# Oneida Business Committee (2025) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aoneida_nation%3Afb975f8b7f378324 ## Record - **Collection:** Tribal code - **Document type:** Tribal code ## 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 Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 2:10 PM To: LOC 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 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. A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 17 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 60 of 313 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 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. Response Commenters expressed significant frustration over what they perceive as a lack of meaningful consultation during the development of the proposed amendments. They emphasized that the Land Commission, originally established by the General Tribal Council (GTC), should have been engaged early and consistently in the process. Instead, they reported learning of the amendments A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 18 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 61 of 313 only days before the public hearing, leaving little time for review or substantive input. This was described as inconsistent with principles of transparency and collaboration. The General Tribal Council (GTC) remains the supreme governing body under the Oneida Constitution, retaining inherent sovereignty and all powers not specifically delegated (Art. IV). To ensure transparency, consistency, and public participation in legislative development, GTC adopted the Legislative Procedures Act (LPA) through Resolution GTC #01-07-13-A. The LPA establishes a clear process for drafting, reviewing, and adopting laws, and delegates to the Legislative Operating Committee (LOC) the responsibility to manage this process—not to adopt laws. Adoption authority rests exclusively with the Oneida Business Committee (OBC) or GTC itself [1 O.C. 109.4; 109.5–109.9]. In this matter, the LOC has fully complied with the LPA’s requirements under Section 109.8. This includes providing advance public notice, conducting a public meeting presided over by an LOC member, maintaining a comment period open for at least five business days after the meeting, and considering all comments before forwarding legislation for adoption. These steps demonstrate that the legislative system is functioning as intended—openly, inclusively, and under GTC authority— ensuring that community input is part of the official record guiding the review process. Under the LPA, the Legislative Operating Committee (LOC) is required to provide advance public notice, hold a public meeting, and maintain an open comment period for written submissions before any legislation moves forward. This process serves as a safeguard to ensure that all interested parties have ample time and opportunity to review, comment on, and influence proposed changes. All oral and written comments submitted during this period are being fully considered by the LOC prior to any recommendation or action. While it may have been beneficial for the LOC to meet individually with certain entities, such as the Land Commission, the LPA does not require consultation with any specific body. Instead, it establishes a structured public review process designed to provide equal opportunity for all stakeholders to participate. This approach reflects the governance framework approved by GTC and ensures that the process remains open, inclusive, and accountable. The comments underscore the importance of consultation; however, they rest on the incorrect premise that administrative rulemaking “eliminates” GTC involvement or allows staff to change law. Under our Constitution and laws, GTC authority is intact; elected bodies adopt laws; LOC has complied with the LPA; and rulemaking implements—not changes—law. After full consideration of the record and consistent with the legal framework, no revisions to the proposed amendments are recommended based on these comments. There is no revision to the Law recommended based on these comments. LOC Consideration A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 19 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 62 of 313 Comment 4 – Rule Making: 601.3. Definitions [p] “Rule” means a set of requirements, including fee schedules, enacted by the Tribal entities in accordance with this law and the Administrative Rulemaking law, based on authority delegated in this law in order to implement, interpret and/or enforce this law. 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 20 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 63 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 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. A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 21 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 64 of 313 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 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. 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 A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 22 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 65 of 313 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! Response Commenters express strong opposition to the use of administrative rulemaking, asserting that it diminishes the role of the General Tribal Council (GTC) and elected bodies such as the Land Commission. They argue that rulemaking allows agencies and staff to make significant changes without adequate community involvement, citing past experiences where definitions in other laws (e.g., eviction and termination) were interpreted through rules in ways that impacted individuals’ rights. Commenters believe that any changes affecting entities created by GTC should return to GTC for approval rather than being implemented through administrative rulemaking. They also raised concerns about limited public participation, noting that few community members attend meetings and that notices may not reach all members in time. It is important to clarify that administrative rulemaking is not a substitute for lawmaking by GTC. The authority for rulemaking is delegated by law and governed by the Administrative Rulemaking Law, 1 O.C. 106, adopted by the Oneida Business Committee in 2016. This law establishes a transparent, democratic process for creating rules that interpret and implement laws already adopted by GTC or the Business Committee. Rules cannot exceed the authority granted in the underlying law [1 O.C. 106.4-1] and have the same force and effect as that law [1 O.C. 106.41(b)]. The comments call for authority to remain close to the people and express concern that staff may “replace” elected decision-makers. Under the LPA and administrative rulemaking law, staff do not adopt laws; they draft and administer within delegation. Elected bodies (OBC/GTC) adopt laws; LOC manages the process; Judiciary provides independent review. This separation of powers enhances accountability and due process, which are core to Nation-building [1 O.C. 109; 1 O.C. 106; BC-02-08-17-A]. The Administrative Rulemaking Law requires public notice and comment before any rule is adopted [1 O.C. 106.6]. This includes: A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 23 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 66 of 313 • Publishing notice at least 10 business days before the meeting in the Oneida Register and Tribal publications [1 O.C. 106.6-2(a)]. • Holding a public meeting where the proposed rule is explained and oral comments are recorded [1 O.C. 106.6-2(c)-(f)]. • Keeping the record open for written comments for at least five business days after the meeting [1 O.C. 106.6-2(g)]. • Fully considering all comments before finalizing the rule [1 O.C. 106.6-3]. After the comment period, the Legislative Operating Committee (LOC) certifies compliance with these procedures, and the Oneida Business Committee reviews the rule, the comments, and agency responses before the rule becomes effective [1 O.C. 106.7]. This process ensures accountability and prevents unilateral action by staff. In short, rules do not change laws; they provide detailed procedures to implement laws that GTC or the Oneida Business Committee has already adopted. The current amendments to the Real Property Law continue to delegate rulemaking authority in accordance with this established process, which includes multiple safeguards for transparency and community input. While concerns about participation are valid, the system provides opportunities for involvement through public meetings, written comments, and publication of notices. The LOC remains committed to improving outreach and accessibility to ensure that all members have a fair chance to engage. Rulemaking authority is properly delegated and regulated under Oneida law. It does not bypass GTC authority but supports effective implementation of laws through a structured, participatory process. No revision to the proposed amendments is recommended based on these comments. LOC Consideration Comment 5 – Disposition of Tribal Land: 601.4. General Provisions 601.4-1. Applicable Real Property. The provisions of this law extend to all Tribal member’s individual fee land and individual trust land within the Reservation boundaries and all Tribal land. 601.4-2. Tribal Land Base. Land Management shall administer all transactions which add real property to the Tribal land base under the provisions of this law. 601.4-23. Sale of Tribal Land Prohibited. The sale of Tribal land located within twenty-five [25] miles of the exterior boundaries of the Reservation is specifically expressly prohibited, by this law, unless the intent of except under the following circumstances: [a] The transaction is intended to the consolidation consolidate or partition of Tribal trust land and/or individual trust land. [b] The land is located off the Reservation but within twenty-five [25] miles of the exterior boundaries of the Reservation, and the sale is approved by formal resolution of the Oneida Business Committee. A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 24 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 67 of 313 Charlene Smith (written): As an Enrolled Oneida Nation Tribal Member, I oppose the proposed amendents regarding Tribal Property Law. DO NOT SELL TRIBAL LANDS. The LAW changes should be denied at this time! Propsed changes and reviews should be carried over to the next administration. Let the new Business Committe work on it. They will be elected in July 2026. DO NOT APPROVE THE REVISIONS AT THIS TIME. 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. 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! Response Commenters strongly oppose any changes that would permit the sale of tribal land. They recommend rejecting the proposed amendments and deferring consideration to the next elected administration in mid-2026. It is important to clarify what the amendments actually do. Core land base protection remains intact, preserving a strong protection zone—sales within the Reservation boundaries are strictly prohibited. The amendments allow only narrow, process-controlled exceptions for land located off the Reservation (within 25 miles), and only under two conditions: formal approval by Oneida Business Committee (OBC) resolution and for consolidation or partition cases involving trust lands. This does not authorize indiscriminate sales; rather, it introduces structured flexibility to address parcels that no longer serve the Nation’s interests or impose administrative burdens. These changes enhance the Nation’s capacity for strategic land management by enabling the divestiture of parcels that are no longer beneficial or present administrative challenges. This provision balances preservation with flexibility, maintaining strong protections for land near the A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 25 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 68 of 313 Reservation while allowing for controlled, purposeful transactions elsewhere. It also reinforces governance accountability through required approvals. From a legal and governance perspective, oversight is preserved through mandatory OBC resolution requirements, ensuring accountability while enabling strategic land management. The amendment aligns with long-term portfolio stewardship by balancing preservation near the Reservation with limited divestiture elsewhere when beneficial to the Nation. The LOC may make one of the following determinations: 1. Consider a sunset or review clause (e.g., 24–36 months) requiring a status report on any sales authorized under the new framework. 2. Consider adding an administrative step requiring the Land Commission to approve a sale of Tribal land before the resolution moves to the OBC . 3. Consider removing the exception. 4. Make no change. LOC Consideration Comment 6 – Eminent Domaine: 601.87-3. Involuntary Transfer of Title. All involuntary transfers of title require a hearing and order from the Judiciary, and may occur in the following ways: (a) Eminent Domain. Eminent domain is the right of the Nation’s government to acquire Tribal member individual fee land within the Reservation for public uses without the consent of private owners. (1) For the purposes of this section, public uses include, but are not limited to, environmental protection, streets, highways, sanitary sewers, public utility/sites, waste treatment facilities and public housing. (2) Prior to exercising eminent domain, the Nation shall first attempt to negotiate an agreeable taking by making an offer to purchase based on an appraisal of the real property. The appraisal amount may be based on an appraisal provided by the Nation. In the event the property owner objects to the Nation’s appraisal, they may obtain an independent appraisal at their own cost. For the purposes of this section, an appraisal means process for estimating a piece of real property’s value. (3) The Nation’s exercise of eminent domain shall be limited to a right of last resort. Parties contesting authority or consideration as related to the Nation’s exercise of eminent domain may contest the acquisition by filing a complaint with the Oneida Judiciary. and may be appealed to the Judiciary. 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 A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 26 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 69 of 313 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! Response Several commenters expressed strong opposition to any amendment they believe would restrict the Nation’s ability to exercise eminent domain. They view such changes as a potential reduction of tribal sovereignty and authority and recommend rejecting the proposed revisions or deferring them to the next administration. It is important to clarify that the proposed amendments do not eliminate eminent domain authority. Instead, they codify its use as a last resort and establish clear due process protections, including the right to challenge the Nation’s authority or the adequacy of compensation in the Oneida Nation Trial Court [6 O.C. 601.8-3(a)(3)]. These changes strengthen the legal defensibility of eminent domain actions and enhance transparency without diminishing the Nation’s sovereign power. The inclusion of “last resort” language reduces litigation risk and ensures proportionality in governmental actions. Judicial review provides an internal check that protects individual rights and demonstrates procedural fairness, reinforcing- not weakening- tribal sovereignty. Eminent domain authority is fully retained under the proposed amendments; it is simply framed with procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and accountability. Based on these comments, no revision to the law is recommended. LOC Consideration A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 27 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 70 of 313 Comment 7 – Probate Authority: 601.8. Probate 601.8-1. Land Management shall process and administer probate estates and, where necessary, shall refer probate estates to the Oneida Judiciary for formal administration. Land Management and the Oneida Land Commission shall jointly create any rules necessary to administer probate estates. Land Management shall: [a] Process applications for probate administration; [b] Receive proof of heirship demonstrating a party is entitled to receive an intestate decedent’s property pursuant to applicable laws and rules; [c] Receive consent to serve forms and in undisputed matters, issue domiciliary letters; [d] Require and receive affidavits of service; [e] Receive waiver and consent to probate administration forms and any related affidavits; [f] Issue notice to creditors of the probate’s administration, receive creditor claims for consideration and settlement, and issue discharge of creditors when appropriate; [g] Receive and process all estate inventories; [h] Receive and process, when possible, land transactions in accordance with this law and receive proof of recording documents; [i] Receive estate receipts; [j] In undisputed matters, receive and process statement of personal representative to close estate and issue discharge of personal representative; and [k] Refer disputed matters to the Judiciary, transfer probate and related documents, and participate in the Judiciary’s proceedings as necessary. 601.8-2. The Judiciary shall hear and administer disputed probate estates or matters requiring appointment of a guardian ad litem and shall have all the above powers conferred upon Land Management in such cases. In addition, the Judiciary shall hear and administer probate estates in which Land Management seeks appointment as a personal representative. Fred Muscavitch (oral): 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 A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 28 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 71 of 313 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. 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 feat of 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. 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 A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 29 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 72 of 313 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! Response Overall, commenters expressed a strong desire to preserve the Land Commission’s role in probate until a clearer governance structure is in place. They emphasized the importance of maintaining public accountability and continuity in probate matters. Concerns were raised that shifting probate responsibilities to staff would not necessarily improve efficiency or responsiveness, as the Land Commission already handles urgent matters promptly and effectively. Commenters questioned the assumption that delegation to staff ensures professional expertise, noting that many staff members have limited tenure and experience in land-related issues. They stressed that the Land Commission brings decades of institutional knowledge and continuity, which they believe is critical for sound decision-making. Moving probate authority away from the Commission was viewed as reducing accountability to the General Tribal Council (GTC) and diminishing elected oversight. Commenters also highlighted recent improvements to probate processes achieved through collaboration between the Land Commission and the Law Office, resulting in a more defensible framework. Based on these improvements, they expressed a preference for retaining the Commission’s authority and requested that the amendments be denied or withdrawn due to their scope, short notice, and lack of consultation. The proposed amendments do not eliminate probate processes or create an operational gap. Instead, they transition probate provisions out of the Real Property Law into a forthcoming standalone Probate Law. The amendment resolution includes a safeguard to keep current probate sections active until the new Probate Law is formally adopted, preventing any operational gap. This staged transition ensures continuity while allowing the Nation to develop a dedicated Probate Law that will improve clarity, streamline procedures, and tailor processes to the unique requirements of probate, including coordination with federal trust regulations. A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 30 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 73 of 313 This transition reflects a long-standing governance plan. In 2017, the Oneida Business Committee adopted significant amendments to the Real Property Law through Resolution BC06-14-17-A, which explicitly stated the intent to transfer the Land Commission’s original hearing authority for probate matters to the Oneida Judiciary and delegate joint administrative rulemaking authority to the Division of Land Management and the Land Commission. The 2017 resolution recognized that probate hearings should ultimately be handled by the Judiciary to strengthen due process and judicial oversight. The current amendments continue that plan by removing probate provisions from the Real Property Law and preparing for a comprehensive Probate Law framework. To address concerns about accountability and expertise, rulemaking and implementation under the new framework will remain subject to the Administrative Rulemaking Law and established approval pathways, including oversight by the Oneida Business Committee, public notice, comment periods, and Judiciary review where applicable. The Legislative Operating Committee is committed to an inclusive drafting process for the standalone Probate Law, which may include formal work sessions with the Land Commission, Law Office, Judiciary, and community stakeholders. No revision to the proposed amendments is recommended. LOC Consideration Comment 8 – Land Management Staff Increase: 601.12. Real Estate Education Requirements and Certifications 601.12-1. Wisconsin Real Estate Education and Exam Required. All persons Land Management employees engaging in the acquisition of Tribal fee land on behalf of the Nation, specifically those performing real estate closings, shall pass the Wisconsin Real Estate License Exam. Such persons are not required to obtain a Wisconsin Real Estate License, but shall fulfill the pre-license education requirement, pass the licensing exam and fulfill a minimum of twelve (12) hours or four (4) courses of continuing education requirements as required of Wisconsin real estate licensees. The Oneida Law Office Land Management Director shall select which continuing education courses are required and the Oneida Law Office shall provide the director with a reccommendation. In addition to Wisconsin’s minimum education requirements as applied to the Nation’s real estate employees in this law, Land Management shall require such employees to attend real estate training specific to the Nation’s goals and unique positions as the Oneida Law Office shall offer on an asneeded basis. (a) While Wisconsin real estate law allows persons engaged in the sale of real estate to earn a commission, persons acquiring Tribal land on behalf of the Nation are regular employees of the Nation and, therefore, shall waive any commission for which they might otherwise be eligible. A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 31 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 74 of 313 (b) It is critical to the Oneida Nation’s goal to reacquire property within the original Reservation boundaries to have employees educated and experienced in executing real estate transactions. Accordingly, Land Management shall, subject to budgetary constraints, employ at least two (2) minimum of one (1) employees whose primary responsibility is real estate acquisitions and shall ensure that a minimum of two (2) one (1) employee is adequately educated and trained to serve as a backup to the primary personnel. 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. 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! Response Commenters express concern about a proposed amendment that would increase Land Management staffing. They questioned why employee allocations should be included in the law and suggested that such provisions do not belong in legislation. The Real Property Law has historically included provisions related to staffing allocations. The proposed amendment does not introduce a new concept but updates the minimum number of Land Management employees primarily responsible for real estate acquisitions from one to two, contingent upon available budgetary resources. This adjustment is intended to strengthen the Nation’s ability to achieve a critical strategic goal: reacquiring property within the original Reservation boundaries. Increasing staffing capacity enhances operational effectiveness by allowing the department to identify, evaluate, and pursue acquisition opportunities more efficiently, respond to time-sensitive A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 32 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 75 of 313 transactions, and manage complex negotiations. Additional personnel also support long-term planning and community engagement, ultimately accelerating the pace of reacquisition and reinforcing Tribal sovereignty over ancestral lands. Including this provision in the law ensures transparency and accountability for resource allocation tied to essential land management functions. There is no revision to the Law recommended based on these comments. LOC Consideration Comment 9 – General Opposition to Amendments: Michael Anderson (written): LOC, I do not like the proposed amendments to real property law. Please defer them to next summer to the new Business Committee after the July 2026 elections, for revisions and reconsideration with Land Commission input. Charlene Smith (written): As an Enrolled Oneida Nation Tribal Member, I oppose the proposed amendents regarding Tribal Property Law. DO NOT SELL TRIBAL LANDS. The LAW changes should be denied at this time! Propsed changes and reviews should be carried over to the next administration. Let the new Business Committe work on it. They will be elected in July 2026. DO NOT APPROVE THE REVISIONS AT THIS TIME. 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. 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 A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 33 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 76 of 313 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! Response Several commenters expressed broad opposition to the proposed amendments, recommending that they be deferred until after the July 2026 elections for reconsideration by a new administration. These objections did not raise new substantive issues beyond those already addressed individually in prior responses regarding land sales, probate, eminent domain, rulemaking authority, and staffing provisions. It is essential to clarify that the LOC is not acting outside its authority or bypassing elected governance. The LOC is carrying out its lawful duty under the Legislative Procedures Act (LPA), which was adopted by the General Tribal Council (GTC) through Resolution GTC #0107-13-A. The LPA was designed by GTC to create a transparent, consistent, and communitydriven legislative process. Public comment is a cornerstone of that process and reflects GTC’s intent that members have a meaningful voice in shaping legislation before adoption. Under the LPA, the Legislative Operating Committee is responsible for drafting, analyzing, and managing public review of proposed laws before forwarding them for adoption by the Oneida Business Committee (OBC) or GTC. This structure ensures that legislation is carefully vetted and informed by community input, while final adoption authority remains with elected governing bodies. The LOC has fully complied with the LPA’s requirements, including: • Publishing advance notice of the public meeting and comment period; • Holding a public meeting presided over by an LOC member; • Keeping the comment period open for at least five business days after the meeting; and • Considering all comments before forwarding legislation for adoption [1 O.C. 109.8]. These steps demonstrate that the process is functioning exactly as GTC intended—openly, inclusively, and under its authority. Every comment, including these general objections, becomes part of the official record guiding LOC’s review. Because these objections do not identify new issues beyond those already addressed, no revisions to the proposed amendments are recommended based on these comments. LOC Consideration A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 34 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 77 of 313 A good mind. A good heart. A strong fire. Page 35 of 35 ~ ONEIDA 78 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 79 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 b [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aoneida_nation%3Afb975f8b7f378324. Public record. Not legal advice.