YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Board of Directors Broadcast - SAULT 8/31/26

Board of Directors Broadcast - SAULT 8/31/26 — Transcript

by Sault Tribe TV · 39,205 words · 5,737 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

4:33They have increased costs to their
4:35silos, so to speak. Can I My memo didn't
4:38have all of their information.
4:39>> Okay. Yep. Yeah, we can handle that.
4:44>> Okay.
4:50I'm going to try and share my screen for
4:53our I have a memo here that gives some
4:55estimated costs and we'll go from there.
5:03>> Yeah, feel free to join me up here
5:04y'all.
5:26should be loading on the screen here.
5:27But uh
5:31I have a memo. It should also be in your
5:32packets. This is mostly focused of
5:35course for my my silo so to speak. So,
5:39this is more startup cost in the legal
5:42realm
5:44of what it will take to get a three
5:46branch government going.
5:49Um, I have a Excel spreadsheet that
5:51we'll get to you guys soon. Holly is
5:53working on um revising that and that's
5:56what in much more detail, but I've
5:58summarized the costs here in this memo
6:00which we can go through here in public.
6:03So, we're I'm estimating right now a
6:06cost of about $3.8 8 million. If you
6:08recall, that's closer to my initial
6:11estimate way back in I don't remember
6:13now, January of this year.
6:16And we'll go through each silo and the
6:18anticipated cost and kind of explain a
6:21little bit of the breakdown. Um, this is
6:24not probably all the costs. We're going
6:26to have stuff that is quote hidden cost,
6:28things we maybe didn't anticipate. One
6:30thing that's not in this memo that
6:32Holly, your CFO, and I spoke about
6:34earlier this morning was um cost of
6:38running elections. Um whether that's a
6:40constitutional election or just the new
6:42elections that are in the the
6:45constitutional reform election or just
6:47the new elections that are in the
6:48revised constitution. Um and those could
6:52be several hundred,000 in addition to
6:54what we norm currently spend on
6:57elections. But I don't So there's other
6:59costs that are not here that maybe Holly
7:01or another executive can help illuminate
7:04on. But starting with the legislative
7:06branch,
7:10the biggest cost for the legislative
7:12branch startup costs would be legal
7:15counsel or legislative staff.
7:19And we've had multiple discussions over
7:20the past few weeks of what that would
7:22look like. Is that a law firm? Is that a
7:24legal consultant? Is that a a staff
7:27attorney akin to a general counsel or a
7:30senior attorney? It's to be determined
7:33based on what budget the tribal council
7:35wishes to push to adoption, but for the
7:38sake of trying to get as close as I can
7:40to an all-in cost estimate.
7:44Um, I based this on
7:47a typical year spending of our outside
7:50cost now for outside law firms.
7:54um and a mid-range of a general counsel
7:58position. It doesn't have to be that
8:00high. You might not need that level of a
8:03a candidate. Um but if you're trying to
8:06have a legislative attorney who maybe
8:08also advises the different authorities
8:11who are under the legislative branch,
8:12maybe that type of candidate is what you
8:15want to to shoot for. Um, so there's
8:18obviously wiggle room depending on what
8:20candidate and what type of position
8:22ultimately gets adopted by the board
8:24here or by the tribal council. Um, but
8:26you're looking at just shy of $700,000
8:29year one anticipated extra cost in legal
8:33fees. This this is to hire a general
8:36counsel type level attorney inhouse and
8:40spending about 200 grand um in outside
8:44um law firm fees. And those are all
8:49dependent on how many uh lawsuits are
8:52the travel council's involved or what
8:54involved in or what type of workload.
8:56Um, but that's probably a pretty safe
8:59gueststimate based on just historical
9:01spending of our tribe with legal fees.
9:04>> So, Ryan, if you could repeat that. Um,
9:07basically how much it will cost to build
9:08the legislative branch. I'm going to ask
9:10you the question for each branch of
9:11government.
9:13>> Uh, I'm estimating right now $649,69927
9:20for a year one cost.
9:22>> So about 650 in year one to build our
9:24legislative branch. And that includes
9:26wages, fringe, and outside law firm if
9:30the travel council goes that route. So
9:32if they don't go all in, it will cost
9:35less. But that I'm trying to give an
9:36all-in potential maximum cost.
9:40>> Increased cost. Increase cost.
9:43>> All right, we can keep going. Ryan,
9:46>> the judicial branch will be the biggest
9:49cost in uh whether it was a two or a
9:51three branch government because you're
9:52building out a independent court system.
9:54something we currently don't have. And
9:57the new constitution mandates a certain
10:00level of judges with a certain level of
10:02experience. Namely, they are for the
10:04most part all at all attorneys. Um,
10:09say for one that is not that cannot be
10:11an attorney or could be either an
10:14attorney or a lay person that is on the
10:15the Supreme Court. So the judicial
10:19branch we're estimating you're going to
10:22need because it's mandated by the
10:23constitution an associate trial court
10:25judge. So you have two judges in your
10:27trial court and the cost estimates are
10:30based on the mid of a senior attorney.
10:33That's a comparable like position that
10:35we have now.
10:38And then the uh Supreme Court justices,
10:43there's three of them. We're presuming
10:44that they're part-time, but we're
10:47estimating their their salary to be
10:50based off of our current chief judge
10:52wage grid for the trial court as well as
10:55the senior attorney wage grid for the
10:57associate judges, justices, excuse me.
11:00That'll be a well, in our current wage
11:02grid, a comparable like position. And
11:05we're also estimating about a million
11:06dollars to potentially have to build out
11:10a bigger courthouse. So you have two
11:12courtrooms running, one the chief judge
11:14is running, one the associate judge is
11:16running and
11:18it may be prudent to figure out if one
11:21of those or a third court needs to be
11:23done for the Supreme Court. So all in
11:26with all of those um all the judges
11:29positions
11:30and a potential new building or addition
11:32to our current building.
11:35year one judicial branch cost increase
11:39to our current budget of 2,155,24968.
11:49The wiggle room here besides negotiating
11:53power with bringing on the judges at
11:55certain wages is if you don't build out
11:59if you don't feel the need or at least
12:01initially don't build out any more
12:04building capacity in the courthouse. Of
12:06course, that saves you a million dollars
12:08right off the top if you just try to go
12:10forward with your current capacity in
12:12your current courthouse.
12:15But the other wiggle room with the wages
12:18are a little more concrete because the
12:21constitution does mandate those
12:22positions get filled at some at some
12:25kind of of wage, right?
12:30Executive branch.
12:34This is one where we probably have a
12:36little more wiggle room.
12:39This estimate is based off of two
12:42additional support staff at the mid wage
12:45mid wage range of an administrative
12:48assistant position
12:50and an also an estimated increase to
12:53outside legal fees that may entail with
12:57different increased litigation of
12:59$200,000 for a total increase to the
13:03executive branch or the current
13:05chairman's office of 420. 23,343444.
13:14This one might be one of the easier ones
13:16to initially save cost because you might
13:19not need any additional support staff
13:22and if you rely on in-house team
13:25primarily as we have been for the past
13:27few years under my leadership then you
13:30can maybe save that increase to outside
13:34legal fees. But this is kind of a middle
13:35ground safe estimate so to speak of what
13:38it what the increase could be to that to
13:40that branch which is not a lot. It's
13:42mostly in the court of course
13:44>> I can't see myself requesting for two
13:45additional positions. So I think this is
13:47lowhanging fruit. I think the main cost
13:49associated with setting up the OGA's
13:52office is the ink that it would take to
13:54revise the organizational chart. So I
13:56mean you just laid it out like the OGA's
13:58office the executive branch is the
14:00cheapest to transition to but the court
14:02is the most expensive. So it doesn't
14:04make sense for people to say they don't
14:06support a three branch government
14:08because the costs associated with it but
14:09then state well we support having
14:12standing for tribal members in court and
14:14establishing that judiciary. The two
14:16just aren't compatible. Judge Leaport.
14:20>> Yeah. The other thing I just wanted to
14:21say if it's okay and appropriate for me
14:23to put in a plug for this public
14:24defender position, which obviously would
14:26be outside of the court, but you know,
14:28currently we do spend based on my
14:31initial review of our budgets, which
14:33again I just started on the third, but
14:35we do spend a pretty significant amount
14:37of funds on outside representation for
14:40indigent uh defendants. most of our
14:42criminal defendants re re like meet or
14:45are just about at the standard right for
14:47indigency and where we're requiring them
14:49only to pay back a little bit of that
14:50money but having a public defender's
14:52office would both ease the process in
14:55terms of appointments um and would help
14:57with some consistency um in terms of uh
14:59fees and um budgeting. So just wanted to
15:02offer that up.
15:03>> Judge Leaport, do you feel like
15:04establishing that office would save the
15:06tribe money in the long run?
15:08>> I do. Um
15:11s to my surprise the the criminal docket
15:14is actually relatively extensive at Sue
15:17tribe which is again fine I mean it's to
15:19be expected right with the number of
15:21individuals that are enrolled um and
15:23with the fact that you all or we all
15:25excuse me do exercise uh special um
15:28criminal jurisdiction under the VAWA
15:30provisions from 2022 and 2013. So um to
15:34me yes I I think it's it's reasonable
15:36that it'll be a cost-saving effort. Um,
15:38it might also help in terms of some
15:41liability aspect, but obviously in-house
15:43council would have to advise you all on
15:44that.
15:46>> Okay. I appreciate you pointing that
15:47out.
15:48>> Yeah. And if it's not appropriate for me
15:50to speak in these uh meetings too,
15:52please let me know and I will I will zip
15:54the lip. So,
15:55>> no, no, no. I think it's perfectly
15:56appropriate you speaking. So, I mean,
15:59you're our chief judge. You're the only
16:00one that has a voice for the court right
16:02now. So, as of now, it's a department
16:03within the tribe, but we're striving to
16:05separate it from the court. and you're
16:07really the only person that we have
16:08available to be the voice for the court
16:10at this point. So, we appreciate you
16:11being here and we appreciate you
16:12speaking to Tyler.
16:13>> No, not a problem at all. The other
16:15thing I wanted to say that um might be
16:17important to note on the back on the
16:19judicial uh side is that currently we
16:22have a position that is open right until
16:25filled uh for a baiff or a field um like
16:28a field surveillance officer. Right now
16:30what we do is um based on sort of the
16:33goodwill of department we utilize the
16:35current law enforcement um to tribe law
16:37enforcement and eventually I think those
16:39probably do need to be separate just for
16:41um public integrity sake. So that would
16:43be an additional piece but it is in our
16:45current budget. So just being aware of
16:47that too.
16:47>> I appreciate that. Judge Tyler.
16:51>> I just wanted to clarify the legislative
16:55branch and executive branch. you have a
16:57cost increase of $650,000
17:01based on us h having to hire um our own
17:04in-house counsel as well as external
17:06counsel, but legal is currently under
17:08the board of directors. So, is this a
17:11$650,000
17:12increase on top of what we're already
17:14paying for our legal department?
17:19Because ultimately if if legal is going
17:22to the executive, we would see a
17:24decrease in spending in the legislative
17:26branch and a much higher increase in the
17:28executive branch. Sure, it all adds up,
17:31but it's not an increase in the
17:33legislative branch.
17:36>> So the constitution empowers the
17:38legislative branch to hire their own
17:41legal counsel. So this is anticipating
17:43that you want your own attorney and that
17:45you may want your own
17:46>> cost though. So if we're already paying
17:48legal's expenses out of the legislative,
17:51which is what the board of directors is,
17:53the board is everything, right? So it
17:56wouldn't it wouldn't necessarily be an
17:58increase in legislative expenditures.
18:01>> I think he's pointing out that it's
18:02going to be an overall increase for the
18:04entire tribe. That's what he's
18:05highlighting. Not increase. Okay, this
18:07branch is paying more, that branch is
18:09paying more. He's talking about the
18:11overall increase, the amount of money
18:12that will cost the tribe to transition
18:14this form of government. If you guys are
18:16going to be hiring an additional
18:17attorney, of course, that's going to
18:18cost the tribe more money than if just
18:20the legal department were to transition
18:21to the executive branch. Those costs
18:23will remain the same. But if you're
18:24hiring an additional attorney, that's
18:26increased costs.
18:27>> But the way I'm reading this is it says
18:29total one-year legislative branch cost
18:31increase is $650,000.
18:34Is that on top of what we're already
18:36paying for our in-house council? all of
18:38all of these costs are on top of our
18:40current budget.
18:41>> But I think that needs to be separated
18:43out to show what it looks like in each
18:44branch as well
18:46>> because that would be an executive cost,
18:47not a legislative cost. And
18:49>> it's a legislative cost if you're hiring
18:51your own attorney.
18:53>> But but you're no longer going to be our
18:55cost.
18:59>> Okay.
19:00What he's trying to do is he's trying to
19:01assign all the bills to the executive,
19:03but what we're trying to do truthfully
19:05is try to highlight how much more this
19:07government will cost than the one we
19:09currently have. It isn't about, okay,
19:10this one's going to cost that, that's
19:12going to cost that. Obviously, we're
19:13having that talk, but overall is to talk
19:16about how much more expensive this is,
19:17>> right? But that's not what the
19:19discussion is. The discussion is to be
19:22transparent with where all of the costs
19:23are going. I'm fine with showing how
19:26much more it is for the tribe, but I
19:29think each branch should be built out
19:31and Holly had her hand raised, so I
19:32think she has a better answer for us.
19:34But like when I'm reading this, I'm
19:36thinking of the 1.2 we've already
19:37allocated to legal and another 650 on
19:40top of it for the legislative branch.
19:42>> Yeah, you're bringing on more you're
19:44bringing on more attorneys. So you're
19:46going to bring on additional cost unless
19:48you're going to take your current legal
19:49department and parse it out where some
19:52of you stay with executive and some of
19:53you stay with legislative. That's an
19:56option,
19:56>> right?
19:57>> But if you're this this is assuming you
19:59keep all the current legal staff stays
20:02with executive branch in this example,
20:04but the legislative branch is like,
20:06well, we need some attorney
20:07representation, too. So then you have to
20:09hire more attorneys. The only branch to
20:11stick it under for the increase is
20:13legislative because they're separate
20:15legal teams and separate branches. It
20:17wouldn't be an increase to the current
20:19legal department if they're all under
20:21the executive branch. It would have to
20:22be an increase to a new department that
20:25you're creating under the legislative
20:26branch for the legislative attorney and
20:28their team. Right.
20:31>> I don't think you understand what I'm
20:32saying.
20:33>> I don't I do not understand what you're
20:34saying. That is correct.
20:35>> But Holly had her hand raised, so I
20:36think she does.
20:37>> Yeah. You done, Tyler?
20:39I'd like to hear from Holly.
20:40>> So, Holly and then I guess we're
20:42circling back to Tyler and then Rob,
20:44then Aaron.
20:55>> So, and I think right now with regards
20:58to the legislative, the two budgets that
21:00come into play are the chairman's travel
21:03and then the 1165, which is the board of
21:05directors. There are currently no legal
21:08fees in either of those budgets. All of
21:10the fees are accounted for in the tribal
21:12attorney. So, this is truthfully an
21:15additional if the board chooses to
21:19structure it the way Ryan has mentioned.
21:22>> But is it additional to what we're
21:24already paying? That's what we're trying
21:25to establish here. If you already have
21:27approved budget for the legal department
21:29and then if they change who they
21:30directly report to,
21:32>> of course, that money is going to be
21:33housed in a different location. But the
21:35amount of money that the tribe is still
21:36paying for the legal department remains
21:38exactly the same. The only thing that
21:40increases is this body become the
21:42legislative branch and them hiring an
21:43attorney so they don't get sued.
21:46>> My impression of this is that it would
21:48be an additional cost because it would
21:50be adding additional staff members and
21:53the only things that are in here. So,
21:54for example, space cost isn't included
21:57in here because space cost that we
21:59currently have with the exception of
22:00maybe adding a new courtroom is already
22:03encompassed in our either 1160 tribal
22:06ops or by each building.
22:09So, this truthfully would be adding
22:12another position, adding another
22:13employee. Ryan, your current staff in
22:15legal would stay
22:18>> intact.
22:18>> But that's my question. If we're talking
22:20about reducing expenses and and Ryan
22:22kind of hinted at the next part of my
22:24question is would the entire council
22:27legal department have to go? Would there
22:29be a way for us to start out kind of
22:32slim and build from there? So the entire
22:34$600,000 $650,000
22:37expense isn't an expense on day one or
22:42until it's necessary. like we're if
22:45we're trying to work through this like
22:46I'm just trying to to to come up with
22:48solutions here and get to the bottom of
22:49all these things.
22:51>> Yeah. So, in the transition resolution,
22:53which hopefully we'll have time to go
22:54through today, I am
22:57I called it a unified legal department
22:59for lack of a better term. I am adi
23:01advising that we keep our legal
23:04attorney structure in place now. and
23:06they're going to have to we'll have to
23:07figure it out in practice how to do
23:09this, but let let the current team
23:12advise both branches. Assign one of them
23:14potentially to the legislative branch.
23:17You do not you do not have to just go
23:19out and hire your own attorney. Part of
23:22our anticipation is there's been uh
23:24multiple resolutions about doing that,
23:27hiring an attorney or a legal
23:29consultant. So, it feels like the board
23:31was primed to want to get that position
23:33filled sooner than later, which is why
23:36somewhere in year one, we anticipated
23:37tribal council wants their own attorney.
23:39It might be an attorney that's not on
23:41your radar, that's not on your current
23:43team, but certainly we can see how we
23:46can take our current team of attorneys
23:49and um just use them as the workforce
23:53without having to get another law firm
23:55or get another attorney. I previously
23:58advised that and but it did not feel
24:00like the majority wanted to go that
24:02route.
24:02>> Right.
24:02>> Thank you, Ryan. And that's the point I
24:04was ultimately trying to get at is this
24:06may not necessarily be an expense on
24:09year one. That's all I was trying to get
24:11out there.
24:11>> Y I agree with that,
24:13>> Rob. Then Aaron,
24:16>> okay. I was just going to clarify
24:18basically what uh the vice chair just
24:20said. I understood what he was trying to
24:22say here. And um I was one of the ones
24:24that was pushing for to hire outside
24:26counsel. Uh hearing what I just heard,
24:28I'm going to retract that. I would
24:30rather have it be someone from our
24:32current team, move them over, uh put
24:34them under the direction of the board.
24:35We save money. If cost is going to be
24:37the issue that people bring up to try
24:39not to afford our members our rights, um
24:42then let's let's start cutting cost. We
24:44got a lot of failing businesses. We got
24:46a lot of a lot of stuff the board likes
24:48to spend money on. If all those things
24:50are more important than to the members,
24:52I'm going to start putting resolutions
24:53on the table and you're going to have to
24:55show the members what you really care
24:56about. You know, you want you want to
24:58keep failing businesses. Well, you're
25:01going to have to tell your members that
25:02they're more important than uh than
25:04their rights,
25:06>> Aaron.
25:07>> So, all right. So, one thing I think
25:10that's missing in this process is um so
25:15we've had numbers now presented to us
25:18that have varied by the first estimate
25:21to the second estimate was 50% off to
25:24the third estimate which is about 25%
25:26off the last estimate. So that tells me
25:29that we haven't done a good enough job
25:32with focusing in on the actual expenses
25:36and also um the deducts for what we
25:40currently um already expense. So I kind
25:43of imagine that was already happening um
25:45because we have a whole fleet of
25:47professional staff to work on this. So
25:50what we're missing is a budget tracker,
25:52a budget tracker that has the
25:54assumptions built into it on separate
25:56worksheets. So, I'm It's too bad budgets
25:59is not here right now, but um but I know
26:02Holly and and um Jessica know and Bill
26:06know this inside and out because your
26:08your budgets that conform to the
26:11financial review process is made up of
26:13your primary worksheet that pulls all
26:15the assumptions from the separate
26:17worksheets or they're they're called
26:19spreadsheets, worksheets um for each of
26:22the cost centers and then the very
26:24varied the variables that will affect
26:27back that cost and then the deduct of
26:29the existing costs that we're already
26:31expending. So, um, unless somebody can
26:34pull that out of their hat right now and
26:36tell me that it's already existing, I
26:37don't think so because these numbers
26:39have varied pretty wildly in the last
26:42three projections that we've gotten. And
26:43that's not that's not to say that we're
26:46that people aren't professional or
26:48whatever, but for us to to gauge what
26:51actual expenses need to happen because
26:54what you're presenting is is a
26:56theoretical sort of if we did this, this
26:58is what the number would be, but we're
27:00also not then deducting what the
27:02existing costs are. Um, at least not
27:04that I can see in a workable um budget
27:07tracker. So, we need a budget tracker.
27:09So, one of the also we're working on a
27:12bunch of assumptions. So, one assumption
27:14is and I I don't want to irritate the
27:17board with this because I'm not
27:18proposing this, but um and I did see a
27:22post a lot of people sent me a post that
27:23a board member sent um accusing me of
27:27different things of of creating the
27:29current salary for the board, which is
27:31just not factual. Um, at some point at
27:34some point we probably need to think
27:36about clarifying when an individual's
27:38posting something as fact as if it's the
27:40tribe's position that it's not that
27:43that's an individual board member's
27:44opinion and it's not representative of
27:46the tribe because well once once we have
27:50a line of liability if that ever comes
27:52to fruition then then there will be um
27:55possible liability for putting out
27:57information that's just not true because
27:59it isn't true that I proposed the
28:01current board salary. It's absolutely
28:03not true. It's not factual. And if I had
28:05the ability to bring a cause of action,
28:07I would be able to shut people up for
28:09>> we got to stick the orders of the day,
28:10though.
28:11>> Okay. So, but so with that premise
28:14though, um there's a presumption that
28:16the current board salary has to be the
28:18current board salary before and after a
28:20separation. And that's not factual. Um
28:23that's just an assumption because the
28:26current board salary is based on loosely
28:29based on meeting every week um based on
28:33additional meetings and once the
28:36legislature is established separately
28:38the legislature will have the ability
28:40then to decide if they're going to meet
28:41weekly. If they choose to meet once
28:44every two weeks or if they choose to we
28:46meet you know differently like a
28:48legislature then those numbers will
28:50change significantly but the current
28:52salary is based on actually it was two
28:54meetings a week u when it was calculated
28:57in 2000 it was a Monday no a Tuesday and
29:01a Wednesday there was workshops on
29:02Wednesdays there was meetings on
29:04Tuesdays every other Tuesday was a
29:06workshop and we don't meet that much we
29:09are right now um we are doing the
29:11constitution amendment on a Monday on on
29:13a Tuesday. The other thing is in the new
29:15constitution that the the citizens will
29:17have a right of initiative. So while we
29:19could start out with a board salary
29:21that's the same as it is now, the
29:23citizens will be able to bring a cause
29:25of action to then vote on the board
29:27salary and that could very well change.
29:30So So that's a big assumption is that
29:31the board salary stays exactly as it is
29:34today. Another assumption is um is that
29:40uh and I think it's probably true we're
29:42going to see see an increased case load.
29:45Um but you just shared that the appellet
29:48court or not the appellet court I think
29:49we call it the Supreme Court. The
29:51Supreme Court um is based on the chief
29:54judge's salary um for three people. So
29:57it's it's you know times three. So that
29:59presumes that we're going to have so
30:01much so many cases that we're going to
30:03have the uh the appellet level or the
30:06Supreme Court level um working as much
30:08as the chief judge. And that's that is a
30:11good assumption to have as a high-end
30:13estimate of what it could be. It could
30:16and maybe it won't be that way. Maybe
30:17maybe the citizens won't be bringing
30:19lawsuits. Um, you know, if we have a
30:23struggle with the transition between the
30:25legislature and the executive, you
30:27you'll probably see the legislature
30:29filing lawsuits, but that'll be at their
30:30discretion. It won't be because the
30:32structure calls for it. It'll be because
30:34they're filing lawsuits. There could end
30:36up being frivolous lawsuits, too. And at
30:38some point, we could probably build in
30:40penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits.
30:43And then then we can recoup costs if you
30:46know if the legislature files a lawsuit
30:48that is ends up ultimately being
30:50frivolous and um and it's just a power
30:53struggle and there's the ability to
30:55recoup costs and the court could
30:56actually recoup a lot of those costs. So
30:58that's a potential deduct. So, so I
31:02think for a budget tracker um the the
31:05presumption should have flexibility to
31:07say okay well if the current board
31:09salary stays as it is this is what the
31:11the projected cost is. If the board
31:14salary if the people bring an initiative
31:16to cut the board salary in half this is
31:18what the salary would be for the board.
31:20Same with the cases. If the case load is
31:22this this is what it would be. If the
31:24case load is this this is what it'll be.
31:26So um but we're projecting the very top
31:29end of what the project uh potential
31:31expenses would be. Um so what I would
31:34suggest then is I think we need it might
31:37be an exercise in futility because
31:38tomorrow this all might come to a
31:40screeching halt but I do think if we are
31:43continuing we should um develop a budget
31:45tracker process so that we can more
31:48finitely look at the estimates and then
31:51be able to see where the deducts occur
31:54for the existing expenses that we're
31:56already incurring. So, um, if you know
31:58the budgets well, if you if we all take
32:01a look at the budgets well, then we can
32:03see that there's there's deducts that
32:05can happen of what we're already
32:06spending. So, and I don't know and I'm
32:09I'm not satisfied without a budget
32:10tracker to be able to say that these
32:14estimates are real without the deduct.
32:17So,
32:19>> Judge Leaport.
32:21>> Yep. So, one thing I was going to say is
32:23that um again, I'm I'm very new, so
32:26excuse me if I'm not speaking correctly
32:28in accounts and budget can uh kick my
32:30butt later if this is inaccurate, but
32:32the way that we do it now is they submit
32:34invoices uh based on the amount of time
32:36that they spend per case. Right? So when
32:38I was doing my budget, our appellet
32:40justices submit based on an hourly and
32:42we sort of make that estimate from there
32:44based on the assumption that in previous
32:47years you've had at most about five to
32:50six appellet cases that get filed that
32:54just as a function of a three branch
32:55government will as you stated get amped
32:58up uh to a pretty significant degree. it
33:01for from my perspective, you know, it's
33:05board determination about whether or not
33:06you all want to pay a stipen, you want
33:08to pay hourly, or you want to pay them
33:09on a part-time salary. Um, you know, at
33:12other tribes I know they'll give a
33:14monthly stipen plus health insurance.
33:16Um, and I think there's plenty of
33:17options to sort of think that through,
33:19but it depends on what maybe people's
33:21expectations are going forward. The
33:23court um is certainly absolutely willing
33:26to look at all alternatives to be as
33:29budget friendly as possible. Um but just
33:31understanding right that five to six
33:33appellet cases, appeals cases is is
33:35highly unlikely um when you all do
33:37split. And I I would put in a second nod
33:40for the provision around frivolous
33:41lawsuits as well. I think that's just an
33:43important good protection factor for
33:44both branches of government to have. Um
33:48and it it requires people to post a a
33:51bond if they want to file a certain type
33:52of lawsuit, right? Or if they are being
33:54frivolous that they have to actually pay
33:56the other side's attorney's fees. It's
33:57just a good protection measure
33:58regardless. Um, and I have examples of
34:01that, Ryan, if it'd be helpful to send
34:03it to you
34:04>> if I could share this as well. So, Cole
34:06Goodro shared a flight with a candidate
34:08that was running for office for the
34:09Onidita Nation. And the Onidita Nation
34:11recently separated their government. And
34:13one of the recommendations that they had
34:14for Cole, um, just a decrease on the
34:17amount of, you know, cases that we had,
34:19which will save the tribe money if we're
34:20giving our citizens standing in tribal
34:22court, uh, was to invest money and time
34:24into mediation. Um, so that could
34:26prevent people from going to court. If
34:28we can figure out a solution, um, you
34:30know, that will prevent and being in
34:32front of a judge, that will save us
34:33money in the long run. I think we should
34:35consider that as well.
34:37>> Yeah. I mean, there's certainly certain
34:38types of cases too, right, where you can
34:41uh require parties to go um before a
34:43mediator prior to filing or at initial
34:45stages of filing, but again, that would
34:47be up to you all to pass legislation uh
34:49that mirrored that.
34:51>> So, I appreciate that. Okay. Anything
34:53else on financials?
35:00>> I'm not done to the memo yet.
35:02>> Okay.
35:02>> And I just wanted to state that we can
35:04absolutely get a more accurate number. I
35:06think the biggest problem with this is
35:08all of the unknown variables at this
35:10point in time of what this structure is
35:11going to look like. Once we have that
35:13narrowed down, it will be a lot easier
35:15to come up with really accurate
35:17projections.
35:19Aaron,
35:20>> so what I would request is so we could
35:22build a tracker that could then be
35:25modified to incorporate the different
35:29variables. So like I just used it as an
35:32example. So I'll move off of the board
35:34salary because I know that one got a
35:35little gah just a few minutes ago.
35:37Instead I will focus on the case load.
35:40So you could you could say based on the
35:44the price per hour or however you do it
35:46that's how much the increased case
35:48load's going to cost but then you can
35:50vary that saying okay if that you could
35:52have a separate worksheet so I'm going
35:53to talk in your terms a separate
35:54worksheet that says if the case load
35:56increases by 20% 30% 40% this is what it
36:00would look like then you get a range of
36:02values um so you have a better sort of
36:04focus because what we're doing and I I
36:06think in the absence of doing that level
36:08of detail giving a high-end estimate is
36:11probably the most rational thing to do,
36:13but that doesn't mean that's what it's
36:15going to be. That that's the top end of
36:17what it could be. So,
36:19>> okay, Quit Su,
36:23>> just a couple things. Um, one, I want to
36:25address the board pay because, um, we
36:28seem to throw out these points to make
36:31political points online with people.
36:34Having just been elected, I will tell
36:36you the board pay with the amount of
36:38work that we put in is reasonable. This
36:40was not a financial decision for me to
36:42take this job. With the help of this
36:45board, our frontline workers were able
36:48to come to the board and get a raise for
36:50where I was working before. Something
36:52that we tried the administrative way and
36:55the HR way. It didn't happen. But once
36:58there were increased step pay further up
37:01and we came to the board, it was
37:04rectified.
37:06The last year that I worked for the
37:08tribe in the my previous position, I was
37:11better off financially after with a
37:13master's degree in 23 years of working
37:15in that position than I am making now.
37:20I got benefits. I got paid into social
37:22security. I had 1,300 hours of vis of
37:26sick time banked over 250 hours of
37:29vacation. You paid me out for 160. I
37:32lost the rest. I lost 1300 hours of sick
37:35time because there's no bank that we put
37:37it in for people who need it. These are
37:39things we I would really like to be
37:41discussing how we can improve programs
37:43and services for our people and our team
37:45members. So, this was not a financial
37:48gain for me. I now do not have social
37:50security. I do not have a 401k, right?
37:54And I have earned every penny I have
37:56made since I've come to this table. And
37:58this last weekend was just an example.
38:02I will say for the record for everybody
38:04at this table, I did not know that this
38:07resolution was coming through on
38:08Thursday and then my phone started to
38:11blow up and I am looking at a big event
38:14that we all invested in paddle out and
38:17our pow-wow and I had to put my board of
38:20directors phone in its dock and take
38:23that half hat off and do the work I do
38:25in this my community every day. For
38:28those of you who came to the paddle, I
38:30thank you and you heard me then. If your
38:32agenda was other than praying for the
38:34water and standing up for the water, you
38:35need to put it over there because that
38:37wasn't the place for it.
38:41I did have people at our pow-wow
38:43afterwards talking to me. People from
38:45unit 3. I will tell you one thing they
38:48did say, they appreciated seeing the
38:49board. I think nine of us showed up, but
38:53nobody came to the powow. So, I'm I'm
38:56just sharing the information that was
38:58expressed to me. I didn't talk about
39:01politics at the POWO, but if one of my
39:04members or one of my elders asked me a
39:06questions, I did. And I will say this,
39:09no amount of bullying, threats,
39:13uh, slander online is going to change my
39:17vote. I am here for the people. I'm not
39:19in anybody's camp. I want to hear the
39:22truth. I'm concerned. For 23 years, I've
39:25done nothing but build a nest of
39:28preserving and um protecting our our
39:32children, our families, our citizens,
39:35our tribe, and I will do that every day
39:38I sit at this board table.
39:41I am nervous about what I see.
39:45And yes, I'm allowed to change my mind.
39:50I ran on protecting our traditions, our
39:52families, and our way of life and our
39:55lands. That's what I'm here for. When I
39:58sat as a candidate answering questions,
40:00yes, I want a three branch government. I
40:02want a government that works for our
40:04people, that's balanced, that have a
40:05count,
40:07checks and balances. That checks and
40:09balances is our dialogue.
40:13It always is. But how do you do that
40:15when it's not safe to ask questions? How
40:17do you do that when
40:19people
40:20if you have a different opinion, they
40:22just attack you? I didn't think it was
40:24right or cool that I had to go to my
40:2678-year-old mother and tell her,
40:30"Don't don't engage in social media, my
40:33siblings, my children, because they were
40:35upset. I'm being personally attacked
40:38online because people think they know
40:40how I'm going to vote, right? And in the
40:43meantime, in my community, I'm presented
40:45with an eagle feather for creating and
40:48all the work that I've been doing for
40:50our people every day for 23 years.
40:54So, I apologize for those who thought
40:55that they should be able to talk to me
40:57about these issues. This is where we
40:59talk and I want the membership to see as
41:02much of this conversation as we could
41:04because I am concerned. I'm here to
41:05protect and preserve our way of life.
41:07I'm not here to make friends, but I am
41:10here to build relationships
41:12because that's what I've done every day
41:14with all of you. Every single one of you
41:16have shown me why you sit at this table.
41:18I've appreciated things that you've
41:20brought forward and I hope that you have
41:22done that, too. There's times that I
41:23thought, hm, I need to have a further
41:25conversation with them about that
41:26because I don't see that perspective.
41:28That's the mediator in me. 20 years of
41:31mediation. I sit and I listen to people
41:33and then try to pull them together.
41:35That's where progress is made.
41:37Not in demeaning each other. I'm sorry.
41:39I'll get off my soap box. I do have one
41:41question for Holly if I might.
41:45I watched a workshop on 11:2525
41:50in which one of the board members here
41:52asked you what your recommendation was
41:56and that you had said that if you
41:59thought we could afford if we could
42:01afford this have and I I heard your
42:04answer loud and clear. Have we
42:06identified increased revenues? Have we
42:08identified ways we can cut costs?
42:13And I know that you said some of the
42:15cost in this 3.8 million. At least that
42:17matched that that same workshop um
42:20didn't didn't cover building
42:22renovations, didn't cover uh cola, any
42:25kind of judgments that might have to
42:27come up. Have those things been
42:29identified? I would like to know that.
42:31Um and and of all the people, you know,
42:34respect is the standard. I will show you
42:37respect. I won't slander you online. I I
42:40I I expect that from the children I've
42:43worked for with for 23. That's the
42:45standard, right? Trust is another thing.
42:48Trust is built upon. And one of the
42:50people that I that has gained my trust
42:52at this table is Holly. And I would like
42:55to know if your answer is the same as
42:58that time or if we've made any progress
43:00in almost a year on that very question,
43:02which is core to this, right? I want a
43:05government that works for our people.
43:07But I also want to do it right. So I I
43:11ask you that if you I don't mean to put
43:12you on the spot. I'm sorry if I am. I
43:14just want to know you're honest.
43:16>> That's okay. And I will tell this board,
43:18and I think my co-workers know this, I
43:20will be honest about things because in
43:22order for this board to make a decision,
43:23you need to have
43:25>> the accurate, correct information in
43:27front of you. And so when I was asked
43:31about that back in October, um we were
43:34doing a few things. We were looking to
43:37replace some of our tribal support with
43:39third party revenue, which we did. um
43:42director um Lelant brought forth a
43:46resolution recently or discussed it
43:49about increasing um some of our tax that
43:52we would assess on our third party
43:54revenues. So that is one thing that we
43:56do need to look at. We have not
43:58finalized that. We also need to look at
44:00taxing housing and potentially there's a
44:03couple of areas that we could look to
44:05tax with housing. They currently have
44:08contracts in place. I did ask for all of
44:10those documents. I have not had a chance
44:12to review them. I think that was at the
44:13end of last week where I was able to get
44:15all the contracts. Um, so that is in
44:18process. I think there's a couple of
44:21different things. One of which, and I
44:22had mentioned this to the board
44:24previously, is that the government is
44:26not in the business of generating
44:28revenue that has to come from our
44:30outside businesses. We can tax and that
44:34generates revenue to fund our membership
44:36services and our internal services. Um,
44:40with that being said, at the time, and I
44:42would like to explain this a little bit
44:44more too, is because there was some
44:45fluctuation in those projections. The
44:48initial one was more of a what do we
44:51foresee we're going to need? Maybe we
44:53won't need it day one, and it was closer
44:55to the 3.8, roughly 3.9 million, I
44:58believe, if I'm remembering correctly.
45:00And then Ryan and I met and we backed
45:02that down to, okay, what is are the bare
45:05bones that we can get away with? and
45:07that was substantially lower. Now today
45:09we've come back and added some positions
45:12and I understand where the board is
45:14coming from in if we can backfill or use
45:17existing resources. We tried to back
45:19some of those out at this point. I did
45:21not do case scenarios on different wages
45:24for the board or different things like
45:26that at this point in time because like
45:27I had just mentioned there's a lot of
45:29variables that we don't know how that's
45:31going to play out yet. And so as we
45:34learn how that's going to play out, um,
45:37we can fine-tune those numbers.
45:40I will tell you though, and I mentioned
45:43this the other day in our discussions we
45:47had here, is that we don't have all of
45:51the investment funds that we have right
45:53now are not unlimited. We have
45:56restrictions on those funds. Those
45:58restrictions come from our grtors.
46:01So, we had I had mentioned we had
46:03probably around 33 million and again I'm
46:05going off the top of my head so please
46:07don't hold me exactly to these numbers.
46:09I don't have the paperwork in front of
46:10me um of available funds.
46:14We approved a deficit for 2026
46:19of 14 million. I don't believe that
46:21that's going to come to fruition. We are
46:23working to backfill again. I do have
46:25concerns financially about this
46:28situation. And I've said it before and
46:29I'm being 100% honest. We can work
46:32through some of it. I don't think we
46:34need to add in if Ryan's telling me that
46:36he can utilize some of his existing
46:38staff, that could potentially be a
46:40savings. It's not going to be the
46:42$650,000
46:43that we just talked about. Um,
46:47unfortunately it's not just an easy cut
46:49and dry because we do have a lot of
46:52programs and we do need to assess each
46:54and every one and look at it
46:56individually as to what we can do to
46:59infuse it maybe with some of the BIA the
47:03ARPA funds and things like that. But
47:04this board does need to be aware that
47:07those funds are done at the end of 2026
47:10for the for all practical purposes. the
47:13majority of those funds are done and we
47:15don't have that to rely on and and so I
47:19do have some concerns about
47:21paying for this. And I think if we are
47:24going to work through this and do this,
47:25we need to be very aware of the
47:28decisions that are made and where our
47:30funding is.
47:32>> If I could also add this, if we're
47:33talking about additional revenue to help
47:35pay for this government transition, I
47:36think we always leave off STI as well.
47:38So STI, they're not taxed at our
47:40corporate rate. So, I think that they
47:42need to be included in that conversation
47:43along with the housing authority and the
47:45health division.
47:46>> Yes, and I agree 100%. We have
47:48historically left STI off of this and
47:50I'm not sure how that ever came to be,
47:53but they did a presentation where they
47:55would start paying us dividends, but
47:57when you really get down to looking at
48:00them and they are performing fairly
48:02well. So
48:04when you look at them um they have
48:08historically not paid us anything and in
48:10the audit their auditors even note that
48:13those funds are to come back to this
48:14organization and that has not been the
48:16case.
48:18>> Okay. Whenever you're done Sue
48:20>> do you have other questions or did I
48:22answer everything? I'm not sure that I
48:23>> you pretty much answered it. I you know
48:25I do have the I share your concerns
48:28because also the other thing that makes
48:30me really nervous is I would really like
48:33to be able to glimpse you know November
48:36ahead because I'm a I fear for what may
48:40happen if we don't kind of get some
48:42checks and balances on the federal
48:44level. Um what we could be facing if we
48:48don't kind of balance that power up on
48:50the federal level. We've seen we we un I
48:54E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A
48:54E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A
48:54and I had this conversation back when I
48:56was just a working for YA um
49:00that this administration has not been
49:02favorable to to
49:04Indian country and if we don't have some
49:07checks and balances there we could I
49:09think that that will be ramped up and
49:11we'll actually see if there really is
49:13any bounds to that uh
49:17level of attack. So I so I I'm always
49:21about a nest and preserving and
49:23conserving. You know, I was a single
49:25mother of children, so that's kind of
49:27where I'm at. Um and and then this
49:30conversation coupled with what we had
49:31with the renovations for the casinos, it
49:34it worries me. And and it's no
49:37disrespect for anybody in this room.
49:39It's just this is how I think we will
49:41move for forward if whatever direction
49:44we take is by having these hard
49:46conversations in respectful ways and
49:48honest ways and build trust with each
49:49other. So yeah, I appreciate you. I
49:51didn't I didn't want to put you on the
49:53spot, but
49:53>> that's okay. I you
49:55>> we do and I do have concerns about cash
49:58flowing the governmental side of things
50:00because I don't want us to get into a
50:02situation where we become a going
50:04concern and where our grantors look at
50:06us as that same
50:08>> and and I know how much our programs and
50:11our services are needed and utilized and
50:13they're the lifelink of some of our
50:16members. They're not just oh I'll use it
50:18if I can. this is all they have and and
50:21so I definitely you know our elders
50:25we're protecting our most vulnerable
50:27that's our young people and our elders
50:28right
50:29>> and our families and that's a big lift
50:32and I want to do it in a good way and I
50:34want to feel good about what we're doing
50:35so thank you for your honesty and I I'll
50:38yield
50:39>> Rob Kimly then Aaron
50:42>> okay I just want to respond to you a few
50:45things but I also agree with Sue on on a
50:48couple things there. Um, one, I think
50:50that everyone at this table works hard
50:53enough to earn their pay. Uh, it's not a
50:55lot of pay. It's probably not
50:57advantageous to any of us really to be a
50:59board member with the economy we're in.
51:01Um, I'm sure we could all go get other
51:03jobs and make more than 67,000 a year.
51:06Um, well, most of us. Um, but with that
51:09said, um, our number one job as a
51:12government is to afford our members
51:13their rights. And that is the number one
51:16job of a government. You need to make
51:17sure your members have rights. You need
51:19to make sure they have standing in
51:20court. You need to make sure they have a
51:22way to challenge their government. And I
51:24don't know any job in this world that
51:26you can show up and tell your boss,
51:28look, I'll do everything about the job
51:29except for the number one thing that you
51:31told me to, you'll be fired. Any of us,
51:34you walk into any job and tell your
51:35boss, I'm willing to do everything but
51:37not the number one goal.
51:39If you can't do that, you lose your job.
51:42You lose your pay probably, too. So, I
51:44mean, it is what it is. Um, the bullying
51:46thing, I'm pretty sure that was geared
51:47towards me. It started last night online
51:49with Bridget when she mentioned my
51:50health and my uh transplant. So, if
51:53that's the direction we're going to go
51:54is call people bullies for telling the
51:56truth. I would challenge anyone to name
51:57one time I've lied or one time I've
51:59mentioned you by name. I haven't. So, if
52:02telling our members the truth is now
52:04being the bully, I'm the bully and it's
52:05not going to stop. So, there's that. Um,
52:09the other thing is that,
52:13you know, when you run for election and
52:16you get into one of these seats, you
52:18have to expect debate. You can't just
52:20point at someone and call them a bully
52:22for disagreeing with you. Um, you know,
52:25when I speak the truth online and then
52:28someone comes back and says, "It's a
52:29rumor." Was it a rumor that we didn't
52:31notify our members to a meeting? Is it
52:34within the bylaws and the constitution
52:36in chapter 96 that we shall do that?
52:39Yes. That's not a rumor. That's the
52:41truth. That's what happened. So, you
52:44know, I'm not going to be silenced
52:45because people want to call me a bully.
52:46I go I'll post right now that I'm the
52:48bully. I'm not going to quit telling the
52:50truth, you guys. And our number one goal
52:53here is to afford our members their
52:55rights. And I believe that everything is
52:58built off trust. And when you tell your
52:59members something in a campaign and
53:01months later take it back.
53:04I mean, how can they trust you? They
53:06can't. They literally can't. I've read
53:08it on everyone's platforms. We all voted
53:13in public and haven't really learned
53:16anything new. So, why did nine of us
53:18vote yes that are sitting here today on
53:21something and then say, "Oh, well, uh,
53:24now I'm worried. We haven't gained
53:26anything new since you voted yes." So, I
53:29mean, if this is the direction we're
53:30going to go, I'm I'm ready to have the
53:32debate publicly. I mean, it it's
53:35definitely disingenuous to tell your
53:37people something. Oh, please vote for
53:38me. I'll support what you want. Never
53:40mind.
53:42Took my took my seat. Took my oath. I'm
53:44good on that. No, it's not going to
53:46happen. Or or it might happen. You guys
53:48might outvote it, but I mean, it it's
53:51going to be what it's going to be. And I
53:53believe that we should be honest to the
53:54members. And I'm not going to be back
53:57down on that by being called a bully as
54:00I tell the truth. Sorry.
54:05Kim Lee, Aaron, then Sue.
54:13Okay. So, I believe we have learned a
54:15few new things as of last Tuesday.
54:18Do we now have
54:21um
54:23a handle on where we're at with third
54:25party revenue?
54:33>> What would you like to know about third
54:34party revenue? I can look it up and give
54:36you any information on that. I do know
54:39that we are waiting still to collect. I
54:42know that there has been some holdup
54:44with the new system implementation where
54:46we haven't been able to bill for some of
54:49the services that we've provided and
54:50that's problematic because we're not
54:52bringing in that revenue.
54:54>> Could you tell how much third party
54:56revenue we have?
54:57>> Yeah, I can. Did you want to say
54:59something about that?
55:00>> I was just going to clarify that
55:02implementation issue is with the health
55:04care system, I believe is what you're
55:05referring to as far and then possibly
55:07the um the housing authority too. So, go
55:09ahead, Kim.
55:12So, I'd like to know that because as of
55:14last week, we were kind of unsure where
55:17we were sitting at.
55:21Um,
55:23and where do we see
55:26without gaining any new revenue
55:28structures,
55:30how long is this sustainable?
55:34Okay. So, I'm going to answer the third
55:36party revenue first and then we'll talk
55:38about the other.
55:40Okay.
55:42Through August 31st,
55:47we have collected 1.5 million more in
55:51third party revenue
55:54revenue
55:56>> over
55:58>> the projection for through 831.
56:02And now I will tell you for three
56:04months.
56:05>> I will tell you we are not closed for
56:07August 31st yet. So we would have been
56:10substantially higher
56:13in our collections if we had been
56:15billing from June, July and August.
56:21>> What was projected to be collected is
56:24$24,465,5629.
56:29in what was collected
56:31>> $25,96627
56:35or I'm sorry $25,966,62747
56:41>> $1 million more than expected and that's
56:44without several months of billing.
56:45>> That is correct. 1.5 more without now
56:49I'll get to the expenses.
56:53And then the housing authority too if
56:54you have that information handy.
56:59>> They budgeted to transfer out through
57:01August 31st of 2026 $47 million.
57:0647343,447.
57:12They transferred out $31,135,313.
57:20So
57:22they are currently $16 million 16.2
57:25million less than they projected to
57:27spend. However, they are 3.5 million
57:30over spent right now and I suspect that
57:32that would not be the case if we were
57:35collecting the revenue.
57:38>> Okay,
57:38>> that is we're still in an uncertainty
57:41there. Okay,
57:45so next question. How long do you
57:47believe if we were status quo that this
57:50is sustainable?
57:52So,
57:54I'm going to say that right now with
57:59what I presented the other day, we had
58:02um and I don't have my papers in front
58:03of me, so I apologize for that.
58:06We have some funds in our corporate tax
58:11roughly 10.6 million that are earmarked.
58:14They are settlement funds. They are the
58:15Juul funds, the opioid, the IHS contract
58:18support, and the Rama settlement funds.
58:21Those funds total about 10.6 million
58:24that are earmarked. So that's going to
58:26offset what we have. And I believe I
58:29gave a tax presentation and the
58:30materials to this board and I want to
58:32say it was about 49 million.
58:36And so with those earmarked and then we
58:38have a deficit of over 10 million in our
58:41general fund. So, we have to net that
58:44against what we have in our tribal
58:46support coffers for 125 as part of the
58:49general fund. Um, and what that's going
58:52to do is that with our deficit that we
58:55budgeted and approved
58:57of 14 million, that's going to leave us
59:00about one year to continue on operations
59:03at the current level of spend if we
59:05continue to spend another 14 million.
59:09Now, I will tell you historically we've
59:11backed that down and it's been the true
59:14realized loss in corporate tax is about
59:16six million.
59:18>> I was about to say we didn't lose 14
59:20million.
59:21>> We didn't. And that would give us a year
59:23probably
59:24of cash flows at that expenditure level.
59:28>> Okay. So, I'm looking for a very direct
59:30answer.
59:31>> Okay.
59:31>> On what you believe is sustainable. And
59:35maybe this question isn't even fair to
59:36you, right? are governmental.
59:39This gentleman just arrived not too long
59:43ago. Maybe this question is for Mr.
59:46Connelly who knows all of our finances
59:48inside and out.
59:52>> Come on up, Bill, if you mind.
59:59>> Well, my point of information is going
1:00:01to be is the projection changed when you
1:00:03take into that new revenue that the
1:00:05government can take. If you taxed
1:00:07housing authority, health division, and
1:00:09STI,
1:00:10>> it will change
1:00:10>> while also trimming costs.
1:00:12>> Yes, it will change.
1:00:14>> Go ahead.
1:00:18>> But that wasn't the question I asked.
1:00:21>> Well, as a point of information, though,
1:00:22too, I don't know how fair it is to even
1:00:24be asking about some of these questions
1:00:26because we as a board need to balance
1:00:29our budget, too. And and so we're we're
1:00:32kind of throwing a lot on here because
1:00:34we're saying, "Hey, can we afford to do
1:00:35this when right now we're already have a
1:00:38$14 million deficit and actual about
1:00:41six." But in either instance, asking the
1:00:45financial person, can we afford it? We
1:00:46already know the answer. The answer is
1:00:48no. We as a board though had to balance
1:00:51our budget and then make room for this
1:00:55too. We had to balance our budget no
1:00:56matter what we do, whether we go down to
1:00:58three branch government or not. We as a
1:01:00board need to come together and balance
1:01:02our budget because tapping into the
1:01:04funds isn't an answer. It isn't a
1:01:06solution. We need to make cuts. And
1:01:09nobody likes to say that word, but at
1:01:11the end of the day, we cannot afford to
1:01:13keep going tapping into the funds. We
1:01:16need to reduce government services
1:01:17somehow. We can increase taxes. We can
1:01:20do all that, but at the end of the day,
1:01:22it is not going to equal 14 million or
1:01:24even the six mill. And on top of that,
1:01:27throw the three branch thing. we have to
1:01:29make we are gonna have to make some hard
1:01:31decisions on how we move forward and
1:01:34what we need to to prioritize. So I
1:01:37don't think it's a fair question to put
1:01:39on our CFOs right now and say hey can we
1:01:41afford to do this because
1:01:43>> we're not doing it.
1:01:44>> I absolutely agree. So that's why I said
1:01:47status quo where this board sits right
1:01:49now.
1:01:50>> Yep.
1:01:51>> What is the sustainability?
1:01:55So can I guess will you repeat uh Kim
1:02:00what you're would like me to answer.
1:02:02nothing changes, right? If we continue
1:02:06with our funding the way it is right
1:02:08now, how long is it sustainable to take
1:02:13on
1:02:14before we start
1:02:16having nothing to to pull from to be
1:02:18able to replace those funds, right,
1:02:20where those cuts are going to have to be
1:02:22made.
1:02:25>> Well, I I agree with Holly. um unless we
1:02:29can um do something currently,
1:02:34it's not sustainable at all because
1:02:37we're operating at a deficit each year.
1:02:40So, I guess the question to me is
1:02:43currently, as Mike mentioned, uh, the
1:02:46road we're on, you know, do we have
1:02:49three, four years at the $6 million or
1:02:53whatever it is that we would
1:02:56uh, you know, anticipate losing before
1:02:59the constitution goes into the changes
1:03:02would go into effect
1:03:05maybe. But, you know, some things have
1:03:09to happen in order to be able to sustain
1:03:13the route we're on right now. I mean,
1:03:15frankly,
1:03:19so I don't know if that answers your
1:03:20question or not, but it
1:03:21>> does answer my question. Thank you.
1:03:23>> Okay, I have Aaron, Sue, then Tyler. Did
1:03:26I miss anybody? Okay, go ahead, Aaron.
1:03:29>> Okay, so in 2022,
1:03:34No, let me back up. In 2020
1:03:38before the pandemic hit, we were
1:03:41pledging um all of our net revenue to
1:03:45services and it was roughly we called it
1:03:47tribal support. It was roughly about 17
1:03:49million. Um we always over projected
1:03:52what the budget needs were. We always
1:03:53underspent. Um the administration used
1:03:57to try to give um budget um parameters,
1:04:01drivers out to so that programs and
1:04:04services would not overp project their
1:04:05budgets. But then after I left office, I
1:04:08understand the board ordered um uh not
1:04:12to limit those projections so that
1:04:15departments could just ask for whatever
1:04:17they wanted without regard to how much
1:04:19money we would have also because of the
1:04:22pandemic. Um and we we did the
1:04:24responsible thing by shutting down our
1:04:25doors and not putting people's health at
1:04:27risk. And then um the whole pandemic
1:04:30affected ability to generate revenue. Um
1:04:34and and then we became dependent upon or
1:04:37reliant might be a better word reliant
1:04:39on U PO and um and I I know people
1:04:44bristle when I say it, but I was on the
1:04:46budget formulation to get the $500
1:04:49million that we got to sustain us for
1:04:52the time period following the the
1:04:53pandemic. And one thing that changed
1:04:56from when I left to when I came back was
1:05:00a recalculation of what the tribal
1:05:02government could depend upon in terms of
1:05:05um tribal support from our enterprises.
1:05:07And that makes sense because the
1:05:09enterprises weren't generating it. So we
1:05:11couldn't give 17 million. But as I
1:05:15understand it, we're we're doing about
1:05:17as well as we were pre- pandemic right
1:05:20now. But we haven't changed back the
1:05:22calculation to collect the the revenue.
1:05:25And I, as I understand it, it's because
1:05:28we see the need to reinvest in our
1:05:31facilities um so that we can try to
1:05:34drive even more revenue out of our
1:05:36gaming. And I and I support that. But I
1:05:38also want to make clear that that's an
1:05:41artificial um way of looking at where we
1:05:44were before where we are now. because
1:05:46now we're facing a deficit because we
1:05:48don't have a guarantee of tribal support
1:05:50at $17 million.
1:05:52So, um, had we had that still, which it
1:05:55seems like we should be able to go back
1:05:57to that because it's post pandemic and
1:05:59the revenue we're generating is is um
1:06:02about what we were generating or a
1:06:04little bit better today. So, um, so
1:06:07that's that's a creation of government
1:06:09that we have a deficit that we're facing
1:06:11a deficit. Um but also I wanted to say
1:06:15all right so as a government you you
1:06:17provide programs and services we don't
1:06:19tax people. Um at one point we had the
1:06:22idea to you know build this big
1:06:24beautiful big bear. So that's a BBB. Um
1:06:28and uh under the presumption it was
1:06:31going to generate revenue and carry its
1:06:33own costs which is total nonsense
1:06:34because anybody who fell for that hook
1:06:36line and sinker was really naive um
1:06:39because it's a it's a loss leader. The
1:06:41big bear is a loss leader, so we have to
1:06:43supplement it. But we do because it
1:06:44provides a recreation outlet hopefully,
1:06:47you know, improve your house so that you
1:06:49don't have chronic disease. Um, we also
1:06:52have some loss leaders on the enterprise
1:06:54side that our our enterprise structure
1:06:56today is is in has inherited. Um, we've
1:07:00heard from our enterprise director that
1:07:02he would never have recommended those.
1:07:04In fact, I as I understand it, I wasn't
1:07:06here, but as I understand it, they
1:07:08weren't recommended. they there wasn't a
1:07:10favorable recommendation to move
1:07:12forward, but we have lost leaders. So,
1:07:14it it's a little bit difficult for me to
1:07:16hear we can't afford it when we are
1:07:19sitting on loss leaders on the
1:07:20enterprise side that we know are never
1:07:22going to generate a revenue. I've asked
1:07:24for that since I've been back and and we
1:07:26know they are never going to generate
1:07:28revenue. They're never going to turn a
1:07:30profit. Let me say it that way. Um
1:07:32because if you're budgeting for it and
1:07:34then you're generating revenue and it
1:07:36you know if if you're looking at that
1:07:37naively and you're thinking oh it's
1:07:39generating money. No it's not even
1:07:40covering its fixed costs. It's not even
1:07:43covering its operational cost. So so
1:07:46when we talk about being concerned about
1:07:48the expenses the expenses of affording
1:07:51people the right to do process um as a
1:07:54government as a real government. Um but
1:07:56we're not willing to make and and look
1:07:58honestly at the cuts that we need to
1:08:00make. So, um, yeah, we do, we are faced,
1:08:03Mike made a good point, we are faced,
1:08:05which you would expect from a treasurer,
1:08:07we are faced with trying to figure out
1:08:08how to balance the budget. Um, but some
1:08:11of the budget, um, is of our creation
1:08:14through the way that we do reporting and
1:08:16what we do as cash sweeps. If we're not
1:08:18if if otherwise we're saying we are 11
1:08:22million down in casino revenue, and I
1:08:25don't think that's correct. Um because
1:08:27otherwise why why do we why are we at a
1:08:31$14 million deficit? If we were still
1:08:34collecting 17 million out of our
1:08:36casinos, why are we at that deficit if
1:08:38we're doing just as good as we were
1:08:40doing before the pandemic? And I don't
1:08:42think that's true. I think we are doing
1:08:43just as good or better right now. Okay.
1:08:46Uh so then the other side of the coin is
1:08:49how are we going to generate revenue to
1:08:51go forward? This is a question to ask
1:08:53whether or not we're debating the
1:08:54constitutional amendment at all. How are
1:08:57we going to survive going forward if we
1:08:59have a projected deficit and the casino
1:09:02it's not going to be from casinos. It's
1:09:04not that's not going to happen. Um we'll
1:09:06do better. We are doing better but it
1:09:08we're not going to have this big
1:09:09phenomenal increase in revenue from
1:09:11casinos. Um we have been doing really
1:09:13well in enterprises and Sutribe Inc.
1:09:15also has been doing well but I don't
1:09:18foresee this big giant surplus coming
1:09:20from those either. So then we have to
1:09:23make some tough choices. That's that's
1:09:24reality.
1:09:26or we have to figure out where can we
1:09:28generate revenue. All right, so the
1:09:29board made a decision when I was out of
1:09:32office again and I think it was the
1:09:34right decision. Um it would be cowardly
1:09:36just to say well they made that
1:09:37decision. I had nothing to do with it
1:09:39but they made the right decision when
1:09:40they contracted with Bluestone to come
1:09:42in and give us their assessment of how
1:09:44can we generate revenue. They gave a
1:09:46list of recommendations. They include
1:09:49recruitment and retention, generating
1:09:51additional third-party revenue. And to
1:09:54my knowledge, I've asked and a couple
1:09:56other board members at this table have
1:09:57asked repeatedly, how was that coming?
1:10:00You know, what's the health division
1:10:01doing to generate that revenue? And um
1:10:05the revenue that we can generate through
1:10:07thirdparty revenue in the health side is
1:10:09multiples more lucrative than and this
1:10:12is no offense no um than what the casino
1:10:15is going to be able to do or what the
1:10:16enterprises are going to be able to do.
1:10:18Um when I left office we were making
1:10:21about $15 million in thirdparty revenue
1:10:23from healthcare and I think it's
1:10:25probably what's the total projected
1:10:29>> if we were collecting all of it?
1:10:31Well, I was going to ask you this,
1:10:33Holly. How long would it take you to get
1:10:35projections to determine how much we
1:10:38would receive from the housing
1:10:38authority, health division, and STI if
1:10:40our tax code was applied to them? Even
1:10:42just a general rough estimate.
1:10:44>> Our existing tax code, um, probably not
1:10:47that long. I could probably whip that up
1:10:49in a couple of days.
1:10:50>> Okay. Do you know ballpark off the top
1:10:52of your head how much you think it could
1:10:53generate?
1:10:54>> I don't. I would not want to answer
1:10:56that.
1:10:56>> Okay. I respect that.
1:10:58>> So, our our best opportunity for
1:11:01generating revenue right now is
1:11:03thirdparty revenue in healthcare is our
1:11:05absolute best. It's the biggest bang for
1:11:08the buck. It's the white buffalo,
1:11:09whatever you want to call it. But we
1:11:12aren't doing what we need to do to
1:11:13maximize that because that opportunity
1:11:15is out there. So, okay, let's talk about
1:11:18the political climate. the political
1:11:20climate. I watch this stuff really
1:11:21closely is even with the big beautiful
1:11:23budget that passed in 2025 and what was
1:11:26it June in 2025 where the president of
1:11:29uh brought his budget and the arm
1:11:30twisted and and got it approved and it
1:11:33would decimate rural health care. We
1:11:36have survived that. We survived it
1:11:38because the speaker of the house is Tom
1:11:40Cole and he's minimized the impact on
1:11:43Indian country. Um, so even though other
1:11:45other health care delivery systems are
1:11:48suffering, real health care systems are
1:11:50suffering, we also probably are going to
1:11:53see a wave. We're going to see a wave, a
1:11:56blue wave in 64 days. And you're going
1:11:58to see a solidification and and a return
1:12:01of the deficit that was created by the
1:12:05president and the Republican legislature
1:12:07in terms of health care. So you're going
1:12:09to see that stabilize. And what does
1:12:10that mean? That means that we are going
1:12:13to be able to be bankable in terms of
1:12:15going after third-party revenue. And so
1:12:18I have suggested for years, Kathy
1:12:20Abramson, so I'll tell you how long ago
1:12:21it was. Kathy Abramson and I were
1:12:23suggesting we create our own navigator
1:12:25system under the health care system.
1:12:26We're still largely underinsured. We
1:12:28have a lot of tribal members in UNUP
1:12:30that show up that don't have health care
1:12:33that end up using purchase and referred
1:12:34services and then put a drain on that.
1:12:36That is what it's for. but if we could
1:12:39sign them up for some kind of health
1:12:40care. And as far as I know, we don't
1:12:42have an active plan on how we're signing
1:12:44people up for um Medicaid, Medicare um
1:12:48on the exchange. Um so we're not doing
1:12:51that. Um we could be doing that. That is
1:12:53what we should be doing. Um, so, so I
1:12:57it's just it's difficult for me to hear
1:12:59that we can't afford to be a government
1:13:01with due process rights and affording
1:13:03people the right to due process when
1:13:05when number one, we aren't reducing the
1:13:08the losses, the loss leaders. We're just
1:13:10those are sacred calls that we're not
1:13:12even willing to touch. I I tried I'm
1:13:14trying to move past that because the the
1:13:16climate's not there. The the the
1:13:18politics aren't in favor of changing
1:13:20that at this board table. I beat my head
1:13:22against the wall of that in the first
1:13:23two years. I I've given up on that. It
1:13:26isn't going to happen. Um but it's
1:13:28difficult to hear the argument we can't
1:13:29afford something when we're sitting on
1:13:31loss leaders. And it's also difficult to
1:13:33hear when we are not demanding an
1:13:36affirmative plan for how we're going to
1:13:38generate revenue in the biggest bang for
1:13:40the buck that's in front of us. And
1:13:41that's thirdparty revenue in healthcare.
1:13:44You know, I I I know people goff at when
1:13:46I propose that we take a look at Sibi
1:13:49and and potentially converting that.
1:13:50There's a lot of Indians that live in
1:13:52that area. There's a lot of people once
1:13:54this this fight over the Affordable Care
1:13:57Act is passed that that could bring
1:14:00revenue to the Sibly property. Um, but
1:14:03what we need is we need somebody that
1:14:04knows how to do a budget projection of
1:14:06perform. We thought we got that. You all
1:14:10thought we got that when you hired
1:14:11somebody and you apparently don't have
1:14:13that yet, but we need that. So rather
1:14:16than point fault at the pass, we need it
1:14:18now because it is going to be the
1:14:20biggest bang for the buck. We can
1:14:22generate I I would guess that if we had
1:14:24that facility up and running, we could
1:14:26generate more than we're generating
1:14:28here. And if we're generating is it 28
1:14:30million in third party revenue, Holly,
1:14:32>> I'm sorry.
1:14:33>> Did you give even a rough estimate? Is
1:14:35it I thought it was closer to 30 million
1:14:38in projected third party revenue from
1:14:40healthcare.
1:14:41>> Sorry, Erin. One just one second. So
1:14:44what they had projected it is it's 27.2
1:14:47million that they projected in their
1:14:50budget.
1:14:52>> Okay. 27.2 million versus 6 million that
1:14:55we can rely on from the casino.
1:14:58So where should we be putting our effort
1:15:00right now in healthcare? And if it's not
1:15:03sibly if sibly is just a pipe dream
1:15:05whatever the politics are behind sibly.
1:15:07>> Can I can I share this Aaron?
1:15:10If they can't afford a new government,
1:15:12how can they afford to develop Sibi?
1:15:14>> I I'll tell you how. Because we have we
1:15:17have banked third party revenue. We have
1:15:20um we have obligated healthc care funds
1:15:23and Rama that could be used. We have um
1:15:28>> yeah we And so how you do it is like how
1:15:32businesses do start. You you identify
1:15:34what the fixed costs are for startup. So
1:15:37there would be fixed costs for for
1:15:38renovating a facility for for getting it
1:15:41up and running for getting equipment and
1:15:43all of that. Um but this is going to be
1:15:46so lucrative that it's easily going to
1:15:48pay its own cost. So that's why right
1:15:51now if you look at it in a static you
1:15:53know the cost is going to be probably be
1:15:5620 million to to do a development in say
1:15:58sibly but the revenue is going to be 20
1:16:02million annually at least. It's gonna
1:16:05it's going to transcend our revenue
1:16:06here. If our revenue here is 27 million,
1:16:08a sibly property is going to generate 30
1:16:10or $40 million. So within two or three
1:16:13years, you're going to be able to retire
1:16:14your debt on a facil on a healthcare
1:16:17facility. And casinos can't promise
1:16:19that. There's no way. None of the
1:16:22enterprises we've ever done can promise
1:16:23that and they never will. So the other
1:16:26one area all right so moving off that
1:16:28the other other the other one area that
1:16:31could potentially start generating
1:16:32revenue but it's going to take the this
1:16:35blue wave and because a lot of the
1:16:38federal contracting that we were
1:16:39depending on that we were ramping up
1:16:41Sutra Inca was really going in the right
1:16:43direction we had budget projections
1:16:45there a lot of those got chokeold
1:16:48because the president interpreted that
1:16:50those were DEI and American Indians are
1:16:53not DEI it's you know we're a political
1:16:55entity. But once we have a a a shift
1:16:59paradigm shift in November, you're going
1:17:01to see those projects return. You're
1:17:03going to see energy projects return,
1:17:06clean energy projects return. You're
1:17:08going to see government contracting to
1:17:10pre-qualified
1:17:12uh individuals return. And we are we're
1:17:15poised for that. Our suture tribe has
1:17:16been doing a really good job. You're
1:17:18going to see increased revenue there,
1:17:20too. So, um,
1:17:23all of this to say, the sky is not
1:17:26falling. We have endured much, much
1:17:28worse than anything we're facing now.
1:17:30The picture that's being painted is that
1:17:31we're on the brink of crisis. If that
1:17:34were true, we would be trying to figure
1:17:36out I'd give up half of my salary. And I
1:17:38and I I do think, as Sue said, I do
1:17:41think some board members are worth it.
1:17:43Some board members do earn their keep
1:17:45with constituent work with getting calls
1:17:48all the time um with those that are on
1:17:51national committees that are out
1:17:52advocating and getting additional
1:17:54revenue for our tribe. Um some some are
1:17:57earning definitely earning their keep.
1:17:59But if we were truly on the brink of
1:18:01financial ruin, why isn't that on the
1:18:04table? Why aren't we shutting down
1:18:06failing businesses that are losing money
1:18:08that we've been told by our experts that
1:18:11they're never going to turn a profit?
1:18:13Why isn't that happening? And it isn't
1:18:15happening because we're not at the brink
1:18:17of a crisis. So, all right, I'll turn it
1:18:20back. Sue, Tyler, Rob.
1:18:24Tyler,
1:18:27that was a lot. Sue, you got a friend in
1:18:29me. Um, I don't know. My kid loves Toy
1:18:32Story. So,
1:18:34>> yeah.
1:18:35>> I just I feel for you because I
1:18:37understand what you're going through.
1:18:38And and to be honest with you, like it's
1:18:40not fair for you, Cole, and and Ashley,
1:18:44to come into this and ask questions and
1:18:46feel like you're put down by anybody,
1:18:48whether that's online or in the room.
1:18:50It's not fair to any of you. And I
1:18:51agree. And I can 100% feel for you on
1:18:54being attacked. My entire family is
1:18:57being attacked right now. Um
1:18:59unnecessarily. I was born into this
1:19:00tribe in 1982.
1:19:02So, I mean, I may be younger than some
1:19:04people at this table, but uh Garden
1:19:07River Church Records didn't exist till
1:19:092011. So, I've been a C tribe member my
1:19:13whole life, but now it's not just me
1:19:15being attacked. It's the entire Lelant
1:19:17side. And I don't even want to get my
1:19:19mom's side involved into it because I
1:19:20get my lineage from both sides. So, it
1:19:22is unfortunate, but even if we disagree
1:19:25at this table, I'm never going to leave
1:19:26here hating anybody. you know, we're
1:19:28we're we are paid to make decisions
1:19:31based on our constituents, based on what
1:19:33we know as individuals. That's why we're
1:19:35a council and not one individual making
1:19:37the decisions. So, with that being said,
1:19:41you know, I know it's it's tough and you
1:19:42guys are coming into a really really
1:19:44really tough time. Um, last year we had
1:19:48anticipated a $21 million $23 million
1:19:52government deficit spend. Um, we did the
1:19:56projections in Lancing. I loosely
1:19:58projected out and clearly I did this in
1:19:59a closed session but the the final
1:20:02numbers came out and I had said in that
1:20:05meeting by my projection we would only
1:20:08be down $4.5 million by the end of the
1:20:10year and I believe it was $4.8 million
1:20:13by the end of the year. So clearly the
1:20:15projections are not what they seem to
1:20:17be, which is why I think both our
1:20:19constituents and the board of directors
1:20:21need a one to three to fiveyear
1:20:23performer projections so they can see
1:20:26where we're at with both the government
1:20:28as well as our individual businesses.
1:20:30And if we decide to keep the individual
1:20:32businesses closed, that's fine because
1:20:34it will roll up into the entire
1:20:36government budget so that the people can
1:20:37actually see um what we truly spend and
1:20:41what we're projected to spend over the
1:20:42next 3 to 5 years. I think that's
1:20:44appropriate and then add in um any
1:20:47amendments. But I do want to highlight a
1:20:48few things as Aaron touched on
1:20:50healthcare. I've been pushing this. You
1:20:52know, we renegotiate our annual funding
1:20:54agreement to be able to use the funds
1:20:56towards health related services. That
1:20:58includes public health. One of the
1:21:00biggest things that it's supported that
1:21:02we never have to worry about again is
1:21:03our elder services because all of our
1:21:05elder services are health related
1:21:06expenses. And that's just to name one
1:21:08thing. I'm not going to go through the
1:21:10whole list of all the things that we
1:21:11found, but we've we've offset that and
1:21:13instead of just pulling from third
1:21:15party, what we're trying to do with the
1:21:16tax is do it appropriate as a government
1:21:19so that the third party so that the
1:21:20health division knows exactly what
1:21:22they're going to spend every year that
1:21:25they have a fixed cost, whether that be
1:21:26a percentage or just a a bullet proof
1:21:30soundproof number that at least they'll
1:21:32have a fix fixed cost that they'll know
1:21:34that they have to give the government
1:21:35every year and that we can't just reach
1:21:37in there saying we're going to expand
1:21:38health services and these related
1:21:40things. We know what we're going to be
1:21:41able to spend in health related services
1:21:43as well. If their business increases and
1:21:45the that taxes at a percentage, the
1:21:48government services can ex expand in
1:21:51health related activities. So, I'm fully
1:21:54supportive of that. And and Erin, one of
1:21:55the things you didn't mention with Sibly
1:21:57is the amount of veterans around the
1:21:59Detroit area far exceeds probably the
1:22:01number of natives there. So, I think
1:22:03your projection is low to be honest with
1:22:06you. So, I do believe healthcare is the
1:22:08next generation. Now, there are options,
1:22:10but there are options that we're going
1:22:11to have to come up with as a board of
1:22:13directors. Uh, one of those things is to
1:22:16only approve the tribal support we're
1:22:17willing to approve. Like, we we approved
1:22:20a $14 million deficit spend. We know
1:22:23that we're not going to hit it, but when
1:22:25we found out that we only spent over
1:22:27spent $4.8 $8 million last year. We
1:22:29should not have overapproved a penny
1:22:31more than that to help slow things down
1:22:35and make our finance department a little
1:22:37more comfortable. Granted, it's a
1:22:39deficit spend. They're still going to be
1:22:40uncomfortable, but we should have never
1:22:42approved a penny more than that $4.8
1:22:44million. We shouldn't have. And whatever
1:22:46we come up with this year for 2027
1:22:48budgets when they come right around the
1:22:50corner, we should not overapprove those
1:22:53things again. And I've been saying this
1:22:54for the last couple years, but we just
1:22:56keep doing it to keep things moving
1:22:58forward or we're too busy talking about
1:22:59other things. So, we do really have to
1:23:01have serious conversations about that. I
1:23:03totally agree.
1:23:05Um the the other thing that I wanted to
1:23:07bring up is there are other sources of
1:23:09funding that we could tap into. I don't
1:23:11want to. Um but to say that, you know,
1:23:15we can't do this, we can't do that.
1:23:18online gaming went from Sue Tribank and
1:23:20we pushed it right over to the Quaidon
1:23:23Gaming. Now, I like to see our
1:23:27properties reinvested in and things of
1:23:29that nature. Like, we need to finish
1:23:32this off. We need to see this through.
1:23:35But one of the things that we can do is
1:23:37tap into that because that is now just
1:23:40going straight to capital improvements,
1:23:42which is something that Kuwaiten needs
1:23:45um in all of our properties because it's
1:23:48it investing in ourselves is investing
1:23:50in our future and it's going to benefit
1:23:52us. But that's another thing that we can
1:23:53discuss and an argument we can make uh
1:23:57about our about the services and how to
1:23:59how to pay for the services. So, I just
1:24:02I wish instead of
1:24:04coming at this and and either feeling
1:24:07like we're attacked or attacking each
1:24:09other or or the hyperbole or whatever,
1:24:12that instead people would come forward
1:24:14with solutions and resolutions like I've
1:24:16been trying to do. like that we it took
1:24:18me what eight months to get that tax the
1:24:22health tax just on a tribal board member
1:24:25meeting just so you guys could see what
1:24:27it would look like to talk about it
1:24:29instead of just loosely grabbing at the
1:24:31health division you know so those are a
1:24:35few of the things that I wanted to talk
1:24:36about I think one of the most important
1:24:37things is showing a public model of a
1:24:40perform perform based on what we're
1:24:42currently expecting and what we could be
1:24:44expecting with the new improvements and
1:24:46then finally I want going to state this
1:24:48and you know I totally support our
1:24:50courts and and uh and Justice Leaport um
1:24:54but 1 million to build or expand on the
1:24:57the court like is that needed on day one
1:24:59or year one or can we find the funding
1:25:01later on? I don't think that should be
1:25:03part of the projection. I think that's
1:25:05something that we can either lobby down
1:25:06the road through through um uh law
1:25:10enforcement grants or some other kind of
1:25:13funding source like we've done before
1:25:15for our homeless shelter and things like
1:25:17that. That's one of the things that
1:25:18Austin and I or or maybe all of us can
1:25:21hit our constit or our legislators with.
1:25:23Um also I don't think a million dollars
1:25:26is going to get us much of a wing on
1:25:28that court house or even if it can hold
1:25:31it. So, I just I feel like that should
1:25:33be pulled as a future consideration and
1:25:36not a year one expense because there's
1:25:38there ain't no way we're putting
1:25:40anything up for a million dollars in
1:25:41year one in that courthouse. Like I just
1:25:43I don't see that happening. So, I wanted
1:25:46to throw that out there again as another
1:25:47solution as cost savings of this
1:25:50implementation of the three branch and
1:25:52just you know like let's come up with
1:25:54solutions and uh work together to figure
1:25:57this out. Now, I know we're limited on
1:25:59space, so please uh judge don't hate me.
1:26:01Um, but I just don't see like nothing in
1:26:05the tribe is happening in a year for a
1:26:07million dollars. You know, we've we've
1:26:09had that annex on the agenda for three
1:26:11and a half years now. So, I'll yield
1:26:14that.
1:26:15>> Judge Leaport, if you could talk about
1:26:16the spatial issues and capacity at the
1:26:18court, we'd appreciate it.
1:26:19>> Yeah, absolutely. So, I'm not entirely
1:26:22sure where the capacity issue originates
1:26:25from. Um it like you said it sounds like
1:26:28you've been having those conversations
1:26:29for a few years. So um from my view we
1:26:32can utilize the space we currently have.
1:26:35The other thing that I will tell you is
1:26:36that we have um met with Larry in your
1:26:40grants department to start discussing
1:26:42the possibility of applying for the SEOs
1:26:44funding which does have um it does have
1:26:48a I believe a purpose area for that
1:26:50allows for tribal infrastructure. So
1:26:52anything that we would need in addition
1:26:53we might be able to fund out of that.
1:26:55Um, an additional thing that I would
1:26:57say, and again, this doesn't help
1:26:58because I'm just throwing out a million
1:27:00hypotheticals, and I feel like that's
1:27:02part of the problem, right, in these
1:27:03discussions. Um, you all have uh other
1:27:07reservations besides
1:27:09besides Sus Marie, and it might be nice
1:27:11if we would just have some equipment so
1:27:13that we could go to the other
1:27:14reservations and almost host like a
1:27:16traveling court. Um, and so we can set
1:27:18up in those spaces and make sure that
1:27:20those members have the same access and
1:27:22availability to us as um as those that
1:27:25are here or that are closer. Um, but
1:27:27again, that's something that um to me we
1:27:31can either apply for grant funding for
1:27:33if we determine that we need it.
1:27:35Immediate expenses are just going to be
1:27:37an office outfitting for the associate
1:27:39judge.
1:27:41>> Okay. I want to I want to ask you this
1:27:43though before we um get back to the
1:27:44speakers list, Judge Leort. So, we asked
1:27:47Holly, you know, because she's our CFO,
1:27:49financial questions. Um, I'm going to
1:27:51ask you as our chief judge, what are
1:27:53your thoughts on this transition?
1:27:55Obviously, you know, you just represent
1:27:57one branch of this uh government that
1:27:59we're proposing, but it's a big one. It
1:28:01provides standing to tribal members in
1:28:03our court. What are your thoughts about
1:28:05that and its importance in your opinion?
1:28:10>> You have a bill of rights in your
1:28:12existing constitution, right? It's
1:28:13article
1:28:15seven, I believe. Is that correct? Or
1:28:16article eight that incorporates IKRA uh
1:28:21as I'm reading it fully within that
1:28:23within that provision. So whether or not
1:28:25members have standing uh in your current
1:28:28court structure to request injunctive
1:28:31relief, right, might be something that's
1:28:32already presently on the table. Any
1:28:34other further waiverss of sovereign
1:28:36immunity would obviously be up to you
1:28:37all to make as the board of directors.
1:28:39And I certainly would never want to
1:28:40overstep. Um, to me, you know, from
1:28:43looking at it from a 30,000 foot view
1:28:47where I am really stepping into this
1:28:49very new and am worried that I'm going
1:28:51to shove my foot right in my mouth. Um,
1:28:53I would say that if your members have
1:28:56elected this type of government and this
1:28:59is what they've raised forward, then
1:29:00certainly it would be um, you know, your
1:29:03duty to see that out. But I also I also
1:29:06think that there's a prudence in being
1:29:09in being mindful of the long-term cost
1:29:11of it. I will say that I think um I was
1:29:15actually expecting the cost to be a lot
1:29:16more than what was projected. So for me
1:29:19it seems like it's not
1:29:20>> I was too to be quite honest with you.
1:29:21>> Yeah. For me it doesn't seem as bad. But
1:29:23I will say this. I mean the court is
1:29:25willing to work uh within whatever
1:29:27parameters the other branches of
1:29:29government provide it. Right. You have
1:29:30the power of the person. you have the
1:29:31powers that are for the executive branch
1:29:33and those are going to be reserved for
1:29:34both of you. They're not going to be for
1:29:36the court to step on your toes, etc. Um,
1:29:39so just know that at least from my
1:29:40perspective, whatever edict is provided
1:29:42to the court in terms of making sure
1:29:44that members have quality access to the
1:29:46space and that they can have their
1:29:47disputes heard in a a timely and
1:29:49unbiased manner is really our goal. Um,
1:29:52and if the members feel that a three
1:29:53branch government is what secures that,
1:29:55then I think that's that puts a period
1:29:58on the end of that sentence. Um but in
1:30:00terms of budget for the court right uh
1:30:04whatever we need to do the court will
1:30:06work towards doing it's I I have always
1:30:08viewed court as being a serviceoriented
1:30:10space for membership
1:30:12um and that's but that's my personal
1:30:14view right and I I'm recognizing that my
1:30:16personal view might not be as relevant
1:30:18in this space um so I just also want to
1:30:20be respectful of you all and the role
1:30:21that you all have. Okay, I appreciate
1:30:23it. Judge Rob, then Aaron,
1:30:28I just wanted to clarify a couple
1:30:30things. So, just so nobody actually
1:30:33thinks I'm a bully. Well, you you still
1:30:35can. Um, but I would never tried to
1:30:37bully Sue or Director Sange. Um, I've
1:30:41been very open about this. She was on a
1:30:43team of ladies who literally saved my
1:30:45life. She's a hero to me and that's
1:30:48transcends any argument that we have at
1:30:49this table. It always will. That'll be
1:30:51for life. If I appreciate everything
1:30:53you've done and the team of ladies you
1:30:55worked with, I literally wouldn't be
1:30:57here. So,
1:31:00>> okay. Okay. I just wanted to
1:31:03>> I just wanted to make sure I I just
1:31:05wanted to make sure I wasn't coming
1:31:07across as a bully. Um, and
1:31:10>> Okay.
1:31:12>> Okay. But but seriously, that transcends
1:31:14anything at this table is that I I can't
1:31:17say how much that group of our YEA staff
1:31:20has changed my life and the lives of a
1:31:22ton of uh our youth moving forward. So,
1:31:26um there's that. The the other thing I
1:31:28want to point out is that I I none of
1:31:30this is personal to me. Um this is all
1:31:32on my fundamentals. That is our job to
1:31:35afford our members their rights. Period.
1:31:38And there and there's no argument about
1:31:39that to me. um that's our number one
1:31:42job. So if we can't if the sentiment is
1:31:45that we can't afford them their rights,
1:31:47then I have to say that I failed and the
1:31:50board failed as a whole as an entire
1:31:53government. That's a failure. When you
1:31:55when you have to look at your members
1:31:56and say we can't afford to give you your
1:31:58rights, that's a failed government.
1:32:00Period. And when you fail at your job, I
1:32:03think you should sacrifice your your
1:32:05pay. And I'm willing to I I will
1:32:07tomorrow. Um, if if if we cannot afford
1:32:12our members our rights, I don't want
1:32:13that pay. And I'm going to have that
1:32:16resolution on the table because that is
1:32:18the number one function of government is
1:32:20to afford your people the rights.
1:32:22Everything else comes after. And like
1:32:24Director Mccertie said, that's our job.
1:32:27I believe our job is to take direction
1:32:29from the membership and then it's our
1:32:32job to balance the budget. whether it's
1:32:33a three branch or right now it's been
1:32:36pointed out we're failing at that and
1:32:38that's true. So if we're running our
1:32:40government in a deficit we should not be
1:32:42receiving a paycheck and that was
1:32:44actually built into the new constitution
1:32:47that if you cannot balance your budget
1:32:49you will not get paid and the board
1:32:51removed that. So that's going to be
1:32:53reminded uh when we have this
1:32:54discussion. Um
1:32:57you know the board removed that and
1:32:59essentially we are saying that our pay
1:33:02is more important to us than your rights
1:33:05and I don't see any other way to frame
1:33:07that. Like that that is my fundamental
1:33:09belief. If we cannot afford our people
1:33:11their rights and we're saying that's the
1:33:13main thing we need to sacrifice our pay.
1:33:16And I guarantee you that's going to be
1:33:18the sentiment of the members. um that
1:33:20that's not going to be questionable to
1:33:22them. They are literally going to say,
1:33:23"If you can't get that ballot to my
1:33:25table, you don't need to be paid." And I
1:33:27agree with them. Um
1:33:30so, I mean, that's where I'm at with it.
1:33:32I I just want to make sure everyone
1:33:34knows this isn't personal. I mean, it's
1:33:35turned personal towards me already, but
1:33:37that's okay. I'm tough. I I signed up
1:33:39for it. You know, you want to bring up,
1:33:41you know, people on the board want to
1:33:43bring up people's transplant and health
1:33:44issues and stuff like that. Call them
1:33:46bullies. orders of the day.
1:33:48>> Yeah, I mean I think that's the orders
1:33:50of the day. That's what the discussion
1:33:51was based on is this exact issue. But I
1:33:54I mean I I'll be done. I just want to
1:33:56say those things.
1:33:58>> Aaron, Kim Lee, then Cole.
1:34:00>> So I I appreciate hearing our judges
1:34:04uh uh opinion about what rights
1:34:09currently exist. Um because the way that
1:34:11I read our Constitution, our existing
1:34:13Constitution, is we um uphold the United
1:34:17States Constitution, that's black and
1:34:19white in our Constitution, but we hide
1:34:22behind sovereignty. And I don't I'm not
1:34:24pointing at anybody at this table, but
1:34:26for years, for generations, our board
1:34:29hides behind sovereignty. Even though we
1:34:31know our constitution says that we are
1:34:34afforded the rights in the United States
1:34:35Constitution, speech is one that you
1:34:38don't really have the right here because
1:34:40if you exercise that speech, you get
1:34:42shut off or you get um you know punished
1:34:44for it. Um and also the Tribal Civil
1:34:48Rights Act. Um she referenced it as an
1:34:50acronym, but uh we also uphold the
1:34:53Tribal Civil Rights Act in our
1:34:54constitution. Um, we used to have in our
1:34:57in our oath of office that we would
1:34:59uphold the United States Constitution.
1:35:01Somewhere along the line, that
1:35:02disappeared. I don't know if that was an
1:35:04exercise of sovereignty or if it was
1:35:06more nefarious, but that's no longer in
1:35:08our oath of office. I went back and look
1:35:10at all my old oath of offices as
1:35:12chairperson. It was in there then, but
1:35:14it isn't in the in the oath of office
1:35:16now. And I I'm not accusing anybody
1:35:18because I don't know when it happened.
1:35:19But um but that I agree with that
1:35:23opinion, but that is not the opinion of
1:35:26our unitary form of government,
1:35:27legislative branches, legal council. And
1:35:31I'm not also not pointing the finger at
1:35:32Ryan because it has long been the
1:35:35opinion of our legal department um at
1:35:38the behest of their supervisor, which is
1:35:40the board, that we don't have those
1:35:43rights. um that we don't just
1:35:45automatically have due process rights,
1:35:47that we don't have standing. Right now,
1:35:49you don't have standing. And the way
1:35:51that our judge just explained it that
1:35:52it's arguable that we do, but we've had
1:35:56um experiences year after year after
1:35:59year when um removal petitions were
1:36:01submitted where legal counsel for the
1:36:02tribe would just interpret that the
1:36:04signatures didn't count, so they didn't
1:36:06count. or as late as 6 20 um 16 there
1:36:11was a referendum with three times as
1:36:13many signatures required and um the
1:36:17lower general or the general counsel and
1:36:19the lower court senior attorney all
1:36:21advised that it was a good valid
1:36:23petition but then for several months we
1:36:26kept coming back and and pressure from
1:36:28the board level you know to their
1:36:30employee the general counsel was their
1:36:32employee then came back and said well
1:36:34maybe it doesn't meet the requirements
1:36:36but you know So then that one got
1:36:37dismissed and then more recently in 2022
1:36:40there was uh there was a referendum
1:36:43petition to overturn the soul source
1:36:45contracting. There was again about uh
1:36:47twice as many signatures. That one also
1:36:50got dismissed by the board of directors.
1:36:52And um I don't believe that the board
1:36:55has the authority just to dismiss
1:36:57somebody's referendum rights. I don't
1:36:59think that that exists. Um, but it it
1:37:02happened and citizens could have
1:37:05challenged either one of those decisions
1:37:08if we had standing in tribal court. And
1:37:10currently we don't have standing in
1:37:11tribal court because the current law of
1:37:14the tribe or interpretation of the law
1:37:16of the tribe by by our legal department,
1:37:20not the current legal department because
1:37:21they haven't written something that says
1:37:23that, but that citizens just don't have
1:37:26standing in tribal court. So, um, one
1:37:30thing that All right. So then some will
1:37:31say, "Well, we would never do that to
1:37:33our people. We would never persecute our
1:37:34people." But I know in 2009
1:37:38there was a proposal and a couple board
1:37:41members contacted me because they
1:37:42thought I just hate Bernard to the core.
1:37:44There was a proposal, well, let me sit
1:37:46back up. The proposal to rem uh to
1:37:49remove from the roles a member of the
1:37:51council because of stuff that that
1:37:53person had done. And I'm like, are you
1:37:56crazy? I'll never support that. That
1:37:58person's a citizen of the tribe. you
1:38:00don't have any right to take away their
1:38:02citizenship. But that was an active
1:38:04proposal. And um I I told that person I
1:38:07did not respect that request. I can't
1:38:09believe you're even thinking about that.
1:38:11But that could happen today. That could
1:38:13happen today. And at the benevolence of
1:38:15the existing council, you know, it's
1:38:18left up to us to decide. If we if we
1:38:20voted right now, there's a there's a
1:38:22question mark on the citizens that are
1:38:24Batchawana, not Bachelana Garden River.
1:38:27So, uh, Tyler, I want to clarify the
1:38:30practice for counting church records
1:38:33predates 2010. So, I got clarification
1:38:37about that. That vote that changed in
1:38:392010 just changed the blood quantum
1:38:42calculation. We have all from the
1:38:44beginning enrollment verified from the
1:38:46beginning. We have been using Garden
1:38:48River Church records for enrollment in
1:38:50the tribe. So now there's a question
1:38:52about the legitimacy of Garden River
1:38:54people and there's a request for a
1:38:56workshop to bring that back. So there
1:38:59could be a vote, I'm not saying that
1:39:01that's why that board member brought it
1:39:02up, but there could be a vote to
1:39:03disenroll all descendants of Garden
1:39:05River. Over the years has been the same
1:39:08sort of thing on the Meno band. Um that
1:39:11could come up and if that happened right
1:39:13now, you you couldn't do anything about
1:39:15it. The board could vote to disenroll
1:39:17all Garden River and all Machina Bandan
1:39:19members tomorrow night. No, not tomorrow
1:39:21night. Hopefully, you respect the
1:39:22five-day notice, but giving five-day
1:39:24notice and and as a citizen of the
1:39:27tribe, you could do nothing about it.
1:39:29You couldn't. And correct me if I'm
1:39:31wrong, either the legal department or
1:39:33our judge, members could not go and file
1:39:37a cause of action in tribal court to
1:39:39overturn that decision because we have a
1:39:42unitary form of government that has not
1:39:45granted um standing in tribal court to
1:39:48overturn such a decision. That's the
1:39:51importance why the importance of a
1:39:52separation of powers is so critical
1:39:54because that could happen whether
1:39:59I guess see who's laughing. I heard a
1:40:02laugh earlier. Um which would be out of
1:40:04order. But whether um whether people
1:40:07will stay here, stand here and say, "Oh,
1:40:09we would never do that. We would never
1:40:10do that." Um but it could happen. It
1:40:13could absolutely happen. And if it
1:40:15happened right now, you would not have
1:40:17standing in tribal court to overturn the
1:40:19decision.
1:40:21That's why we need a separation of
1:40:22powers. that is worth every penny that
1:40:25we pay for it. As a citizen of this
1:40:27tribe, I interpret my entire existence
1:40:30as a citizen of this tribe. I'm also a
1:40:33citizen of the United States and of
1:40:34Michigan, but but we are not afforded
1:40:38the same rights that you are as a
1:40:40citizen of the United States, even
1:40:42though our Constitution says it. So,
1:40:44that's why we need to amend our
1:40:46Constitution to clarify that citizens
1:40:49have standing in tribal court. That's
1:40:51important. that's worth every single
1:40:54penny. And I think every citizen that
1:40:56might be facing disenrollment or or some
1:40:59some action adverse action against them
1:41:02that they then realize you don't have
1:41:03standing in tribal court, I think they
1:41:05will all line up. And here's the bottom
1:41:07line.
1:41:08We're denying them the ability to tell
1:41:11us what is they want in their form of
1:41:13government. If we tell them how much
1:41:15it's going to cost, who are we to deny
1:41:19them their right to make the selection,
1:41:21to make the choice? We're a
1:41:23representative democracy. We're not a
1:41:25dictatorship, or we should be. Let's let
1:41:28the people decide. If they know the pros
1:41:30and cons of the expense, and they choose
1:41:32to weigh the benefit of due process in
1:41:35tribal court over the costs, let them
1:41:38make that decision. Because right now
1:41:39we're the only there's 12 of us, 13 of
1:41:42us standing in the way of them making
1:41:44the decision. This should be their right
1:41:47for their government to have their
1:41:49governance as they see fit, not as we
1:41:53see fit.
1:41:55All right. So, I have a couple hands up
1:41:57from staff. Holly, if you don't mind
1:41:58sharing what you put your hand up to
1:41:59share, then Judge Leaport, and then I'll
1:42:01get back to the board of directors.
1:42:02Oftentimes, when I call in staff,
1:42:04they'll recenter it and focus it where
1:42:05it needs to be focused. At that point,
1:42:08after I exhaust this list, which would
1:42:09be Kim Lee and then Cole, I ask that we
1:42:13continue on this conversation.
1:42:14Otherwise, it's going to be just like
1:42:15last Monday where we don't get a whole
1:42:17lot accomplished. Everyone spoke several
1:42:19times. We're going to get several
1:42:20opportunities to speak about this issue
1:42:22later on today and tomorrow. So, let's
1:42:24just hold it after this.
1:42:26>> Go ahead, Holly.
1:42:27>> My my point that I just wanted to bring
1:42:29up is that we've taken our cash, our
1:42:32liquid asset. We had quite a bit of ARPA
1:42:34funding and some other funds. We turned
1:42:36them into capital assets. We made
1:42:38buildings. We created structures. Those
1:42:42structures are fine right now because
1:42:44they're new. Those will eventually cost
1:42:46us more money. And so I was just going
1:42:49to ask Judge Leaport a question about
1:42:52she had mentioned the court and we had
1:42:54talked about the cost of adding an
1:42:56addition to the court. My question would
1:42:58be and this kind of goes for the health
1:43:01centers as well is is there a way to
1:43:04become more creative because we know
1:43:05that bricks and mortar are expensive.
1:43:08It's costly to maintain. It's costly to
1:43:10construct. So, is there a way to do a
1:43:14combination of in courtroom
1:43:19um sessions in addition to a
1:43:21teleconferencing type thing where maybe
1:43:23we can look at that space and revise it
1:43:26at a lesser cost and become creative
1:43:29with how we structure that. And then as
1:43:32we're scheduling these, maybe schedule
1:43:34them so that they work for our needs,
1:43:36but that it's not just additional rooms
1:43:39and more space and more to maintain.
1:43:43Now, I think the same thing with regards
1:43:45to our health centers when we're looking
1:43:47at potential for tele. So, we have a
1:43:51hard time recruiting providers, but
1:43:52maybe we wouldn't if we looked for
1:43:54specialists that weren't in our area
1:43:56where we could have a nurse present at
1:43:58the clinic to do the intake, to have the
1:44:00hands on the patient and then see a
1:44:02specialist through a telemed type of
1:44:04situation. And so I'm just bringing that
1:44:06forth because I feel like we look at
1:44:09things oftent times as this is what
1:44:11we've done and this is kind of the
1:44:12traditional way to go about it, but
1:44:14sometimes maybe it's going to require a
1:44:15little bit of creativity and we might be
1:44:18able to make our space work more for us.
1:44:21That's just my two cents.
1:44:23>> Chief Judge Leaport.
1:44:25>> Yeah, thank you. Um Holly, great
1:44:27question. So again, I'm not entirely
1:44:29sure where the request to mod the court
1:44:32came from. I'm going to assume it came
1:44:33from a previous
1:44:36uh court staff, right? Um I wouldn't
1:44:40suggest that at all right now. To me,
1:44:42the court has enough on its plate to
1:44:44figure out about how we're going to get
1:44:46all the information, right, that we need
1:44:48as an entirely new staff, entirely new
1:44:51judge, bringing on another new judge,
1:44:53right? And kind of trying to figure out
1:44:54where some of these gaps are that like
1:44:56just just me being humble, right? I I
1:44:59don't have all that information yet. And
1:45:00I think I still have a lot of work to do
1:45:02to to get my arms around the court as a
1:45:04whole. So I don't think I would add a an
1:45:07annex to my plate. Um I don't think we
1:45:10need it either. I will say this. I think
1:45:11eventually should you all choose that
1:45:14that's something that you all would like
1:45:15to see the court do. I'd be happy to
1:45:17come up with a proposal for it and work
1:45:19with Ryan or whomever, right? I think we
1:45:21all work really well together. Again,
1:45:22the court's goal here is just to be a
1:45:24collaborative partner, but all that we
1:45:26would need is just a desk for our for
1:45:29our associate judge in an existing space
1:45:31that we already have. Um, so for me,
1:45:34that's that's really it. I mean, we can
1:45:36be minimal on that, right? And then
1:45:38again, happy to work with Larry to look
1:45:40for alternative funding sources to be
1:45:42able to do something like an
1:45:43infrastructure build later if you all
1:45:45choose that that's what you all would
1:45:46want to do, right? Um, so yes, uh, for
1:45:50me, I think we're fine for the moment.
1:45:51Um, we can be creative with scheduling.
1:45:54We can be creative with location. You
1:45:55know, scheduling conferences with your
1:45:57appellet or supreme court, for example,
1:45:59don't have to happen in person. Those
1:46:00can happen virtually. Um, and then
1:46:03again, there's spaces in each community
1:46:05that we can utilize if we want to travel
1:46:07to those communities and and access
1:46:09those spaces, too. And I don't think
1:46:10there's a whole lot of modding that
1:46:11would need to be done. Just making sure
1:46:12things were confidential and that we had
1:46:14some recording equipment. Um, that's
1:46:17that's easy enough to do. As for the the
1:46:20sovereign immunity discussion, right, I
1:46:22don't currently have a case in front of
1:46:23me that deals with a citizen suing you
1:46:25all, which is why I was comfortable even
1:46:27offering a general statement about it,
1:46:29but that's not an advisory opinion. Um,
1:46:33you know, for me, if if if I'm looking
1:46:35at something and talking about sovereign
1:46:37immunity, my understanding of it is
1:46:38always that Congress has to wave it
1:46:41expressly within federal statute or the
1:46:43tribe, the board of directors or tribal
1:46:45council has to wave it via resolution or
1:46:47ordinance, right? Um, court would never
1:46:51I would never, for example, like uh
1:46:54infer a waiver somewhere where there
1:46:55wasn't one that was clear. But as to
1:46:57injunctive relief, that is different. um
1:47:01you know say that you had a say you had
1:47:03a um you know an employee violate
1:47:06someone's you know substantial rights I
1:47:09mean they would be and continued to do
1:47:11that right let's like let's say you had
1:47:12a like I I had this situation another
1:47:14tribe where there was um somebody being
1:47:16kept in a state impatient right someone
1:47:19asked for injunctive relief because it's
1:47:20the government holding them there I mean
1:47:23there's you know it's it's clear that
1:47:25there has to be a remedy in that
1:47:26situation and it is to hold the
1:47:27government accountable where it needs to
1:47:29be but that's just on injunctive relief.
1:47:31Um, as to monetary damages, etc. That's
1:47:33different and standing is different than
1:47:35a waiver of sovereign immunity. So, you
1:47:37know, it's it's thinking through those
1:47:38things that I think are really
1:47:39important, but just understanding that I
1:47:42don't have one of those cases in front
1:47:43of me, but if I did, uh, I would still
1:47:45be looking at your Bill of Rights
1:47:46section in your Constitution.
1:47:49>> Okay. Thank you.
1:47:50>> Hopefully that helps. And again, that's
1:47:51why I said I didn't want to stick my
1:47:52foot in my mouth. So, apologies if I
1:47:54stepped on anyone's toes there.
1:47:55>> You good, Holly? Okay. So, judge, you
1:47:58had your hand up for something separate.
1:48:00Did you have anything to add in addition
1:48:01to what you just stated?
1:48:03Okay. Thank Kim Lee and then Cole,
1:48:10thank you for that. Um, so
1:48:15where my biggest concern is right is
1:48:17around this table. It is not a safe
1:48:20space to speak. It's not a safe space to
1:48:22speak on the internet. And that's okay.
1:48:25My shoulders are strong.
1:48:27Um, but divide doesn't come from a
1:48:30difference in opinion. It comes from a
1:48:31lack of respect.
1:48:33And unfortunately,
1:48:36that face right there is a lack of
1:48:38respect. I mean, so this isn't about
1:48:42whether or not I believe that the
1:48:46members should be afforded their rights,
1:48:48but we also have to be responsible for
1:48:51protecting their well-being
1:48:53because that isn't a competing
1:48:55responsibility. They're equal in my
1:48:58opinion and that's what good governance
1:49:00is. So, I want to hear from everybody. I
1:49:04want to move forward but we have c heard
1:49:08nothing but a lot of uncertainties today
1:49:13and uncertainties
1:49:15can be pretty scary when we're talking
1:49:17about people's well-being. So that's all
1:49:21>> cool.
1:49:23>> I'm good. A lot of my questions got uh
1:49:26brought up with the core expansion um
1:49:28and how we could utilize different
1:49:29spaces. Um,
1:49:33>> well, one thing
1:49:35>> WhatsApp.
1:49:36>> No, go ahead. I apologize.
1:49:38>> Yeah, just the one thing is like
1:49:41I don't want to keep this going like you
1:49:43said, Austin. I want to keep moving on
1:49:44this, but I I can't sit here and say
1:49:46that I'm not I'm not taking this
1:49:49personal because I'm taking it personal
1:49:52because I'm just I'm I'm a board member,
1:49:54but I'm a a tribal member, right? and
1:49:58the decisions that we're going to make
1:49:59here are going to last a long time
1:50:02beyond our years here on the board. Um,
1:50:05and furthermore,
1:50:07and we can talk about this resolution
1:50:09that's going to come up. I think we're
1:50:10going to look at that tomorrow before
1:50:13the meeting if we can go over that
1:50:14because I have some questions on that as
1:50:16well. Um, as far as forfeiting
1:50:20forfeiting our pay, but um, no, I just I
1:50:23think we all should take this personal.
1:50:25you know, this is a huge deal here. Um,
1:50:28and thanks for putting all this
1:50:30together, Ryan. I know you worked hard
1:50:32on this, um, getting this together and
1:50:34thank you, Chief Judge, too, for
1:50:36supporting it and helping out as well.
1:50:38So, appreciate that. And we'll just try
1:50:40to keep this moving, like you said,
1:50:41Austin. So,
1:50:42>> yep. Let's keep it moving. I'll share my
1:50:44response and my thoughts on this till
1:50:46the end. So, go ahead, guys.
1:50:49>> All right. Uh the final piece, Judge
1:50:52Leaport did reference it as though this
1:50:55is not a requirement of the new
1:50:57constitution. It's something that we've
1:50:59spoken about uh numerous times with the
1:51:02board and something that we the legal
1:51:04department and uh the court are
1:51:06recommending that we fund up a public
1:51:09defender's office. Um ideally we would
1:51:12do it now, but I think it's a day one
1:51:16as close to a mandatory need as as as I
1:51:18can stress. I think it would just it
1:51:20would provide better representation
1:51:22overall for our citizens long term
1:51:24short-term and long term. I believe it
1:51:26will save the tribe money long term. Um
1:51:29so we've estimated
1:51:33three staff initially, a a kind of a
1:51:35senior level attorney, a staff attorney,
1:51:37and a legal assistant. Again, as you'll
1:51:40see in the summary here at the bottom,
1:51:42doesn't mean we need to fund it at that
1:51:44level initially. But if you did fund it
1:51:46at that three staff member level
1:51:49initially, you're looking at $582,51763.
1:51:55Another one where we can slowly build
1:51:58it. Maybe we just want to bring in one
1:52:00attorney
1:52:02um and see where we're going and slowly
1:52:04build towards that and see what the
1:52:06capacity is in that first year. and
1:52:08beyond. Um, but director payment alluded
1:52:11to this. The attempt here with this memo
1:52:14was to give you guys a starting point
1:52:16that could be closer to like maximum
1:52:20all-in estimated cost and then you at
1:52:24the table figure out how you can scale
1:52:26back with the help of staff on are these
1:52:29costs all needed in the beginning or are
1:52:32they something that we need later on?
1:52:34Are there ways to minimize it? grants,
1:52:36federal funding,
1:52:38increased revenue, etc. So, this 3.8
1:52:41million doesn't necessarily have to be
1:52:43the the cost. It doesn't necessarily
1:52:44have to be all tribal support, and there
1:52:47are ways um to to save on that, right?
1:52:50We already in the initial member in the
1:52:52initial memo identified that you could
1:52:55um look at maybe not funding the
1:52:57executive branch increase, no new
1:53:00courtroom, maybe just one public
1:53:02defender. I didn't put in here because I
1:53:04didn't believe that had majority support
1:53:06and and we've already talked about it in
1:53:08my opinion exhaustively previously. We
1:53:11can circle back again. Always happy to
1:53:12do that. The fact that we have a could
1:53:14have a unified legal department. Um but
1:53:16I wasn't going to spend time banging my
1:53:19head against that wall when it didn't
1:53:20seem like that was the direction of this
1:53:21tribe. But I'm happy to to see that
1:53:24maybe that's back on the table. Um so I
1:53:27made some notes here in closing ways to
1:53:30fund it, right? third parties settlement
1:53:32funds grants of course we need to do
1:53:34better as a tri there's more core grants
1:53:36out there probably than we and more
1:53:37legal adjacent grants than we actually
1:53:40get or try for um increase economic arms
1:53:44kg enterprise authority SCI
1:53:47uh Indian energy
1:53:50increase health services something that
1:53:52I'm helping director Leant try to push
1:53:54forward um I think that if you're going
1:53:57to fund a three branch government one of
1:53:58the things that needs to be on the table
1:54:00not to a dead horse because Tyler
1:54:02already eloquently explained it earlier,
1:54:04but you got to look at that third party
1:54:06revenue. It it's a really kind of
1:54:08lowhanging fruit of stuff that can help
1:54:10fund this tribe and we have a lot it's
1:54:13upward potential to increase increase
1:54:14that over the years. Uh no court
1:54:17expansion. That's great. That was based
1:54:19on some previous estimates from former
1:54:21general counsel and former CFO. Um it's
1:54:24been we've been back and forth over the
1:54:26years and whether the core capacity is
1:54:27there. If we can utilize different
1:54:30outline areas and and do that capacity
1:54:32different way then that saves you money.
1:54:35>> Um what do you think all these savings
1:54:37amount to? Like we don't do a court. I
1:54:39don't hire staff in my office. Um, if
1:54:42you utilize some of the recommendations
1:54:43that Judge Leaport has made, such as
1:54:46create a public defender's office so
1:54:47you're not paying contract attorneys to
1:54:49provide subpar representation to our
1:54:51tribal citizens court. Like, what do you
1:54:54think that would adjust it to? If we
1:54:55don't increase the court building
1:54:57capacity and if we do not increase any
1:55:00legal costs, so we we figure out a way
1:55:02to have both branches
1:55:04utilize some form of the current
1:55:06attorneys that you have on staff and you
1:55:08don't increase the executive branch,
1:55:11then that 3.8 million becomes 1.7
1:55:14million.
1:55:15>> Is this the conclusion of the
1:55:16presentation
1:55:17>> of this part of the Yeah. Well, then I
1:55:19pose this question then like when we
1:55:21talk about separating our government,
1:55:23like the idea that we could do it for
1:55:25free is absolutely ludicrous. Like if
1:55:27you build branches of government, that's
1:55:29obviously going to cost money. You're
1:55:30going to have to hire staff,
1:55:32specifically judges. You're going to
1:55:33have to hire support staff. You know,
1:55:35depending on the capacity of the court,
1:55:37you may have to do a courtroom
1:55:38expansion, which the chief judge is
1:55:40saying isn't needed right now. But like,
1:55:41we're not going to fund a government
1:55:43transition with fairy dust. So my
1:55:45question is we don't offer standing to
1:55:47our tribal citizens in tribal court
1:55:49within this government. Okay? So if I
1:55:51live in Sue St. Marie, I'm a resident of
1:55:53the city of Sue Staint Marie, the state
1:55:54of Michigan and the federal government.
1:55:56I have standing in each one of those
1:55:58forms of government. The only one I
1:56:00don't is my own tribe. And that's an
1:56:02issue. So my question is realizing that
1:56:05this was never going to be free,
1:56:08what's the investment that we would be
1:56:10willing to pay on this? Because I mean,
1:56:13while we have an unbalanced budget,
1:56:14we're also workshopping several things
1:56:16that are going to cost money that we're
1:56:18going to contribute to that deficit. One
1:56:19of them would be the enhanced licenses.
1:56:22That's not going to operate off fairy
1:56:24dust. Another one is the new licenses.
1:56:26Another one is a new website with a
1:56:28portal. And I mean, we're all going to
1:56:30be presented with the cost of those
1:56:32projects. And then we're going to have
1:56:33to make a decision. But I mean, if we
1:56:36are supportive of this, what's the magic
1:56:38number, guys?
1:56:44Okay, back to you guys then.
1:56:48>> All right, I'm going to stop sharing
1:56:49this screen. Um, I don't I don't know
1:56:52what the board's pleasure is already
1:56:543:00. Um, I can summarize a little bit
1:56:57what I think some of my colleagues on
1:56:59the table will say. I think there's a
1:57:01way that we can with the enterprise
1:57:03authority and with Kuwait and gaming
1:57:05authority, you're not going to need to
1:57:07see
1:57:09any and or just very minimal increased
1:57:11costs. So, I know they have
1:57:13presentations of potential costs, but I
1:57:16believe that we
1:57:18I'll leave it to the board and the other
1:57:20executives, but I I've talked to them
1:57:22and I know we can figure out a way to do
1:57:25a three branch government for the
1:57:27economic arms that can pretty much be a
1:57:30net zero. It won't really cost them any
1:57:33more money, at least not initially. And
1:57:35we have to see what time will tell
1:57:36there. So, I don't know if we want to go
1:57:38through all those presentations or if my
1:57:40summary is sufficient for that.
1:57:42>> Well, if you guys don't mind, let's take
1:57:44a 10-minute recess. We've gone through a
1:57:46lot. We'll reconvene um and then we'll
1:57:48finish out the day. You guys okay with
1:57:49that? All right. So, let's reconvene at
1:57:513:05 sharp.
2:09:03Um, when we recess for uh the break,
2:09:06Aaron said he had a question or comment.
2:09:07So, Aaron, you want to get us started?
2:09:15>> What's the magic number?
2:09:16>> I mean, what's the magic number? So, we
2:09:18hear from different projects all the
2:09:20time, every single project is an
2:09:21investment. Like, it wasn't meant to be
2:09:23a facicious question. Like, at what rate
2:09:27would we support this?
2:09:29>> That's a good question. Thank you for
2:09:30asking it. Um,
2:09:33I don't fault
2:09:35board members who have legitimate
2:09:38concerns about the cost.
2:09:41Um, I said earlier I have difficulty
2:09:44reconciling when we're sitting on lost
2:09:47leaders and we have been for years. Um,
2:09:50and I don't hear that concern when it
2:09:53comes to those losses because we're
2:09:56we're bleeding. We're, you know, it's
2:09:58it's not a a trickle. We're we're
2:10:01bleeding like a jugular gushed in some
2:10:03of our businesses that are that I've
2:10:05asked in earnest. Are we ever going to
2:10:07turn a profit? And our economic
2:10:10development guy said no. Would you have
2:10:13recommended it? No. And at that point,
2:10:18you have to make a decision. A good a
2:10:21good business decision is cut your
2:10:23losses, try to sell it, you know, try do
2:10:25what you can do, but that's not even on
2:10:28the table. So So I don't fault board
2:10:31members for wanting to know, you know,
2:10:33what the cost is going to be and how do
2:10:35we mitigate the cost. Um, but I also
2:10:38don't feel it's genuine for for those
2:10:40who've sat on lost costs, lost leaders
2:10:43for years and years, and that's not a
2:10:45concern. So,
2:10:47it seems like it seems like what you're
2:10:50asking, Mr. Chair, is this a moving
2:10:52target? If we if we get this number down
2:10:55to almost nothing, is it still not worth
2:10:57the price of due process rights for
2:11:00citizens? Um and and ultimately the
2:11:03bottom line is
2:11:06as a government, as a representative
2:11:08government, we're elected to represent
2:11:10their interest. And some people believe
2:11:12that once they give us the right to
2:11:13represent them, that it's our job to
2:11:16represent them with whatever we think.
2:11:19But when they tell us what they want and
2:11:21they consistently tell us what they want
2:11:22over and over again, then it seems like
2:11:25there's a duty to to a sacred duty to
2:11:28represent their interest and to bring
2:11:31forward what they're asking us to do,
2:11:33which is to let them make the decision.
2:11:36So in front of us is the decision. Are
2:11:38we going to are we going to and put when
2:11:40I say let them that's just the sound of
2:11:42that paternalistic. Are we going to let
2:11:45them decide what their government looks
2:11:47like? Or are we going to discern decide
2:11:50for them in a paternalistic way what you
2:11:53deserve or what you get? You get what
2:11:55you get. You elected me that you get
2:11:56what you get. I I think that there's
2:11:59nothing wrong with putting out to the
2:12:02people what they've been asking for and
2:12:04and doing an honest assessment of what
2:12:06the cost is and let it letting them
2:12:08weigh the pros and cons and let them
2:12:11decide. I know there was I won't be
2:12:14specific enough, but there was a
2:12:15referendum once that a board member said
2:12:18that our people wasn't weren't smart
2:12:20enough to make the decision. This is a
2:12:22long time ago. And I just think that's
2:12:24wrong. That's not the right way to
2:12:26think. Our people are smart. All right.
2:12:28Um my 11 12-year-old, he's 12, he's
2:12:33almost 13 now. He knows the score. He
2:12:36knows what a separation of powers is. He
2:12:38knows how valuable that is. He's a
2:12:39citizen. He's only 12 years old, but he
2:12:42knows that he he prioritizes having due
2:12:45process rights. He knows that. He knows
2:12:47that no one government this is the the
2:12:49this nation was formed in the
2:12:51repudiation of a unitary form of
2:12:54government. That was the the um well it
2:12:57was mostly was several countries but it
2:13:00was mostly the United Kingdom that had
2:13:02you know a king and um we don't have a
2:13:06king. We won't have a king afterwards.
2:13:07will have a three branch separation of
2:13:10powers that disperses the authority
2:13:13based on the Irakcoy confederacy great
2:13:15law of peace and I know there was some
2:13:17information out there about you know
2:13:19whether or not because we were
2:13:20apparently at we were at the war with
2:13:22Ericoy but we are along and we did
2:13:24follow a separation of powers so it's
2:13:26going back to our indigenous um belief
2:13:29that no one branch should have unitary
2:13:32authority over us so the bottom line is
2:13:36will the citizens weigh pay out their
2:13:38desire for a balance of power and due
2:13:41process rights against the cost. We will
2:13:44never know if we don't let them make the
2:13:48decision. And that's to me what it's all
2:13:50about. There's a lot of ways of looking
2:13:52at this, but the way I look at it is are
2:13:54we going to afford our citizens the
2:13:56ability to make that decision or are we
2:13:59going to deny them and say we know
2:14:01better for them what their needs are. I
2:14:04don't think anybody here should pretend
2:14:06like they know better than what our
2:14:07citizens needs and wants are. So, thank
2:14:11you,
2:14:12>> Rob.
2:14:14>> Well, that was along the lines of what I
2:14:16was going to say is that uh we're we're
2:14:18we're at a point where we have to
2:14:22determine to our membership
2:14:25uh what we are as a government, whether
2:14:27that's the one branch or the three
2:14:28branch, and can we afford them their
2:14:31rights? And do we sit at a high enough
2:14:33place to where we can say we get
2:14:36determine what your rights cost you. I'm
2:14:39all for transparency. Like we can tell
2:14:41them this is what the cost is.
2:14:45Your government has to adjust. We might
2:14:47have to make cuts. Um but to me when the
2:14:51question's posed is at what cost do you
2:14:53fund it? At all cost. That's where I'm
2:14:56at. At all cost. Because the number one
2:15:00goal of government, and I'm going to say
2:15:02this over and over and over, is to make
2:15:04sure your members have their rights. And
2:15:07there's no cost that you guys are going
2:15:09to throw at me to think that
2:15:12maybe it's not a good idea. We provide
2:15:14them those rights. They'll have the
2:15:15right of initiative where they could
2:15:17initiate laws. They'll have a right to
2:15:20initiate amendments to our constitution.
2:15:22they'll have initiate a right to
2:15:24challenge this board. When we make bad
2:15:27business decisions, they could challenge
2:15:28that. So, when the when the question
2:15:32comes up to the cost, well, we have
2:15:35probably $8 million in golf courses that
2:15:37we're never going to see return on
2:15:39investment. Um, this board wants to talk
2:15:42about the cost of providing their
2:15:45membership the rights. Yet, we have
2:15:48literally thrown away $10 million
2:15:50because we didn't pay a lawsuit bill.
2:15:55We have a $35 or $35 million judgment
2:15:59against us. We lost $167,000
2:16:03maybe in Creek Town, right? There's
2:16:05$200. You're looking at almost a hundred
2:16:07years of a funded government just by
2:16:09making this. We can't afford not to do
2:16:11it.
2:16:11>> No, you're not talking about thousand.
2:16:13You're talking about million.
2:16:14>> Yeah. Millions. It's a billion.
2:16:16>> Yeah. Huh?
2:16:17>> It's a billion.
2:16:18>> So, a billion dollars. Um,
2:16:22and you have We're looking
2:16:24>> You guys stop. You're not at a billion
2:16:26dollars. When Aaron Schlay Huber was the
2:16:27general counsel, I asked him what the
2:16:29Greek town bankruptcy was, and he was
2:16:31making it at about a hundred million at
2:16:33that point. You tack on JLJ, I don't
2:16:36know, rough estimate, you were at about
2:16:37$130 million of losses for this failed
2:16:40experiment to expand gaming downstate.
2:16:43Not at a billion. Well, well, the
2:16:44lawsuit itself on Greek Town was a lot
2:16:46more than a hundred million.
2:16:49>> Yeah, I think 120 some million. Either
2:16:54way, the thing is is you're at at least
2:16:56$200 million that this board has
2:16:58squandered of our people's money and
2:17:00we're going to sit up here and talking
2:17:01about $3.8 million is not enough to
2:17:04afford them the rights when they could
2:17:06challenge our decisions in court when
2:17:08they have standing in court.
2:17:11uh when you have a chairman who could
2:17:13veto bad business decisions
2:17:16and the membership can walk right into
2:17:18court and say, "Hey, I want to file a
2:17:20petition. This law that the board just
2:17:22passed is going to bankrupt us." And go
2:17:25to the membership and say, "Hey, let's
2:17:26stop this." And know that when that
2:17:29referendum gets to this table, we can't
2:17:31deny it. This board's literally denied
2:17:33them. I mean, throwing away referendums
2:17:36of your members. So, at what cost do we
2:17:39want to prov provide them those
2:17:40protections at all cost? Um, because by
2:17:43doing so, literally just I pointed out
2:17:45saved a $200 million potentially. Um,
2:17:49and then the other thing I want to
2:17:50address because no, you know,
2:17:54everyone should know by now, you're not
2:17:55going to address me and not have a
2:17:56response. So, if this idea is that I'm
2:17:58disrespectful
2:18:00or this isn't a safe place to talk, we
2:18:03are all afforded the First Amendment.
2:18:07And we all have the freedom to talk.
2:18:09I've never made anyone feel threatened
2:18:13by talking. We We're politicians. We We
2:18:15are elected to have discussions. And
2:18:18yes, they're going to get heated. But if
2:18:21any one of you guys ever make me feel
2:18:23unsafe to speak, I will walk out that
2:18:26door because that's not going to happen.
2:18:28You are never going to make me feel
2:18:30unsafe to speak. Um, and now my face is
2:18:35disrespectful.
2:18:39Like like am I expected to just not talk
2:18:42and not and not to say my piece about
2:18:44things? No. Every time I'm going to
2:18:45talk. And uh I I believe this stuff. I I
2:18:49100% believe our members rights
2:18:50shouldn't have a price tag on it. And if
2:18:52it does, which it does have a price tag,
2:18:55it it should be the members who decide
2:18:57whether it's worth it. Not for us to sit
2:18:59up here at a high spot on the board and
2:19:01say, "Well, that might be too
2:19:02expensive." We'll decide not to give the
2:19:04members to ship the vote. Put the ballot
2:19:06on their table. Put the information on
2:19:08their table. Let them decide. Let them
2:19:11decide. You know, it's our job to make
2:19:14it work after that. Um, so I mean, I I'm
2:19:19>> point of information. How do we plan on
2:19:21putting that
2:19:22in their mailbox
2:19:24without the information attached to it
2:19:26for them to make an educated decision
2:19:28when we don't even have all that
2:19:29knowledge.
2:19:30>> Why did you vote about it on the 19th
2:19:32then?
2:19:33>> Because a lot of things have come
2:19:34forward stated. A lot of things have
2:19:36come forward since then.
2:19:37>> No, no.
2:19:40Both of you both you have the floor. I
2:19:43know you do. That's not a point of
2:19:44information. You can finish your turn.
2:19:45Kimley has the uh has her turn next, I
2:19:48believe.
2:19:48>> Okay. Okay.
2:19:51We didn't have all this figured out on
2:19:52the 19th,
2:19:55but we knew what the membership wanted.
2:19:56So, we gave them what they wanted then.
2:20:00I mean, any anything that's pointed out
2:20:02right now is also the information we
2:20:04didn't have on the 19th. So, I mean, it
2:20:07it really is. I mean, you can't answer
2:20:09any questions. You couldn't answer these
2:20:12questions on the 19th. I promise it. So,
2:20:17okay. Kim Lee, then Ashley.
2:20:22You're right. We couldn't answer these
2:20:24questions, but we also had some
2:20:26misinformation. Um, and I think that
2:20:30this conversation has went from
2:20:34what was not supposed to be today's
2:20:37agenda,
2:20:38probably more so tomorrow's um, in these
2:20:42conversations. So, I'm going to leave it
2:20:45alone and let our executives get back to
2:20:47whatever they've got to say, but I I
2:20:50just and I appreciate them doing their
2:20:53diligence and we still have to come
2:20:55together and so we can provide members
2:20:58with information because we can't ask
2:21:00them to make a decision
2:21:03when there's the information doesn't
2:21:06match it. We can't even make that
2:21:09decision. Our executives can't make that
2:21:11decision right now. I mean, it's just
2:21:14irresponsible to sit here and argue
2:21:17that this again, right? It could be 1.7,
2:21:20it could 3.8, it could be we've been all
2:21:23over the place. And all I'm asking is
2:21:25not to take away the membership's
2:21:26rights, is to give them their rights
2:21:29with accurate information. So, I'm going
2:21:32to stop now and uh I guess I'll save the
2:21:34rest for tomorrow's conversation.
2:21:36Ashley,
2:21:38>> I'm just going to kind of follow up with
2:21:40that. Thank you guys so much for being
2:21:41here to try and give us the information
2:21:43that is needed. It's really appreciated
2:21:46and I am sorry that this has gone off
2:21:48subject. What everybody keeps talking
2:21:50about is what's on the agenda for
2:21:52tomorrow. So, if we could get back to
2:21:54you guys giving us the information that
2:21:56is needed today, I'd greatly appreciate
2:21:57that. That's why I came today. Thank
2:21:59you.
2:22:00>> Thank you, Ashley. Ready to recenter
2:22:02things, guys? All right, let's do that.
2:22:07All right, if it's okay with the
2:22:10executive team and the board, let's jump
2:22:11into day one. Day zero and day one
2:22:14things that need to happen. I think
2:22:16we've exhausted our conversation on the
2:22:18economic impact. We've been having the
2:22:20same conversation since last November
2:22:22when my initially gave you the 3.9
2:22:24million. So, the numbers from our side
2:22:25of the table haven't fluctuated too
2:22:27much. They are the same that they've
2:22:30been for over a year. Um we'll get we'll
2:22:33get the details more that was requested
2:22:35earlier but if we can let's move on to
2:22:39the things that we've identified that
2:22:41have to happen day one. Some of them I'm
2:22:44flagging as day zero and we'll have that
2:22:46discussion.
2:22:53Pull my screen up here.
2:22:58Ryan, this is an obvious question, but
2:23:00assuming the board of directors doesn't
2:23:02pass the resolution rescending this
2:23:04constitutional election, how quickly is
2:23:06the BIA in a position to mail those
2:23:08ballots?
2:23:09>> Well, now it it was going to be
2:23:11September. Now it's going to be October
2:23:14that they get mailed. End of September.
2:23:17October. The printer is ready to go.
2:23:20They were able to pause printing. I gave
2:23:22them the heads up that we had a
2:23:24resolution pending for tomorrow. Did
2:23:26they pause because of this conversation
2:23:27that we're having because we might not
2:23:29do it so they don't sink additional
2:23:30financial resources into it?
2:23:32>> That's correct.
2:23:33>> So we're looking at November. We're
2:23:35looking at November for tabulation
2:23:36night, end of September for initial
2:23:39mailing for registration and October for
2:23:41mailing of ballots.
2:23:42>> So we were in a position to have this
2:23:44election
2:23:46in September, but it's getting postponed
2:23:49>> originally September. Then it was
2:23:51postponed by the BIA because of the
2:23:54amount of changes and then the new date
2:23:57was tenatively October 29th and then
2:23:59they paused again pending what the board
2:24:03majority decides to do tomorrow.
2:24:05>> Okay, Kim.
2:24:07>> And for clarification, what are the
2:24:09additional costs?
2:24:13>> Uh there shouldn't be any additional
2:24:18costs right now. So, we're not going to
2:24:21owe them. I just wanted clarification.
2:24:22>> Correct. There's nothing indicates to me
2:24:25that we would owe the federal government
2:24:26any money at this point because they
2:24:28were able to stop the printing that had
2:24:31started last week when I when I gave
2:24:33them a call. So, no additional cost and
2:24:35I anticipate no requests from the
2:24:38government at this point to pay back the
2:24:40minimal cost that they did spend.
2:24:41Correct.
2:24:42>> So, they're going to eat the funds that
2:24:44were paid with taxpayer dollars to get
2:24:46this thing set up if we were send it.
2:24:47>> It was minimal if anything. Okay. Well,
2:24:50talking about cost, when we sent out
2:24:51that constitutional survey last summer,
2:24:53how much did the tribe, not the BIA,
2:24:55send spend on that?
2:24:56>> We spent about 68,000,
2:24:59>> 70 grand.
2:25:00>> Yeah. Give or take.
2:25:02>> Okay, let's keep going.
2:25:06>> All right. All right. So, the legal
2:25:07department previously sent a memo and we
2:25:09we workshopped it a while back of a
2:25:10proposed timeline for implementation of
2:25:13code
2:25:14um including the structure of how we
2:25:17envision things will probably land in
2:25:20the new government as well as an
2:25:2118-month timeline for code adoption
2:25:23that's required under the new
2:25:25constitution. This memo that we'll go
2:25:27through today is an attempt to flag
2:25:31items that should be priority for day
2:25:34one sooner if the board is will if the
2:25:38board is moving forward with
2:25:40constitution reform. These day zero
2:25:42things should be should and can be
2:25:45things we can do proactively before the
2:25:48day of separation.
2:25:50If we move forward with the election in
2:25:52November
2:25:54and the tabulation happens and the
2:25:56majority of those vote meet the
2:25:58threshold required by under federal law
2:26:00of 30% of registered voters and it's yes
2:26:03they want this constitutional reform in
2:26:06approximately 30 days from that date. So
2:26:08sometime in December we will get a
2:26:10letter from the BIA saying here yes good
2:26:14job sue tribe your new constitution is
2:26:16approved and that will be day one. and
2:26:18it'll be sometime in December
2:26:21under the current timeline if things
2:26:23progress as as they as they will.
2:26:29That being said, so day zero
2:26:33things that we're recommending that we
2:26:34talk about now and some of these things
2:26:38I will advocate for even if our tribe
2:26:40does not go forward with a separated
2:26:42government and these are we'll go
2:26:45through the code changes first. So, we
2:26:47flagged chapter 61, barring individuals
2:26:51from tribal lands. We're working on a
2:26:53current revision. Ah, my Zoom crashed.
2:26:56Hopefully that stays on the screen while
2:26:58my computer restarts. Nope.
2:27:02Well, you have in your packet and I'll
2:27:04put it back on the Zoom when I can. Uh,
2:27:07barring individuals from tribal lands.
2:27:09We're working on revisions now that work
2:27:11under our current code in the new
2:27:13constitution. The OGMA, the executive
2:27:16branch, is the branch empowered to bar
2:27:18individuals from tribal lands. So, we're
2:27:20looking at how that might have to be
2:27:22changed in the future. Right now, we
2:27:24throw it all basically to the court
2:27:26system. Um, there may need to be some
2:27:28tweaks to that. Um, as we would not want
2:27:31to diminish the OGA's office power to do
2:27:33that. So, might we're workshopping that
2:27:36and that's uh one that we feel like
2:27:39should be a priority at day zero.
2:27:42something that can happen now and I've
2:27:44talked to a number of board members who
2:27:45are interested in having a discussion
2:27:47sooner than later in general with
2:27:48barring individuals from tribal lands.
2:27:50So, we flag that as a high priority day
2:27:53zero. And then the other ones flagged
2:27:55here are mostly ones that touch the
2:27:57court system and um our rights as
2:28:00citizens under our new constitution and
2:28:02under our codes. that is criminal
2:28:04procedure, criminal offenses, working on
2:28:06the tribal law and order act revisions,
2:28:09but there's other revisions that
2:28:10probably need and should happen. Uh,
2:28:13chapter 80, tribal court, civil
2:28:15jurisdiction and civil procedure, our
2:28:18appellet court,
2:28:20uh, evictions, foreclosures, and civil
2:28:22remedies and forfeite. These are all
2:28:24there might be a couple that I missed,
2:28:26but these are codes that touch the
2:28:28operation of the court and affect our
2:28:31individual rights um both criminally and
2:28:33civily as tribal citizens. And we
2:28:35believe they should be workshopped
2:28:37sooner than later. They should be at
2:28:39least ready on day one, but if they can
2:28:41be ready sooner, that's great. some of
2:28:43these reforms, even if we didn't
2:28:45separate into three branches, I would be
2:28:48pushing this board, and we've talked
2:28:50about it in different contexts before,
2:28:52to legislate more judicial independence
2:28:55and better court processes for our
2:28:58citizens anyway. So, we've identified
2:29:00these as as day zero. Do it sooner than
2:29:02later in our recommendation. And I'll
2:29:04pause for a second if there's any
2:29:05questions.
2:29:08>> Questions, not comments, guys. We got to
2:29:10move through this. Tyler, then Rob,
2:29:12>> I got the I get the day zero thing, but
2:29:14you get the day zero and the same stuff
2:29:15as the final three months for the six
2:29:19chapter 61.
2:29:22>> So, I didn't Yeah, I did not change the
2:29:25timeline. Is that what you're asking
2:29:27about, Tyler?
2:29:27>> Yeah, because uh day zero code, the one
2:29:30that conflicts with it is chapter 61,
2:29:32the barring individuals. It's like on
2:29:33the final three months of the 18-month
2:29:35implementation.
2:29:36>> I'll have I'll have to tweak that one. I
2:29:37apologize. I tried to I tried to move
2:29:39them around a little bit, but I must
2:29:40have just missed that one. That's that
2:29:42can be subject to change before we have
2:29:44you guys vote on it.
2:29:45>> Okay. Yeah. No, no questions. And then
2:29:46where are you at having these before us
2:29:50>> for since it's day zero?
2:29:53>> So, we have working drafts of the
2:29:56appeals court which we previously
2:29:58workshopped that substantially finished.
2:30:01We have working uh drafts of the civil
2:30:04jurisdiction, the criminal offense,
2:30:09and then I'm working on the criminal
2:30:11procedure in the barring of individuals.
2:30:14So, we have we have about half of these
2:30:15ready to be workshop soon if the if the
2:30:18board is willing. The ones we don't have
2:30:19any pen to paper yet, but they may not
2:30:22need a huge amount of tweaks are the 83
2:30:25and 84, the evictions and foreclosures
2:30:27and civil remedies and forfeite. I just
2:30:31haven't had the opportunity for me or my
2:30:32staff to look at those in depth to see
2:30:34if they need any tweaks or how
2:30:37substantial they are. But we flagged
2:30:38them because they do affect individual
2:30:40rights as as citizens, but they may not
2:30:43need as much revisions as like chapter
2:30:4570 and 71, chapter 80 and 82 will, but a
2:30:48lot of those we have drafts ready. We
2:30:50tried to workshop some of them
2:30:51previously and they're they can just be
2:30:54thrown out of workshop whenever the
2:30:56board has room frankly. And with Chief
2:30:58Judge Leaport on, and I know is totally
2:30:59separate, but um can we just get the
2:31:02courts to recommend us a chief judge for
2:31:05the appallet so we can get that on the
2:31:06books and get it done with? I mean,
2:31:08that's a day zero thing as well, so we
2:31:10might as well
2:31:11act as if we're independent or separate
2:31:14and get a recommendation from the
2:31:15courts.
2:31:16>> I do have I did have a number of emails
2:31:19back and forth with our magistrate and
2:31:22there are there are applicants ready. We
2:31:24we needed to just the court needs to
2:31:25help with the with Lana to schedule the
2:31:28interviews and we can have judge
2:31:30Leaport. Normally the chief judge hadn't
2:31:33historically weighed in. I'm not opposed
2:31:34to it. Um the legal department has and
2:31:37then the board can and we do like an
2:31:38interview of all the applicants and then
2:31:40we recommend to the board who of those
2:31:42interviews we think are the best ones to
2:31:44choose and that I think I don't want to
2:31:46speak for the court maybe judge Leaport
2:31:48has some insight but I think that's can
2:31:50happen any time now. I think we have
2:31:52enough we have applicants. We just have
2:31:53to coordinate now with the court to get
2:31:55the interviews and then get it on one of
2:31:57your agendas.
2:31:57>> I mean either way that needs to get
2:31:59cleaned up. So it it seems like low
2:32:01hanging hanging fruit because it's
2:32:02something we need to do now anyway. So I
2:32:04agree.
2:32:04>> All right. Thank you,
2:32:06>> Rob.
2:32:09>> So you mentioned that we're not going to
2:32:10incur great cost from the initiating the
2:32:14amendment change with the BIA.
2:32:17>> That is that's correct. At this point,
2:32:19we're the BIA has not incurred any great
2:32:21costs. So, they will not be sending us
2:32:23any uh any bill at this point. If if we
2:32:26end up canceling the
2:32:27>> Are we 100% sure we're not going to get
2:32:29that bill?
2:32:31>> I'm n I'll say I'm 99% sure. Okay.
2:32:34>> I will not say 100%.
2:32:36>> Oh, thank God. Thank God. Uh, also,
2:32:38could you draft an amendment to the
2:32:40resolution I have on the table to
2:32:42include the cost of the survey? If we're
2:32:45not going to listen, we better pay for
2:32:47it.
2:32:49Yes.
2:32:49>> All right, we can keep going, guys.
2:32:54>> All right, so those those are the codes.
2:32:56Um I've sent this to the executives so
2:32:58they can weigh in and we might have to
2:33:00tweak this um as we go forward.
2:33:05But I think standing up the court, as we
2:33:07talked about before, is like priority
2:33:09numero uno and and we already have a
2:33:11really good core system. I'm just
2:33:12fleshing it out more to function the
2:33:14best I can in a three branch government
2:33:16for day zero processes things we should
2:33:19talk about and figure out uh before the
2:33:21separation
2:33:23is we would like the board to workshop
2:33:27and discuss the transition resolution if
2:33:29we get to it today uh great if not as
2:33:32soon as possible. we've talked about
2:33:33before and it's been in multiple memos
2:33:35that I've sent the board. But the
2:33:36transition resolution would solidify by
2:33:40law like these are the dates that these
2:33:42things must be hit that the date if we
2:33:44go forward with constitutional reform.
2:33:47It sets date certain where codes need to
2:33:49be adopted and it also creates that
2:33:51stability where we're we're maintaining
2:33:54our current processes, maintaining our
2:33:56current executive team etc. while we
2:33:59transition and figure out the landscape
2:34:02of the land, right, and what needs to
2:34:04change. I think that that transition
2:34:06resolution um is going to hold everyone
2:34:09accountable, all three branches and and
2:34:11all the staff.
2:34:14Uh Tyler already mentioned this, but who
2:34:16is your court of appeals? We got to we
2:34:18got to figure that out sooner than
2:34:19later. Um, we don't have a fully
2:34:23appointed court of appeals because we
2:34:24did a resolution in 2024
2:34:27that mandated all five judges sit on all
2:34:30cases. It used to be just three of the
2:34:31five had to sit on the cases.
2:34:34Um, and so we have two justices who did
2:34:37not resign, Judge Botch and Judge
2:34:40Corbier. And Judge Deore did resign, but
2:34:42the board never officially accepted her
2:34:44resol resignation. and I've spoken with
2:34:46her and she would like to rescend it and
2:34:49be in consideration potentially to be to
2:34:51stay on and or be appointed.
2:34:54Uh and then like I said earlier, we have
2:34:55multiple applicants. We we need to get
2:34:58>> Who's wanting to get reappointed?
2:34:59>> Uh Judge Judge Deore
2:35:02resigned. We never took action as a
2:35:04board. the board never took action,
2:35:05excuse me, to accept her resignation and
2:35:08she would like to resend it and be in
2:35:11consideration for either a seated
2:35:14position position on our court of
2:35:16appeals or a reserve judge.
2:35:18>> Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with either. I
2:35:19think she does a good job.
2:35:20>> And then like Tyler said, we need to we
2:35:22need to name a chief judge. We have a
2:35:24sue tribe member who's on the reserve.
2:35:25We can call him up to as soon as the
2:35:28board wants to put it on agenda, call
2:35:29him up and make him chief judge if you
2:35:31want to. He's he's been waiting to see
2:35:33what we're going to do. I've had
2:35:35sporadic contact with him, but it is a
2:35:36sue tribe citizen. I'm not sure how many
2:35:38applicants
2:35:40who are waiting in the wings are also
2:35:42such tribe members. Um, but that's a
2:35:45discussion that the court can have at
2:35:46the board when we schedule those
2:35:47interviews.
2:35:48>> Yeah. And he's been a reser for at least
2:35:50two, three years. Go ahead, Judge Leort.
2:35:53And then I'm going to call on Kim Grall.
2:35:55>> I'm so sorry for interrupting all those
2:35:57disrespectful of me. Okay. I apologize.
2:35:59Um, I was just going to say I'm I'm
2:36:01happy to have Josh provide you all a
2:36:03written update too on the list of
2:36:05candidates that he sent over. Um, per
2:36:07the current code and the way it's
2:36:09organized, the magistrate and the
2:36:12basically who who defaults as the court
2:36:14of appeals clerk handles it, which makes
2:36:15sense because I shouldn't be involved in
2:36:17selecting who reviews my opinions,
2:36:19right? So, um, so I want to try and keep
2:36:22that as separate as possible. I'm happy
2:36:24to be involved to the extent that you
2:36:26all think that's appropriate and it's
2:36:27and it's like waved somehow on some sort
2:36:29of record, but um we can get that
2:36:32information over to you all from Josh uh
2:36:33Ryan if that's helpful. I'll send him an
2:36:35email right now.
2:36:37>> Thank you. I believe you may have sent
2:36:38it to Lana previously and I but can you
2:36:40if you can send it again that would be
2:36:42great so we can get it get those
2:36:44scheduled for interviews and get them in
2:36:45front of the board.
2:36:55Yeah, I don't know how we normally
2:36:56scheduled them, honestly. So,
2:37:00>> all right, go ahead, Kim.
2:37:02>> Okay. Um, when did Judge Deore resign?
2:37:05Because I don't remember hearing
2:37:06anything about that.
2:37:11>> Uh,
2:37:13>> it was around the same time that all the
2:37:14court turnover happened. I don't
2:37:16remember the specific date. I'm sure
2:37:18Lana has it somewhere in her name.
2:37:20>> Okay, thank you.
2:37:21>> She's she's one of our attorney judges,
2:37:24non-native.
2:37:28>> All right, we keep going.
2:37:30>> Um Holly might have some insight into
2:37:32this. Her and I talked about it, but one
2:37:34thing to flag for discussion is
2:37:39right now our judges or our judge is a
2:37:42is a team member. So they are they get
2:37:44certain benefits, but elected positions
2:37:47like the board doesn't get access to all
2:37:50of our benefits. So we have to figure
2:37:51out what we're going to do going forward
2:37:54and that should be determined before
2:37:56we're making all these appointments and
2:37:57and then in 2028 having all these
2:37:59elections under the new constitution.
2:38:02Um and I don't know if there's a
2:38:03financial cost to that change or
2:38:05anything, but I can pause and let Holly
2:38:07kind of give you the lay of that
2:38:09landscape.
2:38:10>> You go ahead, Holly. it would be the
2:38:12401k that if they're an elected
2:38:15position, they would not be eligible
2:38:17for. So, they would be eligible for the
2:38:20health, um the long-term disability and
2:38:23the life.
2:38:25And the 401k would be what they would
2:38:27not be eligible to receive. Now, in my
2:38:30projections, I did put
2:38:33um when I thought they were going to be
2:38:34employees, I did put that value in
2:38:36there. I want to say Oh, let me pull up
2:38:39that. So there's something that
2:38:40prohibits elected officials from
2:38:42receiving a 401k.
2:38:43>> Yeah, they're not eligible for it. So do
2:38:45you want these positions to be as
2:38:47they're elected not eligible for the
2:38:48401k then? I'm assuming
2:38:51>> I mean there's no other alternative. So
2:38:52I mean we're kind of stuck between a
2:38:54rock and a hard place because at the
2:38:55same time we're not eligible for the
2:38:57401k. Our membership does not support us
2:39:00receiving a separate pension from what
2:39:01they receive because I mean you can
2:39:03break it down. It's more lucrative than
2:39:04what the 401k is. So there's no other
2:39:07option at this point. I mean it's about
2:39:08service. It's not a a career. Basically,
2:39:10that's how I interpret it. I mean, I'm
2:39:12in the same position. I was elected here
2:39:14in 2020. Not a single cent that I've
2:39:16earned is going towards social security.
2:39:18And back when I was a therapist and
2:39:20board member, I made a lot more money,
2:39:22you know. So, this is about public
2:39:23service.
2:39:25>> Okay.
2:39:26>> Yeah. Go ahead, Mike.
2:39:28>> Along that same regards, then if they're
2:39:29not eligible for 401k, are they eligible
2:39:31for social security?
2:39:34That would not be I can confirm but that
2:39:36then would not probably be factored into
2:39:39that either. Right. They're going to be
2:39:40unelected unelected.
2:39:42>> Yes.
2:39:42>> Okay.
2:39:44>> That's only because we decide they're
2:39:46not eligible though. There's nothing at
2:39:47the federal level that prohibits it.
2:39:51>> But that's something we can explore as a
2:39:52body.
2:39:53>> Yes. Under the general welfare exemption
2:39:55act, the board could adopt participation
2:39:57in social security like all the other
2:39:59tribes across the country are doing
2:40:01since 2015.
2:40:04Okay.
2:40:05>> All righty. Let's keep going, guys.
2:40:09And then uh day zero, I think we should
2:40:13start creating the associate judge
2:40:14position. I can work with judge leaport
2:40:17on that and so we can get it created
2:40:18factored uh on our wage grid and that
2:40:21can help determine uh the financial
2:40:23costs that we might incur to fund that
2:40:25fund that position. That would probably
2:40:27be a more full-time position. May maybe
2:40:29Judge Leapor can correct me if I'm
2:40:31wrong, but unlike the Supreme Court,
2:40:33probably both of our trial court judges
2:40:34are much more full-time.
2:40:39>> That that is correct. That one I do
2:40:41believe needs to be full-time appellet
2:40:42justices. Again, I think that's
2:40:43negotiable.
2:40:47>> All right. Day one action items.
2:40:52Obviously, all the code drafting uh
2:40:54starts starts day one. some of it
2:40:56hopefully sooner, but we'll have you
2:41:00vote at least on the transition
2:41:02resolution that will solidify our
2:41:0318-month timeline. I'll look at if
2:41:05there's any more tweaks that need to
2:41:06happen. Like Tyler pointed out, there's
2:41:08probably a couple codes I missed that
2:41:10might need to be higher priority.
2:41:12Um, but on day one, I would recommend
2:41:16that we adopt any day zero codes that
2:41:18are still outstanding that we didn't get
2:41:19to before day of separation.
2:41:22And I would like to have ready an
2:41:24alternative dispute resolution code.
2:41:27Several of you uh alluded to that
2:41:29earlier, a mediation, some kind of uh
2:41:32statutory requirement for the branches
2:41:34and for different litigants to to have
2:41:36to mediate in certain circumstances
2:41:38instead of jumping right into court
2:41:40litigation.
2:41:42um flesh out more our peace. We have a
2:41:44sort of a peacemaking code section right
2:41:46now in our code to flesh that out more
2:41:48and see how that could interplay with
2:41:50the alternative dispute resolution,
2:41:51mediation, etc. And I think that is
2:41:54something that u my team and the court I
2:41:56think we together uh we can work on
2:41:59having a draft uh for discussion uh day
2:42:03one. I don't have a draft currently.
2:42:04There's other drafts I've looked at from
2:42:05other tribes that we certainly don't
2:42:07have to recreate the wheel. That's
2:42:08something that we think should be day
2:42:09one.
2:42:11Also day one the tribal coun the board
2:42:14will switch to the tribal council and
2:42:16the constitution names at least one
2:42:19officer of that tribal council that that
2:42:22is different than today and that is the
2:42:23speaker of the council. So that should
2:42:25be elected uh day one at their very
2:42:27first meeting of the tribal council.
2:42:32uh the with the authorities the
2:42:33immediate change would as we as we the
2:42:36legal department reads the constitution
2:42:39would be the the OGO would step down
2:42:41from sitting and sharing those
2:42:42authorities. The speaker of the tribal
2:42:44council would share those authorities up
2:42:47until we adopt new authority codes per
2:42:51our previous discussions on creating
2:42:54different governing bodies that are not
2:42:56tribal council. But immediately day one,
2:42:58unless those codes are also ready, but
2:43:01they're not on our super high priority
2:43:04list right now. Um, tribal council would
2:43:07retain that role during the 18-month
2:43:10transition, and the speaker would share
2:43:12those authorities pending the code
2:43:14changes.
2:43:15>> So, if we don't mind pausing, this is
2:43:16one of the biggest sources of
2:43:18misconception about this constitutional
2:43:20amendment. It will be about who the
2:43:22OGA's office supervises. So as it
2:43:25stands, the authorities will supervise
2:43:27the majority of operations. So we
2:43:29already have an established authority
2:43:30for the gaming authority. Only change is
2:43:32I would step down. The speaker would
2:43:34pick up chairing those meetings until we
2:43:37could populate that committee with
2:43:38qualified people. Same thing would apply
2:43:40to the EDC authority and we're talking
2:43:42about building a health authority as
2:43:43well. So if you guys want to see how
2:43:45this will operate, if you guys go to
2:43:47Little Travers's website, they recently
2:43:49posted a couple vacancies in those
2:43:52authorities and they have the
2:43:53qualifications listed. basically states
2:43:55something like this. Hey, we're looking
2:43:56for a gaming commissioner. If you're
2:43:58interested in applying for this, contact
2:44:00the chair of the tribe. She will
2:44:02nominate you and then it will go through
2:44:04a confirmation process, but it has basic
2:44:07qualifications and credentials that
2:44:08you're supposed to have. So, like, you
2:44:10know, so many years working in gaming,
2:44:12maybe in education that's aligned with
2:44:14that as well. But, I mean, the model is
2:44:16right there in front of us and you only
2:44:18have to go about an hour and a half
2:44:19south of here. Go on Little Travers's
2:44:21website and you can see how those
2:44:22authorities would operate. Aaron,
2:44:24>> one other thing, and I've said this, you
2:44:26know, again, beat a dead horse, is we're
2:44:29the gaming authority currently.
2:44:31We're also the gaming commission with
2:44:33the exception of, I think, one board
2:44:34member. And the National Indian Gaming
2:44:38Commission has posted bulletins for 20
2:44:40years to tell us that's not advisable.
2:44:43And tribes all across the country do not
2:44:45have their tribal council be their
2:44:48gaming authority. First of all, they're
2:44:50not also the gaming authority. And
2:44:52they're certainly not their gaming
2:44:53commission because there's an inherent
2:44:55conflict with being the gaming authority
2:44:57and the gaming commission because the
2:44:59gaming commission is the regulatory body
2:45:01over the gaming authority but we're the
2:45:04same people with the exception of one
2:45:06board member. So, um, so I'm hoping that
2:45:11when this
2:45:13I'm hoping that if we move forward
2:45:15tomorrow at all that we don't get smart
2:45:18and just populate those authorities with
2:45:20board members because um, you know, with
2:45:24a few exceptions over the years, like
2:45:26for this, we're talking about a health
2:45:28authority, there might be one or two
2:45:30people that might be qualified to be
2:45:31that from this board to that entity. Um,
2:45:35the same with gaming authority. There
2:45:37might be one or two people. I don't know
2:45:39if anybody currently has experience as
2:45:42executives in a gaming authority
2:45:45structure. Um, so it seems like what we
2:45:49would like or should want is to get
2:45:52experts in their field that have either
2:45:55credentials or years of experience in
2:45:57their field to be those experts. I
2:46:00wouldn't purport to be a gaming
2:46:02authority executive. I wouldn't purport
2:46:04to be well I might have some health
2:46:06health background actually I do um but
2:46:10I'm not a health executive and I don't
2:46:12know anyway so I I hope that when that
2:46:15happens we don't just because it's
2:46:17incestuous for us to be the gaming
2:46:19authority and the gaming commission
2:46:20can't even make a straight argument
2:46:22about that one um so but that's the
2:46:24structure we have currently have
2:46:29>> you guys might have went over it I just
2:46:30ran to the restroom um on day won the
2:46:33actions elect a speaker of the
2:46:36legislative branch. Is that just a
2:46:38simple vote of the legislative branch?
2:46:40>> Yeah, that would be the legislative
2:46:42branch within itself elects who they
2:46:45want to be their
2:46:45>> simple vote of up or down.
2:46:47>> Um and will there still be a treasurer
2:46:50and secretary?
2:46:51>> Yeah, those are still in the bylaws. So
2:46:53those those would be retained. Yes.
2:46:55>> Okay, let's keep going, guys.
2:46:58>> Uh so day one, hopefully during day
2:47:00zero, we've got the associate judge
2:47:02position. uh created, factored, and uh
2:47:05approved by the board. And so we can uh
2:47:09post the associate judge position, try
2:47:11to recruit and appoint someone or um to
2:47:14be determined. We can work with judge
2:47:16Leaport and see if that is not a
2:47:18necessity until the 2028 elections.
2:47:21That'll be the first election cycle um
2:47:24that would kick in all the new elections
2:47:26under the adopted constitution. Um, so
2:47:30that one is we have as a day one, but
2:47:32that one maybe can fall off day one if
2:47:34we don't need a day one. Um,
2:47:39but something that we should be at least
2:47:41working towards um building up either
2:47:44way because in 2028 that that position
2:47:47can be an elected position.
2:47:52Supreme Court day one.
2:47:54Um hopefully we've we've uh during day
2:47:58zero
2:48:00or close to day one we have everything
2:48:02ready to go to to populate the Supreme
2:48:04Court under the new threeperson panel
2:48:08per the new constitution. And if we've
2:48:11named a chief judge, chief justice as we
2:48:13call them in the new structure, then
2:48:15they will help manage the court. But
2:48:17with that, we'll have to figure out how
2:48:19to train them up on operations and
2:48:21budgets because in the new constitution,
2:48:23the chief justice of the Supreme Court
2:48:26is the um elected official empowered to
2:48:32manage and create and present those
2:48:34those budgets. So they do have unlike
2:48:36the other two associate judges,
2:48:39justices, excuse me, the chief justice
2:48:41of the Supreme Court does have explicit
2:48:43authority and responsibilities under the
2:48:45Constitution that they'll have to get up
2:48:46to speed speed on and they they will be
2:48:49in charge um just like chief judge the
2:48:51court would be for the trial court of
2:48:54managing all the the affairs, the
2:48:56finances and the and the day-to-day of
2:48:58the Supreme Court. Just keep that in
2:49:01mind as you're appointing a chief judge
2:49:03in the interim um before they get
2:49:06elected in 2028. Someone who can take
2:49:10the reigns and and be that executive
2:49:11level type position.
2:49:18Um hire a Supreme Court clerk. So, this
2:49:22is another one that I would like some
2:49:24input more with with the court
2:49:27potentially, but uh right now our
2:49:30magistrate of the of our court helps
2:49:33manage both the trial court and the
2:49:36court of appeals. Um our advice
2:49:38previously and it stands today is we
2:49:40don't believe that that same position
2:49:43should manage the affairs of both
2:49:45courts. So, u Holly had budgeted in her
2:49:48projections and and in my summary
2:49:52projections, this is also a budgeted
2:49:53position at least part-time
2:49:56um for a Supreme Court uh court
2:49:59administrator that manages all their
2:50:02affairs separately. So, you keep those
2:50:04really clear distinction in lines drawn
2:50:07uh for the court. And that's something
2:50:08that should happen day one or if not day
2:50:11one if it falls off this list it should
2:50:13be being built towards for in in that
2:50:16first year building towards that uh 2028
2:50:19election when we are electing our chief
2:50:21justice.
2:50:24Initially the freedom information
2:50:26requests will have to move away from the
2:50:28board administrative office because
2:50:30under the new constitution the Lana's
2:50:34excited about that uh legal we won't get
2:50:37to pull ourselves out of it
2:50:38unfortunately or fortunately uh but
2:50:40because the executive branch implements
2:50:43and administers all the functions of the
2:50:45government that are adopted by the
2:50:47tribal council the executive uh branch
2:50:52doesn't necessarily have to the um the
2:50:54OGMA's office. We've identified that as
2:50:57uh maybe the initial landing spot for
2:50:59it, but it would be handinhand with the
2:51:00legal department as it is now to help
2:51:02manage those freedom information
2:51:05requests. But that can immediately and
2:51:06should immediately fall away from the
2:51:08legislative branch and move towards
2:51:09executive branch to allow them to
2:51:11exercise their author proper authority
2:51:13under the constitution.
2:51:15>> Yep. And right now I don't have any
2:51:17control over what's foyed and what's
2:51:19granted. I just want to put that out
2:51:21there. Sometimes I get blamed for it,
2:51:22but I don't have anything. Lana does an
2:51:25awesome job and she follows code. She
2:51:26works with the legal department, but I'm
2:51:28not in that at all. Aaron,
2:51:30>> and that's the way it'll be afterwards.
2:51:32Neither the um executive nor the legisl
2:51:35legislature will make the decisions.
2:51:38However, they will write the code. So a
2:51:41lot of times, you know, what we're
2:51:43hearing out there is all of this fake
2:51:45news about how this is going to create
2:51:48this big, you know, power structure
2:51:50under the chairman, which is it's it's
2:51:53idiocy to be honest. Anybody that's
2:51:55promoting that doesn't know what they're
2:51:56talking about. The board will still
2:51:59write our laws. The board will still
2:52:03appropriate our budgets. and then
2:52:05whoever is implementing it has to follow
2:52:08the law that the board the legislature
2:52:11wrote. So this notion that somehow it's
2:52:14going to amass power under the executive
2:52:16branch and discretionary authority
2:52:18that's just the opposite of what this is
2:52:20doing right now. That is what we
2:52:22currently have because we have
2:52:23discretionary authority under one branch
2:52:26with no ability to challenge those
2:52:28decisions. In the future, if um if
2:52:31you're denied your FOYA, you can file a
2:52:34lawsuit. Right now, you can't. Oh, can
2:52:36you
2:52:37>> you can Yeah, you can you can appeal to
2:52:38the to the tribal court.
2:52:40>> Oh, okay.
2:52:41>> Well, and then then we can fire the
2:52:43judge.
2:52:44>> Important to note, under this new model,
2:52:46the majority of key employees would be
2:52:48supervised by an authority. Not my
2:52:51office, not by the board of directors.
2:52:52The board of directors would be vacated.
2:52:54So, you'd have the gaming authority. You
2:52:56got two key employees within that. you
2:52:58have EDC, you have one key employee in
2:53:00that and then you have um health if we
2:53:02create that. So there'd be a handful of
2:53:04key employees that would become direct
2:53:06reports to the chairman's office, but
2:53:07the majority of operations would be
2:53:09would be supervised by professional
2:53:11authorities that within 18 months myself
2:53:14and the board of directors would vacate
2:53:16those seats and through a nomination and
2:53:17confirmation process, we'd have
2:53:19professionals fill those seats.
2:53:22>> Right? the executive branch, the OGAM
2:53:24would oversee just the governmental
2:53:25executives, government CEO, government
2:53:28CFO, CIO, general counsel, health until
2:53:32we get health.
2:53:32>> It says government in front of it. It's
2:53:34a direct report to the chairman's
2:53:35office. No matter who the chairman is,
2:53:37if I'm that person, I do a bad job. Fire
2:53:39me come election time. I'll be
2:53:41completely fine. But the majority of
2:53:43operations will be supervised by
2:53:45professional staff instead of elected
2:53:46leadership.
2:53:48>> Did I miss a hand?
2:53:49>> Yeah.
2:53:50>> Okay. Go ahead.
2:53:51>> Yeah. So in light of what Erin just
2:53:53said, so just so I understand it. Um and
2:53:56I like this layout that you have for day
2:53:58zero, day one, day two and all all
2:54:00through that because this this um says a
2:54:04lot and puts a lot into um vision on
2:54:08what's moving forward. And I like to see
2:54:10this so we can refer back to it. And I
2:54:12wasn't going to say much today, but the
2:54:14freedom of information requests that
2:54:16will go from the board administrator and
2:54:19she's happy about that to the chairman's
2:54:22office.
2:54:22>> Yeah.
2:54:23>> The OGIMA. So the OGA's office will have
2:54:25it, but if he denies something or I deny
2:54:27something if I'm ever there or anybody
2:54:29else that's ever there, it says that it
2:54:32says it right here.
2:54:33illegal.
2:54:34>> So we have it going right now to the
2:54:36>> freedom of information request move from
2:54:38board administrator office tribal
2:54:40council to the chairman's office OGIMA.
2:54:42That's what it says.
2:54:43>> I and I said that legal would as we do
2:54:45now we would assist
2:54:46>> you're going to help out assist with
2:54:48that.
2:54:48>> And if you would let me finish. Yes. So
2:54:50if it goes to the OGA's office whether
2:54:52it's Austin or somebody else someday
2:54:55members would have standing in court if
2:54:57the OGA denied those.
2:55:00>> Correct.
2:55:01>> Correct. And right now we're right now
2:55:02we do have that's one of the explicit
2:55:04areas
2:55:05>> commented that didn't make sense because
2:55:07it said just something completely
2:55:09different in the day
2:55:13what is it day zero. Um so I I was kind
2:55:16of confused there.
2:55:17>> What he's getting at though is even in
2:55:20the current structure we have a foye
2:55:21officer within the tribe and that's
2:55:23Lana. And if Lana were to you know deny
2:55:26it there's still an appeal process. It
2:55:28goes to the appellet court. No, it goes
2:55:30>> chief judge. Chief judge goes to the
2:55:32trial court.
2:55:33>> Yeah, we just had a whole fiasco about
2:55:34that.
2:55:35>> Okay, thank you.
2:55:36>> Okay, go ahead, Aaron.
2:55:37>> Under the new structure,
2:55:39>> does the OGA have discretionary
2:55:41authority to decide to honor the the
2:55:44foyer request or is it follow the code?
2:55:46>> It follows the code. So the it would
2:55:48follow our current code minus going to
2:55:51the board office until we create a new
2:55:53code which is mandated in within six
2:55:55months of the new constitution. We have
2:55:58to have a new foy code freedom
2:56:01information ordinance because there's
2:56:04different requirements that are now
2:56:05going to be enshrined in the
2:56:06constitution. But until we get the new
2:56:08code, the OGMA's office and legal or
2:56:11whoever he designate the designate is to
2:56:14to process them has to follow our
2:56:16current laws. So they don't have
2:56:17discretion. They they can only deny it
2:56:19for the reasons in current code. If they
2:56:21deny it, it goes to judge leaport to
2:56:23determine whether the denial was proper.
2:56:26And then it's obviously ultimately up to
2:56:29what this body will become to set what
2:56:31that code is going to be as legislators.
2:56:33So I mean my office would just execute
2:56:35within the codes that the legislature
2:56:37enacts. That's it. You guys create the
2:56:39rules. I exist within those rules.
2:56:41>> That's correct, Aaron.
2:56:42>> So all right, help me understand because
2:56:45I never watched it closely enough, but
2:56:46and I'm not doing a cause or effect
2:56:48here. I'll say that up front, but the
2:56:51AOYA request that went in front of a
2:56:54previous judge was um was honored as
2:56:58having uh no, it was the
2:57:01administration's interpretation was
2:57:02overturned by the judge. Um then we
2:57:05separated with that judge. The second
2:57:08judge that saw it also interpreted. Is
2:57:11that correct? That that that the
2:57:13decision to deny that citizen that
2:57:17information was incorrect. Was that is
2:57:19that right?
2:57:20>> That case is still ongoing. It has not
2:57:22been determined by our prom judge. The
2:57:25final just just the final determination
2:57:27has not been issued yet.
2:57:28>> Okay.
2:57:30>> Oh, I understand that. But I it's also
2:57:33it's it's it's important because I'm not
2:57:35asking what's going to happen going
2:57:37forward. I'm asking what happened up to
2:57:39this point. So it's important that we
2:57:42have due process. Um so but earlier and
2:57:46and I got my answer because while it's
2:57:48positioned in the chair's office, the
2:57:51chair doesn't have discretionary
2:57:52authority to deny a request. Correct.
2:57:54>> The the chair's office has to follow the
2:57:56law. Correct. And if the chair's office
2:57:58doesn't follow the law, then the citizen
2:58:02who's denied has the ability to
2:58:05challenge that. So, I do think I don't
2:58:07know why that's there in the chair's
2:58:08office if that's just going to happen
2:58:10temporarily, but I think um even though
2:58:13you could argue if the chair supervises
2:58:15the general counsel, it's the same
2:58:17thing. But it it seems our current
2:58:19structure does at least create the um
2:58:23semblance of some functional separation
2:58:26of powers because we put regulatory
2:58:28stuff under legal. It's not under the
2:58:30chair's office and and at one time it
2:58:32was before I was chairperson. The
2:58:34chairperson had discretionary authority
2:58:36over all this stuff but that changed. So
2:58:39we had a functional separation. But I
2:58:41want to make it clear because the the
2:58:42line of questioning might have lead
2:58:44people to believe that the chairperson's
2:58:46office will have discretion whether that
2:58:48was intended or not. But clearly the
2:58:50chair's office
2:58:50>> intended it was a whether it was or not
2:58:53the chair's office will not have the
2:58:56discretion to not follow the law. And if
2:58:59the if the chair's off Loima's office
2:59:01abuses that there is a judicial remedy
2:59:05to the court system.
2:59:06>> Yep. there's a judicial remedy now and
2:59:08in the new uh code in the new
2:59:11constitution they will probably be even
2:59:13better uh more heightened um recourse in
2:59:16court if need be for the citizens who
2:59:18think that their foyer was denied
2:59:20unlawfully.
2:59:22>> Okay, any objection to a recess right
2:59:23now? All right, 10 minute break, guys.
3:09:10we left off, please. All right. Last
3:09:13kind of day one action item that we
3:09:15flagged is um
3:09:18and maybe this will necessitate that we
3:09:20put the legislative process code even
3:09:22higher than it might already be. But how
3:09:24do we interact with the does the OGA
3:09:28interact with tribal council? or is he
3:09:30sending his executives? We have to I
3:09:32don't have the answer today except for
3:09:33the transition resolution kind of keeps
3:09:35everything status quo during the
3:09:37transition, but um sooner than later we
3:09:40need to think about what the legislative
3:09:41process looks like and how the executive
3:09:44branch interacts with the with the
3:09:45tribal council. We're still going to be
3:09:47needing to have the executive branch
3:09:49bring resolutions to to the tribal
3:09:52council. Is that the OGMA's office
3:09:53always? Is he just tagging in his
3:09:55design? It's not like a it's a small
3:09:58little thing. I think it's just it's
3:09:59just a process to to iron out. It's not
3:10:01like a deal breakaker and and a similar
3:10:04process to how we currently operate can
3:10:06can work. Um in addition to like we down
3:10:10here later like resolution information
3:10:12sheets is the OGA signing everything
3:10:14before it goes to tribal council. Just
3:10:16little process things that we got to
3:10:17iron out um close to that day one. Erin,
3:10:21>> so the way it works at the federal level
3:10:23right now is the um legislature writes
3:10:26the enacting law that compels the
3:10:30executive branch to testify
3:10:33um on any aspects that affect the
3:10:36governance. So whether it's
3:10:38appropriations or if it's proposed laws
3:10:42um so the legislature um has authority
3:10:47over that. Um, so that's the way it
3:10:49works for the federal government.
3:10:52Can we keep going?
3:10:53>> Yep. Understood. But we still need to
3:10:55figure out what that looks like for our
3:10:56version of these separated powers.
3:10:59>> Tyler.
3:11:01>> Yeah, I was just going to say like it
3:11:02wouldn't really make sense for the OGA
3:11:03to sign off on something before it comes
3:11:05to us. If he's going to just veto his
3:11:07own things that he's sending to us,
3:11:09right?
3:11:10>> I mean,
3:11:11>> right. Yeah. And then I would expect the
3:11:13same process because we don't see the
3:11:14the the president of the United States
3:11:16going before legislature to ask for
3:11:19certain things or explain how each
3:11:21professional indivision operates.
3:11:23>> So a a similar process but a humane
3:11:26approach you know and
3:11:28>> it work like this. So the executive
3:11:30branch is most likely going to be
3:11:32bringing most the resolutions forward
3:11:33because we're the ones executing the
3:11:35government operating within the rules
3:11:37that the tribes provided. Right? So it
3:11:40wouldn't be me if it's a government
3:11:42thing. It would be Jess or one of the
3:11:43program directors so they can explain
3:11:45it. Be similar situation to where Jess
3:11:47is over top of ACFs. But most of the
3:11:50time when ACFs has a resolution, Jamie
3:11:52is there to present on it because she's
3:11:54the subject matter expert. Go ahead.
3:11:56>> Just I want to clarify because I wasn't
3:11:58saying at all that that the legislature
3:12:02has to get permission from the executive
3:12:04branch at all. What I was saying is all
3:12:06right. So let's use budgets as a as an
3:12:08example. Okay. So, currently there's
3:12:11federal law that directs the OM on what
3:12:15the uh budget ceilings are, what um
3:12:17sequestration is, and all of that.
3:12:20That's all enacted by the legislature.
3:12:22That the administration doesn't get to
3:12:24set that. Um and then the executive
3:12:28branch has to operate within those
3:12:30parameters as defined by the legislative
3:12:32branch. Now whether they do or not is
3:12:34another question. But for the budget,
3:12:37the executive branch drafts up the
3:12:39budget. They they submit their proposal,
3:12:41the House submits their budget, the
3:12:44Senate submits their budget, and then
3:12:45they the House and Senate try to
3:12:47reconcile. Um and sometimes it's most of
3:12:51the time it's way off between three
3:12:53branches. They don't even come close,
3:12:55but they have to reconcile all of that.
3:12:57and but the legislature has the
3:13:00authority to compel testimony from the
3:13:02executive branch. The executive could
3:13:05choose to present all the budgets and
3:13:08the detail and all of that, but that's a
3:13:10lot of detail that mostly one person's
3:13:12not ever going to know. So, they send
3:13:14their their respective uh cabinet
3:13:16members. In this case, it would be our
3:13:18executives would then come in front of
3:13:20the council um to present the uh
3:13:24administration's budget. But the
3:13:27legislature would also propose their
3:13:29budget and they would have the ability
3:13:31to do congressional oversight to compel
3:13:34the administration to come in and and
3:13:37answer questions. Um, and if if there's
3:13:39a proposed legislation, so now separate
3:13:42from the budget process, but proposed
3:13:44legislation, the legislature writes the
3:13:47laws. So the administration doesn't have
3:13:48the discretion not to participate. They
3:13:51have to participate. So the legislature
3:13:53could write a law. they could say,
3:13:54"Okay, we don't know what the fiscal
3:13:55impact of this all is going to be." So
3:13:58then they have the same access to all
3:14:00the same CFO or the executives that they
3:14:02do now. And then they can compel
3:14:04testimony. How much is this going to
3:14:06cost? What are the implications? What is
3:14:08your best estimate of the impact on
3:14:11existing laws? But that's why it is
3:14:13going to be helpful for the legislative
3:14:15branch to have their own legis uh
3:14:17legislative council because then you
3:14:19don't just have to take the
3:14:20administration's word for it. you they
3:14:22get to do their own interpretation of
3:14:24what the the impact on the laws will be
3:14:26or what um code changes might have to
3:14:28happen. So that truly is a balance of
3:14:31power. Um, and
3:14:34so yeah, I wasn't suggesting that the
3:14:37executive gets to decide whether or not
3:14:39staff participate because but by having
3:14:43the purse strings and by having the
3:14:45legislative authority, the execut the
3:14:48legislative branch is the most powerful
3:14:50branch of government because they set
3:14:52the laws um and they don't get to
3:14:55interpret law anymore, but they also set
3:14:58the budget authority. So
3:15:01>> okay we can keep going.
3:15:02>> Uh so day one processes to consider
3:15:04changing immediately and problem
3:15:06separation. So obviously uh like Austin
3:15:09alluded to the exe in governmental
3:15:11executives will be directly supervised
3:15:13by the OGMA's office instead of the
3:15:16tribal council.
3:15:18Um so and I think this currently is
3:15:20happening right leave those the for
3:15:22leave slips etc. administrative
3:15:24processes, leave those with the OGMA's
3:15:26office. For the authority executives,
3:15:29maybe we send that to the speaker's
3:15:31office um in the interim until there's
3:15:33different governing bodies to how to
3:15:35handle that. I'm not going to pretend to
3:15:37be an expert on all of our internal
3:15:38processes, but some of these things to
3:15:40consider as we're separating out so we
3:15:42don't have the executive branch
3:15:43processing payroll for the legislative
3:15:46and vice versa.
3:15:48Um,
3:15:51in the interim, could that be handled by
3:15:54the tribal council's board
3:15:55administrator? Probably, but maybe we
3:15:59smarter than mine's than I at the table
3:16:02can figure out, not today, but how we do
3:16:04that day one to figure out how to
3:16:06separate those processes and keep those
3:16:08different branches on on paper separated
3:16:11as well. Uh more importantly than that,
3:16:13probably the tribal council meetings
3:16:14will have to follow the new 10-day
3:16:16notice timeline in the constitution. So
3:16:18that will be um a change from our
3:16:22five-day notice right now.
3:16:25Something to keep in mind. And then uh
3:16:28the resolution process, we talked about
3:16:29some of these and I think you guys are
3:16:31right. Most of the internal process of
3:16:34the executive branch can remain the same
3:16:36where the executives are signing the
3:16:38information sheets
3:16:40etc. But we'll have to figure out are
3:16:42the internal process whatever is most
3:16:44effective to once tribal council enacts
3:16:46a law they have five days to get that
3:16:49over to the OGA's office the OGMA's
3:16:52office has 10 days to sign it or veto
3:16:54it. So yeah 15-day minimum for
3:16:55resolutions now um to or maximum excuse
3:17:00me I should say maximum 15-day maximum
3:17:02for resolutions to take effect.
3:17:04>> Oh there's a question or comment.
3:17:05>> I mean technically it's 25 days with
3:17:0710day notice.
3:17:08>> Oh you're right. Yeah. Yeah. Counting
3:17:10the notice period.
3:17:11>> Yeah. So, with the we have the 10day
3:17:14notice, we could still wave the rules.
3:17:15We still follow Robert's rules of order.
3:17:18Um but but just noting that like people
3:17:21we'll have to make sure that our
3:17:22divisions are getting stuff into us
3:17:24within that timeline because it's going
3:17:26to people are down to the wire already.
3:17:28You know, I see Lana all the time. Hey,
3:17:30noon today. Noon today. So, we just
3:17:33really have to make sure we're on top of
3:17:34it to maximize efficiency in government.
3:17:39Um, and I don't think it's going to take
3:17:415 days for the board, like once once
3:17:43council approves something, I'm assuming
3:17:45Lana just shoots it off to Elaine or
3:17:47whoever in the executive office for the
3:17:48OGA to sign
3:17:50>> and likely he's just going to
3:17:51automatically sign things unless he
3:17:52wants to veto them, right? So, yeah,
3:17:55it's not 15 days minimum. Like it could
3:17:58be 15 days minimum, but I mean with the
3:18:0010day notice, there's 10 days right
3:18:02there, right?
3:18:03>> Yeah. No, you're right. And so that that
3:18:04might be one of the bigger growing pains
3:18:06for not only the governing the
3:18:08government at the top, but also just uh
3:18:12all of us at towards, you know, further
3:18:14down getting make sure we're on top of
3:18:16things to to meet those new new time and
3:18:18account for that potentially longer
3:18:22actionable period. We can still yeah add
3:18:24things for emergencies and such. There's
3:18:26even emergency provisions to call quick
3:18:2924-hour meetings if it's an actual
3:18:31emergency in the constitution. But by
3:18:33and large, most things won't be. So just
3:18:36we'll just have to make sure everyone at
3:18:37from the top down is aware of these new
3:18:40new timelines to make sure we maximize
3:18:42efficiency.
3:18:44>> Erin,
3:18:44>> I have a point of inquiry then I have a
3:18:46point to make. So where did the 10 days
3:18:48come from?
3:18:51>> All right. I know the answer, but I
3:18:54would just want to
3:18:54>> originally it was one of the timelines
3:18:57in the 2008
3:19:00draft.
3:19:01>> Seven
3:19:01>> 2007 draft.
3:19:03>> The version I have was 2008
3:19:05>> and it was 10 days. It wasn't longer.
3:19:07>> No, it was it was um there was a comment
3:19:11and notice period uh in there that I
3:19:14don't remember this. I haven't pulled up
3:19:16the specifics, but there was also
3:19:18certain legislation,
3:19:20not budgets I don't believe, but a lot
3:19:22of other legislation hit this notice
3:19:25period. So then there was even longer.
3:19:27It it was like 45 to 60 days depending
3:19:29on the type of legislation under that
3:19:31that draft.
3:19:32>> Okay. So here's what I remember. It's
3:19:34pretty close is the notice and comment
3:19:37requirement and the extended time period
3:19:39was because members that participated,
3:19:4229 members in the committee process, um
3:19:44we're not satisfied that we were
3:19:47operating like a government and giving
3:19:49the citizens time to mull over whether
3:19:52or not legislation that was coming in
3:19:54front of the council was sufficient time
3:19:57for them to see it, react to it, and
3:20:00contact their their representatives to
3:20:02say, "Yes, I like that or I don't like
3:20:04that or would you consider this sort of
3:20:06thing. The notice and comment
3:20:07requirement was um was I think specific
3:20:13to any changes in your rights from the
3:20:16constitution, any treaty rights, any
3:20:19referendum. So those so those sorts of
3:20:22things would require a longer period of
3:20:23time and notice comment. So the way that
3:20:25the legislature, the state legislature
3:20:27or the federal legislature works now,
3:20:29and I know a lot of people immediately
3:20:31want to dismiss that because we're not
3:20:32white, we're not the white government,
3:20:34but there's value in following notice
3:20:37and comment and opportunity for people
3:20:39to weigh in on whether or not they like
3:20:41what's going to be enacted that affects
3:20:42their lives. So um so 10 days doesn't
3:20:47have to be 10 days. It could be whatever
3:20:49this council decides, but that's what's
3:20:51in the draft. um it is absolutely
3:20:54manageable. Um it's it's not an undue
3:20:57burden. The one thing that I think and
3:20:58and you know there's a lot of
3:21:00assumptions that go into all of this is
3:21:03I think that once we have a separation
3:21:06of powers and we can bring a cause of
3:21:08action. I think somebody's going to
3:21:09bring a cause of action that suspending
3:21:11the rules to add something to the agenda
3:21:13in violation of the 10-day notice is not
3:21:16acceptable because, you know, we should
3:21:20be able to get our government poop in a
3:21:22group and, you know, have our act
3:21:23together such that we have notice and
3:21:26comment if it's 5 days or 10 days. And
3:21:30um it depends on how the legislature set
3:21:32up. Um right now we have we accommodate
3:21:36people who don't get their act together
3:21:39and bring stuff at the last minute. We
3:21:41accommodate that um when we should not
3:21:44we should actually require them to have
3:21:46their stuff submitted. The other thing
3:21:48I'm not sure how it's going to fit.
3:21:50We've made it an accommodation where at
3:21:52one time the the chair or the executive
3:21:55director could submit a um a grant
3:21:58request um administratively
3:22:01um because we didn't have a meeting
3:22:03scheduled. Um so
3:22:06I think that's a good accommodation but
3:22:08it may not meet the requirement. Um, and
3:22:11again, if if our planning department or
3:22:14if our programs and services are not on
3:22:17top of no notice of funding
3:22:19announcements or or whatever, then we
3:22:21just need to get better. We need to
3:22:23improve so that we're not having stuff
3:22:25at the last minute submitted. Um,
3:22:28because that really frustrates the legis
3:22:29I think it puts it as a disadvantage to
3:22:31getting it enacted if you bring it at
3:22:34the last minute. We shouldn't be doing
3:22:35things at the last minute. We should be
3:22:37more carefully as a government looking
3:22:39through it and proposing it. So, but I
3:22:41think the suspension of the rules is
3:22:43something we put in the parliamentary
3:22:44meeting rules um as an accommodation,
3:22:48but I I don't think that should apply to
3:22:50the notice and comment or the
3:22:52requirement to put something on the
3:22:54legislative agenda. So,
3:22:59>> okay, I didn't miss anybody, did I?
3:23:01Okay, we can keep going then.
3:23:05>> And just speaking of notice and
3:23:06comments, it's something that will help.
3:23:09We you we will the legal department or
3:23:11your future legislative attorney
3:23:13something that you can flesh out more in
3:23:14your legislative process code is not
3:23:16enshrined in the constitution but can
3:23:19you can still account for all that in
3:23:20the future if the tribal council wants
3:23:24uh to uh we're recommending
3:23:28that the budget office be separated out
3:23:31to be kind of our version of I I keep
3:23:34referring it to OM our version of of a
3:23:38federal ederal independent eye on the
3:23:41tribe and all its entities. I think that
3:23:43we should create a code and have it
3:23:45ready day one that makes budgets
3:23:48department a independent agency that
3:23:52cannot be subject to the political whims
3:23:54of any branch that has access as it does
3:23:58now to all the branches and all the
3:24:00entities so it can properly um and
3:24:03independently advise the government on
3:24:06budgetary needs. I think that's
3:24:08something that we we in the legal
3:24:10department think that should be day one,
3:24:11but it's definitely a high priority even
3:24:13if it's not day one.
3:24:15>> So, real quick before Tyler, I think
3:24:16that's a great idea. Who would that
3:24:18report to? Like ultimately someone has
3:24:20to have a boss. If it's not an elected
3:24:22position to where they have a membership
3:24:24to answer to, similar to what we answer
3:24:26to, who do they answer to?
3:24:29that that was going to be my
3:24:31recommendation actually is to create the
3:24:34audit commission into the audit
3:24:36authority and put it under that
3:24:39potential authority. Um now there are a
3:24:41few board members that sit on that but
3:24:43it is like split between board and
3:24:46professionals.
3:24:47>> So I would be supportive of that if the
3:24:49board vacated that and that would apply
3:24:51to myself too. Um, you know, I don't
3:24:54know. I I really don't know why we have
3:24:57these committees that are advisory to
3:24:58the board when board members sit on them
3:25:00to be quite honest with you. I I don't
3:25:02know. Like it provides an opportunity
3:25:05for a tribal citizen who's unelected to
3:25:08provide their feedback to see whatever
3:25:10situation the tribe is dealing with
3:25:12through their lens. And it's like,
3:25:13what's the point if it eventually just
3:25:15reaches the board of directors? A board
3:25:16member will have their opinion about it
3:25:18anyways and then they'll be able to take
3:25:20action on it. but one committee lower on
3:25:23the advisory level, what's the point of
3:25:24having board members there? And it's
3:25:25something we've talked about internally
3:25:27uh various meetings on um if we're going
3:25:31to have a similar approach in the future
3:25:33to have these committees then I believe
3:25:37if they if they can't if we can't get to
3:25:38the plans to try where they're like
3:25:40independent and the tribal council and
3:25:42the executive branch are out of it then
3:25:44having representation from all three
3:25:47branches some kind of hybrid where the
3:25:50the executive branch has
3:25:51represententation on it tribal council
3:25:53has representation and the judicial
3:25:55branch. So then all three branches are
3:25:58working together in a collaborative way
3:26:00is maybe a way that we can bridge the
3:26:02gap for our tribe. Um if we can't
3:26:04completely eliminate or or restructure
3:26:07the way we do a tax audit commission,
3:26:10having representation from all three
3:26:11branches so there is no imbalance of
3:26:13power might be a way that could work for
3:26:15our tribe.
3:26:16>> Erin,
3:26:18>> all right. So at the state level, you
3:26:20have a house fiscal agency and then you
3:26:22have a senate finance committee. At the
3:26:24federal level, you have the Office of
3:26:25Management and Budget under the
3:26:27executive branch and you have the
3:26:29Congressional Research Service or
3:26:31Congressional Budget Office. Um,
3:26:33Congressional Research Service is
3:26:35something different. So, um, the
3:26:38legislature enacts the laws on how to
3:26:41draft the budgets and so the C the OM
3:26:44and the Congressional Budget Office have
3:26:46to follow within those laws. So um so
3:26:50unless we planning on creating two
3:26:52separate arms to report up to the
3:26:55government overall I I think I don't I
3:26:58don't think it should be under the audit
3:27:00committee because it they're it's apples
3:27:02and oranges. Audit committee does
3:27:04something entirely different. The budget
3:27:06department um whichever structure I
3:27:08think they should be independent. Um we
3:27:11created this and Al remembers this. We
3:27:13created this at Greektown when we
3:27:15created Alakica's position because um
3:27:18the management authority wanted to have
3:27:20independence from the management on the
3:27:22budgets. So the the budget I don't
3:27:26remember what his title was but
3:27:28compliant. Yeah, he was compliance uh
3:27:30but uh the compliance officer reported
3:27:32directly to the management board. So
3:27:35that way the the administration which
3:27:37would be the management authority could
3:27:39not manipulate the numbers or whatever.
3:27:41It was pure. So, I think that's what we
3:27:43should the structure we should have. I
3:27:45don't think we should have a whole bunch
3:27:46of those structures. But I think that's
3:27:48one um when when we proposed the budget
3:27:53process, the appropriations process and
3:27:54the budget authority, we brought in Bill
3:27:57Matson who was an accountant, long-term
3:27:59accountant at Little or at uh Mount
3:28:01Pleasant Tribe. He came in and he
3:28:03drafted up our budget authority and it
3:28:05was to be independent of the CFO because
3:28:08at the time the CFO was heavy armed
3:28:12under the chairman of the tribe and kept
3:28:15information from the council stuff the
3:28:16council never ever got to see um and it
3:28:19was very manipulative. So, so I think
3:28:22that we need to have that independence.
3:28:24I don't think it should be positioned
3:28:26under any individual branch, but I think
3:28:29it should be responsible to all the
3:28:31branches. But then I also think we can
3:28:33write a code for what they do. And what
3:28:36they do is they draft up the bud or no,
3:28:39they take the draft budgets and they the
3:28:42legislature will draft a budget and
3:28:43submit it. The executive branch will
3:28:45draft a budget and submit it. The
3:28:47judicial branch will draft one and
3:28:48submit it. Their job is a very technical
3:28:50job to submit all that information in so
3:28:53that those can then come forward and
3:28:55those proposals can be picked apart by
3:28:58the legislative branch, picked apart by
3:29:00the executive branch and picked apart by
3:29:02the judicial branch. But ultimately all
3:29:04three branches have to get to a point
3:29:07where they have a consolidated budget or
3:29:09an ominous budget package to propose
3:29:12approval of a budget. So I do think it
3:29:14should be an independent body. I don't
3:29:16think it fits under any committee
3:29:18structures. Um, unless unless the way it
3:29:21could work, and we haven't talked about
3:29:23this yet, but if we create a regulatory
3:29:26structure for the tribe and the and the
3:29:28legislature enacts laws,
3:29:31I think we would have to have it in the
3:29:33constitution so that they can't write
3:29:34laws that are that would weaken another
3:29:38branch's authority. But all of the the
3:29:41commissions and the authorities should
3:29:43come under a separate regulatory
3:29:44structure. Um, but we're not there yet.
3:29:47I think that's probably going to come.
3:29:49Um, so, but in the meantime, I think the
3:29:51budget authority could be independent of
3:29:53any individual branch, but in an
3:29:56ordinance spell out their duty and
3:29:58responsibility to each separate branch,
3:30:00and then they can do their job. So,
3:30:03>> we can keep going.
3:30:04>> Been thinking about this for more than
3:30:0620 years.
3:30:08>> Um, if it's okay with the board, I don't
3:30:09want to go through the phase transition
3:30:11provisions because I want to tweak them.
3:30:13I tweaked them, but I want to tweak them
3:30:14even further for you. They're
3:30:16substantially what I've already sent out
3:30:18to you, but um they don't accurately
3:30:21reflect the day one, day zero. And if we
3:30:23all are tentatively in agreement that
3:30:26that's a okay approach as we move
3:30:28forward with day one, day zero. I will
3:30:30further tweak our transition timeline
3:30:32more in more accordance with those
3:30:34priorities that we talked about earlier
3:30:36before we ask you to vote on them.
3:30:39>> Okay, Tyler,
3:30:40>> I'm good with that. I I think we made
3:30:42decent progress today after talking
3:30:44about that. Um Mike had mentioned
3:30:46something to me during the break though
3:30:47that I want to make sure we bring up is
3:30:49that what can we add to this transition
3:30:52the implementation plan to create teeth
3:30:55to it. Other than it just being law um
3:30:58how many times have we seen law passed
3:31:00and then things get ignored for 3
3:31:02months, 6 months, 9 months, so on and so
3:31:04forth. So what can we do to hold all of
3:31:06us accountable? our executives, the
3:31:08board of directors, the OGA, the the the
3:31:11Justice Department um to create teeth to
3:31:16this resolution to make sure that we do
3:31:18not breach it, that we do our 0 to 90
3:31:22days, so on and so forth and with it
3:31:24attached. So, you have the you don't
3:31:26have it fully worked out. You said you
3:31:27want to come back to it. I'm fine with
3:31:29you coming back because I feel like this
3:31:30the day zero, day one, like um answered
3:31:33a lot of questions, brought up more. We
3:31:35have some some things to work through,
3:31:36but can you think about what we can do
3:31:39to create teeth so that this if this
3:31:42were to pass that we we follow it?
3:31:50Yeah, I'll um I'll think about that more
3:31:53how we can create more te certainly if
3:31:55this is enacted I have on the screen now
3:31:58that would be the law of our tribe right
3:32:00the transition resolution and if
3:32:02>> an elected leader violates it there
3:32:05they're subject to removal now and and
3:32:07in the new constitution um but outside
3:32:10of that further teeth I don't have an
3:32:12answer today Tyler but I will uh
3:32:15workshop that with the team and figure
3:32:16out some options to create even beyond
3:32:19that obvious tooth that has the removal
3:32:23and recall. What else we can do to make
3:32:25sure we hold uh each other accountable
3:32:27for it? Yeah.
3:32:28>> Okay.
3:32:29>> Go ahead.
3:32:31>> In the draft that came from 2007 and
3:32:34then also reaffirmed in 2012 and with
3:32:37the elders unanimously uh put forward in
3:32:40uh 2024,
3:32:42there was a remedy for not approving a
3:32:44budget. What was that? Uh that would be
3:32:47that tribal council would forfeit their
3:32:50salaries until such time as a budget was
3:32:52passed,
3:32:53>> right? That that's budget, but we're
3:32:55talking about all of these codes as
3:32:57well. And we really are at the whim of
3:33:00the rest of the tribe when it comes to
3:33:01making sure that these are in alignment,
3:33:03too,
3:33:04>> right? It's not just it's not just the
3:33:06OGMA or tribal council. It's all the
3:33:08executive staff. It's the legal
3:33:10department. like how do we besides that
3:33:12we just want the best for our tribe and
3:33:13we want to make sure this gets done in a
3:33:15good way. What other legal teeth can we
3:33:18add to just in reinforce that and hold
3:33:21each other accountable? I understand. I
3:33:22don't have the answer today, but I'll
3:33:24think of some language.
3:33:24>> I appreciate that,
3:33:26>> Rob.
3:33:29>> I was just going to suggest some kind of
3:33:31a code that would force us to be in this
3:33:33room until it was done pretty much. I
3:33:35mean, like a 9 to5. I mean, if you don't
3:33:37get it done, your job's to get it done.
3:33:39you show up every day, work together in
3:33:42this room till it's done. But maybe that
3:33:44may maybe not getting it done on the
3:33:46timeline would be a trigger for that and
3:33:48you guys are to report every day to your
3:33:50to your council workshop and until you
3:33:53guys come up with a solution. I mean the
3:33:55other obvious teeth that are built in to
3:33:58this if if
3:34:01the executive branch doesn't fulfill a
3:34:04duty say that they're drafting the foy
3:34:07code and they miss that sixmonth
3:34:09benchmark to get it to you all at the
3:34:13there are if we build them at mediation
3:34:15or ADR or if we don't have that set up
3:34:19we can sue each other if I mean we don't
3:34:22want to always res resort to that but
3:34:23there is the pending potentiality that
3:34:28if a branch misses its deadline that
3:34:31especially if the if the legislature
3:34:32misses the deadline in the 18 months and
3:34:34we have codes that aren't adopted that
3:34:37you're people are going to start
3:34:38pointing fingers at each other and
3:34:39gearing up to maybe want to to go to
3:34:41mediation or alternative dispute
3:34:43resolution arbitration or ultimately
3:34:46maybe be in tribal court suing each
3:34:47other and I think that all branches
3:34:50would want to avoid that. So that's the
3:34:52other kind of already builtin teeth that
3:34:55we have. So we have the removal for
3:34:57elected officials. We have the pending
3:35:00potentiality of having to sue each other
3:35:02which no one wants to do that. That's
3:35:03that's waste of time and money and
3:35:05costs. Um so those things are teeth now
3:35:08so to speak that are that are in there
3:35:10and that hold all the branches
3:35:13accountable. Um and I'll we'll figure
3:35:15out how we can maybe
3:35:17reinforce that and buff that out
3:35:19further.
3:35:21Holly, do you know off the top of your
3:35:23head what our consolidated budgets are
3:35:24across all the different silos within
3:35:26the tribe? That would include obviously
3:35:29health, EDC,
3:35:31um gaming, governmental.
3:35:37>> Um let me see if I can put that. I don't
3:35:41have gaming. I know that.
3:35:44>> Al, what do you what is their annual
3:35:46budget for gaming? You can let her know
3:35:48and she can add it to it.
3:35:53Well, we budget for about 86 I think in
3:35:56gross game
3:35:58>> and we're right around 20 million IBRA.
3:36:00>> Correct.
3:36:01>> You got that, Holly?
3:36:06>> 86 gross gaming and about 20 million
3:36:08IBRA.
3:36:12>> How long are you going to need for that,
3:36:14Holly? A couple minutes.
3:36:14>> Yeah, I just need a couple minutes.
3:36:16Okay, we can keep going then. Okay.
3:36:19>> Uh that's that's all I had for for that
3:36:22portion. I think maybe if there's
3:36:25questions on that from either executive
3:36:28team or the tribal tribal council.
3:36:30>> Okay. Before I call on them, I'm going
3:36:32to Is there anything else in the
3:36:34presentation?
3:36:35>> Well, we had on the agenda health
3:36:37authority code development. Um but we'll
3:36:41need more unless we're going extra time
3:36:44after five. we we're going to need more
3:36:46time than a half hour for that probably.
3:36:48>> So I mean in a nutshell we would build
3:36:50it similarly to the gaming authority and
3:36:52the EDC authority. Um but obviously if
3:36:55we were to transition to that there
3:36:57wouldn't be board members in there. You
3:36:58would have professionals and I would
3:37:00strongly encourage the board of
3:37:02directors to place basic criteria on who
3:37:04you admit there. So like within the
3:37:05gaming authority, it's or not gaming
3:37:08authority within the housing authority,
3:37:09we're always appreciative of all the
3:37:10volunteers, but there's no educational
3:37:13requirement. There's no professional
3:37:15experience required. And if we're going
3:37:17to replace ourselves with a professional
3:37:18body to oversee the health division,
3:37:20which I think is necessary because
3:37:22that's so crucially important. Like I
3:37:24think one of the problems of the board
3:37:25of directors is that we have an
3:37:26unrealistic expectation of the capacity
3:37:29of the health division. That's not to
3:37:30say that they don't do good work, but us
3:37:32as tribal politicians, we have a
3:37:34tendency to try to squeeze things to
3:37:35make make ourselves look good. You know
3:37:37what I mean? But like there's there's
3:37:39capacity. You only have so many offices
3:37:41in there. You only have so many bodies
3:37:43in there. You only have so many
3:37:44resources. And I will say this until I'm
3:37:46blue in the face. It should be a
3:37:48professional health authority with
3:37:50people who have worked in that field,
3:37:51people that have studied in that field,
3:37:53people near the tail end of their career
3:37:55that can contribute. But we need a
3:37:57bigger conversation. It's going to be
3:37:58like a full workshop. Yeah. And we sent
3:38:00we sent out to the board two drafts. One
3:38:02that's modeled after our housing
3:38:05authority, one that's modeled after KGA
3:38:07and enterprise authority to be the two
3:38:10like starting points because those are
3:38:13the two examples we have as a tribe and
3:38:14then we can workshop more in depth and
3:38:17go forward. Something I will throw out
3:38:19to the universe for
3:38:22better or worse. I guess if as a tribe
3:38:25we are struggling to get on the same
3:38:28page now we're in the separation on who
3:38:32should be those governing bodies. I
3:38:34would like if we're at an impass just
3:38:36I'm going to put that out there. We
3:38:37should talk about maybe some kind of
3:38:39hybrid approach where tribal council or
3:38:42maybe even the executive branch can be
3:38:43on there with the professionals if we
3:38:46can't get to the point where we can have
3:38:47it entirely of professionals. I have
3:38:50seen our tribe from afar. I've seen it
3:38:52now from the inside and I know there can
3:38:54be sometimes struggles there and that
3:38:56can be not saying we have to lead with
3:38:58that but just something to keep in mind.
3:38:59We do not we don't have to fight about
3:39:00it amongst ourselves. We can come to a
3:39:02compromise in a way that works and
3:39:04creates independence and gets that
3:39:06professional level um guidance and on
3:39:10these governing boards without too much
3:39:11strife. So, I want to throw that on the
3:39:13plate now because I'm anticipating some
3:39:16of the conversations we're going to have
3:39:17and it doesn't have to be all or nothing
3:39:18and there are ways to kind of bridge the
3:39:21gap.
3:39:22>> Lena then Erin.
3:39:24>> Yeah, I'm I didn't know if I know that
3:39:27we didn't talk about I know that we
3:39:29talked about the cost estimate and that
3:39:31went down from us sitting here today and
3:39:34thinking of ways that we can reduce it.
3:39:37Um, does Bill have anything? I mean
3:39:39because we're we're going to be
3:39:40reflecting on a new um IT
3:39:45um website and I'm not sure if any and
3:39:48Dan I think we talked about EDC and no
3:39:50additional costs there but and then my
3:39:53the question I would have is what is the
3:39:55final that we had lowered it down from
3:39:57the 3.8 eight.
3:40:00>> Um, just to have a clear Yes.
3:40:02>> I mean, I'm sure we're gonna have this
3:40:03conversation again tomorrow and it might
3:40:05even change just a little bit, but
3:40:07>> yeah. So, based on the memo I
3:40:09distributed in our discussions earlier
3:40:11this afternoon, that 3.8 went down to
3:40:141.7
3:40:16million. I was talking to Holly on one
3:40:19of the breaks. That doesn't account for
3:40:21potential increase uh to our elections
3:40:24or the election commission. There
3:40:27something else we talked about. Is that
3:40:28that's that was going to be my question
3:40:30too. Is the elections of OP the election
3:40:32of judges and things like that. Is any
3:40:35of that in included
3:40:37in this?
3:40:38>> I do not have that in in the in this
3:40:40number. So I if if we say it's 1.7 it's
3:40:44going to be more than 1.7 because I I
3:40:46didn't haven't figured out with Holly
3:40:48what the
3:40:49>> potential increase to our elections will
3:40:51be. I don't think it's going to be a
3:40:53huge increase compared to
3:40:55>> it is important to know that what is not
3:40:57included in that though as well because
3:40:59you've done a great job of putting
3:41:00what's included in it and where we can
3:41:02and we can estimate that.
3:41:04>> Um but not included is elections not
3:41:07included is new you know what uh Bill's
3:41:10working on for different things. Um and
3:41:14I don't know if anybody else has any
3:41:16comments about Jess.
3:41:18>> We're going to get to Jess. I'm going to
3:41:19give a round any of the executives. But
3:41:21I mean it's also important to remember
3:41:23this like the body that the board will
3:41:25become will control the purse strings of
3:41:27the tribe. So that's one of the reasons
3:41:29why the number has been constantly fluid
3:41:31because at the end of the day it's this
3:41:32body who's going to approve the budgets
3:41:34that's going to operate it. So I mean I
3:41:36could put forward a resolution that says
3:41:38hey I need those two staff if we're not
3:41:40close to balancing the budget. You guys
3:41:42just don't pass.
3:41:42>> We also have mandates though. There's
3:41:44mandates that and those are the things
3:41:46that I you know that we we aren't
3:41:48addressing here and you know
3:41:50>> there are but at the same time there's
3:41:52great flexibility in what this body pays
3:41:54for.
3:41:55>> Erin,
3:41:57I'm sorry. Did anyone have their hand
3:41:59up? All right. Even
3:42:03>> Okay, go ahead then. Jess,
3:42:06>> I guess just a comment on Lana's last
3:42:09question. Some of my departments would
3:42:11have increased cost. Um, one for example
3:42:13would be law enforcement. I mean, they
3:42:15could have potential additional
3:42:17reporting that's required, additional
3:42:18court appearances, you know, more
3:42:21subpoenas, those sort of things. So,
3:42:23that may require additional staffing,
3:42:25you know, overtime training, those sort
3:42:26of things. Um, but the one thing I did
3:42:28want to mention, I know we've had a lot
3:42:30of discussion on tribal support. The one
3:42:33other thing that I had flagged to the
3:42:34board previously was um federal funding
3:42:38um and that proposed OM rule that was
3:42:41supposed to go into effect in October,
3:42:43which has been now delayed until
3:42:44December. Um but we currently receive
3:42:47and Holly can correct my numbers if I'm
3:42:49wrong, but over $60 million in federal
3:42:52funding. And if there's changes there,
3:42:54if those funds get cut, um, eliminated,
3:42:58you know, there there could be some
3:43:00issues there where we would be looking
3:43:01at additional tribal support. And for
3:43:0326, our tribal support was over 21
3:43:06million that was requested. Obviously, a
3:43:08$13 million def or 13 million deficit.
3:43:11In FY27, the numbers that have come in
3:43:13so far are we're looking at 23.6 million
3:43:17in tribal support requests. So, the
3:43:19requests for 27 have gone up 2.6 6
3:43:22million. So, the deficit I would imagine
3:43:25would be less or increased, I'm sorry,
3:43:28for
3:43:28>> Can you tell me what the $2.6 million um
3:43:31worth of additional expenses are?
3:43:33>> No, I don't have that right now. I was
3:43:34just working with Jen on the numbers.
3:43:36So, but we can pull that together.
3:43:38>> Okay. Aaron. So, um I think Tyler might
3:43:41have said it, but we shouldn't let
3:43:43justice slip past us without doing
3:43:45something about it. um we have been not
3:43:49giving direction to staff about what
3:43:52they should be requesting to stay
3:43:53within. So we need to do that. We need
3:43:56to do drivers out to tell them because
3:43:59here we have how much more two and a
3:44:00half million more. Um and I I still
3:44:03don't think I think the creation of this
3:44:05deficit spending is of our own doing
3:44:07because we haven't reset the 17 million
3:44:10um tribal support draw down which was in
3:44:13place before the pandemic. That's all
3:44:15artificial, but um whatever number we
3:44:18decide on, that's the number we should
3:44:20be sending out to departments to draft
3:44:23up. And what we used to do at different
3:44:24times when we were facing sequestration
3:44:27is we would go through the exercise of
3:44:29saying, "Okay, project your budget at um
3:44:33here's the ceiling, projected at a 5%
3:44:36decrease, a a one and a half% decrease,
3:44:40a 3% decrease. Um what would that look
3:44:42like?" and and it's it's more work, but
3:44:45it's really not that much more work for
3:44:47people who know what they're doing. Um,
3:44:49so if we were to send that directive out
3:44:52ahead of time, um, then we wouldn't be
3:44:54getting budgets asking for these
3:44:57increases that that we can't
3:44:59accommodate. So, so Tyler mentioned it.
3:45:02I've been saying it since I came back to
3:45:04office, but we haven't done anything to
3:45:06give them direction. So, Mike
3:45:13Just to add on to that, um I and I said
3:45:16this at a previous workshop and I'm
3:45:18going to keep on continuing saying it is
3:45:20that we have all of you right here too.
3:45:23And so when something comes forward and
3:45:25it's not you guys don't think it's good
3:45:28fiscally responsible to be doing, we
3:45:31need to hear no more often from all of
3:45:33you guys. And so I will stand on that
3:45:36every single time too is that we rarely
3:45:39rarely rarely hear no. We hear this is
3:45:42requested and then we approve, but at
3:45:45the end of the day we we need that no
3:45:48too. We really do. We need to hear it
3:45:50from you guys. Um
3:45:53and I'm hoping it happens more often. So
3:45:57I will leave I'll leave it at that.
3:45:59>> Holly, have you gotten that number?
3:46:03Still still working on it. Okay. All
3:46:05right. Anything else, Ryan?
3:46:08>> No.
3:46:09>> Then dare I say final questions,
3:46:11comments from the board?
3:46:14>> There you heard the word. No,
3:46:15>> just procedurally. Sorry.
3:46:17>> Yeah, mine is just procedurally.
3:46:20>> Does Bill have anything to add on the
3:46:21infrastructure of it once we make these
3:46:24changes happen within our three branch?
3:46:27>> Come on up, Bill. All you're already
3:46:29there talking about a different bill.
3:46:30So, Bill, how would uh the department
3:46:31that you manage be impacted if our
3:46:34membership were to enact this
3:46:36constitutional amendment?
3:46:38>> So, um Ryan, do you have that um slide?
3:46:41What I'm slide number two is what I'm
3:46:43after.
3:46:46So, in short, um and it it'll be up here
3:46:49in just a moment. Um I showed this at
3:46:52the um this second one. I showed this at
3:46:55the uh board training um for the new
3:46:58members recently and I know this is a
3:47:01bit of an eye chart here but um if you
3:47:04look at that overall organizational
3:47:06structure of information technology here
3:47:07at the tribe what you see on the extreme
3:47:10right column is Q8 IT and there's a fair
3:47:14number of people in there because
3:47:15they've got 247 operations lot you know
3:47:18so on and so forth. Um, then there's
3:47:21health IT, which you can see doesn't
3:47:24really have a whole bunch of people. And
3:47:25then there's everything to the left, and
3:47:28that's all government IT. And government
3:47:31it does shared services for
3:47:35QA, well for everybody basically. So
3:47:38that org chart is covering things like
3:47:41wiring, IT service desk, cyber security,
3:47:45things like that. So the message that I
3:47:48have for the you know for the board of
3:47:49directors here today is
3:47:52changing over day one has a couple of
3:47:54factors but I don't see a huge
3:47:56substantive change in terms of what it's
3:47:59going to require to get us transition to
3:48:02the new government. We already support
3:48:03the courts. We already support the PD.
3:48:06We already support the legislature. Um
3:48:09all of those things can continue on. Um,
3:48:12and we're leveraging the fact that we've
3:48:14got it's really hard to hire people up
3:48:17here and it's hard to retain them. We've
3:48:19had six people go to Bay Mills within
3:48:22the past uh year since I've been here.
3:48:25So, and basically it's more money for
3:48:28effectively less work. So that's an
3:48:32issue that we're trying to to address
3:48:34obviously, but the the the big point is
3:48:37the challenge that we have getting
3:48:39people to come to the Sue with the kind
3:48:42of skill sets that we need to run
3:48:44technology. So that's a factor. Um, so
3:48:47changing dramatically what we're doing
3:48:49right now, particularly given the fact
3:48:52that we've got four major in-flight line
3:48:55of business changes, which I keep
3:48:57telling everybody who in their right
3:48:58mind would do that in one year, but um,
3:49:01clearly I'm not in my right mind, but we
3:49:03were so bagged up against the wall on it
3:49:06that we just had to absorb all that
3:49:08stuff. Those those things are in flight.
3:49:10We're changing the financial system that
3:49:12affects every one of the verticals.
3:49:13We're changing the payroll and uh human
3:49:16capital management systems. We're
3:49:18changing um the health record system.
3:49:21All of these things are foundational and
3:49:24modernizing. But we can't we got to keep
3:49:27the lights on. So going forward, I think
3:49:31the best model for technology is to as
3:49:35these imperatives come with code changes
3:49:38and things like that that we stay on top
3:49:39of it. I'm not going to sit here and
3:49:41tell you that it may not make sense to
3:49:43change the structure somewhat, but I
3:49:46think right now given what we have going
3:49:48for the tribe and the strategic
3:49:50initiatives that are after we get
3:49:52through all of this basic renovation and
3:49:55elimination of 15 years of technical
3:49:57debt. um once we get through that
3:49:59renovation, we're going to be in a
3:50:01really good position to start actually
3:50:03um efficiently serving the membership
3:50:06with u with new things without
3:50:08substantially increasing the cost. And I
3:50:11heard a bunch of discussion today about
3:50:13well we can do this and we can save
3:50:14money here and save money there. Well,
3:50:16every single thing that we do is touched
3:50:18by technology like having the courts
3:50:21work remotely touched by technology. How
3:50:24do we plan to to move that stuff out? a
3:50:27lot of that stuff is already licensed.
3:50:29It's already part of what we have. So,
3:50:32um that's going to be my focus um and my
3:50:36commentary for this moment.
3:50:39>> Okay, Tyler. So, with your with your um
3:50:44expertise gap, um isn't there isn't it
3:50:48part of your plan to go more and more to
3:50:50remote employment to fill that gap?
3:50:53>> Well, that's something we have to
3:50:54consider. Um there has been an
3:50:56institutional
3:50:58um an institutional bias towards hiring
3:51:01people and putting them in a chair here.
3:51:03Many of the jobs like cyber security
3:51:05analysts that type of job doesn't need
3:51:07to be here.
3:51:08>> There's there's three dozen people that
3:51:11I know of that work remotely in
3:51:13Marquette.
3:51:14>> You know there there's no reason
3:51:15especially for cyber security and and IT
3:51:18infrastructure. The Sue tribe has a
3:51:20policy standing that you can have a
3:51:23remote workforce. So, as the director of
3:51:26IT or the CIO, like if that is your
3:51:29recommendation, just move on it. Get it
3:51:31get those seats filled, you know, and
3:51:34and make sure that people are doing what
3:51:36they're supposed to be doing. Just hold
3:51:37them accountable.
3:51:39>> Okay, you got it. I
3:51:41>> I don't know where the bias is coming
3:51:42from because right now it is in code
3:51:44that they are allowed to work remote if
3:51:46they have the capability to do so.
3:51:48Okay, Aaron, Lana, and then I'm going to
3:51:51ask if any other executives have any
3:51:53questions, comments about things. I'll
3:51:55give the board of directors one final
3:51:57opportunity for question or comment and
3:51:59then we'll adjourn for the day. So
3:52:01Aaron, then Lana, and then we'll go
3:52:03through here, see if anyone has anything
3:52:05to say. Go ahead.
3:52:06>> Yeah. So the with respect to the remote
3:52:09work for those team members um there
3:52:12especially the the crew that are trained
3:52:14to do that kind of work in two places I
3:52:17worked uh while I was out of office um
3:52:19you um that work was all contracted work
3:52:23100% of it. So um what we're doing is
3:52:26antiquated in the way that the rest of
3:52:27the world does this. So because um for
3:52:30whatever reason I I don't think it's the
3:52:32geek shall inherit the earth but they
3:52:34have a lot of power and they can set the
3:52:36tone of where they want to work and
3:52:38that's what they choose to do. So um and
3:52:40you do as uh Tyler said you do have that
3:52:43because the board put that in place they
3:52:44never rescended it. So you have that
3:52:46luxury right now.
3:52:48>> Lena.
3:52:50Yeah, and just to piggyback off that,
3:52:51that's one of the reasons why we did it
3:52:53is so that um you guys would have the
3:52:55flexibility in order to retain and
3:52:58recruit those specialty positions. So,
3:53:01if um we had asked or I had asked months
3:53:04ago, you know, about uh a report on
3:53:07whether it's working and whether it's
3:53:08not and it's, you know, it's kind of
3:53:11saddening to find out that we're not
3:53:13doing that when that's one of the main
3:53:15reasons that we put it into effect. I
3:53:17didn't support it at the beginning.
3:53:19Tyler convinced me it was a perfect
3:53:22opportunity for us to recruit and
3:53:24retain. So, I would also say that as
3:53:27well. I mean, if they I hear from so
3:53:29many tribal members that when they can
3:53:30work remote, they get a lot more done.
3:53:33But, it is going to take a strong uh
3:53:35manager to make sure that work is
3:53:37getting done and complete. We still have
3:53:39glitches in our system. I believe that
3:53:41some people it's working for and some
3:53:43people it's not. I haven't seen that on
3:53:45paper yet, but I hear from different
3:53:47departments. So, I'm waiting on that for
3:53:49the board to see, but um especially in
3:53:54your line of work, that is something
3:53:56that we should and that was one of the
3:53:59reasons why I supported is because of
3:54:02it. So,
3:54:03>> so, um, if I could address that a couple
3:54:06of points. I was aware that we do have a
3:54:08remote work policy. Um, and it's been a
3:54:12whirlwind of a year working with the
3:54:14staff that we have. We're in the throws
3:54:15of some turnover right now. Um, many of
3:54:19the applicants that we get are require
3:54:23H-1B support or things of that nature.
3:54:26So when you when you put out a wide
3:54:28cast, you end up having trouble culling
3:54:30through some of the resumes and all of
3:54:32that. So that whole thing comes to the
3:54:35four and now that I'm having this
3:54:37discussion with you, which I had planned
3:54:38on bringing up with the board, um
3:54:42I'm all for it. I worked for the last
3:54:44three years completely virtual. My
3:54:46company was in six time zones. So um
3:54:49over 200 employees and of that only
3:54:51about 30 of them were actually in
3:54:54company facilities. So, I get the model.
3:54:58I love it.
3:55:00I love it.
3:55:02>> Okay. So, I called on Aaron. I called on
3:55:04Lana. Do any executives here at the
3:55:06table have any questions, comments,
3:55:08anything at all?
3:55:12>> I have the number that you asked for.
3:55:15However, I'm going to throw out that I
3:55:17put it together pretty quickly, so I
3:55:19don't want to be held to
3:55:21>> this exact value. I'm throwing the
3:55:24disclaimer out.
3:55:25>> So, this would be the past budgets for
3:55:26casino, EDC, health, government. What's
3:55:29it all at?
3:55:30>> Correct. And I um
3:55:34my total is 322,641,74169.
3:55:41>> 322 million. And And what's the what's
3:55:43the rest?
3:55:4532 3 mil 322,641,74169.
3:55:53>> So let's just round to 32.5 million3
3:55:58>> 33
3:56:00>> 323 $323 million. Let's just round it up
3:56:03a little bit.
3:56:04>> Okay. 323. Ryan, what is the last
3:56:06estimate for bare bones operating this
3:56:10new government?
3:56:13uh 1.7 million give or take uh probably
3:56:16a few hundred thousand for the things we
3:56:18mentioned that aren't in that estimate
3:56:20like elections. So say 2 million 2
3:56:23million.
3:56:24>> So about a half half a percent increase
3:56:26in the total cost of operating our
3:56:28government. I just wanted to break that
3:56:29down for you guys. About a half a about
3:56:33a half a percent more. That really puts
3:56:36it in perspective. Also what can put it
3:56:38in perspective? I know it isn't
3:56:40completely relevant because we passed or
3:56:42we're getting close to the obligation
3:56:43deadline. How much money do we receive
3:56:45in ARP and care both combined?
3:56:55>> It'll take me just a second to put that
3:56:56together.
3:56:57>> All right. Well, I I'll say what I'm
3:56:58going to say then.
3:57:00>> So,
3:57:02you just heard I mean our government
3:57:04costs $323 million to operate every
3:57:07single year. half a percent increase
3:57:09gets you that new government. I'm
3:57:10convinced that within that $323 million,
3:57:13there is fat. There is savings. So,
3:57:16Holly was correct earlier today when we
3:57:17talked about our government's inability
3:57:19to collect its own revenue. We have to
3:57:21tax revenue. And to answer some board
3:57:23members questions, we already have
3:57:25identified new funding sources for this
3:57:27government. That would include
3:57:28potentially taxing the housing
3:57:29authority, taxing the health division,
3:57:31and taxing STI. all those businesses
3:57:34would be taxed in the real world if they
3:57:35would operate outside the reservation.
3:57:37In addition to that, a big goal of this
3:57:39government is that we make more
3:57:41responsible choices moving forward.
3:57:43Choices that won't get us sued. So, the
3:57:45biggest thing that's hurt the tribe
3:57:47moving forward is the downstate gambling
3:57:49expansion. Between Greek Town and JLJ,
3:57:51you're well over $und00 million. And you
3:57:54know, we had to use a lot of our ARPA
3:57:56and CARES Act funding for cleanup. And
3:57:58that was a big reason. If you subtract a
3:58:00hundred million dollars and then some
3:58:01from a tribal community, you are going
3:58:03to feel the impact of that. So with
3:58:05this, you have a board of directors that
3:58:07becomes legislators. And in that role, I
3:58:09think they do a better job passing the
3:58:10budget. If they're just focused on
3:58:12passing a budget and passing
3:58:14legislation, I think that we have a
3:58:16balanced budget if we do that. I really
3:58:18do. Beyond that, we can't ignore the
3:58:21fact that this supervision model that we
3:58:23currently have is notoriously tough on
3:58:24employees. I told Al the other day he is
3:58:27the only key employee since I've been
3:58:29part of the board of directors that
3:58:30hasn't been terminated or resigned and
3:58:32we have another resignation that we have
3:58:34to approve tomorrow. It's a difficult
3:58:36place to work under this model and that
3:58:38can't be disputed because the statistics
3:58:40speak for itself. Um in addition to
3:58:42that, we talked about some of the
3:58:43misconceptions with this government
3:58:45model. Most of the operations will be uh
3:58:47supervised by authorities. The
3:58:49government ones would be supervised by
3:58:51my office. Uh but if I don't do a good
3:58:53job, vote me out. And that's that's what
3:58:54you have to do to produce this kind of
3:58:56accountability. So in short, I thought
3:58:58that this would be much more expensive.
3:59:00I really did and I see how we spend
3:59:02money in this tribe. So to be able to
3:59:04provide tribal members with standing
3:59:06within our government, I think is
3:59:08definitely worth just south of $2
3:59:10million because again, I'm a resident of
3:59:12the city of Sue St. Marie, the state of
3:59:14Michigan, and the federal government. I
3:59:15have standing in each of those
3:59:17governments. I don't have it in the
3:59:18tribal government at all. I can't sue
3:59:20this government if they screw me over.
3:59:22Neither can any one of our well we have
3:59:25over 50,000 citizens and that's a
3:59:26problem. Um so I think this is
3:59:28affordable. Beyond that it increases the
3:59:31uh protections for our citizens. It
3:59:33lowers the threshold to do referendums
3:59:35significantly. Also under this new model
3:59:38tribal citizens would be able to amend
3:59:40our constitution which they currently
3:59:42don't have the ability to do. And that's
3:59:44huge. And we wouldn't have to go through
3:59:46the BIA again. we'd be able to exercise
3:59:48our sovereignty as a sovereign nation to
3:59:50amend our own constitution. But namely
3:59:54the biggest thing that I like about this
3:59:56is that we had a choice in it. So you
3:59:59create board of directors to oversee
4:00:01businesses like Coca-Cola.
4:00:04Corporate boards aren't meant to
4:00:05supervise and lead nations. You know
4:00:08what I mean? And I mean because we have
4:00:09a corporate board, that's one of the
4:00:11reasons why we have the shortcomings
4:00:12that we do. I think you know we have a
4:00:14lot of infighting. All it takes is one
4:00:16person from this body to create a toxic
4:00:18work environment for one of our key
4:00:20employees and there's not a whole lot
4:00:22that board members can do to please each
4:00:24other if that occurs and that
4:00:25contributes to the issues that we have.
4:00:27Um so those are the reasons that I'm
4:00:29supportive of this. This is affordable.
4:00:31Again, it costs you less than half of a
4:00:34percent compared to what's currently
4:00:36costing your government right now. You
4:00:38know, Holly, did you come up with how
4:00:39much we had in cares and ARPA? Well, I
4:00:43know we had probably at least I remember
4:00:46the first deposit being 47 million in
4:00:49CAR's funds, but we had 272 million um
4:00:53that I'm showing in ARPA that pass
4:00:55through the ARPA cost center. I think it
4:00:59is important to note though that some of
4:01:00these funds are restricted as we're
4:01:02looking at these, right? There's
4:01:04restrictions. Some of it's coming in
4:01:05from federal government. So,
4:01:07>> right, but it's also important to note
4:01:09that we could have used some of the ARP
4:01:10and CARES Act funding to create some of
4:01:12the infrastructure that we're now being
4:01:13forced to pay out of our own pockets.
4:01:15And that's a fair thing to point out.
4:01:16>> Very much so.
4:01:17>> Okay. So, that's my two cents. This is
4:01:19affordable. You have Judge Leaport
4:01:22that's on there that's not screaming for
4:01:23the hills. This isn't going to work. You
4:01:25have general counsel. Like, we're
4:01:26willing to make this work, you guys.
4:01:28Okay? And if we can't afford this, we
4:01:30can't afford a whole lot of things that
4:01:32are coming down the pipeline. And I'm
4:01:33going to point that out every single
4:01:34time. We've been workshopping different
4:01:36projects while we don't have a balanced
4:01:38budget. And I'd be willing to bet that
4:01:40if you add up the cost of all those
4:01:42projects such as a new license plate
4:01:44program, enhanced licenses,
4:01:47um potentially a new website, I'd be
4:01:49willing to bet that that would cost over
4:01:51a couple million bucks, you know, and I
4:01:53put low hanging fruit to sibly property
4:01:54on there. I know some people have some
4:01:56differing opinions as far as what we can
4:01:58do with it, but that property, nothing
4:02:00has been done with it the last 15 years.
4:02:02It will never be a casino. Not now, not
4:02:04ever. We pursued that all the way up to
4:02:06the US Supreme Court, and they declined
4:02:07to hear that case. So, it can't be a
4:02:09casino. So, if it's going to become
4:02:11something else, then we need to figure
4:02:13out what it's going to be. And if we
4:02:15can't afford a new government, it puts
4:02:17into question whether or not we can
4:02:18afford developing that property. You're
4:02:20most likely not going to be able to get
4:02:21partners on that. Considering our last
4:02:23partner with that very specific property
4:02:25had to take us to court, not once, but
4:02:27twice, because we had an $88 million
4:02:29judgment found against us, and then we
4:02:31missed the payment and had to pay him
4:02:32again. So, it's my position. Um, it's
4:02:36something that I told the membership I'd
4:02:37support and I'm going to keep my word on
4:02:39it. So, Holly, did you get those
4:02:42numbers? So, just south of what, 400
4:02:44million?
4:02:46>> Um, yeah, definitely 300 million for
4:02:50sure.
4:02:50>> Okay. So, we've got hundreds of millions
4:02:52of dollars the last six years between
4:02:54ARP and CARES and they are restricted,
4:02:56but as evidence, we could have been
4:02:58smarter about it. And that's all I'm
4:02:59going to say. I'm not going to put my
4:03:00hand up again today. Just as a point of
4:03:02information, some of the restricted
4:03:04dollars are spendable if it meets those
4:03:08requirements and because some of them
4:03:10are like uh Rama the Rama settlement or
4:03:13contract support cost settlement. Those
4:03:15dollars can be spent on health. So
4:03:17they're not completely off limits. They
4:03:19could be applied towards um reducing um
4:03:23well we don't have tribal support third
4:03:24party or in the health division but
4:03:26reducing third party revenue that would
4:03:28make that available too. So So Correct.
4:03:31Or for software. Some of it like the IHS
4:03:34contract support could be for software.
4:03:36Yep.
4:03:37>> Okay. Anything else from anybody?
4:03:40>> All righty. I'll see you guys tomorrow
4:03:41then.
4:03:42>> Can I
4:03:43>> I want to just remind everybody we are
4:03:45not meeting next Monday because it's
4:03:46Labor Day. So the next meeting on a
4:03:49Monday is the 14th.
4:03:52And if everybody's good with it, I'll
4:03:54just work with Ryan on what we're going
4:03:56to present that day and we'll notice it
4:03:58as a workshop. Again, I'm assuming we're
4:04:01going to start going through some of the
4:04:02priority codes during these sessions.
4:04:06>> Yeah, that's fine. I will not be there
4:04:07on that Monday, but Josh, you're in good
4:04:09hands with Josh and we'll make sure that
4:04:11we're all prepped and ready to go. So,
4:04:14>> all right, everybody. Workshop adjourns.
4:04:16See everyone tomorrow.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Board of Directors Broadcast - SAULT 8/31/26 by Sault Tribe TV, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 39,205 words across 5,737 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.