SETTLEMENT MASTER PUBLIC FORUM

The following is a transcript of a Public Meeting held at the Stanley Theater in Utica, New York on July 29, 1999. The forum was held at the request of Ralph J. Eannace Jr., Oneida County Executive and Larry Carpenter, Chairman, Madison County Board of Supervisors. It was conducted by the court appointed Settlement Master, Ronald Riccio, former Dean of the Seton Hall University Law School.

County Executive Ralph J. Eannace Jr., welcoming remarks:

"We have been taking the issues of the land claim very seriously. We are trying very hard to see if a settlement can be reached. We have also been in court in your behalf and have visited communities around the country that have dealt with land claims. We have met with local groups and extended an open invitation for later meetings. I have been named the head of a special task force of NYSAC (New York State Association of Counties) to talk about state and federal legislation, etc.

A settlement must be agreed to at the negotiating table, approved by counties, state legislature, and Congress.

We have stated all along no settlement can be reached that would involve any loss of your rights in your homes, rents, taking, loss of possession, loss of any interest in your homes. We must protect businesses and the future stability of our communities. We must have a settlement that we can live with for many decades to come.

In order for any settlement negotiations to go much further, it must be more open and give you, the public a chance to have input in what is going on. That is why we have invited Dean Riccio here tonight. And will do more in terms of Web sites, public meetings, etc. to make sure any settlement is one we can live with."

 Comments by Larry Carpenter, Chairman, Madison County Board of Legislators:

 " I would like to briefly explain the rules of what is going on tonight. We understand how important this issue is to you; I own a home and business in the land claim area. We see this as a perfect opportunity for you, the citizens, to speak directly with Dean Riccio. We will allow a 45-minute comment period with speeches no longer than 3 minutes in duration. Following the comment period, Dean Riccio will respond to written questions.

If you want to participate in the comment period or submit written questions, please sign up in the back.

We are going to give each citizen's group an opportunity to choose one representative to come to the microphone and speak. Other speakers will be chosen randomly from among those who signed up. Anyone wishing to provide a written statement or comment for Dean Riccio to read can drop it in the comment box and we'll give it to him.

Questions will be chosen randomly. Unanswered questions will be provided to the Dean.

The parties chose Dean Riccio in February, the first thing the parties have agreed upon in years. In March he visited the claim area. He has visited WI, Canada, and NY. Dean Riccio is known for his skills as a straight shooter and one who gets the job done. He has served as dean of the Seton Hall Law School for 12 years. He is an expert on Constitutional law; a teacher, a lawyer, and recognized across the country as a skilled negotiator."

Dean Ronald Riccio’s opening remarks:

"Thanks for the introduction. It is very exciting to be here tonight because I want to have an opportunity to talk to you. Part of what I would like to be able to do is to bring some peace to this process and your lives. You don't deserve anxiety and fear and consternation.

As Larry mentioned Judge McCurn appointed me settlement master. A Settlement Master is in affect a mediator.; I try hard to bring the parties together. In this capacity, I have done a number of things so far. First, about six mediation sessions with the attorneys for all the parties to this case (7 - 2 counties, US, NY, Oneidas of NY, WI, and Themes). Much more than that I have had about 10-12 breakout sessions where I meet with designated groups (less than full list). So we've had about 16 formal mediation sessions, countless phone calls, and a multitude of personal visits. I have visited the land claim area, the Oneida reservation in WI and London, ONT, and of course here in the land claim area. I have met with representatives of New York State, Oneida and Madison counties, and the Federal Government. So I wanted to do all of that before I talked to the people. A number of you had asked "When are you going to talk to the people?" It was premature. I had to learn about the contentions of the 7 parties, which are very complex. Parties that agree on one issue may disagree on another.

So I am in a better position tonight to speak with you in an intelligent way than I would have been in March or April.

Yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with some of the community leaders, and I learned about more of your concerns. Everyone spoke with passion and commitment, but also with logic and reasonableness. It's easy to latch on to an extreme position, but more difficult to latch on to a logical position that must take account of everyone's rights. Many of the things said to me yesterday merely reinforced what my thinking has been.

As mediator I am not an adjudicator and cannot decide this case; I have only the power given me by the parties to this case. This process started out with everyone agreeing on a process and a person. I wouldn't have started unless everyone was on board to try to make it work. My job is to try to find common ground and try to produce a solution that will be fair to everyone and will end this seemingly never-ending controversy.

Tonight you will not necessarily have as much time to talk as you might like or as I would like. If you don't get all of your points across tonight I encourage you to send me a letter or drop a note in the box. I assure you that those concerns you've expressed to me are integrated into the negotiation process. I have received letters from some of you already. I promise you that I will read it as I read everything that is sent to me.

Some of you wonder whether or not the mediation process is viable, and say "Why don't we just go to court and let a judge or a jury decide the case?" That option is still available. The mediation process and the lawsuit are going forward on two separate tracks. They are parallel. My firm belief and conviction is that the best way for this matter to be resolved is through mediation.

First, in mediation the parties dictate the result. There can be no successful mediation unless all the 7 parties sign their names on the dotted line. You can address issues that the law doesn't address and come to solutions the law doesn't provide for and provide a solution that produces the most fairness. Court cases produce a winner and a loser. I want to make everyone a winner, perhaps maybe not an absolute winner, but something you can take away from the table and say "This is a good solution."

Another big advantage is that this dispute involves the issues set forth in the pleadings but also a number of other issues that will not be addressed in the lawsuit - issues of business fairness, for example. The mediation promises to focus on all of the disputes and issues between and among the parties. So when a solution is reached it will be permanent, not a bunch of other lawsuits you have to worry about, or finance. I want to wrap it all up in one package and put it to bed so you can all forget about it.

The final virtue of mediation is that it is quicker and, although expensive, a lot less expensive than litigation. I am hopeful that we will be able to produce a settlement by the end of this year. It must be blessed by Congress and the New York State Legislature, approved by all the parties, and also shown to you before anything gets approved. I would not be presumptuous enough to think that we could make decisions to you. If you give the settlement (we hope to produce) a fair reading with an open mind, I believe you will find it in your best interests, so you can live with the Oneida Nation of New York in peace and harmony and mutual respect."

============

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

3 Minute Speeches.

Jill Harvey from U.S. Senator Charles Schumer's Syracuse Regional Office: " The Senator wants all of you to know that he is committed to protecting private landowners, who should not be harmed in any way. He is against using the landowners as bargaining chips. He wrote to Janet Reno (U.S. Department of Justice) in March protesting the inclusion of private landowners and asking for removal of the ejectment clause, which has been done. Most recently the Department Of Justice has written to the Senator saying the U.S. will not seek eviction or ouster, and looks first for damages to be paid by the State. Senator Schumer wants to avoid solutions that will be unacceptable to private residents, and to the extent that Onieda’s buy land, it should not unfairly strand property owners causing an unfair diminution of the value of their properties."

John Benjamin Carroll attorney for the Madison – Oneida County Land Owners Group: "Sir, we have given you a Bill of Rights for landowners and I would like to read a section or two of that. We, the landowners and homeowners in the Indian land claim area believe that we have inalienable rights that must be respected by all, including the Indians themselves. These rights arise from our 200-year old good faith purchases and payments from the State, 200 year old occupancy in reliance on that deed without any disturbance by the Indians or State, our development of that area into a community and economy of over 70,000 persons and their property and businesses. This development occurred with minimal Indian input. Those facts give us the rights I am about to read. The sole title, use and occupancy of our lands and homes without any personal money judgements. Representation of our choice in any litigation and a Public vote and approval of any proposed settlement. No diminishment of the value of our homes and property. We have proposed a publicly funded commission - so we can have some agreement with the Indians about our future."

Leon Koziol - attorney for UCE (Upstate Citizens for Equality): "I submitted a position paper back in April, no point in reading it verbatim. The first thing I'd like you to take note of are the audience, the people whose rights have been affected throughout this. It's time for you to hear from them. The individuals affected have felt they weren't taken seriously. These are good citizens, mainstream Americans, the people who are being told that they are trespassers and wrongdoers and have to have this litigation hanging over their heads. I suggest that the deliberations should be opened to the public. What more public event could you have than litigation that is affecting some 60,000-property owners? Let's lift the gag order and be open because secrecy creates suspicion and anxiety.

You've said we will be "shown" the settlement proposal. We don't want anything thrust down our throats. We want to have an opportunity to react. The problem here is containing the sovereignty of the Indian tribe. We don't want a new nation created within our nation. I want to conclude by asking for another meeting, perhaps within the land claim.

In any final settlement proposal I would ask for an apology from the government to landowners to all they've been put through. They are clearly owed an apology."

Keith Johnson – President Central New York Fair Business Association. "I’m from Oneida and would like to intermix a little bit of my feelings as a businessman trying to work in the area of injustice. Our organization was formed as a bit of a latecomer. We found towns and cities and such that were not sending out tax bills for Indian owned property. Some people are not joining in and trying to voice their opinions for some reason. I feel for the first time, I question whether I'm living in a great country anymore.

I have 65 employees and I treat them equally, and I'd like to be treated the same way. And I am not for ethnic sovereignty at all. I just don't know why there's mediation, when we're all supposed to live the same under the constitution of the US. And I don't like it that we're not present as citizens, and going through mediation with no representation as far as the citizens are concerned. I think a representative of each of these groups should be on the mediation team. Are the traditional Indians being represented on the mediation team?"

Local Citizen John Maxey: " I own three homes, a motel, and several summer cottages within the land claim area, so I have a lot at stake. Beyond the near term mechanics of a settlement, something should be done to address the growing Ray Halbritter-backed attack on our democracy. That economic drive being fueled by the advantage given the Indies' because of their race. This Native American super-sovereignty idea is a festering sore as dangerous to our society as Eastern European threats.

Local Citizen David Vickers: " I'm going to assert permission to speak frankly. I have sincere doubts about the settlement process as you outlined it. A lot of people think there's some either-or thinking going on. People think either there will be a settlement or will go into the courts. This is not something that is going to be settled. You don't ask the pornography industry whether you're going to negotiate and settle where pornography will be allowed. There are some people who ought not to be happy about what's been happening. There is a third option, and that is for the Congress of the US to do their duty. And their duty is not to take money hand over fist from the Oneidas while claiming to the best on our behalf. The only people who are standing up for us are denied a voice in the process. There seem to be a couple of things you're taking for granted that aren't true. You say there won't be any ejectment, but that's already happening for a lot of people. Ejectment is still part of the lawsuit, by the way (in the Indian's filing). This is something that has to be legislated, not negotiated."

Local Citizen Fran Mahady" "The Oneida Indian tribe is represented by a faction whose leadership is being challenged by its own membership. How can we be assured that you are negotiating with someone who represents the Oneida tribe's membership so that any settlement will endure and not be challenged 10-15 years from now?"

Chittenango Resident Bill Racin: "I and many people here appreciate this opportunity. My feeling is that Ray Halbritter and the Oneidas have made it clear that their intent is to become a fully sovereign nation not subject to the laws that my family and I are subject to - sales tax, property tax, state weights and measures, etc. I believe in one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all, not several or hundreds of nations. My question is, what elements of this mediated process will provide for the Oneida Indian nation and all the other Indian nations that will follow suit, what provisions will be made for equal enforcement of OUR laws."

Rome Resident Warren Yeager: "I have been in business for 40 years in the land claim area, can't believe the inequity that is being served on people in Oneida and Madison County. Like all Americans and they say they're Americans when they want money, why aren't they treated like the rest of us. All Americans are equal and must obey all laws, and pay all taxes. It's a great country or was until we all were separated by this dictator. If he's not willing to settle without taking one dollar or one acre of land, I say, close that casino because that casino is illegal also."

 Blossvale Resident Mary Jean Teeling: "Put a face on the generic land claim victim. I am a Registered Nurse, and a member of Upstate Citizens for Equality, I am not a radical, bigot, or a racist. I have farmed since 1864. I have not sold ANY of my original farm. I know and am concerned about the history of all our acres. It is a beautiful piece of land on Fish Creek. Take my story and multiply by 20,000. We want to be good neighbors, but a monopoly based on unfair practices cannot be tolerated. After the Oneidas proclaimed they wished to sue all landowners, I became informed. The Oneida Nation does not deserve ANY money from private, state or federal pockets. They don't deserve any land. They have already bought over 13,000 acres. Their reservation should be no more than 32 acres. A nation within a nation will help no one. If they want to be a nation, let them secede and take responsibility for themselves. I do not hate the Oneida Nation but I hate what they are doing. Level the playing field or we may have to do what my ancestors did when Napoleon's army marched toward them across the Ukraine."

Local Citizen Alex Rowe: "I want you to know. I want you to allow two more parties at the table, Common Sense and Logic. Within the last six months I've talked to Mr. Farr, the negotiator for New York State. He said, "Well, at least you've got the use of the land." Mr. Wittmer said, "You have to understand, they're one with the earth." I've spoken with Peter Shuster, who lives outside the Cayuga land claim. The State's logic is, "we can give his farm away to make the Indians happy without him knowing." This room is not as full as it should be. There is apathy in our two countries because this is so unbelievable people don't believe it's real. When I stand in front of the casino I see a casino, the paperwork says it's a dairy farm. "

Local Citizen John Patane: "Are you aware that what has been understood as a given, that the Oneidas were cheated, is not true at all? Instead, the Oneidas were paid at least three times over for their lands and their buildings. They were paid 16 times as much as the French were paid for the LA Purchase. They were paid 50 times more than the Menomonee were paid by the US for the land given the Oneidas. Once this is understood, what basis is there for paying the Oneida Indians any more money?"

"Second - The Indians claim to be sovereigns unto themselves and they act that way. At one point the government noted 8 factions to the Indian tribe. They were called Indian nations in the Articles of Confederation, but by the Constitution they were called tribes - the authors must have been telling us something. We are in negotiation with 3 factions; more can spring up at any time. How do you propose a settlement that will preclude any future claims by Oneidas who are not yet at the table and not yet litigants."

Oneida County Executive Candidate Scott Stafford: "Welcome. I have one simple suggestion in lieu of a question. I am troubled by the evolution of the land claim and that residents, Indian and non-Indian are pitted against each other, so that one side must win and one must lose. We need harmonizing up the businesses and residents within the land claim to provide a win-win solution within the residents instead of fighting over who gets what tax break. We need to bring the rest of the region on par with the Oneida Nation and their accomplishments."

Local Citizen Tina Bombardo: "The landowners have no voice - We grow angrier each day. Why aren't we allowed to participate? This hush-hush business breeds distrust. Trust in our Federal govt. is shattered. Even if the landowners aren't added to the lawsuit we still are in grave danger. The tribe has free rein to purchase more land during negotiation while our hands are tied - state sales taxes are not being collected, and the deputization cannot be cancelled. When you lose your land by higher taxes brought on by the Oneida tribe, it is the same thing as eviction. We are fed up with our justice dept and congress for allowing us to be threatened by an egomaniac with money and an enterprise that breaks the law every day. Why is this unlawfulness being tolerated? Should we resort to roadblocks and tire burning. We are defending our homes and our very existence. We will do whatever it takes. We may be ignored and betrayed, but we are not the SILENT. We will not go gently into the night."

 Local Citizen Peter ______: I question if a 200 year old treaty that has served quite well for 200 years can be resurrected due to a technicality, why can't it be ratified. This situation is hypocrisy. Our government has laws that prohibit racism and segregation. Why does our government since the 1790's insist on segregation and racism with the Indians? Reservations should be abolished the same as slavery. Why can't we stop the Oneida Nation from buying more land while the negotiations are going on - it creates insurmountable problems for the future?

Rome Resident Ivan Yost: "31 years ago tonight I was the chairman of Rome city committee planning the commemoration of the Treaty of Ft. Stanwix. We had representatives of the Indians and the four states that were involved. The Oneidas at that point had no organization that we could identify; we worked with the Onondagas. In later years I learned that the Onondagas were the legendary leaders of the Iroquois nation but the Oneidas would have nothing to do with them. I was shown the door by the Oneidas because I was mixed up with the Onondagas."

"I find the consistency of this crowd in demonizing Halbritter and the Oneidas to be contrary to the American spirit, and I also want to express my regret that what was to be a public listening session with the mediator was politicized from the start by the reps of the counties. I have left a package at the door."

Verona Farm Owner Cynthia Bannace: "I've lived in Verona on a farm for 55 years. We began this meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. It's obvious that the people in this room have one feeling. I want to ask my brothers and sisters there to listen politely to me. I would like to say this; I'm not here on behalf of the Indians, I'm here for a win-win situation of justice for all. The Indians did not go on the reservations on their own, they were forced there."

"I am a litigant against the US government that's been going on for 10 years, and I can appreciate the tactics the Oneidas used at putting the landowners into the case. You need to take that into account. I've also heard people say that if there is a person from the Oneida nation on the mediation team maybe there should be one from each of the groups. I know that our government has trillions and trillions of dollars to pay a fair price; for example when there was the S & L crisis the government paid for that. And last week we learned that if the cost of cleaning up Woodstock goes up, the people will pay for it. Why doesn't the US government pay a fair price for the land?"

======================

Question and answer period. All questions were submitted in written form:

Q: Is there a chance we will lose our land? - Jo Ann Succuro

A: None of the parties believe that any jeopardizing your land is a viable option. In the mediation process, I do not see loss of land as being a possibility. In court, it is a possibility. Judge McCurn just decided in the Cayuga case that ejectment is not an option but of course appeal is a possibility.

Q: In light of recent published reports that Federal reps were present at the signing of the treaties, why can't the land claim be nullified? Paul Grossman, Vernon

A: This is, of course, a defense that the alleged treaties were in violation of the Non-Intercourse Act. The court has not adjudicated those treaties yet. That would be one of the defenses if this case were to go to court. The State and counties would argue that there was a Federal presence and that means there was approval.

 Q: If the Oneida tribe continues to avoid paying property taxes on the land they've acquired, how will the revenue lost be made up?

A: There are a number of arrangements around the country, intergovernmental agreements to make the town whole to compensate for the tax exemption. One way is for the Indian nation to make a contribution to make up for lost revenue, also "impact payments" by the Federal government. This situation, as agonizing as it is for you, and it's obvious there is a lot of agonizing going on. I feel badly for you that you're going through this agony and I'm going to try to help to find a solution for you. Mr. Koziol mentioned that I hadn't responded to his letter, and I apologize for not formally responding, but I did integrate it into the mediation process. And these thoughts are being discussed.

Q: Why should this be "them or us"? We have an opportunity to capitalize on the tax benefits, etc. Scott Stafford

A: The idea of capitalizing on the Oneida Indians' exemptions is a matter of free choice as Americans.

Q: If you are unable to get a settlement and we are named in this lawsuit, can we take this ridiculous case back to the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court chooses to hear those cases it wants to hear. There are 7,000 certiorari petitions filed every year, but it hears only about 100. It's more likely than 100/7,000 but it's a long shot.

Q: At what point will something be done about the increasing tax burden on the non-Indian landowners?

A: On the mediation table

Q: Can something be included that would mandate the Indians to pay the equivalent of land taxes?

A: Yes, this does get done and is one of the concepts we are addressing.

Q: Address the Oneida's apparent desire to be a sovereign nation within the State of New York.

A: As well as I can articulate it, they are considered to be domestic dependent nations with certain sovereign rights. The parameters of that sovereignty are fuzzy, but all Presidents since Nixon have dealt with Indian tribes on a government to government basis. There is a historic legal basis for the Oneida's position.

Q: If Ray wins, will the State or Federal Government pay me full value for my house and property?

A: I would recommend that they do so.

Q: What lands are being discussed to be given to Oneidas? Pier by bridge, Verona Beach, etc.

A: In the course of our discussions, we have not zeroed in on lands to be given to Oneidas within the land claim area. There has however, been significant movement by the three Oneida tribes with respect to their demand for land.

Q: Do you have a reasonable chance of a settlement that conforms to the MOLI landowner bill of rights. How long will the negotiations take?

A: We have a reasonable probability of achieving a settlement that conforms to many of the points in your Bill of Rights. The points that you're raising are being discussed in good faith. I came close a couple of times to declaring an impasse in these mediation sessions, because I don't want to waste my time in a process that doesn't have a reasonable probability of success. Every time I came close to declaring an impasse, one or another party has compromised, and that includes all of the parties. There isn't a recoiling from any questions, there is a reasoned discussion. There is a reasonable probability that there will be a solution that will address at least the spirit of your Bill of Rights.

When will it end? My target is to get something finalized by the end of the year. But if we don't have a settlement on Dec. 31 I will continue to work on it if I think there's a reasonable probability of success.

Q: What approvals are necessary and how long will it take?

A: The State of New York, The Federal Government , Oneida and Madison County, and the people must all approve. When I say you will be "shown" I don't mean it will be jammed down your throat.

Q: Given the meetings are not opened and the landowners are not represented, wouldn't it be appropriate to publish each party's settlement offers.

A: We have a representative democracy, not a populist democracy. We couldn't get things done if every decision required convening the populace. That doesn't mean the counties make decisions without consulting you. You are represented through your elected officials and their attorneys. Exercise your rights of free speech and direct it at your political leaders. If you don't like what they're doing, your strongest release is at the ballot box.

Q: Will all the laws, including zoning and building codes, be applied equally in the land claim?

A: This is a question to be discussed tomorrow. We must make sure that we don't in a settlement have local laws in conflict with each other. Around the country where Indian nations and non-Indians live side by side the laws must be symmetrical.

Q: How can the Department Of Justice represent the Indians against us and yet the Oneidas claim to be a government independent from us?

A: This probably describes better than anything else I've ever read what it means to be a domestic dependent nation. On the one hand, the Oneidas are wards of the Federal Government, on the other hand, they are considered to be nations in terms of relating to other governments.

Q: How much longer are you going to give the negotiations?

A: I enjoy being a mediator better than I enjoyed being an advocate. I will keep at it as long as I see the possibility of a result that will bring peace and harmony. My satisfaction will be producing a result that will make your lives a little easier; if I can contribute to that it's a big high for me.

Q: Does fighting for your home and community using only legal means make you a bad person?

A: I think it makes you a good person.

Q: If there is a money settlement will it be divided among all Oneidas? If not will the casino money be used to buy up our townships?

A: You may not be surprised to learn that some of the problems you have with the New York Oneidas the Oneidas have among each other. The Oneidas have cousins and brothers living separate and apart, in some cases without any input from them and without their consent. The sentiments and feelings you expressed tonight are similar to some of the sentiments expressed by the WI Oneidas. Buying land in the land claim area is a separate question from buying land in the land claim area and treating it as Indian country. I am trying to find a way to control the situation so that it doesn't, on the one hand, restrain a person from exercising his or her desire to acquire land, and on the other hand, doesn't do the injury you are worried about. By the way, a question like this I can talk about at the mediation table, but would not be admitted at trial.

Q: Would we still be US citizens if the land went to the Oneidas

A: I believe that when this is completed your peace and your right to the occupancy of your land will be better than it is now. (The current cloud on your land will be blown away.) One person made the good point that eviction can take place by the escalation of taxes to where you can't afford to live there anymore. I understand that. What I'm saying is that in the mediation process you can provide for that so that your taxes don't go up. You can provide a tax exemption without your taxes going up.

Q: What does the Oneida Nation really want? Where specifically do they want the economic development zone?

A: By the way, we're addressing the concern about confidentiality of the settlement discussions. I would like the parties in the case to give me more leeway; there are things going on that would make you feel a lot better, but I can't tell you about them now. We're looking at giving me a way to disclose at least some of the details of what's going on.

Q: How can my government join a foreign nation to sue me using my tax money?

A: You may not like the answer, but the answer is that this is the product of the law that's developed in this country in respect to Indian sovereignty. Holmes said the law is the product of experience, not logic. Sometimes you start out with something that makes good sense at the time, but 200 years later looks illogical. That is the way the law has worked out in regard to Indian nations. Our government has decided to treat Indian nations as domestic dependent nations, not conquered nations.

Q: Will this problem come back again?

A: I want to create a settlement that will be final and binding in perpetuity without loopholes. By the way, the Oneida nations who are parties to this lawsuit are all of the parties (res judicata, collateral estoppel)

Q: How do you plan to keep yourself accessible to the landowners?

A: I've enjoyed coming here; I've found it to be informative and reasonable and polite. One of the things about our country is that debate should be robust and open. I plan to be coming back here, maybe we'll make a TV show out of it. The other thing is to get your letters to me. Please do it the old fashioned way through the post office.

Q: When will you be coming back to talk with us again?

A: When I have something to say and it's appropriate and not premature. Two months ago I wouldn't have been able to answer these questions in the way I did. One thing that 's most important for you to know is that I care about what you're saying; your concerns are not only in my mind but also in my heart.

"Thank you for being here tonight. I look forward to meeting with all of you again in the near future."