Discussion

[ Home | Contents   |  Next  |  Previous |  ]

Re: Headright

From: Amanda Proctor
Date: 3/8/2006
Time: 9:52:24 AM
Remote Name: 70.182.222.154

Comments

I am a very recent law school graduate (though not an attorney), and a non-shareholder. However, I share and support the concerns of the OSA and believe that these concerns affect every Osage, shareholder and non-shareholder alike. I think it's unfortunate that divisions have been created between the groups. In any case, I think the bottom line is, the proposed Osage Nation Constitution is so loosely constructed and poorly worded that we don't know exactly how it could be interpreted in the future. In other incarnations of the Osage Constitution (such as the 1994 Constitution) and in the governing documents of other tribes, membership is absolutely determined. A typical provision might read as follows, "all lineal descendants of the base (1906) membership roll shall constitute the citizenry." In the case of the proposed Osage Nation Constitution, such descendants are "eligible" for membership, just like I am "eligible" to attend Harvard Medical School or "eligible" to marry George Clooney. The National Congress is vested with the authority to establish eligibility criteria, and we have no idea what that criteria is or could be in the future . . . it could involve blood quanta or residency. Who really knows? Regarding the Mineral Estate, it is not addressed until Article 15 of the document. Even there, it is a "buried" provision stating that the Mineral estate should be protected for the benefit of "all members of the Nation." It has been said at public meetings that the Osages could create a "public trust" for the mineral moneys. This is where concerns regarding membership and the Mineral Estate become interlocked. In other words, if the mineral moneys are placed into a "public trust," a larger pie divided amongst fewer heads could have its advantages. Given these possibilities, we need a short, clear, concise, unambiguous governing document. We don't have that here, and we'll wait until we do. Amanda Proctor

Last changed: May 15, 2009