In another Indian Country today article, Elouise Cobell explains that the receipts are forthcoming. Well this is welcome news to the fans of transparency. Maybe there is an explanation for the 15 million she's seeking to get from this class action lawsuit. But there's one thing that keeps bugging anyone who would look at part of what Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund does.
They fundraise. They raise funds. ( "We paid for it because it RAISED FUNDS for this purpose") There are literally millions being raised by them by grants or personal donations that went toward whatever it is that they do. So the 15 million that she will receive--will they go toward reimbursing whoever it was that DONATED funds toward her efforts? At this point it looks like fancy accounting footwork:
Here's 15 dollars now go any buy anything you want at the store.
And 14 years later, now we're going to "reimburse" her for whatever she bought at the store?
(in essence then she gets paid twice: once from the donor and then once from us)
Make us believers. Turn the tides around with at least some sort of explanation as to what is happening in light of what isn't listed on the tax returns.
The accounting firms that she says she had working on this and the expert witnesses are nowhere to be found on many years of tax returns for this organization. Where are the bills for them? They show up in 2008 (the bills to any contractors hired by this grass roots organization). Now to be fair, maybe before 2002 they were there. Guess we'll have to look at those tax returns when she presents them.
Examine the tax returns for the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund at the NCCS site and see if you come up with different opinions as to what she reported as contractors paid for by her organization. Otherwise, this doesn't look very believable. Maybe it is, but if receipts don't match up with the tax returns already available for public view, I would say that the overseeing court has to have some questions answered before they rule for the 15 million.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Elouise Cobell's fees need some documentation
Elouise Cobell recently stated that she had worked this case for 14 years. She stated that the fees for this cause are relatively small in comparison. There a couple of other important things that are pretty small in comparison. If she had personally lost 15 million in land revenue, fine, lets see it. If she personally lost 15 million litigating this, fine let see it. But if she's just representing a bunch of us to inflate what she gets, then that would be another story.
So what are the "estimated earnings" of her organization the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund? She makes inference that her BRDF funded much of her efforts to argue this case. Dunn and Bradstreet have her annual sales as low as $310,000. Manta.com has her between $500,000 and 1 million in annual sales. Well, if she's selling her Consulting services, to us the land owners, then I'd say we don't owe 15 million. We owe a max of 14 million and minimum according to Dunn and Bradstreet of $4,340,000 million.
As evidenced by some of the tax returns she filed, Dennis Gingold has already been paid too. And she got some hefty grants or public support for quite a bit of money that should already be deducted from what we, the land owners, owe her.
Looking through the tax returns on NCCS the National Center For Charitable Statistics I can only see one year that we, the land owners, owe to any "contractor": Dennis Gingold in 2008 accrued fees of $157,050. dollars in legal fees. Well now that seems reasonable. We also paid for CRA to come in and do some work. Then we had an accountant check the numbers too. But what about Elouise Cobell, doesn't she deserve some pay?
Well agreeably she does. But for what? She works according to her tax returns for a little as one hour a week. In the most recent tax returns she has doubled her work load to 2 hours a week. Now if she didn't get paid for all those years of work at two hours per week, (the tax returns show she didn't receive any compensation), then that's not the land owner's fault. Apparently she chose not to argue for compensation for all the years of tax returns on display at the NCCS site.
Or did she presume that if she got a giant win for all land owners that we would just give her 15 million?
Did this Blackfeet Reservation Development Corporation devote its entire existence to fighting this law suit? No education went toward its own reservation, no resources helped its own local community members out with some economic development ideas?
She deserves $25 dollars an hour for each year of the 14 years of litigation. It's the least we can do. That would bring her total up to $728,000 total. That seems fair, especially since she never told us that she was going to charge us after the fact.
You can't have it both ways, either you go the organization to compell them to pay you or you "suck it up and drive on." But don't expect me to have my name and all the oblivious land owners' names used to make you a millionaire after you received millions of dollars in public support or grants and managed to get by somehow. Or are there some fancy receipts that aren't showing up on your tax returns? Maybe you can have it both ways. Tell this judge what you think you are owed, and then tell us what you got. Some of us will judge the character of this incident by the transparency of the entire cast of actors. Make believers of us all and show how you lost 15 million arguing this case. My bet is that the GRANTS to your organization will more than cover what you claimed. Not all land owners are convinced and will wait for the transparency to prove your case.
Good luck with that.
So what are the "estimated earnings" of her organization the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund? She makes inference that her BRDF funded much of her efforts to argue this case. Dunn and Bradstreet have her annual sales as low as $310,000. Manta.com has her between $500,000 and 1 million in annual sales. Well, if she's selling her Consulting services, to us the land owners, then I'd say we don't owe 15 million. We owe a max of 14 million and minimum according to Dunn and Bradstreet of $4,340,000 million.
As evidenced by some of the tax returns she filed, Dennis Gingold has already been paid too. And she got some hefty grants or public support for quite a bit of money that should already be deducted from what we, the land owners, owe her.
Looking through the tax returns on NCCS the National Center For Charitable Statistics I can only see one year that we, the land owners, owe to any "contractor": Dennis Gingold in 2008 accrued fees of $157,050. dollars in legal fees. Well now that seems reasonable. We also paid for CRA to come in and do some work. Then we had an accountant check the numbers too. But what about Elouise Cobell, doesn't she deserve some pay?
Well agreeably she does. But for what? She works according to her tax returns for a little as one hour a week. In the most recent tax returns she has doubled her work load to 2 hours a week. Now if she didn't get paid for all those years of work at two hours per week, (the tax returns show she didn't receive any compensation), then that's not the land owner's fault. Apparently she chose not to argue for compensation for all the years of tax returns on display at the NCCS site.
Or did she presume that if she got a giant win for all land owners that we would just give her 15 million?
Did this Blackfeet Reservation Development Corporation devote its entire existence to fighting this law suit? No education went toward its own reservation, no resources helped its own local community members out with some economic development ideas?
She deserves $25 dollars an hour for each year of the 14 years of litigation. It's the least we can do. That would bring her total up to $728,000 total. That seems fair, especially since she never told us that she was going to charge us after the fact.
You can't have it both ways, either you go the organization to compell them to pay you or you "suck it up and drive on." But don't expect me to have my name and all the oblivious land owners' names used to make you a millionaire after you received millions of dollars in public support or grants and managed to get by somehow. Or are there some fancy receipts that aren't showing up on your tax returns? Maybe you can have it both ways. Tell this judge what you think you are owed, and then tell us what you got. Some of us will judge the character of this incident by the transparency of the entire cast of actors. Make believers of us all and show how you lost 15 million arguing this case. My bet is that the GRANTS to your organization will more than cover what you claimed. Not all land owners are convinced and will wait for the transparency to prove your case.
Good luck with that.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Elouise Cobell "Suffers" From Criticism
She deserves criticism if she is personally going to walk away with 15 million dollars while the rest of us will get the rumored 1,500 dollars. I thought she was arguing for justice. Where is the justice in walking away a millionaire? (for what kind of lost profits on her land?)
Maybe, maybe if she lost 15 million dollars in profit from her land I could jump on board her gravy train. If she personally lost 15 million dollars contributing toward the litigation, maybe I could pull her little red wagon. If she was charging appearance fees on my behalf though, well that is a different matter.
What a haul! "She" points out a discrepancy which we all know about, and she gets to rake in the millions? I'm sorry, I thought this was initially for accountability. So, I propose that Congress, and a few "Good Indians" come up with the documentation to show how we land owners are supposed to take 1,500 dollars each and Elouise walks away a millionaire. If she has those kind of bills stacked up, then in the spirit of transparency, show all of us land owners your losing hand.
Otherwise, how in the name of all that's Native does she expect us to swallow this story of her walking away with 15 million dollars? I am willing to accept this, with a resonable explanation. Congress should do the same. Indian Land Owners should also fall in step.
And there are a few other issues which deserve stage time, but which do not deserve to be repeated when somebody else has already provided the arguments in Indian Country Today.
Did we just get hoodwinked?
Maybe, maybe if she lost 15 million dollars in profit from her land I could jump on board her gravy train. If she personally lost 15 million dollars contributing toward the litigation, maybe I could pull her little red wagon. If she was charging appearance fees on my behalf though, well that is a different matter.
What a haul! "She" points out a discrepancy which we all know about, and she gets to rake in the millions? I'm sorry, I thought this was initially for accountability. So, I propose that Congress, and a few "Good Indians" come up with the documentation to show how we land owners are supposed to take 1,500 dollars each and Elouise walks away a millionaire. If she has those kind of bills stacked up, then in the spirit of transparency, show all of us land owners your losing hand.
Otherwise, how in the name of all that's Native does she expect us to swallow this story of her walking away with 15 million dollars? I am willing to accept this, with a resonable explanation. Congress should do the same. Indian Land Owners should also fall in step.
And there are a few other issues which deserve stage time, but which do not deserve to be repeated when somebody else has already provided the arguments in Indian Country Today.
Did we just get hoodwinked?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Who is in charge of the Office of Special Trustee?
Sometimes it becomes comical, the happenings in the Great Puzzle Palace. Is it really okay to give the keys to the Ofice of Special Trustee to Donna Erwin? It seems like just yesterday that she was reprimanded for some less-than-favorable actions with some no-contest contractors at OST. And now she's in charge. I want to know if it should really be ok with Tribal Land Owners that the trustee's office is in the hands of the Fearsome-Foursome (see Office of Inspector General Memorandum, Fraud in New Mexico, and An Ugly History, and a related story on POGO Blog: Discipline Awaits for Indian Trust Officials Snagged in Corruptino Scandal)
The optimum Easter Bunny Present is that the Office of Special Trustee be swallowed up by some other agency who can run it through an industrial-strength shredder and we can forget the good idea ever was. "Sure it was a good idea at the time."
History, however, shows OST hasn't ever lived up to it's potential unless you're a contractor with friends in the Office of Special Trustee whom you can ply with golf outings. For the rest of us, well, we will have to once again hold our breath and see what happens when yet another group of Executive Level employees "Screw Up to Move Up."
In case you forgot, here are some reminders (below) of why the current situation is an important one and why the President of the United States needs to crack the whip over at the Interior so we can get some ethical, respectable, leadership in the Office of Special Trustee.
Here's How You Manage Leasing!
Two Cheers for Dirk Kempthorne!
Good Indians
An Administration's Task
The Poorest of the Poor
A Grand Contracted Mess
Return to the Scene of the Crime
A Penny For Your Appraisal
The optimum Easter Bunny Present is that the Office of Special Trustee be swallowed up by some other agency who can run it through an industrial-strength shredder and we can forget the good idea ever was. "Sure it was a good idea at the time."
History, however, shows OST hasn't ever lived up to it's potential unless you're a contractor with friends in the Office of Special Trustee whom you can ply with golf outings. For the rest of us, well, we will have to once again hold our breath and see what happens when yet another group of Executive Level employees "Screw Up to Move Up."
In case you forgot, here are some reminders (below) of why the current situation is an important one and why the President of the United States needs to crack the whip over at the Interior so we can get some ethical, respectable, leadership in the Office of Special Trustee.
Here's How You Manage Leasing!
Two Cheers for Dirk Kempthorne!
Good Indians
An Administration's Task
The Poorest of the Poor
A Grand Contracted Mess
Return to the Scene of the Crime
A Penny For Your Appraisal
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Where is the Trustee, or rather where WAS the Trustee?
The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a video conference yesterday asking where is the Trustee? It seemed appropriate when you got done watching the live telecast. Oh, but then wait a minute, we don't exactly have a Special Trustee right now. We have Donna Erwin who has been "acting" for quite a while now at the Trustee thingy.
Let's see, we had George Skibine, acting everything, and doing a fine job of it; Vicki Forrest, newbie to the big picture, and Carl the-former-secretary Artman.
Ross Swimmer is busy running a bank, Donna Erwin is, is...where was Donna? Did anybody check the clubhouse? See if the missing foursome, might still be playing together.
We heard "enhancements" a great many times during the BIA presentation. What does the Office of Special Trustee have to say about that? We heard encumbrances hinder the Fee to Trust process. We heard the BIA does not control the Appraisal process. We heard the the NEPA processing takes time. (especially since they require "professionals" now complete even a basic Environmental ASSESSMENT) (different than a full blown EIS)
We didn't hear from the Office of Special Trustee (OST). We didn't get an explanation for why tribes and tribal land owners are not considered "clients" of their own appraisals on their own land. It's in 25 CFR for those intrepid enough to acutally see the truth. The problem with that is that if you want to see the appraisers notes, especially in States of non-disclosure, you won't. You are not the client, the OST is, as stipulated in the CFR. You have to somehow compell the OST staffer that they should go ask the contractor for those notes. And since the Cobell lawsuit, they won't even give you directions to the nearest water fountain let alone "notes" on your own appraisal.
You have to somehow also convince the OST that their contracted appraiser should not sub-contract two levels below him either. It has happened, a contractor for appraisals sub contracted to someone who sub-contracted to another pair of mostly appraisal-illiterate individuals. It's not a transparent process as outlined in the US Professional Appraisal Practices handbook.
We didn't hear about how "acting on behalf of tribal land owners," leasing specialists are taking a single bid for a lease and calling that a comptetitive bid. Ross himself said one single bid is not a competitive bid. Donna agreed with him. We didn't hear how that has been changed today. We also didn't hear how "acting in our best interest," leasing specialists will take the low road and just accept the appraised value for bids, no negotiating going on, just accept what they give us, after they share the appraisal with the farmers' advocates. It was unanimous when Gerald Ben from the Northwest Regional Office said all the BIA has to do is make sure leases meet the appraisal value. It has become the maximum instead of the minimum. You should always settle for the appraised value, not bargain up to it.
So, yes, I have to agree with the title of the conference, where WAS the Trustee?
And pose today's question: "Where IS the Trustee?"
Let's see, we had George Skibine, acting everything, and doing a fine job of it; Vicki Forrest, newbie to the big picture, and Carl the-former-secretary Artman.
Ross Swimmer is busy running a bank, Donna Erwin is, is...where was Donna? Did anybody check the clubhouse? See if the missing foursome, might still be playing together.
We heard "enhancements" a great many times during the BIA presentation. What does the Office of Special Trustee have to say about that? We heard encumbrances hinder the Fee to Trust process. We heard the BIA does not control the Appraisal process. We heard the the NEPA processing takes time. (especially since they require "professionals" now complete even a basic Environmental ASSESSMENT) (different than a full blown EIS)
We didn't hear from the Office of Special Trustee (OST). We didn't get an explanation for why tribes and tribal land owners are not considered "clients" of their own appraisals on their own land. It's in 25 CFR for those intrepid enough to acutally see the truth. The problem with that is that if you want to see the appraisers notes, especially in States of non-disclosure, you won't. You are not the client, the OST is, as stipulated in the CFR. You have to somehow compell the OST staffer that they should go ask the contractor for those notes. And since the Cobell lawsuit, they won't even give you directions to the nearest water fountain let alone "notes" on your own appraisal.
You have to somehow also convince the OST that their contracted appraiser should not sub-contract two levels below him either. It has happened, a contractor for appraisals sub contracted to someone who sub-contracted to another pair of mostly appraisal-illiterate individuals. It's not a transparent process as outlined in the US Professional Appraisal Practices handbook.
We didn't hear about how "acting on behalf of tribal land owners," leasing specialists are taking a single bid for a lease and calling that a comptetitive bid. Ross himself said one single bid is not a competitive bid. Donna agreed with him. We didn't hear how that has been changed today. We also didn't hear how "acting in our best interest," leasing specialists will take the low road and just accept the appraised value for bids, no negotiating going on, just accept what they give us, after they share the appraisal with the farmers' advocates. It was unanimous when Gerald Ben from the Northwest Regional Office said all the BIA has to do is make sure leases meet the appraisal value. It has become the maximum instead of the minimum. You should always settle for the appraised value, not bargain up to it.
So, yes, I have to agree with the title of the conference, where WAS the Trustee?
And pose today's question: "Where IS the Trustee?"
Monday, November 23, 2009
10,000
Finally! The long wait to see who would be the 10,000th visitor is over. Congratulations to Indianhead Telephone Company of Hector Communications!
Indian Head Telephone Company
N3767 4th Street
Weyerhaeuser, WI
Phone: 715-353-2434
Email: itc@indianheadtel.net
This is not made up. Indian Head Telephone Company really does have a user who was the 10,000th visitor to Native Issues Blog. It is only fitting that out of all the different addresses that visit this site, a Native-Theme-Named company should stand out on such a milestone.
Good night, and good news!
Indian Head Telephone Company
N3767 4th Street
Weyerhaeuser, WI
Phone: 715-353-2434
Email: itc@indianheadtel.net
This is not made up. Indian Head Telephone Company really does have a user who was the 10,000th visitor to Native Issues Blog. It is only fitting that out of all the different addresses that visit this site, a Native-Theme-Named company should stand out on such a milestone.
Good night, and good news!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Peabody Coal and the Office of Surface Mining's activities are again called to question
The controversey around Peabody Coal still not only simmers, it has once again boiled over, or at least it looks to if things don't change in the immediate future.
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
