BC Meeting Materials February 24, 2016

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Open Session

CERTIFICATION

I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Oneida Business Committee, hereby certify that

the following 232 pages are the Open Session meeting materials presented at a

meeting duly called, noticed and held on the 24th day of FEBRUARY, 2016.

____________________________

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Oneida Business Committee

Page 1 of 229

Oneida Business Committee

Executive Session

9:00 a.m. Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Executive Conference Room, 2nd floor, Norbert Hill Center

Regular Meeting

9:00 a.m. Wednesday, February 24, 2016

BC Conference Room, 2nd floor, Norbert Hill Center

Agenda

To get a copy of the agenda, go to: http://oneida-nsn.gov/

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

II.

OPENING

Recognition of Sr. Staff Attorney Rebecca Webster on publication of article titled “This

Land Can Sustain Us: Cooperative Land Use Planning on the Oneida Reservation” in

peer-reviewed journal Planning Theory & Practice

Sponsor:

Jo Anne House, Chief Counsel

page 8

Recognition of Assistant Development Division Director Bruce Danforth’s retirement

Sponsor:

Trish King, Tribal Treasurer

page 37

III.

ADOPT THE AGENDA

IV.

OATHS OF OFFICE

Oneida Nation Veterans Affairs Committee – James Martin, Floyd Hill, Kenneth House Sr.

page 39

Southeastern Oneida Tribal Services Advisory Board – Casey Houtsinger

page 41

Oneida Library Board – Dylan Benton

page 43

Oneida Pow Wow Committee – Heather Heuer and William King

page 45

Oneida Personnel Commission – Bradley Graham

page 47

Oneida Nation School Board – Neset Skenandore, Shanna Torres

page 49

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Agenda of February 24, 2016

Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 229

MINUTES

VI.

Approve February 10, 2016, regular meeting minutes

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

RESOLUTIONS

Adopt resolution titled Authorizing and Submitting a Grant Application to the State of

Wisconsin/Department of Natural Resources for the 2016 Summer Tribal Youth

Program Grant

Sponsor:

Patrick Pelky, Division Director/Environmental Health & Safety Division

page 66

Adopt resolution titled Administrative Procedures Act Adoption

Sponsor:

Brandon Stevens, Councilman

page 69

Adopt resolution titled Administrative Rulemaking Law Adoption

Sponsor:

Brandon Stevens, Councilman

page 91

Adopt resolution titled Amending Resolution 09-24-14-H Appointing Representative to

the State of Wisconsin Special Committee on State-Tribal Relations

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

VII.

APPOINTMENTS (No Requested Action)

VIII.

STANDING COMMITTEES

page 118

Legislative Operating Committee

Sponsor:

Councilman Brandon Stevens, Chair

1. Accept February 3, 2016, Legislative Operating Committee meeting minutes

page 121

Finance Committee

Sponsor:

Tribal Treasurer Trish King, Chair

1. Approve February 15, 2016, Finance Committee meeting minutes

Community Development & Planning Committee (No Requested Action)

Quality of Life Committee

Sponsor:

Councilwoman Fawn Billie, Chair

1. Accept December 10, 2015, Quality of Life Committee meeting minutes

IX.

page 51

page 125

page 130

GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL

Determine available General Tribal Council meeting date to address Petitioner Madelyn

Genskow: three resolutions

1) Oneida Business Committee Accountability

2) Repeal Judiciary Law

3) Open Records and Open Meetings Law

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Agenda of February 24, 2016

Page 2 of 7

page 135

Page 3 of 229

Accept financial analysis and determine available General Tribal Council meeting date

to address Petitioner John E. Powless Jr.: Per capita payments

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

page 141

EXCEPRT FROM JANUARY 27, 2016: Motion by Jennifer Webster to defer the financial

analysis for two (2) weeks, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 13, 2016: Motion by David Jordan to accept the legal analysis

and to note the financial analysis is due by the January 27, 2016, regular Business Committee

meeting, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM DECEMBER 23, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to defer the legal and

financial analyses to the January 27, 2016, regular Business Committee meeting, seconded

by Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2015: Motion by Jennifer Webster to provide an additional

sixty (60) days for the legal analysis of Petitioner John E. Powless: Per capita payments,

seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 17, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to accept the legislative

analysis for the regarding per capita payments submitted by petitioner John E. Powless Jr.,

seconded by Trish King. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 12, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to adjourn at 2:06 p.m. and to

direct the Tribal Secretary to coordinate Business Committee special meeting date for the

remainder of this agenda, seconded by Brandon Stevens. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM JUNE 24, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to acknowledge receipt of the

verified petition submitted by John E. Powless, Jr.; to send the verified petition to the Law,

Finance, Legislative Reference and Direct Report Offices for the legal, financial, legislative

and administrative analyses to be completed; to direct the Law, Finance and Legislative

Reference Offices to submit the analyses to the Tribal Secretary's office within sixty (60) days,

and that a progress report be submitted in forty-five (45) days; and to direct the Direct Report

Offices to submit the appropriate administrative analyses to the Tribal Secretary's office within

thirty (30) days, seconded by Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously.

Request update on anticipated completion date regarding Petitioner Nancy Barton:

Emergency food pantry

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 13, 2016: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept the legislative

analysis, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM DECEMBER 23, 2015: Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the progress

report as information and to defer the legal and financial analyses to the February 24, 2016,

regular Business Committee meeting, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 28, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to accept the verified petition

submitted by Nancy Barton: To open an Emergency Food Pantry; to send the verified petition

to the Law, Finance, Legislative Reference, and Direct Report Offices for the legal, financial,

legislative, and administrative analyses to be completed; to direct the Law, Finance, and

Legislative Reference Offices to submit the analyses to the Tribal Secretary’s Office within

sixty (60) days, and that a progress report be submitted in forty-five (45) days; and to direct

the Direct Report Offices to submit the appropriate administrative analyses to the Tribal

Secretary’s Office within thirty (30) days, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried

unanimously.

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Agenda of February 24, 2016

Page 3 of 7

page 154

Page 4 of 229

STANDING ITEMS

Accept update regarding Work Plan for CIP # 14-002 Cemetery Improvements

Sponsor:

Troy Parr, Assistant Division Director/Development

XI.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (No Requested Action)

XII.

TABLED BUSINESS (No Requested Action)

XIII.

NEW BUSINESS

XIV.

page 156

Approve request to reschedule March 23, 2016, regular Business Committee meeting

date to March 30, 2016, with Executive Session discussion to be held on March 29, 2016

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

page 159

Approve request to reschedule April 26, 2016, Executive Session meeting date to April

25, 2016

Sponsor:

Kaylynn Gresham, Director/Emergency Management

page 162

Approve request to post three (3) vacancies on the Oneida Arts Board

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Acknowledge receipt of decision from the Interior Board of Indian Appeals regarding

Docket No. IBIA 15-097 Madelyn Genskow v. Midwest Regional Director, Bureau of

Indian Affairs

Sponsor:

Melinda J. Danforth, Tribal Vice-Chairwoman

page 166

page 168

TRAVEL

TRAVEL REPORTS (No Requested Action)

TRAVEL REQUESTS

1. Approve travel request – Four (4) Oneida Color Guard Veterans – 26th Annual

Washington University Pow Wow – St. Louis, MO – April 8-10, 2016

Sponsor:

Jennifer Webster, Councilwoman

2. Approve travel request – Five (5) Oneida Color Guard Veterans – National Indian

Gaming Association (NIGA) Annual Tradeshow and Convention – Phoenix, AZ –

March 13-17, 2016

Sponsor:

Jennifer Webster, Councilwoman

3. Approve travel request – Secretary Lisa Summers, Councilwoman Fawn Billie, and

three (3) Business Committee Staff: Jessica Wallenfang, Lisa Liggins and Nicolas

Reynolds – Public Law 280 Training – Baraboo, WI – March 8-10, 2016

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Agenda of February 24, 2016

Page 4 of 7

page 182

page 186

page 190

Page 5 of 229

XV.

REPORTS (This section of the agenda is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m.)

OPERATIONAL REPORTS

1. Accept Internal Services Division FY ’16 1st quarter report

Sponsor:

Joanie Buckley, Division Director/Internal Services Division

page 195

2. Accept Ombudsman FY ’16 1st quarter report

Sponsor:

Dianne McLester-Heim, Ombudsman

page 210

CORPORATE REPORTS (No Requested Action)

BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS

1. Accept Oneida Police Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report

Chair:

Bernie John Stevens

Liaison: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

page 212

EXCERT FROM FEBRUARY 10, 2016: (1) Motion by David Jordan to defer the Oneida

Police Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report to the February 24, 2016, regular Business

Committee meeting, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

Motion by David Jordan to suspend Oneida Police Commission stipends until the FY ’16

1st quarter report is submitted, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 27, 2016: Motion by Jennifer Webster to defer the Oneida

Police Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report to the February 10, 2016, regular Business

Committee meeting, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

2. Accept Land Claims Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report

Chair:

Loretta Metoxen

Liaison: Brandon Stevens, Councilman

page 217

3. Accept Environmental Resources Board FY ’16 1st quarter report

Chair:

Marlene Garvey

Liaison: Tehassi Hill, Councilman

page 219

4. Accept Oneida Nation School Board FY ’16 1st quarter report

Chair:

Debra Danforth

Liaison: Fawn Billie, Councilwoman

page 223

5. Accept Oneida Library Board FY ’16 1st quarter report (No Report Submitted)

Vice-Chair:

Roxanne Anderson

Liaison: Fawn Billie, Councilwoman

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Agenda of February 24, 2016

Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 229

XVI.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

REPORTS

1. Accept Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications report

Sponsor:

Nathan King, Director/ Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications

page 230

2. Accept Chief Counsel report

Sponsor:

Jo Anne House, Chief Counsel

page 247

3. Accept Chief Financial Officer report

Sponsor:

Larry Barton, Chief Financial Officer

page 248

STANDING ITEMS

1. Land Claims Strategy (No Requested Action)

2. Oneida Golf Enterprise – Ladies Professional Golf Association

Liaison: Trish King, Tribal Treasurer

AUDIT COMMITTEE (No Requested Action)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Accept update regarding Native Diversification Network–Procurement Technical

Assistance Center donation request and delete from agenda

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

page 255

page 259

EXCERPT FROM DECEMBER 23, 2015: Motion by Jennifer Webster to defer this item to

the February 24, 2016, regular Business Committee meeting, seconded by Brandon

Stevens. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM NOVEMBER 25, 2015: (1) Motion by Lisa Summers to accept the

request for support and to defer item to the Finance Committee to review the request; to

identify funding source; and to bring back a final recommendation for the December 23,

2015, regular Business Committee meeting, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried

unanimously. (2) Motion by Lisa Summers to defer this item to a four (4) member

Business Committee team to work with the presenters on other opportunities NDN-PTAC

may be able to provide for the Tribe, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried

unanimously.

2. Defer update regarding complaint # 2015-DR11-01

Sponsor:

Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

page 262

EXCERPT FROM DECEMBER 9, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept complaint #

2015-DR11-01 and to defer item to Chairwoman Tina Danforth, Councilman David

Jordan, and Councilman Brandon Stevens for follow-up, seconded by Jennifer Webster.

Motion carried unanimously.

3. Defer update regarding complaint # 2015-DR11-02

Sponsor:

Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

EXCERPT FROM DECEMBER 9, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept complaint #

2015-DR11-02 and to defer item to Chairwoman Tina Danforth, Councilman David

Jordan, and Councilman Brandon Stevens for follow-up, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion

carried unanimously.

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Agenda of February 24, 2016

Page 6 of 7

page 264

Page 7 of 229

4. Review update regarding complaint # 2015-DR14-01

Sponsor:

Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

page 266

EXCERPT FROM DECEMBER 9, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to defer complaint #

2015-DR14-01 to Chairwoman Tina Danforth, Councilman David Jordan, and Councilman

Brandon Stevens for follow-up, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

1. Approve next steps and timeline for filling Assistant Development Division Director

position

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

2. Authorize release of executive session documents to the Land Claims Commission

Sponsor:

Jennifer Webster, Councilwoman

page 273

3. Approve two (2) actions for the special project regarding economic development

Sponsor:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

page 279

4. Approve three (3) actions regarding Sovereign Finance – Economic Development

Training Proposal

Sponsor:

Trish King, Tribal Treasurer

XVII.

page 268

ADJOURN

Posted on the Tribe’s official website, www.oneida-nsn.gov, at 6:00 p.m., on Friday, February 19, 2016,

pursuant to the Open Records and Open Meetings Law, section 7.17-1. For additional information, please

call the Business Committee Support Office at (920) 869-4364.

The packet of the open session materials for this meeting is available to Tribal members by going on to

the Members-Only section of the Tribe’s official website at: www.oneida-nsn.gov/MembersOnly

For information about this meeting, please call the Business Committee Support Office at (920) 869-4364

or (800) 236-2214.

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Agenda of February 24, 2016

Page 7 of 7

page 281

Page 8 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

/ 24

/ 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Annoucement/Recognition

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Presented for information only - publication of article in the Journal of Planning theory & Practice.

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

Budgeted - Tribal Contribution

Budgeted - Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor / Liaison:

Jo Anne House, Chief Counsel

Primary Requestor:

Your Name, Title / Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Page 1 of 2

Unbudgeted

Page 9 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

"This land can sustain us: cooperative land use planning on the Oneida Reservation", by Sr. Staff Attorney

Rebecca Webster published in the peer-reviewed journal Planning Theory & Practice,

DOI:10.1080/14649357.2015.1135250.

Abstract

Land use planning in indigenous communities often takes place within state-based planning initiatives, leaving

indigenous governments to serve as token participants. Through these initiatives, state-based governments have

the ability to wield their power and control the planning process to the detriment of indigenous governments.

This study sets forth an alternative option involving cooperative land use planning practices where neither

government controls the planning process. Drawing upon a case study of the Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin,

USA, this study explores ways to increase cooperative land use planning relationships between indigenous and

state-based governments. As one of the few empirical studies to apply critical planning theory to advocate for

increased cooperative land use planning, this paper proposes a series of recommendations that can help

indigenous and state-based governments avoid conflicts and work toward cooperative relationships.

The article can be founds at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/r5eZHrBCacAI4w3rkrDu/full

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a *.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2 of 2

Page 10 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice

ISSN: 1464-9357 (Print) 1470-000X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20

This land can sustain us: cooperative land use

planning on the Oneida Reservation

Rebecca M. Webster

To cite this article: Rebecca M. Webster (2016): This land can sustain us: cooperative land use

planning on the Oneida Reservation, Planning Theory & Practice

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1135250

Published online: 10 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rptp20

Download by: [74.62.93.29]

Date: 11 February 2016, At: 07:45

Page 11 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice, 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1135250

This land can sustain us: cooperative land use planning on the

Oneida Reservation

Rebecca M. Webster

ARTICLE HISTORY

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

ABSTRACT

Land use planning in indigenous communities often takes place within statebased planning initiatives, leaving indigenous governments to serve as token

participants. Through these initiatives, state-based governments have the

ability to wield their power and control the planning process to the detriment

of indigenous governments. This study sets forth an alternative option involving

cooperative land use planning practices where neither government controls

the planning process. Drawing upon a case study of the Oneida Reservation

in Wisconsin, USA, this study explores ways to increase cooperative land use

planning relationships between indigenous and state-based governments. As

one of the few empirical studies to apply critical planning theory to advocate

for increased cooperative land use planning, this paper proposes a series of

recommendations that can help indigenous and state-based governments avoid

conflicts and work toward cooperative relationships.

Received 7 January 2015

Accepted 14 December 2015

KEYWORDS

Cooperative land use

planning; Indian reservation;

tribal governments; critical

planning theory; planning;

local governments

Introduction

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA are home to a myriad of indigenous communities with

stories of tragic land loss, dispossession, and relocation (Belmessous, 2014; Hibbard, Lane, & Rasmussen,

2008; Pasqualucci, 2009; Sandercock, 2004; Ugarte, 2014). These so-called settler states were formed

generations ago when the settlers “discovered” the land occupied by indigenous people, acquired title

to the land by virtue of that discovery, subjugated the indigenous inhabitants, and eventually asserted

state sovereignty over the entire area (Hibbard, Lane, & Rasmussen, 2008). In more recent decades

indigenous people have been finding ways to reassert their own sovereignty and regain ownership

and control of land within their communities (Webster, 2015). As tribes try to reassert their previously

dormant sovereignty over their reservations, state and local governments accustomed to being in

control typically resist (Zaferatos, 1998). These fluctuations in power can lead to a number of conflicts

between indigenous and state-based governments, including conflicts over land use decisions.

Land use planning within these indigenous communities is an under-studied phenomenon (Hausam,

2013). Based on a review of the literature, three main categories of land use planning relationships

between indigenous governments and state-based systems have emerged. First, indigenous governments that have been dispossessed of their authority to shape their reservations are often left as mere

token consultants to state-based planning initiatives (e.g. Cosgrove & Kliger, 1997). Second, indigenous governments that have retained or acquired ownership of their land bases have the freedom to

CONTACT Rebecca M. Webster

rebecca.webster8@gmail.com

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

R. M. Webster

Page 12 of 229

undertake land use planning efforts independently of state-based actors (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2012).

Third, indigenous governments that share land ownership or land use authority within the indigenous

community may struggle to find ways to cooperatively plan for the development of that shared space

(e.g. Zaferatos, 1998).

Within the USA these indigenous communities are referred to as Indian reservations. Many Indian

reservations are home to overlapping layers of tribal and local governments that exercise varying

levels of land use authority over a variety of different land types (Zaferatos, 1998). As a result of Acts

of Congress, Indian tribes, tribal members, and non-members often own non-contiguous parcels

of land throughout the reservation in a checkerboard pattern. This study is premised on the argument that tribal and local governments should work together toward planning practices within

this third category of land use planning. Local government planning without hearing the voices of

the tribal governments perpetuates colonialism, ignores tribal sovereignty, and disregards rights of

self-determination to make decisions about the future of tribal land. Tribal planning without hearing the

voices of local governments overlooks the history that created checkerboard reservations and invited

local governments to administer within reservation boundaries. Finding ways to sustainably plan for

future development within this shared space can be a difficult task, especially in instances where tribes

and local governments have different visions for how to shape the space they share.

Cooperation, as used in this study, relates to the communicative and collaborative efforts tribal

and local governments employ (or do not employ) when developing land use plans. While the global

literature dedicated to theory and practice relied on the terms “communicative” and “collaborative”,

the term “cooperate” emerged more frequently in the data for this study and in the literature of land

use planning on Indian reservations in the USA (Zaferatos, 1998, 2004a, 2004b). As a result, references

to “cooperation” also encompass the attributes of communication and collaboration as used globally.

Employing these cooperative efforts can help pre-empt disputes and create plans and policies (Innes

& Booher, 2010). Cooperation does not necessarily require the formation of formal joint planning

commissions but it does require mutual respect for each other’s interests in participating in the land

use decision-making process. If tribal and local state-based governments were unable to accomplish

this, then this study described such instances as “uncooperative.” Litigation over land use serves as an

example of uncooperative planning.

When governments cooperate, “problems are treated as puzzles as participants work jointly to

put pieces together to create a shared picture of the future as a strategy for getting there” (Innes &

Booher, 2010, p. 9). Working cooperatively can increase individual and collective knowledge as well as

allowing the community to become more adaptive and resilient. Working together and learning from

each other can help address and perhaps begin to “de-colonize” the practice of planning in indigenous

communities (Ugarte, 2014). “The more the deliberating parties depart from dialogue and the more

they fall back on non-deliberative and coercive means of negotiation, the less hope there is that a fair

agreement will emerge” (Sager, 2013, p. 97). While the literature emphasizes the importance of communication among all the stakeholders, the literature does not adequately explain how indigenous

people can adequately have their voices heard.

In order to add to this limited knowledge base, increase awareness of these issues on Indian reservations, and explore ways to foster cooperative land use planning among tribal and local governments,

this study utilized the Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin as a qualitative instrumental case study. As

is typical with many other Indian reservations, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin (henceforth

“Tribe”) and several local governments exercise some level of land use authority on the reservation

(Webster, 2014). In addition, the Tribe, tribal members, and non-members own non-contiguous parcels

of land throughout the Reservation.

Page 13 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Planning Theory & Practice

Critical planning theory (CPT), combined with elements of communicative planning theory and

collaborative planning theory, served as the theoretical framework for this study (Matthews, 2012;

Sager, 2013). CPT calls for scholars and practitioners to critically examine the social and historical

roots of planning within a particular community in order to improve planning practices. This study

examined the impacts of Acts of Congress on the Reservation land base and uncovered a series of

themes from tribal and local comprehensive plans, intergovernmental agreements, land use litigation,

and in-depth interviews with planners, elected officials, and government relations staff from the Tribe

and local governments. This study focused on two research questions. First, what are the common

themes in land use planning and development relationships between tribal and local governments?

Second, what factors might lead to cooperative or uncooperative relationships in relation to land use

planning and development? An examination of the social and historical roots of planning not only

assisted in providing a context for these questions, but will become an essential component of future

discussions among tribal and local government planners, government relations staff, and elected

officials. Consistent with CPT’s emphasis on transforming knowledge into practice (Sager, 2013), the

goal of this research is ultimately for planners and government officials to employ the findings of this

study to improve cooperative land use planning practices.

Historical background

Reservation establishment and land ownership

Recognizing CPT’s emphasis on the examination of the social and historical roots of planning within a

particular community (Matthews, 2012), an inquiry into the establishment of the reservation, the history

of the formation of the local governments on the reservation, the record of changing land ownership

patterns, and an account of early comprehensive plans are critical to improving land use planning

practices. The Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin was created pursuant to a treaty in 1838, 10 years before

Wisconsin became a state (Treaty with the Oneida, 1838). While Brown County spanned much of the

Midwest including the eastern half of Wisconsin prior to the establishment of the Reservation, the

Wisconsin legislature created county governments throughout the state in the 1850s (Webster, 2014).

The Oneida Reservation straddled two of these county governments: Brown County and Outagamie

County. In the early 1900s, the Wisconsin legislature formed two towns in the area within the reservation

boundaries (Webster, 2014). Over the next several decades, other local governments annexed portions of one of the town governments. Today, the Tribe and seven different local governments occupy

portions of the Reservation. Figure 1 shows a map of the local governments located on the Oneida

Reservation. The Tribe’s jurisdiction encompasses the entire reservation and the local governments

exercise jurisdiction over portions of the reservation. The town of Oneida is located in Outagamie

County. The remaining local governments are all located in Brown County. Only the town of Oneida

is located in Outagamie County.

Since its establishment in 1838, the land ownership patterns within the Oneida Reservation have

changed drastically (Webster, 2014). Two Congressional Acts caused these changes in land ownership

on the Oneida Reservation as well as other Indian Reservations throughout the USA: the Dawes General

Allotment Act of 1887 (Allotment Act) and the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 (Locklear, 1988,

p. 24 Stat. 388; 25 U.S.C. §§461–479). Indian reservations throughout the country continue to experience

the impact of these two Acts today (Canby, 2009).

Prior to the Allotment Act, Indian tribes held title to their land communally (Canby, 2009). This

meant that no one individual owned any particular piece of the land; rather, the land was held for

R. M. Webster

Page 14 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Figure 1. Oneida Reservation major roads and municipality map. Source: Oneida Geographic Land Information

Systems, 2014.

the benefit of all tribal members. Congress passed the Allotment Act as a means of breaking up these

tribal landholdings, dispossessing Indian tribes of their land bases, and assimilating tribal members

into mainstream society (Merjian, 2011). The Act called for the transfer of land on Indian reservations

from tribal governments to individual tribal members. While the federal government was to hold

the title for a period of time, soon tribal members gained fee title in their own names and were able

to sell and mortgage this land, which also became taxable as a result of the Act. Unfortunately, the

Page 15 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Planning Theory & Practice

Figure 2. Oneida Reservation tribal ownership. Source: Oneida Geographic Land Information Systems, 2015.

experiences of Oneida tribal members were similar to members of other tribes throughout the country.

Tribal members throughout the country have tragic stories of individuals losing land through tax sales

and falling victim to fraudulent land transactions (Hauptman, 1981). In the wake of the Allotment Act,

tribes and tribal members lost title to approximately ninety million acres of land, roughly 65% of their

land bases (Merjian, 2011). The Tribe and its members fared worse than many others, losing title to

approximately 90% of their land after the Allotment Act (Locklear, 1988).

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

R. M. Webster

Page 16 of 229

In 1928, Congress received an analysis of the Allotment Act revealing that it had succeeded in

breaking up tribal landholding but had failed to assimilate tribal members (Canby, 2009; Pommersheim,

2013). Tribal members predominately remained on Indian reservations and faced drastic declines in

health, income, and education. In response, Congress passed the IRA in 1934 to reverse the negative

impacts the Allotment Act had on Indian reservations. The IRA did not overturn the Allotment Act,

but it did stop the allotment process, returned management of tribal affairs to tribal governments,

and provided for a process for the federal government to work with tribes to restore land holdings.

The Tribe immediately began to work with the federal government to reacquire land on the Oneida

Reservation. Figure 2 is a map showing current tribal landholdings as of 2014. Over the years, this has

resulted in a checkerboard pattern of noncontiguous parcels of tribal land, tribal member land and

non-member land.

In 1941, soon after the Tribe began reacquiring land after adoption of the IRA, the Tribe passed an

Ordinance establishing a Land Committee to make recommendations on residential land use (Oneida

Land Ordinance, 1941). The first formal planning for land use throughout the reservation came in 1973

when the Tribe adopted a comprehensive plan. The Tribe was able to obtain financial assistance through

the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to develop a comprehensive plan. According

to this plan, the Tribe and its members held title to 2,516.66 acres of land scattered throughout the

reservation, roughly 3.8% of the land within the reservation boundaries. The land use component

of this plan focused on how to develop these scattered parcels of land for residential and economic

development.

In 1975, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975. Like the IRA, this Act reaffirmed

tribal rights and authorities and enabled tribal governments to play a greater role in planning and

implementing a variety of programs dealing with tribal land bases (Zaferatos, 1998). In 1979, the Tribe

developed another comprehensive plan using grants from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development. This plan, along with plans that the Tribe developed approximately every 10 years, looked

at current and proposed land use throughout the reservation and established goals of reacquiring title

to as much land as financially feasible.

In general, small towns and rural villages like those located on the Oneida Reservation did not

engage in formal land use planning until Wisconsin passed a law in 1999 requiring them to adopt

comprehensive plans (Edwards & Haines, 2007). These local governments often “had little to no capacity

in planning and very little history of planning” before undertaking the planning process requirements

of the 1999 state law (Edwards, p. 53).

Theoretical framework

CPT, combined with elements of communicative planning theory and collaborative planning theory served as the theoretical foundation for this study. The origin of these theories can be traced

back to Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action and deliberative democracy (Forester,

1980; Mäntysalo, 2002). The communicative aspects of these theories focus on dialogue and how

planners and stakeholders interpret the meaning behind communication (Forester, 1980; Stein &

Harper, 2012). The deliberative aspects of these theories require the stakeholders to be informed,

to engage each other with face-to-face dialogue, and permit them to express their views regardless

of whether they wield power in their community (Innes & Booher, 2010). All three theories call

for planners to recognize the presence of conflict and power disparities inherent in the planning

process in order to improve planning practices (Huxley, 2000; Innes & Booher, 2014; Matthews,

Page 17 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Planning Theory & Practice

2012; Sager, 2006). Open deliberation and dialogue can help overcome these issues and produce

positive results and innovative solutions that all stakeholders can support (Deyle & Wiedenman,

2014; Innes & Booher, 2014; Stein & Harper, 2012).

While these theories share many of the same foundational ideas, the primary differences among

them rest in each theory’s focus. Communicative planning focuses on the act of communication and

dialogue (Innes, 1995) and collaborative planning focuses on working together to shape the built

environment as the nexus for communication (Innes & Booher, 2014). In addition, both collaborative

planning theory and communicative planning theory call for consensus-based outcomes (Innes &

Booher, 2014; Sager 2006; Stein & Harper, 2012). CPT, on the other hand, applies critical social theory

to the planning arena to emphasize the need for decision makers to acknowledge that their ability to

wield power in the planning process could have potentially destructive results (Forester, 1993). At their

core, critical social theories such as CPT call for justice, preservation of rights, and the fair distribution

of resources (March, 2010).

CPT’s application of critical social theory in the planning context can assist scholars in evaluating

how the dilemmas of exclusion, inequity, discrimination, and private interests can eclipse community

interests (Sager, 2013). Ultimately, the goals of CPT include the protection of community interests by

minimizing paternalistic practices that can oppress those with less power by providing opportunities

for everyone to have a meaningful means of participation in the planning process (Mäntysalo, 2002).

CPT consists of two stages. The first stage requires researchers and practitioners to examine the social

and historical roots of development and planning practices in order to gain a better understanding

of current planning practices and decision-making processes (Huxley, 2000; Matthews, 2012; Pezzoli,

Hibbard, & Huntoon, 2009). This analysis is best completed by evaluating a single community and the

unique social dynamics of that community (Friedman, 2008; Stein & Harper, 2012). By looking at a

particular community, scholars can illuminate aspects of society that have the potential to perpetuate

discrimination along economic, ethnic, and cultural lines (Sager, 2013).

The second stage of CPT requires planners and government officials to transform this knowledge into action and move away from planning practices that create disparities along economic,

ethnic, and cultural lines (Huxley, 2000; Sager, 2013). This second stage allows scholars to assist

planners and government officials in gaining a more complete understanding of planning as a

communicative action instead of merely a means to an end (Forester, 1980). This understanding

can assist planners and government officials in transforming the planning practice into a more

democratic process.

One underlying assumption to these three theories is that a community can only improve planning

practices when the stakeholders find ways to come to the same table, listen to each other, share power,

establish common goals, and work together to achieve those goals. This study employed themes from

communicative planning theory to consider the dialogue and messages that tribal and local government planners, staff, and elected officials exchange when having discussions concerning how to shape

this shared space. This study also employed themes from collaborative planning theory because of its

emphasis on the need to plan for a community as a whole and its consideration for pooling resources

to accomplish goals that may be unattainable without collaboration. However, instead of focusing on

a means to obtain a consensus among all the stakeholders, this study focused on a critical examination

of the social and historical roots of planning within a particular community. The background knowledge gained from this examination can assist stakeholders to begin an informed, communicative, and

collaborative conversation.

R. M. Webster

Page 18 of 229

Literature review

A review of the literature dedicated to tribal and local intergovernmental relationships and literature

examining land use planning within indigenous communities in settler states helped form this study’s

research questions and provided guidance for how the tribal and local governments on the Oneida

Reservation might be able to move toward more cooperative relationships when planning for land

use in this shared space.

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Tribal and local intergovernmental relationships

On Indian reservations land use planning can pose unique roadblocks because tribal and local governments often occupy the same geographical space (Zaferatos, 1998). In order to plan within this shared

space, some level of cooperation between tribal and local governments is essential. The literature

dedicated to the relationships between tribes and local governments generally corresponds to one of

two philosophies. One group advocates for the benefits of entering into cooperative relationships in

order to allow the parties opportunities to negotiate favorable terms as opposed to risking divergent

outcomes that litigation can produce (Fletcher, 2006; Fletcher, 2007; Zaferatos, 1998). “As state and

local and tribal officials learn to communicate and cooperate with each other, the opportunities for

negotiating agreements that head off jurisdictional and political disputes increase. As a result, one

successful agreement leads to more successful agreements” (Fletcher, 2006, p. 39). The act of entering

into these agreements can serve as the starting point to future cooperative relationships and additional

agreements down the road.

The other group holds a widespread distrust of the motives behind states and local governments

that consider entering into intergovernmental relationships with tribal governments (Oeser, 2010;

Rosser, 2006). This group believes that participating in state-based initiatives can erode tribal sovereignty by legitimizing state processes and authority over tribal governments (Oeser, 2010). “If tribal

citizens reside on the reservation when they participate – i.e. if they are reservation citizens – they invite

state government onto the reservation, validating existing assertions of non-tribal authority there and

inviting future assertions” (p. 834). Instead of participating in these state-based initiatives, tribes should

redirect their energy to enhancing their own internal government structures and policies (Rosser, 2006).

Regardless of whether tribes choose to engage local governments in their planning efforts, one

researcher found that tribes and state governments generally lack the capacity to deal with each other

on a government-to-government basis (Jarding, 2004). Jarding’s study found that employees from tribes

and state-based governments enjoyed a positive working relationship, but that state policies aimed

at state interests tended to cause conflicts between tribes and state-based governments. In addition,

territorial boundaries and differing interpretations of jurisdiction prevented tribes and state-based

governments from forming positive intergovernmental relationships.

Planning in indigenous communities

Scholars examining planning on Indian reservations recognize the under-studied nature of this topic

(Booth & Muir, 2011). In order to provide guidance for this study’s research problems and research questions, this study incorporated prior research on planning within indigenous communities in Australia,

Canada, and New Zealand in addition to planning on Indian reservations in the USA. For the purpose

of an overall review of the literature, aborigine or aboriginal governments in Australia, First Nations in

Canada, Māori in New Zealand, and tribal governments in the USA will be referred to as “indigenous

Page 19 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Planning Theory & Practice

governments” and their respective aboriginal areas, reserves, territories, or reservations will be referred

to as “indigenous communities.”

A review of the literature addressing planning within indigenous communities reveals three key

themes. First, state-based governments often control the planning process as well as its outcome (Barry,

2012; Cullen, McGee, Gunton, & Day, 2010; Hausam, 2013; Lane & Hibbard, 2005; Morton, Gunton, &

Day, 2012; Porter, 2006; Saarikoski, Raitio, & Barry, 2013; Schoder, 2013). In these instances, the statebased governments may find ways to increase indigenous participation through open communications,

collaboration, and consensus-based approaches. However, the indigenous governments often perceive

these attempts as insincere and express concerns that the state-based governments repeatedly fail to

adequately acknowledge their rights as legitimate governments with the authority to make land use

decisions within their communities.

Second, some indigenous governments reject the idea of participating in state-based planning

initiatives and have independently undertaken planning efforts on their own, outside the state-based

planning process (Applegate, 2013; Booth & Muir, 2011; Hibbard, 2006; Hibbard & Lane, 2004; Hibbard,

Lane, & Rasmussen, 2008; Lane & Hibbard, 2005; McCarthy et al., 2012). However, none of the studies

dedicated to this type of planning effort considered the potential conflicts that may arise between

indigenous governments and state-based governments with respect to land use decisions. Instead,

the general focus of these studies centered on strengthening tribal sovereignty and control over the

development of the indigenous community.

Third, a limited number of indigenous governments have been able to work out arrangements and

agreements with state-based governments to jointly manage a shared space and jointly make land

use decisions (Lane, 2001; Lane & Hibbard, 2005; Procter & Chaulk, 2013). Of these few examples, only

one occurred in the USA (Zaferatos, 1998, 2004a, 2004b).

Indigenous participation in state-based planning systems

The majority of literature dedicated to land use planning in indigenous communities in Australia,

Canada, New Zealand, and the USA involved indigenous governments participating in planning initiatives controlled by state-based governments. That literature placed an emphasis on increasing indigenous participation in the state-based planning process and on undertaking efforts to find ways to

work more collaboratively toward consensus based planning and land use goals (e.g. Lane & Hibbard,

2005). Unfortunately, these efforts are typically marked by a lack of interest on the part of indigenous

governments to participate in state-controlled planning efforts (Morton, Gunton, & Day, 2012). This

lack of interest can be attributed to the perception that state actors may discount indigenous authority

and expertise in making informed land use decisions.

It is within the literature dedicated to indigenous participation in state-based planning systems that

the colonial nature of planning practices in settler states comes to light. “A ‘settler state’ such as Australia,

Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, is formed through colonial processes of ‘discovery,’ acquisition, subjugation of indigenous inhabitants, and ultimately, claims of state sovereignty.” (Hibbard, Lane,

& Rasmussen, 2008, p. 137). These settler states justified occupation and eventual assumption of title to

indigenous land because they labelled the indigenous inhabitants as sub-humans who underutilized

the land and were incapable of holding title (Belmessous, 2014; Ugarte, 2014).

While the state-based governments in these settler states have recently begun to recognize indigenous land rights and have been undertaking efforts to include increased indigenous participation in

planning practices, many problems remain (Cosgrove & Kliger, 1997). These problems include unclear

policies on the nature of partnerships between indigenous and state-based government (Berke,

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

R. M. Webster

Page 20 of 229

Ericksen, Crawford, & Dixon, 2002); insufficient incorporation of indigenous knowledge, customs, and

culture into the planning process (Schoder, 2013); and inclusion of indigenous voices only as an afterthought (Hausam, 2013). The colonial roots of planning show themselves through the continuing effects

of appropriation of indigenous title, a racialized hierarchy, marginalization of indigenous governments,

and at best, a tokenistic inclusion of indigenous voices in the planning processes (Cosgrove & Kliger,

1997; Porter, 2006; Sandercock, 2004).

Planners need to understand the history of colonialism and its impact on current planning practices in order to overcome the “power and oppression [that] are embedded in the very practice of the

profession” (Porter, 2006, p. 387). This approach can empower indigenous governments and recognize

their inherent authority to impact land use decisions. However, this may be difficult to accomplish

within the confines of a state-based planning system (Galbraith, 2014). Indigenous land rights deserve

more than mere consultation in a state-based system; rather, indigenous land rights warrant shared

decision-making authority. Employing state-based planning systems can squeeze out and attempt

to marginalize indigenous voices and extinguish indigenous claims to land within the community.

When reviewing indigenous government participation in state-based planning systems in Australia,

Canada, New Zealand, and the USA, it becomes apparent that some indigenous governments are

hesitant to participate in state-based planning systems while others fight their way in, demanding to

be heard. While state-based planning systems have yet to break completely free from their oppressive

colonial roots it appears as though there is a slow shift across these different countries that is enabling

and encouraging greater participation of indigenous voices in the planning process. However, even

with an increase in participation of indigenous governments, having state-based planning initiatives

as the only forum for indigenous governments to voice their visions for the development of their

communities reaffirms the position of indigenous governments as the oppressed and the state-based

governments as the oppressors.

Indigenous planning outside of state planning

As an alternative to participating in state-based planning initiatives, indigenous governments have

undertaken planning efforts on their own (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2012). Typically, these indigenous governments turned to their own planning initiatives as a result of the unresolved frustration with their

inability to influence state-based planning initiatives or because the indigenous government had

control over the land use plan area.

State-based planning can result in measurable losses of indigenous knowledge, culture, identity,

health, economic stability, and self-determination (Booth & Muir, 2011). In order to protect their future

interests in natural and cultural resources, Booth and Muir advocate for indigenous governments to

take control of planning. Evaluating a handful of indigenous land use plans, they found the indigenous

government plans succeeded in incorporating indigenous culture and history, but relied heavily on

nonindigenous philosophies, tenets, and applications that failed to adequately depict multifaceted

indigenous social and cultural values. Along similar lines, McCarthy et al. (2012) explained that if indigenous governments want to undertake their own planning initiatives they need to first develop internal

capacity and a means to enhance internal collaborative processes in order to adequately make land use

decisions for their communities. Only then can their efforts to implement land use plans be successful.

In instances where indigenous communities retain ownership and control over their territories, statebased governments do not necessarily need to be involved in the planning process (Hibbard, 2006;

Hibbard & Lane, 2004; Lane & Hibbard, 2005). In the USA on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Indian Reservation in Oregon, the indigenous community remains isolated from nontribal influences

Page 21 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

and land speculators. The indigenous government retains ownership and control of the community

and is able to control land development without interference from state-based governments. As a

result, studies of the land use planning in this community did not consider the interactions between

indigenous and state-based governments and instead concentrated on land use planning as a means

to enhance sovereignty, protect the environment, and preserve cultural values.

Indigenous governments also engage in the reacquisition of land within their ancestral territories or

their reserves, and create plans for the use of that land (Kelly, Bliss & Gosnell, 2013; Lane, 2006). While

Lane still recognizes the practical necessity of participating in state-based planning initiatives as a

means to address the marginalization of indigenous rights, Kelly, Bliss and Gosnell advocate for land

acquisition as a means to shift the balance of power and gain exclusive indigenous control of the future

of land and natural resources. Like other researchers, they also acknowledge the need for indigenous

governments to develop tribal capacity for managing and restoring reacquired land.

Indigenous and state-based governments sharing land use responsibility

A handful of indigenous governments in Australia and Canada have successfully found ways to work

cooperatively to jointly manage a shared space. In Australia, researchers studied instances where

indigenous governments and state-based governments worked together to jointly manage land held

by the indigenous government (Hill, 2011; Lane, 2001; Ross, Grant, Robinson, Izurieta, Smyth, & Rist,

2009). Success to co-management plans rested with the recognition of indigenous land rights, effective

organization of the stakeholders, and bringing the stakeholders to the table employing an appropriate engagement process (Hill, 2011). In instances where indigenous land title is not well established,

co-management may be a way to resolve land claim issues (Ross et al., 2009).

In the USA, the Swinomish Reservation in Washington consists of a checkerboard pattern of

non-contiguous parcels of land including tribal, tribal member, and nonmember land (Zaferatos, 1998,

2004a , 2004b). Within the reservation boundaries, both the Swinomish Tribe and Skagit County exercise varying levels of land use authority. The primary obstacles in that case related to jurisdiction over

the land – the tribe regulated tribal land and tribal member land and the county regulated non-tribal

land. However, any land use decisions the tribe or county made had impacts on the other government. Examining the issue from the Swinomish Tribe’s perspective, Zaferatos concluded the tribe had

three options: sue the county, acquiesce to the county’s authority, or cooperate with the county. After

significant efforts, the Swinomish Tribe and Skagit County were able to successfully negotiate intergovernmental agreements pertaining to land use and joint management of their shared space. During

the discussions, tribal and local governments employed a “government-to-government approach,

cognizant of the historic circumstances that first created conflicts” (Zaferatos, 2004b, p. 93). Zaferatos

ultimately concluded that the success of these agreements arose from the negotiation process where

the parties purposefully chose to not focus on jurisdiction, rather the parties focused on community-wide issues such as environmental protection, improvements to transportation infrastructure, and

ensuring an adequate supply of clean water for the community.

In many respects, the Oneida Reservation shares many common characteristics with the Swinomish

Reservation. They are both home to tribal and local governments that make land use decisions. They

also have similar histories of tribal land loss and reacquisition creating checkerboard land ownership

patterns. They also have a similar history of both the tribe and local government asserting more land use

planning authority over time, creating conflicts between tribal and local governments. The Swinomish

Reservation was the focus of litigation involving tribal treaty fishing rights, land claims, natural resource

management, and the attempted imposition of state tax laws and land use regulations (Zaferatos,

R. M. Webster

Page 22 of 229

2004b). As this study revealed, the Oneida Reservation was also the focus of similar litigation. In addition, in 1989 the Governor of Washington issued a proclamation calling for relationships between state

and local governments and tribal governments to take place on a government-to-government basis

with respect for tribal sovereignty. The Governor of Wisconsin issued a similar proclamation in 2004

(Exec. Order No. 39). However, unlike Swinomish, the Oneida Reservation is home to not one, but seven

different overlapping local governments. This difference adds complicating layers to efforts focused

on cooperative land use planning.

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Methodology

The literature focused on planning in indigenous communities generally relied on qualitative instrumental case studies employing detailed consideration of the history of the particular community, the

status of the relationships between the indigenous and state-based governments, and the results of

the community planning efforts (e.g. Galbraith, 2014; Saarikoski, Raitio, & Barry, 2013). The unique legal

and political history of each Indian reservation requires an analysis of that history in order to understand

the impact it has on current planning practices (Hausam, 2013). This is in line with CPT’s emphasis on

studying the social and historical roots of planning within a particular community (Friedman, 2008;

Stein & Harper, 2012). Similarly, Yin (2014) acknowledged there may be instances where a case study of

an under-studied phenomenon and a historical study might be undertaken at the same time in order

for a review of the history to illuminate the contemporary inquiry.

As is typical for instrumental qualitative case studies (Yin, 2014), this study relied on data from a

variety of sources from the tribe and all seven local governments. The data included eight comprehensive plans, 41 intergovernmental agreements, 15 decisions in land use disputes, and nine interviews.

The data also initially included tribal and local government zoning laws, land ownership history, and

subdivision maps, but this data did not reveal any patterns to assist in answering the research questions.

A review of the literature with an emphasis on the Swinomish experience assisted in the formation

of the interview questions (Zaferatos, 1998). The researcher carefully crafted the interview questions

to prompt participants to provide in-depth responses describing these relationships, while ensuring

that the questions did not intentionally provoke negative responses that could cause rifts among the

governments (Sandercock & Attili, 2013).

Unlike typical case studies, this study relied primarily on the written documents, and employed

the interview data to triangulate and verify the written documents. Barry and Porter (2011) explained

the importance of interpreting the meaning and power of the written text in order to understand the

tensions and conflicts between indigenous and state-based governments as it relates to the field of

planning. Planning consists of everyday negotiations that employ various values and policies about

how to shape a place, but “the enabling moment of those negotiations and their everyday practice, is

inevitably established and mediated through text” (p. 176). These written documents serve as conceptual frameworks for how the cumulative daily acts of planners and government officials are reflective

of the larger relationships between indigenous and state-based governments. The intergovernmental

agreements, litigation, and comprehensive plans are reflections of past land use and planning practices (Pezzoli, Hibbard, & Huntoon, 2009). CPT requires an examination of this information in order to

improve planning practices in the future.

With respect to the interviews, this study relied on stratified purposeful sampling to invite individuals to participate (Patton, 2002). In order to hear political and practical viewpoints about land use

planning, the following three categories of individuals were invited to participate: elected officials,

Page 23 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Planning Theory & Practice

Figure 3. Coding scheme for intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation. Source: Author.

planners, and government relations staff. Incorporation of their perspectives served to advance the

communicative aspects of CPT and to gain insight into how these individuals interpret the meaning

behind the intergovernmental agreements, litigation, and comprehensive plans (Forester, 1980; Innes,

1995; Stein & Harper, 2012). The categories consisting of elected officials, planners, and government

relations staff correlate to the strata used in this study. This study used official government websites

to identify the individuals that held these positions. Because some governments had some of these

positions vacant, a total of 18 individuals were invited to participate in this study; three were from the

Tribe and 15 were from local governments. Nine individuals agreed to participate. These nine participants represented five of the eight governments. They also consisted of four elected officials, three

planners, and two government relations staff. Three participants were from the tribal government and

six were from local governments. Obtaining participants from the different positions and different

governments ensured variation in participant selection to serve as an accurate representation of the

viewpoints of those seated in tribal and local governments.

After all the data were collected and reviewed, the researcher created a preliminary list of codes and

applied the codes first to the intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation (Miles & Huberman,

1994). During the coding process, new codes were created to account for data that did not fit existing

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

R. M. Webster

Page 24 of 229

Figure 4. Coding scheme for interviews and comprehensive plans. Source: Author.

codes. The researcher then analyzed each type of data independently and then together to see if common themes emerged within each data-set and within the data sets combined. The coding process for

intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation assumed that intergovernmental agreements

corresponded with cooperative relationships, and land use litigation corresponded with uncooperative

relationships. Figure 3 depicts the final coding scheme for the intergovernmental agreements and land

use litigation. The researcher then coded the interviews and comprehensive plans using the same coding process. Unlike the coding process for intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation, the

researcher relied on the surrounding context of the interview transcripts and the comprehensive plans

to determine whether particular codes corresponded to cooperative or uncooperative relationships.

Figure 4 depicts the final coding scheme for the interviews and comprehensive plans.

Results

This research set out to gain a better understanding of two aspects of land use planning on Indian

reservations: 1) the relationships between tribal and local governments, and 2) the factors that might

lead to cooperative or uncooperative relationships. Corresponding with CPT’s emphasis on examining

the social and historical roots of development and planning practices (Huxley, 2000; Matthews, 2012;

Pezzoli, Hibbard, & Huntoon, 2009), an examination of the comprehensive plans, intergovernmental

agreements, land use litigation, and interviews helped to gain an understanding of current and future

governmental relationships as these relate to planning. Applying the codes to the data and analyzing

the results revealed several common themes among and within each of these data types (Yin, 2014).

Page 25 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Table 1. Coding frequencies for intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation.

Codes and subcodes

Jurisdiction

Tribal government laws apply

Local government laws apply

Federal government laws apply

Preservation of jurisdiction

Delegation of jurisdiction

Assertion of jurisdiction over another government

Recognizes difference of opinion

Waiver of sovereign immunity

No waiver of sovereign immunity

Coordination, cooperation, and/or collaboration

Consultation

Information sharing

Development of uniform laws/regulations

Formation of a joint planning committee/partnership

Financial arrangements

Tribal payment to local government

Local government payment to Tribe

Credit/offset for tribal services

Credit/offset for local government services

Cost-sharing

Land

Use of tribal land

Use of local government land

Fee-to-trust (removing land from local tax rolls)

Environmental protection/restoration

Reservation boundaries in question

Government services or resources

Tribal government provides services or resources

Local government provides services or resources

Establishment/repair of public utilities

Agreements

Litigation

Themes of intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation

Four main themes emerged from a review of the intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation:

jurisdiction, cooperation, financial arrangements, and land. First, both the agreements and litigation

focused heavily on jurisdictional issues – governmental authority to make decisions and be bound

by legal proceedings. Sixteen of the agreements addressed whether tribal laws or local government

laws applied, and 18 contained a clause that specified that the agreement did not intend to delegate

jurisdictional authority to another government. Significantly, in 26 of the agreements, the governments

agreed to waive their sovereign immunity. This meant that if one government thought that the other

government violated the agreement, the governments both granted permission to ultimately resolve

the issue in court or through arbitration. This is significant because not only does it acknowledge that

each government may be immune from suit unless it expressly waives it, but it also signifies a commitment from each government to follow through with the terms of the agreements.

Even more significantly, in twelve of the land use decisions the assertion of jurisdiction by one

government over another government was central to the litigation. The act of power-wielding to the

disadvantage of other stakeholders strikes at CPT’s social justice core (Forester, 1993). Decision-makers

need to acknowledge their ability to wield this power and come to terms with the potentially destructive effects it can have in order to move away from paternalistic planning practices that create disparities

along economic, ethnic, and cultural lines (Huxley, 2000; Sager, 2013). This theme also unearths the

colonial roots of planning through attempts to replace tribal authority with local authority.

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

R. M. Webster

Page 26 of 229

Second, many of the agreements addressed efforts of the governments to form cooperative intergovernmental relationships. Ten agreements called for consultation and 16 called for the governments

to share land use and zoning information. This is in line with CPT’s deliberative roots that emphasize

the importance of stakeholders being informed and engaging in face-to-face dialogue (Innes & Booher,

2010). Eight of the agreements called for the development of uniform laws so that both the Tribe and the

local governments would have similar land use laws. Seven of the agreements took this one step further

and called for the formation of a joint planning committee or the formation of a joint planning partnership. These last two points align with the collaborative aspects of CPT’s focus on working together

to shape the built environment (Innes & Booher, 2014) and with the collaborative and communicative

aspects of consensus based outcomes (Innes & Booher, 2014; Sager 2006; Stein & Harper, 2012).

Third, most of the agreements contained provisions for a financial arrangement. In 26 of the agreements the Tribe made a payment to the local government while in only five cases did the local governments make a payment to the Tribe. In four cases the Tribe and local government agreed to share

in the costs of a particular project. On face value, there may be equitable concerns. However, in many

of these agreements where the Tribe made payments, the local governments agreed to not object

to the Tribe’s efforts to place more tribal land into trust status. This is in line with CPT’s call for justice,

preservation of rights, and the fair distribution of resources (March, 2010).

Fourth, unlike the other themes, which predominantly arose in either the agreements or in the

litigation, land themes occurred fairly consistently in both data types. Subcodes involving the restoration of tribal fee land into trust status, environmental protection and restoration, and questions

concerning the reservation boundaries occurred in the agreements and litigation at rates similar to

the subcodes relating to the use of tribal land and use of local government land. While this could be

a natural result because the agreements and litigation were selected based on their relevance to land

use, the frequency of fee-to-trust and reservation boundary subcodes relates directly back to the first

code, jurisdiction. Placing land into trust status and recognizing reservation boundaries can assist tribes

in asserting greater control and authority within their communities (Applegate, 2013). Table 1 contains

the coding frequencies for intergovernmental agreements and land use litigation.

Themes of comprehensive plans and interviews

As with the agreements and litigation, the data from the comprehensive plans and interviews readily polarized into associations with cooperative and uncooperative intergovernmental relationships. Four main

themes emerged from the interviews and the comprehensive plans: interpersonal relationships, regionalism

and parochialism, community projects, and politics. First, the interviews and comprehensive plans characterized interpersonal relationships with terms such as trust and communication. A lack of communication

and trust or issues with personality conflicts was often associated with uncooperative relationships. Five of

the interview participants mentioned interpersonal relationships and four of the participants mentioned

potential personality conflicts between tribal and local government staff. These themes tie directly back to

the communicative and deliberative aspects of CPT with an emphasis on the need for communication and

dialogue with face-to-face communication (Innes, 1995; Innes & Booher, 2010).

Second, the comprehensive plans and interview participants both made frequent reference to

regional approaches to planning as well as parochial approaches. As used in this study, regionalism

refers to an ideology where individuals see beyond boundaries and jurisdictions to realize benefits

for the greater community. On the other hand, parochialism refers to an ideology where individuals

focus on small sections of an issue or territory rather than considering the wider context. Significantly,

Page 27 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice

Table 2. Coding frequencies for interviews of elected officials, planners, and government relations staff, and comprehensive plans: factors for positive cooperation.

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Interviews

Codes and subcodes

Interpersonal relationships

Having open, honest, and trustworthy communications

Building personal relationships

Being open-minded

Having mutual respect

Regionalism

Regional planning commission

Local planning groups

Regional approach philosophy

Joint planning

Marketing and branding the region

Sharing services, resources, or revenue

Consolidating services, resources, or revenue

Projects to benefit the community

Economic development & tourism

Public utilities

Environmental restoration

Pl.

Total

Note: EO, elected officials; Pl., planners; GR, government relations staff; CP, comprehensive plans.

Table 3. Coding frequencies for interviews of elected officials, planners, and government relations staff, and comprehensive plans: factors for uncooperative relationships.

Interviews

Codes and subcodes

Interpersonal relationships

Lacking communication

Lacking trust

Personality concerns

Racism

Parochialism

Preserving tax base

Preserving local control

Preserving local identity

Politics and the law

Politics

Having differences in land use

Having differences in community values

Having disproportionate power and influence

Exerting control over another government

State and federal law

Inconsistent participation

Inconsistent rules

Pl.

Total

Note: EO, elected officials; Pl., planners; GR, government relations staff; CP, comprehensive plans.

eight of the interviews and six of the comprehensive plans mentioned sharing services, resources, or

revenue. A regional approach to planning was associated with cooperative relationships and a parochial

approach was associated with uncooperative relationships. This concept ties back to CPT’s collaborative

elements of working together to shape the built environment (Innes & Booher, 2014).

Third, the interviews and comprehensive plans mentioned community projects such as economic

development and tourism initiatives, public utilities, and environmental restoration. These projects

were exclusively associated with cooperative relationships. This theme relates to CPT’s deliberative

roots where open dialogue among parties can produce positive results and innovative solutions that

all stakeholders can support (Deyle & Wiedenman, 2014; Innes & Booher, 2014; Stein & Harper, 2012).

R. M. Webster

Page 28 of 229

Fourth, the interviews and comprehensive plans mentioned a series of political issues such as CPT’s

warnings of power-wielding at the expense of those with less power (Huxley, 2000; Innes & Booher,

2014; Matthews, 2012; Sager, 2006). Four interviews and one comprehensive plan mentioned exerting

control over another government. Four interviews and five comprehensive plans mentioned differences

in land use. Two interviews and one comprehensive plan mentioned inconsistent rules. While these

differences may not necessarily lead to uncooperative relationships, the interview participants and

comprehensive plans identified these factors as being associated with uncooperative relationships.

Tables 2 and 3 contain the coding frequencies for interviews of elected officials, planners, government

relations staff, and the comprehensive plans. Table 2 focuses on the factors associated with cooperative

relationships and Table 3 focuses on the factors associated with uncooperative relationships.

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Factors that lead to cooperative relationships

The scholarly community constantly warns researchers to be wary of drawing cause and effect correlations from the data (Yin, 2014). This is especially the case with the intergovernmental agreements

because the driving force to enter the agreements may not be apparent on the surface. While land

use litigation may be more readily apparent by examining the issue of a particular case, the driving

force that caused the breakdown in intergovernmental relationships that lead to the litigation may

be equally elusive. However, in this study, the interview data assisted in triangulating the data found

in the intergovernmental agreements, land use litigation, and comprehensive plans. Considering the

social and historical roots of planning on the reservation to provide context, quotes from planners,

government relations staff, and elected officials reaffirm the findings that emerged from an analysis

of the coded data.

Overall, the data from the comprehensive plans, intergovernmental agreements, and interviews

revealed the following six factors which are associated with cooperative relationships: 1) strengthening positive interpersonal relationships, 2) having a regional approach to planning, 3) working on

community projects, 4) waiving sovereign immunity, 5) including agreements on jurisdiction, and 6)

compensating each other for government services.

Strengthening positive interpersonal relationships

The interviews and comprehensive plans placed an emphasis on building and maintaining positive

interpersonal relationships as a key to building and maintaining positive intergovernmental relationships. When discussing transforming negative relationships to positive relationships, interview participant P1 explained: “I think it’s going to end when people get to know one another – not as a tribe or

as a community or as an ethnic group, but as people. That’s when it changes” (Webster, 2014, p. 114).

Open and honest dialogue employing the concepts from the communicative aspects of CPT can help

the stakeholders accomplish this goal (Innes & Booher, 2010).

Having a regional approach to planning

Themes associated with sharing services, resources, or revenue were present in many of the interviews,

comprehensive plans, and intergovernmental agreements. The agreements included several references

to a commitment to share information and to consult with each other on land use issues. The interview

participants and comprehensive plans expressed goals to increase regional and joint planning as a

means to increase cooperative intergovernmental relationships. Interview participant P2 explained:

“If we only think about ourselves, we wouldn’t be as efficient or effective with our own resources, so

Page 29 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice

we need to think broader in terms of our planning” (Webster, 2014, p. 97). Working together to cooperate on joint projects employing the collaborative aspects of CPT can help the stakeholders focus on

improving the built environment and the delivery of shared services throughout the community as a

whole (Innes & Booher, 2014).

Working on community projects

All the interview participants referenced at least one type of project the Tribe and local governments

could work on together to benefit the community and increase positive intergovernmental cooperation. One type of project mentioned in the interviews was environmental restoration projects, which

were also referenced in six of the intergovernmental agreements. Other projects included bike trails,

walking paths, and parks. When discussing such projects, interview participant P5 stated:

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

I think one where we both have something at stake, where it’s not one group trying to tell another group

how to do something – where we both have something to gain out of it – some mutual acceptance that we

both have money in the pool, and we can work together to make this work (Webster, 2014, p. 97).

Much like the regional approach to planning, employing concepts from the collaborative aspects of

CPT can help the stakeholders accomplish shared goals within the community as a whole (Innes &

Booher, 2014).

Waiving sovereign immunity

In general, tribes and local governments are immune from lawsuits unless they expressly waive that immunity. A waiver of sovereign immunity ensures that an agreement involving an otherwise immune party can

be enforced in a court of law. If one of the parties breaches the agreement, then the other party can exercise their ability to have a court assist in resolving the dispute and enforcing the terms of the agreement.

A waiver of sovereign immunity occurred in twenty-six of the intergovernmental agreements. While there

certainly is an argument that can be made that a waiver of sovereign immunity should not be necessary in

instances where governments are truly trying to form relationships based on mutual respect, perhaps that

cannot always be expected when the governments have not always had positive relationships. In addition,

granting waivers of immunity may signify evidence that the governments are so confident in their ability

and willingness to abide by the terms of the agreement that they are not concerned with waiver provisions. In two of the agreements the parties expressly preserved their sovereign immunity. One agreement

committed funds to repair a road and the other agreement spelled out the governments’ commitment to

managing environmental resources. This second agreement served as a symbolic representation of the

parties’ commitment to environmental preservation and memorialized their understandings of that given

situation. Without knowing the background of what led to a waiver or a preservation of immunity, it is

difficult to extrapolate a cause and effect conclusion from this subset of data. However, in this case study,

the fact remains that in over half of the agreements, the parties waived their sovereign immunity and in

only two cases did they preserve it.

Including agreements on jurisdiction

Sixteen of the agreements specified whether tribal laws or local government laws applied. Zaferatos

(1998) explains that a key to success on the Swinomish Reservation rested on the fact that the Swinomish

Tribe and Skagit County did not focus on which government had jurisdiction in a particular instance.

In this case 18 of the agreements specified that the agreement did not intend to transfer jurisdiction.

Combining that finding with the finding that 12 of the land use litigation decisions centered on an

assertion of one government’s jurisdiction over another government, it supports the possibility that

R. M. Webster

Page 30 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

an agreement spelling out each government’s jurisdictional limitations might prevent such litigation

in the future. For example, in a number of the intergovernmental agreements, the parties agreed that

tribal ordinances addressing zoning, building, nuisance, health and land use regulations apply to tribal

members and local ordinances addressing these issues do not apply to tribal members. Acknowledging

each government’s ability to govern within the shared space can lead to cooperative planning efforts.

This fits within CPT’s warning of the dangers of power wielding (Huxley, 2000; Innes & Booher, 2014;

Matthews, 2012; Sager, 2006). By having the parties agree to the limits of their respective jurisdictions,

there is less danger of having one government attempt to oppress and wield power over another

government.

Compensating each other for government services

Many of the agreements, especially service agreements that are designed to compensate local governments for services provided to trust property, contain provisions that recognize each government

provides services to the community. These agreements further describe formulas employed by governments to determine how much money one government pays the other government. Interview

participant P7 explained:

In [our local government] we obviously have the Oneida Tribe as part of our community and it has the

ability to put land in trust – which then if it does that, we lose revenue. That’s why we have our Service

Agreement (Webster, 2014, p. 104).

These agreements are a means for tribal and local governments to recognize each other’s contributions to the community and find equitable ways to compensate each other for the services they each

provide (Webster, 2015). Recognizing that more of these agreements involve the Tribe compensating

the local governments than vice versa, as previously stated, it should be noted that many of these

agreements contain non-monetary provisions that benefit the Tribe, such as concessions that the local

governments will not object to the Tribe’s efforts to have more land taken into trust status. Assuming

the parties were not forced into these agreements and assuming the agreements were fairly negotiated, their compensation provisions fit within CPT’s concern for justice and the fair distribution of

resources (March, 2010).

Factors that lead to uncooperative relationships

Overall, the data from the intergovernmental agreements, land use litigation, interviews, and comprehensive plans revealed the following three factors are associated with cooperative relationships:

1) retaining negative interpersonal relationships, 2) employing a parochial approach to planning, and

3) exerting control over another government.

Retaining negative interpersonal relationships

While the comprehensive plans generally remained optimistic about building interpersonal relationships, five of the interview participants expressed concerns with the negative impacts that poor interpersonal relationships can have. Interview participant P5 explained: “If you don’t trust each other, you

don’t have communication, if you don’t communicate, then there’s no cooperation possible” (Webster,

2014, p. 97). The data from this study indicates that when government officials and planners neglect to

develop and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, the intergovernmental relationships suffer.

CPT’s communicative aspects support the conclusion that negative interpersonal relationships would

eventually lead to negative intergovernmental relationships (Forester, 1980; Stein & Harper, 2012).

Page 31 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice

Employing a parochial approach to planning

The themes associated with parochialism emphasized a concentration on the impact of an issue on

one community without regard for its impact on surrounding communities. Most prevalent included

a preservation of local tax base, control, and identity. Within this theme arose a sense that one government may try to push its vision for how to develop the space without concern or consideration

for what the other governments may have envisioned for that same space. Similarly, one government

may make great efforts to promote its own identity and success without regard for the impacts these

efforts may have on the other governments. Interview participant P5 stated:

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Unless we can get into a situation where we are sharing revenue, we are sharing expense, we are sharing

the tax benefits I think we are always going to have a certain level of parochialism that’s going to stop us

from being truly cooperative (Webster, 2014, p. 97).

This sentiment acknowledges that there may be untapped resources that tribal and local governments can take advantage of if they cooperate; but that failure to discuss these options and a desire

to be concerned only with one’s own affairs may mean that the community as a whole is missing out

on potential opportunities. This runs contrary to CPT’s deliberative aspects of producing innovative

solutions to community problems (Deyle & Wiedenman, 2014; Innes & Booher, 2014; Stein & Harper

2012) and CPT’s collaborative aspects of working together to shape the built environment (Innes &

Booher, 2014).

Exerting control over another government

All four data sources support the conclusion that exerting control over a neighboring government

is associated with uncooperative intergovernmental relationships. Many of the intergovernmental

agreements paid specific attention to establishing jurisdictional limitations. Within these jurisdictional

provisions, none of the agreements contained provisions that would have allowed for one government to exert control over another government. In contrast, 12 of the 15 land use litigation decisions

involved instances where one government was attempting to assert control over another government.

While only one of the comprehensive plans specified that this type of activity would lead to negative

intergovernmental relationships, four interview participants stated that exerting control over another

government leads to uncooperative relationships. Interview participant P2 explained:

I think it comes down to control. When other communities want to exert control, or sole control, they are

the sole authority, and they decide what is in the best interest of everybody rather than try to find ways

to collaborate and work together. That really causes resentment from other communities and they don’t

really want to find a way to work together. I think any time someone is trying to be authoritative, rather

than working collectively, it leads to uncooperative relationships (Webster, 2014, p. 103).

This theme gets to the heart of CPT and the aim to eliminate paternal planning practices and account

for unbalanced power relationships (Huxley, 2000; Innes & Booher, 2014; Matthews, 2012; Sager, 2006).

This theme is also reminiscent of the colonial roots of planning because all the land use litigation

involving assertion of authority over another government entailed attempts to displace tribal authority

and replace it with a local government’s authority. In this environment it would be hard to imagine

circumstances where the stakeholders could cooperate.

Conclusion

When discussing planning within indigenous communities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and

the USA, a review of the literature revealed that indigenous governments interact with state-based

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

R. M. Webster

Page 32 of 229

governments in one of three ways. First, some indigenous governments undertake planning efforts

on their own, separate and apart from any state-based planning initiatives (e.g. Hibbard & Lane, 2004).

Second, some indigenous governments find ways to work with state-based governments to jointly

manage their shared spaces (e.g. Proctor & Chaulk). Third, some indigenous governments serve as

participants in the state-based planning initiatives (e.g. Lane & Hibbard). The majority of the literature

dedicated to studying indigenous land use planning falls into this last category. Furthermore, this last

category reveals a stark reality: state-based governments often control the planning process as well

as the outcomes of that process (e.g. Mornton, Gunton & Day, 2012).

A cursory look at state-based control of the planning process reveals the colonial roots of planning

(e.g. Hibbard, Lane, & Rasmussen, 2008). In these instances, the indigenous governments first lost their

land title through “discovery” and “conquest.” The land they now claim is often just a mere remnant of

the land they once held. It is over these last remaining vestiges that state-based governments still try

to assert their authority and control over the planning process. For planning to be fair and just, this

study revealed state-based governments cannot control the planning process and wield their power

to the disadvantage of indigenous governments. Indigenous governments at these crossroads have

a few options. They can continue to be token participants, they can engage in planning initiatives on

their own, or they can attempt to work with their surrounding state-based governments to explore

ways to work together cooperatively. This study set out to explore how to accomplish this last option.

In order to find ways to increase cooperative land use planning relationships within indigenous

communities, this study examined the social and historical roots of planning on the Oneida Reservation

as an instrumental qualitative case study. CPT calls for a greater understanding of the social and historical roots of planning in order to transform that knowledge into action (Matthews, 2012; Sager,

2006, 2013). CPT also provides some guidance for attaining positive social change that was especially

relevant in this study including emphasizing the importance of communication among government

staff, fairly distributing resources, and minimizing power wielding (Huxley, 2000; Innes & Booher, 2010,

2014; March, 2010; Matthews, 2012; Sager, 2006). Setting goals that include the factors that lead to

cooperative relationships and avoiding those factors that lead to uncooperative relationships may

help the Tribe and local governments foster positive intergovernmental relationships in the future.

If the Tribe and local governments want to increase cooperative land use planning on the Oneida

Reservation, this study offers the following recommendations: concentrate on strengthening interpersonal relationships among government officials and planners from the Tribe and local governments,

consider a more regional approach to planning practices, engage neighboring governments to pool

resources and work on more projects that benefit the entire community, come to an agreement concerning the jurisdictional limitations of tribal and local governments, find ways to learn about tribal and

local government services in order to find equitable ways to acknowledge and compensate each other

for providing those services. If the Tribe and local governments want to avoid conflicts over land use

planning, this study offers the following recommendations: find ways to stave off negative interpersonal

relationships among government officials and planners from the Tribe and local governments, keep

away from parochial approaches to planning that have the potential to place other governments at a

disadvantage, and stop attempts to exert control over other governments – forcing them to comply

with laws that are likely not applicable. One way to assist in this last endeavor relates back to the first

series of recommendations – come to an agreement concerning the jurisdictional limitations of tribal

and local governments.

For those tribes that share their reservations with local governments, much debate still looms about

whether tribes should participate in local government planning initiatives or whether tribes should

Page 33 of 229

Planning Theory & Practice

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

engage them on a government-to-government basis (Hausam, 2013; Oeser, 2010; Rosser, 2006). For

those tribes and local governments wanting to either begin discussions or improve existing discussions

on these matters, this study revealed a series of recommendations to assist in that endeavor. Further

study examining experiences of other indigenous communities could lead to a greater understanding

of how different tribal and local governments address these issues. In addition, the field of planning

as a whole can benefit from a better understanding of what factors may lead to increased cooperative

planning practices.

Regardless of the causes that lead indigenous and state-based governments to attempt to engage

in cooperative relationships, this study revealed that in the case of planning on the Oneida Reservation,

tribal and local government officials and planners want to see an increase in cooperative planning

efforts. The next step is for the government officials and planners to take this information and transform

it into positive social change by improving cooperative land use relationships in the future. Hopefully,

working together, they will be able to overcome the colonial and paternalistic roots of planning and

hear each other’s voices to make informed, cooperative decisions about how to shape this shared space.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Rebecca M. Webster is an enrolled member of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin and serves the Tribe as a

Senior Staff Attorney, providing legal advice for the Tribe’s administration on government relations, jurisdiction

concerns, and a wide variety of tribal land issues. She also serves as an adjunct instructor at the University of

Wisconsin-Oshkosh. She received her BA, MPA, and JD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and her PhD in

Public Policy and Administration from Walden University.

ORCID

Rebecca M. Webster

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2129-1471

References

Applegate, A. (2013). Tribal authority to zsone nonmember fee land using the first Montana exception: A game of

checkers tribes can win. British Columbia Environmental Affairs Law Review, 40, 159–195.

Barry, J. (2012). Indigenous state planning as inter-institutional capacity development: The evolution of “governmentto-government” relations in Coastal British Columbia. Canada. Planning Theory & Practice, 13, 213–231.

Barry, J., & Porter, L. (2011). Indigenous recognition in state-based planning systems: Understanding textual

mediation in the contact zone. Planning Theory, 11, 170–187. doi:10.1177/1473095211427285

Belmessous, S. (2014). The tradition of treaty making in Australian history. Empire by Treaty: Negotiating European

Expansion, 1600-1900, 186–213. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Berke, P. R., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2002). Planning and indigenous people: human rights and

environmental protection in New Zealand. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 115–134.

Booth, A. L., & Muir, B. R. (2011). Environmental and land-use planning approaches of indigenous groups in Canada:

An overview. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13, 421–442.

Canby, W. C. (2009). American Indian law in a nutshell (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing.

Cosgrove, L., & Kliger, B. (1997). Planning with a difference: a reflection on planning and decision making with

indigenous people in Broome. Western Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 15, 211–217.

Cullen, D., McGee, G. J. A., Gunton, T. I., & Day, J. C. (2010). Collaborative planning in complex stakeholder

environments: An evaluation of a two-tiered collaborative Planning Model. Society & Natural Resources,

23, 332–350.

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

R. M. Webster

Page 34 of 229

Deyle, R. E., & Wiedenman, R. E. (2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning organizations a test of

causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34, 257–275. doi:10.1177/0739456X14527621

Edwards, M. M., & Haines, A. (2007). Evaluating smart growth: implications for small communities. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 27, 49–64.

Exec. Order No. 39. (2004). Relating to an affirmation of the Government-to-Government Relationship Between

the State of Wisconsin and Indian tribal governments Located Within the State of Wisconsin. Retrieved from

http://witribes.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=23379&locid=57.

Fletcher, M. L. M. (2006). Reviving local tribal control in Indian country. Federal Lawyer, 53, 38–44.

Fletcher, M. L. M. (2007). Retiring the “deadliest enemies” model of tribal-state relations. Tulsa L. Rev., 43, 73–87.

Forester, J. (1980). Critical theory and planning practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46, 275–286.

doi:10.1080/01944368008977043

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning theory: Toward a critical pragmatism. New York, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Friedmann, J. (2008). The uses of planning theory: a bibliographic essay. Journal of Planning Education and Research,

28, 247–257. doi:10.1177/0739456X08325220

Galbraith, L. (2014). Making space for reconciliation in the planning system. Planning Theory & Practice, 15, 453–479.

Hauptman, L. M. (1981). A revolution at Oneida: Tribal reorganization and the Indian New Deal in Wisconsin. In L.

M. Hauptman (Ed.), The Iroquois and the new deal (pp. 70–87). New York, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Hausam, S. (2013). Maybe, maybe not: Native American participation in regional planning. In R. Walker, & T. Jojola

(Eds.). Reclaiming Indigenous Planning (Vol. 70, pp. 166–190). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Hibbard, M. (2006). Tribal sovereignty, the white problem, and reservation planning. Journal of Planning History,

5, 87–105. doi:10.1177/1538513206286237

Hibbard, M., & Lane, M. B. (2004). By the seat of your pants: Indigenous action and state response. Planning Theory

& Practice, 5, 97–104.

Hibbard, M., Lane, M. B., & Rasmussen, K. (2008). The split personality of planning: indigenous peoples and planning

for land and resource management. Journal of Planning Literature, 23, 136–151. doi:10.1177/0885412208322922

Hill, R. (2011). Towards equity in indigenous co-management of protected areas: cultural planning by MiriuwungGajerrong people in the Kimberley. Western Australia. Geographical Research, 49, 72–85.

Huxley. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 369–377.

doi:10.1177/0739456X0001900406

Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal

of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–189.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public

policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2014). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning

Theory, 1–19. doi: 10.1177/1473095213519356

Jarding, L. J. (2004). Tribal-state relations involving land and resources in the self-determination era. Political

Research Quarterly, 57, 295–303. doi:10.1177/106591290405700210

Kelly, E. C., Bliss, J. C., & Gosnell, H. (2013). The Mazama returns: the politics and possibilities of tribal land

reacquisition. Journal of Political Ecology, 20, 430.

Lane, M. B. (2001). Affirming new directions in planning theory: Comanagement of protected areas. Society &

Natural Resources: An International Journal, 14, 657–671. doi:10.1080/08941920118212

Lane, M. B. (2006). The role of planning in achieving indigenous land justice and community goals. Land Use Policy,

23, 385–394. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.001

Lane, M. B., & Hibbard, M. (2005). Doing it for themselves: Transforming planning by indigenous peoples. Journal

of Planning and Research, 25, 172–184. doi:10.1177/0739456X05278983

Locklear, A. (1988). The allotment of the Oneida Reservation and its legal ramifications. In J. Campisi & L. M.

Hauptman (Eds.), The Oneida Indian experience (pp. 83–93). New York, NY: Syracuse University Pre.

Mäntysalo, R. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. TPR, 73, 417–436.

March, A. (2010). Practising theory: When theory affects urban planning. Planning Theory, 9, 108–125.

Matthews, P. (2012). The long duree of community engagement: New applications of critical theory in planning

research. Planning Theory, 12, 139–157. doi:10.1177/1473095212455212

Page 35 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Planning Theory & Practice

McCarthy, D. P., Whitelaw, G. S., Anderson, S., Cowan, D., McGarry, F., Robins, A., & Tsuji, L. J. S. (2012). Collaborative

geomatics and the Mushkegowuk Cree First Nations: Fostering adaptive capacity for community-based subarctic natural resource management. Geoforum, 43, 305–314.

Merjian, A. H. (2011). An unbroken chain of injustice: The Dawes Act, Native American trusts, and Cobell v. Salazar.

Gonzaga Law Review, 46, 609–659.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morton, C., Gunton, T. I., & Day, J. C. (2012). Engaging aboriginal populations in collaborative planning: an Evaluation

of a two-tiered collaborative planning model of land and resource management. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management, 55, 507–523. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.613592

Oeser, M. (2010). Tribal citizen participation in state and national politics: Welcome Wagon or Trojan Horse? William

Mitchell Law Review, 36(2), 793–858.

Oneida Land Ordinance. (1941). Copy on file with author.

Pasqualucci, J. M. (2009). International indigenous land rights: A critique of the jurisprudence of the inter-American

court of human rights in light of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Wis. Int.

L. J., 27, 51–98.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Pezzoli, K., Hibbard, M., & Huntoon, L. (2009). Introduction to symposium: Is progressive regionalism an actionable

framework for critical planning theory and practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, 336–340.

doi:10.1177/0739456X08329711

Pommersheim, F. (2013). Land into trust: An inquiry into law, policy, and history. Idaho Law Review, 49, 519–546.

Porter, L. (2006). Planning in (post) colonial settings: Challenges for theory and practice. Planning Theory & Practice,

7, 383–396. doi:10.1080/14649350600984709

Procter, A., & Chaulk, K. (2013). Our beautiful land: The challenge of Nunatsiavut land-use planning. In R. Walker &

T. Jojola (Eds.). Reclaiming indigenous planning (Vol. 70, pp. 436–456). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s PressMQUP.

Ross, H., Grant, C., Robinson, C. J., Izurieta, A., Smyth, D., & Rist, P. (2009). Co-management and Indigenous protected

areas in Australia: achievements and ways forward. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 16,

242–252.

Rosser, E. (2006). Caution, cooperative agreements, and the actual state of things: A reply to Professor Fletcher.

Tulsa Law Review, 42, 57–74.

Saarikoski, H., Raitio, K., & Barry, J. (2013). Understanding “successful” conflict resolution: Policy regime changes

and new interactive arenas in the Great Bear Rainforest. Land Use Policy, 32, 271–280.

Sager, T. (2006). The logic of critical communicative planning: Transaction cost alteration. Planning Theory, 5, 223–

254. doi:10.1177/1473095206068629

Sager, T. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory: Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in

communicative planning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sandercock, L. (2004). Commentary: Indigenous planning and the burden of colonialism. Planning Theory & Practice,

5, 118–124.

Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2013). The past as present: Film as a community planning intervention in native/nonnative relations in British Columbia, Canada. In R. Walker, T. Jojola, & D. Natcher (Eds.), Reclaiming indigenous

planning (pp. 60–93). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Schoder, A. (2013). Indigenous planning in New Zealand: An analysis of the recent developments and their

theoretical context. Lincoln Planning Review, 4, 29–35.

Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. (2012). Creativity and innovation: Divergence and convergence in pragmatic dialogical

planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32, 5–17. doi:10.1177/0739456X11417829

Treaty with the Oneida. (1838). 7 Stat. 566.

Ugarte, M. (2014). Ethics, discourse, or rights? A discussion about a decolonizing project in planning. Journal of

Planning Literature, 29, 403–414.

Webster, R. M. (2014). Common boundaries: Moving toward coordinated and sustainable planning on the Oneida

reservation Doctoral dissertation, Walden University.

Webster, R. M. (2015). Service agreements: Exploring payment formulas for tribal trust lands on the Oneida

reservation. The American Indian Quarterly, 39, 347–363.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

R. M. Webster

Page 36 of 229

Downloaded by [74.62.93.29] at 07:45 11 February 2016

Zaferatos, N. C. (1998). Planning the native American Tribal Community: Understanding the basis of power

controlling the reservation territory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 395–410.

Zaferatos, N. C. (2004a). Developing an effective approach to strategic planning for native American Indian

reservations. Space and Polity, 8, 87–104. doi:10.1080/13562570410001678824

Zaferatos, N. C. (2004b). Tribal nations, local governments, and regional pluralism in Washington State: The

Swinomish approach in the Skagit Valley. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 81–96.

Page 37 of 229



  /  / 16







































































Page 38 of 229



























Page 39 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

02 / 24 / 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Oaths of Office

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Administer Oath of Office to James Martin, Floyd Hill and Kenneth House Sr. to the Oneida Veterans Affairs

Committee.

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

Budgeted - Tribal Contribution

Budgeted - Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor / Liaison:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Primary Requestor:

Kathleen M. Metoxen, Executive Tribal Clerk

Your Name, Title / Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Page 1 of 2

Unbudgeted

Page 40 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

The posting was in the December 17, 2015 issue of the Kalihwisaks for (3) vacancies on the Oneida Nation

Veterans Affairs Committee for (3) year term with the deadline of January 15, 2016. There were (4) applicants for

the (3) vacancies on the Oneida Nation Veterans Affairs Committee. The appointment was made on the February

10, 2016 BC Agenda.

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a *.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2 of 2

Page 41 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

02 / 24 / 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Oaths of Office

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Administer Oath of Office to Casey Houtsinger to the SEOTS Board.

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

Budgeted - Tribal Contribution

Budgeted - Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor / Liaison:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Primary Requestor:

Kathleen M. Metoxen, Executive Tribal Clerk

Your Name, Title / Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Page 1 of 2

Unbudgeted

Page 42 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

The posting was in the December 17, 2015 issue of the Kalihwisaks for (1) vacancy on the SEOTS Board for a ( 2)

year term with the deadline of January 15, 2016. There were (2) applicants for the (1) vacancy on the SEOTS

Board. The appointment was made on the February 10, 2016 BC Agenda.

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a *.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2 of 2

Page 43 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

02 / 24 / 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Oaths of Office

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Administer Oath of Office to Dylan Benton to the Oneida Library Board.

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

Budgeted - Tribal Contribution

Budgeted - Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor / Liaison:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Primary Requestor:

Kathleen M. Metoxen, Executive Tribal Clerk

Your Name, Title / Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Page 1 of 2

Unbudgeted

Page 44 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

The posting was in the December 17, 2015 issue of the Kalihwisaks for (1) vacancy on the Oneida Library Board to

finish the term until 8/14/16 with the deadline of January 15, 2016. There was (1)applicant for the (1) vacancy on

the Oneida Library Board. The appointment was made on the February 10, 2016 BC Agenda.

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a *.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2 of 2

Page 45 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

02 / 24 / 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Oaths of Office

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Administer Oath of Office to Heather Heurer and William King to the Oneida Pow Wow Committee.

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

Budgeted - Tribal Contribution

Budgeted - Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor / Liaison:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Primary Requestor:

Kathleen M. Metoxen, Executive Tribal Clerk

Your Name, Title / Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Page 1 of 2

Unbudgeted

Page 46 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

The posting was in the December 17, 2015 issue of the Kalihwisaks for (1) vacancy on the Oneida Pow Wow

Committee for a (3) year term with the deadline of January 15, 2016. There were (3)applicants for the (2)

vacancies on the Oneida Pow Wow Committee. The appointment was made on the February 10, 2016 BC

Agenda.

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a *.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2 of 2

Page 47 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

02 / 24 / 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Oaths of Office

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Administer Oath of Office to Bradley Graham to the Oneida Personnel Commission.

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

Budgeted - Tribal Contribution

Budgeted - Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor / Liaison:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Primary Requestor:

Kathleen M. Metoxen, Executive Tribal Clerk

Your Name, Title / Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Page 1 of 2

Unbudgeted

Page 48 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

The posting was in the September 17, 2015 issue of the Kalihwisaks for (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel

Commission to finish the term until 7/27/16 with the deadline of October 16, 2015. There was (1) applicant for

the (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel Commission. On the November 10, 2015 BC Agenda the BC made a

motion to re-post for another 30 days.

The posting was in the December 3, 2015 issue of the Kalihwisaks for (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel

Commission to finish the term until 7/27/16 with the deadline of January 4, 2016. There were (5) applicants for

the (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel Commission. On the January 27, 2016 BC Agenda a motion by the BC

was made to table the appointment.

The posting was in the December 3, 2015 issue of the Kalihwisaks for (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel

Commission to finish the term until 7/27/16 with the deadline of January 4, 2016. There were (5) applicants for

the (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel Commission. The appointment was made on the February 10, 2016 BC

Agenda.

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a *.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2 of 2

Page 49 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

02 / 24 / 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Oaths of Office

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Administer Oath of Office to Neset Skenadore and Shanna Torres to the Oneida School Board.

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

Budgeted - Tribal Contribution

Budgeted - Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor / Liaison:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Primary Requestor:

Kathleen M. Metoxen, Executive Tribal Clerk

Your Name, Title / Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title / Dept.

Page 1 of 2

Unbudgeted

Page 50 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

One vacancy is due to a current resignation and the other is being filled from the elections.

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a *.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2 of 2

Page 51 of 229



  /  / 



























 







































Page 52 of 229

DRAFT

Oneida Business Committee

Executive Session

9:00 a.m. Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Executive Conference Room, 2nd floor, Norbert Hill Center

Regular Meeting

9:00 a.m. Wednesday, February 10, 2016

BC Conference Room, 2nd floor, Norbert Hill Center

Minutes - DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Present: Chairwoman Tina Danforth, Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth, Treasurer Trish King, Council

members: Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer Webster;

Not Present: Secretary Lisa Summers;

Arrived at: ;

Others present: Jo Anne House, Larry Barton, Nathan King, Arlinda Locklear, Scott Dacey;

REGULAR MEETING

Present: Chairwoman Tina Danforth, Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth, Treasurer Trish King, Council

members: Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer Webster;

Not Present: Secretary Lisa Summers;

Arrived at: ;

Others present: Jo Anne House, Heather Heuer, Florence Petri, Brad Graham, Bill Graham, Dawn Walschinski,

Rhiannon Metoxen, Kathy Metoxen, Lisa Moore, Jessica Wallenfang, Nancy Barton, Leyne Orosco, Nic

Reynolds, Larry Barton, Lora Skenandore, Danelle Wilson, Lisa Liggins, Wes Martin Jr., Cathy Metoxen, Mary

Graves, Maureen Perkins, Gina Buenostro, Yvonne Jourdan, Susan House, Krystal John, Geraldine Danforth,

Don White, Lloyd Powless, Mark Powless, Racquel Hill, Scott Denny, Norbert Hill Jr., Arlie Doxtator, Marlene

Summers, Marsha Danforth, Priscilla Belisle, Tina Pospychala, Lois Strong, Jennifer Berg-Hargrove, Carol Elm,

Barbara Erickson, Tom Danforth;

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL by Chairwoman Tina Danforth at 9:00 a.m.

For the record:

Secretary Lisa Summers is out of the office on sick time. Councilwoman

Jennifer Webster will be excused at 11:45 a.m.

II.

OPENING by Councilman Tehassi Hill

III.

ADOPT THE AGENDA (00:03:47)

Motion by Melinda J. Danforth to adopt the agenda with one change: [revise title of Executive Session – New

Business Item XV.E.01. to “Approve employee resignation and follow-up”], seconded by Brandon Stevens.

Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 1 of 14

Page 53 of 229

DRAFT

IV.

OATHS OF OFFICE (No Requested Action)

MINUTES (00:04:35)

Approve January 27, 2016, regular meeting minutes

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Motion by Fawn Billie to approve the January 27, 2016, regular meeting minutes, seconded by Tehassi Hill.

Motion carried with two abstentions:

Ayes:

Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, Trish King, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Abstained:

Melinda J. Danforth, David Jordan

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Approve corrected August 12, 2015, regular meeting minutes

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Motion by David Jordan to approve the corrected August 12, 2015, regular meeting minutes, seconded by

Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Approve corrected August 17, 2015, special meeting minutes

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Motion by David Jordan to approve the corrected August 17, 2015, special meeting minutes, seconded by

Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

VI.

RESOLUTIONS

Adopt resolution titled Authorizing and Submitting a Grant Application to the U.S. Department

of Justice for the FY 2016 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation Grant (00:06:40)

Sponsor: Joanie Buckley, Division Director/Internal Services Division

Motion by Brandon Stevens to adopt resolution 02-10-16-A Authorizing and Submitting a Grant Application to the

U.S. Department of Justice for the FY 2016 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation Grant, seconded by

Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 2 of 14

Page 54 of 229

DRAFT

B. Adopt resolution titled FY 2016 Cultural Resource Fund Grant (3:22:18)

Sponsor:

Don White, Division Director/Governmental Services Division

Motion by Trish King to approve the add-on request for resolution titled FY 2016 Cultural Resource Fund Grant,

seconded by Melinda J. Danforth. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Motion by Fawn Billie to adopt resolution 02-10-16-B FY 2016 Cultural Resource Fund Grant with the following

corrections: [change “Oneida Nation” to “Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin” and apply noted changes on the

authorization form], seconded by Trish King. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

VII.

APPOINTMENTS (00:09:00)

Appoint Casey Houtsinger to Southeastern Oneida Tribal Services Advisory Board

Sponsor: Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

Motion by Melinda J. Danforth to appoint Casey Houtsinger to the Southeastern Oneida Tribal Services Advisory

Board, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Appoint Heather Heuer and William King to Oneida Pow Wow Committee

Sponsor: Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

Motion by Fawn Billie to appoint Heather Heuer and William King to the Oneida Pow Wow Committee, seconded

by Melinda J. Danforth. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Appoint Dylan Benton to Oneida Library Board

Sponsor: Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

Motion by David Jordan to appoint Dylan Benton to the Oneida Library Board, seconded by Melinda J. Danforth.

Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Appoint James Martin, Floyd Hill, and Kenneth House Sr. to Oneida Nation Veterans Affairs

Committee

Sponsor: Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

Motion by David Jordan to appoint James Martin, Floyd Hill, and Kenneth House Sr. to the Oneida Nation

Veterans Affairs Committee, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried with two opposed:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, David Jordan, Trish King

Opposed:

Tehassi Hill, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 3 of 14

Page 55 of 229

VIII.

STANDING COMMITTEES (00:12:34)

DRAFT

LEGISLATIVE OPERATING COMMITTEE

Sponsor: Councilman Brandon Stevens, Chair

1. Accept January 20, 2016, Legislative Operating Committee meeting minutes

Motion by Brandon Stevens to accept the January 20, 2016, Legislative Operating Committee meeting minutes,

seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

FINANCE COMMITTEE

Sponsor: Tribal Treasurer Trish King, Chair

1. Approve February 1, 2016, Finance Committee meeting minutes

Motion by David Jordan to approve the February 1, 2016, Finance Committee meeting minutes, seconded by

Jennifer Webster. Motion carried with one abstention:

Ayes:

Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer

Webster

Abstained:

Melinda J. Danforth

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

IX.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING COMMITTEE (No Requested Action)

QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE (No Requested Action)

GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL (00:15:02)

Petitioner Madelyn Genskow: Special GTC meeting to address six (6) resolutions

1) Scheduling General Tribal Council Meetings

2) Fee to Trust Process

3) Elder Services Means Testing

4) Record Subcommittee Meetings

5) Governmental Services Chain of Command

6) Unclaimed Per Capita Payments

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 27, 2016: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept the financial analysis for

resolution 4. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM NOVEMBER 25, 2015: (1) Motion by David Jordan to accept the financial analysis

for resolution 3, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously. (2) Motion by Lisa Summers

to request the remaining financial analyses come back in sixty (60) days, seconded by Jennifer

Webster. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 14, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept the financial analyses for

resolution 1 with the following change [correction in the Chief Financial Officer’s memorandum with

either the elimination of “TO: Tina Danforth, Treasurer” or replacement of “TO: Patricia King,

Treasurer”] and resolution 2, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM SEPTEMBER 23, 2015: Motion by Melinda J. Danforth to accept the update on this

item and to place this petition and six (6) resolutions on the March 19, 2016 Special General Tribal

Council meeting agenda, and to request the financial analyses on all six (6) resolutions be submitted

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 4 of 14

Page 56 of 229

DRAFT

to the Tribal Secretary’s Office in a timely manner, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried

unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2015: Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the legal analysis for

resolution 5) Governmental Services Chain of Command, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried

unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 26, 2015: (1) Motion by Brandon Stevens to accept the legal analyses for

resolution 3, 4, and 6, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously. (2) Motion by Lisa

Summers to defer the legal analysis for resolution 5 to be completed by the September 9, 2015,

regular Business Committee meeting and to defer the financial analyses for resolution 3, 4, and 6

Unclaimed Per Capita Payments to the September 23, 2015, regular Business Committee meeting,

seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM JULY 8, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to defer the remaining legal and financial

analyses to the second regular Business Committee meeting in August 2015, seconded by Brandon

Stevens. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM JUNE 24, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to accept the legal analysis for resolution 1

and note that the remaining analyses are due back at the July 8, 2015, regular Business Committee

meeting, seconded by Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM MAY 13, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to accept the legal analysis for resolution 2,

seconded by Trish King. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM APRIL 22, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept the legislative analyses for

resolutions 1-6 and to provide an additional sixty (60) days for the Law and Finance Offices to

complete their portions of the analyses, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2015: (1) Motion by Tehassi Hill to accept the verified petitions

from Petitioner Madelyn Genskow: Request Special GTC meeting to address six (6) resolutions,

seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously. (2) Motion by Tehassi Hill to send the

verified petitions to the Law, Finance, Legislative Reference and Direct Report Offices for the legal,

financial, legislative, and administrative analyses to be completed, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion

carried unanimously. (3) Motion by Jennifer Webster to direct Law, Finance, and Legislative Reference

Offices to submit the analyses to the Secretary’s Office within sixty (60) days and that a progress

report be submitted in forty-five (45) days, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

(4) Motion by Lisa Summers to direct the Direct Report Offices to submit appropriate administrative

analyses to the Secretary’s Office within thirty (30) days, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried

unanimously.

Motion by David Jordan to accept the financial analyses for resolution 5) Governmental Services Chain of

Command and resolution 6) Unclaimed Per Capita Payments, seconded by Brandon Stevens. Motion carried

unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Petitioner Madelyn Genskow: Special GTC meeting to address three (3) resolutions

1) Oneida Business Committee Accountability

2) Repeal Judiciary Law

3) Open Records and Open Meetings Law

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

EXCERPT FROM NOVEMBER 25, 2015: (1) Motion by David Jordan to accept the legal analysis for

resolution 3, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously. (2) Motion by Lisa Summers to

request the Finance Office to submit the appropriate financial analyses for these resolutions within

sixty (60) days, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM NOVEMBER 10, 2015: Motion by Tehassi Hill to deny the request by Madelyn

Genskow to only place the petition, “Special GTC meeting to address three (3) resolutions”, on the

March 19, 2016, special General Tribal Council meeting agenda, seconded by Brandon Stevens.

Motion carried unanimously.

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 5 of 14

Page 57 of 229

DRAFT

EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 28, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept the legal analysis for

resolution 2, noting it was not actually due until the November 25, 2015, regular Business Committee

meeting, seconded by Trish King. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 14, 2015: Motion by Lisa Summers to accept the legal analysis for

resolution 1 and to note the remaining legal analyses are not to until the November 25, 2015, regular

Business Committee meeting, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2015: Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the update from Chief

Counsel and to provide an additional sixty (60) days for the legal analyses of resolution 1-3, seconded

by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM JUNE 24, 2015: Motion by David Jordan to accept the legislative analyses for

resolutions 1-3 of the petition and to provide an additional sixty (60) days for the Law and Finance

Offices to submit the appropriate analyses, seconded by Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM JUNE 10, 2015: Motion by Tehassi Hill to accept the status report from the

Legislative Operating Committee as information, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried

unanimously.

EXCERPT FROM APRIL 22, 2015: Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the verified petition

submitted by Madelyn Genskow; to send the verified petition to the Law, Finance, Legislative

Reference and Direct Report Offices for the legal, financial, legislative and administrative analyses to

be completed; to direct the Law, Finance, and Legislative Reference Offices to submit the analyses to

the Tribal Secretary’s office within sixty (60) days and that a progress report is submitted in forty-five

(45) days; and to direct the Direct Report offices to submit the appropriate administrative analyses to

the Tribal Secretary’s office within thirty (30) days, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried

unanimously.

Motion by David Jordan to accept the financial analyses for resolution 1) Oneida Business Committee

Accountability, resolution 2) Repeal Judiciary Law, and resolution 3) Open Records and Open Meetings Law,

seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Councilman Tehassi Hill departs at 9:31 a.m.

Councilman Tehassi Hill returns at 9:44 a.m.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (00:23:23)

Review GTC directive to consider budget modification of $125,000 from the CEO position line

to the Elder Home Repair line in FY 2016 budget

Sponsor: Trish King, Tribal Treasurer

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 13, 2016: Motion by Lisa Summers for the Business Committee to

submit a new request to the Finance Committee to bring back a recommendation on how to allocate

the $125,000 to the Elder Home Repair line, seconded by Brandon Stevens. Motion carried

unanimously.

Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the $199,000 to be taken from the Executive Contingency line and

transferred to the Supportive Services line to be used strictly for Elder member’s major home repairs based on

health and safety reasons, seconded by Trish King. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 6 of 14

Page 58 of 229

XI.

TABLED BUSINESS (00:53:12)

DRAFT

Appoint Mary Graves to the Oneida Personnel Commission

Sponsor: Tina Danforth, Tribal Chairwoman

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 27, 2016: Motion by Fawn Billie to table this item, seconded by Lisa

Summers. Motion carried with one abstention.

Motion by Jennifer Webster to take this item from the table, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried

unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Motion by David Jordan to appoint Mary Graves to the Oneida Personnel Commission. Motion fails for lack of

support.

Motion by Jennifer Webster to appoint Leland Wigg-Ninham to the Oneida Personnel Commission. Motion fails

for lack of support.

Motion by Jennifer Webster to appoint Sylvia Cornelius to the Oneida Personnel Commission. Motion fails for

lack of support.

Motion by David Jordan to appoint Mary Graves to the Oneida Personnel Commission. Motion fails for lack of

support.

Motion by Jennifer Webster to appoint Bradley Graham to the Oneida Personnel Commission, seconded by

Melinda J. Danforth. Motion carried with one opposed and three abstentions:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, David Jordan, Jennifer Webster

Opposed:

Trish King

Abstained:

Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, Brandon Stevens

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

For the record:

Councilman Brandon Stevens stated I abstained for family conflict of interest, but

as well as just to further go on, we are amending the Comprehensive Policy to

reflect how this process would change in the near future on what happens next in

these instances which have come up and will come up if we don’t address them.

XII.

NEW BUSINESS (1:25:33)

Approve request to post two (2) vacancies on the Oneida Election Board and for the terms to

be carried out until August 14, 2016, and November 12, 2017

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Motion by David Jordan to approve the request to post two (2) vacancies on the Oneida Election Board and for

the terms to be carried out until August 14, 2016, and November 12, 2017, seconded by Jennifer Webster.

Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 7 of 14

Page 59 of 229

DRAFT

Approve request to post four (4) vacancies on the Anna John Resident Centered Care

Community Board

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the request to post four (4) vacancies on the Anna John Resident

Centered Care Community Board, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Treasurer Trish King departs at 10:28 a.m.

Approve request to post one (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel Commission and for the

term to be carried out until June 16, 2020

Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary

Motion by David Jordan to approve the request to post one (1) vacancy on the Oneida Personnel Commission

and for the term to be carried out until June 16, 2020, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried with one

abstention:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Jennifer Webster

Abstained:

Brandon Stevens

Not Present:

Trish King, Lisa Summers

Retro-approve limited waiver of sovereign immunity – Gannett Publishing Services – contract #

2015-0797 to original sign date

Sponsor: Joanie Buckley, Division Director/Internal Services Division

Motion by Jennifer Webster to retro-approve limited waiver of sovereign immunity – Gannett Publishing

Services – contract # 2015-0797 to original sign date of August 12, 2015, seconded by David Jordan. Motion

carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Brandon Stevens,

Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Trish King, Lisa Summers

XIII.

TRAVEL (1:31:18)

TRAVEL REPORTS (No Requested Action)

TRAVEL REQUESTS

1. Approve travel request – Councilman Brandon Stevens – National Indian Child Welfare

Association (NICWA) 34th Annual Conference – St. Paul, MN – April 3-7, 2016

Motion by Melinda J. Danforth to approve the travel request – Councilman Brandon Stevens – National Indian

Child Welfare Association (NICWA) 34th Annual Conference – St. Paul, MN – April 3-7, 2016, seconded by

Fawn Billie. Motion carried with one abstention:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Jennifer Webster

Abstained:

Brandon Stevens

Not Present:

Trish King, Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 8 of 14

Page 60 of 229

DRAFT

2. Approve travel request – Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth, Secretary Lisa Summers,

Councilwoman Fawn Billie, and respective Assistants – Public Law 280 Training – Baraboo,

WI – March 8-10, 2016

This item was voted on; however, no formal motion was made. This item is being forwarded to the February 24,

2016, regular Business Committee meeting for formal action.

Treasurer Trish King returns at 10:40 a.m.

3. Approve travel request – Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth – Crimes Against Children

in Indian Country Conference – Wisconsin Dells, WI – March 21-24, 2016

Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the travel request – Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth (outside of the

Business Committee meeting) and Secretary Lisa Summers – Crimes Against Children in Indian Country

Conference – Wisconsin Dells, WI – March 21-24, 2016, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried with one

abstention:

Ayes:

Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer

Webster

Abstained:

Melinda J. Danforth

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Councilman David Jordan departs at 10:53 a.m.

4. Approve procedural exception to Travel and Expense Policy – five (5) Child Support

Agency Staff – Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association Conference – Myrtle

Beach, SC – May 1-5, 2016

Sponsor:

Melinda J. Danforth, Tribal Vice-Chairwoman and Don White, Division

Director/Governmental Services Division

Motion by Brandon Stevens to approve the procedural exception to Travel and Expense Policy – five (5) Child

Support Agency Staff – Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association Conference – Myrtle Beach, SC –

May 1-5, 2016, seconded by Melinda J. Danforth. Motion carried with one opposed:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens

Opposed:

Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

David Jordan, Lisa Summers

Motion by David Jordan to recess at 11:03 p.m. until 1:30 p.m., seconded by Tehassi Hill. Motion carried

unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Meeting called to order by Chairwoman Tina Danforth at 1:31 p.m.

Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth, Secretary Lisa Summers, Councilman Tehassi Hill, and Councilman

Brandon Stevens not present.

XIV.

REPORTS (2:06:06) (This section of the agenda is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m.)

Councilman Brandon Stevens arrives at 1:32 p.m.

Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth arrives at 1:35 p.m.

Councilman Tehassi Hill arrives at 1:37 p.m.

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 9 of 14

Page 61 of 229

OPERATIONAL REPORTS

DRAFT

1. Accept Oneida Housing Authority FY ’16 1st quarter report

Sponsor:

Scott Denny, Housing Operations Manager & Interim Executive Director/Oneida

Housing Authority

Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the Oneida Housing Authority FY ’16 1st quarter report, seconded by David

Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

2. Accept Human Resources Department FY ’16 1st quarter report

Sponsor:

Geraldine Danforth, Area Manager/Human Resources Department

Motion by David Jordan to accept the Human Resources Department FY ’16 1st quarter report, seconded by

Trish King. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Councilman Tehassi Hill departs at 2:22 p.m.

Councilman Tehassi Hill returns at 2:25 p.m.

3. Accept Governmental Services Division FY ’16 1st quarter report

Sponsor:

Don White, Division Director/Governmental Services Division

Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the Governmental Services Division FY ’16 1st quarter report, seconded by

David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

CORPORATE REPORTS (No Requested Action)

BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS

1. Defer Oneida Police Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report – Bernie John Stevens, Chair

Liaison:

Lisa Summers, Tribal Secretary (No Report Submitted)

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 27, 2016: Motion by Jennifer Webster to defer the Oneida Police

Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report to the February 10, 2016, regular Business Committee

meeting, seconded by Lisa Summers. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by David Jordan to defer the Oneida Police Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report to the February 24,

2016, regular Business Committee meeting, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Motion by David Jordan to suspend Oneida Police Commission stipends until the FY ’16 1st quarter report is

submitted, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 10 of 14

Page 62 of 229

DRAFT

2. Accept Oneida Nation Commission on Aging FY ’16 1st quarter report – Wes Martin Jr., Chair

Liaison:

Melinda J. Danforth, Tribal Vice-Chairwoman

Motion by Brandon Stevens to accept the Oneida Nation Commission on Aging FY ’16 1st quarter report,

seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

3. Accept Oneida Election Board FY ’16 1st quarter report – Racquel Hill, Chair

Liaison:

Melinda J. Danforth, Tribal Vice-Chairwoman

Motion by David Jordan to accept the Oneida Election Board FY ’16 1st quarter report, seconded by Brandon

Stevens. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

4. Accept Oneida Gaming Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report – Mark A. Powless, Chair

Liaison:

Brandon Stevens, Councilman

Motion by David Jordan to accept the Oneida Gaming Commission FY ’16 1st quarter report, seconded by

Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

XV.

EXECUTIVE SESSION (1:54:40)

REPORTS

1. Accept Chief Counsel report – Jo Anne House, Chief Counsel

Motion by Melinda J. Danforth to accept the Chief Counsel report, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried

unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, Trish King, Brandon Stevens,

Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

David Jordan, Lisa Summers

2. Accept Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications update – Nathan King, Director/

Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications (This item is scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on February

9, 2016)

Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications update, seconded by

Fawn Billie. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, Trish King, Brandon Stevens,

Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

David Jordan, Lisa Summers

Councilman David Jordan returns at 10:57 a.m.

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 11 of 14

Page 63 of 229

STANDING ITEMS

DRAFT

1. Land Claims Strategy

Sponsor:

Nathan King, Director/Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications

Motion by Melinda J. Danforth to accept the Land Claims Strategy report, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion

carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Sponsor: Councilman Tehassi Hill, Chair

1. Approve Gaming Contracts audit and lift confidentiality requirement to allow Tribal

Members to view the audit

Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the Gaming Contracts audit and lift confidentiality requirement to allow

Tribal Members to view the audit, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

2. Approve Information Technology audit and lift confidentiality requirement to allow Tribal

Members to view the audit

Motion by David Jordan to approve the Information Technology audit and lift confidentiality requirement to allow

Tribal Members to view the audit, seconded by Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

3. Approve Slots audit and lift confidentiality requirement to allow Tribal Members to view the

audit

Motion by David Jordan to approve the Slots audit and lift confidentiality requirement to allow Tribal Members to

view the audit, seconded by Tehassi Hill. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (No Requested Action)

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 12 of 14

Page 64 of 229

NEW BUSINESS

DRAFT

1. Approve employee resignation and follow-up

Sponsor:

Trish King, Tribal Treasurer

Motion by Trish King to accept the employee resignation, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried with one

abstention:

Ayes:

Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer

Webster

Abstained:

Melinda J. Danforth

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Motion by Trish King to assign Treasurer Trish King to follow-up with the Human Resources Department in the

next steps in processing the resignation, seconded by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried with one abstention:

Ayes:

Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer

Webster

Abstained:

Melinda J. Danforth

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Motion by Trish King to defer the follow-up regarding this position to the next Business Committee Work Meeting

on February 17, 2016, seconded by David Jordan. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

2. Approve two (2) requests regarding Economic Development Initiative

Sponsor:

Trish King, Tribal Treasurer

Motion by Melinda J. Danforth to request Troy Parr to present the transition plan regarding the Economic

Development Initiative at the February 17, 2016, Business Committee Work Meeting, seconded by Trish King.

Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

3. Approve limited waiver of sovereign immunity – Micros Fidelio Worldwide LLC.-Oracle

Technical Support Services Agreement – contract # 2016-0052

Sponsor:

Louise Cornelius, Gaming General Manager

Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the limited waiver of sovereign immunity – Micros Fidelio Worldwide

LLC.-Oracle Technical Support Services Agreement – contract # 2016-0052, seconded by Fawn Billie. Motion

carried with one abstention:

Ayes:

Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon Stevens, Jennifer

Webster

Abstained:

Melinda J. Danforth

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 13 of 14

Page 65 of 229

DRAFT

XVI.

ADJOURN

Motion by David Jordan to adjourn at 3:30 p.m., seconded by Brandon Stevens. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes:

Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, Tehassi Hill, David Jordan, Trish King, Brandon

Stevens, Lisa Summers, Jennifer Webster

Not Present:

Lisa Summers

Minutes prepared by Heather Heuer, Information Management Specialist

Minutes approved as presented/corrected on ____________.

_________________________________

Lisa Summers, Secretary

ONEIDA BUSINESS COMMITTEE

Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT of February 10, 2016

Page 14 of 14

Page 66 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

I 24 I 16

2. General Information:

Session:

[XI Open D Executive- See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

AgendaHeader:

~~R_e_so_l_ut_io_n_s______________________________________________________~

D Accept as Information only

[XI Action -please describe:

Approval of a resolution that authorizes and supports the submission of the 2016 Summer Tribal Youth

Program grant to the State of Wisconsin/Department of Natural Resources.

3. Supporting Materials

D Report

[XI Resolution

D Contract

D Other:

~------------------------------~

D Business Committee signature required

4. Budget Information

D Budgeted- Tribal Contribution

D Budgeted -Grant Funded

5. Submission

Authorized Sponsor I Liaison:

!Patrick Pelky, Division Director/EHS

Primary Requestor/Submitter:

Sylvia Cornelius, Project Manager/EHS

Your Name, Title I Dept. or Tribal Member

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title I Dept.

Additional Requestor:

Name, Title I Dept.

Page 1 of2

D Unbudgeted

Page 67 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

6. Cover Memo:

Describe the purpose, background/history, and action requested:

An approved and signed resolution is a requirement of the funding agency- State of Wisconsin/Department of

Natural Resources.

1) Save a copy of this form for your records.

2) Print this form as a "·.pdf OR print and scan this form in as *.pdf.

3) E-mail this form and all supporting materials in a SINGLE *.pdf file to: BC_Agenda_Requests@oneidanation.org

Page 2of2

Page 68 of 229

BC Resolution # __-__-__-_

Authorizing and Submitting a Grant Application to the State of Wisconsin/Department of Natural

Resources for the 2016 Summer Tribal Youth Program Grant

WHEREAS,

the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is a federally recognized Indian government and

a treaty tribe recognized by the laws of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS,

the Oneida General Tribal Council is the governing body of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of

Wisconsin; and

WHEREAS,

the Oneida Business Committee has been delegated the authority of Article IV, Section 1,

of the Oneida Tribal Constitution by the Oneida General Tribal Council; and

WHEREAS,

the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin has determined that the overall goal of the

Oneida Tribe is to protect, maintain and improve the standard of living and the

environment in which the Oneida people live; and

WHEREAS,

the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is qualified to carry out the responsibilities of the

Summer Tribal Youth Program; and

WHEREAS,

the Oneida tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is interested in developing a Summer Tribal

Youth Program; and

WHEREAS,

the Oneida Environmental, Health and Safety Division is eligible to receive funding from

the Summer Tribal Youth Program grant; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin requests grant

funding available from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources under the “Summer Tribal Youth

Grant Program” and hereby authorizes the Environmental Project Manager to act on behalf of the Oneida

Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin to submit an application to the State of Wisconsin for financial aid and

summer youth program purposes; sign documents; take necessary action to undertake, direct and

complete the approved project; and submit reimbursement claims along with necessary supporting

documentation for reimbursement.

BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin will meet the requirements of the

Summer Tribal Youth Program including all reports and the financial obligations of our 50% commitment

to the program costs.

Page 69 of 229

Oneida Business Committee Agenda Request

1. Meeting Date Requested:

/ 24 / 16

2. General Information:

Session:

Open

Agenda Header:

Executive - See instructions for the applicable laws, then choose one:

Resolutions

Accept as Information only

Action - please describe:

Approve Resolution: Administrative Procedures Act Adoption

3. Supporting Materials

Report

Resolution

Contract

Other:

1. Memorandum

3. Fiscal Impact Statement

2. Statement of Effect

4. Draft (redline) &

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.