ARTICLE XII---RIGHT TO PETITION Section 1 The members of The Tribe reserve to themselves the power to PROPOSE ordinances and resolutions and to ENACT and REJECT the same at the polls independent of the Tribal council upon petition of THIRTY-FIVE of the registered voters within SEVEN (7) DAYS of such actions.
Last year, three (3) petitions were brought forward under Article XII, Section 1 of the Mohegan Constitution.
The first one (petition) involved tribal members who wanted to REJECT the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2009-08. The Tribal Council voted to cancel the ordinance instead of allowing it to go out to a vote by the membership of the tribe.
The second petition involved tribal members trying to ENACT, their own ordinance because of the void created by the Tribal Council cancelling 2009-08. The Election Committee which accepts petitions, refused to accept the petition because the petition ordinance only allows under Article XII Section 1 to REJECT ORDINANCES. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ORDINANCE TO ENACT.
The third petition, was to try to REJECT Ordinance 2009-35, which was the new Freedom of Information Ordinance. Ordinance 2009-35 replaced the canceled Ordinance 2009-08. This petition was accepted by the Election Committee and was voted on by the voters of the tribe in August 2009. Ordinance 2009-35 was approved by the tribe.
MICHAEL BARTHA TOOK THE ELECTION COMMITTEE TO MOHEGAN TRIBAL COURT BECAUSE HE FELT THE SECOND PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOTED ON ALSO. IN COURT, JUDGE JANE FREEMAN RULED IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Now the COUNCIL OF ELDERS want to do an AMENDMENT TO THE MOHEGAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XII. Here is what Section 1 will now read.
"The Members of the Tribe reserve to themselves the power to REJECT at the polls ordinances passed by the Tribal council upon petition of FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) of the registered voters with THIRTY (30) DAYS OF PASSAGE OF SUCH LEGISLATION. The petition shall be accompanied by a cover letter bearing the notorize signatures of at least three sponsors who are members of the Tribe and who registered to vote in Tribal elections. The petition shall be filed in accordance with any other procedures ESTABLISHED BY THE TRIBAL COUNCIL."
(AT PRESENT) In Section 2, the Constitution requires 40% of the voters (SIGNATURES ON A PETITION AND FORCE THE TRIBAL COUNCIL TO BRING IT TO A VOTE) to create their own ordinances. When the vote takes place only 30% of the eligible voters need to vote and the ordinances passes or is vetoed by a majority of the votes counted.
Under the new (PROPOSED) Amendment 20% are needed to force a vote but now 40% must vote. The majority of the 40% will determine the outcome. The 20% is a more obtainable number than the present 40%. This seems like a good thing to change. However the 40% voting could be a problem. If a minority group didn"t want something to pass, they wouldn't vote and no changes would occur.
Under the Constitution (NOW) on Petitions works fine. It makes the government quickly responsible (the Tribal Council) for its actions. Do we want the word ENACT removed? Is the Council of Elders and the Tribal Council worried about a new ruling by another judge? . Could Michael Bartha be right?
THE CURRENT PETITION SECTION WITH 35 MEMBERS SIGNATURES AND SEVEN DAYS WORKS . IT IS FAIR. FIRST YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE TRIBAL COUNCIL PASSED, GET A COPY AND READ IT. YOU THEN WOULD DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT AND THEN MAKE A PETITION OUT. THEN YOU WOULD GO OUT AND GET IT SIGNED IN SEVEN DAYS.
LET'S PRETEND THE TRIBE HAD ELEVEN HUNDRED (1,100) VOTERS, YOU WOULD NEED TO GET ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE SIGNATURES IN THIRTY DAYS UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL. I BELIEVE AN IMPOSSIBLE THING TO DO. HOW MUCH DAMAGE COULD A BAD LAW DO IN THAT TIME?
THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT ONLY ALLOW TRIBAL MEMBERS TO CHALLENGE ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, BUT ALSO POLICIES. UNDER THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION, TRIBAL MEMBERS CAN'T CHALLENGE POLICIES WHICH THE TRIBAL COUNCIL DOES PASS FROM TIME TO TIME.
Tribal Members only have several ways to make their government (the Tribal Council and the Council of Elders) accountable. They are:
1) VOTING in and out elected officials (Tribal Council and Council of Elders),
2) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE XII SECTION 1.
3) LAWFUL PROTESTS (Marches, etc.),
4) SPEAKING UP at meetings or going to the MEDIA
5) take the government to MOHEGAN TRIBAL COURT OR THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM.
6) sending out LETTERS to the tribe.
The Council of Elders are holding a meeting on the proposed changes to Article XII (The RIGHT TO PETITION). It is on February 3, 2010.
IF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS VOTED INTO EFFECT, TRIBAL MEMBERS WILL LOSE ONE OF THEIR WAYS TO MAKE THE MOHEGAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE.
Tribal Members should be there and support the current Constitution and OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT. What do you think?
Showing posts with label P. Show all posts
Showing posts with label P. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
PROMOTING GAMBLING IN PALMER
Mohegan Sun promotes casino in Mass.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press Writer
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) -- Mohegan Sun promised thousands of new jobs if it's proposed casino for western Massachusetts is approved, but residents gave the idea mixed reviews over whether it would rejuvenate the area or harm its small town charm.
As Massachusetts lawmakers weigh whether to legalize new forms of gambling, Mohegan Sun held the first of a series of forums Tuesday to promote its proposed casino in Palmer. Mohegan officials showed a video reminding residents of the region's manufacturing heyday and the subsequent loss of major employers.
"This project will not end up in western Massachusetts, folks, unless it has regional support," said Paul Brody, vice president of development for Mohegan Sun.
The project would include 3,000 slot machines, table games and poker, a 600-room hotel and spa, stores and restaurants.
Mohegan Sun, which operates one of two casinos in Connecticut, says the Palmer casino would create about 1,000 construction jobs and 2,500 to 3,000 permanent jobs, generate tax revenue and help tourism.
Angela Miguel, a 32-year-old Palmer resident who works in mall security, said she worries about the traffic impact in a town that still has horse carriage rides. She also expressed concerns that outsiders would take advantage of the small town.
"I think there is going to be a lot of problems with it," Miguel said. "Some people don't even lock their doors still."
But Miguel acknowledged the new jobs and expressed support with reservations.
Norberto Garcia, a 53-year-old police officer in Springfield, had no reservations. He cited the new jobs.
"I'm 100 percent for it," Garcia said.
Bruce Stanforth, a 48-year-old Amherst resident who is a portfolio manager, said he goes to the Connecticut casinos.
"That is tax revenue and business revenue going to a different state that really should be here in Massachusetts," Stanforth said.
Stanforth said he has watched a slow but steady decline of Springfield and other cities in the region. He said he would prefer high tech jobs, but believes a casino could help the area.
Emmaladd Shepherd, co-president of Quaboag Valley Against Casinos, said the Palmer project would hurt local businesses and lead to more problem gambling. She said casinos make 90 percent of their profits off 10 percent of gamblers.
"The money they will be making will be on the backs of our neighbors," Shepherd said.
Shepherd said there is a need for an unbiased study of the effects of casinos.
But Brody said only 1 to 2 percent of the population are problem gamblers. He said Mohegan Sun is a large contributor to treatment programs and provides information on every slot machine to help those with gambling problems.
The first major casino hearing of the legislative session is planned Thursday.
The town of Palmer has considered the casino idea before. Voters approved a nonbinding referendum in the 1990s that called for a casino there.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press Writer
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) -- Mohegan Sun promised thousands of new jobs if it's proposed casino for western Massachusetts is approved, but residents gave the idea mixed reviews over whether it would rejuvenate the area or harm its small town charm.
As Massachusetts lawmakers weigh whether to legalize new forms of gambling, Mohegan Sun held the first of a series of forums Tuesday to promote its proposed casino in Palmer. Mohegan officials showed a video reminding residents of the region's manufacturing heyday and the subsequent loss of major employers.
"This project will not end up in western Massachusetts, folks, unless it has regional support," said Paul Brody, vice president of development for Mohegan Sun.
The project would include 3,000 slot machines, table games and poker, a 600-room hotel and spa, stores and restaurants.
Mohegan Sun, which operates one of two casinos in Connecticut, says the Palmer casino would create about 1,000 construction jobs and 2,500 to 3,000 permanent jobs, generate tax revenue and help tourism.
Angela Miguel, a 32-year-old Palmer resident who works in mall security, said she worries about the traffic impact in a town that still has horse carriage rides. She also expressed concerns that outsiders would take advantage of the small town.
"I think there is going to be a lot of problems with it," Miguel said. "Some people don't even lock their doors still."
But Miguel acknowledged the new jobs and expressed support with reservations.
Norberto Garcia, a 53-year-old police officer in Springfield, had no reservations. He cited the new jobs.
"I'm 100 percent for it," Garcia said.
Bruce Stanforth, a 48-year-old Amherst resident who is a portfolio manager, said he goes to the Connecticut casinos.
"That is tax revenue and business revenue going to a different state that really should be here in Massachusetts," Stanforth said.
Stanforth said he has watched a slow but steady decline of Springfield and other cities in the region. He said he would prefer high tech jobs, but believes a casino could help the area.
Emmaladd Shepherd, co-president of Quaboag Valley Against Casinos, said the Palmer project would hurt local businesses and lead to more problem gambling. She said casinos make 90 percent of their profits off 10 percent of gamblers.
"The money they will be making will be on the backs of our neighbors," Shepherd said.
Shepherd said there is a need for an unbiased study of the effects of casinos.
But Brody said only 1 to 2 percent of the population are problem gamblers. He said Mohegan Sun is a large contributor to treatment programs and provides information on every slot machine to help those with gambling problems.
The first major casino hearing of the legislative session is planned Thursday.
The town of Palmer has considered the casino idea before. Voters approved a nonbinding referendum in the 1990s that called for a casino there.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press
Monday, June 15, 2009
MOHEGANS DROP OPTION ON WISCONSIN CASINO SITE
Mohegans Drop Option On Wisconsin Casino Site
While the Mohegans continue to support a Wisconsin tribe's efforts to have land taken into trust for an off-reservation casino project, they are no longer paying to maintain an option on the property, according to the Mohegan Tribal Council's vice chairwoman.
In regard to the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin's proposed development, “our spending is minimal,” Lynn Malerba said Tuesday.
The Mohegans had been making quarterly payments on an option on the Dairyland Greyhound Park in Kenosha, which the Menominees - with the Mohegans help - hope to turn into a $1 billion entertainment center and casino. The Mohegans would develop the project and, under a 2004 agreement, manage the casino for the first seven years of its existence in exchange for 13.4 percent of net revenues.
In 2007, the Mohegans bought out another partner, Kenosha businessman Dennis Troha, whose Kenesah Gaming Development LLC had obtained an option to buy the greyhound park. Starting in July 2006, the option, renewable for three months at a time, cost $400,000 a year, according to a Kenesah financial statement.
Malerba said the Mohegans have made no option payments in 2009, relinquishing that responsibility to the Menominees. Eric Olson, director of the Kenosha casino project, said Tuesday the Menominees' option remains in effect. “We're hoping that things come through and that we have a casino,” he said.
The Menominees are also on their own in pursuing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, whose previous secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, decided Jan. 7, days before leaving office, that he would not take the Kenosha land into trust for the Menominees.
On May 15, the Wisconsin tribe filed suit against the Interior Department and its new secretary, Kenneth Salazar, asking that Kempthorne's decision be overturned. The suit takes issue with a department rule requiring the department to decide whether to take land into trust before deciding whether the land is suitable for gaming, and with a department memorandum discouraging approvalof casinos located beyond a “commutable distance” from a tribe's reservation.
The Menominee reservation in northeastern Wisconsin is about 200 miles from Kenosha.
”We're not involved in the lawsuit,” Malerba said. “We believe in (the Menominees') sovereignty, as they believe in ours. Our role is to help develop the project, manage it and then back away. For us to get involved in an intergovernmental issue would be overstepping our bounds.”
Tribal officials have put the Mohegans' investment in the Kenosha project at more than $12 million, a figure Malerba said “is in the ballpark.” She said it's less than the Forest County Potawatomi, a Wisconsin tribe that operates a casino in Wabeno, has spent fighting the Kenosha project.
"Regional"
- 5/27/2009 12:56:19 PM
EDITORIAL FOOTNOTE: Another bad deal by this Mohegan Tribal Council who voted for this project, at the very least another $12 million gone. How much are we short on our Mohegan Tribal Government Budget for Fiscal year 2009? Could it be as much as was lost on the Wisconsin project? These people need to go. What do you think?
While the Mohegans continue to support a Wisconsin tribe's efforts to have land taken into trust for an off-reservation casino project, they are no longer paying to maintain an option on the property, according to the Mohegan Tribal Council's vice chairwoman.
In regard to the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin's proposed development, “our spending is minimal,” Lynn Malerba said Tuesday.
The Mohegans had been making quarterly payments on an option on the Dairyland Greyhound Park in Kenosha, which the Menominees - with the Mohegans help - hope to turn into a $1 billion entertainment center and casino. The Mohegans would develop the project and, under a 2004 agreement, manage the casino for the first seven years of its existence in exchange for 13.4 percent of net revenues.
In 2007, the Mohegans bought out another partner, Kenosha businessman Dennis Troha, whose Kenesah Gaming Development LLC had obtained an option to buy the greyhound park. Starting in July 2006, the option, renewable for three months at a time, cost $400,000 a year, according to a Kenesah financial statement.
Malerba said the Mohegans have made no option payments in 2009, relinquishing that responsibility to the Menominees. Eric Olson, director of the Kenosha casino project, said Tuesday the Menominees' option remains in effect. “We're hoping that things come through and that we have a casino,” he said.
The Menominees are also on their own in pursuing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, whose previous secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, decided Jan. 7, days before leaving office, that he would not take the Kenosha land into trust for the Menominees.
On May 15, the Wisconsin tribe filed suit against the Interior Department and its new secretary, Kenneth Salazar, asking that Kempthorne's decision be overturned. The suit takes issue with a department rule requiring the department to decide whether to take land into trust before deciding whether the land is suitable for gaming, and with a department memorandum discouraging approvalof casinos located beyond a “commutable distance” from a tribe's reservation.
The Menominee reservation in northeastern Wisconsin is about 200 miles from Kenosha.
”We're not involved in the lawsuit,” Malerba said. “We believe in (the Menominees') sovereignty, as they believe in ours. Our role is to help develop the project, manage it and then back away. For us to get involved in an intergovernmental issue would be overstepping our bounds.”
Tribal officials have put the Mohegans' investment in the Kenosha project at more than $12 million, a figure Malerba said “is in the ballpark.” She said it's less than the Forest County Potawatomi, a Wisconsin tribe that operates a casino in Wabeno, has spent fighting the Kenosha project.
"Regional"
- 5/27/2009 12:56:19 PM
EDITORIAL FOOTNOTE: Another bad deal by this Mohegan Tribal Council who voted for this project, at the very least another $12 million gone. How much are we short on our Mohegan Tribal Government Budget for Fiscal year 2009? Could it be as much as was lost on the Wisconsin project? These people need to go. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)