Oneida Business Committee (2025)
Tribal code
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
1 of 313
Oneida Nation
Oneida Business Committee
Legislative Operating Committee
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
Oneida-nsn.gov
~
ONEIDA
LEGISLATIVE OPERATING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA REVISED
Business Committee Conference Room - 2nd Floor Norbert Hill Center
December 17, 2025
9:00 a.m.
I.
Call to Order and Approval of the Agenda
II.
Minutes to be Approved
1. December 3, 2025 LOC Meeting Minutes (pg. 2)
III.
Current Business
1. Higher Education Scholarship Law (pg. 4)
2. Real Property Law Amendments (pg. 40)
3. Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Law Amendments (pg. 95)
4. Public Use of Tribal Land Law Amendments (pg. 153)
5. Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Law Amendments (pg. 185)
6. Independent Contractors Policy Amendments (pg. 214)
7. Workplace Violence Law Amendments (pg. 242)
8. Budget and Finances Law Amendments (pg. 276)
IV.
New Submissions
V.
Additions
VI.
Administrative Updates
VII.
Executive Session
VIII. Recess/Adjourn
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
2 of 313
Oneida Nation
r'\
Oneida Business Committee
Legislative Operating Committee
GDDDOO
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
ONEIDA
Oneida-nsn.gov
LEGISLATIVE OPERATING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Oneida Business Committee Conference Room-2nd Floor Norbert Hill Center
December 03, 2025
9:00 a.m.
Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen [Microsoft Teams]
Excused: Jennifer Webster
Unexcused: Marlon Skenandore
Others Present: Grace Elliott, Carolyn Salutz,
Others Present on Microsoft Teams: Clorissa Leeman, Debra Powless, Erik Boulanger, Fawn
Billie, Diane Wilson, Fawn Cottrell, Grace Koehler, Janice Decorah, Jason Martinez, Jessalyn
Harvath, Joshua Cornelius, Kaylynn Biely, Krystal John, Mary Graves, Melissa Alvarado, Rae
Skenandore, Jo Anne House, Ronald Van Schyndel
I.
Call to Order and Approval of the Agenda
Jameson Wilson called the December 03, 2025, Legislative Operating Committee meeting
to order at 9:00 a.m.
Motion by Jonas Hill to adopt the agenda; seconded Kirby Metoxen. Motion carried
unanimously.
II.
Minutes to be Approved
1. November 5, 2025 LOC Meeting Minutes
Motion by Kirby Metoxen to approve the November 5, 2025 LOC meeting minutes and
forward to the Oneida Business Committee; seconded by Jonas Hill. Motion carried
unanimously.
III.
Current Business
1. Solid Waste Disposal Law Amendments
Motion by Jonas Hill to accept the draft and legislative analysis; and direct the Legislative
Reference Office to schedule a public meeting; seconded by Kirby Metoxen. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Workplace Violence Law
Motion by Kirby Metoxen to accept the public comment memorandum with LOC
consideration, updated draft, legislative analysis, and fiscal impact statement request
memorandum; and direct the fiscal impact request memo signed by Chairman Wilson and
submitted to Finance directing the fiscal be submitted by December 17, 2025, seconded by
<XXXXX)
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Legislative Operating Committee Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2025
Page 1 of 2
"'
ONEIDA
3 of 313
Jonas Hill. Motion carried unanimously.
IV.
New Submissions
1. Petition: K. Schultz- General Welfare Assistance Payment to Membership #202503
Motion by Kirby Metoxen to add the Petition: K. Schultz- General Welfare Assistance
Payment to Membership #2025-03 to the Active Files List with Jameson Wilson as
sponsor; seconded by Jonas Hill. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Plastic Free Law
Motion by Kirby Metoxen to add the Plastic Free Law to the Active Files List with Jameson
Wilson as sponsor; seconded by Jonas Hill. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Oneida Language Law
Motion by Jonas Hill to accept the referendum directive as information, noting that the
Oneida Language Law is already on the Active Files List; seconded by Kirby Metoxen.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Time and Attendance Law for Elected Officials
Motion by Kirby Metoxen to add the Time and Attendance Law for Elected Officials to
the Active Files List with Jonas Hill as sponsor; seconded by Jonas Hill. Motion carried
unanimously.
V.
Additions
VI.
Administrative Updates
VII.
Executive Session
VIII. Adjourn
Motion by Kirby Metoxen to adjourn at 9:17 a.m.; seconded by Jonas Hill. Motion carried
unanimously.
Legislative Operating Committee Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2025
Page 2 of 2
4 of 313
r'\.
Oneida Nation
Oneida Business Committee
Legislative Operating Committee
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
Oneida-nsn.gov
=DODDDD=
ONEIDA
Legislative Operating Committee
December 17, 2025
Higher Education Scholarship Law
Submission Date: 9/7/22
LOC Sponsor: Jameson Wilson
Public Meeting: N/A
Emergency Enacted: N/A
Summary: This item was carried over from last term. At the August 24, 2022, Oneida Business
Committee meeting the Oneida Business Committee adopted a motion to direct the Legislative
Operating Committee to consider adding the Higher Education Policy to their Active Files List,
and to consider adding rule making authority to said policy.
9/7/22 LOC:
Motion by Marie Summers to add the Trust Scholarship Fund Policy amendments to the
Active Files List with David P. Jordan as the sponsor; seconded by Kirby Metoxen. Motion
carried unanimously.
12/5/22:
Work Meeting. Present: Jaqueline Smith, Mitchel Metoxen, Mistylee Herzog, Clorissa
Santiago, Carolyn Salutz, Grace Elliott. This meeting continued review of the Oneida
Higher Education Student Handbook with discussion around parsing out criteria to include
in a Law from information better suited to Rulemaking authority. Additionally, all
Resolutions related to the Oneida Higher Education Scholarship were reviewed.
1/23/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Jaqueline Smith, Mitchel Metoxen, Laurie Laitinen-Warren, Grace
Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to review draft language for an Oneida Higher
Education Scholarship Law.
1/26/23:
Work Meeting. Present: David Jordan, Jennifer Webster, Kirby Metoxen, Daniel Guzman,
Clorissa Leeman, Carolyn Salutz, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
the historical legislative attempts related to an Oneida Higher Education Scholarship Law
and Rulemaking Authority.
1/27/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Mitch Metoxen, Misty Herzog, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this
meeting was to listen to feedback from Oneida Higher Education on the draft Oneida Higher
Education Scholarship Law.
1/30/23:
Work Meeting. Present: David Jordan, Jennifer Webster, Marie Cornelius, Clorissa Leeman,
Grace Elliott, Peggy Van Gheem, Mitch Metoxen, Misty Herzog, Jackie Smith, Laura
Laitinen-Warren, Mark Powless, Kristal Hill. The purpose of this meeting was to begin
review of the draft Oneida Higher Education Scholarship Law, answer questions, and
provide an overview of the Oneida Higher Education Scholarship process.
2/1/23 LOC:
Motion by Marie Cornelius to accept the memorandum and revise the title on the Active
Files List from Trust Scholarship Fund Policy Amendments to Higher Education
Scholarship Law; seconded by Daniel Guzman King Motion carried unanimously.
Page 1 of 4
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
5 of 313
3/30/23:
Work Meeting. Present: David Jordan, Marie Cornelius, Daniel Guzman, Mark Powless,
Mistylee Herzog, Mitch Metoxen, Peggy Van Gheem, Clorissa Leeman, Jackie Smith. The
purpose of this meeting was to continue review of the draft Oneida Higher Education
Scholarship law and to discuss amendments initiated at the meeting prior.
5/3/23 LOC:
Work Meeting. David Jordan, Marie Cornelius, Daniel Guzman, Kirby Metoxen, Clorissa
Leeman, Kristal Hill. The purpose of this meeting was to choose a name for the Oneida
Nation Higher Education Student Handbook when items currently listed in it are compiled
through the Rulemaking process.
10/4/23 LOC: Motion by Jonas Hill to add the Higher Education Scholarship Law to the Active Files List
with Jameson Wilson as the sponsor; seconded by Marlon Skenandore. Motion carried
unanimously.
10/10/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Jaqueline Smith, Mitchel Metoxen, Mistylee Herzog, Mark Powless,
Clorissa Santiago, Carolyn Salutz, Grace Elliott. This was an introductory meeting on the
origins of the Oneida Higher Education Scholarship and its evolution.
11/1/23 LOC: Motion by Jonas Hill to approve the Legislative Operating Committee community meeting
notice and schedule the community meeting to take place on December 6, 2023; seconded
by Jennifer Webster. Motion carried unanimously.
11/14/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Jaqueline Smith, Mitchel Metoxen, Mistylee Herzog, Clorissa
Santiago, Carolyn Salutz, Grace Elliott. This meeting was to begin discussions on
distinguishing criteria that would be appropriate for a Law from criteria more appropriate for
Rulemaking.
11/20/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Mitch Metoxen, Mistylee Herzog, Jacqueline Smith, Ann McCotter,
Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to review historical documents which provide
the foundation for the implementation of the Higher Education Scholarship, and to begin
review of the draft Higher Education Scholarship law.
11/27/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Marlon Skenandore, Jonas Hill,
Clorissa Leeman, Grace Elliott, Fawn Cottrell, Kristal Hill, Maureen Perkins. The purpose of
this work meeting was to review the PowerPoint presentation for the December 6th
community meeting.
12/1/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Mark Powless, Jacqueline Smith, Clorissa Leeman, Grace Elliott.
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss rulemaking authority and the related processes.
12/4/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Mistylee Herzog, Jonas Hill, Jennifer Webster, Fawn Cottrell, Mitch
Metoxen, Jacqueline Smith, Jameson Wilson, Fawn Billie, Kristal Hill, Ann McCotter,
Clorissa Leeman, Marlon Skenandore, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to
share foundational information relative to the Oneida Higher Education Scholarship and its
development over the past almost thirty (30) years.
12/6/23:
Community Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Kirby Metoxen, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill,
Marlon Skenadore, Clorissa N. Leeman, Grace Elliott, Carolyn Salutz, Fawn Cottrell, Fawn
Billie, Kristal Hill, Maureen Perkins, Lori Webster, Leon Webster, Larry Barton, Nancy
Barton, Daniel Leyo, John E. Powless III, Carol Silva, Jeanette Ninham, Raeann Skenandore,
Giza Powless Buenrostro, Jackie Smith, Rocky Hill, Carole Liggins, Kaylee Schuyler, Trina
Schuyler, Quincy Granquist, Dan Webster, Marie Cornelius, Barbara Salutz, Carol Elm,
Majorie Stevens, Misty Herzog, Josh, Gerzetich, Ann McCotter, Mitchel Metoxen, Katsi
Danforth, Nova Danforth, Bill Gollnick, Bonnie Pigman,
Nadine Escamea, Alyssa Perkins,
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
~
Page 2 of 4
ONEIDA
6 of 313
Emma King, Dr. Rosa King, Margaret King, Garth Webster, Daniel Doyen, Mark W. Powless,
Kanani Nunies, Ululan Ninies, Beverly DeCoteau, Lexi Sickles, Laura Manthe, Tina
Jorgensen, Stephanie Miscavitch VanEvery, Mark A. Powless Sr., and others. The purpose of
this meeting was to listen to questions, comments, and concerns from community members
about the Higher Education Scholarship.
12/20/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen, Marlon Skenandore,
Clorissa Leeman, Grace Elliott, Maureen Perkins, Fawn Cottrell, Lawrence Barton. The
purpose of this meeting was to review comments from the December 6th, 2023 community
meeting, and to better understand the financial foundation and implications of the Higher
Education Scholarship.
1/11/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Marlon Skenandore, Jennifer Webster,
Grace Elliott, Kristal Hill, via teams Fawn Cottrell, Fawn Billie, Maureen Perkins. The
purpose of this meeting was to present the legislative history and research pertinent to the
development of the Higher Education Scholarship law.
2/16/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jacqueline Smith, Ann McCotter, Mitchel Metoxen, Mistylee Herzog,
Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to review the draft law addressing the details
of the appeal and exception sections.
4/3/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen, Jennifer Webster,
Clorissa Leeman, Grace Elliott, Carolyn Salutz, Kristal Hill, Fawn Cottrell, Maureen
Perkins. The purpose of this work meeting was to set a priority for this legislative item. The
LOC decided this should be a medium priority.
5/6/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Jennifer Webster, Clorissa Leeman,
Grace Elliott, Kristal Hill, Fawn Cottrell. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss next
steps in gathering information related to the authority to adopt amendments to the Higher
Education Scholarship Law.
7/30/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Mistylee Herzog,
Jacqueline Smith, Fawn Billie, Fawn Cottrell, Kristal Hill, Maureen Perkins, Clorissa
Leeman, Mark Powless, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to strategize on how
to resume work on developing the Higher Education law with new leadership in the Higher
Education department.
9/10/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen, Mark Powless,
Clorissa Leeman, Kristal Hill, Maureen Perkins, Fawn Cottrell, Grace Elliott. The purpose
of this meeting was to revisit how the Higher Education law came to be on the Active Files
List and to review both the distinctions and connections between the relevant resolutions and
the preliminary allocation of terms included in the draft Law.
1/6/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen, Marlon Skenandore,
Jenny Webster, Mark Powless, Jackie Smith, Misty Herzog, Clorissa Leeman, Carolyn
Salutz, Fawn Billie, Fawn Cottrell, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to review
the draft Higher Education Rules.
1/31/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Marlon Skenandore, Misty
Herzog, Jackie Smith, Mark Powless, Fawn Billie, Fawn Cottrell, Kristal Hill, Maureen
Perkins, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to organize criteria contained in the
Resolutions creating the Higher Education Scholarship.
2/7/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen,
Marlon Skenandore, Mistylee Herzog, Jackie Smith, Mark Powless, Maureen Perkins, Grace
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 3 of 4
~
ONEIDA
7 of 313
Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to clarify and evaluate criteria for the Higher
Education Grant.
3/4/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Kirby Metoxen, Jennifer Webster, Jackie Smith,
Misty Lee Herzog, Grace Elliott, Kristal Hill, Fawn Billie. The purpose of this meeting was
to review the probation and suspension sections of the Higher Education Handbook.
4/28/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Marlon Skenandore, Mark Powless,
Jackie Smith, Misty Lee Herzog, Fawn Billie, Fawn Cottrell, Kristal Hill, Grace Elliott. The
purpose of this meeting was to begin review of the topics drafted as essential to the draft law
and rule.
5/22/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Misty Herzog, Mark Powless, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this
meeting was to discuss the details of how Higher Ed determines the amount of funding to
allocate to each applicant.
7/1/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Misty Herzog, Mark Powless, Jameson Wilson, Marlon Skenandore,
Fawn Cottrell, Kristal Hill, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss what
unit of measurement is most accurate and efficient for determining the length of funding
available to an applicant.
8/15/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Misty Herzog, Mark Powless, Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster,
Jonas Hill, Marlon Skenandore, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to complete
a read through of the draft law.
9/3/25 LOC:
Motion by Jonas Hill to approve the draft Higer Education Grant Law; seconded by Jennifer
Webster. Motion carried unanimously.
9/17/25 LOC: Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Misty Herzog, Clorissa Leeman,
Grace Elliott, Carolyn Salutz. Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the legislative analysis;
seconded by Jonas Hill. Motion carried unanimously.
9/17/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Kirby Metoxen, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill,
Carolyn Salutz, Clorissa Leeman, Kristal Hill, R.C. Metoxen, Grace Elliott. The purpose of
this meeting was to review non substantive edits to Higher Education Grant draft law to
improve clarity.
9/17/25:
Community Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Kirby
Metoxen, Oneida Community Members. The purpose of this meeting was to listen to
questions, comments, and concerns from community members about the Higher Education
Scholarship.
10/1/25 LOC: Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen, Clorissa Leeman,
Carolyn Salutz, Grace Elliott. Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the updated draft
Higher Education Grant law and public meeting packet for the Higher Education Grant law
and schedule a public meeting to be held on November 14, 2025; seconded by Jonas Hill.
Motion carried unanimously.
Next Steps:
▪
Accept the public comment review memorandum for the proposed Higher Education Grant
law and defer to a work meeting for consideration.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 4 of 4
~
ONEIDA
8 of 313
Oneida Nation
Legislative Operating Committee
Legislative Reference Office
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
Oneida-nsn.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
r'\.
=DODDDD=
ONEIDA
Legislative Operating Committee (LOC)
Grace Elliott, Legislative Reference Office, Staff Attorney
December 17, 2025
Higher Education Grant Law: Public Comment Review
On November 14, 2025, a public meeting was held regarding the proposed to the Oneida Higher
Education Grant law. Three (3) individuals provided comments during the public meeting. The
public comment period was then held open until November 21, 2025. One (1) person submitted
comments during the comment period. This memorandum is submitted as a review of the
comments received during the public comment period. The public meeting draft, public meeting
transcript, and written comments received are attached to this memorandum for review.
Comment 1 – Authority:
903.2. Adoption, Amendment, Repeal
903.2-1. This law was adopted by the Oneida Business Committee by resolution BC- - - - .
903.2-2. This law may be amended or repealed by the Oneida Business Committee or the
General Tribal Council pursuant to the procedures set out in the Legislative Procedures
Act.
903.2-3. Should a provision of this law or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances be held invalid, such invalidity does not affect other provisions of this law
which are considered to have legal force without the invalid portions.
903.2-4. In the event of a conflict between this law and a provision of another law of the
Nation, the provisions of this law shall control.
903.2-5. This law is adopted under the authority of the Constitution of the Oneida Nation.
Gina Powless Buenrostro (oral): Higher education, OK, higher education. So getting to higher
education, I want to say this as far as the funding, I know that they need more funding and I'm
glad that they are developing different type of rules and such. But again, this was the higher
education and the tribe having a fun higher education that was also a decision that was made by a
general tribal council and so they went, they all had, they went ahead and approved that motion.
But what I would like to see this also go back, this go back to GTC and even if it's for my minute
things. That it should still, you should still lay it on the table for general tribal council. You guys
have three people here, but in general tribal council you have over 2000. I feel more comfortable
letting 2000 make that decision than I say three people or if three people didn't show. Then the
subcommittee of the business committee, which is yourself and whoever that runs a LOC, then
you guys make that on your own without general tribal council coming in and say, hey, no, we
don't want that. We never wanted it. Who made that rule?
So the law and the rulemaking process really relies heavily on people showing up to these little
meetings that you have and you guys know from in the history of having these meetings, you
don't get good turnouts. You don't get a fair representation of general tribal council. If we have
17,000 members and you get 3 at this meeting tomorrow, if you had another meeting, maybe got
Page 1 of 16
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
9 of 313
four, the next meeting you get 10. That still does not represent the minimal amount that we. I
have showing up for GTC meetings is right around 2000. So I just feel like it's a very unfair
representation and I'm not trying to offend the people that did work on this. They're employed 40
hours a week. They're doing work on these laws, changes, amendments and this, that, the other
figure out a way to include our entire voting body. On these amendments, figure out a way
instead of like getting the work done and presenting it to two or three people. Figure out how we
can do that for general tribal council. Put that on the task list for your departments that you guys
employ all year long and then they can figure out ways and strategize methods to make sure that
we have like a really fair representation of general tribal council here.
Lisa Summers (oral): Let's get something for higher education.
All right. Good afternoon. I am Lisa Summers. I am here as an individual tribal member and
participant, former participant of the higher education program, as well as the parent of several
students who are currently in the program. So I'll be commenting on that law.
First and foremost, I just want to say that I do appreciate the effort that the Legislative Operating
Committee is making towards putting something in a more solid format for the members to be
able to provide information, input and guidance on. I think that the proposed changes and
updates to what is currently being published is actually a step in the right direction and I think
overall is good progress.
There are a few things, though, that I think need to be taken into consideration with the adoption
of this law. And then mostly, even though it's not part of the actual law that's being adopted, most
of my comments are going to be related to the rulemaking process and the handbook and the other
things that go along with it.
Response
One commenter emphasized that decisions about higher education funding were originally
approved by the General Tribal Council (GTC) and they believe any amendments or rule changes
should also be presented to GTC for broader representation. They noted that low attendance at
LOC meetings does not reflect the full voting body and urged the development of strategies to
ensure fair participation. Conversely, another commenter appreciates the LOC’s efforts to
formalize the law and viewed the proposed updates as positive progress but stressed the
importance of aligning the law with the rulemaking process and handbook to maintain clarity and
consistency.
The Higher Education Scholarship program was established by the General Tribal Council
(GTC) in 1996 through resolutions that created the program and set eligibility requirements,
GPA standards, and funding limits. Over the following years, GTC adopted additional
resolutions to refine funding tiers and academic requirements.
Beginning in 2001, the Oneida Business Committee (OBC) issued amendments to address
specific program needs under special resolution authority, due to GTC’s inability to achieve
quorum.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 2 of 16
~
ONEIDA
10 of 313
In 2010, GTC took formal action to ratify all prior OBC amendments and explicitly delegated
authority to the OBC to make future amendments to the Higher Education Scholarship program,
with the condition that notice of any changes be provided to GTC at the next Annual or SemiAnnual Meetings through the adoption of GTC Resolution 01-30-10-A. This resolution
represents an official delegation of authority by GTC.
This history is critical because it confirms that the OBC’s authority to amend the program is
explicitly granted by GTC through official resolution.
The LOC, pursuant to the Legislative Procedures Act, is now exercising its role to draft a Higher
Education Grant law for adoption by the OBC, with notice to GTC as required.
This process is functioning exactly as GTC directed: the OBC has the delegated authority to
amend the program, and the LOC is formalizing the program into law to improve transparency,
consistency, and accountability. The proposed law will replace the current system, which is
housed in a complex handbook, with a clear legal framework that reflects the program’s
evolution over the past 30 years.
No revisions to the proposed law are recommended based on these comments. The LOC will
ensure that notice to GTC occurs as required by the resolutions granting authority.
LOC Consideration
Comment 2 – Duplicate and Lesser Degrees:
903.5. Higher Education Grant
903.5-1. Eligibility Requirements. To be eligible for a Higher Education Grant award, a
student shall:
(e) be pursuing a degree in a higher funding tier than any previously earned degree,
unless unused credits remain within the funding cap of their current degree tier
pursuant to 903.5-2.
903.5-2. Length of Funding. The following are the maximum credit allocations for grant
funding:
(a) ninety (90) credits for an associate degree, vocational or certificate program.
(b) one hundred fifty (150) credits for an undergraduate degree.
(c) sixty (60) credits for a graduate degree.
(d) one hundred twenty (120) credits for a doctoral degree.
903.5-3. Students who have not used the maximum credit allocation under their highest
degree earned tier may remain in that tier up to the credit limit.
Lisa Summers (oral): In 903.5 on the higher education grant, another piece of this that I I
vehemently disagree with is the inability to pursue and be assisted with pursuing multiple
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 3 of 16
~
ONEIDA
11 of 313
degrees. I understand why this was done in the very beginning in 1996 when this was first taking
place. But over the years and different events that have happened throughout the last several
decades, including the most recent one that happened with COVID, has only proven that there is
times in people's lives when they need to adjust careers or they need to adjust what they're
pursuing in order to be successful in another industry or things like that. So there's just things
that happen in the economy. Other things that would require a person to have the ability to have
that support moving forward. So I think that there's a way for the LOC to be able to figure out
what that looks like. Maybe it's a partial funding, maybe it's limited funding, maybe it's
something else, but I think that just strictly prohibiting.
An alternative or duplicate duplicate level degree is something that needs to be reconsidered.
Thomas Reed (written): Shekoli Oneida LOC, I would like to submit a public comment
regarding the proposed amendments to the Higher Education Grant Law.
In reference to 903.5-1 Eligibility Requirements, Section e:
“be pursuing a degree in a higher funding tier than any previously earned degree, unless unused
credits remain within the funding cap of their current degree tier pursuant to 903.5-2.”
I propose adding the following amendment:
“A student who has completed a doctoral degree (PhD) may be eligible to pursue a professional
doctoral degree, such as a JD or MD, with up to 120 units of funding. This funding may be
awarded at full-time or part-time status and shall include eligibility for Online or Hybrid JD
Programs in addition to in-person residency programs.”
I believe this addition would strengthen the Oneida Nation by expanding educational
opportunities for our Tribal members and supporting pathways to leadership and self-sufficiency.
This aligns with the Mission Statement of Oneida Higher Education, which promotes “a goal
toward self-sufficiency.”
Yawʌ́·ko for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further
clarification.
Take care,
Dr. Thomas “TJ” Reed
Lukwe’tiyó | “He is a Good Man”
Member of the Oneida Nation, Turtle Clan
Response
The prohibition on pursuing duplicate or lesser degrees originates from the foundational
resolutions adopted by the General Tribal Council (GTC) when the Higher Education
Scholarship program was created in 1996. These resolutions explicitly restricted funding for
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 4 of 16
~
ONEIDA
12 of 313
multiple degrees at the same level, and the proposed Higher Education Grant law seeks to remain
aligned with those core structures and requirements.
The Legislative Operating Committee (LOC) carefully considered the need for flexibility in
pursuing additional degrees, particularly in light of changing economic conditions and career
shifts. While maintaining the foundational principle of avoiding unrestricted funding for
duplicate degrees, the LOC has incorporated a significant modification to provide fairness and
adaptability. Specifically, the proposed law transitions from a time-based funding model to a
credit-based allocation system, allowing students who complete a degree using fewer credits than
the maximum allocation to apply remaining credits toward a duplicate degree within the same
tier.
This approach honors the original intent of the program as established by GTC while introducing
flexibility for students who may need to adjust career paths. It also ensures accountability and
transparency by setting clear credit limits for each degree tier rather than extending funding
indefinitely. Regarding the suggestion to create an exception for professional doctoral degrees
(e.g., JD or MD) after earning a PhD, while acknowledging the value such degrees can bring to
the Nation, the LOC determined that maintaining consistency with the credit-based structure is
the most equitable solution at this time. Students who have unused credits within the doctoral tier
may apply those credits toward another doctoral program, including professional degrees, under
the proposed law.
This change represents meaningful progress toward the commenters’ goals by introducing
flexibility where none previously existed, while preserving fairness and accountability. It
provides a pathway for students to pursue additional educational opportunities without
abandoning the foundational structure of the program.
No revisions to the proposed law are recommended based on this comment.
LOC Consideration
Comment 3 – Probation and Suspension:
903.3. Definitions
903.3-1. This section governs the definitions of words and phrases used within this law. All
words not defined herein are to be used in their ordinary and everyday sense.
(m) “Probation” means the term during which students must improve their GPA to
meet the eligibility criteria for Higher Education Grant funding, pursuant to 903.51(f). A student placed on probation by the Higher Education Office shall continue to
receive funding for one (1) term, during which they are required to regain
eligibility.
903.5. Higher Education Grant
903.5-4. Probation. Students may be placed on probation for failure to earn the required
GPA if their GPA falls between:
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 5 of 16
~
ONEIDA
13 of 313
(a) 1.0-1.9 for associate degree, vocational, certificate program, and undergraduate
students.
(b) 2.0-2.9 for graduate students.
Lisa Summers (oral): So I'll I'll try to go as quickly as I can and I will submit written comments
for those things that I'm not able to get in with my 5 minutes. So the first thing I wanted to just
note overall, there's a there's a lot of conversation that happens in the handbook and a provision
in the section of the law that talks about what happens if a student finds themself on probation or
suspension and it talks about paying back or how they rectify those types of things and to get
reinstated into the program, which is great. There should always be that process. I think one of
the things that should also be disclosed is that there's a forgiveness process on in the tribes books
as well that students have the ability to use and that's not readily disclosed within this process.
And I think that's something that needs to be noted probably within the handbook at some point.
But one of the things that I know has taken place with several individuals and you know, I don't
have the exact numbers on it, I just know from personal experience and from others that have
shared their information is that once they become, once their student does what they need to do
to get off suspension or probation and they do their paybacks and things like that, one of the
things that still happens is that term in which caused the probation or suspension still counts
towards their total number of terms.
Now it looks like according to the law that you're shifting from term specific to credit specific.
So I think that would get resolved underneath there. I would just hate to see that type of
penalization also take place in the handbook itself once that turnover happens. So just something
to keep in mind that that inadvertently doesn't doesn't end up in a transfer of credits as well. So if
a student ends up having to pay back their credits or pay back a specific set amount or whatever,
that it doesn't count towards their total. And I think that's the point I'm trying to make there. The
other part of this is one of the things that happens in the.
Response
The suspension provision referenced by the commenter is part of the current Higher Education
Handbook, which includes detailed rules for suspension and repayment options when students
fail to meet academic requirements. Under that system, students could be placed on suspension
for low GPA or failure to complete funded credits, and reinstatement often required either
completing credits without program funding or repaying the grant for the term in question.
The proposed Higher Education Grant law does not include a suspension provision. Instead, it
establishes clear eligibility and ineligibility standards and introduces probation as the only
academic warning status. Under the proposed law, students who fall below the required GPA but
remain within the probation range will continue to receive funding for one term to regain
eligibility. If a student becomes ineligible, they would simply need to reestablish eligibility by
meeting the program’s standards before receiving additional funding. There is no requirement to
repay funds for failed terms under the proposed law.
However, any credits funded by the program—whether successfully completed or not—will
count toward the student’s total credit allocation for their degree tier. This ensures accountability
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 6 of 16
~
ONEIDA
14 of 313
while removing punitive measures such as repayment or suspension, which were part of the
previous handbook system.
This change reflects the LOC’s intent to simplify the process, reduce administrative burden, and
provide a fair and transparent structure for students while maintaining academic standards
No revisions to the proposed law are recommended based on this comment.
LOC Consideration
Comment 4 – General Welfare Exclusion:
Carl Artman (oral): Good afternoon, everybody. Carl Artman with the Oneida Law Office.
Wanted I had a comment on the Oneida Higher Education Grant Law. I recommend that the
Higher Education Grant Law include a provision stating that the Higher Education Grant is a
general welfare exclusion in accordance with Title 10 of the Oneida Code of Laws, specifically
Chapter 1001 or 1001. I think the section could be inserted after 903.5 in the current draft of the
Higher Education Grant Law, and then of course insert requisite definitions. Make it easier.
Thank you. Thank you.
Response
Commenter recommends adding a provision to the Higher Education Grant Law stating that the
grant qualifies as a general welfare exclusion under Title 10 of the Oneida Code of Laws
(Chapter 1001). He suggests inserting this section after 903.5 in the current draft and including
the necessary definitions to support it.
The Legislative Operating Committee may make one of the following determinations regarding
these comments:
1. The Legislative Operating Committee may determine that the Law should
remain as currently drafted.
2. The Legislative Operating Committee may determine that the draft law should be
amended to include the following:
903.5-6. General Welfare Exclusion. The Oneida Nation Higher Education Grant meets the
requirements of the General Test as defined in the Oneida General Welfare law; General Criteria
as defined in I.R.S. Rev. Proc. 2014-35, section 5; and the requirements of the Tribal General
Welfare Exclusion Act of 2014, 26 U.S.C. §139E(b). The assistance provided through the
Oneida Nation Higher Education Grant is:
(a) paid on behalf of the Nation;
(b) pursuant to an approved program of the Nation;
(c) does not discriminate in favor of members of the governing body of the Nation;
(d) available to any eligible member of the Nation who meets the guidelines of the
approved program;
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 7 of 16
~
ONEIDA
15 of 313
(e) provided for the promotion of general welfare;
(f) not lavish or extravagant;
(g) not compensation for services; and
(h) not a per capita payment.
LOC Consideration
Comment 5 – Appeals:
903.7. Appeals
903.7-1. Appeal Process and Requirements. An appeal is a request for review of a grant
decision made by the Higher Education Office, in which the student must demonstrate that
the Higher Education Office failed to comply with this law or the Higher Education
Student Rulebook. A student may appeal a grant decision made by the Higher Education
Office within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of the decision the student is appealing.
Lisa Summers (oral): The other thing that I think I wanted to share with you guys is that I feel
like in the appeals section right now the current appeals process is 30. The student has to file
within 30 days.
In the law, it's being pared back to 20 days, and I feel like it should remain at 30 days. One of the
things I know, especially for students who are not, who who decide that they're going to stay in
school despite funding, maybe they're pursuing loans or they get other assistance from
somewhere else. They pay out of pocket, but while they're in the appeals process. They might be
actually at their institution and if the information is being communicated over their mailing
information, it might take longer for that student to actually receive the information that their
notice that they've been suspended or probation and the appeal back and forth and things like
that. I know for myself with my students that I currently have in place. All of their information
comes to our home, which is where they reside, which is rightfully so. But then it might take a
week or two for them to actually get the information from get mailed to our home and then get
back to them in their place of schooling. So you know, people who don't have a good support
system might end up missing that 20 day window and I think the 30 days is more appropriate.
And then also in general correlating between the rulemaking, the handbook and all of the
information that's been provided. I think that the rulemaking here has to go hand in hand with the
actual passing of the law. I think that's the other thing I'm going to encourage.
Response
Commenter recommends keeping the appeals filing deadline at 30 days instead of reducing it to
20 days. Shortening the timeframe could disadvantage students who remain enrolled without
funding and rely on mail for notifications, as delays in receiving suspension or probation notices
may cause them to miss the deadline. She emphasizes that 30 days is more reasonable and urges
alignment between the law, rulemaking, and handbook to ensure consistency.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 8 of 16
~
ONEIDA
16 of 313
The Higher Education Office was consulted regarding this recommendation. They confirmed that
maintaining a 30-day appeals deadline would not create an administrative burden and expressed
agreement with revising the law to reflect a 30-day timeframe.
The Legislative Operating Committee may make one of the following determinations regarding
this comment:
1. The Legislative Operating Committee may determine that the Law should
remain as currently drafted.
2. The Legislative Operating Committee may determine that the proposed law should
be amended as follows:
903.7. Appeals
903.7-1. Appeal Process and Requirements. An appeal is a request for review of a grant
decision made by the Higher Education Office, in which the student must demonstrate that the
Higher Education Office failed to comply with this law or the Higher Education Student
Rulebook. A student may appeal a grant decision made by the Higher Education Office within
twenty (20) thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the decision the student is appealing.
LOC Consideration
Comment 6 – Licensing Exams:
903.5. Higher Education Grant
903.5-1. Eligibility Requirements. To be eligible for a Higher Education Grant award, a
student shall:
(a) be an enrolled member of the Nation.
(b) be enrolled in an accredited postsecondary vocational program, college, or
university.
(c) complete the Higher Education Student File with the Higher Education Office.
(d) comply with FAFSA standards.
(e) be pursuing a degree in a higher funding tier than any previously earned degree,
unless unused credits remain within the funding cap of their current degree tier
pursuant to 903.5-2.
(f) meet GPA requirements, as follows:
(1) associate degree, vocational or certificate program must maintain a GPA
of 2.0
(2) undergraduate students must maintain a GPA of 2.0
(3) graduate students must maintain a GPA of 3.0
(4) doctoral must maintain a GPA of 3.0; except where:
(i) The school’s grading policy considers professional doctoral
students (MDs and JDs) to be in good academic standing even with a
GPA below 3.0.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 9 of 16
~
ONEIDA
17 of 313
(5) apprenticeship/certificate/license students must maintain academic
progress and submit scheduled/monthly progress reports.
903.5-2. Length of Funding. The following are the maximum credit allocations for grant
funding:
(a) ninety (90) credits for an associate degree, vocational or certificate program.
(b) one hundred fifty (150) credits for an undergraduate degree.
(c) sixty (60) credits for a graduate degree.
(d) one hundred twenty (120) credits for a doctoral degree.
903.5-3. Students who have not used the maximum credit allocation under their highest
degree earned tier may remain in that tier up to the credit limit.
Gina Powless Buenrostro (oral): OK, Gina Powless Buenrostro. So I wanted to hopefully this
goes to GTC.
However, my comment was about prohibiting people that are taking testings. I don't know if
higher ed covers that or not, but to prohibit more than one time. So what I'm referring to is when
you have people that graduate from law school that not in Wisconsin and they're taking this law
test, the state bar, and they're they're taking it multiple times and not passing. And I think some
individual departments are actually paying for those tests and I think that's really unfair and I'm
I'm not sure why it's not under the authority of higher Ed because it's a educational like you have
to pass a test in order to be call yourself an attorney or whatever in order to practice law. And so
we have several attorneys within the tribe that you know they they haven't been able to pass a
stop the state bar.
But I think it's OK that the tribe pay for one test.And then after that, if you can't pass it 3-4 or
five times, it's ridiculous that we're paying for that. And so I think they should only pay for one.
An individual department should not be covering that expense. That's a higher Ed type of
function so that we're not getting so the the manipulation is that individual departments might be
paying for multiple and multiple state bar exams that individuals can't pass, and I don't think we
should be doing it. I think that's a system that should be run through higher Ed. They monitor
everybody's education, they pay for every everyone's education, and I think that should include
those state bar exams.
Thank you.
Response
The commenter raised concerns about individuals taking professional licensing examinations,
such as state bar exams, multiple times after graduating from law school. The commenter
suggested limiting funding to a single attempt and recommended that oversight of these expenses
be placed under Higher Education to ensure fairness and prevent departments from bearing
repeated costs.
Professional licensing examinations, including state bar exams, fall outside the scope of the Higher
Education Grant law. This legislation is specifically designed to support degree programs at
accredited institutions, not post-graduation testing or certification expenses. Expanding the law to
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 10 of 16
~
ONEIDA
18 of 313
include such costs would represent a significant departure from its original purpose and undermine
its foundational intent.
Oversight of professional exam-related expenses has historically remained with individual
departments or other designated programs, and this structure ensures that the Higher Education
program remains focused on its core mission: facilitating access to higher education. Incorporating
licensing exams into this framework would not only dilute the program’s objectives but also create
administrative and financial complexities that were never envisioned when the Higher Education
scholarship program was established.
While other programs may address these costs, the Legislative Operating Committee (LOC) has
expressed its commitment to preserving the integrity and clarity of the Higher Education Grant
law. Maintaining its original scope ensures fairness, sustainability, and alignment with the
program’s intended purpose.
No revisions to the proposed law are recommended based on this comment.
LOC Consideration
Comment 7 – For-Profit Colleges:
903.5. Higher Education Grant
903.5-1. Eligibility Requirements. To be eligible for a Higher Education Grant award, a
student shall:
(a) be an enrolled member of the Nation.
(b) be enrolled in an accredited postsecondary vocational program, college, or
university.
(c) complete the Higher Education Student File with the Higher Education Office.
(d) comply with FAFSA standards.
(e) be pursuing a degree in a higher funding tier than any previously earned degree,
unless unused credits remain within the funding cap of their current degree tier
pursuant to 903.5-2.
(f) meet GPA requirements, as follows:
(1) associate degree, vocational or certificate program must maintain a GPA
of 2.0
(2) undergraduate students must maintain a GPA of 2.0
(3) graduate students must maintain a GPA of 3.0
(4) doctoral must maintain a GPA of 3.0; except where:
(i) The school’s grading policy considers professional doctoral students
(MDs and JDs) to be in good academic standing even with a GPA below
3.0.
(5) apprenticeship/certificate/license students must maintain academic
progress and submit scheduled/monthly progress reports.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 11 of 16
~
ONEIDA
19 of 313
Gina Powless Buenrostro (oral): So with that being said, I wanted to say I don't think in the
future my comment for this is that we should be funding these private colleges, these online chat
room colleges. I don't think that our higher Ed money should be funding that they should be
going to the public, University of Wisconsin, whatever public system, but not the private
colleges, the for profit. Let me let me for profit colleges. I don't think we should be putting our
money there. I think that it's a waste of money. I think that they rip us off in terms of what they're
charging us for all these private colleges and online chat room colleges.
They're just taking our money and giving people degrees and I don't think that's fair for how we
spend our money. Like I would, I would want our membership if they're getting educated, like
really be educated so you can use it and you can execute it in a way that's meaningful for
yourself and for the tribe. But so I'm really against funding private colleges or for-profit colleges.
And I'm also, I think anything with this also should go to General Tribal Council. Thank you.
Thank you. Yep.
Response
The commenter expressed strong opposition to funding private, for-profit colleges, including
online institutions, through the Higher Education Grant program. They believe funding should be
limited to public institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin system, and stated concerns
that for-profit colleges overcharge and provide degrees of questionable value. The commenter
suggested this issue should be considered by the General Tribal Council.
The Legislative Operating Committee (LOC) discussed the issue of for-profit colleges
extensively during work sessions. After reviewing research and receiving guidance, the LOC
determined that the most equitable approach is to allow for-profit institutions to remain eligible if
they meet all other requirements of the law, including accreditation. This decision reflects
several considerations:
•
•
•
There are both reputable and disreputable for-profit institutions, and differentiating
between them would be administratively burdensome and difficult to enforce.
Many Oneida students are currently enrolled in for-profit schools, and excluding them
could create significant barriers to completing their education.
Certain professions, such as cosmetology, are primarily offered through for-profit
institutions; excluding these schools would effectively eliminate entire career pathways
for Tribal members.
The LOC has, in work sessions, considered public concerns and the negative press surrounding
some for-profit schools. However, the proposed law addresses these concerns by requiring
accreditation and other eligibility standards, ensuring accountability and quality. This approach
maintains flexibility for students while safeguarding program integrity through clear eligibility
requirements.
No revisions to the proposed law are recommended based on this comment.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 12 of 16
~
ONEIDA
20 of 313
LOC Consideration
Comment 8 – Rulemaking:
903.3. Definitions
(n) “Rule” means a set of requirements, enacted by the Oneida Higher Education Office in
accordance with the Administrative Rulemaking law based on authority delegated in this
law to implement, interpret and enforce this law.
903.4. Higher Education Office
903.4-1. The Higher Education Office shall award grants in accordance with the provisions
of this law.
903.4-2. Administrative Rulemaking. The Oneida Higher Education Office shall be
delegated rulemaking authority in accordance with the Administrative Rulemaking law to
promulgate rules to govern the administration of the Higher Education Grant program
and shall make such rules and regulations available in the Higher Education Student
Rulebook. The rules promulgated by the Higher Education Office shall at a minimum
address:
(1) The Higher Education Student File clearly describing the documents required to
complete the Higher Education Student File.
(2) Funding
(a) how funding periods are calculated.
(b) cap amounts for the following tiers:
(i) associate degree, vocational or certificate program.
(ii) undergraduate degree.
(iii) graduate degree.
(iv) doctoral degree.
(3) Clearly describe application requirements and process.
(4) Clearly describe the appeals process.
(5) Additional rules may be promulgated, provided they do not conflict with any
provision of this law.
Lisa Summers (oral): Let's get something for higher education. All right. Good afternoon. I am
Lisa Summers. I am here as an individual tribal member and participant, former participant of
the higher education program, as well as the parent of several students who are currently in the
program. So I'll be commenting on that law.
First and foremost, I just want to say that I do appreciate the effort that the Legislative Operating
Committee is making towards putting something in a more solid format for the members to be
able to provide information, input and guidance on. I think that the proposed changes and
updates to what is currently being published is actually a step in the right direction and I think
overall is good progress.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 13 of 16
~
ONEIDA
21 of 313
There are a few things, though, that I think need to be taken into consideration with the adoption
of this law. And then mostly, even though it's not part of the actual law that's being adopted,
most of my comments are going to be related to the rulemaking process and the handbook and
the other things that go along with it.
So I'll I'll try to go as quickly as I can and I will submit written comments for those things that
I'm not able to get in with my 5 minutes. So the first thing I wanted to just note overall, there's a
there's a lot of conversation that happens in the handbook and a provision in the section of the
law that talks about what happens if a student finds themself on probation or suspension and it
talks about paying back or how they rectify those types of things and to get reinstated into the
program, which is great. There should always be that process. I think one of the things that
should also be disclosed is that there's a forgiveness process on in the tribes books as well that
students have the ability to use and that's not readily disclosed within this process. And I think
that's something that needs to be noted probably within the handbook at some point. But one of
the things that I know has taken place with several individuals and you know, I don't have the
exact numbers on it, I just know from personal experience and from others that have shared their
information is that once they become, once their student does what they need to do to get off
suspension or probation and they do their paybacks and things like that, one of the things that
still happens is that term in which caused the probation or suspension still counts towards their
total number of terms.
Now it looks like according to the law that you're shifting from term specific to credit specific.
So I think that would get resolved underneath there. I would just hate to see that type of
penalization also take place in the handbook itself once that turnover happens. So just something
to keep in mind that that inadvertently doesn't. Doesn't end up in a transfer of credits as well. So
if a student ends up having to pay back their credits or pay back a specific set amount or
whatever, that it doesn't count towards their total. And I think that's the point I'm trying to make
there. The other part of this is one of the things that happens in the in 903.5 on the higher
education grant, another piece of this that I I vehemently disagree with is the inability to pursue
and be assisted with pursuing multiple degrees. I understand why this was done in the very
beginning in 1996 when this was first taking place.
But over the years and different events that have happened throughout the last several decades,
including the most recent one that happened with COVID, has only proven that there is times in
people's lives when they need to adjust careers or they need to adjust what they're pursuing in
order to be successful in another industry or things like that. So there's just things that happen in
the economy. Other things that would require a person to have the ability to have that support
moving forward. So I think that there's a way for the LOC to be able to figure out what that looks
like. Maybe it's a partial funding, maybe it's limited funding, maybe it's something else, but I
think that just strictly prohibiting an alternative or duplicate duplicate level degree is something
that needs to be reconsidered.
The other thing that I think I wanted to share with you guys is that I feel like in the appeals
section right now the current appeals process is 30. The student has to file within 30 days. In the
law, it's being pared back to 20 days, and I feel like it should remain at 30 days. One of the
things I know, especially for students who are not, who who decide that they're going to stay in
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 14 of 16
~
ONEIDA
22 of 313
school despite funding, maybe they're pursuing loans or they get other assistance from
somewhere else. They pay out of pocket, but while they're in the appeals process they might be
actually at their institution and if the information is being communicated over their mailing
information, it might take longer for that student to actually receive the information that their
notice that they've been suspended or probation and the appeal back and forth and things like
that. I know for myself with my students that I currently have in place all of their information
comes to our home, which is where they reside, which is rightfully so. But then it might take a
week or two for them to actually get the information from get mailed to our home and then get
back to them in their place of schooling. So you know, people who don't have a good support
system might end up missing that 20 day window and I think the 30 days is more appropriate.
And then also in general correlating between the rulemaking, the handbook and all of the
information that's been provided. I think that the rulemaking here has to go hand in hand with the
actual passing of the law. I think that's the other thing I'm going to encourage.
Gina Powless Buenrostro (oral): Higher education, OK, higher education. So getting to higher
education, I want to say this as far as the funding, I know that they need more funding and I'm
glad that they are developing different type of rules and such. But again, this was the higher
education and the tribe having a fun higher education that was also a decision that was made by a
general tribal council and so they went, they all had, they went ahead and approved that motion.
But what I would like to see this also go back, this go back to GTC and even if it's for my minute
things. That it should still, you should still lay it on the table for general tribal council. You guys
have three people here, but in general tribal council you have over 2000. I feel more comfortable
letting 2000 make that decision than I say three people or if three people didn't show. Then the
subcommittee of the business committee, which is yourself and whoever that runs a LOC, then
you guys make that on your own without general tribal council coming in and say, hey, no, we
don't want that. We never wanted it. Who made that rule?
Response
One Commenter expressed appreciation for the LOC’s efforts to formalize the Higher Education
Grant law but emphasized the importance of aligning the law with the rulemaking process and
handbook. Commenter noted concerns about how probation, suspension, and repayment
provisions will transition from the handbook to the new law, and encouraged transparency
regarding processes such as forgiveness. Commenter also highlighted the need to ensure that
credit-based funding does not inadvertently penalize students who repay funds or correct
deficiencies. Finally, commenter stressed that rulemaking should occur promptly and
consistently alongside the law’s adoption.
The Legislative Operating Committee (LOC) has, during work sessions, discussed the need for
consistency between the law and the rules governing program administration as critical.
Rulemaking has been carefully considered in tandem with the development of this law. The
proposed law includes provisions delegating rulemaking authority to the Higher Education
Office in accordance with the Administrative Rulemaking law (see Section 903.4-2). This
delegation is intended to ensure that detailed processes, including appeals, application
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 15 of 16
~
ONEIDA
23 of 313
requirements, and funding calculations, are addressed in rules that complement the law and
provide clarity for students and administrators.
The LOC has expressed the intention to support the Higher Education Office in implementing
these rules as soon as possible following adoption of the law, so that the transition from the
current handbook to a formal rulebook is smooth and consistent. This approach will maintain
transparency, uphold accountability, and ensure that operational details are properly documented
without overloading the law with administrative procedures.
One commenter raises concerns about decision-making authority and the role of the General
Tribal Council (GTC). The Higher Education Grant Law explicitly delegates rulemaking
authority to the Higher Education Office under Section 903.4-2. This delegation is not arbitrary;
it is grounded in the Administrative Rulemaking Law, Title 1, Chapter 106, which establishes a
transparent, democratic process for creating administrative rules. Under this law:
• Rulemaking authority must be granted by a law of the Nation [1 O.C. 106.4-1]. The
Higher Education Grant Law is that law.
• Rules developed under this process have the same force and effect as the law which
delegated the authority [1 O.C. 106.4-1(a)].
• The process includes public comment periods, public meetings, and certification by the
Legislative Operating Committee, followed by adoption by the Oneida Business
Committee (Sections 106.6–106.8).
• Rules cannot conflict with any law, policy, or resolution of the Nation, nor exceed the
authority granted by the law [1 O.C. 106.4-1(b), 106.7-2(c)].
This framework ensures that rulemaking is not done by a few people or in isolation. Instead, it
follows a structured process with checks and balances, including public input and oversight by
both the Legislative Operating Committee and the Business Committee. While GTC retains
ultimate legislative authority, the delegation of administrative rulemaking is a recognized and
lawful mechanism to allow programs to function efficiently without requiring GTC action on
operational details.
No revisions to the proposed law are recommended based on these comments.
LOC Consideration
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 16 of 16
~
ONEIDA
24 of 313
Oneida Nation
Oneida Business Committee
Legislative Operating Committee
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
Oneida-nsn.gov
~
ONEIDA
LEGISLATIVE OPERATING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC MEETING
Real Property Law Amendments
Higher Education Grant Law
Norbert Hill Business Committee Conference Room and Microsoft Teams
November 14, 2025
12:15 p.m.
Present: Jonas Hill, Grace Elliott, Lisa Summers, Gina Powless-Buenrostro, Fred Muscavitch,
Patricia Cornelieus, Tiana Silva, Misty Lee Herzog, Carolyn Salutz
Present on Microsoft Teams: Carl Artman
Jonas Hill: All right. Good Afternoon. Time is 12:15 p.m. and today’s date is Friday, November
14, 2025. I will now call to order the public meeting for the following two pieces of proposed
legislation: the proposed amendments to the REAL PROPERTY LAW and the proposed
HIGHER EDUCATION GRANT LAW.
The Legislative Operating Committee is hosting this public meeting to gather feedback from the
community regarding the legislative proposals. The public meeting is not a question and answer
period. The LOC will review and consider all comments received during the public comment
period. The LOC will respond to all comments received in a memorandum, which will be
submitted in the following materials of a future LOC meeting.
All persons who wish to present oral testimony in person need to register on the sign in sheet.
Individuals who wish to present oral testimony on Microsoft Teams, please raise your hand and
you will be called on. If you leave an email address on the sign in sheet or in the chat on Microsoft
Teams with your name, we can ensure you receive a copy of the public comment review
memorandum.
Additionally, written comments may be submitted to the Nation’s Secretary’s Office or to the
Legislative Reference Office in person, by U.S. mail, interoffice mail, e-mail or fax as provided
on the public meeting notice. These comments must be received by close of business on Friday,
November 21, 2025.
In attendance from the LOC is myself, Councilman Jonas Hill
The LOC may impose a time limit for all speakers pursuant to section 109.8-3(c) of the Legislative
Procedures Act. As the presiding LOC member, I am imposing a time limit of five minutes per
person. This time limit shall be applied equally to all persons.
We will now begin today’s public meeting for the two proposed legislative items. We will be
accepting comments on the proposed amendments to the Real Property Law.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of November 14, 2025
Page 1 of 14
25 of 313
The purpose of this law is to provide regulations and procedures for the transfer, control and
management of all Tribal land; and to integrate these regulations and procedures with the real
property laws and practices of other federal and state sovereigns which may hold concurrent
jurisdiction.
The Real Property Law amendments will:
▪ Limit the prohibition on selling Tribal land to parcels within 25 miles of the
Reservation’s boundaries. Exceptions include trust land consolidation, partition, and offReservation sales approved by resolution.
▪ Remove all probate-related provisions and definitions in anticipation of a standalone
Probate law.
▪ Transfer rulemaking and operational authority from the Land Commission to Land
Management, the Comprehensive Housing Division, and senior leadership. This includes
lease approvals, land use licensing, and policy development.
▪ Reinstate trespass provisions, and expand enforcement powers to include citations, fines,
and actions by Oneida police or wardens.
▪ Clarify the Nation’s use of eminent domain as a last resort, with a process for judicial
review.
▪ Clarify legal pathways for easements– by necessity, prescription, or written instruction,
instrument, excuse me. Adverse possession claims against the Nation are prohibited.
▪ Continue public access to land records through the Oneida Nation Register of Deeds,
subject to approved fees.
▪ Increase Land Management staffing for real estate acquisition and clarify responsibilities
for land care, leasing, and title management.
We will also be accepting comments on the proposed Higher Education Grant Law.
The purpose of this law is to implement the Higher Education Grant program; and set forth the
funding requirements and procedural controls for awarding Higher Education grants.
The Higher Education Grant Law will:
▪ Outline the parameters of the Higher Education Grant, including eligibility requirements,
duration of funding, tiered funding system, and the methodology for calculating awards
under various circumstances.
▪ Provide predictability and equity in funding; need-based flexibility; clear guidelines for
students; and administrative efficiency and accountability.
▪ Create a balanced, need-sensitive and goal oriented framework that supports students in
achieving higher education while maintaining fiscal responsibility and academic
accountability.
▪ Provide clear guidance and defined boundaries for administering the Higher Education
Grant.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 2 of 14
~
ONEIDA
26 of 313
▪
▪
Delegate rulemaking authority, empowering the Higher Education Office to promulgate
rules consistent with the Law to address practical and evolving implementation needs.
Provide that the duration of funding available is determined by both the students assigned
funding tier and the number of credits allocated to each tier.
Those who wish to speak please raise your hand. Please state your name when making a
comment and which law you are commenting on. So that, with that, I will open the floor up for
comments. First up to speak is…we’ll go in person first and then online, so raise your hand if
you would like to speak. All right, Gina. Yeah, so if you could just please come up to here,
umthere's a center button and then speak into the microphone, please.
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: Am I able to speak to both or at the same time or how's that
working? Are you taking one first or in this?
Jonas Hill: You can speak to separate. Yeah. So speak to one law and then
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: Which one are you talking about?
Jonas Hill: Whichever one you want to talk about.
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: OK, I'll start with the, I'll start with the real property amendments
that law. I do want to note for the staff here, I'm not sure if anyone does spell checks, but they're
spelling Oneida completely wrong and on at least on page 5, the whole page. When they say
Oneida, they're spelling it wrong. Just that's just a small thing that you guys probably just need to
clean up.
OK, so we talked about this amongst our Commission, but I'm here as my own sovereign person,
if you will. And so I'm going to say, first of all, that there's a ton of amendments to this proposed,
the proposed changes. And so I really am going to stand on this is that when we're using this
administrative rulemaking, OK, they started doing that I think in 2017, eighteen, whatever year it
was. It eliminates general tribal council from having any involvement. So I think when it pertains
to any type of a agency, department, whatever is created by general tribal council, then that
needs to go back to them when you're making all these so-called administrative rule making, ah,
using that in terms of how we're going to change law, because a lot of times when the laws
change and we have a finalized version of the law, nobody knows what it is. And I'll give you a
good example, like the termination and eviction law, the word nuisance is in the definitions. In
the definitions, that word gives the whatever, Housing Authority, whoever is doing the evictions,
it gives them the right to throw people off the land. And see, I wasn't clear about that. And that's
why I wanted clarity. Like, how does the Housing Authority or whoever have the authority to
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 3 of 14
~
ONEIDA
27 of 313
regulate who's on land and who's not on land? That's not their authority. I think that's the.
Land Commission and the land management.
OK. So with that being said, I don't think it ever changed. And that went through rulemaking.
And so that's how people were getting thrown out of their houses. They weren't saying, well, I'm
taking your house away. They're saying get off the land. And I think that's very misleading for
folks in their homes, and I don't know where that's at as far as how many have been evicted and
and kicked out of their houses and not, I want, I don't want to say kicked out, say kicked off the
land. So, so that's an inconsistency I think in that law because it's defined by a definition.
However in this one…
Jonas Hill: I think you’re speaking to eviction and termination, and this is the Real Property law.
Gina Powless Buenrostro: Okay, I was just using that as an example.
Jonas Hill: Okay.
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: That's what I was using it as, and I still think it's ineffectively
written in that law per se. No one changed it. It wasn't done, but whatever. I'm going to get back
to the real property laws.
So just based on the fundamental values of the tribe and how we communicate this process of the
LOCLRO, I'm not sure what title it goes by, but the way we're doing this administrative
rulemaking, it really interferes with our true governing body, which is General Tribal Council.
And if we go further back, that was clan mothers and the elders. Everybody in the tribe in the
community had a say. Thay had a say. Laws just weren't being passed without our knowledge.
Laws, you know, I know and I get that you guys hold these meetings. You have how many
people here like actually here from the community, not workers, not people that you employ, but
people that are interested. You have four or five of us and that's it.
You have department people, but they're here probably because it affects their job, their
departments, but actual community members, maybe 3 here. So when I say and speak to that,
that's the kind of, three people cannot control 17,000 members and laws that are being made. I
really believe that using administrative rulemaking is a hindrance. It's it's colonization to its
finest form because we're making laws without everybody having that input. And as we talked
earlier, the conversation went like this- Well, they know that it's posted. They could get here.Maybe they can't get here. Maybe they can't be here. Oh, well, they could write a letter. Maybe
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 4 of 14
~
ONEIDA
28 of 313
they don't even know what's happening. That gully only comes out once a month. So if you get
it, or if you haven't read it then you're kind of like you're out of the loop, so to speak. I'm going
to say that in a real nice way. You're out of the loop.
So, I think that I'm really against this rulemaking. I wanted to. I want laws to go back to the
general tribal council where it should go. They have the ultimate authority. They created the land
Commission, and so if they want the rules and they want to start eradicating our authority, let it
be them, but not the business committee or a subcommittee of the business committee. Let it be
General Tribal Council. They're the ones who created the Land Commission in 1941. And if they
feel that we're not doing our job or if they feel, that, it's easier in the process flows easier if it's
delegated to all the separate departments and let them be like rulemaking in their departments,
then so be it.
But I think ultimately all these changes that you have in here and I'm not going to go down one
by one, but all the changes that you have in here I believe are under the authority of general tribal
council to make and say no, we don't want that in there, yes we do, because I would suggest
more public meetings until we can address this in general tribal council or I would probably end
up filing a petition to redact rulemaking so that especially for entities that are govern and were
created by general tribal council. I think this process interferes with that authority and I feel that
the process also obstructs the authority of general tribal council and leaves general tribal council
out of any decision making. So I like we're bullying them into accepting these laws through rule
making. And that's how it feels. And I'm just giving you my perspective. I also think that shift...
Jonas Hill: Your time is up, by the way. So…
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: How much time did I have?
Jonas Hill: 5 minutes. But I will extend…
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: For that topic?
Jonas Hill: For that topic. Yeah.
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: Okay. Then I'll start on this one.
Jonas Hill: Okay. Higher Education.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 5 of 14
~
ONEIDA
29 of 313
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: Okay, higher education. So getting to higher education, um, I want
to say this as far as the funding, I know that they need more funding and I'm glad that they are
developing different type of rules and such.
But again, this was the higher education and the tribe having a fund higher education that was
also a decision that was made by a general tribal council and so they went, they went ahead and
approved that motion. But what I would like to see this also go back, this go back to GTC and
even if it's for my minute things. That it should still, you should still lay it on the table for
general tribal council.
You guys have three people here, but in general tribal council you have over 2000. I feel more
comfortable letting 2000 make that decision than I say three people or if three people didn't
show. Then the subcommittee of the business committee, which is yourself and whoever that
runs a LOC, then you guys make that on your own without general tribal council coming in and
say, hey, no, we don't want that. We never wanted it. Who made that rule?
So the law and the rulemaking process really relies heavily on people showing up to these little
meetings that you have and you guys know from in the history of having these meetings, you
don't get good turnouts. You don't get a fair representation of general tribal council. If we have
17,000 members and you get 3 at this meeting tomorrow, if you had another meeting, maybe got
four, the next meeting you get 10. That still does not represent the minimal amount that we have
showing up for GTC meetings is right around 2000.
So I just feel like it's a very unfair representation and I'm not trying to offend the people that did
work on this. They're employed 40 hours a week. They're doing work on these laws, changes,
amendments and this, that, the other figure out a way to include our entire voting body on these
amendments, figure out a way instead of like getting the work done and presenting it to two or
three people. Figure out how we can do that for general tribal council. Put that on the task list for
your departments that you guys employ all year long and then they can figure out ways and
strategize methods to make sure that we have like a really fair representation of general tribal
council here.
So with that being said, I wanted to say I don't think in the future my comment for this is that we
should be funding these private colleges, these online chat room colleges. I don't think that our
higher ed money should be funding that. They should be going to the public’s, you know public
University of Wisconsin, whatever public system, but not the private colleges, the for profit. Let
me let me for profit colleges. I don't think we should be putting our money there. I think that it's
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 6 of 14
~
ONEIDA
30 of 313
a waste of money. I think that they rip us off in terms of what they're charging us for all these
private colleges and online chat room colleges. Its, they're just taking our money and giving
people degrees and I don't think that's fair for how we spend our money. Like I would, I would
want our membership if they're getting educated, like really be educated so you can use it and
you can execute it in a way that's meaningful for yourself and for the tribe. But, um, so I'm really
against funding private colleges or for-profit colleges. And I'm also, I think anything with this
also should go to General Tribal Council. Thank you.
Jonas Hill: Thank you.
Gina Powless-Buenrostro: Yep.
Jonas Hill: Who’s… Alright, Pat. Alright. And just please state your name.
Fred Muscavitch: I am. I'm Doctor Frederick Muskovich and I'm here along with Gina and Pat
Cornelius, and we were voted to by the Land Commission to represent the Land Commission at
our Monday night meeting this week. That's my name. SO, you're going to start the 5 minutes?
All right. And I'm here to talk about the proposed amendments to the real property law.
Um, major concern is the Business Committee um, talks of transparency and ah laying things on
the table, and the Land Commission is concerned that the real property law amendments have
come out in the Land Commission has not been able to have any input on to this. Um, none of us
recall ever being invited to a meeting or asked for any kinds of input or consultation? Um.
So our timeline kind of was you, you've been working on this for a year or more, and the first
land Commission knows about it is that it was sent a letter dated October 1st was sent to the
Land Commission. And the Land Commission received it on November 10th. So on November
10th we received it, um did not have a lot of time to review it. And then we were told if you have
any concerns, you can come to a tentative hearing. Which is to what we're at today at at 12:15 on
November 14th. So we had four days.
Um, one of the things that Land Commission and action they took was to request our our
attorney to come up with a response to the amendments from the Land Commission's
perspective. And ah again, we had our meeting Monday night. A letter was developed on
Tuesday, was sent to the attorney, possibly Tuesday, maybe Wednesday morning. And here we
are two days later. So we do not see that as being transparent or giving anybody an opportunity.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 7 of 14
~
ONEIDA
31 of 313
Um, first, I'd like to start with that what Gina was saying, the Land Commission supports the
idea that perhaps rule making, the rule making law is used to avoid consultation. So if you're
writing about the land Commission or if you're like writing about um other committees or
commissions boards, they should be involved. It shouldn't be a last minute informational herehere's what we're giving you- this is what we're we're doing to you. And Land Commission was
concerned by that.
We see that using the rulemaking rule is to avoid consultation and we're we're all the seven
member board, we're all happy to work together. If we would have known about it. Also, we see
that using the rulemaking law also ignores the GTC actions. GTC is what established us in the
1940s. GTC has let us for the last 80 years, um giving us advice and counsel all along the way,
we've reported to GTC and so we see an action taken by the business committee to ah change our
policies without our direct input is contrary to the GTC functions, and those were things that
Gina was bringing up.
Also as part of the planning that you were doing, you know your committee was doing was
looking at community building, nation building and the idea that a major part of the nation
building idea is to take authority away from a bureaucracy and give it to the community, give it
to authority back to the people. And what we see in this latest action, the amendments here, is to
take the authority away from the community who votes for us and hears from us several times a
year and works with us monthly. You're taking the authority away from those people and you're
handing them that authority to staff.
Um, and the staff is not community to staff or the people that work for the community. Certainly
there are, you know, there are members of staff who are part of the community, but in many of
the different areas of the tribe, there are staff members who are not tribal members or
descendants. So by taking it away from the actual authority of the Land Commission, supported
by the GTC, you're you're giving the power to the staff and that is um giving decisions away
from the community and and taking away nation building.
In a letter from, dated October 1st, we have from ah Jameson Wilson six different areas that this
is supposed to um work on. The first area is called to probe improved efficiency and
responsiveness and...
Jonas Hill: Your time's up.
Fred Muscavitch: Oh my gosh. Um I'm about half done. Could you extend my time?
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 8 of 14
~
ONEIDA
32 of 313
Jonas Hill: I'm going to let everybody else speak and then we'll come back. Unless you’ve got
something for higher education?
Lisa Summers: All right. Good afternoon. I am Lisa Summers. I am here as an individual tribal
member and participant, former participant of the higher education program, as well as the parent
of several students who are currently in the program so I'll be commenting on that law.
First and foremost, I just want to say that I do appreciate the effort that the Legislative Operating
Committee is making towards putting something in a more solid format for the members to be
able to provide um information, input and guidance on. I think that the proposed changes and
updates to what is currently being published is actually a step in the right direction and I think
overall is good progress.
There are a few things, though, that I think need to be taken into consideration with the adoption
of this law. And then mostly, even though it's not part of the actual law that's being adopted,
most of my comments are going to be related to the rulemaking process and the handbook and
the other things that go along with it so I'll I'll try to go as quickly as I can and I will submit
written comments for those things that I'm not able to get in with my 5 minutes.
So the first thing I wanted to just note overall, there's a there's a lot of conversation that happens
in the handbook and a provision in the section of the law that talks about what happens if a
student finds themself on probation or suspension and it talks about paying back um or how they
rectify those types of things and to get reinstated into the program, which is great, there should
always be that process.
I think one of the things that should also be disclosed is that there's a forgiveness process on in
the tribes books as well that students have the ability to use and that's not readily disclosed
within this process. And I think that's something that needs to be noted probably within the
handbook at some point.
But one of the things that I know has taken place with several individuals and you know, I don't
have the exact numbers on it, I just know from personal experience and from others that have
shared their information is that once they become, once their student does what they need to do
to get off suspension or probation and they do their paybacks and things like that, one of the
things that still happens is that term in which caused the probation or suspension still counts
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 9 of 14
~
ONEIDA
33 of 313
towards their total number of terms.
Now it looks like according to the law that you're shifting from term specific to credit specific.
So I think that would get resolved underneath there. I would just hate to see that type of
penalization also take place in the handbook itself um once that turnover happens. So just
something to keep in mind that that inadvertently doesn't end up in a transfer of credits as well.
So if a student ends up having to pay back their credits or pay back a specific set amount or
whatever, that it doesn't count towards their total. And I think that's the point I'm trying to make
there.
The other part of this is one of the things that happens in the, in 903.5 on the higher education
grant, another piece of this that I vehemently disagree with is the inability to pursue and be
assisted with pursuing multiple degrees. I understand why this was done in the very beginning in
1996 when this was first taking place. But over the years and different events that have happened
throughout the last several decades, including the most recent one that happened with COVID,
has only proven that there is times in people's lives when they need to adjust careers or they need
to adjust um what they're pursuing in order to be successful in another industry or things like
that. So there's just things that happen in the economy and other things that would require a
person to have the ability to have that support moving forward. So I think that there's a way for
the LOC to be able to figure out what that looks like. Maybe it's a partial funding, maybe it's
limited funding, maybe it's something else, but I think that just strictly prohibiting an alternative
or duplicate duplicate level degree is something that needs to be reconsidered.
Um, the other thing that I think I wanted to share with you guys is that I feel like in the appeals
section right now the current appeals process is 30. The student has to file within 30 days.
In the law, it's being pared back to 20 days, and I feel like it should remain at 30 days. One of the
things I know, especially for students who are not, who who decide that they're going to stay in
school despite funding, maybe they're pursuing loans or they get other assistance from
somewhere else. They pay out of pocket, but while they're in the appeals process.
They might be actually at their institution and if the information is being communicated over
their mailing information, it might take longer for that student to actually receive the information
that their notice that they've been suspended or probation and the appeal back and forth and
things like that.
I know for myself with my students um that I currently have in place. All of their information
comes to our home, which is where they reside, which is rightfully so. But then it might take a
week or two for them to actually get the information from get mailed to our home and then get
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 10 of 14
~
ONEIDA
34 of 313
back to them in their place of schooling. So you know, people who don't have a good support
system might end up missing that 20 day window and I think the 30 days is more appropriate.
And then also in general correlating between the rulemaking, the handbook and all of the
information that's been provided. I think that the rulemaking here has to go hand in hand with the
actual passing of the law. I think that's the other thing I'm going to encourage. Um, with the
rulemaking going…
Jonas Hill: Your time's up.
Lisa Summers: OK. I'll submit the rest of my comments written. Thank you.
Jonas Hill: All right. Thank you. Does anybody online have a comment? If so, please raise your
hand. Uh Carl Artman.
Carl Artman: Good afternoon, everybody. Uh Carl Artman with the Oneida Law Office.
Wanted I had a comment on the Oneida Higher Education Grant Law. I recommend that the
Higher Education Grant Law include a uh provision stating that the Higher Education Grant is a
general welfare exclusion in accordance with uh Title 10 of the Oneida Code of Laws,
specifically Chapter 1001 or 1001.
I think the section could be inserted after 903.5 in the ah current draft of the Higher Education
Grant Law, and then of course insert requisite definitions to go along with that. I will submit
some written comments to the LOC and the LRO specifying that and the language that can
hopefully just be copied and pasted to make it easier. Thank you.
Jonas Hill: Thank you. Does anybody else online have a comment?
You have 5 minutes and then just reminder that you have seven days to submit written comments
to the LRO and um the LRO staff can assist you with how to handle that.
Fred Muscavitch: Thank you. So going back to the proposed amendments, the real property law
and the letter from Jameson Wilson to the Land Commission, he lists 6 areas which are a
rationale for the proposed amendments. He says that it's going to improve efficiency and
responsiveness and we on the Land Commission feel that this is inaccurate, and we wonder
where that came from as most of the things um that the Land Commission works on is handled
very quickly uh and many times things that come forward are emergencies and must be done and
many the office, the land office has brought forward issues that need to be settled like a week
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 11 of 14
~
ONEIDA
35 of 313
ago and things have to be addressed and the Land Commission, um, looks over that information
and and makes decisions and is very efficient and responsive.
The idea of professionalization’s is #2 of functions says that there's a feeling from LOC that
delegating this authority is going to ensure that decisions are made by professionals with subject
matter expertise, and, we we question the uh veracity of that as well to know exactly what you're
thinking is a professional with subject matter expertise. We have um a division director who's
over many different areas with land being just one of them. Uh, time is divided between all these
areas. Uh, his background is divided into different areas. Uh, he has been on board for less than
two years. I don't think there are any staff who have been in their current position in land for
more than two years or so. Uh, many people are just there for six months now, so we're we're not
seeing where you see this, this expertise and um professionalism.
Um, clear accountability um agencies, a bureaucracy does respond up the chain of the command,
whereas the Land Commission is um responsible to the GTC, to the General Tribal Council, and
we've been very responsive to them and we do report to them often and we do have um
bimonthly meetings where the community does come in recently within the last two months
we've had a large group of people attend for a specific purpose and we had, you know, two days
notice that was going to happen. So we're very accountable and we don't see that turning it over
to bureaucracy is going to help in that area.
Strategic alignment- certainly you can say that there's internal planning tools and performance
metrics, but we don't understand how that applies to the Land Commission and the people that
we not exactly supervise, but we people that we work with. Um reduced administrative overlap.
That does not make sense in the preservation of oversight, again that diminishes instead of being
general tribal council to elected officials who are watching over um what's going on day by day.
And some examples of this. I have a list here.
Some things that were going on and um followed the bureaucracy.
Jonas Hill: Please refrain from any names or titles, please.
Fred Muscavitch: I was. I was gonna name them all.
So, um different areas are probate and that's come up a couple of times. And probate the Land
Commission has worked with the law office and has made substantial changes to that area,
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 12 of 14
~
ONEIDA
36 of 313
whereas prior to the past two years there were a lot of um questions about that and in the past
land office wanted to turn that over to the law office and now perhaps land Land Commission
wants to retain those powers because finally it is it's working in a way that is um defensible.
We have a lot of leases that the that we are a watchdog over and when the chain of command, the
system that you're looking for to empower even with greater power um some of those leases are
3-4 years without a renewal, and they've just been running along with nobody looking after them,
and the Land Commission found out about that and took steps quickly to address it.
The fee to trust um issue is federal government. Again, who's going to have the professional
background and the um oversight on this other than people who have been on the land
Commission and one Pat Cornelius is here and she's been on the Pat on the Commission on and
off for over 30 years and has background. And the land Commission found errors that needed to
be corrected and we worked on those and that would not happen in…
Jonas Hill: Alright, your time’s up.
Fred Muscavitch: and then delinquent deaths is the last one.
So I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to address some of these, again, we feel
Land Commission feels very short notice to go over this huge document. That's why I personally
feel that document should be denied and that should not be voted on. Um, it should be
withdrawn. And possibly the new business committee coming in in July might want to go back
and look at it, but this is a huge document, many, many changes and we don't know who had the
opportunity to consult on that. Again, thank you for giving me that time.
Jonas Hill: And then just a reminder too, you can submit all written comments and those will be
reviewed. Alright. Alright, and then just please say your name.
Gina Powless Buenrostro: OK, Gina Powless Buenrostro. So I wanted to um hopefully this
goes to GTC.
However, my comment was about um prohibiting people that are taking testings. I don't know if
higher ed covers that or not, but to prohibit more than one time. So what I'm referring to is when
you have people that graduate from law school that not in Wisconsin and they're taking this law
test, the state bar, and they're they're taking it multiple times and not passing. And I think some
individual departments are actually paying for those tests and I think that's really unfair and I'm
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 13 of 14
~
ONEIDA
37 of 313
not sure why it's not under the authority of higher Ed because it's a educational like you have to
pass a test in order to be call yourself an attorney or whatever in order to practice law.
And so we have several attorneys within the tribe that you know they they haven't been able to
pass a stop the state bar. But I think it's OK that the tribe pay for one test. And then after that, if
you can't pass it 3-4 or five times, it's ridiculous that we're paying for that. And so I think they
should only pay for one. An individual department should not be covering that expense. That's a
higher ed type of function so that we're not getting so the the manipulation is that individual
departments might be paying for multiple and multiple state bar exams that ah individuals can't
pass, and I don't think we should be doing it. I think that's a system that should be run through
higher Ed. They monitor everybody's education, they pay for every everyone's education, and I
think that should include those state bar exams.
Thank you.
Jonas Hill: Thank you. Are there any more comments? Any more speakers? Last call. All right,
with there being no more speakers the public meeting for the proposed amendments to the Real
Property Law and proposed Higher Education Grant Law is now closed at 12:53 PM. Written
comments may be submitted until close of business on Friday, November 21st, 2025. Thank you
everyone.
-End of Meeting-
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Public Meeting Transcript of October 15, 2025
Page 14 of 14
~
ONEIDA
38 of 313
Oneida Nation
Oneida Business Committee
Legislative Operating Committee
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
r'\
=DODDDD=
ONEIDA
Oneida-nsn.gov
LEGISLATIVE OPERATING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC MEETING
Higher Education Grant Law
November 21, 2025
Written Comments
From: Thomas Reed <thomas.reed714@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 2:10 PM
To: LOC <LOC@oneidanation.org>
Subject: Public Comment by End of Day 11/21/25 for Higher Ed Amendment Public Comments
Shekoli Oneida LOC,
I would like to submit a public comment regarding the proposed amendments to the Higher
Education Grant Law.
In reference to 903.5-1 Eligibility Requirements, Section e:
“be pursuing a degree in a higher funding tier than any previously earned degree, unless unused
credits remain within the funding cap of their current degree tier pursuant to 903.5-2.”
I propose adding the following amendment:
“A student who has completed a doctoral degree (PhD) may be eligible to pursue a professional
doctoral degree, such as a JD or MD, with up to 120 units of funding. This funding may be
awarded at full-time or part-time status and shall include eligibility for Online or Hybrid JD
Programs in addition to in-person residency programs.”
I believe this addition would strengthen the Oneida Nation by expanding educational
opportunities for our Tribal members and supporting pathways to leadership and self-sufficiency.
This aligns with the Mission Statement of Oneida Higher Education, which promotes “a goal
toward self-sufficiency.”
Yawʌ́·ko for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further
clarification.
Take care,
Dr. Thomas “TJ” Reed
Lukwe’tiyó | “He is a Good Man”
Member of the Oneida Nation, Turtle Clan
Assistant Professor in American Indian Studies
California State University of Long Beach (CSULB)
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 1 of 2
39 of 313
Adjunct Professor in Restorative Justice in Indigenous Communities
Vermont Law and Graduate School (VLGS)
Trainer at the National Center on Restorative Justice
University of San Diego (USD)
Consultant and Practitioner of Community Peacemaking
Ph. D. in Leadership and Organizational Consulting
University of San Diego, April 2021
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
LOC Written Comments of November 21, 2025
Page 2 of 2
~
ONEIDA
40 of 313
r'\.
Oneida Nation
Oneida Business Committee
Legislative Operating Committee
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
Oneida-nsn.gov
=DODDDD=
ONEIDA
Legislative Operating Committee
December 17, 2025
Real Property Law Amendments
Submission Date: 1/22/20
LOC Sponsor: Jameson Wilson
Public Meeting: N/A
Emergency Enacted: N/A
Summary: This item was carried over from the last two (2) terms. It was added to the AFL in January
2020 by request of the Oneida Law Office to emergency amend the delegation of rulemaking authority given
Oneida Land Commission, Land Management & Comprehensive Housing Division. The amendments added
a provision that delegates rulemaking authority to these agencies as needed to exercise their authority and
manage the responsibilities bestowed upon them by law. The basis for the emergency was to give
Comprehensive Housing Division, Oneida Land Commission & Land Management authority to develop
rules under the law regarding land acquisitions. Rulemaking authority was sought to address such
acquisitions due to the transparency and oversight that the process of the Administrative Rulemaking law
provides.
Emergency amendments to the law were sought to preserve the general welfare of the Reservation
population as the amendments ensure that the homeownership and land acquisition strategies related to the
Nation’s HIP and THRIFTT programs were not jeopardized by allowing immediate updates to the program
processing and required component that authorizes land acquisitions.
Emergency amendments were adopted by the OBC through resolution BC-01-22-20-B. The amendments
were set to expire on July 22, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the OBC adopted resolution BC-07-22-20-A,
extending the emergency amendments to the Real Property law for an additional six (6) month timeframe –
to expire on January 22, 2021.
10/4/23 LOC: Motion by Jennifer Webster to add the Real Property Law Amendments to the Active Files
List with Jameson Wilson as the sponsor; seconded by Marlon Skenandore. Motion carried
unanimously.
11/13/23:
Work Meeting. Present: Grace Elliott, Krystal John, Lisa Rauschenbach, Nicole Rommel,
Mark Powless, Scott Denny, Michelle Hill, Clorissa Leeman. The purpose of this meeting
was to renew discussion on amendments to the Real Property Law. Significant amendments
were recommended by the work group. Next steps are to incorporate the amendments
requested thus far and pick up at §601.7-3.
2/13/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Kristal Hill, Lisa Rauschenbach, Nicole Rommel, Michelle Hill,
Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to complete the first review of the entire Real
Property law. Significant amendments were suggested. Next steps are to incorporate the
amendments requested and then have the team examine the amendments for accuracy.
3/22/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Grace Elliott, Michelle Hill, Mark Powless, Danielle White, Lisa
Rauschenbach, Nicole Rommel. The purpose of this meeting was to review proposed
amendments to the Real Property law.
Page 1 of 3
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
41 of 313
3/28/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Kirby Metoxen, Jonas Hill,
Clorissa Leeman, Grace Elliott, Kristal Hill, Scott Denny, Maureen Perkins, Danielle White,
Fawn Cottrell, Lisa Rauschenbach, Nicole Rommel, Krystal John. The purpose of this
meeting was to review proposed amendments to the Real Property law.
4/16/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Marlon Skenandore, Jameson Wilson, Kirby Metoxen, Jonas Hill,
Clorissa Leeman, Grace Elliott, Kristal Hill, Scott Denny, Maureen Perkins, Mark Powless,
Danielle White, Fawn Cottrell, Lisa Rauschenbach, Nicole Rommel, Eric McLester, Krystal
John. The purpose of this meeting was to review proposed amendments to the Real Property
law.
6/11/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Fawn Cottrell, Mark
Powless, Maureen Perkins. Kristal Hill, Eric McLester, Clorissa Leeman, Nicole Rommel,
Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to review proposed amendments to the Real
Property Law.
7/2/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen,
Krystal John, Michelle Hill, Eric McLester, Nicole Rommel, Clorissa Leeman, Kristal Hill,
Maureen Perkins, Mark Powless, Carolyn Salutz, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting
was to review various methods of holding ownership including tenants in common and joint
tenancy with the right of survivorship.
7/25/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Krystal John, Michelle Hill, Eric
McLester, Nicole Rommel, Clorissa Leeman, Fawn Billie, Fawn Cottrell, Kristal Hill,
Maureen Perkins, Mark Powless, Carolyn Salutz, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting
was to proofread the draft amendments to the Real Property law.
12/10/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Marlon Skenandore, Grace Elliott. The
purpose of this meeting was to review the draft Real Property law as it relates to the
development of the probate law.
12/18/24:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Marlon Skenandore, Jennifer Webster,
Kirby Metoxen, Clorissa Leeman, Carolyn Salutz, Kristal Hill, Fawn Billie, Fawn Cottrell,
Maureen Perkins, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to review the draft
amendments to the Real Property law. The LOC identified several areas to be researched
and reconsidered.
1/28/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen,
Marlon Skenandore, Fawn Cottrell, Kristal Hill, Clorissa Leeman, Grace Elliott. The
purpose of this meeting was to review the delegation of rulemaking authority within the Real
Property law.
6/6/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Kirby Metoxen, Marlon Skenandore, Kristal Hill,
Krystal John, Michelle Hill, Mark Powless, Eric McLester, Grace Elliott. The purpose of
this meeting was to review the entire Real Property law with a focus on the delegations of
rulemaking authority.
8/5/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen,
Marlon Skenandore, Eric McLester, Nicole Rommel, Krystal John, Michelle Hill, Kristal
Hill, RC Metoxen, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to finish the review of the
draft starting on line 282.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 2 of 3
~
ONEIDA
42 of 313
8/21/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jonas Hill, Kirby Metoxen, Krystal John, Mark
Powless, Michelle Hill, Nicole Rommel, Lisa Rauschenbach, Eric McLester, Fawn Billie,
Fawn Cottrell, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to review the changes related
to the draft amendments to the Public Use of Tribal Land Law.
8/28/25:
Work Meeting. Present: Jameson Wilson, Jennifer Webster, Krystal John, Nicole Rommel,
Lisa Rauschenbach, Eric McLester, Gregory Matson, Mark Powless, Fawn Billie, Fawn
Cottrell, Rhiannon Metoxen, Grace Elliott. The purpose of this meeting was to complete a
full read through of the draft.
9/3/25 LOC:
Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the draft amendments to the Real Property Law and
direct that a legislative analysis be completed; seconded by Jonas Hill. Motion carried
unanimously.
10/1/25 LOC: Motion by Jennifer Webster to accept the legislative analysis and public meeting packet for
the proposed amendments to the Real Property Law and schedule a public meeting to be held
on November 14, 2025; seconded by Kirby Metoxen. Motion carried unanimously.
Next Steps:
▪ Accept the public comment review memorandum for the proposed amendments to the Real
Property Law and defer to a work meeting for consideration.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 3 of 3
~
ONEIDA
43 of 313
Oneida Nation
Legislative Operating Committee
Legislative Reference Office
PO Box 365 • Oneida, WI 54155-0365
Oneida-nsn.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
r'\.
=DODDDD=
ONEIDA
Legislative Operating Committee (LOC)
Grace Elliott, Legislative Reference Office, Staff Attorney
December 17, 2025
Real Property Law Amendments: Public Comment Review
On November 14, 2025, a public meeting was held regarding the proposed amendments to the
Oneida Real Property law. Two (2) individuals provided comments during the public meeting.
The public comment period was then held open until November 21, 2025. Four (4) individuals
submitted comments during the comment period. This memorandum is submitted as a review of
the comments received during the public comment period. The public meeting draft, public
meeting transcript, and written comments received are attached to this memorandum for review.
Comment 1 – Governance and GTC Authority:
601.2. Adoption, Amendment, Repeal
601.2-1. This law was adopted by the Oneida Business Committee by resolution BC-5-2996-A and amended by resolutions BC-3-01-06-D, BC-04-28-10-E, BC-02-25-15-C, BC-0513-15-B and BC-02-08-17-A and BC-05-09-18-A.
601.2-2. This law may be amended or repealed by the Oneida Business Committee
pursuant to the procedures set out in the Legislative Procedures Act.
601.2-3. Should a provision of this law or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances be held as invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this law
which are considered to have legal force without the invalid portions.
601.2-4. In the event of a conflict between a provision of this law and a provision of another
law, the provisions of this law shall control. Provided that, the Land Ordinance is
applicable only to valid land assignments existing as of January 1, 2016 and is hereby
repealed upon the expiration of the last existing land assignment.
601.2-5. This law is adopted under authority of the Constitution of the Oneida Nation.
Gina Powless Buenrostro (oral): OK, so we talked about this amongst our Commission, but I'm
here as my own sovereign person, if you will. And so I'm going to say, first of all, that there's a
ton of amendments to this proposed, the proposed changes. And so I really am going to stand on
this is that when we're using this administrative rulemaking, OK, they started doing that I think
in 2017, eighteen, whatever year it was. It eliminates general tribal council from having any
involvement.
So I think when it pertains to any type of an agency, department, whatever is created by general
tribal council, then that needs to go back to them when you're making all these so-called
administrative rule making. Using that in terms of how we're going to change law, because a lot
of times when the laws change and we have a finalized version of the law, nobody knows what it
is. And I'll give you a good example, like the termination and eviction law, the word nuisance is
in the definitions. In the definitions, that word gives the whatever, Housing Authority, whoever
is doing the evictions, it gives them the right to throw people off the land. And see, I wasn't clear
Page 1 of 35
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
44 of 313
about that. And that's why I wanted clarity. Like, how does the Housing Authority or whoever
have the authority to regulate who's on land and who's not on land? That's not their authority. I
think that's the Land Commission and the Land Management.
OK. So with that being said, I don't think it ever changed. And that went through rulemaking.
And so that's how people were getting thrown out of their houses. They weren't saying, well, I'm
taking your house away. They're saying get off the land. And I think that's very misleading for
folks in their homes. And. And I don't know where that's at as far as how many have been
evicted and and kicked out of their houses and not, I want, I don't want to say kicked out, say
kicked off the land. So, so that's an inconsistency I think in that law because it's defined by a
definition.
I was using that as an example. That's what I was using it as, and I still think it's ineffectively
written in that law per se. No one changed it. It wasn't done, but whatever. I'm going to get back
to the real property laws.
So just based on the fundamental values of the tribe and how we communicate this process.
Of the LOCLRO, I'm not sure what title it goes by, but the way we're doing this administrative
rulemaking, it really interferes with our true governing body, which is General Tribal Council.
And if we go further back, that was clan mothers and the elders. Everybody in the tribe in the
community had a say. Say laws just weren't being passed without our knowledge. Laws, you
know, I know and I get that you guys hold these meetings. You have how many people here like
actually here from the community, not workers, not people that you employ, but people that are
interested. You have four or five of us and that's it. You have department people, but they're here
probably because it affects their job. Departments, but actual community members, maybe 3
here.
So when I say and speak to that, that's the kind of three people cannot control 17,000 members
and laws that are being made. I really believe that using administrative rulemaking is a
hindrance. It's it's colonization to its finest form because we're making laws without everybody
having that input. And as we talked earlier, the conversation went like this. Well, they know that
it's posted. They could get here. Maybe they can't get here. Maybe they can't be here. Oh, well,
they could write a letter. Maybe they don't even know what's happening. That gully only comes
out once a month. So if you get it, or if you haven't read it. Then you're kind of like you're out of
the loop, so to speak. I'm going to say that in a real nice way. You're out of the loop.
So I think that I'm really against this rulemaking. I wanted to. I want laws to go back to the
general tribal council where it should go. They have the ultimate authority. They created the land
Commission, and so if they want the rules and they want to start eradicating our authority, let it
be them, but not the Business Committee or a Subcommittee of the Business Committee. Let it
be General Tribal Council. They're the ones who created the Land Commission in 1941. And if
they feel that we're not doing our job or if they feel, that, it's easier in the process flows easier if
it's delegated to all the separate departments and let them be like rulemaking in their
departments, then so be it.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 2 of 35
~
ONEIDA
45 of 313
But I think ultimately all these changes that you have in here and I'm not going to go down one
by one, but all the changes that you have in here I believe are under the authority of general tribal
council to make and say no, we don't want that in there, yes we do, because I would suggest
more public meetings until we can address this in general tribal council or I would probably end
up filing a petition to redact rulemaking so that especially for entities that govern and were
created by general tribal council. I think this process interferes with that authority and I feel that
the process also obstructs the authority of general tribal council and leaves general tribal council
out of any decision making. So I like we're bullying them into accepting these laws through rule
making. And that's how it feels. And I'm just giving you my perspective. I also think that shift...
So how much time did I have?
Fred Muscavitch (oral): I am. I'm Doctor Frederick Muskovich and I'm here along with Gina
and Pat Cornelius, and we were voted to by the Land Commission to represent the Land
Commission at our Monday night meeting this week. That's my name. O You're going to start
the 5 minutes. All right. And I'm here to talk about the proposed amendments to the real property
law.
Major concern is the Business Committee talks of transparency and laying things on the table,
and the Land Commission is concerned that the real property law amendments have come out in
the Land Commission has not been able to have any input on to this. None of us recall ever being
invited to a meeting or asked for any kinds of input or consultation? Um.
So our timeline kind of was you. You've been working on this for a year or more, and the first
land Commission knows about it is that it was sent. A letter dated October 1st was sent to the
Land Commission. And the Land Commission received it on November 10th. So on November
10th we received it, did not have a lot of time to review it. And then we were told if you have
any concerns, you can come to a tentative hearing. Which is to what we're at today at at 12:15 on
November 14th. So we had four days.
One of the things that Land Commission and action they took was to request our our attorney to
come up with a response to the amendments from the Land Commission's perspective. And
again, we had our meeting Monday night. A letter was developed on Tuesday, was sent to the
attorney, possibly Tuesday, maybe Wednesday morning. And here we are two days later. So we
do not see that as being transparent or giving anybody an opportunity.
First, I'd like to start with that what Gina was saying, the Land Commission supports the idea
that perhaps rule making, the rule making law is used to avoid consultation. So if you're writing
about the land Commission or if you're like writing about other committees or commissions
boards, they should be involved. It shouldn't be a last minute informational here. Here's what
we're giving you. This is what we're we're doing to you. And Planning Commission was
concerned by that.
We see that using the rulemaking rule is to avoid consultation and we're we're all the seven
member board, we're all happy to work together. If we would have known about it also, we see
that using the rulemaking law also ignores the GTC actions. GCGTC is what established us in
the 1940s. GTC has let us for the last 80 years, giving us advice and counsel all along the way,
we've reported to GTC and so we see an action taken by the business committee to change our
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 3 of 35
~
ONEIDA
46 of 313
policies without our direct input is contrary to the GTC functions, and those were things that
Gina was bringing up.
Also as part of the planning that you were doing, you know your committee was doing was
looking at community building, nation building and the idea that a major part of the nation
building idea is to take authority away from a bureaucracy and give it to the community, give it
to authority back to the people. And what we see in this latest action, the amendments here, is to
take the authority away from the community who votes for us, and hears from us several times a
year and works with us monthly. You're taking the authority away from those people and you're
handing them that authority to staff. And the staff is not community to staff or the people that
work for the community.
Certainly there are, you know, there are members of staff who are part of the community, but in
many of the different areas of the tribe, there are staff members who are not tribal members or
descendants. So by taking it away from the actual authority of the Land Commission, supported
by the GTC, you're you're giving the power to the staff and that is giving decisions away from
the community and and taking away nation building.
In her letter from, dated October 1st, we have from Jameson Wilson six different areas that this
is supposed to work on. The first area is called to probe improved efficiency and responsiveness.
Stephanie Wephenie (written): I have many concerns. Here are just 5 from the overview.
1. Change the ability to sell tribal land
2. Remove probate issues from the Land Commission before an alternative is established
3. Take rule making and authority away from the GTC elected Land Commission and allow staff
to assume them
4. Limit our Nation's eminent domain
5. And they want to include "increase Land management staffing" in the law. This doesn't belong
in a law.
So, I recommend writing to LOC at the above address to oppose the amendments and ask to
defer the amendments to the new LOC which is elected next July.
Lisa Albright (written): Dear members of the LOC:
I am concerned about the bad revisions being made:
1. Selling tribal land.
2. Taking probate away from the land commission without having somewhere to put it.
3. Taking rule making and authority away from the elected Land Commission!
4. Limit the tribes use of eminent domain
5. Increasing land management staff
I am requesting the amendments be denied and forwarded to the new business committee, who
will be elected next July. You must stop this egregious use of power; taking authority away from
the elected Land Commission!
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 4 of 35
~
ONEIDA
47 of 313
Response
Summary of Public Comments:
Several commenters, including representatives of the Oneida Land Commission, expressed strong
concerns that the proposed amendments and reliance on administrative rulemaking diminish the
authority of both the General Tribal Council (GTC) and the elected Land Commission. Key themes
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Historical Role of GTC and Land Commission: Commenters emphasized that GTC
originally created the Land Commission in 1941 and has provided oversight for decades.
Commenters view any transfer of authority away from this body as inconsistent with
GTC’s foundational role and tribal governance principles.
Decision-Making Authority: Many believe major changes to the Real Property Law should
be decided by GTC, rather than by the Business Committee or its subcommittees.
Transparency and Consultation: Commenters noted a lack of meaningful consultation with
the Land Commission and insufficient transparency.
Shift of Authority: Concerns were raised about moving probate and rulemaking authority
from the Land Commission to administrative staff. Commenters believe this change
removes decision-making from elected bodies accountable to the community and places it
in the hands of employees, some of whom may not be tribal members.
Impact on Nation-Building: This shift was described as undermining community
representation and long-term governance goals.
Recommended Action by Commenters: Several urged that amendments be deferred to the
next administration or brought before GTC for approval.
Background:
To address these concerns, the Nation’s governance structure provides clarity on roles and
responsibilities:
•
•
Constitutional Framework:
o GTC is the supreme governing body. [Art. IV, Sec 3].
o The Oneida Business Committee (OBC) exercises legislative and executive
authority under the Legislative Procedures Act [1 O.C. 109].
o The LOC manages legislative development, including drafting, analysis, public
review, and forwarding legislation for adoption [1 O.C. 109.4-2].
o Administrative agencies implement laws through rulemaking under delegated
authority [1 O.C. 106].
o The Judiciary ensures fairness and legality through interpretation and review [Art.
V; 1 O.C. 106.13].
Land Commission History:
o 1941: GTC established the Land Committee via Ordinance No. 1 – Lands.
o 1996: Real Property Law adopted by OBC (BC-05-29-96-A), reestablished the
Land Commission with authority to set professional standards, grant licenses,
investigate complaints, hear contested cases, and implement the law.
o 2017: Amendments (BC-02-08-17-A) transferred hearing authority to the
Judiciary, narrowed scope, and retained rulemaking and administrative roles for the
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 5 of 35
~
ONEIDA
48 of 313
•
Land Commission—enhancing due-process protections, not diminishing GTC’s
role. (Implementation challenges caused the transition to be postponed.)
o Today: the Land Commission’s authority derives from laws adopted by OBC,
reflecting GTC’s governance model where GTC sets the framework and
authorizes a legislative process requiring public review and formal adoption
procedures. This does not negate GTC’s foundational role; it reflects its chosen
governance model.
Delegation of Authority:
o The Land Commission’s authority is derived from the OBC through laws of the
Nation—not directly from GTC.
o Its bylaws confirm that authority is delegated under specific laws, including the
Real Property Law, Leasing Law, Zoning and Shoreland Protection Law, and
others.
Public Review Process:
These comments are part of the public review process required by the Legislative Procedures Act
(LPA), Title 1, Chapter 109, adopted by GTC through Resolution GTC #01-07-13-A. This process
ensures transparency, public input, and consistency in legislative development. Key requirements
include:
•
•
•
•
Advance Notice: At least ten (10) business days prior to the public meeting and comment
period, published in the Oneida Register and Tribal publications, and distributed
electronically to managers [1 O.C. 109.8-2].
Public Meeting: Held during the comment period to solicit oral testimony, presided over
by an LOC member [1 O.C. 109.8-3].
Comment Period: Open for at least five (5) business days after the meeting, allowing
members to submit written comments by mail, email, fax, or in person [1 O.C. 109.8-1;
109.8-4].
Full Consideration: All comments and testimony must be reviewed by the LOC before
forwarding legislation [1 O.C. 109.8-4].
The proposed amendments remain under review, and these comments form part of the official
record guiding that review. The system is functioning as intended—openly, inclusively, and under
GTC authority.
Analysis:
The proposed amendments do not exceed LOC’s delegated authority under the LPA. LOC’s role
is procedural: facilitating legislative development, ensuring public review, and forwarding
legislation for adoption by OBC or GTC. LOC does not adopt laws; it ensures transparency and
consistency in the process.
The LPA, adopted by GTC through Resolution GTC #01-07-13-A, expressly delegates to the LOC
the responsibility to manage legislative development, including drafting, analysis, public review,
and forwarding legislation for adoption by the Oneida Business Committee or GTC [1 O.C. 109.4;
109.5–109.9].
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 6 of 35
~
ONEIDA
49 of 313
The proposed amendments remain within the scope of LOC’s delegated authority. They do not
alter the constitutional hierarchy or exceed the powers granted under the LPA. Instead, they reflect
procedural adjustments designed to improve clarity and efficiency in administering the Real
Property Law.
The Land Commission’s authority continues to derive from delegation by OBC through
substantive laws of the Nation. Amendments that refine administrative processes or reassign
procedural duties do not diminish GTC’s role. LOC has met all requirements under Section 109.8,
including advance notice, public meeting, open comment period, and full consideration of
testimony. These comments are part of the official record guiding LOC’s review, and their
inclusion affirms compliance with the LPA.
No revisions to the Law are recommended based on these comments.
LOC Consideration
Comment 2 – Land Commission Authority:
601.5-2. Oneida Land Commission. The Oneida Land Commission is comprised of seven (7)
elected Tribal members and shall:
(a) Interpret the provisions of this law and create policy to guide Land Management
in implementing the same;
(b) Approve or deny all easements and land use licenses;
(c) Review and adopt Land Management’s standard operating procedures for
entering into agriculture and commercial leases pursuant to the Leasing law;
(da) Approve or deny all acquisition of Tribal land provided that the Land
Commission may delegate acquisition sign-off authority to the Environmental, Land
and Agricultural Division Director pursuant to Land Commission resolution; and;
(e) Allocate and assign land uses to all Tribal land, except those uses governed by the
Public Use of Tribal Land law, based on the Land Use Technical Unit rules which the
Oneida Planning Department shall develop in collaboration with affected Oneida
divisions and departments and the Oneida Land Commission; and
(bf) Name all buildings, roads, parks and the like on Tribal land.
601.5-3. Land Management. Land Management shall implement this law in accordance with
the policy directives provided by the Oneida Business Committee and senior management
Oneida Land Commission. Land Management shall:
(a) Forward requests for easements and land use licenses to the Oneida Land
Commission based on the easement and land use license rules jointly developed by
Land Management and the Land Commission;
(a) Interpret the provisions of this law and create policy as needed;
(b) Exercise rulemaking authority pursuant to the Administrative Rulemaking Law
to:
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 7 of 35
~
ONEIDA
50 of 313
(1) Clearly describe the process and procedure for approving agriculture and
commercial leases.
(2) Create a fine and penalty schedule for violations of this law and its
corresponding rules; and
(3) Any other rule needed to implement or interpret the provisions of this law.
(4) Provided that, such rules shall be approved by senior management prior to
their submission to the Legislative Operating Committee pursuant to the
Administrative Rulemaking Law.
(c) Administer and oversee the Oneida Nation Register of Deeds and any other trust
title responsibilities;
(d) Enter into and administer agricultural and commercial leases pursuant to the
Leasing law and the Eviction and Termination law and any corresponding rules;(e)
Prepare title reports and process trust transactions; and
(f) Process land acquisition transactions as approved by the Oneida Land
Commission.
(g) Manage the Tribal land portfolio and act as the caretaker of all unassigned lands.
(h) Process requests for easements and land use licenses.
(i) Administer all internal building and land assignments to internal entities of the
Nation as approved by senior management the Oneida Land Commission.
(j) Administer all transactions which add real property to the Tribal land base under
the provisions of this law.
(k) Prepare and maintain title reports and accurate land records.
(l) Perform real estate services for individual trust landowners in accordance with the
self-governance compact to include collection and submittal of required documents
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to review and approve easements, conveyances and
other real estate transactions.
(m) Process compile and submit the Nation’s fee to trust applications in accordance
with the priorities approved by senior management the Oneida Land Commission.
(n) Determine which Tribal land will be posted and ensure the appropriate signs are
posted.
Gina Powless Buenrostro (oral): OK, so we talked about this amongst our Commission, but I'm
here as my own sovereign person, if you will. And so I'm going to say, first of all, that there's a
ton of amendments to this proposed, the proposed changes. And so I really am going to stand on
this is that when we're using this administrative rulemaking, OK, they started doing that I think
in 2017, eighteen, whatever year it was. It eliminates general tribal council from having any
involvement.
So I think when it pertains to any type of an agency, department, whatever is created by general
tribal council, then that needs to go back to them when you're making all these so-called
administrative rule making. Using that in terms of how we're going to change law, because a lot
of times when the laws change and we have a finalized version of the law, nobody knows what it
is. And I'll give you a good example, like the termination and eviction law, the word nuisance is
in the definitions. In the definitions, that word gives the whatever, Housing Authority, whoever
is doing the evictions, it gives them the right to throw people off the land. And see, I wasn't clear
about that. And that's why I wanted clarity. Like, how does the Housing Authority or whoever
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 8 of 35
~
ONEIDA
51 of 313
have the authority to regulate who's on land and who's not on land? That's not their authority. I
think that's the Land Commission and the Land Management.
OK. So with that being said, I don't think it ever changed. And that went through rulemaking.
And so that's how people were getting thrown out of their houses. They weren't saying, well, I'm
taking your house away. They're saying get off the land. And I think that's very misleading for
folks in their homes. And. And I don't know where that's at as far as how many have been
evicted and and kicked out of their houses and not, I want, I don't want to say kicked out, say
kicked off the land. So, so that's an inconsistency I think in that law because it's defined by a
definition.
I was using that as an example. That's what I was using it as, and I still think it's ineffectively
written in that law per se. No one changed it. It wasn't done, but whatever. I'm going to get back
to the real property laws. So just based on the fundamental values of the tribe and how we
communicate this process.
Of the LOCLRO, I'm not sure what title it goes by, but the way we're doing this administrative
rulemaking, it really interferes with our true governing body, which is General Tribal Council.
And if we go further back, that was clan mothers and the elders. Everybody in the tribe in the
community had a say. Say laws just weren't being passed without our knowledge. Laws, you
know, I know and I get that you guys hold these meetings. You have how many people here like
actually here from the community, not workers, not people that you employ, but people that are
interested. You have four or five of us and that's it. You have department people, but they're here
probably because it affects their job. Departments, but actual community members, maybe 3
here.
So when I say and speak to that, that's the kind of three people cannot control 17,000 members
and laws that are being made. I really believe that using administrative rulemaking is a
hindrance. It's it's colonization to its finest form because we're making laws without everybody
having that input. And as we talked earlier, the conversation went like this. Well, they know that
it's posted. They could get here. Maybe they can't get here. Maybe they can't be here. Oh, well,
they could write a letter. Maybe they don't even know what's happening. That gully only comes
out once a month. So if you get it, or if you haven't read it. Then you're kind of like you're out of
the loop, so to speak. I'm going to say that in a real nice way. You're out of the loop.
So I think that I'm really against this rulemaking. I wanted to. I want laws to go back to the
general tribal council where it should go. They have the ultimate authority. They created the land
Commission, and so if they want the rules and they want to start eradicating our authority, let it
be them, but not the Business Committee or a Subcommittee of the Business Committee. Let it
be General Tribal Council. They're the ones who created the Land Commission in 1941. And if
they feel that we're not doing our job or if they feel, that, it's easier in the process flows easier if
it's delegated to all the separate departments and let them be like rulemaking in their
departments, then so be it.
But I think ultimately all these changes that you have in here and I'm not going to go down one
by one, but all the changes that you have in here I believe are under the authority of general tribal
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 9 of 35
~
ONEIDA
52 of 313
council to make and say no, we don't want that in there, yes we do, because I would suggest
more public meetings until we can address this in general tribal council or I would probably end
up filing a petition to redact rulemaking so that especially for entities that govern and were
created by general tribal council. I think this process interferes with that authority and I feel that
the process also obstructs the authority of general tribal council and leaves general tribal council
out of any decision making. So I like we're bullying them into accepting these laws through rule
making. And that's how it feels. And I'm just giving you my perspective. I also think that shift...
So how much time did I have?
Fred Muscavitch (oral): I am. I'm Doctor Frederick Muskovich and I'm here along with Gina
and Pat Cornelius, and we were voted to by the Land Commission to represent the Land
Commission at our Monday night meeting this week. That's my name. O You're going to start
the 5 minutes. All right. And I'm here to talk about the proposed amendments to the real property
law.
Major concern is the Business Committee talks of transparency and laying things on the table,
and the Land Commission is concerned that the real property law amendments have come out in
the Land Commission has not been able to have any input on to this. None of us recall ever being
invited to a meeting or asked for any kinds of input or consultation? Um.
So our timeline kind of was you. You've been working on this for a year or more, and the first
land Commission knows about it is that it was sent. A letter dated October 1st was sent to the
Land Commission. And the Land Commission received it on November 10th. So on November
10th we received it, did not have a lot of time to review it. And then we were told if you have
any concerns, you can come to a tentative hearing. Which is to what we're at today at at 12:15 on
November 14th. So we had four days.
One of the things that Land Commission and action they took was to request our our attorney to
come up with a response to the amendments from the Land Commission's perspective. And
again, we had our meeting Monday night. A letter was developed on Tuesday, was sent to the
attorney, possibly Tuesday, maybe Wednesday morning. And here we are two days later. So we
do not see that as being transparent or giving anybody an opportunity.
First, I'd like to start with that what Gina was saying, the Land Commission supports the idea
that perhaps rule making, the rule making law is used to avoid consultation. So if you're writing
about the land Commission or if you're like writing about other committees or commissions
boards, they should be involved. It shouldn't be a last minute informational here. Here's what
we're giving you. This is what we're we're doing to you. And Planning Commission was
concerned by that.
We see that using the rulemaking rule is to avoid consultation and we're we're all the seven
member board, we're all happy to work together. If we would have known about it also, we see
that using the rulemaking law also ignores the GTC actions. GCGTC is what established us in
the 1940s. GTC has let us for the last 80 years, giving us advice and counsel all along the way,
we've reported to GTC and so we see an action taken by the business committee to change our
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 10 of 35
~
ONEIDA
53 of 313
policies without our direct input is contrary to the GTC functions, and those were things that
Gina was bringing up.
Also as part of the planning that you were doing, you know your committee was doing was
looking at community building, nation building and the idea that a major part of the nation
building idea is to take authority away from a bureaucracy and give it to the community, give it
to authority back to the people. And what we see in this latest action, the amendments here, is to
take the authority away from the community who votes for us, and hears from us several times a
year and works with us monthly. You're taking the authority away from those people and you're
handing them that authority to staff. And the staff is not community to staff or the people that
work for the community.
Certainly there are, you know, there are members of staff who are part of the community, but in
many of the different areas of the tribe, there are staff members who are not tribal members or
descendants. So by taking it away from the actual authority of the Land Commission, supported
by the GTC, you're you're giving the power to the staff and that is giving decisions away from
the community and and taking away nation building.
In her letter from, dated October 1st, we have from Jameson Wilson six different areas that this
is supposed to work on. The first area is called to probe improved efficiency and responsiveness.
So going back to the proposed amendments, the real property law and the letter from Jameson
Wilson to the Land Commission, he lists 6 areas which are a rationale for the proposed
amendments. He says that it's going to improve efficiency and responsiveness and we on the
Land Commission feel that this is inaccurate and we wonder where that came from as most of
the things that the Land Commission works on is handled very quickly and many times things
that come forward are emergencies and must be done. Many the office land office has brought
forward issues that need to be settled like a week ago and things have to be addressed and the
Land Commission, um, looks over that information and and makes decisions and is very efficient
and responsive.
The idea of professionalizations is #2 of functions says that there's a feeling from LOC that
delegating this authority is going to ensure that decisions are made by professionals with subject
matter expertise, and, we we question the veracity of that as well to know exactly what you're
thinking is a professional with subject matter expertise.
We have a division director who's over many different areas with land being just one of them,
time is divided between all these areas. His background is divided into different areas. He has
been on board for less than two years. I don't think there are any staff who have been in there.
Current position in land for more than two years or so. Many people are just there for six months
now, so we're we're not seeing where you see this, this expertise and professionalism.
Oh. Clear accountability agencies, a bureaucracy does respond up the chain of the command,
whereas the Land Commission is responsible to the GTC, to the General Tribal Council, and
we've been very responsive to them and we do report to them often and we do have.
Bimonthly meetings where the community does come in recently. Within the last two months
we've had a large group of people attend for a specific purpose and we had, you know, two days
notice that was going to happen.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 11 of 35
~
ONEIDA
54 of 313
So we're very accountable and we don't see that turning it over to bureaucracy is going to help in
that area. Strategic alignment. Certainly you can say that there's internal planning tools and
performance metrics, but we don't understand how that applies to the Land Commission and the
people that we not exactly supervise vise, but we people that we work with reduced
administrative overlap. That does not make sense in the preservation of oversight. Again, that
diminishes instead of being general tribal council to elected officials who are watching over
what's going on day by day.
And some examples of this. I have a list here. Some things that were going on and followed.
Different areas are probate and that's come up a couple of times and probate. The Land
Commission has worked with the law office and has made substantial changes to that area,
whereas prior to the past two years there were a lot of. Questions about that and in the past land
office wanted to turn that over to the law office and now perhaps land Land Commission wants
to retain those powers because finally it is it's working in a way that is. Defensible.
We have a lot of leases that the that we are a watchdog over and when the chain of command, the
system that you're looking for to empower even with greater power. Some of those leases are 3-4
years without a renewal, and they've just been running along with nobody looking after them,
and the Land Commission found out about that and took steps quickly to address it. The fee to
trust issue is federal government. Again, who's going to have the professional background and
the oversight on this other than people who have been on the land Commission and one Pat
Cornelius is here and she's been on the Pat on the Commission on and off for over 30 years and
has background and the land Commission found errors that needed to be corrected and we
worked on those and that would not happen in what it and then delinquent deaths is the last one.
So I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity.
To address some of these, again, we feel Land Commission feels very short notice to go over this
huge document. That's why I personally feel that document should be denied and that should not
be voted on. It should be withdrawn.
And possibly the new business committee coming in in July might want to go back and look at it,
but this is a huge document, many, many changes and we don't know who had the opportunity to
consult on that.
Jen Falck (written): Good MorningPlease find my public comments for the Real Property law amendments:
I am concerned about the amendment that removes the LC role in interpreting provisions
or approving/denying easements.
The LOC’s web page indicates that it is interested in community engagement and participation.
This is a primary role for the LC. I have worked with the LC three times since 2019. Twice,
because the DOLM was restricting the community’s efforts to expand our food sovereignty
efforts. The LC was able to step in and remind DOLM what the larger goals are, and helping
community members to achieve their land use goals, while being compliant with current law.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 12 of 35
~
ONEIDA
55 of 313
Unfortunately, in my experience, I can’t agree “Land Management and CHD have demonstrated
institutional maturity, operational capacity, and subject matter expertise, positioning them to
effectively manage responsibilities…” [Pg. 7 Public Meeting packet]. I have seen the DOLM
make recommendations that do not demonstrate expertise or knowledge of the Nation’s land use
goals.
1. I am a member of Ohelaku. We have received a $900,000 grant to build a
facility for our activities. In 2024 we went round and round with DOLM to
identify a parcel for lease. Eventually, the LC had to direct DOLM to work
with us to identify some options. We were offered several options, and after
consideration we chose the parcel adjacent to the Turtle School. We attended
the LC meeting to get final approvals and sign leases. A LC member stopped
the discussion to ask if this was the same parcel that the Tribe intends to use to
build a new high school. Yes. It was. We had to choose another parcel. I hate
to think what would’ve happened if we had started construction on the site.
The LC’s intervention and institutional knowledge is what prevented this
disaster.
2. This summer, tribal ag. lease holders received letters from DOLM indicating
that their leases would be terminated on December 31, 2024. Several farmers
and food producers attended the next LC meeting to discuss the issue. The
letter directed the farmers to clear their land prior to the lease terminations. A
few of these leases were for livestock production, and were grazing several
hundred head of beef cattle. DOLM doesn’t seem to understand or appreciate
the consequences of these decisions. Most of that livestock was bound for the
Tribal Elder Food Box Program. The LC intervened and proposed an
extension of the leases, that would allow for the farmers to continue
production, and allow for the DOLM to achieve their procedural changes. A
farmer can’t simply clear the land of their livestock herd on a dime.
Institutional knowledge, understanding agriculture, and farmer needs were
critical to addressing this situation.
Without the LC’s ability to interpret or to step in on behalf of the land users, our land use goals,
specifically our agriculture and food production goals may not be achieved.
Lisa Albright (written): Dear members of the LOC:
I am concerned about the bad revisions being made:
1. Selling tribal land.
2. Taking probate away from the land commission without having somewhere to put it.
3. Taking rule making and authority away from the elected Land Commission!
4. Limit the tribes use of eminent domain
5. Increasing land management staff
I am requesting the amendments be denied and forwarded to the new business committee, who
will be elected next July. You must stop this egregious use of power; taking authority away from
the elected Land Commission!
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 13 of 35
~
ONEIDA
56 of 313
Stephenie Wephenie (written): I have many concerns. Here are just 5 from the overview.
1. Change the ability to sell tribal land
2. Remove probate issues from the Land Commission before an alternative is established
3. Take rule making and authority away from the GTC elected Land Commission and allow staff
to assume them
4. Limit our Nation's eminent domain
5. And they want to include "increase Land management staffing" in the law. This doesn't belong
in a law.
So, I recommend writing to LOC at the above address to oppose the amendments and ask to
defer the amendments to the new LOC which is elected next July.
Response
Overview of Public Concerns: Several commenters emphasized the Land Commission’s critical
role as a governance body with deep institutional knowledge and direct accountability to the
community. They expressed strong concern that proposed amendments would remove or limit
key responsibilities, including its authority to interpret provisions of the Real Property Law,
approve or deny easements, and exercise rulemaking powers. Commenters believe these changes
could weaken community representation and reduce oversight in land-related decisions.
They stressed that the Land Commission’s involvement is essential to ensuring land use
decisions align with the Nation’s broader goals, such as food sovereignty and agricultural
sustainability. Removing these responsibilities, they argued, risks undermining strategic
objectives and diminishing the community’s voice in decisions affecting land use and
development.
Interpretation of Real Property Law: Commenters highlighted that the Land Commission’s
interpretive authority is vital for maintaining alignment between land use decisions and the
Nation’s long-term goals. They cited examples where this role prevented significant conflicts:
•
•
Community Project Conflict: In 2024, a community group secured a $900,000 grant for a
facility. During lease negotiations, the Land Commission identified that the proposed
parcel was earmarked for a future high school. Without this intervention, construction
could have begun on land critical for tribal infrastructure.
Agricultural Lease Extensions: When lease termination notices were issued to farmers,
including those raising livestock for the Tribal Elder Food Box Program, the Land
Commission intervened to extend leases. This action prevented disruption to food
production and supported agricultural continuity.
Commenters believe that these examples demonstrate that the Land Commission’s interpretive
role is not merely procedural—it safeguards strategic priorities and prevents costly mistakes.
Approval or Denial of Easements: Commenters also expressed concern about removing the Land
Commission’s authority to approve or deny easements. They argued that this responsibility ensures
community engagement and accountability in decisions that affect land access and development.
Easement approvals often involve balancing competing interests—such as infrastructure needs and
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 14 of 35
~
ONEIDA
57 of 313
agricultural sustainability—and require a body with both technical understanding and community
trust.
By shifting this authority to administrative staff, commenters fear decisions will lack the
transparency and institutional knowledge necessary to protect the Nation’s long-term interests.
They emphasized that elected bodies, not employees, should make decisions with such lasting
impact.
Commenters concluded that limiting the Land Commission’s authority could jeopardize food
sovereignty initiatives, agricultural production goals, and community representation in land
governance. They urged that these responsibilities remain with the Land Commission to preserve
accountability, prevent conflicts, and uphold the Nation’s strategic vision for land use.
The LOC proposed these amendments to streamline decision-making, reduce administrative
redundancy, and improve service delivery. Commissions traditionally serve as oversight bodies,
ensuring policy alignment and community representation. While these roles remain essential, the
day-to-day execution of technical and regulatory tasks—such as drafting rules, processing leases,
and managing compliance—is better suited to professional staff with established procedures and
direct accountability mechanisms.
The Legislative Operating Committee may make one of the following considerations regarding
these comments:
1. The LOC may determine that Section 601.5-2 and 601.5-3 should remain as currently
drafted.
2. The LOC may determine that Section 601.5-2 should be revised to reinstate the Land
Commission’s authority to: 601.5-2(a) Interpret the provisions of this law and create policy
as needed to guide Land Management in implementing the same;
If the LOC chooses this course of action, then following changes are also recommended:
601.5-3. “Land Management shall implement this law in accordance with the policy
directives provided by the Oneida Land Commission. Business Committee and
senior management.
601.5-3(a) Land Management shall: Interpret the provision of this law and create
policy as needed.
3. The LOC may determine that Section 601.5-3 should be revised to read:
“Land Management shall implement its duties this law in accordance with this law
the policy directives provided by the Oneida Business Committee and senior
management.”
4. The LOC may revisit the allocation of duties and determine if adjustments are warranted.
LOC Consideration
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 15 of 35
~
ONEIDA
58 of 313
Comment 3 – Land Commission - Consultation:
Gina Powless Buenrostro (oral): OK, so we talked about this amongst our Commission, but I'm
here as my own sovereign person, if you will. And so I'm going to say, first of all, that there's a
ton of amendments to this proposed, the proposed changes. And so I really am going to stand on
this is that when we're using this administrative rulemaking, OK, they started doing that I think
in 2017, eighteen, whatever year it was. It eliminates general tribal council from having any
involvement.
So I think when it pertains to any type of an agency, department, whatever is created by general
tribal council, then that needs to go back to them when you're making all these so-called
administrative rule making. Using that in terms of how we're going to change law, because a lot
of times when the laws change and we have a finalized version of the law, nobody knows what it
is. And I'll give you a good example, like the termination and eviction law, the word nuisance is
in the definitions. In the definitions, that word gives the whatever, Housing Authority, whoever
is doing the evictions, it gives them the right to throw people off the land. And see, I wasn't clear
about that. And that's why I wanted clarity. Like, how does the Housing Authority or whoever
have the authority to regulate who's on land and who's not on land? That's not their authority. I
think that's the Land Commission and the Land Management.
OK. So with that being said, I don't think it ever changed. And that went through rulemaking.
And so that's how people were getting thrown out of their houses. They weren't saying, well, I'm
taking your house away. They're saying get off the land. And I think that's very misleading for
folks in their homes. And. And I don't know where that's at as far as how many have been
evicted and and kicked out of their houses and not, I want, I don't want to say kicked out, say
kicked off the land. So, so that's an inconsistency I think in that law because it's defined by a
definition.
I was using that as an example. That's what I was using it as, and I still think it's ineffectively
written in that law per se. No one changed it. It wasn't done, but whatever. I'm going to get back
to the real property laws. So just based on the fundamental values of the tribe and how we
communicate this process of the LOCLRO, I'm not sure what title it goes by, but the way we're
doing this administrative rulemaking, it really interferes with our true governing body, which is
General Tribal Council. And if we go further back, that was clan mothers and the elders.
Everybody in the tribe in the community had a say. Say laws just weren't being passed without
our knowledge.
Laws, you know, I know and I get that you guys hold these meetings. You have how many
people here like actually here from the community, not workers, not people that you employ, but
people that are interested. You have four or five of us and that's it. You have department people,
but they're here probably because it affects their job. Departments, but actual community
members, maybe 3 here.
A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire.
Page 16 of 35
~
ONEIDA
59 of 313
So when I say and speak to that, that's the kind of three people cannot control 17,000 members
and laws that are being made. I really believe that using administrative rulemaking is a
hindrance. It's it's colonization to its finest form because we're making laws without everybody
having that input. And as we talked earlier, the conversation went like this. Well, they know that
it's posted. They could get here. Maybe they can't get here. Maybe they can't be here. Oh, well,
they could write a letter. Maybe they don't even know what's happening. That gully only comes
out once a month. So if you get it, or if you haven't read it. Then you're kind of like you're out of
the loop, so to speak. I'm going to say that in a real nice way. You're out of the loop.
So I think that I'm really against this rulemaking. I wanted to. I want laws to go back to the
general tribal council where it should go. They have the ultimate authority. They created the land
Commission, and so if they want the rules and they want to start eradicating our authority, let it
be them, but not the Business Committee or a Subcommittee of the Business Committee. Let it
be General Tribal Council. They're the ones who created the Land Commission in 1941. And if
they feel that we're not doing our job or if they feel, that, it's easier in the process flows easier if
it's delegated to all the separate departments and let them be like rulemaking in their
departments, then so be it.
But I think ultimately all these changes that yo
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.