance tax. We'll turn to the attorneys again, because they helped with this with the tax code. There's a lot of strike through and a lot of change in the language. Jim, do you want to give a synopsis to us, please? MR. BURSON: As discussed in your tax commission meeting, we worked with your tax executive director, Mr. Nauni. Over the course of the last year or so, he's found provisions, or the lack of certain provisions in the severance, oil and gas severance part of your tax code that could use some tightening up in order to make his job easier in the collection of oil and gas severance taxes in Comanche Nation jurisdiction. And so this -- what these particular changes do is they modernize your oil and gas severance tax, part of your code, close some loop holes, and make enforcement a little bit easier. MR. BURGESS: Okay. CBC members, do you have any input? MR. ASEPERMY: These are the things that we discussed at our last tax commission meeting. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've got a question. I'd like to ask the attorneys: What are the loopholes that they see discussed at the last tax commission meeting? What are the loopholes they were wanting to close? MR. BURGESS: Well, it was Mr. Nauni that was working with this with a consultant, and there were some items that we had to -- you might say loopholes, but actually they were -- this code is older, so we want to bring it up to date to capture more revenue from some of the oil companies that were slipping through the system because we weren't paying attention to the codes, maybe, or they were ignoring us could be a better way to put it, from what I understand. Jim, do you have a better -- MR. BURSON: One of the -- it requires your -- each -- for instance, in the old part in the old code, there was only one license per operator. Now it requires a license per well site, notwithstanding the operator. In other words, before, say Chesapeake might have 20 wells in your jurisdiction and they only had to have one license. Now they would have to have a license for each well site. So it makes it easier for your tax commission to track who's actually operating and who is supposed to pay the taxes on each well. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, wouldn't it be more beneficial to raise the taxes on that, since they got more than one well on there, rather than charge a tax for each bore hole? It would be more convenient to raise the tax if they have multiple wells. MR. BURSON: I don't understand your question. MR. NORMAN: The purpose is not only to raise revenue. The purpose is to create a better environment for the tax commission to audit what's going on within Comanche jurisdiction to make sure that they're collecting all of the taxes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, all they have to do to get the information is check with the corporation commission and pull the records on these wells. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Well, wasn't one of the problems the change in ownership? MR. BURSON: Right. They often change ownership. This is the other requirement that's in here, if they have to notify. Under penalties, there was not penalty for them not to notify the tax commission when they changed ownership. It's common practice for an oil company to drop one well and sell it to somebody else and not bother to notify the tax commission, just stop paying the taxes and then leave it to the tax commission to try to figure out where the well went. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, change of ownership. But shouldn't the BIA be taking care of that in the oil and gas division? Whenever you -- they have to submit a form. They have to do that. MR. BURGESS: No, what happens, Karl, is OST now handles all of that. They centralized it to Albuquerque, so they don't have the employees in the field now to cover that. So most tribes are looking at now contracting out some of that OST responsibility back to the tribe under 638. OST doesn't have the manpower and they're not out in the field where we are. And with more wells that are coming, supposedly, and people not reporting until late, so we might be losing six months or even a year's worth of taxes because they didn't report it until it went to Oklahoma Commission, and our guy doesn't go up there every day. So maybe once a month we get up there, and we're missing this one or that one. Three to six months, that's a lot of taxes we're missing out on, so we want to make sure we're notified by each well and by each owner. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, shouldn't the tribe have its own expert, something like that, to check it every day? It's very simple to pull up on the computer and know what's going on. MR. BURGESS: Well, we should. That was turned over to the tax commission, so we'll have to deal with them on that. MR. TIPPECONNIE: That was turned over to the tax commission, so Mike Mithlo's been dealing with that. I make a motion. MR. BURGESS: Motion's made here on 21-10 by Mr. Tippeconnie. MR. HENSON: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Henson. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. Motion passed. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have a question. I heard them say that Mr. Nauni found some loophole, whatever. He's the director of the tax commission. Well, my understanding, isn't Michael Mithlo working as an oil and gas person down there? Wouldn't he be the person to kind of get all this in the computer and -- MR. BURGESS: Yes, he is. He makes a trip to Oklahoma City maybe once a month to verify all this and bring it back to us, the tax commission. But we meet -- we may meet before they do that, and then we have another meeting. We might be missing 60 days because of our meeting schedule and his schedule. But he is the person identified within the tax commission to keep up with all the oil and gas exploration. He's there. We're up to Item Number 6, Resolution 22-10. This is the nomination of new directors. I should say retaining some directors to their body. The economic enterprises has nominated to us Mr. Joe Wahnee, Jr., and Mr. Dennis Woomavoyah to be reappointed as directors for a three-year term for the body of Comanche Nation Enterprises, Incorporated. MR. NARCOMEY: Mr. Chairman, before we go into that, could I ask a question? If we go ahead and approve this -- say we do approve it. Now we're talking as a CBC, we're talking about downgrading these boards, you know, maybe one or two members. Say, for instance, these guys maybe have seven on that board. We're talking about downgrading it. MR. ASEPERMY: No, that's how many's now. MR. NARCOMEY: But we're still -- but even though they've got five, we're still talking about downgrading it. Instead of having five, have three. Now, will this fall into play, say, for instance we decide to go down to three. Just because these guys have been added on for another three years, is it going to be -- are they going to qualify for one of them two getting left off? MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Orme, how many members on your board? MR. ORME: We're authorized seven members. We have six currently, including if Joe and Dennis -- MR. ASEPERMY: By charter you are one short. MR. ORME: By charter we are one short. That was an intentional thing. MR. ASEPERMY: What is the minimum amount of board members you could operate with efficiently, seven, five, three? MR. ORME: I would not like to see the board be less than five. Five to seven is a good number. I mean, we can work good and make good decisions, we can make timely decisions. We don't have long debates. MR. BURGESS: So with these two, you, would be at six? MR. ORME: A year from now, two more will come up for renewal. MR. BURGESS: So do you replace them every two years, two every three years? MR. ORME: It's a three-year term and every year we replace two of them. So, you know, if you wanted to reduce the board next year, there would be two coming up. It wouldn't be the same two, but there would be two. MR. ASEPERMY: But keeping them on now, because you're losing two next year, it gives you some continuity? MR. ORME: That's the main thing. We're still finding our way -- what business segments we really focus on, those are really important. And I think the continuity, because we've worked together for quite a while now, we understand all the history behind the decisions that got us to where we are and we're making good progress. I think it's a benefit to the body to maintain continuity? MR. TOM NARCOMEY: If you're going to downgrade, you need to revise that enterprise ordinance to put whatever you want, five, three. That way you might upgrade it, too. I mean, it might function better. I mean, I don't know how many times they meet, how much money they spend. They didn't have no report on this last annual report. How much money have they spent? Do we really need that many board members? You know, I would suggest that that ordinance be revised. MR. ASEPERMY: They might on a monthly basis, they are paid a stipend of $250; isn't that correct? MR. ORME: Yes. MR. TOM NARCOMEY: Did they get 1099s? We got in trouble with that before. MR. ASEPERMY: Yes. MR. WHITEWOLF: What have you done so far? What has the enterprise created so far? MR. ORME: We've gotten 8(a) certification. That's a major step. MR. WHITEWOLF: I'm talking about money. MR. ASEPERMY: Answer the question. How much money have you made? MR. ORME: We're taking in 50,000. We're under contract now for $350,000. We're bidding on contracts for several million dollars this year, so the business is growing. Since we got the 8(a) certification, the business' position could grow rapidly to large numbers. We're looking at several acquisitions. Our charter is to go out and buy businesses, not start businesses. So we're looking to buy several businesses. We found ways to get tax credits and owner-carried financing so that we don't have to spend a lot of money ourselves in order to acquire these businesses. These would be businesses that are in the $30, $40 million range in revenue. MR. WHITEWOLF: You're going to buy a $30 million business? MR. ORME: Absolutely. And there's free tax credit. It's a pretty complicated process, but it was amazingly attractive to outside vendors. MR. BURGESS: One of the things that this company, our Comanche Nation Enterprises, has gotten notice around the nation, is that they're steady, they're investing in businesses, they're not borrowing money to invest in businesses, and the businesses they've invested in return money back to them, which will come back to the tribe. And they don't have a lot of tribal politics on their board. That's the first question they were asked when I visited with Mr. Evans after this economic development conference. The first thing people wanted to know, they investigated Comanche Nation Enterprises, and they're happy to see that we don't have a lot of politics in their body. We don't have this body sitting on their body. And when we change the elected people, the when, the way and how for to do business doesn't change. And that's going to stand us very well in the near future if we don't -- if we keep keeping politics out of the business of acquiring businesses that brings money back to the tribe, we'll have more looking at us. In fact, within a week or two, there's a nationwide company coming here asking us to be the front business for them to help them put in a call center that will possibly hire 300 people or more. So they're coming to us on recommendations of our congress people and other minority investment companies. They're coming to the Comanche Nation because of two items: This body and its independence from tribal politics; and it's ability to move into a building that services this area. In the next 10 years, the Lawton- Fort Sill area will go from about what currently is around 90,000 people to probably 140,000 people, and that means the growth in this area is going to mean more jobs to this area. And we -- that's what we want to be on the forefront of. This company, Comanche Nation Enterprises, has gone through some growing pains, and now they're beginning to get into that mid-year, however you want to term it. There's a technical word for it maybe in all of these areas. They're going from a small to a recognized company now. They have 8(a) status. They don't have tribal politicians sitting on their board dictating what tribal politicians want. They're trying to grow with the economy and what's going to grow jobs and income back to the tribe. They're not asking us to put a lot of money into them, and right now in the bank you have most of the money, two-thirds of the money we've given them is in the bank, so they look real good on -- on their financial statement. To any company that they're going to acquire, they have financial figures that they can show them. And as a minority business they can get more money separate from us to acquire these businesses. The money they acquire will come back to the nation, not jobs, but as income. MR. WHITEWOLF: You've got to recognize my caution, because I remember an entity that we had called Circo. You know, promises, promises, promises. But in the end, it's like all pipe dreams. MR. ORME: Let me just say a couple of things, because I know when we say we can buy something that's worth $20 or $30 million with $2 million in the bank, the reason that we can do those kind of things, there's two elements. One is we're tax free. That's a 40 percent impact on the bottom line of the company. So if the company wants to sell their business to us, they go from a tax at 40 percent to tax free. So the revenue, the profitability of that company with us as a major owner -- we may not own but 51 percent. So with us as a major owner, the bottom line impact on profits is huge. So they're willing to finance the business themselves where we pay them out of the profits over a five-year period, because the growth and the profit are big because of our tax-free status. The second thing that we have with this 8(a) status that we were awarded last year, we now can be -- we can get set aside projects specifically for us without having to bid against even other businesses, other 8(a)s or 8(c)s. They can award that business directly to us. That puts us in an extremely competitive position, so there's some major advantages, plus the tax credits. We were the first to go to the state to get tax credits for investors, and these guys that are selling us their companies can be considered the investor. They get the tax credit. They're essentially using state money to invest in our company. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So how long have you been in business? MR. ORME: Two years. MR. BURGESS: They're doing real good. They got great notice. They've got a track record. This is the only company in the nation that received minority status, they call it 8(a), in less than six months. MR. ORME: Seven months. It normally takes two years. MR. BURGESS: Or more, and more than a million dollars in business, and they were able to achieve it in seven months. Thomas, one more question and then we'll move on. MR. TOM NARCOMEY: The economic department, couldn't they start a 100 percent Comanche-owned construction company? If the enterprise don't -- because there's a free AA money. They could get at least, I don't know, 2-, 250-, maybe $300,000 free government money from AA to start a 100 percent Comanche construction company. MR. HENSON: We already have that. They've already established that. MR. BURGESS: Construction management. Thomas, last question. But David explained the difference between management and the construction company. MR. ORME: CNE, the top level of this company is a holding company and we're going to buy and sell businesses. Inside that, we've put a construction company -- MR. TOM NARCOMEY: Same as Ten Bears. You know, they got an owner. He doesn't own anything, but his name's on that Ten Bears company. Same -- that explains this quicker. We're 51 percent, but this other one would be 100 percent, and we'll have our own construction crew, and there's free GSA money -- I mean surplus. We could get equipment or whatever. MR. ORME: We own 100 percent of this construction company. MR. TOM NARCOMEY: We don't have to spend the gaming money. We could use federal money to develop the business. MR. BURGESS: Thomas, hang on a second. The business of construction requires manpower, facility, equipment, materials. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Insurance and overhead. MR. ORME: And bonding. MR. BURGESS: And bonding. Now, if they were to do that, they would probably add 10 more people to your payroll, and all your material and equipment would take away the $2 million they have in the bank. That hurts them in what they're trying to do out there in this other world. The business you're talking about, we here at the nation, there's two things we're going through. Here at the tribe we have a HIP program that has over 1,000 homes listed. With the tribe over here at housing, Comanche Nation Housing, there's over 400 homes that have to be maintained. Housing is running into a financial difficulty from the federal government. The federal government is going to be reducing housing authority monies by 17 percent right now. In two weeks they went from 10 percent to 17 percent reduction. Housing has to reduce staff again, because in the year 2011, 2012, they're going to lose about 300- to $500,000. Housing is now getting on track with its financials. They now have a clear picture of how much they can earn per month from the rentals that are going out. So I'm talking to the housing director and asking him to research the HUD rules and regs that if we, the nation, start our own construction company so that we put some of our displaced workers to work repairing HIP homes and repairing housing homes, can housing, the HUD, give our construction company a sole source contract. Right now HUD says no. But with our HIP homes, with over 1,000 homes that need some kind of repair, he said that we, the nation, if we had our own construction company owned by the nation, managed by management under the nation, we can put these people to work and we would bid on their projects, just like anybody else. However, because we're an Indian-owned company -- and this is what David didn't get to tell you. As an Indian-owned company by the tribe, we automatically get a 10 percent set aside in all work by any federal agency that is contracted for. Fort Sill hasn't been doing that, Altus hasn't been doing that, Sheppard Air Force Base. Maybe Tinker has been giving those set asides to someone else. But since we're locally, this construction management company should be getting 10 percent of all work at Fort Sill or other bases because we're within the area. The same for us. If we have our own construction company, we should get 10 percent of all federal contract work that's out there. That helps us bid on our HUD money, that we could bid on Lawton housing money, too, with our construction company to keep our people working. Now that's why I would rather see it under the tribe. That's something we have to talk with the about attorneys to create an LLC under the tribe so that the tribe owns the construction company. And we can guarantee we'll do the work for HIP and we'll contract what we can with HUD, our HUD extension, Comanche Housing, to do that. It's better it's under the tribe. It doesn't take away the money, the little bit of money we give enterprises to do their investment with bigger companies that bring back a million dollars a year. MR. TOM NARCOMEY: 100 percent at the same time, and it's not like you do it -- it's not like you're going to start the business the next day. It takes a year to develop it. So that's why I'm -- then you could get rid of all these problems that you're going to run into, you know, when you develop it. That's what it -- it's a development. MR. BURGESS: If we don't continue to support Comanche Nation Enterprises, in five years' time we're not going to be looking at a million dollar return to the nation. And if we just keep them on a steady level -- they're investing their money better than we are investing ours. And buying these businesses is a better investment than we can do. MR. WHITEWOLF: How long till they have to be self-sustaining? MR. ASEPERMY: Mike, can I add to that? MR. BURGESS: That's a bigger question than we know. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Whitewolf and David, you annual meeting, which was held last week, and it was announced, it was attended by two tribal members and the CBC. Gabby was one of them. You were budgeted for $1.56 million for next year. You were given this year how much? MR. ORME: About the same. MR. ASEPERMY: About the same. They have not spent all that money. It is -- the majority of it is in the bank. If you say everything that you said at the annual meeting by 2014, when do you project that you won't be on the ballot for funding? And when do you project a return to the nation? I know in 2014 you projected a return to the nation at 14 million. At the end of this fiscal year you projected a return to the nation of 840 million. I know right now -- oh, 40,000 this year? I know this year you've got your contract, you've got a first return of 15,000, but it's a start. I think what Mr. Whitewolf and what the people would like to know, including me again, when are you going to come off the budget and when are you going to give us a return, based on your projection that you briefed us on the other day? MR. ORME: We took that as an opportunity to provide you guys with kind of a five-year pro forma. And we'll do that, which we haven't completed that work, but we will do that. The thing is, you could, when you think about what could happen, we could stop taking money any time. We can start providing money back any time, but that means that's as big as that business will ever be. So if we made $15,000 this year, you quit giving us money, we give all that to the tribe, that's it. This year you get 15,000, next year you get 15,000 again. So you can't grow the business unless you continue to reinvest. What we'll do, and we've committed to do it, is we'll provide you with a five or six year outlook that shows how we think the revenues and the profitability can grow, how much of that should be retained for growth, for future growth. Most high-grossing companies retain the earnings for future growth. But typically you'll see the retained earnings for companies like Sysco and high tech, they don't pay dividends. They have all retained earnings. So we will project what we think how much the earnings should be retained and how much should be paid out to the owners, which you guys are the representatives. So we'll do that. We haven't done it yet, but we will do that, and give you that five-year plan. But the real answer to the question, and there's another question behind this. It says how much do you want to grow the business? You know, we could stop any time and be profitable. But when we stop, the business is going to be small. When we take all the profit, apply it back into the tribe, when we don't retain any of that for growth, you can't grow. So, I mean, that's the decision. So what we need to do is think about that hard and long to say we're going to have a growth projection that's beneficial to the tribe in the long run, and also at some point in time we can start paying those earnings back to the tribe. MR. ASEPERMY: You haven't answered my question. MR. ORME: No, but I will. We will do that. We committed to do that last week at the meeting. We haven't done it yet, but we will develop that pro forma and you'll see the numbers. MR. WHITEWOLF: But you're saying that you want to reinvest what you made to enhance the company's growth. That's true. But by the same token, we as owners need to realize at least a minimum of interest that returns to us each year. If we don't, why would we put $1 1/2 million to somebody else? MR. ORME: I agree, that's a fair expectation. I accept that. And we should project to you what we believe is the reasonable approach to paying that return on investment. The tribe should earn money on money invested. This is a business. You don't invest in a business to get nothing back. Right? So we should -- there should be a reasonable way to pay a reasonable return for an investment that the tribe makes in this business. We'll map that out. We have not done that. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's not high expectation. The great interest nowadays, that's minimum return, but at least it's something. You still got your 1.5. MR. ORME: That's a fair expectation. I don't have any problem doing that. Again, we haven't, but we will do it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How much -- what's your salary a year? MR. ORME: Zero. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The tribe don't pay you nothing? MR. ORME: I get a stipend for a board meeting. $250 once a month. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: $250? MR. ORME: Once a month, if we meet every month, which we've typically been meeting once a month. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You know, I was in the loan business for 41 years and I made more than $15,000 a year, and you're running an enterprise -- MR. ORME: Well, I'm chairman of the board. We have a CEO that runs the enterprise, that runs Comanche Nation Enterprise. It's a full-time -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What do we pay the CEO? MR. ORME: We treat the salary as confidential. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're the owners. MR. BURGESS: You'll need to come to us and go to that employee. All of that, by federal law -- this is a public area. I have to tell you that by federal law. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why should we pay somebody that -- MR. BURGESS: It is, but by their ordinance now, they're separate from us, basically. They are chartered. MS. ISAAC: Who is the CEO? MR. ASEPERMY: John Evans. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is he an Indian? MR. ASEPERMY: He's a white guy. Nothing personal. MR. BURGESS: Last one. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's six members now. And this, according to them, the two we advertised, you know, I accept that. But the two that you would vote on right now that make it six, he said that they need about five or seven, so I'm going to put in that for that seventh one, because I'm retired right now and I can put full time on this board. And I'm not in it for the 250, I'm in it for the -- MR. BURGESS: Okay, hang on. Now, remember, if you're going to apply for a board or seat on any committee, you can only sit on one. A resolution passed that a person can just sit on one board or another. MR. ASEPERMY: I got you down for economic development. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, they said that was up in the air. MR. ASEPERMY: It is for now. It will be resolved around the 16th or 17th of this month. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Then I withdraw my nomination of this one and I'll stick with economic. MR. ASEPERMY: I've already nominated you. MR. BURGESS: Motion on the floor. MR. NARCOMEY: Mr. Chairman, on these two nominees, I don't have anything against them. You know, it sounds like I have something against them, I don't. The only thing I have against is having too many people on the board. MR. BURGESS: And that's fine. I understand that, but I think we need to give the courtesy to the board now to discuss a transition plan, because you have two more coming off next year. So between now and then, we should discuss -- if taking two away from your six, that leaves you four, then you can make it one and replace one. So I think we need to -- MR. NARCOMEY: He said he could get by with five. MR. ORME: That's my personal opinion. I can't speak for the board, but I can speak -- MR. NARCOMEY: Call for the question. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, recommendations on the size of each board that we have, recommendations on the stipends of each board we have was presented to the CBC in August. We have not acted on it. And if I'm not mistaken, at least my recommendation on this particular board -- I don't have it with me -- I believe, was three. Some of the boards -- I also recommended that we resolve some of the boards or we reduce them in numbers. We pay stipends of over $400,000 to our boards. $424,000 for our boards and stipends. With a reduction in the boards, based on the recommendations that's been presented to the CBC, those stipends would be reduced to $200,000 a year. That's a 65 or 60 percent cut. We just haven't acted on it. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: You're saying that like that's a huge number, but with the amount of business that we do, that's not huge. In the real word, that's like two salaries. MS. ISAAC: We're not in the real world. MR. BURGESS: Don't say that. Hang on now, hang on. MR. ORME: One thing, Lanny, you really need to look at what you're buying. For $250 a month, what are you actually buying? MR. ASEPERMY: Oh, I think we're getting a heck of a deal. MR. ORME: Could you hire a consultant -- MR. ASEPERMY: I'm not complaining about you, David. I'm not complaining about your board. MR. ORME: I'm just saying in general, though, we need to look at the value that you're getting for your stipend. I'm not saying it one way or another. I would just always encourage you to look at -- MR. ASEPERMY: You have been questioned in the past, this is how much money we've given you, when are you going to start making your own money. You have projected a return to the nation in 2014 of $14 million. You're not going to be on the budget no more. That $14 million, part of it will be like the tax commission supplement. It will go somewhere within our program. I hope this happens. MS. ISAAC: I have a question. On the boards that we're talking about, we're paying over that $424,000, are these Native American Comanches, are they all mixed, are they other tribes? MR. BURGESS: The majority are tribal members, and these are all boards under the CBC that were created in the last six years. MS. ISAAC: Because I read on the museum board where you don't have to be Native American. That is the main place where we should stick to Comanche only. MR. ASEPERMY: Which board? MS. ISAAC: The museum. And then we should stick to Comanche only on that very important thing that we just now developed. Why open it up to white people? MR. BURGESS: Let me say something, and we're going to stop right here on this. I've sat on several boards, national boards and committees, and there are a lot of people who can be our friends out there, and you want to be particular. If you want to bring in board members to the museum body there's a lot of people who are -- put it this way, who are experts about Indian affairs and they're not Indian. That's in that world out there of academia, that's in the world of politics. But on a body like a museum board, there are a lot of people who want to be a friend to the nation. They have something that they would like to give or share. So sometimes you have to recognize their value. Mr. Orme's talking to us about the value of what we receive for what is given. And we don't give anything, but they bring value to us, and they are friends to us and will listen to us and follow our lead, that's very valuable. So we don't want to always exclude those who can bring value back to a body like the museum. We might have museum directors, people with money who want to say, hey, I can come and help you with this, I can make a donation, can get other people to donate. I went to one of those affairs by a body last fall. That body had people flown in from California, New York, Florida, because they support the effort that this body is doing. And they treated them well, treat them with open arms and be a friend to them. They bring a lot of value into an organization. And I'm not saying this to be underhanded, I'm not saying it to be mean, but when you allow that, you allow other relationships and connections to grow, so it benefits what you're doing here at home because you got -- let's put it this way: We might have somebody from England who wants to come sit on that board, whether it's an advisory board or on the body, executive board, and says we have this collection in England and I can bring it back to you. MS. ISAAC: Just be careful, because when they first begin, we don't even know -- MR. BURGESS: We don't want to exclude good friends and potential net worth to the organization. MS. ISAAC: And there are people who want to infiltrate and take all of the information to the white world and use -- MR. BURGESS: And I'll remind you all. What did we have back in the '80s before we had the takeover? We were supposed to have a museum here. It's no longer here. Our people -- I will stop right there. MR. WHITEWOLF: The fallacy of your theory right there is these people can't contribute Comanche items. People from England, what do they know about Comanche? MR. BURGESS: What I'm saying, is they have connections in Spain, too, they can bring it back. MR. WHITEWOLF: They can't contribute anything. That whites in California can't contribute anything. The professor at Yale can't contribute anything. We're talking about Comanches that can direct and know what we need. Is that a Comanche museum or is it not a Comanche museum? Is it going to be an all-encompassing museum in that case -- MR. BURGESS: We wanted it to be, but the way it worked out, it wasn't that way. MS. ISAAC: The white people have taken and taken and taken. Maybe our Comanches stole from each other a little bit, but not as much as the white people have stole from us. MR. BURGESS: Let's stop right here, because that's a bigger discussion than where we're at on the agenda right now. MR. ASEPERMY: I call for the question on Resolution 22-10. I recommend that we do vote on it and we do approve these additions. You're in conflict with the previously called for question that Mr. Narcomey made. MR. NARCOMEY: I'll recall my motion. MR. BURGESS: But we did not have any motion to accept, we did not have a second. I'd prefer to go ahead and table this. David, are you able to work with four people? MR. ASEPERMY: Well, they stay on the board until they're reappointed. MR. ORME: We can do that. Is there something specific? MR. BURGESS: I think we need to have a discussion with you and your body first to look at some guidance here and then make the recommendation and come back. MR. ASEPERMY: They don't come off the board, Mike. MR. BURGESS: I know that. MR. ASEPERMY: They continue on the board. MR. BURGESS: They'll continue on the board, but if we just table it, then we can have a discussion. MR. ASEPERMY: Can you make a recommendation to us how many members that you really need? If you have seven now, do you need five, do you need three? MR. ORME: I'll take that to the board to get a recommendation. MR. ASEPERMY: By tabling this, that doesn't mean they come off the board. That means they continue until they are either reappointed or a new person is added to. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Let me add something. On this particular entity, I don't think we should shrink it any. In the future, they're going to need more leadership and more expertise across the board because of the expansion of what they're getting into. They're going to have construction, they're going to have this service company, they're going to have this technology company; whereas, these other boards, where you just focus on one thing, the tax commission or something. You know what I mean? That's just one deal where it doesn't require a 10-people board. So in saying that, I just say I don't know that we need to shrink that board down any because of where they're headed in business. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Is there a motion on the floor? MR. BURGESS: There's been no motion made. We have another statement from Mr. Wahnee Clark. MR. CLARK: I've been on this board for two years. The first six months I think we had what we call work sessions. We were paid $100 for us to come to these work sessions. This was a startup. There was nothing there. We didn't have a staff. There was no secretarial staff, there was no chief executive officer, it was just the six or seven of us. In my own case, you evaluated what I contributed to that board, and I will put myself at the bottom of the totem pole because there are others who have contributed more. You probably couldn't afford me at minimum wage. Just this last week I spent many hours at home working on board activity, writing policies, conducting business back and forth with our executive officers on a policy, distribution of profits, that sort of thing. I researched, we've got a policy just about ready to go before the board for consideration. That's just one week. If you're trying to save money on the board, this is like stepping over a dime to pick up a dollar, or stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime. But let me assure you there are others on the board. I'll name names: Jo Vickers, for example, spends so much of her time, private time, and we pay her the same thing as we pay me, $250. So I urge you not to get into that pattern. We're contributing because we love the Comanche Nation, we're contributing because we see the value that the Comanche Nation Enterprises can bring to the nation. We're contributing because we have good leadership through David, through our CEO. We have the best staff, I think, that you can get anywhere. I just don't want you to start nickeling and diming us to death on this kind of thing. Because what you see -- don't see behind the scenes is what we've done to make our individual contributions to this board activity. MR. BURGESS: Thank you, sir. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to pass Resolution 22-10 approving the appointees of the directors. And if we need to come back, we can determine an adequate size from what Mr. Clark tells us. Maybe we do need to keep it at seven. That's my motion. MR. BURGESS: Motion's been made. Gentlemen? MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Darrell Kosechequetah. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. Is that five of you? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Five. MR. BURGESS: Motion passes. MR. ASEPERMY: Any nays? MR. BURGESS: Any nays? No. Ayes have it. We'll move on to Item Number 7, which is a resolution for us to continue working with the Sac & Fox Juvenile Detention Services. This is when we -- some of our children are sometimes errant in behavior and someplace for them to go, an Indian facility. Which, by the way, we, the Comanche Nation, have been encouraged to start looking at something on this side of the state, because many of our children are being sent to other areas and the parents are finding it difficult to go and visit with them and keep contact. So in the future, we'll be looking at this kind of grant and contract to do with the nation. So this is reaffirming the law enforcement service commitment to the nation by strengthening its activities and entering into this agreement with the Sac & Fox Nation providing juvenile detention services for the Comanche Nation. The Sac & Fox Nation will provide services at Stroud at its juvenile facility for ages 12 to 18 years old. We have an agreement that's already been reviewed beforehand, so we're continuing that agreement so we can take some of our children there for safety. Motion to approve? MR. TIPPECONNIE: I make the motion. MR. BURGESS: Motion made by Mr. Tippeconnie. MR. HENSON: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Henson. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Niedo: How long have we been in contract with Sac & Fox? MR. NIEDO: Four years. MR. ASEPERMY: Okay. Thank you. So we've been doing this for a while. Call for the question. MR. BURGESS: All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. The ayes have it. Item Number 8: Recently we had some budget discussions. One of the things that we wanted to do with SORNA, this is the tribal sex offender registry. This came under federal law, which is called the Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act of '06, Publish Law 109248. Jim or William, would you give a synopsis of this for our people, why it's necessary we have this? MR. BURSON: The federal government requires jurisdictions throughout the United States to keep track of sex offenders after they leave prison, or after they get convicted of a sex crime, for differing periods of time, depending on the severity of the sex crime. The federal government, in doing so, allows tribes to take that responsibility for their jurisdiction, if they so choose. There's a period of time back in 2004 in which the tribes had to elect, or 2005, I think, the tribes had to elect to take the authority to exercise that authority; otherwise, it would automatically go to the state in which the tribe resided in. At that time, your leadership decided that they would take the responsibility for keeping track of sex offenders within the Comanche jurisdiction and drafted laws and passed laws to do so. It's my understanding that your law enforcement has been working to try to get that implemented. It has turned out, from what I understand, to be an unfunded mandate, pretty much by the federal government, which comes as no surprise. But at any rate, there was supposed to be a database developed by the Department of Justice, which is, I think, still yet to be -- the software is still under development, which is one of the things which is required to implement the sex offender registry for Comanche Nation. And I believe that's where we stand right now. I believe this resolution seeks to extend the period of time to develop the necessary things that need to be put in place in order to have that sex registry implemented for Comanche jurisdiction. MR. BURGESS: Correct. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Correct, that's an extension. MR. BURSON: So it gets us by one more year until July 2011 in order for the implementation to be developed. MR. BURGESS: All right. Is there anymore discussion? Mr. Henson's out in the hallway. MS. ISAAC: I have a question. So the law is there, but if anything happens on Comanche land, it goes to the Adam Walsh people? MR. BURGESS: No. We, the tribe, establish what we're going to be doing so the state doesn't exercise its jurisdiction within tribal trust lands. MS. ISAAC: So when should this be happening? When did this come about? MR. BURGESS: This law was passed in '06. MS. ISAAC: With our tribe? MR. BURGESS: We had discussions on this in past meetings and we talked about the money for it. I think two meetings back we discussed positions and responsibilities. In order to protect our trust responsibilities and not have the state start intruding upon our territory, we have to do this. MS. ISAAC: Sometimes I think the state needs to stay where it's at, because sometime we as people don't want to turn our own relatives in, and sometimes the law, sorry to say, they don't do their job on certain people, and certain people they will do the job. So we need to straighten ourselves out. MR. BURGESS: We do. But if we don't do this, this can open a door to the state to infringe upon other trust responsibilities they really don't have. It would open the door for them to come and start looking at other things. MS. ISAAC: We need to start doing our job, doing it right. That's all I'm saying. It scares me that we live in a land like not in the real word, and, you know, we need to start doing our job with the laws that we have. If we're going to implement more laws, then do it right. MR. BURGESS: All right. Thank you. I like that quote, because we, too, have a fiduciary responsibility to follow the law as a CBC member, correct? MS. ISAAC: Yeah, that's all I'm saying. MR. BURGESS: Thank you. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass Resolution 24-10. MR. BURGESS: Mr. Asepermy's made that motion. Second? MR. TIPPECONNIE: I second it. MR. BURGESS: Mr. Tippeconnie has seconded it. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. Five, five of us. Now, the next item is Number 9, Resolution 25-10. This amends Resolution 185-09, which is the processing of payment requests. This resolution will override, it should say supercede, all the others to do this: It designates the chairman, secretary/treasurer, and tribal administrator to sign all payment requests. No payment request will be processed without the signatures, not a stamped one, of at least two of the designees listed above. I thought it was going to be all three. That was potentially what you said. MR. ASEPERMY: Two of three: You and Robert, or you and Willie, or Willie and Robert. Instead of having seven people authorized to sign payment requests, you got it three, and that's going to help with your checks and balances. I came in the other day and they gave me seven payment requests. They wanted me to sign them, and I'm authorized to sign them. I didn't know what a single one of them pertained to because I'm not here on a day-to-day basis. One of them was for $150,000. I'm not going to sign my name to a document that I don't understand. The chairman, the tribal administrator, and the secretary/treasurer are here day to day, and everything has been processed through these three people. Mike, if we go with a -- the reason we added a third person was in case one of you three is absent and we can continue. MR. BURGESS: I think, Lanny, that's kind of mixing apples and oranges, but this using a Granny Smith with one of the other Delicious Apples. MR. ASEPERMY: Well, make your recommendation here. MR. BURGESS: Recommendation should be all three of us should be signing these. You'll see why when we get to Item 1 under New and Old Business. MR. ASEPERMY: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we amend the fourth whereas to read: No payment request will processed without the signatures of the three designees listed above. Mr. Burson, you have a statement? MR. BURSON: On the fourth whereas, this is designating the chairman, I believe you mean vice-chairman, secretary/treasurer? MR. ASEPERMY: No, no. He was taken out of the equation. MR. BURSON: Are you wanting to designate the chairman, secretary/treasurer and tribal administrator to sign all requests? MR. ASEPERMY: Is that what you're saying, all three of y'all? You don't want to go with two out of three? You want to discuss this further? MR. BURSON: I'll hold my comment. MR. BURGESS: We're going to table it at this time. You'll see why. Motion to table, Lanny? MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: So moved. MR. BURGESS: Motion made by Darrell Kosechequetah to table. Second? MR. TIPPECONNIE: I'll second. MR. BURGESS: All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. 26-10 now. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Did you vote on this? MR. BURGESS: I made a motion. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Oh, okay. MR. ASEPERMY: You want me to make a motion? MR. BURGESS: We passed it to table. The other one is now 26-10. MR. ASEPERMY: I don't even know what that is. MR. BURGESS: This will be a new item, Number 10, which is a Resolution 26-10. This comes to us from the community, a recommendation that was made previously. Discussions had followed in the community. Mr. Thomas Narcomey had made this recommendation to us last meeting, so we have a draft of it right now. MR. ASEPERMY: I don't have a copy of it. I haven't seen it. MR. BURGESS: We just got one out last night. While the gentlemen are reading it, ladies and folks, I'll read this out to you. This is a resolution of the Comanche Nation Business Committee regarding the hiring of tribal administrator-manager. The normal whereas, is we are a nation recognized by the constitution approved by the Secretary of Interior 1967; Whereas, the Comanche Business Committee is the duly elected official body designated to conduct business for and on behalf of the Comanche Nation; and Whereas, Article V, Section 9 of the Comanche Nation Constitution states that the tribal council is to hire an administrator-manager to administrate the tribal government, the administrator/manager shall be under the direction of Business Committee. Members of the Business Committee shall not be an employee of the tribal government. The tribal council constitutes all voting members of the nation. In Article V, Section 1, it states: Tribal council shall consist of all members of the Comanche Nation who are 18 years of age and older. So we are stating: Be it further resolved that all interested enrolled tribal members meeting the qualification for tribal administrator/manager will submit a resume 21 days prior to the annual tribal council meeting so that these individuals may be placed on a ballot along with prospective Comanche Business Committee members and the proposed upcoming fiscal year's budget. Mr. Narcomey, Thomas here, had made that recommendation in previous meetings and talked to several of us before this, and it sounds like a good idea to us. Thomas? MR. TOM NARCOMEY: Be more democratic. That way, all of our tribal members will have an opportunity to participate in electing a TA as required in the constitution. Like it is now, you've got -- you do it at the annual meeting and it's -- I don't know. You don't have a representation of very much of the Comanches, and it's always loud in there, we never do finish an agenda. One time we had a bunch of drunks hollering in there. It's a mess having it at the annual needing. MR. BURGESS: It also clears the air, ladies and gentlemen, is the TA an elected official or are they not? Now, we didn't talk with the attorneys on this. And it's the tribe's business to see that every one who is going to be put into office, according to our constitution, doesn't have a felony, is not an unsavory character, let me put it that way. We've come so far in a few years, and I can attest to you the question of the authority of the TA, their positioning, how to reprimand, how to recall, if that's what it is. The question has been it is, and then the answer has been no it isn't. And so we kind of talked here and said, all right, it's time to put this -- since we don't have a new constitution, it's time to put this matter before the people. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's fine, you can do what you want, but you've got to amend that amendment. You can't do it here. You can't do it at the general council. You've got to make that, because that's a constitutional amendment. MR. BURGESS: I think Thomas just answered that -- MR. TOM NARCOMEY: That's a bad day to elect the TA by referendum vote until we amend the constitution. MR. WHITEWOLF: It's still in our constitution. MR. BURGESS: We're not amending the constitution. MR. WHITEWOLF: Well, you have to to add or make any changes to it. MR. BURGESS: It says the tribal council shall consist of all members of the Comanche Nation who are 18 years of age and older, all those who vote. The council that comes before us every year is 400, sometimes close to 600 people. We have over 14,000 members, we have approximately 9,000 members who vote. The constitution says that these matters come before everyone, the tribal council. And the question has always been: Who has the authority to terminate or not terminate the TA? MR. WHITEWOLF: General council in a general council setting. MR. BURGESS: Tribal council is who? Is all members 18 years of age or older. MR. WHITEWOLF: Yeah, but that's called a constitutional amendment. MR. BURGESS: This constitution is quoted. This is in the constitution. We're following the constitution. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: We previously classified the general council as that day that's specified as that time. Instead of what it says in the constitution as all members of the nation who are 18 and over. They all have an opportunity to vote even if they can't be here on that day. MS. MCDANIEL: But they had an opportunity to vote when we amended that constitution. It was passed, it went to a referendum vote. All the people had an opportunity to vote to amend that constitution. So now, in order to change it, then you need to take it to a referendum vote for the amendment and change it. But the people had their opportunity to vote to amend that and they did. MR. TIPPECONNIE: This isn't amended. MS. MCDANIEL: It is amended. Not what you're doing. You can't do what you're doing. But the constitution was voted on by the people and it was passed. So be it. You know, so if you're going to have to -- in order to change the law, you're going to have to go back and amend the constitution. MR. BURGESS: We're not changing it. No, we're allowing everybody to vote on the TA. MS. MCDANIEL: But the constitution already reads and the people already passed it. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, Article IV, Section 1, says the supreme governing body of this organization shall be the Comanche Tribal Council, everybody. MR. WHITEWOLF: In a general council setting when they meet. MR. BURGESS: Well, I'm reading the constitution right here. You can all download it from the Web, if you have it. If not -- and it says the tribal council shall consist of all members of the Comanche Nation who are 18 years of age or older. There will be an annual meeting of the tribal council on the third Saturday of every April. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's who's qualified to vote. MS. MCDANIEL: But when they discussed the tribal administrator and the law was amended to include electing the tribal administrator from the floor at the general council, that's how it was read. So -- MR. BURGESS: Well, it's read tribal council. This says tribal council, Article V, Section 9, says the tribal council is to hire an administrator/manager to administrate the government. Not 400 people are tribal council. Over 9,000 people are tribal council. MS. MCDANIEL: But that constitution was passed by the tribal council. MR. BURGESS: Yes, it was, and we are following it. We're allowing everybody to vote on the TA so it's defined on their authority. MS. MCDANIEL: It's already a done deal. You're trying to change it. MR. BURGESS: No, we're just trying to do what the constitution says to do. MS. MCDANIEL: No, you don't. MR. BURGESS: Every council member gets to vote. MR. WHITEWOLF: Well, you're not supposed to have secret meetings. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: What secret meetings? MR. WHITEWOLF: I ain't going to dignify that with an answer. MS. ISAAC: So why would anybody be opposed to letting the whole people around the United States to vote for this TA? I don't see any problem in wanting -- at least let's try it. MR. WHITEWOLF: No one cares, but you got to put that in the constitution. MS. ISAAC: No, we need to try it, because the precedent was set before. We didn't argue that precedent before. Now we're arguing it all of a sudden. We just need to go with it. Vote for them. I mean, I don't have any problem. MS. MCDANIEL: If you want it, put it on the ballot this year. Then if it passes, it's a done deal next year. MR. BURGESS: That's all we're trying to do, let the tribal council vote on it. MR. ASEPERMY: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's a question of interpretation. I think if all of us on the committee and everyone out here read this, we would probably get however many people's in here opinions. MR. WHITEWOLF: Only if you're stupid, you will. MS. ISAAC: I don't think I'm stupid, but, you know, there might be five people in this room -- MR. BURGESS: Well, it's not gray at all. That's not gray at all. It tells us that all the tribal council is everyone 18 years old or older. It says all the tribal council shall elect the administrator/manager. MR. WHITEWOLF: Well, what is the tribal council, Mr. Chairman? MR. BURGESS: Again, I have to quote the constitution. It say consists of all members who are 18 years of age or older. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's who qualifies to vote in the general council. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: The tribal council is all members 18 and over. That's what it's stating. MR. BURGESS: This says tribal council is to hire the administrator/manager. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's assembled at the general council. MR. BURGESS: That's what I'm looking for. It doesn't say assembled at general council. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So that means you're going to have a special election every year for a tribal administrator, put it on the ballot. MR. BURGESS: Not if we say that the tribal administrator is doing a good job and retained. MR. WHITEWOLF: Well, why are you worrying about it, then, if you think that way? If the tribal administrator is doing a bad job, why are you worrying about it now? MR. BURGESS: I can give you two quotes: We need to follow our laws, and I'm not going to sign my name to a document I don't understand. And that's coming from the people. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How long have we been electing a tribal administrator the way it has been? MR. ASEPERMY: Ever since I can remember. MS. MCDANIEL: But when was the law put into place? MR. BURGESS: So have we been following the constitution if not everybody voted on the tribal administrator? MS. MCDANIEL: The people voted. MR. NELSON: 1989. MR. WHITEWOLF: They're just playing games. MR. BURGESS: I do know that the people who would like to run for tribal administrator, as well as these offices here, you need to have some qualifications, some experience and knowledge. And the people should know who they are. Because when you got an absentee who calls here and says the TA won't take my call, or I can't get through to the TA, and I'm calling the chairman because I'm trying to follow the process, what do I do next, what do they do? MS. MCDANIEL: What's that got to do with anything? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What do you do when they call the chairman and they say call one of the councilmen? How do you get ahold of the chairman, because we can't get ahold of him. We're calling from Chicago, and I've tried 50 times to get ahold of him, but I can't contact him. So they call the councilmen, whoever they can get ahold of. What about that? MR. BURGESS: It depends on what they're asking for. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm just using that as an example. MR. BURGESS: And I'll respond to that example. I've been told, well, you don't make decisions on program activities and who gets help, you take it back to the director. And all I can do is point back to the director, and I do that to my own family. Go to that program director and their staff, tell them the problem and work through the system. I can't just jump up and say: Do this. That's repeating past habits, and I'm not going to repeat past habits. We're trying to stick with the budget, we're trying to stick with the process that's supposed to be there. That's where it goes to the program, then up to the TA, then over to us, whoever is in office. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I was just using that as an example. I'm not picking on anybody, I'm just using that. You said what happens when you can't get ahold of the administrator and they call me. Well, I'm saying what happens when they want to talk to you and they can't get ahold of you, so vice versa. I'm just using it as an example. I'm not trying to fuss with you. MR. BURGESS: I think there's a few people here who can tell you that I do my best, even after 5 o'clock or on weekends, I'll return phone calls as best I can and try to get ahold of them. MRS. GALLEGOS: One area of concern that I have regarding the TA position is that it's an elected position, and it's one that does not go through any kind of background check, security, like the rest of the CBC members. And so if any change is going to be made, I would suggest that you include that, because that person's in charge of, you know, day-to-day operations and a large -- you know, all the programs, all the employees. But nowhere does it give the TA, whoever it happens to be, has to go pass a background check like the CBC does. MR. NELSON: For some reason, ma'am, they ran a background check on me. I don't know why. For some reason they did. MR. BURGESS: I submitted to one when I first ran for TA. Anyone on the ballot, any elected official on the ballot would go through that process because they have to complete that paperwork, and that's what the TA should be doing. MRS. GALLEGOS: Again, I'm not picking on Willie. I'm just saying if you're going to be elected, you're going to serve in a position of that magnitude, just like a CBC member, there should be a background check. It's just for the safety of the tribe. And I wasn't aware one was done on Willie. I'm just saying that nowhere is it written it can be -- you guys have done it, but I'm saying it should be. MR. WHITEWOLF: Well, our present -- MR. NIEDO: We always do background checks on elected officials. I'm the person that does it. If I -- if that elected official or that person is running for office has any red flags that's in their background, I immediately take it to the election board, I put it in their hands, and then from there, the election, the director takes it to the CBC. MS. GALLEGOS: So previous TAs have also had backgrounds? MR. NIEDO: Yes. MR. WHITEWOLF: Well, Willie's the only one that I know that ran for it, so he's way ahead of time. Anybody could have checked him out. MS. AITSON: Why do you have people working with the Comanche Tribe that has done wrong, really, really wrong, and they still get another job in another department? That doesn't make a lot of sense. MR. BURGESS: Dan? MS. AITSON: See, he don't want to hear that. MR. BIGBEE: I'm asking myself, well, thinking about the interpretation that's been presented through the constitution, that the general council comprises every eligible Comanche voter; is that correct? Is that what you're saying? MR. ASEPERMY: Tribal council. MR. BIGBEE: If we accept that interpretation, then what's the point of taking any vote whatsoever off the floor at the general council meeting? Everything would have to be presented to all the eligible voters; is that correct? MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: You're right. MR. BIGBEE: So then what's the point of having a general constitution meeting? MR. BURGESS: Because the constitution says tribal council. MR. ASEPERMY: If a tribal member gets up -- and, you know, we have to -- the ballot goes on the budget, just say a tribal member gets up and they question the budget, to either increase it or to decrease it, we're not going to hear that? Are we going to also put the attorneys on the ballot if there is a motion to add another -- if someone makes a motion to put Hobbs, Straus Dean & Walker on the ballot and someone makes a motion to add Ryland Reavis to the budget -- I mean to the ballot as attorneys, are we going to put that on the ballot, also? MS. MCDANIEL: Exactly. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why not? MR. ASEPERMY: Well, that's what I'm saying, that's what I'm asking. It should not be restricted to only the tribal administrator. What if a person does not agree with items on the budget here? You know, there's things on the budget, and I was part of this -- okay, yeah, I know it says Section 10, it says to hire an attorney to represent the tribe. That's what the tribal council does. Well, if we're going to put the tribal administrator on the ballot, then we need to take nominations to put the attorneys on the ballot -- MS. ISAAC: Exactly. MR. ASEPERMY: -- if there's more than one. If there's something on the budget here that I don't agree with, and there are items on here that I don't agree with, and I say, well, I don't think this or this or this should be this amount, or should be even on the ballot, then we can't make that motion by the people that are present, correct? MR. BURGESS: Correct. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: You just can make the discussion. MR. ASEPERMY: We have in the past had motions from the floor -- law enforcement needs a million more dollars. I'm just using you as an example. Injury prevention, they need 200,000. I make the motion, I second it. Voice vote, all in favor of giving them, yeah. We know all this has happened in the past. Is it right? I don't think so. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: According to the constitution, it says it ain't right, but that's the way we've done it. MR. ASEPERMY: Yeah, I know, but have we been doing it right? We've done it year after year after year, but does that mean that we've done it right? If you read this and you interpret it the way the chairman just did, then we did it wrong. MS. ISAAC: Lanny, if you're saying that we need to add the law enforcement -- there's only those two that we do once a year, that's the tribal attorney -- I mean TA and the attorneys. MR. ASEPERMY: And you vote -- when I say law enforcement, Beverly, what I'm talking about is -- I just used them as an example. We have to vote on all of this stuff right here. It's on the ballot, correct? Every 9,600 plus Comanches that are 18 and over have the opportunity to say yes or no to all of these. The 9,600 Comanches do not have the right, the way we're doing it now, to chose who the attorney is. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's wrong, because every member of the tribe has a right to question this, they're just not here. MS. ISAAC: That's how come that stream, then, is coming into supposedly. MR. BURGESS: Norman? MR. NAUNI: Mr. Chairman, the budget, Lanny, that you got right there is a proposed budget that you've got through general council. General council is only one area and one of them line items. They can change that in the general council. This is how powerful the general council is. Now, if you've got something you're trying to change at general council here, then that's wrong, because the general council is still the supreme governing body of this tribe. So if you want to make a change to the constitution, you've got to go back to general council and do a referendum vote. MR. BURGESS: We're not changing it. We're following it as it's told us to follow. MR. WHITEWOLF: According to your interpretation. MR. NORMAN: You want to submit a requirement. MR. BURGESS: No, we're putting the TA's election before tribal council. In this constitution, it doesn't even mention the word general council. MR. WHITEWOLF: That constitution is flawed, because it always has had that in there. MR. BURGESS: It also says the business committee shall propose the annual tribal operating budget. We are to develop it, propose it to y'all, and you have the authority to vote it down. MS. MCDANIEL: It's the general council's opportunity to conduct business. That's once a year, and you notify everybody in the tribe that we're going to have a general council -- MR. BURGESS: We're going to have a tribal council meeting. MS. MCDANIEL: That's our one time a year we conduct business. And the tribal administrator, hiring him and removing him, is our business that day, you know, so we're conducting business. And you have let everybody, every member of the tribe, you've notified them and let them know, you know, we're having a general council, we're going to be nominating committee people, we're going to be nominating election board members. That's what's going to be conducted. Well, once a year, that's our business, to take care of the tribal administrator. Either sustain him and keep him or vote him out. That's our business. That's the once a year we conduct business, and we've done that, and so I don't see any reason why we have to change it. MR. BURGESS: Well, since having served there and knowing the way it was done, I think it should be elected on the ballot. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, you're saying that all Comanches from 18 years on up have the right to chose who they want to elect, but each and every year before the general council, every Comanche in the Comanche Nation is getting a letter about this general council coming up, so they do have a privilege to say yea or nay, if they want to come here, if they want to come to the general council. So you can't say that they're being denied their right to vote for whoever the administrator is going to be, because they have the privilege. MS. AITSON: How many hires does the CBC have within the constitution? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: My 96-year-old mother, I'm not going to cart her down there. She has a right to elect whoever is on the ballot. Why does she have to come down here and this and that? MR. BURGESS: Correct, yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Does it say -- and I'm sorry for not knowing. Does it say the general council annual meeting is the only time we can make nominations? MR. BURGESS: The tribal council at the meeting, yes. That's the only time the tribal council comes together, once annually. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Because we then don't have any information as to whether or not the people that are nominated for the tribal administrator have the qualifications to do the job that it takes to be a TA, let alone whether or not they're -- have been approved to -- MR. BURGESS: See, this is not the first time that there's an effort to educate every one and to bring in qualified people as the TA. I'll get back to you. Yes, ma'am? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think if we're going to have an election, we should have more information, not less. And it's important to know the qualifications and to have the background check. That makes us make a better informed decision, so I think we should do this. We should have the information. MR. BURGESS: I'm going to go to a former TA himself, too. Mr. Pekah, do you recall the process that the CBC at that time put in place for the people to elect the TA in '06. MR. PEKAH: When I got in back in the '80s, it was by qualifications for the job. MR. BURGESS: Hired by? MR. PEKAH: By the CBC. Now, the second time, we went on a national search for a TA and with qualifications. And when you were in, you were voted in, and there was a vote taken on the floor of retaining you. I wasn't allowed that opportunity. I asked for it. We just threw a bunch of people in there and took a vote, so we've taken it that away. But I prefer a national search and, you know, a national -- all the ballots to all the people. That will be the best decision to do. Our tribal administrator, you have to know these programs, you have to work these programs. And the decisions that are made, as you know, with finance and those things, we're able to go on and do better things now. But, again, it's been we vote at the general council, we come in and whatever, and it's been a mess the last few years. MR. ASEPERMY: I believe Juanita was also a former tribal administrator. You were voted in by the folks that showed up at the gym. You were also voted out by one vote, by the way, by the same folks a year later, correct? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. And I really believe that the tribal administrator is a job that must be able to work with the CBC, support what the CBC is doing, and it really should be a job where qualifications and knowledge of programs. As Gene says, I think that's very critical. And so to take nominations off the floor, that's really not a good way to do it. I think it needs careful study, careful planning, and the selection will be the best individual, and all the people should have a right to do that. Maybe somebody's serving in Iraq and they're not able to come here to the general council to vote, so not everybody has that opportunity. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a problem with maybe somebody with a high school education trying to supervise someone with maybe a master's. My nephew, not to mention names, he holds two degrees, and someone with a high school or junior college education is trying to supervise him. When you nominate from the floor, it's a popularity contest. When you elect from the floor, it's a popularity contest. The person with the most relatives is going to win, or that makes the most promises. MR. WHITEWOLF: It's the same way with CBC. You tell me what's different about the tribal administrator and electing CBC members. MR. CLARK: I think there's an element missing here. If I buy stock in Walt Disney Company, every year they have an annual meeting. They get together at a place, a gymnasium or whatever. But they have the opportunity -- I have the opportunity to send my vote by proxy. I'm not suggesting we do that, because I don't know the complications of doing that, but that's what -- that's the element that's missing here. By the constitution -- and I was, in 1966, one of the persons who worked on the original constitution. By the constitution, we talk about getting together for an annual meeting in the gymnasium, some place. Walt Disney gets together in some place at an annual meeting. But I, if I own one share of stock or 1,000 shares of stock, I can vote by proxy. That's the element that's missing. Again, I'm not suggesting. That would be a very complicated thing to do, but that's the element that's missing here, I think. MR. BURGESS: And what he's saying, folks, is that if you're not going to be here, you let somebody else vote for you, how many ever votes you have. But, again, that's kind of what happens, if you want to say it that way when we bring all of our families. When I got elected I didn't have but four direct family members there, and it was by ballot and then a runoff, which they started doing then, but we're following the constitution. We are following the constitution. This is the first body that's going to do this. You know, we didn't set up the parameters that the other CBC did: Must apply and interview and then come before the whole council and have this long -- I think there were two of you, Gene, in '06, or was it '07, that had to get up and stand and talk about their qualifications and interview process, then it boiled down again favoritism, family-type thing. We're going to shut this off here. Bill, one last comment. MR. VOELKER: Just to clarify: So what we're saying is to adhere to the constitution the way you're describing, whether it's TA or anything, that we need a vote of the people, then that is put on a ballot, just like we vote for committeemen? Is that what you're saying? MR. BURGESS: And they would do like the CBC members. You'd be interviewed, list your qualifications and stand on the platform. The difference is the TA must work with the CBC in the direction that we go with. Nothing illegal, but being supportive of what the CBC itself in the growth and development of programs and opportunities. MR. VOELKER: So the mechanism is on the ballot. So if there's any question that would normally be brought to general council, that the question its asking for a vote of the people, which we've all assumed for so many years that's what we did at general council. An important question can then go on the ballot as well if it's presented? MR. BURGESS: If it's not the budget or it's not the elected officials, if it's not having to do, then that's a different arena. What I'm saying, if you're bringing up an issue or topic that if it's not a budget line item and it's not subject to the business at hand, which would be the election process and the line items, then it's totally different. It hasn't been done that way. Do you have something specific? MR. VOELKER: Yes, I am, as a result of things that came up yesterday. After 10 years being an official program of the Comanche Nation by resolution, we have the CBC member who wants to remove that status from us. So the intent was, well, then I need to go to CBC. We don't get a penny. Ten years, we received money one year. But all we want to do is if that official status is altered or taken away from us, as Mr. Tippeconnie wants to do, that affects the ability for us to distribute feathers. Not that we will lose those eagles. We'll have to put them under a program that takes away our ability to legally give molten feathers to tribal members, which we have done for so many years. So my question is, is I intended to go before general council and present this to the people and get a vote of the people so that the authority is higher than what you all give us here. That's my question. So do I need to get this -- MR. BURGESS: If you're looking for status without money -- what you're asking for is recognition by tribal council to be the official -- MR. VOELKER: Just to adhere to the language that the CBC signed into resolution last year. MR. BURGESS: Will this protect your status under the federal guidelines, that you can do this for tribal members without making a permit for each individual each time? MR. VOELKER: No, as an official program of the tribe, which we have exist now and have for 10 years, we have legal authority under the Native Religious Use program, a very specific program, to distribute feathers basically immediately to tribal members upon request. Once the tribal member is verified, and we have to see the CDIB card, and the feather is logged in, we can distribute feathers immediately; where the federal system, the federal repository, sometimes you have to wait five years, as you well know. So it's important that our status remain exactly how it's spelled out in the resolution that the CBC approved last year. But if that is altered from that official entity, do I go before general council? MR. ASEPERMY: We haven't done any action on that. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We're still discussing that. MR. BURGESS: That will come out in our discussion with you on provision and guidelines. MR. VOELKER: My point is, we're right around the corner from general council. If I need the general council's vote of confidence for our official program so that we don't have our status altered any, then that's what I need to do. MR. ASEPERMY: Give us 10 days, because we still want to come back with you on those items. MS. ISAAC: Does he just get on the agenda? MR. BURGESS: He's asking because -- the reason it would be on the agenda is because it's something that's benefiting the whole tribe, all members. It's not asking for money, he's asking for that recognition. MR. VOELKER: Our resolution states specifically that we're a tribal entity within the Comanche Nation responsible for our relationship with the eagles and distribution of feathers without the guarantee of funding. It's spelled out. We don't come to y'all for money. MR. WHITEWOLF: I think I'd go to general council, because they don't have that authority. MR. BURGESS: There are some rules in here that says we are to follow the laws and ordinances and all that that's given to the CBC. That's where we have the authority. But he's not off this resolution yet. We're still going to have discussions with him. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Don't we have to vote on what you're putting up in front of us? MR. BURGESS: When we put it on the ballot, yes. MS. ISAAC: As long as he's a tribal member working for the tribe -- MR. BURGESS: He's not off yet. There is no revision rescinding of our resolution recognizing him as an official entity. MR. TIPPECONNIE: That's not the intent. I just raised a question. MR. VOELKER: Bob, you sat right in that chair yesterday and you said, in front of everybody else -- MR. BURGESS: That's a new topic. That has nothing to do with it. MR. VOELKER: It has everything to do with it. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to -- this resolution, Mr. Norman, are we doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening by passing this? MR. NORMAN: All of the above. I mean, I think what you've heard in the discussion over the past however long we've been talking about it is the fact that for a number of years there has been a wide array of views of how the constitution should be interpreted in that regard. It uses the phrase "hire". It doesn't use the term "elect". Your CFR Court has interpreted that a particular way. Your practice has been more like an election practice, but it has not included all of your tribal members. It has included those who have been present at a particular place in time. It doesn't require it to be done annually, but the practice has been do to it annually. All of those issues are a matter of interpretation that aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution. Our recommendation for a number of years has been, you know, not necessarily one direction or the other, but a constitutional amendment that will clearly set out one way or the other how you will perform it. Because, otherwise, there continues to be strife and debate and discussion and aggravation over what that process is, and who gets into that position and what their qualifications are and all that sort of thing. That doesn't do anything except create and continue with these hard feelings. So that's really where we need to go. Whether that can get done or not, I don't know. MR. ASEPERMY: You didn't answer my question. If by passing this resolution, are we in violation of the constitution? MR. NORMAN: About a third of the people here believe you are, about and a third of the people believe you aren't, and the others are not sure whether you are our aren't. It depends on who you're talking to. The constitution is not clear. Legally, it is not clear. It says hire, it does not say elect, so why are you going through an election process? At the same time, there's a strong opinion from tribal members that there ought to be a lot of people involved in an election-type process to do that. So who are we to say no, you shouldn't be in that process? Unfortunately, the constitutional language doesn't comport with what the practice has been, and you have to go through certain steps to change the constitution, but the two don't line up. MR. ASEPERMY: I would like to get the opinion of a former chairman, Mr. Burgess. Ron, what's your take on this? MR. RON BURGESS: I remember when that was put in the constitution. MR. ASEPERMY: Well, not just a tribal -- MR. RON BURGESS: Let me start at the beginning. It came about for a variety of reasons. But the thing is, is what the attorney just said. We need to go back to the way it was. We need to change that constitution back, make that amendment so that the CBC can advertise and hire this person, the right person for this job. You know, I don't believe that anywhere you'll find an elected tribal administrator. I think you're adding more problems to this by passing this resolution. It's been going on the way it's been going on now. You need to address the problem properly, and that's through the constitution. You need to do a change. They need to come before us, they need to apply, you need to do a national search. You need to find somebody that's going to benefit the tribe and they need to work under the direction of the CBC. That's it. It worked before. That's how you need to do it. You keep adding, you keep piling on by these resolutions and other resolutions. Clear it up once and for all. It's going to stay the way it is now until that constitution is passed. We're going to continue to debate. Work with the attorneys and get a constitutional amendment and change it. MR. BURGESS: One point we have not brought out: Many of you are aware, but you don't know the number. Sixty-five percent of the eligible members vote absentee. So you're saying that the 600 people who might show here to council have more authority to vote for somebody on the floor than 65 percent of people who don't have a chance to hear or evaluate because there's no explanation of qualifications and experience. A statement. That's it. MR. ASEPERMY: I just put straw vote. MR. BURGESS: Well, the attorneys said one-third and one-third. I heard more like three-fourths positive to do something about it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Does the constitution say that the general council hires the administrator? MR. BURGESS: It says tribal council. Annual tribal council is what it's called. MS. ISAAC: We all know that at general council, the people that are there are trying their best to use what we can that day to make a decision. Most of us are there that day to do that. But there are some people that come drunk, and how are these people going to be -- I'm serious, because it's happened in the past. There's people that disrupt, that are drinking, that deter a person's thoughts that day. So are we going to address this? The general council is coming up. We need to address some of this stuff. MR. BURGESS: Well, we also need to address not only that, being inebriated or smelling of alcohol, or acting in a way that would denote someone's under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Stop them at the door, breath test, want to do a body check. We need those airport things. But to answer Vincent's question: Vincent, in our constitution it states Article V, Duties of the Tribal Council. Again, Duties of Tribal Council, in Section 9, to hire administrator/manager to administrate the tribal government. Administrator/manager shall be under direction of business committee. That's what it says, Vincent. And I know you know that. MR. THOMAS NARCOMEY: It's not denying nobody a right. If anything, it enhances the right. When you got that meeting, you got a few minutes to look over the resums and evaluate whoever's running. You can't do it. Like I say, this is a Band-aid until we amend the constitution. I mean, I'm not going to go get a petition of 200 signatures. I haven't got the time to do all that. MR. BURGESS: Lanny said ask for a straw vote. Those of you who agree that it's time to amended the constitution, raise your hand. MR. ASEPERMY: Twenty-eight. I agree. MR. BURGESS: Those who don't agree with amending the constitution, raise your left hand. I'm just asking, this is just general opinion. I saw five. MR. ASEPERMY: Twenty-eight to five. MR. BURGESS: Twenty-eight said we should change it, five who said no. I'm coming to that point. We're not even changing the constitution when you read it again. Go home, read it, you can talk about it, you can say I'm wrong. But you know what? I've only been home for nine years, but I've lived with it for 50 years. Okay? There's things in here that need to be adjusted and improved upon, not changed wholesale. You've got questions here about a lot of things that go on, but I've had to work with this system as a CBC member, and then the TA, and out there on the committee, and so I've seen a lot of the government internal. A lot of you have, too. So for the majority here that say it's time to make the changes, we want to do that. It won't be now or tomorrow, but it's going to be soon. We're trying to establish community meetings around, and we're going to do that. It's going to have your input. Not just us, it's yours. This is your constitution. It's going to be your right to tell everybody your opinion on that constitution and how far it can go and how far it can't go, because there are some things -- like creating the Comanche Nation Enterprises, they have their own charter, they're federally chartered. There's not a whole lot we can do about it now because we created them for the future. That's what the constitution allows us to do on behalf of the future. MR. HENSON: I want to say one thing, for those that can hear me. Since I've been in office, I realize the vast business that we have as Comanches, and we're going to have to change with that. We're well worth over a billion dollars. We're hiring people -- we need to step up on what we're doing in hiring people. We've got to. If we're going to survive as a nation and we're going to do business and be successful at it, we've got to get an economic base and we've got to get people with the knowledge to get in these jobs and run these jobs. We have to step up our program in that area. We have to. We can't just keep putting people in. For instance, myself. I have no experience running a tribal government. I have plenty of experience outside, I've been in a lot of director positions, I've been working for the Indians, BIA, IHS. I've got experience in that area. But coming into this area and knowing the amount of business and the amount of money we've got and what we're into, we're going to have to step above me to get people to run this organization. We can't stay back anymore. We've got to get forward. We've got to hire people that knows what they're doing in this. There's a lot of money and there's a lot of business involved in this. So my suggestion is think high, think high. Go for that person that's going to be able to run your business. It's your money, it's my money, it's everybody's money that's Comanche here, and we need to put people in those jobs that know what they're doing, including people on the CBC. Every year we get up, we elect people. There's no real qualifications for a CBC member. But they come in and we come in, and I was just astounded at what the Comanche is worth now, what the nation is worth. And I just want to say, just think, raise your sights. We've got to go in that direction now. We can't get left behind anymore. MS. ISAAC: Again, I can, remember when we started with the bingo hall down here, we were the first Indians in Oklahoma, I believe, to even start that. But now it seems to me like we're at the bottom, because everybody's got beautiful casinos, and we're okay, but we didn't keep up with what we should have done. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Florida Seminoles started bingo the same time we did, and now look where they are and look where we are. MR. NELSON: Could I have permission to speak? MR. BURGESS: Mr. Nelson, you said something? MR. NELSON: Yes, could I have permission to speak, sir? MR. BURGESS: Sure. MR. NELSON: You know, the last month of Mr. Pewewardy's life, he's my uncle, I asked him pointblank at church: "Doc, why did you bring that to the people to put on the constitution?" He said, "Because elected are politicians. The only advocate for the people, the tribal council has to have at least one." And I said, "What do you mean, 'at least one'?" We need to have a hire. We need to have that hire. So I see the pros, I see the cons, I see the -- you know, like the lawyer said, like the past chairman said, you know, it needs to be reworded. It does, it really does. You know, me coming in. Like Gene leaving. When Gene left and Johnny came in, Gene left him a template to follow. Did he follow it? No. When I came in, Johnny was gone. I came in, was there a template to follow? Heck no. You know, there's always this time period, like the first two months, the tribe is almost kind of in a jackpot. What did they do? Where are you at? And I brought forward to Robert Tippeconnie, he didn't want to bring it forward, that there needs to be a time period of transition. There has to be. But back to why Mr. Pewewardy put it on the constitution, why it is on this constitution? TAs were being fired right and left by the body. They'd get something started. I don't like you, you're out of here. This is the only, only check for the tribal council. There's two hires by the tribal council, two hires, and they both have a TA: Tribal attorneys and tribal administrator. That's all I got to say. MR. HENSON: I make a motion to table. MRS. NARCOMEY: I'd like to talk about Doc. He probably did more for the Comanches than any one person. And that's saying -- it would take an hour to talk about him. But what I wanted to say right now is our tribe has been gone for years without a board of directors. Some departments, it is required and may be helpful. Some ignore the CBC, some take authority from the heads of departments and are not helpful, some are too numerous and add to the problem, and some are paid too much per meeting. Are they all needed? MR. BURGESS: Good question. I hope everybody heard that. She's questioning the amount of people and boards that we have: Is it really needed? She is saying that -- she also mentioned that Doc Pewewardy did a lot for the tribe, brought a lot of positive things to us, as this section in the constitution was seen at that time. It was a positive move in a time of turmoil and growth. We are developing. We are moving into some new times here, and we have to come up with a better way that tribal council can be effective within itself and for the tribe. How I view it -- and I'm not saying anything against the constitution. I quoted y'all the constitution. You go home and read it and you'll figure that out the same way I did, after much discussion. And it's from a tribal member who came to us, several tribal members. This isn't something we did in secret or in a think tank by ourselves. We've listened to a lot of you. We know there's a problem every year, and that problem doesn't manifest itself until 30, 90 days, maybe six months after the election. And we're trying to find a way to alleviate the situation through what we currently have. That's all. What the law currently tells us to do, that's what we're trying to do. There's a motion by Mr. Henson here to table. I need a second. MR. ASEPERMY: I think it needs to be reworded -- MR. BURGESS: You want to table it? MR. ASEPERMY: -- to include the attorneys there and any other specifics. I second it. MR. BURGESS: Second has been made by Mr. Asepermy to table this motion. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. One abstention. The ayes have it. MS. ISAAC: At the general council, can you put it before the people there whether they want to include their relatives that live out of state if y'all decide not to let it go? MR. BURGESS: We're going to have some discussion on it. It will probably come to our community meetings. I don't want my relatives not to vote. And how many of you are going to get five phone calls from relatives out of state? Raise your hand. That's why we'll have this discussion continue when we have our community meetings. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's the purpose of having general council if you're not going to let the people do anything then? What's the use of having a general council? MR. BURGESS: Well, we have an annual tribal council. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For what? MR. BURGESS: To approve these line item budgets and to make nominations for the CBC. That's the tribal council. It's spelled out here, Bud. You know that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I know. I'm just asking in case somebody don't know. MR. BURGESS: I'm glad you're out of business. My ears would be lower than this if I had any left. MS. AITSON: Let's move on. We're in a hurry. MR. BURGESS: Now, Item Number 11: A motion to amend the Fiscal Year 2011 budget by adding emergency management assistance in the amount of $200,000. This line item will be in addition to the $45,000 already in place for emergency management officer. MR. WHITEWOLF: What happens if you don't have no emergencies of that money? MR. BURGESS: The money stays put, not to be utilized. I think we should just leave it aside and let it stay there, because that's the one that we would tap into. MR. WHITEWOLF: This is a one-time deal until it gets utilized? MR. BURGESS: Right. If we don't use it in the coming year, we just leave it alone and leave it on the ballot until next year. MR. WHITEWOLF: You don't think it would disappear, do you? MR. BURGESS: Not while I'm here. MS. ISAAC: We have all kinds of emergencies, so this would be natural emergency management like tornados and floods. MR. ASEPERMY: Snowstorm, ice storm, tornados, floods. MR. BURGESS: This is like right now, where we're working to coordinate all costs and expenses to be reimbursed by FEMA. Now, remember, some disasters may not be declared by FEMA, but we may have to help our people like we did Anadarko with the tornado, but we have to help some to that extent. Power lines, clearing trees maybe, but then other assistance will come from other programs. MRS. GALLEGOS: When we had this emergency this year, where did the moneys come from to perform whatever, everything that was done to assist? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Where that money came from, we've had in the past, you know, when we -- because we've been in high risk, we have to put money up front on contracts, tribal money, likely from gaming revenue. Okay, that money is put up front. Then when we complete the contract and we perform according to the terms of the contract, we're in compliance, then we're reimbursed. That reimbursement money then goes back in as BIA reimbursements. Okay. We've had the fortune, then, to have some of that. So in this case -- you have to seek somewhere. You can't use program money. That's already planned as programs. You can't get into that. So this money, then, comes on top of that. It's really from previous years. Some of it goes way back in years. MRS. GALLEGOS: So it's sitting like in general funds. MR. TIPPECONNIE: It will come in like a separate fund, a reimbursement fund from these contracts. Some of those contracts are way back years, because we weren't performing. MRS. GALLEGOS: You have a line item for reimbursement funds? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes, it went into that, yes, account. So that's where we were able to say in this case, there's -- we set aside 200,000. I might say, at this point, sizing up all we've spent on this emergency, we spent 174,000. So I'm glad to see -- now what we hope in the long term -- that's an interim action. What we hope in the long term is FEMA. You know, if the federal agency reimburses us, we get this 174,000 back. MRS. GALLEGOS: Also during this emergency situation, there was a lot of -- I, for example -- we set up the -- we were asked to set up our community building in Apache, and it was done on short notice, so there was a lot of things that we needed to do to prepare for that. And some -- there was things that needed to be done to subsidize what Red Cross did as far as bringing food in. And so a lot of individuals used money out of their own pocket to buy fuel, to buy food, and whatever else was needed to maintain that. Not only ours, but other places. So my question is, those volunteers submit their receipts to get back -- we were told we would get reimbursed for what we put out for that. To date, I and a couple of other people I know of haven't been reimbursed. So if you have that -- what's the process and why is it taking so long? Because we were volunteers. We weren't staff. No one paid us to be there. We didn't get time off for being there, we volunteered. Not only at that -- our building, but at the other building when it was set up. So my question is, when do the volunteers get their reimbursements back? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Maybe the TA can answer this a little more. It's really the emergency management. MRS. GALLEGOS: I'm not saying pay me for my time, I'm saying paying me for when I put out money to buy diesel to run the generators. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Let me try to answer it this way, and correct me, TA, or any other. This is the responsibility of that emergency management group. They come over there. One of the real requirements is, you have to be documenting that. You have to show that you did these things. We have to see the receipts, we have to see all that data. Now, if that's given, then it goes into the tally that they're providing to us on all the costs. So I don't know if that was explained to you, but you have to have all that documentation. If it's a volunteer, they have to sign in and sign out on all their time, or whatever they provided; like you're saying, if it's diesel or something. All those receipts have to be available, they have to be documented, the dates of all this activity, who did it, all that kind of thing. We need all that documentation. Now that's turned over to the team, that emergency management group. MRS. GALLEGOS: Donna Wahnee and Charles are in charge of the team? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. MRS. GALLEGOS: So once they get that information, where does it go? Does it have to be like a regular payment request, have to be processed and approved? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Yes. MR. NELSON: Sandra, when I came over there, when you were cooking biscuits for breakfast, remember, I said everything, document even the mileage part, document it all. You got it all? MRS. GALLEGOS: I'm going to tell you what. No one's asked me for it other than the receipts. No one's said, Sandra, this is what we need. We need to wrap this up. They did call me and tell me they were having a meeting past Tuesday, but I was out of town. I was in Tulsa. They called me two hours before the meeting. I said I'm not going to be able to make that. MR. NELSON: Go ahead and give it to me, Sandra. I'll make sure it's reimbursed. MRS. GALLEGOS: I did turn in all the receipts and all that. The forms as far as volunteers was turned in, also. They were happened in to Wahnee. MR. NELSON: And the time from all of that, the volunteers, everything? MRS. GALLEGOS: It's all on there. But like I said, we had -- I'll tell you the excuse I was given was that the firefighters have to get paid first. Now, I don't understand that, but I was told the firefighters have to get paid first before anybody else gets reimbursed. Now, that was from Donna Wahnee herself. So I don't know what that means and how that comes into play, you know, with this emergency management or whatever, but that was the excuse I was given for why it's taking so long. It's going to be a month here pretty soon. MR. BURGESS: All right. Thank you. Give it to him. MR. HENSON: I make a motion. MR. BURGESS: Motion on the floor to approve this motion, Mr. Henson. MR. ASEPERMY: Can we read the motion? Is this the one on emergency management? MR. BURGESS: Yes, it is. I'll do it again. A motion to amend the Fiscal Year 2011 budget by adding emergency management assistance in the amount of $200,000. This line item will be in addition to the $45,000 already in place for emergency management officer. That's the motion made by Mr. Henson. MR. NARCOMEY: I like that motion because it helps the needy, not the greedy. MR. BURGESS: I need a second. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Who made the motion, Mr. Henson? MR. BURGESS: Mr. Henson made the motion. MR. ASEPERMY: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Asepermy. Call for the question here. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. MS. ISAAC: On that emergency management, whoever is heading that, does he have people in different districts to -- I never knew anything about that meeting -- but people in different districts that was affected by that? Can we be -- can y'all let us know so we can be volunteers? Because there needs to be more than one person at Apache. If they can't get ahold of her, which they couldn't in the first place, how are we going to be involved? MR. BURGESS: I was looking for Charles, but he's not here. He's probably in the office next door. He's part of that leadership team on emergency management. But that should be the plan, because we've talked about that in the past for our tribal-wide emergency management plan, that each community would have a core group of volunteers that will be called upon. As soon as something happens in that district, that committee should meet or come together and notify our management team, and then they're in place. Now we're looking at tornado season. MRS. GALLEGOS: I didn't make it on Tuesday to that emergency management meeting. I did make it on Wednesday. That was one of the things that they did talk about. They were talking about what went wrong, what needs to be fixed and that type of thing. We did talk about there being a change of command, different people that have access to their community buildings. But keep in mind, you know, I was without electricity for 11 days myself. So right in the midst of that, when they were trying to contact me, I had no electricity. You know, I lost my cell phone. So, anyway, but there's -- first of all, what happens when you have those problems? Why can't you take care of your immediate family? You know, you take care of yourself, your household. Once I was able to do that, then we could venture out. MR. BURGESS: That's why the committee should be more than three to five people. It should be five to 10 people. Item Number 12: This is a motion to advertise some positions here at the tribe, giving direction to the TA and HR office. This is to direct the TA to advertise in accordance with HR policies the following positions: Emergency management service officer, Tribal Employment Rights officer, and a chief finance officer. That's your motion there, Lanny. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add to that a land management specialist. MR. BURGESS: Okay. Advertise again? MR. ASEPERMY: Oh, it's already been? Disregard then. Just those three positions. I make the motion. MR. HENSON: I'll second it. MR. NELSON: Sir? Do you want to word it as that or as realty specialist? MR. TIPPECONNIE: Realty. MR. BURGESS: As it was advertised, he said. The way it's been done. I guess this was advertised in the past. MR. TIPPECONNIE: Realty. MR. ASEPERMY: Have you readvertised that? MR. TIPPECONNIE: No. MR. NELSON: No. MR. ASEPERMY: Okay. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We may readvertise. MR. NELSON: You did make an advertisement. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We had to advertise. It's been done. MR. ASEPERMY: So these three positions have not? MR. TIPPECONNIE: No, these have not. MR. ASEPERMY: My motion, call for the question. MR. HENSON: Second. MR. BURGESS: Second by Mr. Henson on this. Call for the question. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you doing it in the newspaper or strictly by computer. MR. BURGESS: Both. It's on the Website, but we put a notice in the paper. It's been very expensive to publish the whole job description. We put a notice in the paper that these positions are advertised, and to call the tribe or refer to the Website for the application and complete job description, and they're advertised for a minimum of 14 days. MR. NELSON: Yes, sir. It's like a little bitty -- it's our emblem, for you to contact our Website. It's so expensive. MR. BURGESS: Motion on the floor. It has been seconded. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." (Aye.) MR. BURGESS: All those opposed, same sign. All those abstain, same sign. All five, motion passes. MR. ASEPERMY: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here since 10 o'clock. I'd like to take a break. (Break held.) (Mr. Henson leaves meeting at this point.) MR. BURGESS: On our agenda, we're going to be moving into New and Old Business. There's always a new wrinkle coming to us when we discuss some of our trust, trust law, trust litigation and trust responsibilities. We have Mr. Tahkofper here. He's a tribal member, geologist well-known in the field. He's aware of hydrology. The issue we're talking about is our water. We have a family in water dispute now, tribal members, and we have tribal member land around them where an individual is trying to drill water off of a nontrust allotment, and they want to drill water which affects the water table around everybody. Mr. Tahkofper has brought it to us, but we're going to discuss the issues of water and drillings, possibly. So Mr. Tahkofper, I want to turn the floor over to you, and do your presentation to us, please. MR. TAHKOFPER: All right. Well, this all started when -- I'm sure that most of you are aware of the presence in the past two years of the water issue between the states, the State of Oklahoma and the State of Texas, whereby the Dallas District or the Tarrant County Water District wants to take water from the Red River that's the overflow water or the discharged water that comes from the streams in Oklahoma, namely Beaver Creek, West Cache, East Cache. They want the use those watersheds to -- they figure from -- that flow into the Red River. They want to use an ungodly amount of water from that river. My question has always been, how are we going to -- are they going to quantify what discharge comes from these streams, which constitute most of the allottees' land and tribal land. How can they tell us in stating the amount of water they want to take from these drainage areas, how can they quantify what they need? And it is an ungodly amount of water that they want per year. The danger there, and my question, too, is that if they sign a compact with the State of Oklahoma, and they probably will. Somehow they'll get it through. How are they going to get the water that they promised to the State of Texas for their use? If we can't deliver that amount of water, you don't know how much it is, you don't know how much the streams discharge, you don't know what use the State of Oklahoma has. It gets into the question of, if that doesn't happen, the State of Texas will sue Oklahoma for the discrepancy in the amount of water they want to take. So in doing that, what they did is they relied on a compact with the eastern tribes in Oklahoma. They negotiated a contract, compact with the State of Oklahoma to where they would lease them or sell them some water rights to their land in the east. Now, lately they've been coming down here and holding a couple of meetings trying to induce the seven tribes to sign this water compact so that they could lease or buy the water rights from the tribes. That includes a lot of you allottees. All of you have land. So what they would do, they know that if they can't deliver all this water to the State of Texas, they could get some of the ground water. That's what's happened before to the State of New Mexico between Texas. It will happen here. They've already -- I've read articles in the newspaper where the State of Oklahoma says to the State of Texas, well, we can negotiate with the seven tribes in the State of Oklahoma in the southern part, middle part, those that have streams that drain -- the creeks I just mentioned. These are watersheds that flows through all allottees' properties. If you allow this to happen, you -- they will take your allotted water that's under your property. You'll only receive so much of it. They will take the rest of it to satisfy any litigation that might arise from the State of Oklahoma and State of Texas. They're already planning it. I've attended a couple of meetings. I just found out about them. I wasn't invited, but I just found out about them, so I went. So I think all the allottees, you need to be aware that, you know, the State of Oklahoma is trying to negotiate with the leaders of the tribes to sign a contract so they can take your groundwater or lease the rights to it. That's a definite danger to you. There is a danger. At one of the meetings not long ago, I had one of the attorneys, they came down from the State of Texas, there were five of them, Tarrant County attorneys. Tarrant County wants to lease or buy these water rights from the streams that I just mentioned. There were five of them. One of them had the audacity to tell me, "If you don't use your water on your property, you're going to loss it." I didn't know what to say. I couldn't say what I wanted to say to him. All I did was object strongly. If they said that to me, what are they going to do to you? The said if you don't use your water, we're going to take it and only leave so much. That has been my concern. I'm pretty well versed. This is my business. Water and geology has always been my business. I have to know, and I do know. Yet I've been told by some that disagree, that have no knowledge of ground water drilling or the sediments that make up the certain sands or limestone that the water comes from, they have no knowledge of that. They hear certain things, and they take things out of context and they become sudden experts. We're going to have too much of this type of chemical in this water. And I'm standing there -- the first time I heard that. And I'm, you know, the guy that knows. MR. BURGESS: Would you mention, Carl, the older plan was to drill for water behind our casino? MR. TAHKOFPER: Yes, that was the original plan I had brought in 2003. At that time, I don't remember who the chairman was, but I put a proposal -- MR. BURGESS: That was Johnny Wauqua. MR. TAHKOFPER: -- to drill a water well down there by the casino to supply the casino and the water park to save money on the water bills. And I will say that I presented this first to Melvin Kerchee, Jr. I presented it to him and he said he'd take it to Johnny. I'll have to say this: Melvin, he was for this 100 percent. Johnny wasn't. I never heard anymore. I had already picked a site, I'd shown him what the well would look like, I showed him the sediments underground, and it never went anywhere. That was seven years ago, 2003. And at that time, he showed me some statements and letters from the Oklahoma Water Resource Board saying we need your water codes, we want your water codes. And I asked Johnny at that time: Do you have any water codes? The State of Oklahoma wants them so that they can -- they know what they can and can't do. They didn't know what I was talking about. And I ask them even today: Do you have water codes? No, they don't. So the danger there is that if you stay silent on this issue when somebody asks you, it says it's okay if I stay silent. Today you still don't have water codes yet. But the crux of the whole matter is that, and I've told the chairman, Mike, this, that you are sitting on some water down there all along this East Cache and West Cache Creek. You're sitting on a tremendous amount of water that can be used, utilized by the tribe for its own use in the times of drought that are coming. They're going to come. We're already in that cycle now. I told the chairman that if you don't drill this water well, find out what we have, and make plans to use it -- it's just like a giant federal reserve bank full of cash waiting for you. And I don't understand why the tribe don't go after something that's going to make you billions. In times of drought, when summer gets here -- a lot of you know that. When summer gets hot, and the lakes, they go down, I hate to drink that water. It tastes terrible. So if you go and try to buy water, you can buy it during times when water is getting scarce due to the drought, you can buy it, but it's going to cost you $1 a bottle, $1.50 a bottle or a litter. You can do the same thing down at the casino on a limited basis. Sell it for $.50 a litter. Look at the money you'd make. And you'd do the bottling right there for yourself. Let somebody else take the expense to do that. Make use of that money. You could also help your allottees by leasing some of their water rights, giving them some wells and say, hey, we'll take so much of this our self. They'll make money, you'll make money, too. That way you're helping the tribal member. But to have the state come up and say, Mr. Tahkopfer, if you're not going to use your water you're going to lost it. MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, fellow members, I just want to advocate on behalf of what Mr. Tahkofper is talking about. All you have to do is turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, and there has been a water crisis that has been coming into this area, this region, for years. And as long as we can continue to go to the tap, and we can turn the faucet on and water comes out, it doesn't seem like a crisis right now. But not too long ago, during this recent ice storm, was Fort Sill and to some extent some of the Lawton communities paralyzed by no water. If you have a well, if you have these resources, which, by the way, water being a natural resource, you can't create it. We can't grow it. We're not going to make more of it. So what we have, we need to do all we can to protect it. And so I just want to, you know, advocate on behalf of him that the tribe continue to pursue that, and then get this information out to the allottees and landowners so that they know how to protect themselves and guard their interests in the times that are going to come. I've recently gone to a school about a year ago, and this water crisis is not just here. And I'm not trying to sound like a warmonger, but there is national -- I mean, there are crises going on around this globe. And the prediction at a conference that I was at a year ago indicated that the next war, that major, major war would be fought, it wouldn't be fought over oil, it would be fought over water. MR. ASEPERMY: Did you identify yourself, Rhonda? This is Rhonda Williams, Rhonda Chalepah Williams. She's an enrolled member of the tribe. She's an active duty major currently based at Fort Sill and an Iraq War veteran. MR. BURGESS: Go ahead, Robert. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Carl, you were talking about allottee water rights. Now, I understand that this area is still considered a reservation area, which would be considered a reservation water right. Would they supercede the individual water? MR. TAHKOFPER: No, I think original allotments have -- they would be the first appropriated of the water, of the land. So they would have to come first for the creation of the boundaries. The tribe, the tribe themselves, the reservation did not appropriate. They weren't first appropriated. The first appropriated were the original owners of the land. MR. WHITEWOLF: That was reservation area. The KCA reservation area, it seems like the KCA would start the ball rolling as far as determining the responsibility and, you know, your codes and everything. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, they would start them if they could agree. You know, you can always get one tribe that's not going to agree. MR. WHITEWOLF: If it is KCA, one can't benefit more than the other. MR. TAHKOFPER: You have one problem. Take the Apache Tribe. They're the smallest tribe. They have the smallest area. And to me, I don't know how you would quantify their water rights, because they're the smallest ones. MR. BURGESS: Let me address that with y'all. Mr. Tahkofper made two statements here that I wanted him to bring out because he's the geologist. One statement is about the water. The way I viewed it in these discussions with the attorneys that met with the Eight Tribes, Eight Tribes Association. My reply to them was that this water, because it's centered in our reservation boundary, to me, and I hope that the CBC agrees, and I think you all will, that it's a trust income. We are not utilizing it like the tivo and drilling wells and trying to sell it; that because it's like oil and gas, it's trust income. And any of the lands that were formally allotted now out of allotment, the water basis there, the water under the land, would revert back to the government. And our government would view this as trust income not to be commingled with grants or other incomes. It's a trust asset. So the individuals who have allotments, you're not paying taxes on it at any benefit. No dollar benefit that you would be assessed a dollar value on until you got your own water and wanted to sell it yourself. So, therefore, we're trying to protect your own interest not to have taxation on it. That's my statement to these attorneys, that anything we do is going to be seen as a trust allocation; therefore, non taxable on those individuals who have allotments. Those individuals whose allotments were sold, but the water underneath it, because we didn't give that right up, hopefully -- of course the court's going to come in on that. But that would then come back to the tribe as a whole, would be a trust asset that would be distributed to service us through the tribal government. So that's how I'm trying to protect -- even those allottees who sold their land would be protected with some income. MR. WHITEWOLF: That's why I'm concerned. You talk about the seven tribes. You know, I think that the KCA reservation supercedes those seven tribes. That's our water, not the other four tribes. MR. BURGESS: You're right. Each tribe has got their own boundaries, and I'm speaking on behalf of our one-third. The Apaches decided to give -- right now an agreement to give 40 percent of any income they get. Well, we don't know what it is, but whatever it's going to be, we are going to make sure it's 30 percent or 33 1/3 percent, however it's going to be defined. But that has to be quantified. Mr. Tahkofper took up a very good point. Here's the other issue that I as a leader see. We're paying money to the City of Lawton for water over 10 or 20 acres we own at Lake Lawtonka up here. Some of the trust lands under Lake Elsworth were sold out. My mother lost out on that. She was told to sell her rights, her mineral rights. We lost out on a couple of good oil wells. So, anyway, some lands may not have been sold. But the basis of that, underneath that is the water, too. So we need to see what we really can consider our water, because reservation boundaries haven't been extinguished. Therefore, we're turning to the attorneys to help us determine what right Texas has to come in here and treaty with one tribe without treatying with all of us the same agreement. That's why I think we need to drill a well behind the casino. We'd have to get permission to pipe it over. But if we drilled a well and took ourselves off of Lawton's water bill, so we're not beholden to them and remind them that they have water setting on our trust lands and they've been taking this water. Now, remember, rural water districts as well are drilling wells and taking water out of the ground and selling them back to -- how many of you have homes out here in Paradise Valley or elsewhere? You're paying water bills to a rural water district. That has to be determined, has to be quantified. We're going to have to turn to the attorneys to represent the nation in either Oklahoma court or represent us against Texas if they're going to come in here and try to claim that Oklahoma has to give or sell them water. Darrell has his hand up and someone else had their hand up. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: I just wanted to comment that with the Lake Lawtonka land, the city does pay KCA. It's something like 5,000 a year for that. MR. ASEPERMY: Just for my lack of understanding, I believe this water right thing is part of the 1867 Medicine Lodge Treaty, Carl, that we've never acted on. The State of Arizona, the Gilla River Tribe and the other 12 tribes in Arizona, I believe they've already received a settlement, the Northern Shoshones out of Fort Deshain, over water rights, it just hasn't come to us in Oklahoma yet. MR. TAHKOPFER: But it's coming now, it's here now. MR. ASEPERMY: And I'm looking at my brother over there, Harry Mithlo. Our land our grandfather and grandmother had, we got Cache Creek running through it, right? Where does all that water go? It goes to Lake Elsworth. Based on the 1867 Treaty, you know, that's a violation. And anyone else that has land that goes into Lawtonka, Elsworth, the Carnegie Water District, and all of these little things here, we haven't got jack because we haven't -- it hasn't come about. I think the chairman and Robert have headed up this water rights thing for the nation. Am I correct when I say that it's based on the 1867 treaty, Carl? MR. TAHKOPFER: Yes. MR. BURGESS: That would be our last treaty the government recognized all of our boundaries and we gave up whatever. MR. WHITEWOLF: Lanny, that's what I asked Carl about reservation areas superseding individual allotments. KCA would be on the larger scale than just the individual allottees. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I want to make this point. The reservation was never done away with formally. That's why you see our signs on the road. It says Comanche, Kiowa, Apache reservation. Okay. That reservation was established before allotment. When we had that reservation, we did it under a term of an agreement, the agreement being this treaty. So in that treaty, then -- I want to make this point: The federal government is with whom we made the treaty. So the federal government has a responsibility. I use the word "duty". They have a duty to uphold our interest when it comes to water rights. And we must never let them forget that, because we conceded a lot. We lost a lot. And when we created that treaty, we were attempting to reserve something within these boundaries. Water is one of those. And, yes, we can use the word it's an asset, it has value. And it's going to have more value. I might say one thing that's happening, and I put some in the paper sometimes, but the state is doing this planning process. They're sizing up water, who is using water within the State of Oklahoma. There's going to be a town hall on -- this has been going on for over a year. So they're going to have a town hall in May. They've only invited 180 people to come to that town hall. It is by invitation only. But that town hall is going to look at all these issues that were raised up as high priority topics in May. And I feel fortunate -- I'm not trying to talk about myself, but I feel fortunate that I'm one of those 180. So in that session, I want to tell you, through this whole process, from the time it began until now, and we're not conceding. Comanche Nation as one and other tribes, we're not conceding to the state. We're participating in their process because we have rights as Indian people. Okay. I want to say in that process, to this point of time, there's just a couple of us. We brought that whole issue up. Now it's one of the top issues. It's listed as seven issues. There's many of them, but it's a top issue, Indian water rights. So I'm glad we were able to surface this. I want to go further to say this: This whole process, this was undertaken by the Oklahoma Water Board. They have authority to, you know, issue permits for drilling, things like that. They are not a government. So the government with whom we have to work in the State of Oklahoma is the governor. The governor himself, he represents the state. Well, the attorney general, Edmundson, has said there's no question Indian tribes in Oklahoma have water rights. Okay. We're thrilled to hear this. So now what do we do about it? I think, just as Carl is saying, and others are saying here, we have to then do some smart other things. Like our water codes. We really have to get our water codes in place. But more than that, we have to say: What is our water? Where is our water? How much is our water? Now, I might say in a state planing process, it's just a planning process saying who has water where they live, what are their needs. It has not said how much water. That's way down the road. Now, I think as an example here, the KCA has to work together on this, because our reservation is together. In working together, we have to push them, working together, what are our rights. Number one: Clearly, what are our rights? The question was raised over privacy. You know, the reservation rights over the allotment rights. Okay. When it was all tribal land, do we still have all the water under all this land upon the reservation? I challenge people to think this, because I believe this: Lake Lawtonka, why are we paying for any of that water? We talk about this 12 acres. In my opinion, when it comes to water, there's surface water, there's underground water. Oklahoma water law says the residents of Oklahoma do not own the surface water, that's owned by the state. The underground water is the land owners'. Well, we as Indian people disagree. We believe we own all of it, the surface water and the underground water. Okay. In this whole process, then, we have to get fast paced and get on with it before there's a real crisis like Rhonda talks about. It is a crisis now, I'll tell you. If you looked at last year's news articles, all these little communities -- Cache drilled a well. They can't even use that well. Everybody's going to start fighting for water. Well, I think we need to get ahead of it as Indian nations, the three tribes, and say how much, where it is. So that's our -- that's going to have to be our effort here pretty quickly, if we start moving and we do put that as a priority. One thing, as Carl states, if you have water, one of your best actions is to do something about it, like drill a well. I wish we could -- KCA would build some reservoirs. Why don't we start impounding some water? We can sell water off of that, if we want to sell it. But if we impound it, we start discharging the underground aquifer. You know, if it sits in a place, it starts putting water back in the ground. Because as Rhonda said, we're not making it, it's not new. It's the same old water. It goes up in the clouds, it comes back down, it goes up in the clouds, it comes back down. That's the way water is. But, anyway, I think we really have to move as a nation, but we have to move with our partners, the two other tribes. MR. TAHKOPFER: Your own tribe can drill your own with no permission from the Oklahoma Water Resource. MR. TOM NARCOMEY: I don't know. I would think, well, like oil and gas, you probably, in the past 50 years or whatever, you probably had a lot of oil drainage from slant drilling where they go down and drain out of Indian land. I know there's federal laws against it, but I know we don't have any laws. But I was assuming that maybe they're doing the same thing with our water. I think the KCA there, they've already had that problem, water drainage. We need some laws to fix that. MR. BURGESS: Somebody else had their hand in back, and we'll come back to you, Vincent. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just wanted to say as Native American across this country, we're all getting -- we always get dealt a dirty hand. Just like the Navajo Nation, you know, the Grand Canyon furnishes water for California, for Arizona, for New Mexico, for Las Vegas, but the Navajos got about 150 brand new Indian houses through their tribal housing, but they can't get the government or the state to give them water, so those houses are sitting vacant. Nobody can live in them because they don't have no water. The Navajos are being robbed of all the water, and they have rights, too. And us, the KCA people, I understand that there's an artesian well down here at Fort Sill Indian School that used to be Lost Bridge. I remember when I was a kid when we went to school at Fort Sill, that well down there, water just flowed out of it all the time. My question was here about two or three years ago, when I was on the business committee, I said why don't we run our own? Why don't we just put a pump down there and run water to our water park? Why should we pay the City of Lawton for all the water that we're buying from them for that swimming pool? We got the water right there. All we got to do is put a pump down there and pump it over to the water park, but yet we're paying high dollar for it for nothing. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Last summer I visited Caron Yellowfish's program at Fort Sill, and they have no water. They were transferring clients out because they had no water. When summer is here and the water park is open, that leaves them without. The clients are there for a reason. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: About in the '80s, I was reading up on this water crisis in California. Anyway, they went to start into bottling water, so I came to whoever was on council here and I told them, I said, we ought to get our own bottled water business going. There's water down there, but a lot of it is like salt water, this and that. But there's good water. Well, you can get that salt water, you run it through a reverse osmosis, and you can clean it up and sell it. But I think we're on the right track here. I appreciate everything that's going on. MRS. NARCOMEY: Talking about Lake Lawtonka, it was Comanche allotted land, and Lawton bought that land years ago. And then another thing is someone mentioned tivo population. When we first started, we didn't have like committees. The superintendent of the agency conducted the tribal meetings. And at one time, the Comanche maybe were still the most, and we got money according to our population. And the first one that was against it was Phil, which he fought it, but lost. Then later Kenny Saupitty, when he was chairman, he let the Apaches in that water park, the land part. That was the first one that that happened, was under Saupitty. What agreement there was, we should stay with that population. MR. BURGESS: Yes, ma'am. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Carl, I have a question, and this may be also something to worry about. You know, we own some land down there by the casino. You know how the Bureau of Indian Affairs, they say they look out for our lands, and they don't. What's to stop them from, if they're being approached by people from Texas, what's to stop them from signing for us as the landowners? MR. TAHKOFPER: You have to sign yourself, you're the legal authority. You have to sign for yourself, give your permission. They can't do that for you. They don't have that authority. They think they do, but they don't. They have to do what you want, what our government wants -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why I'm saying that is, see, on our leases, that's what we believe. MR. TAHKOPFER: That's what you were led to believe. MS. ISAAC: Do we have a person on the CBC that goes to these mineral rights and landowner meetings in Anadarko? Nobody? MR. ASEPERMY: I don't think we do, do we? MS. ISAAC: There's a meeting coming up, I believe, next week in Anadarko, a meeting of landowners. Who's going? MR. BURGESS: I saw something on that. It is just mineral land owners. MR. TIPPECONNIE: We try to keep -- MR. BURGESS: We'll send the secretary/treasurer or somebody from the tax commission. MR. NARCOMEY: I've got a question. Carl, I didn't hear you when you said something about past chairmen. Was it the past chairman or the past two chairmen that didn't do nothing about it? MR. TAHKOPFER: They didn't think it was worth it. MR. NARCOMEY: The past two chairmen? MR. TAHKOPFER: They didn't think it was important enough. They never acted on it. MR. TIPPECONNIE: I want to make one little point. Cut me off, Chairman, if I talk to much. Private land owners are allowed to request, these are with fee, within our reservation boundaries, they're allowed to request to drill a well for purposes beyond domestic. Domestic means if they need to drill a well for their own household needs, they don't have to go through the Oklahoma Water Board. Those who want to sell water or develop it for municipalities or rural water system, they have to go the Oklahoma Water Board and get a permit. That's beginning to happen. We had one request down in Cotton County, and fortunately the family is protesting it. The tribe joined in on that protest. We're supporting that protest because we feel it's all surrounded by trust lands. We are saying if you start drilling that well to sell it for municipal purposes, for a town, for water use in a town or for rural water district, you're going to pump all the water from all this land. So we're protesting that. So all the point I want to make about that, and there is hearing coming up on the 22nd of this month on that. But the one thing I want to say, if you have that protested, if you -- because you'll be given notice. There's a requirement to let you know someone next to you is going to drill a well. And the reason they're getting that is because it's going to be sold or it's going to be used beyond domestic purposes, and I would suggest you protest it. MR. BURGESS: One last comment to everybody. MS. CRAIG: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. This is new business time? My question is who do you go to when something is not run properly by a program? You have a chain of command that you go to. Okay. The problem that I have is when a tribal member's family member is deceased and they want to use our elder nutrition center and they're standing outside because the building is not open after services, nobody's there to open it for them, then they leave. The next day after the funeral, they go up there and they want to warm their food for their dinner, they're refused facilities for the kitchen, they're refused certain things. Unless they have a directive from somebody to get anything, it cannot be used. And this problem, it may have happened before to other people. I don't know. But the reason I'm bringing this is because it happened to my family, the Pewo family. They had a death in the family and this is what happened to them. There may be others out there that had the same problem but did not want to bring it up, but I'm bringing it up because I'm very disappointed in the way our nutrition center gas been run. You give a directive to somebody and it's not given through the proper channels. There's so much going on down there that -- you businessmen, you've got other problems to take care of, you've got other things that are very important, and I can't fault you for it. But I do fault the TA for not taking care of his business when the problem has been -- he's been approached with the problem in the past. And he has a list of things that has happened, he has a stack of letters that's written by people to him, and he suspends the director for three days. Now, my opinion, when you suspend -- if I came to you, Darrell, and I say you're suspended, you don't -- you're supposed to go on home. No more being -- sitting in your office. That didn't happen. She goes back up there, and she gives directions to people working that are not in control. The employees, she tells them what to do before she leaves. You don't do that when you're suspended. When you're suspended, you go home and you leave the premises. I don't appreciate that. Because I'm a tribal member, I go up there to eat, and I do appreciate the fact that I can eat, but I don't appreciate the atmosphere when I see it. The moral of the employees is terrible, and they're afraid to say anything because they're going to get fired. And who needs to get fired now? They need jobs. It's just like they're walking on eggs over there, and this is terrible. And something's got to be done about it. And I am just one person talking against it. And I wouldn't say anything if my family hadn't been involved. That's what I'm getting at now. MS. AITSON: I have a question to ask before you close. Why do you have two past chairmen working up here that were hired by the CBC? MR. BURGESS: One thing, CBC didn't hire. Two things, they applied like everybody else and were deemed the most qualified for that position by the panel, by HR. MS. AITSON: Okay. Answer another question. How many hires does the CBC have within the constitution? MR. BURGESS: It doesn't say to hire anybody. We to supervise everybody. MS. AITSON: I know you're lying to me, because there's people up here that are working that are not qualified. How did they pass their -- who do they get by to get hired? MR. BURGESS: I'm supposed to be a leader here, so I'll hold my comments. I have answered your questions. We're going to go into our executive session. MS. AITSON: Well, be a leader. MS. ISAAC: Do you have to pass a background check? If Bernard's one of them, how did he pass his background? MR. ASEPERMY: I will say this: This resolution, that we have had heated discussion about this, and it's also more discussion about what you're talking about. Okay? We're not -- this issue is still in our ballpark, you could say. So it's not -- MS. AITSON: I'm listening. MR. ASEPERMY: I'm not satisfied with the procedures. I'm not satisfied with the -- that's for us to discuss. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, I think anybody that winds up putting in a resume or anything for a job should have a background check. MR. ASEPERMY: Well, believe it or not, we just revamped the human resources policies and procedures. That is something that was not included on the old one or the new one. You folks are aware of it, correct. As far as a background check goes -- MR. BURGESS: That's something that -- okay, it wasn't in the policies so it's not required by law. MR. NELSON: I'll answer the question. The policies and procedures was never updated every year. They should be updated every year, or amended. 1983 was the last time we had policy. So as a tribal administrator coming in, knowing this fact, we worked diligently. It started with Robert. We worked, we worked, we worked. We kept a boilerplate day where we shut the door, and us all with diabetes shakes were in here shaking, couldn't leave. We fought over these policies. The thing is this, Sister, I'm going to tell you: Honestly, if we do have background checks -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nine out of 10 won't be able to get hired, right? MR. BURGESS: Let him finish. MR. NELSON: Bottom line, that's what it is. MS. ISAAC: Let them go immediately. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They shouldn't be hired. MS. ISAAC: You keep saying this wasn't in place, this wasn't in place. Well, you know, automatically, you should know. They should pass a background check and a drug test. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We had to down there -- MR. ASEPERMY: Well, the drug test is going to happen, if it hasn't already. MS. ISAAC: When we were just volunteers, measly old volunteers, not getting paid at the information desk at the hospital, they wanted a background check. MR. NELSON: You're right, Beverly. You are so right. IHS, HHS -- MR. BURGESS: We'll have an amendment to those HR policies again. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When I got hired years ago, I did a background check, I did drug testing, I did everything, gave all my credentials and I was hired the same day. I don't know if anybody does that. I did that in one day, so why can't anybody else do it? MR. NELSON: Ms. Sapcut, now, when it pertains to, like I say, IHS, HHS, where we get federal funding, if it calls for that, we do it, for those federally funded programs. MS. ISAAC: Who's paying their salary, the two pass chairmen? I know who they are, I'm not saying their names, but who is paying their salary? MR. BURGESS: Indirect cost, administrative cost. MS. ISAAC: It doesn't really matter, they still should have a test. MR. BURGESS: As I said, we're going to go over this and amendment the HR policies. MS. CRAIG: Are you going to do anything at the centers to straighten things out? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We need that center straightened up. MR. NELSON: Well, I sure don't like to talk about personnel matters out in the open. But at the same time, ladies, this is the very first time that this person was suspended. MS. ISAAC: Shouldn't have been, to though. MR. BURGESS: We're getting too close to personnel issues. MS. ISAAC: Years ago when Wallace was running for chairman, we all supported him the first time around, we had meetings at the elders center, and there's not supposed to be any political activity at all there. MR. NELSON: I do have one question for you, Ms. Craig, since you imposed this. Did you have a list of an advisory board? Was there a chosen list for an advisory board? MS. CRAIG: The people that were interested in being on the advisory board submitted their resums to the CBC -- MR. BURGESS: Not a chosen list. We announced it at a CBC meeting. MS. CRAIG: -- they haven't heard from anybody. MR. BURGESS: We tried to bring it up last meeting, and Mr. Mahseet said we ought to have a discussion with the elders center and have this in open format. So we need to establish that meeting and have an open format about that discussion. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'll just talk to the TA offline about this, because I was also part of the family that had that incident that night. MR. BURGESS: I have a question of you. You were here to represent the school district or -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I didn't know if Ms. Donna Sparks showed up, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted to convey to the committee as well as the tribal members that Fort Sill is hosting the Special Olympics this month. Due to budget cuts across all government entities, there's been areas where they were cut, and one of the areas that was cut was transportation. Lawton Public Schools is going to provide transportation for the high school kids to participate in this event, but they didn't have enough funds to cover the elementary children. This was brought to my attention, so someone asked -- well, they asked actually the whole room: Does anybody have anyone with buses? And I thought, well, you know, our tribe has buses. I don't know if they're able to help. But I didn't commit the tribe. I just kept that, you know, confidential until I could present it before the tribe. But the bottom line is that I believe transportation has indicated that they can support the event with one bus, and we are -- they are proposing a rental fee for that event. I've given that back to the Special Olympics Committee for them to table, and so now we're waiting forward on what they say. MR. BURGESS: How many students are you thinking? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I really don't know overall the numbers. But we're talking Lawton Public Schools and other area schools that are coming to this event. The bus that we are asking help with would go to Douglas School, Sweeney, and I can't remember another school. Because with one bus, they can only make so many trips. But the tribe would be helping. They wouldn't be doing the whole thing. They wouldn't be doing the whole transportation, they would be helping. MR. BURGESS: Because they said our bus would handle 34 or 38 kids comfortably. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right, and they also gave us a van. MR. ASEPERMY: When do you need an answer? MR. NELSON: When's the date? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would say by next Friday. MR. NELSON: Major, when is the date? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The 26th. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I joint to support Ms. Craig in her efforts about the elderly center. I do attend there regularly and the atmosphere is not great. It's just like a lot of times they're just watching us. It should be a place where we can go and feel comfortable, and it's not happening. You need something -- something needs to be done there. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have one questions. I know the community centers are not allowed to charge for people with families for funerals. Is that true at the elders center? Why, in a moment of need, should they be charged? MR. NELSON: They're not supposed to be, ma'am? MR. BURGESS: In your policies at the community centers, y'all allow the families to use that when the tribe is supported, right? There's no charge? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For a funeral? No. It's been an ongoing practice even before I was there that families can utilize it and we don't have any charge. We just ask that they, you know, take care of it, clean it up. MR. BURGESS: And if they want to donate, they can donate. That's what we did at the church for our folks. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go into our executive session here. MR. ASEPERMY: Before we go into -- on the nursing program and the college, I would like to move the Comanche Nation College student -- nursing students to the top of the executive session. MR. NARCOMEY: I make the motion. MR. KOSECHEQUETAH: Second. MR. BURGESS: All right. We'll start with the Comanche Nation nursing students. (Executive session commenced at 1:50 p.m.) * * * * * * R E P O R T E R 'S C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) I, Kelly Stoabs, Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of Oklahoma, 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 March 6, 2010, in the State of Oklahoma; that I am not an attorney for nor a relative of any said parties, or otherwise interested in the event of said action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set hereunto set my hand and seal of office on this the 1st day of April, 2010. __________________________ Kelly Stoabs Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of Oklahoma S E C R E T A R Y ' S C E R T I F I C A T E I, Robert Tippeconnie, Secretary- Treasurer of Comanche Nation Business Committee, certify that the above is a true and correct transcript of a meeting of CBC Members held at 10:14 a.m. on March 6, 2010, and that the meeting was duly called and held in all respects 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 78