OPEN LETTER TO THE ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK

April 7, 2000

c/o The Honorable Raymond Halbritter
Nation Representative

Dear Ray:

We see that you have printed your offer of last Tuesday in the newspaper. There are two points from your news conference on which we agree. The first is that we all will gain a great deal more from a negotiated, comprehensive settlement than we will likely gain from years of protracted litigation, especially if we can, together, remove the cloud over Central New York caused by this lawsuit. The second is that the best way to secure a lasting settlement is to seek the approval and the urging of all the residents of Central New York, especially those in the land claim area. (Which is why I put ads in area papers two weeks ago asking people to clip out and send in their responses urging support for the settlement process.)

We believe that the good faith efforts of all parties over the past fifteen months have brought us very close to a settlement. We thank the Clan Mothers and the Men’s Council of the Oneida Nation of New York for their great effort in working with us toward an end for which we all long. However, the remaining issues require further work by all of us, and urgently.

1. The parties have all agreed since the beginning of these negotiations that the Counties and, most importantly, the people of Central New York would not be harmed by this matter, but would be kept "whole." A $25 million share of your $225 million settlement helps a great deal, but would not cover the lost property taxes of the Counties, Cities, Towns, Villages and especially the schools for 25,000 acres at their current value, let alone more land or improvements on the land. This will force a greater tax burden on the rest of the taxpayers, or cuts in school and other municipal programs. That hardly leaves the communities "whole." We were willing to settle on that figure if the land cap was 25,000 acres, including the over 12,000 acres you have already purchased, and in reliance on possible revenues from new gaming to make up any shortfall. That made it feasible for the taxpayers. Adjustments in other terms require adjustment to the $25 million to keep our original agreement.

You have agreed to most of this. You are only insisting that you pay $1 million per year for 20 years and no more. We do not know your business revenues now, and neither we nor you know your plans for the future. If you want the public to judge the fairness of your substitute for sales taxes, why don’t you release to the public your retail sales figures for 1999. From what we can already estimate, your businesses would probably generate over $2 million a year in local sales taxes if current sales taxes were being paid and collected.

We have already offered a way to have experts estimate the full taxes we would expect based on your retail businesses. Allow us to work with you on that, and agree to make those payments from what you collect in the future, without a cap on years and with an ability to adjust as your revenues vary, up or down. It is only fair, and will help you as well as your immediate neighbors the most.

3. The settlement master, Ron Riccio, reviewed all of the facts in this matter, and recommended a 25,000 acre cap on purchases that would be tax-exempt. You have demanded a 30,000 acre cap now, and 10,000 acres after 50 years. Doesn’t that leave a cloud over Central New York for more than 50 years? If we remove that request, we were only 5000 acres apart, and we were willing to negotiate further on that, as recommended. Our negotiating team was willing to recommend an increase to 27,500 following Dean Riccio’s recommendation if all other matters were resolved.

4. New York State and the Oneidas have a gaming compact covering certain types of gambling. The state believes the multi-game machines are not covered by your agreement, and you believe they are. We thought we had agreed to let that be decided by the Judge as a simple contract matter. Why not? As to further gaming, at the Turning Stone or elsewhere, New York State can demand a return on any new gaming rights, and share those proceeds with the localities, as Connecticut and other states have done with the agreement of other Indian tribes. This is not "financing you own settlement." It is securing new contractual rights, as allowed under federal law, with a small share going back to the host communities, as federal law allows.

We want to work out a long term, comprehensive solution to the land claim, one that encourages peace and prosperity among all of the people in our communities. We truly believe the Oneida Nation of New York wants that too. Please consider what we have written as sincere issues to be resolved and work with us toward the answers. We must also renew our demand of many months that the Oneida Nation, in the meantime, stop efforts that undermine the negotiation effort, such as continued land purchases without even a temporary provision for taxes to the affected communities, and activities such as dredging or serving alcohol without federally required permits. We believe it is important to sit down to discuss this further, as soon as possible, if you are truly willing to continue negotiations.

 Sincerely,